Being an MP may be the best part-time gig in the country. The job pays $160,000 per year with a ridiculously generous pension plan. You set your own hours and the job comes with a generous expense account and opportunities to travel to faraway places. And if you are so inclined you can earn a few extra bucks on the side.
The issue of MPs making an outside income came into focus after Justin Trudeau acknowledged he collected $277,000 in professional speaking fees while serving his constituents in the House of Commons. But give Trudeau credit for disclosing more about the particulars of his arrangements than the system demanded.
There is nothing new happening here and few think of it as a scandal. Turns out close to half of all MPs from all parties rake in more than their Parliamentary stipend. Even Sir John A. Macdonald held the equivalent position of the Chairman of Board for the Manufacturers Life Insurance Company for a time while serving as prime minister.
And what Trudeau netted is small potatoes compared with what some British MPs earned for their ancillary efforts. The Guardian newspaper reported that former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown received the equivalent of $2.2 million from giving speeches around the world, much of which he claims to have donated to charitable causes.
Of course many MPs are singularly devoted to their public responsibilities, put in a gargantuan number of hours, and would not dream of diverting themselves from their Parliamentary duties. Yet it is not unusual for an MP to also as work as a real estate agent, hotel manager, lawyer, sit on the board of directors for an investment firm, or hang up a shingle as a public speaker.
If a mayor or city councillor charged a fee to address a local business association or the United Way, we might think it strange, or just plain wrong. If a judge, deputy minister or corporate CEO cashed in with a few gigs on the side, they would have some explaining to do. So why are MPs in a category of their own? Is being an MP not a full-time occupation? And do we not want MPs to avoid the inevitable conflicts of interest that come with taking on supplementary income?
One argument for allowing our elected officials to earn outside income is they are underpaid. There was a time when that point had validity, but not today. In 1945 an MP earned a base salary of $4,000, worth $54,000 today. By 1963 the pay was $12,000 per year, equivalent to $92,000 today. Today, at $160,200, an MP makes more than triple the average working wage. And let’s face reality: there are few MPs serving in the House of Commons who actually took a pay cut.
It’s a fair point to argue paying MPs more money might attract a higher caliber of candidate. But it says something about the value of public service if dedicated and capable citizens are persuaded to enter public life because they see an opportunity to earn money on the side.
Another argument for supplementary work is that it gives an MP some real life experience. MP Scott Brison claims that his role as a company director keeps him “thinking fresh” and gives him a “better understanding of economic realities.” But shouldn’t MPs have that experience before coming to Ottawa? Besides, if Brison wants to learn how society works, he can use his good offices, not to mention the resources of the Library of Parliament. There are not many jobs that allow you to compel witnesses to appear before you, as they do in Parliamentary committees.
The final argument I hear is that we live in a free society so MPs should not be restricted from doing what they want, presumably on their own time. It’s true that if an MP is doing a lousy job and is not properly devoted to their duties, they can be thrown out of office. But in the main we vote for party and not for the member, which explains how a few slacker MPs keep getting re-elected.
While we can’t expect our MPs to be at our beck and call around the clock, by leaving the door open to secondary pecuniary interests, we are opening the door to abuse. The Conservatives seem to be drawing a line at MPs charging a fee to speak at charity events. But it is the paid gigs to business groups that should cause us the most concern.
When Trudeau took money from Rogers Media, Mastercard, Sysco Canada, Wood Gundy, and Sony Entertainment — companies subject to federal regulation — he placed himself in a direct conflict of interest. Is there a better way for a business association to lobby an MP than to ante up the dough for a speaking gig? Not only do you get the undivided attention of the MP, they have to research your issues so the speech can be tailored to your audience. Whether it’s the Credit Institute of Canada or the Certified Management Accountants, having an MP at a private event gives them paid access to a legislator and a leg up on those who simply call an MP to ask for a meeting.
Beyond the potential for conflict is the sheer consumption of an MP’s time. We know that not every citizen gets to meet with their MP when they want. And there is much an MP can and should do that is not getting done today. Most parliamentarians will tell you they do a lousy job of scrutinizing government spending. It’s too complicated, they say, the information too voluminous. So fix it. Working on the side means there is less time available to do this core work of a parliamentarian. In Trudeau’s case he did up to eight events in a single month and missed votes in the House of Commons along the way.
MPs who do part-time work boast that the ethics commissioner clears everything they do. It’s noteworthy that the ethics office has never ruled that a proposed outside source of income was “incompatible activity.” But MPs should be striving for the highest possible standards rather than just scraping by the lowest standards of what is deemed to be acceptable.
I can’t say that one MP working 60 per cent of the day on government business is less effective than someone who works flat out. I also can’t say that the simple appearance of a conflict of interest means that an MP might actually change a vote or lobby within caucus on behalf of an organization who pays them money. But I am bothered by the selfishness of an MP who is anything less than totally devoted to his or her duties.
I recall the days when public service was a calling that attracted our best and brightest. That service is dishonoured by those who put themselves in a position where they may be beholden to special interests for the sake of a few bucks, or are giving the job less than their all. We should demand better.
