Dozens of MPs Are in a Conflict of Interest

As the happenings in parliament become ever more bizarre, most of the attention focuses on the banality of the government caucus. But a greater mystery is: why is the opposition letting the Conservatives get away with such abuses? Both Micheal Ignatieff and Bob Rae have danced around all the real issues in Bill C-9, the Budget Implementation Bill, which comes to a critical vote this week. They seem resigned to accept the incidental aspects of the bill which will eviscerate the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act as a consequence. And in a radio interview this week, Liberal house leader Ralph Goodale seemed almost pleased that the Conservatives continue to stall on an agreement for full disclosure of the Afghan detainee files. When pressed on any of these issues, Liberals say they don't won't an election now. Their real reason is that many of their number stand in a serious conflict of interest: responsible government versus their own pension benefits. Let's look a little deeper.

Canada had a general election (the 38th) on June 28th, 2004, almost but not quite six years ago. The election brought about 98 new members the the House of Commons for the first time, 37 for the Conservatives, and 61 for the three other parties. Most of these members are still sitting in today's 40th parliament, and mostly they sit on the opposition side. If they serve a full six years, they will be immediately eligible for a pension, which in most cases will increase their financial gain over their lifetimes by more than half a million dollars per member. “Should a Member retire with less than six years of service, the Member receives a withdrawal allowance in a single payment” (quoted from http://www2.parl.gc.ca/marleaumontpetit/DocumentViewer.aspx?Sec=Ch04&Seq=13&Lang=E ).

So here's the situation. The House is set to adjourn on June 23. If the government is defeated before that date, about one in three of the opposition members (and some government members) are each at risk of a loss of roughly $500,000 in pension benefits. Of course, they will let Mr. Harper do anything rather than suffer that risk. And Mr. Harper knows it very well.

How did we get in this position, one that places so many MPs in a conflict of interest at this time? When the MP pension plan was last revised, two things were generally assumed which are no longer true:

1. That parliaments last for about four years. To qualify for a pension, an MP should be elected at least twice.

2. Most people will hold the same career throughout their working years, with few job changes. Their pension earnings should come from their principal job and occupation.

The bedrock principal on which our parliamentary democracy is meant to function requires that the opposition hold the government accountable at all times; when the government loses the confidence of the House, it will be removed from office. An election or a new coalition of existing members will be required to form a new government.. Tragically, this is not happening and will not happen before the autumn of this year due to this conflict of Members' interest.

To prevent this hiatus in responsible government from recurring, a change in the MP pension rules will be required. MP pensions should be payable commencing at age 65, for as little of one year of service, with benefits proportional to the time served as a Member.