Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

Cut your hair and get a job

by Aaron Wherry on Tuesday, July 6, 2010 1:52pm - 0 Comments

Alison Loat is exceedingly rational in response to the revelation that some MPs have lives.

Most MPs come to public life in their mid-to-late 40s, having spent a generation pursuing other interests, and these interests are not always easily dropped (for example Keith Martin, a medical doctor, still practices occassionally to keep up his skills and credentials). Furthmore, as the article points out, electoral politics are inherently unstable, job-wise, so asking MPs to “ditch their professions and businesses” will make it more difficult to recruit candidates to run for office, lest they have nothing to fall back on if they’re defeated at the polls…

The concern, of course, is rightfully making sure these outside investments don’t distort the MPs’ priorities or impede them from fulfilling their responsibilties as an MP. If there is compelling evidence that is happening (which I’m not sure I’ve seen reported), it would be worth questioning whether further disclosure (e.g., the hours spent on these outside interests) is needed, or if it would simply create more paperwork with no discernable difference on outcomes.

Full disclosure: I have, on several occasions, enjoyed dessert at the Future Bakery, which is owned by Liberal MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj.

Tags: Alison Loat, borys Wrzesnewskyj, Future Bakery, house of commons, MPs, Ottawa, Parliament, Samara, Toronto

More by Aaron Wherry

Trass

I have no problem with them having outside businesses, but they should have to disclose them in a manner more informative than 'does it make you more than $10K a year.' I assume Boris' constituents would like to know if he just shows up to make the Christmas cookies, or if he is in the kitchen every week.
hosertohoosier

In addition to conflict of interest concerns, this brings up simple issues of attention. If MPs – and cabinet ministers in particular – are focused on doing other jobs, it is not clear that they are likely to be good MPs. The solution, thankfully, is one that MPs will probably like. We need to pay MPs more money. They are the key decision-makers in the nation, yet are remunerated like middle managers. I agree that they have a lot of perks, though that is also a function of salaries that are simply too low and the tendency for public outcry after a salary hike. So lets convert some of those perks into actual pay so that MPs don't need to moonlight.

Emily

It's not a lack of pay for MPs that causes them to 'moonlight'. It's the fact the job can suddenly disappear.
Orson Bean

I agree with hth. There's this toxic brand of knee-jerk populism in this country that makes MP/MLA/MPP pay increases instantly unpopular. Yet their pay is pathetic, when you consider that many of them voluntarily depart careers in mid-stream, often at the peak of their potential earning years. The pay is especially piss-poor for those many MPS/MLAs/MPPs who come from our large urban centres where the cost of living is extremely high, such as Greater Vancouver and Toronto.

And of course there's the added element of hypocrisy in this — people complain about the quality of our politicians, and seem to forget the maxim that you get what you pay for.

Emily

Qualifications for becoming an MP…. Canadian citizen of voting age.

Pay for an MP….The annual salary of each Member of Parliament, as of 2008, is $155,400

Orson Bean

It was probably not wise for me to mix MPs in with MPPs and MLAs. I was struck at how low an ordinary (non-cabinet) member of the British Columbia legislature's pay was when I last saw the figure. I think it's considerably below that federal figure.

In any event, my view is that they should not moonlight, and that they should be paid well. They sacrifice a lot, they put up with a lot of crap (I used to work in a riding association executive for a sitting MP and I know this from experience), and we should be encouraging our best and most accomplished people to want to run for the highest elected office.

And bear this in mind: in the city of Vancouver or Toronto, an accomplished entrepreneur or business executive would not consider 155K/year to be a particularly attractive salary.

bergkamp

"They sacrifice a lot, they put up with a lot of crap …. "

1) They should get another job if they don't want to deal with people and their problems.

2) Try working retail or fast food industry before claiming MPs "put up with a lot of crap". I would gladly put up with people and their issues for more than $80,000 – $155,000 a year like MP/P do compared to minimum wage I was earning twenty years ago and putting up with way more bs than MPs ever do.

Accomplished "entrepreneur or business executive" are not attracted to politics, no matter how much money is on offer (unless we are talking millions of course). What good is one or two successful entrepreneurs entering Parliament when they know full well going in they won't change a thing unless they become Prime Minister.
Mike T.

Movie stars are also earning too much to want to be MPs, as well. There are some jobs – though not many – that pay a great deal more than being an MP, and anyone who wants to switch will have to take a pay cut. If they aren't willing to accept a mere $155,000 in salary, they probably aren't the best person for the job.
Orson Bean

. . . and the result is that we only rarely get CEO-level type people, true industry leaders, as MPs. People like David Emerson are very rare in Parliament. And there are consequences to that. And I would argue that the quality of our federal cabinets suffers as a result.
Mike T.

The consequences aren't that great. At least not great enough that we shouldn't think of $155,000 as princely or maybe think abouot lowering it.

bergkamp

"Yet their pay is pathetic, when you consider that many of them voluntarily depart careers in mid-stream, often at the peak of their potential earning years."

How many MPs in Parliament right now were making more than $150,000 a year with tremendous benefits and pension before they became MPs? If there was over/under bet of 5, I would bet on less than five people in current Parliament gave up their better paying jobs and took pay reduction to be MP.

Politics is not a normal job and it attracts weird people. It doesn't matter how much we pay them because only clowns, wide-boys and fish wives are attracted to the job. Since MPs have voted themselves these terrific salaries and pension over the past twenty to thirty years to attract well qualified people, is the quality of politics improving? Do you feel like you live in a well managed country? I certainly don't and I am far from alone.

Orson Bean

So it seems your view is that our MPs are awful, AND it makes no difference what we pay them, they are, always have been, and always will be, awful. Got it.

You seem to be arguing that what we pay MPs is utterly irrelevant and of no consequence whatsoever. I think that's nuts, and defies logic. I assume, then, that your bottom line position is that we should pay them zero. Because it will make no difference.

http://intensedebate.com/people/bergkamp bergkamp

I think politics attracts a few people who have good intentions but implement bad policy/ideas but most MPs are just in it for themselves. I don't believe we should pay MPs zero but their salaries are too lavish right now – was there a shortage of MPs before 1980 when they were not making nearly as much? Of course not. People enter politics because they are vain/power hungry/controlling/bullied as children and would be involved regardless of how much money was on offer (within reason).

Average salary in Canada for single person is $31,000 after tax, and $74,000, for two or more people households. Why should we pay MPs twice as much as average household when they do very little work.

I think PM and a few top Cabinet members deserve big pay packets but vast majority of MPs are being paid way more than they are worth. MPs are supposed to represent our interests – how are they supposed to do that while making considerable more than their constituents?
http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/famil21a-eng.ht…
hosertohoosier

1. Your basic premise is that MPs deserve a certain level of pay. That is a subjective issue (I think that if it were a matter of what they deserve they should get a lot of pay – they do a lot of constituency work in addition to sitting in parliament), but more critically it misses the big issue. The big issue is whether we are governed by people who will make good decisions. The piddling difference between low or high MP pay in the grand scheme of our multi-billion dollar budget pales in comparison to the impact of having bad or good decision-makers.

Moreover, people are NOT paid based on what they "deserve" – indeed you would probably take umbrage if people told you that you deserved to be paid less. Why? Because your wages are determined by the marketplace. In that sense your pay is…
-a function of the scarcity of the skills necessary to perform your job
-a negative function of the prestige and desirability of your job
-a negative function of the job stability for individuals in your career
-a function of restrictions on entry by others into your job

2. The comparison to the average Canadian is only relevant if we are looking for people with an average skill set to be MPs. I would suggest that governing the country is important (and complex), and so we should seek out top talent by offering the kind of remuneration that brings in top people.

3. Low MP pay would mean that only independently wealthy individuals would be able to afford to run for office, given the risk inherent in doing so. Since there are many talented individuals who are not independently wealthy we would lose out by their absence. Worse, we would not get a parliament reflective of the outlook of ordinary Canadians (the notion that MPs would resemble ordinary Canadians simply because they made as much money as ordinary Canadians is ludicrous because it ignores prior income and wealth).

4. The PM and cabinet ministers are selected out of the pool of MPs. If we have a shallow talent pool at the MP level, that will eventually translate into a shallow cabinet/leadership pool.
Orson Bean

Excellent post hth (of course I think it's excellent partly because I agree with it . . .).