Original Article
Source: canada.com
Author: Bob Plamondon
The issue of MPs making an outside income came into focus after Justin Trudeau acknowledged he collected $277,000 in professional speaking fees while serving his constituents in the House of Commons. But give Trudeau credit for disclosing more about the particulars of his arrangements than the system demanded.
There is nothing new happening here and few think of it as a scandal. Turns out close to half of all MPs from all parties rake in more than their Parliamentary stipend. Even Sir John A. Macdonald held the equivalent position of the Chairman of Board for the Manufacturers Life Insurance Company for a time while serving as prime minister.
And what Trudeau netted is small potatoes compared with what some British MPs earned for their ancillary efforts. The Guardian newspaper reported that former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown received the equivalent of $2.2 million from giving speeches around the world, much of which he claims to have donated to charitable causes.
Of course many MPs are singularly devoted to their public responsibilities, put in a gargantuan number of hours, and would not dream of diverting themselves from their Parliamentary duties. Yet it is not unusual for an MP to also as work as a real estate agent, hotel manager, lawyer, sit on the board of directors for an investment firm, or hang up a shingle as a public speaker.
If a mayor or city councillor charged a fee to address a local business association or the United Way, we might think it strange, or just plain wrong. If a judge, deputy minister or corporate CEO cashed in with a few gigs on the side, they would have some explaining to do. So why are MPs in a category of their own? Is being an MP not a full-time occupation? And do we not want MPs to avoid the inevitable conflicts of interest that come with taking on supplementary income?
One argument for allowing our elected officials to earn outside income is they are underpaid. There was a time when that point had validity, but not today. In 1945 an MP earned a base salary of $4,000, worth $54,000 today. By 1963 the pay was $12,000 per year, equivalent to $92,000 today. Today, at $160,200, an MP makes more than triple the average working wage. And let’s face reality: there are few MPs serving in the House of Commons who actually took a pay cut.
It’s a fair point to argue paying MPs more money might attract a higher caliber of candidate. But it says something about the value of public service if dedicated and capable citizens are persuaded to enter public life because they see an opportunity to earn money on the side.
Another argument for supplementary work is that it gives an MP some real life experience. MP Scott Brison claims that his role as a company director keeps him “thinking fresh” and gives him a “better understanding of economic realities.” But shouldn’t MPs have that experience before coming to Ottawa? Besides, if Brison wants to learn how society works, he can use his good offices, not to mention the resources of the Library of Parliament. There are not many jobs that allow you to compel witnesses to appear before you, as they do in Parliamentary committees.
The final argument I hear is that we live in a free society so MPs should not be restricted from doing what they want, presumably on their own time. It’s true that if an MP is doing a lousy job and is not properly devoted to their duties, they can be thrown out of office. But in the main we vote for party and not for the member, which explains how a few slacker MPs keep getting re-elected.
While we can’t expect our MPs to be at our beck and call around the clock, by leaving the door open to secondary pecuniary interests, we are opening the door to abuse. The Conservatives seem to be drawing a line at MPs charging a fee to speak at charity events. But it is the paid gigs to business groups that should cause us the most concern.
When Trudeau took money from Rogers Media, Mastercard, Sysco Canada, Wood Gundy, and Sony Entertainment — companies subject to federal regulation — he placed himself in a direct conflict of interest. Is there a better way for a business association to lobby an MP than to ante up the dough for a speaking gig? Not only do you get the undivided attention of the MP, they have to research your issues so the speech can be tailored to your audience. Whether it’s the Credit Institute of Canada or the Certified Management Accountants, having an MP at a private event gives them paid access to a legislator and a leg up on those who simply call an MP to ask for a meeting.
Beyond the potential for conflict is the sheer consumption of an MP’s time. We know that not every citizen gets to meet with their MP when they want. And there is much an MP can and should do that is not getting done today. Most parliamentarians will tell you they do a lousy job of scrutinizing government spending. It’s too complicated, they say, the information too voluminous. So fix it. Working on the side means there is less time available to do this core work of a parliamentarian. In Trudeau’s case he did up to eight events in a single month and missed votes in the House of Commons along the way.
MPs who do part-time work boast that the ethics commissioner clears everything they do. It’s noteworthy that the ethics office has never ruled that a proposed outside source of income was “incompatible activity.” But MPs should be striving for the highest possible standards rather than just scraping by the lowest standards of what is deemed to be acceptable.
I can’t say that one MP working 60 per cent of the day on government business is less effective than someone who works flat out. I also can’t say that the simple appearance of a conflict of interest means that an MP might actually change a vote or lobby within caucus on behalf of an organization who pays them money. But I am bothered by the selfishness of an MP who is anything less than totally devoted to his or her duties.
I recall the days when public service was a calling that attracted our best and brightest. That service is dishonoured by those who put themselves in a position where they may be beholden to special interests for the sake of a few bucks, or are giving the job less than their all. We should demand better.
Original Article
Source: canada.com
Author: Bob Plamondon
No comments:
Post a Comment