Thursday, May 27, 2010


I think this is a good thing. It is more optics than anything. I don't begrudge MP's their salaries , expenses or pensions. I would raise their salaries. If we want the brightest and the best in parliament , we have to pay them. Many of these men and women could earn far more in the private sector. I do think that making their expenses public is a good idea.

The Conservative government plans to introduce a series of proposals to other parties next week to ensure greater transparency for MP and parliamentary expenses, CBC News has learned.

MPs from all four political parties have heard an earful from constituents over a secretive parliamentary board's recent decision to reject federal Auditor General Sheila Fraser's request to conduct a performance audit of $533 million in annual spending by the House of Commons and the Senate.

Government House Leader Jay Hill's proposals will include an invitation to Fraser to conduct such a performance audit, also known as a "value for money" audit, of all MPs' expenses.

They also include a call for a performance audit of parliamentary administration and parliamentary officials, as well as Senate officials and senators.

The details of the terms of reference, and frequency, of these audits would be determined by the Board of Internal Economy, the all-party Commons body that initially denied Fraser's request. The proposals will be taken to the board next week.

As well, the government proposal would state that all MPs' and leaders' offices should disclose expenses proactively. It calls for an agreement to be resolved without conflict or animosity between parties.


Anonymous said...

“I would raise their salaries. If we want the brightest and the best in parliament, we have to pay them”

That’s provocative! Actually all I want is a realist, not a bunch of utopians playing with other people’s money.

Perhaps this is like the myth that smaller classrooms are better thus we need more teachers. The reality is that the quality and competence of the teacher is the number one driver by far on outcomes. Thus we need a meritocracy in academia (not tenure and not unions to protect the incompetence).

Ergo we need to do something about incumbency. Also we do not need 308 MPs (going to 338). Let’s cut that to 100 MPs and possibly pay them more. But first let’s quantify the value of their pensions as part of their overall compensation … you would be amazed at what that actuarial pension number turns out to be.


Powell lucas said...

Sorry Doc, but on this one I totally disagree. You don't attract the best and brightest anymore. Those type of people can't put up with all the b.s. rules and regulations that strangle initiative. What you get are the professional politicians and bureaucrats who go to school to study politics or economics or social services with the intent of landing a secure government job so they can pad their resumes for the time when they go looking for a lobbyists or NGO job with the unlimited expense accounts, the paid for condo, and the fancy car; and while they are in government they can burden the taxpayer with their university acquired left-wing interference.

I Support Lord Black