Re this quote "Low MP pay would mean that only independently wealthy individuals would be able to afford to run for office, given the risk inherent in doing so." It's worth noting that we inherited our Parliamentary system from Britain, and certainly that was the tradition in Britain — it was expected that only the upper crust would run for Parliament. Certainly that was the case in Churchill's day, and that legacy endures to this day there.

I guess there is a tension or conflict at the heart of what we want in MPs, because most of us want "representativeness", yet many of us want excellence as well. And those aren't really synonymous.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

Members of cabinet have higher disclosure and conflict of interest rules (and more money) than MPs.

While it may be easy to dole out responsibilities to government backbenchers, frankly, I'm not sure that there is enough work to keep all 308 MPs, including backbench opposition MPs, fully employed and occupied. There is such a thing as too many cooks.

hosertohoosier

MPs could do a lot more work than they do, but they are – in part – handicapped by a dysfunctional parliament. That said the main work of an MP is in constituency work. The main advantage of our system of government is that it gives Canadians local representatives that can voice local concerns and help individuals navigate the maze that is government. This is a vital function in terms of maintaining our democratic civil society, and one that provides an endless source of work for MPs.

Lord Kitchener's Own

Remunerated like middle managers? I don't know. $157,000 a year seems pretty good for a "middle manager". I consider my own position to be a "middle management" position, and I barely make half of that (and I'm not complaining, I know I'm WAY above the Canadian average). My boss is head of our whole unit, and even she's $30,000 shy of what an MP makes.

That said, I've always felt that our MPs should be well paid, but as Emily suggests it's not their level of remuneration, but their level of job security that presumably makes some MPs feel the need to "moonlight" (their lack of job security is also why they become eligible for a full pension after just 6 years as an MP, and can start collecting that pension at 55).

Again, I'm all for remunerating our MPs well, but I don't think anyone's moonlighting because they just can't figure out how to feed their family on just $155,000 a year. As a point of comparison, media after tax annual income for a family of 2 or more people in Canada was $63,900 in 2008, well less than half of what an MP makes.

Emily

No, it's not the pay that's the problem.

Someone can be elected at 45, and serve as MP for 5 years….then suddenly lose their seat.

Hard to go back to their old job, or get a new one at 50….and hasn't served enough time to qualify for the MP pension at 55.

Lord Kitchener's Own

I agree, but it's a hard problem to solve.

I'd also point out that the type of person who's already making 6 figures when they decide to go into politics probably CAN find a new job after being an MP for 5 years, and if they were making less than 100,000 a year before, they should probably sock away some of the extra money they make as an MP, lest they only hold the position for 5 years (that's over a quarter of a million in potential savings for an MP that was making less than 6 figures before becoming a politician, if they just keep their lifestyle similar to what it was before they were elected).

That said, I don't mean that last sentence to suggest that I at all want to discourage good people from running for office because of financial considerations, but I'd say we're already doing pretty well in terms of not relegating public service to becoming the domain of only the rich, at least in comparison to some of our neighbours. I guess I just figure that $157,000 a year ought to be enough to provide an MP with some degree of financial security in the event of an electoral loss, and that if $157,000 a year was a CUT in pay for said MP, they're probably going to be OK even if they lose their seat at 50, a year short of pension eligibility.

Emily

I don't mean it's a problem in that sense, it's just one of those risks you take in life…but our MPs are making it into a problem.

We elect people from all walks of life…from manual labourers to lawyers. Some would take a pay cut to be an MP, others have never made that kind of money in their lives, and never will again. And we have already made it as easy as possible for them to have 2 homes, 2 offices and a pension they can save for.

Then we ask them to make decisions about such things as stem cells, cloning, space, China, wars….and so on.

