I just can't believe the amount of money our government will decide to give themselves as raises, if more public outcry doesn't happen.

Pat Martin, NDP member from Nova Scotia says, "NO, people are struggling still in many areas of this 'affluent country' and why should this kind of extravagant raise be given to members of the government? I will refuse to vote for it..."

I agree with Pat Martin, not Paul Martin, that it is simply not okay to let some members of society struggle every day to have a decent standard of living when some citizens earn 100 times more than others.

Even if you are not a democratic socialist, do you agree that members of the government are so underpaid that the kind of raise that is in the House for approval right now, is a good and fair raise?

I am interested in what others' views are on this -- but I will protest nevertheless..

:wall: :wall: :wall:

I think that is what our MP's must do in their spare time. How else would they lose all those brain cells to see that while our health care system is in the pit, our homeless are dying, our education isn't working, etc., they're getting to sit around in their cushy little seats making big money. Maybe they should quit being so greedy and look beyond the walls of the House of Commons.

:wall: :wall: :wall:

And that's my reaction too. How come we have continued and continued to vote for these people? I can't vote, but those that can vote for these fat cats.

To Pat Martin and his NDP friends: :clap: :clap: Thank you for proving to me that everyone isn't totally greedy in the House.

No matter who you vote for, you'll be hard-pressed to find an elected official who'd vote down a raise for him or herself.

This reminds me of a quote by Babe Ruth: when asked why he was demanding a higher salary than the President got at the time, his response was: "I had a better year than he did"

Pat Martin, for the record, is the MP from Winnipeg Centre.

Pat Martin did exactly that.

For which I agree with him, and I thank God there is at least ONE politician that isn't corrupted yet!

I will be quite happy to cast my vote for the NDP in 4 years!

Lelana

That's just one person though. Unless there's a groundswell of politicians who are agreeing with him....as I stated, you'd be hard-pressed to find one, not that they'd be impossible to find.

this is a situation when a represented democracy can decide the fate of the debate....

Start a signed petition demanding the government and elected officials recieve a demoted income by the percentage they wish to give themselves a raise. In the end, government will see the effect such a raise has in the minds of common citizens, and drop the issue entirely. Then press it. Finish the petition, get over half the country to sign it, and slap it on the desk of parliament and say "Do it, the people demand it". I think its about time we start holding our government accountable, and I think we can go beyond protesting, which really doesnt solve anything these days. Time to bring it to a legal level.

An easy way to do it would be to tie MP salaries to a key economic indicator, like CPI. It removes the guesswork, and ensure salary increases are simply there to keep up with the inflation rate (currently around 2% per year). Or their wages could also be tied to the average increase or decrease in the average Canadian wage - if Canadians suffer, so shall they, if Canadians are doing well, so shall they. I kind of like that system best - they are directly rewarded for raising the standard of living, and punished for allowing it to fall.

Funny, this was our debate topic today... also interesting, most people(well, those who said anything @ least) seemed to think that a pay raise probably wasn't the worst thing in the world. In fact, given the stress, the shitty travel, etc. Most people wouldn't want to do that kind of work. In fact, it should be noted, that if we want the best and brightest to lead this country, we're gonna have to make their salaries competivitive w/ the private sector. Indeed, our prof pointed out that one of his personal friends who he thinks would make a good politican, won't go into to poltics and one of the reasons is the pay, she'd make more money in the private sector(she's a lawyer I think) than in public life. Like it or not, money makes the world go round and, in order to attract the best, we're gonna have to pay them like the best.

Oh yeah, I wanted to add to, that this pay raise is a result of the judges getting a pay raise. Basically, how it works is that, when the judges get a raise the MP's get a raise. And how do the judges get a raise, well, an independent comission looks into the matter and basically, they decide who and when people get a raise. Just thougt I should point that out.

Just playing devils advocate here: say you were an MP and the topic of MP pay raises comes up. You have a couple options here, a) you can support it and, in all likelihood, get a little extra money to save away for politician junior's education fund, or B) you can publically denounce the pay raise and reap what publicity bonuses may come from that (which will ultimately improve your shot at re-election) and in all likelihood enough of your fellow politicians will continue to support it and you'll get your RESP money anyway.

I don't see it as terribly difficult to understand why a few politicians would seemingly reject a pay increase, what would really shock me is an MP opting to stay on the same pay scale after such a proposition has passed.

That's a good point. It's interesting to note that the annual salary for a regular member on Congress in the United States makes $158,100 a year, and the President makes $400K, accoring to about.com. It's a tidy sum, to be sure, but when you consider that this is the highest level of government, it doesn't seem that high--especially when guys at the highest level of mid-size and large companies are making seven figures at least.

Clearly, I'm not working at the right place then... :)

As an aside, Paul Martin did announce that the proposed pay raises won't go through. I'm still waiting for the catch - perhaps they'll raise their tax exempt amount, thereby keeing their salaries low, but taking home the same money due to reduced taxes. (That's purely speculation on my part).