Are We On The Verge of a UK-style MP Scandal

[ToadBrother]

Auditor General wants to look at MPs' expenses

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...30?hub=Politics

Hmmm, looks like Fraser is really rattling the cages this time. Is this hot air, or is this going to go somewhere?

[August1991]

Hmmm, looks like Fraser is really rattling the cages this time. Is this hot air, or is this going to go somewhere?

I think this has the same potential as in the UK. Each federal MP spends about $700,000 annually and this money is lacks any account.

But given federal Canadian politics, this issue will quickly become "partisan" and then regional - the ultimate division on Canadian politics.

-----

I have two minds on this issue. One side of me says that we should pay federal MPs almost nothing and offer them a small stipend for office expenses. Federal MPs should sit a few weeks a year. (This was how Canada used to work.) Another side of me says that such poor working conditions are an invitation to bribes and corruptions.

On balance though, and given the federal Liberal Adscam scandal, politicians are going to be corrupt anyway - even when taxpayers give them money. So I'd argue in favour of removing the salaries, pensions, office money, research staff, constituency office, free travel and so on.

Maybe if politicians had to spend their own money (even if they got it through a bribe), they might spend mine more carefully.

-----

Last point. If the Auditor-General gets the the go ahead, I bet Harper knows where the audit is going....

Edited July 2, 2009 by August1991

[punked]

Auditor General wants to look at MPs' expenses

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...30?hub=Politics

Hmmm, looks like Fraser is really rattling the cages this time. Is this hot air, or is this going to go somewhere?

I have a feeling that the Liberals who didn't get screwed by sponsorship scandal will fell the wrath if this goes through.

[Remiel]

So I'd argue in favour of removing the salaries, pensions, office money, research staff, constituency office, free travel and so on.

If you actually believe that, you really are a fool, August.

[August1991]

If you actually believe that, you really are a fool, August.

Really?

Compare the situation of New Brunswick and Maine:

But what's this I read that NB (pop. 760,000) has 55 MLAs. 55! And each one earns $60,000 per year plus a tax-exempt annual "office" allowance of $25,000. [Link]

What earth shaking decisions does NB face that require all that brain power? What heavy responsibilities justify that salary?

BTW, Maine with about 1.3 million people has about 150 members in its House. They each earn around $10,000 annually. [Link]

The comparison is now out of date but has the Maine government made worse decisions than New Brunswick's? Are Maine legislators more corrupt? Which jurisdiction has lower taxes and is better served?

----

BTW, good thread, ToadBrother. When I saw this news report, I hoped someone would start a thread here.

Edited July 2, 2009 by August1991

[Remiel]

Compare the situation of New Brunswick and Maine:

The comparison is now out of date but has the Maine government made worse decisions than New Brunswick's? Are Maine legislators more corrupt? Which jurisdiction has lower taxes and is better served?

I will compare them:

Population: New Brunswick 760,000, Maine 1,300,000

Legislators: New Brunswick 55, Maine 185 ( 150 in Congress, 35 in Senate )

Ratio of Population to Legislators: New Brunswick, 1 to 13,800, Maine 1 to 7000

Salary: New Brunswick $60,000, Maine $17,000 (look at your article, it is $10,000 per 7 month session)

Total Salary: New Brunswick $3,300,000, Maine $3,145,000

Time Required For Job: New Brunswick 100%, Maine 50%

So, at the end of the day, if Maine Legislators were full time Legislators, the salary would be roughly the same amount as New Brunswick Legislators relative to the population. And if they were full time, I imagine that the apparatus in place would probably give them more money for expenses, though I can see that may be a sticking point still for New Brunswick.

Edit: I should mention though that I have said before that I think strict ratios of representation to population are useless, however. The number of managers you need is inversely proportionate to the number of people being managaged. A single person requires one manager, a family of four requires two (if it does not want a divorce), a town of 15,000 may require 7, a province of 760,000 55 and a country of 34,000,000 308, and a country of 300,000,000 635. There is no arithmetic scale.

Edited July 2, 2009 by Remiel

[August1991]

Salary: New Brunswick $60,000, Maine $17,000 (look at your article, it is $10,000 per 7 month session)

I kind of like that idea.

I'd give them $10,000 per year salary rather than $60,000. I'd also give them a modular office. They could could print their own business cards (on amateur paper) at their own expense - like any other starting entrepreneur.

Taxpayers should give almost nothing to MPs. Let the Internet figure out who is honest. Interesting idea but not the issue before us.

----

An Auditor-General report of MP budgets? I suspect Harper would love it. Watch for Ignatieff's reaction.

Edited July 2, 2009 by August1991

[eyeball]

Auditor General wants to look at MPs' expenses

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...30?hub=Politics

Hmmm, looks like Fraser is really rattling the cages this time. Is this hot air, or is this going to go somewhere?