We rarely have people who are qualified for the job, and they often sit as backbenchers. Perhaps the real problem lies in 'qualifications'.
Orson Bean

A related problem, though probably practically insolvable, is the matter of regional discrepancies. To some guy who works in the corner store in Sparwood, B.C., 155K a year is probably the equivalent of a king's ransom. But to a business executive living in downtown Vancouver, who would have to pay at least 500K just to buy a shoebox-sized condo and at least $1million for a real, umm, house, 155K a year is not a terribly attractive salary. Yet as I understand it, we pay our federal MPs the same salary, regardless of the cost of living that they face.

hosertohoosier

We can't offer MPs better job security, period (and most of them have soft landings in the private sector thanks to their political connections – a fact that is if anything a problem). The current response is to give them ridiculously generous pensions, for which they qualify almost automatically. However the pension doesn't solve the short-term job security issue. Lets say Pierre Poilievre loses his seat (and there was much rejoicing). He won't qualify for pension payments for another 24 years.

What we can do is offer MPs higher pay, in order to remunerate them – directly – for the inherent risk that they will lose their seat. This way MPs will not have to moonlight (despite their qualifying for a massive pension), and we may be able to attract more talented front-benches, and with lower overall expenses (in the long-run gold-plated pensions are expensive, particularly given life expectancies these days).
Mike T.

If you want to apply free market values, I bet there a lot of people who would make perfectly decent MPs and would do it for considerably less than $155,000 and perks.

So they're probably paid too much.

Orson Bean

One thing that has not been mentioned is the initial risk you take and financial outlay that you make to even have a hope of becoming a MP. First you have to enter and run in a nomination battle. That takes money — money out of your own pocket. Then, only if you win the nomination battle, do you even get to run for Parliament. For that race, many candidates continue to fork out some of their own cash, and they are also spending gobs of time, sleepless nights, etc. as they campaign in a race that they may not win (depending of course on party and riding). That's a lot of cash out of your pocket and working for free, long before you even get to Ottawa — assuming you even get there at all. Again, all of this crap serves as a deterrent to many people even considering running in the first place.

Mike T.

Absolutely true and a fair point. If it were to be addressed at all, however, I would think it should be looked at in terms of reimbursements or eliminating expensive requirements, rather than greatly increased salaries across the board.
http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

Please, dear god, do not let this be taken as an argument that all candidates should be on the public payroll during the campaign…
Lord Kitchener's Own

That wouldn't be fair.

I think we should ALL be on the public payroll, from the age of 18 on, so that we're all equally capable of abandoning our day jobs at a moment's notice should we decide to run for public office.

http://intensedebate.com/people/bergkamp bergkamp

Since MPs are basically eunuchs, and bureaucrats run the country, I don't know why we consider this a full time job that deserves a huge salary. MP should be part time position and MPs should be expected to have a second, proper job that does not involve public money.

Lord Kitchener's Own

I agree with bergkamp. We need to start paying our bureaucrats a lot more.

http://intensedebate.com/people/bergkamp bergkamp

hahahahahahahaha. I don't agree with sentiment but it made me laugh, so thanks for that.

Lord Kitchener's Own

I'm glad you laughed. I was a bit worried you might take me seriously and we'd have to go round and round while I tried to talk you down!

:-)

http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

I'm not entirely sure we could ever pay reasonable people enough to take as much flak as what people like us dish out to them on a regular basis.

Lord Kitchener's Own

I don't know, we dish it out to each other pretty hard around here too, and we're all here taking it for free…

D-R

I don't think their jobs are any less safe than anyone elses. Aren't half of them in safe seats?

http://twitter.com/AlisonLoat @AlisonLoat

Electoral turnover varies from election to election. On average, between 1945 and 2008, 37% of MPs were new (although some replaced retiring MPs of the same party). You can read more about electoral turnover and its causes here: http://www.samaracanada.com/blog/post/is-canadas-…
hosertohoosier

Yes but safe seats are very big prizes for riding nomination contests. Some leaders can protect their own incumbents, but others do not. If even a big fish like Sheila Copps can lose such a contest, nobody is truly safe for long.

Sigh

The question is, did you pay for your pastry?

Lord Kitchener's Own

I think that was a very humorous remark, and I appreciate the levity you have brought to this forum.

There. If the powers that be won't let me just comment "LOL" when I find something funny, perhaps they'll let this more fulsome comment stay up, and they won't delete it.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

You had an LOL deleted? Wow.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP Phil

I had the same thing happen on at least two separate occasion, both several months ago. I found that an "acceptable" response only needed to be a few words long, not to say that I didn't totally enjoy your response!

