Paying Our MP's Mortgage Payments

[MightyAC]

Check out this story in the Vancouver Sun. An all party committee has now allowed MPs to use their meal allowances to pay for mortgages on private residences. So our MPs make 3 times the salary of the average Canadian and we should pay their mortgages too?!?!?! I have no problem paying for their rental accommodations in Ottawa as it is a work related expense, but in no way should we pay for their real estate portfolio.

Conservative MP Garth Turner is outraged by this and is urging the committee to reverse its decision. I love this guy. He sticks up for his constituents 100%. He has blasted his own government for their own mistakes as well as the opposition for theirs. I wish he was the MP of my riding.

Liberal whip Karen Redman of Kitchener, Ontario is singled out in this article but I’d like to know who else is on the all-party committee that made this decision.

The story:

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/st...a4-577b3c087993

Garth Turner Media Release:

Garth Turner demands rollback

of MP meals-for-mortgages scheme

Saying Members of Parliament are already well enough paid, Halton MP Garth Turner is calling on the House of Commons to reverse a decision allowing federal politicians to divert their meal money into paying their mortgages.

The all-party body determining MPs’ benefits has decided, according to Liberal whip Karen Redman, to allow daily allowances intended to offset the cost of meals for MPs when away from home, to be used to pay the mortgages on second homes politicians buy in Ottawa. According to media reports, this can total as much as $17,000 annually.

Redman is quoted as saying, “You just apply for your per diem for every day you’re in Ottawa and you receive an expense cheque. You make a choice; either you’re using it for your meals or you’re applying it to your mortgage.

“Either way, it’s a limit of expenses, it’s allowed by the board of internal economy and you decide whether you defray your meal costs or your living expenses through the mortgage.”

MPs are already allowed to spend up to $24,000 per year, tax-free, on rental accommodation in the nation’s capital, and according to Turner, if a politician wants to buy a piece of real estate and build equity instead of renting, then it should not be subsidized by taxpayers.

“Any politician buying a home – like any other Canadian – expects to eventually sell for more, and make a tax-free profit,” Turner says. “So it is plain wrong for MPs to expect to get a mortgage subsidy when every one of their voters has to pay their home loan with hard-won, after-tax dollars. MPs now earn three times the average family income, and also receive expense money, so not only can they afford to pay a mortgage, but they should not be insulated from reality by this kind of scheme.”

Turner has written the House of Commons Board of Internal Economy asking that the use of per diem meal expenses be disallowed for use against MPs’ personal mortgages. “If we want to buy MPs houses in Ottawa, then let’s be straight up about it and tell Canadians,” Turner says, “not try to convert meal money into mortgage money. This is exactly the kind of perceived double-dipping that makes taxpayers cynical and disbelieving. I also think it’s not an example of the political accountability and transparency the Harper Conservatives are trying to bring to federal politics.”

[Topaz]

You know I think the "true" cons are going to make sure the "Alliance" members toe the line, even if the member is a former PC'er! The leader and alot of the Cons are "alliance" and I think they are the ones calling the shots and I think Harper has made alot of people angry within the party.Maybe Garth is thinking ..No way is this "former Alliance" PM going to do things and make the Cons look bad. Maybe one day the Cons will want to separate from the Alliance and take over! Please bring back the PC'ers and leave the "ALLiance out in the cold with the Bloc!!!

[I miss Reagan]

This is a difficult issue. The last thing people want is for politicians to be making more money and using their per diem to pay for other things. Being a conservative/ libertarian the last thing I want is poor use of taxpayer dollars. However, I think we have to poney up the big bucks for these guys if we want to get the best and smartest people running the country. Other wise we'll get either low calibre people like Dar Heatherington or fat cat millionaire lawyers like Paul Desmaris' posse who are in it for the power. We have to pay them well if we want to attract the best.

[MightyAC]

This is a difficult issue. The last thing people want is for politicians to be making more money and using their per diem to pay for other things. Being a conservative/ libertarian the last thing I want is poor use of taxpayer dollars. However, I think we have to poney up the big bucks for these guys if we want to get the best and smartest people running the country. Other wise we'll get either low calibre people like Dar Heatherington or fat cat millionaire lawyers like Paul Desmaris' posse who are in it for the power. We have to pay them well if we want to attract the best.

They get paid 150 grand on average...they get 24 grand in rental allowance...they get a stellar pension...they get a free lunches...flights...private healthcare...etc. How much is enough?

The fact that a committee of MPs made a secret decision to allow themselves to use food money to buy personal property is just plain wrong. We do not have to buy our politicians houses in order to attract bright people to the public sector.

