So what's the catch?

It's remarkable that Jim Flaherty's initial position on pensions actually includes some (albeit "modest") improvement to the Canada Pension Plan, rather than relying solely on a model to benefit Canadians who have plenty of spare money to sock away.

But this being a Con government, no seemingly reasonable policy can be presented without important caveats. And there are indeed a couple of problems with Flaherty's presentation of the CPP idea.

First, there's the fact that it's tied to a perceived need for "balance" between private- and public-sector pension changes. In other words, Flaherty looks to be willing to pay off the financial industry with the promise of increased profits among those who already don't lack for subsidized saving opportunities as the price of actually improving the CPP. Which makes for a far more costly fix than would otherwise be necessary, and likely gives Flaherty an excuse to cry poverty when anybody points out that his plan completely neglects old age security and the guaranteed income supplement.

More important, though, is Flaherty's apparent insistence that he'll require "significant provincial support" before considering any changes to the CPP - even though that's the part of his plan that can be implemented solely at the federal level. In effect, that seems to signal that Flaherty doesn't want to do any of the work making the case for the CPP publicly, instead leaving the issue for the provinces to pick up if they so choose - and planning for his main contribution to be taking credit if the provinces take up the cause.

In sum, while the CPP increase makes for an unusually positive policy idea from Flaherty, it's wrapped in the Cons' usual layers of waste and neglect. But hopefully Ontario and any provinces who do decide to push the idea will also help to shape it into a better end result than what Flaherty has put on the table so far.