So Government House Leader Don Boudria believes that the current MP pension provisions are "unfair" to many MPs (mostly Liberals) elected in 1993 because they will receive no severance pay if they are defeated or chose not to run in the next election. Instead, they will only receive $5,000 annual pension until age 55, after which they'll receive an annual inflation protected pension of $18,000.

Mr. Boudria says this is "unfair" because Canadian Alliance MPs will be eligible for a one-time payment of $35,000 should they meet the same fate as their Liberal colleagues. But many Alliance MPs opted out of the pension plan on principle and will never reap pensions in excess of $1 million, as retiring Liberal MPs will. Only a career politician would even dare to call this situation "unfair."

The real fairness issue revolves around the structure of MP compensation and the back-door, secret, no-vote manner in which it is always changed (read: increased). MPs only have to serve six years to qualify for a pension which guarantees a minimum 24% of their annual income which they can start collecting at age 55.

Is this fair when most Canadians wait until age 65 to start collecting
CPP? Is it fair that the 4% accrual rate for an MP pension is twice the legal limit of 2% as laid out in the Income Tax Act? Is it fair that
after 18 years of service MPs qualify for a 75% pension compared to 35 years for other Canadians? It is fair that MPs receive such a generous plan when only 4 out of 10 Canadians in the private sector have access to employer sponsored pension plans which are usually matching dollar for dollar RRSP schemes at best? And is it fair that for each dollar an MP contributes to their pension, taxpayers fork over $3.61?

Now let's turn to MP pay. Is it fair that MPs earn almost one-third of
their income tax free while the rest of us are fully taxed on our
incomes? Is it fair that they are allowed to pass their own salary
increases, as they did in 1998, in one day with no-vote and no-debate?

The answer to all these questions is, of course, no!
Yes MPs should be compensated fairly and adequately. To arrive at this amount, the guiding principles of simplicity, transparency,
comparability and yes, fairness, must be employed.

Simplicity and transparency would entail paying MPs a fully-taxable
salary. The current system of tax-free portions and layering of various allowances has arisen out of an institutional cowardice to be fully transparent about the true value of MP compensation. When all
allowances are factored in at taxable rates, MPs currently earn about
$115,000. Are they underpaid? No. At $115,000 they are amongst the top 2% of all income earners in the country. Let's just pay them a
fully-taxable salary of $120,000 a year. Then if you asked an MP what they earn, they could give you a five-second answer. Right now, an MP could take an hour or more to answer this question; it's ridiculous.

While some MPs may take a paycut to enter public life, it is not
representative of parliamentarians as a whole. It is more accurate to
note that for one-third of the current crop of MPs, they've never made so much money. For another third, their MP pay is comparable to what they made before being elected. So, at most, one-third may have suffered an income hit.

But shed no tears for them. First and foremost, no one is forced into
public life. Hopefully, the men and women sitting in the House today
engaged in some degree of deliberative forethought about being an MP, and all that it entails - including the paycheque - before putting their names on the ballot. As for private sector comparability, it is an
unattainable goal. While it is true that the Prime Minister and Cabinet
Ministers are definitely underpaid given their scope of responsibility
and budgets they are responsible for, private sector discipline is
lacking in public life.

CEOs and others are paid large sums because their daily decisions can result in massive stock value appreciation or conversely, a trip to the local unemployment office. Meanwhile, government boondoggles or rampant deficits only result in bad headlines or at worst a potential loss of one's seat at the next election. But given that simple pluralities are enough to ensure victory in our electoral system, even a majority of voters wishing to turf an MP or scandal-ridden Cabinet Minister does not ensure that person will be defeated.

Finally, we turn to fairness. It is patently clear that the MP pension
scheme is still gold-plated and unfair given that there is one set of
rules for the "governors" and another set for the "governed." Winding down the plan and replacing it with a matching dollar-for-dollar group RRSP scheme would be fair to MPs and taxpayers alike. Fully taxable salaries with receiptable expense accounts to certain maximums would also be fair. And having MPs vote on pay structures applicable in the next session of Parliament not the current one would remove the "conflict of interest" which now exists in setting the pay regime.

If MPs can muster up the courage and emerge from the backrooms to embrace the principles of simplicity, transparency and fairness for their compensation, fine. It would be a fair approach to a symbolic yet divisive issue. But until this happens, any attempts by MPs to play the fairness card are nothing more than rank hypocrisy rooted in greed and cowardice.