Hot air I suspect but enough to provide at least a little lift...for a while. The real issue should be why no one has been looking at MP's expenses as a routine matter of fiscal hygiene since day one. So what if we catch another batch of politicians on the take, we're almost guaranteed the culture of secrecy that enables them to do so will remain as untouchable and sacrosanct as ever.

A government is more than any old thing but still a thing nonetheless. Fortunately in a democracy its what we do with it that counts. Unfortunately we keep repeatedly settling for so little reform or change when these things happen so we really have no one to blame but ourselves when they do.

I'm convinced the only way to effect any real change is to phase in a new way of governing ourselves, using jury-like citizen's assemblies instead of politicians and their parties for example. Unfortunately I think we'll have to wait until at least a generation until a certain demographic pig passing through a python of fear and resistance to change dies before society even begins entertaining the idea of change.

[Bonam]

The problem with paying MPs relatively little money is that it makes the jobs quite unattractive. Ideally, we want to attract the best and brightest, who can make the most informed and well thought out decisions, into positions of power. Such people have the ability to become successful entrepreneurs, executives, professionals, etc, in the private sector. Being a politician needs to offer comparable rewards to such occupations if we want to attract high caliber people.

[punked]

The problem with paying MPs relatively little money is that it makes the jobs quite unattractive. Ideally, we want to attract the best and brightest, who can make the most informed and well thought out decisions, into positions of power. Such people have the ability to become successful entrepreneurs, executives, professionals, etc, in the private sector. Being a politician needs to offer comparable rewards to such occupations if we want to attract high caliber people.

Iggy, Harper neither of them need the money. MPs are just sheep to these leaders anyway. Just thought I would point that out.

[ToadBrother]

I kind of like that idea.

I'd give them $10,000 per year salary rather than $60,000. I'd also give them a modular office. They could could print their own business cards (on amateur paper) at their own expense - like any other starting entrepreneur.

Taxpayers should give almost nothing to MPs. Let the Internet figure out who is honest. Interesting idea but not the issue before us.

In the olden days of the British parliament MPs were not paid. Well, actually they were, by peddling influence. The reason representatives were finally paid was to discourage this sort of behavior, and hopefully to get a better class of MP.

I don't mind paying MPs, and I don't even mind paying them well (hopefully to encourage people whose means would not otherwise permit them to run). I don't want to return to the olden days of Westminster, where it was pretty much the wealthy who ran for office, because no one else could afford to.

----

An Auditor-General report of MP budgets? I suspect Harper would love it. Watch for Ignatieff's reaction.

If what's happening at Westminster is in any way indicative of what might be happening here, then no, I suspect Harper wouldn't. The one thing that the British scandal has demonstrated is that it mattered very little what side of the floor MPs were sitting on, many were involved. There are a helluva lot of Labour and Tory incumbents who will not be running for re-election when the Brits next go to the polls.

[Bonam]

Iggy, Harper neither of them need the money. MPs are just sheep to these leaders anyway. Just thought I would point that out.

Naw, some of them become cabinet ministers and such, and they have significant power and influence in those positions.

[August1991]

Iggy, Harper neither of them need the money. MPs are just sheep to these leaders anyway. Just thought I would point that out.

On the contrary, it's a good point.

As Trudeau said, 100m from the House of Commons, outside of TV range, loud-mouthed, shouting MPs are nobodies.

They depend on their party leader.

[Bonam]

As Trudeau said, 100m from the House of Commons, outside of TV range, loud-mouthed, shouting MPs are nobodies.

They depend on their party leader.

Yet another critical flaw in our parliamentary system. I say down with "party discipline", MPs should be able to vote according to their principles, best judgment, and for the benefit of their specific constituents.

[August1991]

The problem with paying MPs relatively little money is that it makes the jobs quite unattractive. Ideally, we want to attract the best and brightest, who can make the most informed and well thought out decisions, into positions of power. Such people have the ability to become successful entrepreneurs, executives, professionals, etc, in the private sector. Being a politician needs to offer comparable rewards to such occupations if we want to attract high caliber people.

On the contrary, no one goes into politics for money - unless they're looking for money far beyond existing salaries.

MPs? I'd suggest double minimum wage, infrequent House sessions, cost-based office expenses and let the Internet keep them honest.

Dunno.

Edited July 2, 2009 by August1991

[Bonam]

On the contrary, no one goes into politics for money - unless they're looking for money far beyond existing salaries.

And let the Internet keep them honest.

Dunno.