For the heck of it I even sent a note to the ID folks at the time….

I assume it's a poor man's spam filter meant to disuade folks from posting a whole schwack of marginal posts.

http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

Oh?
http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

Gee!
http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

And, in full disclosure, I note that the comment that had the four characters "Huh?" has disappeared and will be the subject of an Amber Alert…

Lord Kitchener's Own

I had a "Nice." disappear just today as well.
http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

Well, get in line, fella. the population can handle only one Amber Alert at a time.
Lord Kitchener's Own

LOL

(Two lone LOLs above have been up above for more than 25 minutes now in response to your "Oh?" and your "Gee!"… I'm on LOL deathwatch).
http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

I'm on LOL deathwatch…

Well, we each make our contribution to society in our own way, I suppose.

;)
Lord Kitchener's Own

I'll be making my daytime contribution by selling pastries to the likes of Wherry at the local Timmies. Turns out my post-doctoral fellowship is about to become taxable.

;)
madeyoulook

Look, if your minimum wage and your cut of the tips at the end of each Timmies shift are taxable, it's only fair your $70K gets chomped just like the income of the rest of us law-abiding shmucks who are wondering just how stale are the Timbits you're trying to sell me.
Lord Kitchener's Own

Awwww. Now I feel like you're not just playing anymore.

Lord Kitchener's Own

Just so I'm clear, I know it was just an auto filter, so I'm not really "calling out" the "powers that be" in any way. Still, it'd be nice to be able to throw out an occasional laudatory "LOL" every now and again!

http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP Phil

Oops
http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP Phil

OK, just so I'm clear on this cuz my curiosity is killing me, there is some type of auto filter, although its behaviour seems to be extremely random; do you actually know any of the particulars, or is it just that you have deduced the existence of said filter?

Lord Kitchener's Own

I was just presuming that no human being would bother consciously deciding to delete a comment that consisted of nothing more than "LOL", and that it must therefore be an auto filter that cuts any comment less than a certain length, or maybe even more specifically, any comment that consists of simply "LOL". Which I would understand, as one wouldn't want thousands of LOL comments clogging up the boards (though, still…).

However, my supposition would appear to be in error, as I placed two LOL comments up above last night and today, 11 hours later, they're still there. Which leads me to believe that either my "LOL" comment yesterday (and also my "Nice." comment yesterday, both on different posts) was deleted by an actual human being who decided "That can't be allowed to stand!" or, that the Macleans auto-filter is the slowest auto-filter in the history of the interwebs. Or, some third option that's not occurring to me (maybe someone at Macleans is just messing with me, in which case… Good one!).

Again, not that I'm really put out at all, it's just curious. Why does an "LOL" comment disappear from one post and not another? How does MYL's "Oh?", or his "Gee!" get spared, but my "Nice." goes the way of the dodo?

(ETA: Phil, I see that you added a "Nice!" to the comments over in the Khadr thread where I was having some fun with Ben (The Tiger) and in the very same thread as my own "Nice." used to be (though my "Nice." was a reply to Ben, and your "Nice!" was a reply to me). 8 Hours later, your "Nice!" is still there. I guess I should have used an exclamation point instead of a period! LOL).
http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

How does MYL's "Oh?", or his "Gee!" get spared, but my "Nice." goes the way of the dodo?

My punctuation was less boring than yours, maybe? But then, my "Huh?" appears to have been wrapped up in a sleeping bag tied to a cinder block and dropped into the river. So scrap that thought.

maybe someone at Macleans is just messing with me becomes a more attractive conjecture, except that sounds more like something a government agency might put in place.
Sigh

But in the end, an initial LOL from you would never have generated the discussion your more fulsome comment did.
Lord Kitchener's Own

True.

But is that a positive or a negative?

:-)
Sigh

I have to admit, I enjoyed it.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP Phil

Perhaps my nice was nicer than your nice?

Lord Kitchener's Own

LOL

http://intensedebate.com/people/PeteTong PeteTong

Future Bakery in the Annex has some of the worst service in the city. Quit politics Borys and get ye back to the Bakery floor!