Peter Goldring Maverick Watch

by Aaron Wherry

The Independent Conservative MP disagrees with changes to the MP pension plan.

“This is just cowardly. This is just appealing for the almighty vote without giving consideration on how is it going to reflect on the quality of your future parliaments,” Goldring said in an interview with Postmedia News. “It really isn’t fair compensation.”

After taxes and pension contributions, he figures MPs could effectively be taking home around $50,000 a year or less. Many MPs come from “substantial backgrounds” and leave behind well-paying careers when jumping into politics, he said. The pension plan, as it currently sits before the changes, provides an “extra edge” that’s needed because many MPs can’t return to their previous careers, he said. “You’ve got a vacuum here, and when people are considering whether they’re going into politics, they will be considering this,” Goldring added. “You have to have some type of leveller,” he said, otherwise the only people who will run for federal politics are “college kids or the very wealthy.”




Browse

Peter Goldring Maverick Watch

  1. As long as the MPs are basically reading the notes given to them by the “backroom” and voting the way they are told, I’ve got no problem with college kids being the only folks willing to become MPs.

    When MPs start earning the larger salaries that Goldring is talking about, we can reconsider if the compensation is high enough.

  2. Has anyone come across of a “complete accounting” of this new pension plan?

    Prior to these changes the “fund” had two major flaws (in addition to the skewed split of direct contributions):
    - the fund grew at 10% (it didn’t of course, the government added a yearly(?) credit so as to produce a 10% annual gain), and
    - even then the fund couldn’t keep up with withdrawals, so a further top up payment had to be made.

    Together those costs were bigger than the direct contributions. Have either or both of those faults been addressed? If not, the MPs are still getting a sweet deal, rather than a very sweet deal.

    • I saw the Canadian Taxpayers rep – from Alberta I think – who has been crusading on this for years. He said that this is a step in the right direction, that it will cost us less but we will still be needing to top it up.

      • Thanks for that.

        Good that something has been done.

        Too bad that there still isn’t more openness and honesty about the entire pension picture.

        • It got taken out of the omni bill and got voted on separately but with no debate, no committee where experts could testify to at least explain to us what it means. I think there needs to be independent body that deals with this and not the MP’s themselves.

          • …independant body…

            Sure.

            OTOH, the MPs know approximately what is right, they don’t need an independant body to tell them that. If they would have had the will to refer the matter to an independant body, then they have the will to make the required changes on their own.

            [edit] Btw, what’s up with the CT Federation: No website? They have a website, but can’t afford to keep it working? WTH??

          • Well, they won’t even let us see their expenses so I have little hope they’ll do the right thing, on their own. I couldn’t get anywhere with their websites either, I shall keep an eye on it – maybe a temporary glitch?

      • From some other website I’ve gathered that the interest rate ‘assigned’ to the pension fund has indeed been decreased from 10% per quarter to 4.7% per year. On that basis…

        (GRR is Guaranteed Rate of Return)

        Prior to these changes there were 3 contributions:
        - cash from MPs: $4.5 million per year, ~15,000 per MP per yr
        - “matching” emplyr: $27.0 million per yr, ~90,000 per MP per yr
        - the GRR (10%/qtr): $84.0 million per yr, 280,000 per MP per yr

        Now there are still 3 contributions, and they are:
        - cash from MPs: $15.8 million per year, ~52,500 per MP per yr

        - “matching” emplyr: $15.8 million per yr, ~52,500 per MP per yr

        - the GRR (4.7%/yr): $38.0 million per yr, 127,000 per MP per yr

        This GRR, which still amounts to almost doubling the advertised salary,
        doesn’t seem to be getting much play from MPs – I wonder why! Even with
        these changes the MPs are still getting a very, very nice deal.

  3. I have no problem asking them to live on about the salary a middle manager in Canadian business would make, with an adjustment reflecting that all but three or four need to make a move to Ottawa.

  4. I should think the fewer wealthy, the fewer lawyers, the fewer career politicians, and the more college students with an eye to the future might be a good thing.

  5. Or people with a strong desire to help their country.
    Have you forgotten such people exist, Mr. Goldring?

    Given who you associate with, perhaps that’s understandable.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *