Volume 10, Number 5

THE CPP OVERHAUL:
NECESSARY MEDICINE OR MASSIVE "TAX GRAB"?

IF THE REFORM PARTY HAS ITS WAY, the federal government's recent overhaul of the Canadian Pension Plan will be one of the most contentious issues in the impending election campaign. The government, meanwhile, claims that its valiant efforts have "saved the CPP." Added to the mix is public opinion which is divided on saving the social safety net and concerns about whether individuals will ever see a pension when they retire.

The Liberals propose that in order to maintain the viability of the Canadian pension plan, they will raise premiums from 5.85 percent of eligible income to 9.9 percent over the next six years. Recipients, other than those already retired or close to retirement, will at the same time see a reduction in benefits. The government argues that these changes will shift a more equitable portion of the payments to the so-called "baby-boom" generation - individuals currently in their mid-30s to their mid-50s.

The changes to the CPP were not mentioned in Paul Martin's budget; most Canadians heard about the changes, as usual, from national television news. At the outset, these changes to the nature and structure of the pension plan appeared to be quite revolutionary. How did television news report the changes? Did reporters adequately explain how the reforms would affect the different age groups in Canada? More importantly, did they champion the changes or provide the view of the critics?

To answer these questions, the National Media Archive examined CBC and CTV news reports of the CPP overhaul from February 14 to March 7, 1997. This issue of On Balance compares CBC and CTV coverage of the CPP overhaul.

CBC and CTV both critical

The first day that the CPP changes were announced was, overall, not a good news day for the Liberals. In their opening statements both networks focused on the fact that there was going to be a premium increase. For instance, on Friday, February 14, 1997, CBC's Peter Mansbridge began the top story of the night with: "Good evening. Ottawa is jacking up contributions to the Canada Pension Plan. The amount deducted from your paycheque is going to jump like never before." Similarly, on CTV, Lloyd Robertson said on the same night, "Finance Minister Paul Martin says it has be done to make sure there's enough money when the huge wave of baby boomers starts to retire. But his pension rescue is being called a huge tax grab."

CBC's February 14, 1997 report was twice as critical as positive of the Liberal plan. CTV's comments were four times more critical than favourable. On CBC, Neil MacDonald focused on the fact that current seniors will not be affected by the changes. MacDonald commented, "The only people spared any pain are people collecting pensions right now. They are the richest generation of retirees in Canadian history, but their pensions will carry on untouched, fully indexed to inflation. They are also the people who contributed least. Those who retired in 1985, for example, will get about seven times what they put in."

In contrast, CTV's Paula Newton examined how the changes would affect working Canadians. To do so, she interviewed a small business owner and his staff. Newton reported: "David Langdon wasn't keen on hearing the payroll taxes on his business would increase by more than $3,000 a year. He says he'd be more comfortable paying that if he thought he and his employees would actually collect a pension."

What was most striking, however, about the network's coverage of the CPP changes on February 14 was the paucity of details. Certainly viewers were told that there would be increases to premiums and that benefits would be reduced, but they were given little context as to why the CPP was being changed at this time and how these changes would improve the current system. Paul Martin was interviewed on CBC as saying only that: "These proposed changes are moderate and balanced." On CTV, some vague crisis was alluded to, but not elaborated upon, when Paula Newton reported: "It took months, but he did it. The finance minister convinced most provinces-and more importantly, taxpayers-that the Canada pension plan needed fixing-and fast."

Canadians watching the news that night had to rely on the word of critics and reporters that the new changes would be a tax grab, and they had to rely on the word of the government and reporters that the changes were necessary. No evidence was offered to explain to Canadians why the CPP so urgently needed overhauling, nor were viewers given any evidence to support Newton's statement that the finance minister in fact persuaded taxpayers and the provinces that the pension plan needed "fixing-and fast."

The coverage discussed above was all that the national newscasts from the two networks provided on the CPP until the following week. On Monday, February 17, "CTV News" framed the story with an eye to the federal budget that was to be handed down the following day. The only new information provided by the government and aired on "CTV News" that night was Paul Martin arguing that the changes amounted to an investment. The remainder of the story emphasized the original spin-that the changes were a tax grab. The Reform Party also successfully linked the issue to the GST, and argued that the CPP should be an election issue. CTV viewers were never given the rationale behind the changes, nor an explanation of how the new plan works.

Furthermore, that same night, CTV's top story of the night was Preston Manning's charge that an increase in CPP premiums is a "ten billion dollar tax grab." Lloyd Robertson introduced that evening's newscast with the statement: "The eve of the federal budget and we'll soon know how the federal government will treat our pocket books this year. It will be Finance Minister Paul Martin's last budget before an election and that is sure to have some meaning. But Reform Leader Preston Manning was out after the Finance Minister even before he gets on his feet. He blasted Martin over the government's overhaul to the Canada Pension Plan, calling it a massive tax grab, and he vowed to make it a major campaign issue. With more on the pension powder keg, here's Paula Newton."

CBC provides forum for government to explain CPP changes

CBC coverage of the CPP overhaul, meanwhile, was slightly more positive than negative (see table 1). Approximately one-third of CBC coverage was neutral, while 36 percent was positive, and just 30 percent was negative. This is in sharp contrast to CTV, where 28 percent of coverage was neutral, 22 percent was positive and 50 percent was negative.

Click here to view Table 1: Media Coverage of the CPP Overhaul

CBC's "National" news was not significantly different from CTV "News" in its coverage of the pension plan changes. On February 20, however, CBC did distinguish itself by devoting a "National Magazine" to explaining and debating the CPP changes. In doing this, it interviewed Liberal MP David Walker who explained the problem with the CPP and the Liberals' solution to it. Over 30 percent of CBC coverage originated with the federal government, while just 21 percent of CTV sources represented the national government.

