Canada PoliticsAlberta Premier Alison Redford refuses to support MLA ‘transition allowances’
What is a 'fair' pension scheme for politicians?
Our federal members of Parliament finally clawed-back their gold-plated pensions: the new rules, unveiled last week, include changing the age to collect to 65 from 55 and making MPs pay a 50-50 cost-sharing ratio.
[ Related: Gold-plated MP pensions finally get clawed-back ]
The province of Alberta is currently involved in a retirement compensation debate of their own.
As it stands now, Alberta MLAs aren't entitled to pensions, per se. Instead, defeated or retired MLAs are given a 'transition allowance' based on three month's salary for each year served in office. They're also given an RRSP allowance equal to 50 percent of the maximum RRSP contribution limit.
According to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, payouts to outgoing MLAs after the 2012 election were over $17 million.
During the election campaign — in response to a public outcry over the payments — Premier Alison Redford promised to abolish transition allowances. She made good on her promise in May but now a legislative committee is proposing a new scheme which would have a more modest transition allowance and require taxpayers to cover 100 per cent of MLAs' RRSP contributions ($22,970) each year.
According to the Edmonton Journal, Redford has nixed the transition allowance while both the Wildrose and NDP have said they will oppose the RRSP deal, calling it "too extravagant."
But if not that, then what?
Derek Fildebrandt, the Alberta director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation told Yahoo! Canada News that the "fairest retirement plan for politicians is to have a matching dollar-for-dollar RRSP plan."
Filderbrandt's counterpart, national CTF director Gregory Thomas, seemed to suggest even that might be too rich.
"Federal MPs earn paid $158,000 a year. Cabinet ministers are paid $234,000. MPs also get roughly $20,000 a year for housing in Ottawa, another $10,000 for hospitality. They enjoy free travel and foreign trips. They get hundreds of thousands to pay staff and cover office expenses. Why can't these people save for their own retirement?" he told Yahoo!.
"Matching RRSP contributions dollar for dollar is common in the real world, although most workers don't even get that level of help from their employers. That would be a more reasonable perq to offer politicians, but with the money they're making, it's not necessary."
Journalist Gary Mason, on the other hand believes our politicos deserve more. In a recent column for the Globe and Mail, he wrote that they need to be paid in a way that "accurately reflects their duties and responsibilities."
"As much as we love to disparage our politicians, they fill an incredibly vital role. The average length of a politician's service in Alberta is just over eight years. In other words, it's rarely a lifetime career.
For many of those who stand for office, it means interrupting a private career and sacrificing pension benefits they might have been accruing. It's only reasonable that those who make the sacrifices that public life demands shouldn't be penalized for it financially."
What do you think? Should politicians be entitled to some sort of pension?
Share your thoughts in the comments below.
