7 mo. ago • 95%

On April 1, Canadian MPs will earn world's second-highest salary for elected officials

nationalpost.com On April 1, Canadian MPs will earn world's second-highest salary for elected officials

MPs will get an $8,500 raise on April 1, increasing the base salary to $203,100, ranking only behind the U.S. in political salaries

47 comments

Allow me to be the devil's advocate: low salaries for our MPs would lead to either wealthy people taking office, or people supplementing their income with lobby money and self interests outside politics. Neither of these are good things, so unfortunately a high salary (which is like, $100,000 + a parliamentary bonus) is the compromise.

36
- I agree...in theory. But the reality is those things already exist. It is generally the wealthy who take office for a number of reasons.
  
  a) You have to be independently wealthy in order to take the time to campaign. Johnny punch-clock working 8 hours a day isn't going to have the financial means to take the time to win and election.
  
  b) Independently wealthy people are usually the ones with access to investors/contacts who can fund their campaign. and
  
  c) Winning an election usually requires some sort of name recognition in your community/district, etc... So it's likely a business owner, a local city council person, etc... someone with existing ties in the constituency they are seeking to represent.
  
  It's always going to be the wealthy (or at least moderately well off) that get into power regardless of how much they are paid. Because it takes wealth to even get there in the first place.
  
  13
  
  Why would the wealthiest want to run, when they can just buy the mostly wealthy?
  
  4
- Obviously it's not enough then. Because they still take bribes.
  
  3
- Was just going to say, it might not be a bad thing. Here in India our politicians and bureaucrats are paid a pittance and it leads to super high corruption.
  
  1
- Back in the day, a salary for politicians was actually a huge left-wing policy priority because of this. Sure, anyone could be an MP in Victorian England, but only a lord could actually afford to sit in commons all day, and in some cases cover staff and travel expenses themselves. People fought hard for them to be implemented.
  
  Whether 200k is too much is a question. It's not unreasonable given how elite a job we're talking about, but if they cut that in half would we start getting lots of corruption? I don't know.
  
  High chance this is negligible compared to the national budget, though.
  
  0
- As if that's not already the case. Poor people can't become politicians, unless they become not poor.
  
  0
- 70,000 should suffice, assuming they get reimbursed for expenses
  
  -3
I thought the idea behind high salaries was to attract the best talent. Turns out that it just floods the applicant pool with grifters and it's almost impossible to sort them out.

Also, did anyone notice that the "fixed" election date has been quietly put off for a week? I don't suppose that this has anything to do with the fact that the previous date would have left a bunch of MPs a week short of their 6-year pension eligibility? (Just a little tidbit dropped in the latest Sandy and Nora podcast.)

25
- If the pension is for 6 years of service, and they get voted out at 5.99 years just due to poor election timelines, I don't see a problem with giving them a pension. This is a non-issue for me.
  
  I would wonder whether 6 years is enough for a pension, but that's a separate discussion point. It seems like it was set based on someone serving two terms, with some wiggle room built in for elections being called early or such.
  
  18
  
  Fair point, and I don't disagree, exactly, but lots of people miss out as a result of similar kinds of rules without the flexibility to just work around it.
  
  5
- In my experience, a salary is interest on some combination of training and invisible social capital. Actual performance only comes up if you're a salesperson or top athlete, and you're very measurably better at what you do than the next guy.
  
  2
I'm sure parliamentary Milhouse will be the first to denounce this raise? Phase the raise or whatever dumb phrasing they come up with.

20
These salaries are so out of touch with our current reality.

16
I've always thought MPs salaries should be indexed to the median income in their riding, or maybe their province. Maybe the country. I dunno.

Like 2x median or something.

Yeah. It's gameable, but I feel like any weird-ass push to increase MP salaries would have the happy side-effect of giving poor people money.

Maybe average would be a better incentive? I dunno. I don't want an Irving moving in to the riding to double the MP's pay.

14
- Median rather than average.
  
  Or double the average of the lowest 25% of earners.
  
  3
  
  I think you mean median. Mean is the total sum divided by number of data points and is usually what is meant by "average". Median is whichever one is right in the middle. Mean is significantly higher for incomes because of a few high-earners.
  
  1
wtf? If you read to the bottom of the article it seems like we’re right in line with everyone else, other than the UK ($144K). They list other countries making $186K - $203K (us) and then there’s the US making $236K. This seems fine to me.

10
- BREAKING: Headline exaggerated for clicks! /s
  
  But yeah, thanks for pointing it out.
  
  2
"Earn"

10
Should be law that they get paid minimum wage - whatever the average is between all the provinces.

9
- Only the alreadyy rich would go into politics then. Don't think you'd want that
  
  8
  
  As apposed to what we have now?
  
  1
  
  Only the rich are politicians now. A poor person can't even afford college, so they'd never even get close to being an elected official. There are a million stumbling blocks in your way when you're poor, that's why poor people don't make it into national politics.
  
  -1
April 1 ..... someone is playing a joke on someone here

6
$203K, that sounds reasonable to me if not a bit low for one of the most important jobs in the country.

5
- I'm also of this mind, I don't think this is particular high for a job that is 24/7, is constantly scrutinized in front of the public, has such important responsibilities, and requires being away from your primary home for long periods of time on a regular basis.
  
  7
  
  If the rest of Canada was getting healthy raises at the same rate I wouldn't have a problem with it. But they're not leading by example ... it looks more like the elites are grabbing what they want AND making the rules at the same time.
  
  And that is a load of bullshit.
  
  5
- I was an "essential worker" during covid. How much do you think I made?
  
  3
  
  Just over minimum wage? The thing is, it's not the MPs getting 200K who are getting the big chunk of the value you create with your labor. Start with the directors, VPs and walk towards the top in the private corporation you were working for. In case you in particular don't work for one of those, many if not most Canadians are so that's still valid. Why am I going on about it is because we're never gonna get out of this shit where essential labor is paid sub-living wages, among other problems, until we start focusing on where the lion's share of the surplus is going to. And it's not the MPs.
  
  1
They are just hoping to afford a modest house if three of them can pitch in together

3
Hard work means high salary right!? /s

1

You've viewed 47 comments.