The February 20 "National Magazine," was a thoughtful piece on the nature of the problem with the current CPP plan and the rationale for changing it. But the CBC did not act as federal government cheerleaders. While Liberal David Walker recited from the Liberal policy book about securing the social safety net, balance was achieved in the form of Gordon Pape who was cautious and concerned about the changes. Despite the balance displayed by the CBC in this edition of the "Magazine," it took a full week after the government announcement before audiences were told about the rationale and ramifications of the government plan. Only then were real concerns about inter-generational conflicts, unfunded government liabilities, and the impact on younger Canadians discussed.

Probably the most refreshing aspect of the CBC "National Magazine" debate was the exchange between Gordon Pape and Chris Clarke from the Canadian Council on Social Development. While Clarke was arguing about the need to secure the social safety net, Pape countered by stating that if Canadians were able to invest their CPP contributions in private pensions they would be better off. He said, "Well, let's put it this way. If I had the choice of what to do with this money and I was advising my kids, I would say take the money, invest it privately. I've done some calculations on this and at the end of the day, they would come out with a much better pension than they're going to get under the Canada Pension Plan. That's the bottom line."

CTV focuses on the Reform Party

The networks differed in their use of the Reform Party as a source on the CPP issue. On CBC, statements originating from Reform accounted for just 4.8 percent of total coverage, while on CTV, members of the Reform Party were quoted in 20 percent of commentary on this topic.

Top issue on CBC-increased premiums, on CTV-Tax Grab

CBC and CTV were significantly different in what each presented as the primary criticism of the CPP changes. On CBC, the hiked premiums were the subject of most of the critical comments, while the 12-member board overseeing the fund received the second most frequent criticism. Only two comments identified the problems with the changes as a taxation issue resulting in a reduction in disposable income.

In contrast, on CTV, the primary criticism was the "tax grab" issue, with all other issues receiving only passing mentions. -Kate Morrison and Lydia Miljan

Comparing U.S. and Canadian Coverage on Canadian Television News

THE "YEAR IN REVIEW" REPORT released earlier this year (On Balance, volume 10, numbers 2 and 3) was part of a larger National Media Archive study that is examining how television news generally reports events, issues, and the world. The study is so rich with findings that we will be offering an analysis of different components of it throughout the year. This issue of On Balance examines the news reports about Canada and the United States presented on CBC and CTV.

One of the points of pride of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is that it gives Canadians the news from a uniquely Canadian perspective. Peter Mansbridge offers this as one of the reasons why we need the CBC. In a speech in Regina in 1996 he remarked, "American journalists quite correctly report on international events in a way that reflect American values and concerns, and those elements are not always shared by Canadians" [Peter Mansbridge, "Canada Without CBC News-A Win or Loss?" Speech notes, 16th Annual James M. Minifie Lecture, University of Regina, March 7, 1996] Unfortunately, little quantitative research has been conducted to find out what, precisely, those Canadian perspectives are, and how Canadians report American news. This issue of On Balance offers a starting point from which to see what Canadian newscasters view as important about Canada, and what, in comparison, they view as important about the United States.

Reinforcing stereotypes

We receive our cues from the news about what is important, and how we should go about judging issues, events, and people. One area where network news consistently focuses its attention is in law and politics. On Canadian news, law and politics, both at home and in the U.S., tops the news agenda. Half of CBC and almost half of CTV reports that are about Canada focus on politics, governance, or the legal system. Reports by Canadian media on the U.S. also emphasize these stories, but to a somewhat lesser extent: 38 percent of CBC and 20 percent of CTV attention to the U.S. focuses on politics. This is somewhat surprising since 1996 was a U.S. presidential election year.

Click here to view Figures A: U.S. New Stories on Canadian Television and Figure B: Canadian News Stories (1996)

Part of the Canadian mythos is that we are a cleaner, more tolerant, and less crime-ridden country than our southern neighbour. Most of our impressions of the U.S. are reinforced by national television news. For example, as a proportion of coverage, viewers saw more attention paid to accidents, disasters, and crime in the U.S. than in Canada. Fourteen percent of CBC, and 33 percent of CTV attention to the United States focused on such tragedies in that country. In contrast, as a percentage of the reports filed by Canadian reporters on Canada, only 13 percent of CBC and 16 percent of CTV examined accidents, disasters, and crime. In this case, it is CTV that most perpetuated the negative American stereotype. Media watchers might be surprised by these results since one of the tenets of journalism is that events, especially tragic ones, are theoretically supposed to be more important the closer to home they are. What our study does not reveal is whether more disasters befall the United States or Canada.

American supremacy in foreign affairs reinforced

While negative aspects of American life are reinforced on Canadian news, some of its strengths are also highlighted. The U.S. role in foreign affairs is given almost one-fifth of the U.S.'s total coverage on CBC and 6 percent on CTV. In contrast, Canada's role in the world comprises only 4 percent each of CBC's and CTV's agenda in Canada. These results are most striking when we consider that it is CBC, the public broadcaster, who is mandated to provide a Canadian perspective, but who, in fact, emphasizes the U.S. in its reports in Canada. -Lydia Miljan

info@fraserinstitute.ca You can contact us at the above email address for any comments or information requests. Please report any dead links or technical problems.

If you know someone who would be interested in this web page, please enter their email address below, and we will forward this URL to them: Email Address:

Last Modified: Wednesday, October 20, 1999.