[FTA Lawyer]

Garth Turner is 100% correct on this issue...if the committee wants to provide as a benefit to MP's a certain amount of money which can be used to pay mortgage expenses for homes in Ottawa, then be up front about it and make a specific allowance for it...don't have people "converting" the meal allowance for some completely unrelated purpose.

The CRA won't allow me to claim expenses for my law practice in excess of the proscribed limits by simply subiitting the receipts under a category of expenses that I don't actually incur (e.g. I can claim up to "x" percent of my housing costs to account for a home office...I can't exceed that percentage and further defray my housing costs by simply using the available allowance for client meals / entertainment which I don't actually incur).

As for the total compensation issue, I actually agree that we need to be sure we are paying enough money to ensure top quality MP's. In the legal realm for example, when I started my articling position, the big firms in Calgary were paying approximately 48% higher salary than the Alberta Crown Prosecutors' Office...trust me, the prosecutorial talent pool for the next few years was noticeably weak. Provincial Court judges in Alberta make a bit more than $200,000 per year, and I know a number of incredibly qualified senior lawyers who have no interest in becoming a judge because they would have to take too big of a pay cut.

I don't propose that we want people who are only looking for a big paycheque, but when someone can get a significantly better standard of living doing something else, then they probably will. The sad reality is that many MP's today are people looking for a big paycheque because what they are actually qualified to do in the "real world" would bring them incredibly lower remuneration. They couldn't be happier that more highly qualified potential candidates simply aren't interested.

FTA

[I miss Reagan]

This is a difficult issue. The last thing people want is for politicians to be making more money and using their per diem to pay for other things. Being a conservative/ libertarian the last thing I want is poor use of taxpayer dollars. However, I think we have to poney up the big bucks for these guys if we want to get the best and smartest people running the country. Other wise we'll get either low calibre people like Dar Heatherington or fat cat millionaire lawyers like Paul Desmaris' posse who are in it for the power. We have to pay them well if we want to attract the best.

They get paid 150 grand on average...they get 24 grand in rental allowance...they get a stellar pension...they get a free lunches...flights...private healthcare...etc. How much is enough?

The fact that a committee of MPs made a secret decision to allow themselves to use food money to buy personal property is just plain wrong. We do not have to buy our politicians houses in order to attract bright people to the public sector.

Don't forget that they don't seem to work all that much either. I agree they get a ton of stuff but I think FTA explained well what I was trying to get at. Think about a well educated, well qualified guy/ woman (Liberal or Conservative) who is perhaps president of a successful company making 500K plus stock options. Now try to convince them to quit their job for less than half the pay and ask them to subject themselves and their families to media and partisan slander. I know a couple people who'd do a great job in politics but don't want the thankless job for similar reasons.

Garth Turner is 100% correct on this issue...if the committee wants to provide as a benefit to MP's a certain amount of money which can be used to pay mortgage expenses for homes in Ottawa, then be up front about it and make a specific allowance for it...don't have people "converting" the meal allowance for some completely unrelated purpose.

I see what you are saying. I agree.

[Canuck E Stan]

For those wondering about the committee does and their members:

BOIE story April 10 2006

BOIE meetings SHOULDN'T be more open, say BOIE MPs

The powerful, secretive Commons Board of Internal Economy which oversees the functions and finances of the House of Commons should not be opened up for more public access, say MPs from the three national parties in the House.

"There's a lot of tradition that goes with the operation of the Parliament Hill Precinct," Chief Government Whip Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, B.C.) said last week. "There's a lot of information that's dealt with there in a sensitive nature because you're dealing with--in most cases--human resources, people, so I think there's a need for confidentiality and privacy."

Liberal Whip Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Ont.) said that the way the board operates right now is sufficient. "The contents of the meeting are sensitive to specific individuals enough of the time that it's good the way it's handled now," she said.

NDP MP Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, Man.), a staunch advocate for access to information and open government, said that the secret meetings are fair. "I've never been one to call for more openness from Board of Internal Economy meetings," he said. "There's good reason for them to have to conduct their affairs in camera because of the unique give and take situation of their decision making process."

Mr. Hill said that the BOIE operates on consensus, unlike normal House committees, although the board is not a committee. "There's a lot of give and take there and I would say non-partisanship but on a lot of very sensitive issues that we do deal with on the Board, there are times when people take some very strong positions," he said. "I think the only reason they can do that is because they're in camera. I believe they're held in confidence for a reason."

The members of the board are:

-Government House Leader Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls, Ont.),

-National Revenue Minister Carol Skelton (Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar, Sask.),

-Chief Government Whip Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, B.C.)

-Conservative MP Joe Preston (Elgin-Middlesex-London, Ont.)

-Liberal Whip Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Ont.)