They may not go into it to get rich, but they should be making an upper-middle class salary to live a decent lifestyle, otherwise the best people will simply not get into politics. Someone may think they have something to contribute and have a passion for Canada and want to go into politics, weigh it against the prospect of making $10k/year like someone mentioned, instead of $100-500k/year as a professional or executive, and decide against it. If being a politician pays only a token salary, then only those who are already rich in advance can realistically become politicians, and that severely limits our representation.

[CAMP]

Yet another critical flaw in our parliamentary system. I say down with "party discipline", MPs should be able to vote according to their principles, best judgment, and for the benefit of their specific constituents.

Right on Bonam, I totally agree. Every MP should be responsible to their ridings rather than a party whip or boss.

This is one of the founding principles of the Central Party of Canada! We are a grassroots party that will stop this corruption!

The parties we have in place now are all corrupt and are controlled from the top down, all partisan and have proved none of them can be trusted. Canada was a much better place when MP's were responsible to their constituents.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The real issue to be discussed here should be controlling expenses, not MP salaries. MP salaries are not out of line by any account. The partisan split with cabinet ministers getting more money is in fact an issue. Perhaps not in the way people think though.

The entire system scales incomes to workloads, with this I have no problem. My concern is the waste of money being paid to opposition and backbench representatives. Everyone of the elected representatives should have a responsible and meaningful position that they can be held accountable for. Make these folks work for a living.

[CAMP]

The real issue to be discussed here should be controlling expenses, not MP salaries. MP salaries are not out of line by any account. The partisan split with cabinet ministers getting more money is in fact an issue. Perhaps not in the way people think though.

The entire system scales incomes to workloads, with this I have no problem. My concern is the waste of money being paid to opposition and backbench representatives. Everyone of the elected representatives should have a responsible and meaningful position that they can be held accountable for. Make these folks work for a living.

Can you answer a couple of questions for me Jerry, or anyone else just to clear the air on this subject?

How much does an MP make per year?

What is their pension plan? Is it inflation protected?

How much does a senate member make per year?

[ToadBrother]

On the contrary, no one goes into politics for money - unless they're looking for money far beyond existing salaries.

MPs? I'd suggest double minimum wage, infrequent House sessions, cost-based office expenses and let the Internet keep them honest.

Dunno.

So let's see, pay them crap and hardly use them. This is sounding more like how democracy happens in the People's Republic of China.

[ToadBrother]

Right on Bonam, I totally agree. Every MP should be responsible to their ridings rather than a party whip or boss.

This is one of the founding principles of the Central Party of Canada! We are a grassroots party that will stop this corruption!

The parties we have in place now are all corrupt and are controlled from the top down, all partisan and have proved none of them can be trusted. Canada was a much better place when MP's were responsible to their constituents.

When was that, exactly?

And if I hear the word "grassroots" one more time, I'll vomit. Parties are inherently non-grassroots. Believe me, if your party ever got into a position where electoral success to any degree was a possibility, the party would turn top-down in a hurry.

George Washington had an accurate assessment of political parties, and the wisdom to realize their inevitability.

[Smallc]

Can you answer a couple of questions for me Jerry, or anyone else just to clear the air on this subject?

How much does an MP make per year?

What is their pension plan? Is it inflation protected?

How much does a senate member make per year?

The information is out there and public, go look for it. MPs make about 150K a year, Senators 120 - 130K. I doubt that a similar scandal to the UK is happening here, because there is apparently strict controls on what can be claimed, but we'll have to wait and see.

[punked]

The information is out there and public, go look for it. MPs make about 150K a year, Senators 120 - 130K. I doubt that a similar scandal to the UK is happening here, because there is apparently strict controls on what can be claimed, but we'll have to wait and see.

The star did a report on this a few weeks ago and no one would tell them what they claimed in the other category besides Dion. Dion claimed a rug for his office. Good old Dion you can count on him to stand for something.

[Remiel]

The entire system scales incomes to workloads, with this I have no problem. My concern is the waste of money being paid to opposition and backbench representatives. Everyone of the elected representatives should have a responsible and meaningful position that they can be held accountable for. Make these folks work for a living.

An interesting idea, but it would require some serious rethinking of how the dynamics of parliament ought to work, given the often, or rather implaccably secretive nature of cabinet. I mean, being the critic of something can be a serious job, if you take it seriously, but it is hard to hold anyone accountable for not holding the government accountable over information you did not have access to.

[Smallc]

The star did a report on this a few weeks ago and no one would tell them what they claimed in the other category besides Dion. Dion claimed a rug for his office. Good old Dion you can count on him to stand for something.

To tell you the truth, I can't blame them for not telling. People would have been mad no matter what they had said. There was an article in one of the papers with the MPs talking about how strict the requirements are for claims, and there was a program on the CBC (the Current) on which a couple of experts talked about why it couldn't happen here because of the rules that are in place. As I said though, we'll have to wait and see.