-Liberal MP Lucienne Robillard (Westmount-Ville Marie, Que.),

-Bloc Québécois MP Michel Guimond (Charlevoix-Montmorency, Que.) and

-NDP House Leader Libby Davies (Vancouver East, B.C.).

-The Speaker of the House is the chair of the Board.

-The Clerk of the House, Audrey O'Brien, is the secretary of the board.

The board is responsible for "all financial and administrative matters respecting the House of Commons, its premises, its services and its staff; and the Members of the House of Commons." It is also responsible for approving the annual budget estimates of the House, including budget expenditures for committees, and salary scales for non-unionized employees on the Hill, before the Speaker submits it to Treasury Board. The Board meets approximately every two weeks when the House is sitting.

l

[Wilber]

The real question here is are MP's going to be paid a fixed amount for expenses regardless of what they actually spend or should they have to submit receipts for every expense before being reimbursed? If it is the latter, what would be the cost of administering and vetting all those expense claims? Would it be worth it? If it is to be the former, then it is their business what they spend the money on. If some want to live on Kraft Dinner when they are in Ottawa and spend what they save on something else, that's their business. If they want to spend every penny on living as well as they can on what they receive, that's also their business. The real issue is, are they receiving too much, not what they actually spend it on.

[MightyAC]

Here is more from Garth Turner's blog on this issue. I agree with him 100%. I just wish I had an MP that cared more about his constituents than moving up the party ranks. I admire a guy that does what he believes is right even if it's not in the best interest of his party. The Conservatives campaigned on ethics and accountability at least there is one that really seems to believe in them. I don’t mean to be overly harsh but my MP is a party lap dog so I’m a little bitter and a little jealous of the residents of Halton Region.

http://www.garth.ca/weblog/

SHOWBOAT

So a colleague in Ottawa called me today. He’ll stay anon for obvious reasons. “Just what the hell are you trying to do?” he asked me. A fair question, I guess. About the same time, I heard later, my mother-in-law was probing her daughter on what the hell I was doing after she heard me interviewed on a Toronto radio station. ”Isn’t Garth worried he won’t have any friends left, dear?” she asked.

Well, it looks like we’re way past that point already, and today probably made little difference. I was the darling of a few radio stations across the country after the Toronto Star ran a story on my letter questioning the meals-for-mortgages scheme I wrote about here two days ago. Of course, I used the opportunity to vent my disgust at the latest perq my colleagues voted themselves, and called for the decision, to allow per diem meal expense cheques to be applied to mortgages MPs take out on Ottawa homes, to be reversed.

During the open line shows it became evident that not only do most taxpayers agree this is an over-the-top extravagance, but they’re floored MPs actually get money to feed themselves. And how can you blame them?

After all, I believed naively, most members thought like me – you get elected, go to Ottawa, find an apartment, then claim rent against the allowable amount of annual expenses. Then you buy your own groceries, cook them and eat ‘em. But, I was wrong.

Doing a number of interviews for MPtv, I discovered that loads of MPs actually live in hotels every night they’re in Ottawa, eating every meal in a restaurant, and claiming all those expenses. Now, this is not necessarily bad, because an MP with a poor attendance record in Ottawa will claim far less in taxpayer compensation than one who’s there all the time. But, you have to admit, it’s still weird.

But I digress. The issue at hand is the decision to allow those meal per diems to be applied against mortgage payments on a house an MP buys. Which is wrong. Every mortgage payment builds real estate equity, which translates into personal wealth, and there’s no way voters should be asked to enrich MPs more than they already do. So, let’s see what response the Board of Internal Economy generates to my letter of protest.

The other issue (at least as gauged by my mother-in-law), is what consequence my actions might have within caucus. Obviously there will be MPs who have bought homes in the capital region and moved their families in, who think I should keep my trap shut. One of them, in fact, I work with in the committee room every second day or so.

Already, obviously, there are colleagues who think I was a traitor to condemn putting a floor-crossing Liberal and an unelected Senator in cabinet, or to try and heavily influence the finance minister before he dropped his first budget or take on religious leaders who are card-carrying Tories. There are those who would dismiss me as a media showboat. I know this, and live with it every day.

And while it sometimes makes it harder for me to be an effective MP (subject of another posting), it is now a reality. I wrote here during the last election campaign that I was going to get up every morning and endeavour to do the ethical thing because I have nothing to prove. I have had a handful of careers. I have made my money. I’ve written all the books that are in me at the moment. I’ve seen the cabinet room and I’ve bought a Harley. I’m actually the kind of guy who should be elected because I don’t need a job and there’s nothing the prime minister has that I want. So, hell, I might as well do what’s right.