Two guys who make some cash on the sly. Photo: MacLeans Magazine
Members of Canadian Parliament are apparently struggling to make ends meet. Almost half of them “moonlight” on the side — I told you these guys weren’t as busy as we’re told they are — to supplement their $157,731 Parliamentary base compensation.
A review of recently released financial statements shows that 151 of Canada’s 308 MPs receive outside income, with 103 of those being business owners or part owners. 99 MPs received a minimum of $10,000 or more from those outside sources.
Some even find creative ways to reduce their expenses. Liberal MP Judy Sgro, who also earns $157,731 a year, paid $138,000 for an Ottawa condo in 2001, and then transferred the condo ownership to her children in 2006. That entitled her to collect $10,530 a year from Parliament to pay “rent” to her children.
More statistics:
Forty-eight MPs collect pensions — most of them from governments. Another 51 listed income ranging from speaking and consulting fees to rental and farm income.
Fifty-one MPs listed both outside income and outside business interests.
Even two of four party leaders in the House of Commons list outside interests.
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff collects rent from a property he co-owns in France, as well as fees from public speaking, freelance journalism and book writing — all on top of his annual $233,247 salary.
NDP Leader Jack Layton is the owner of the Green Catalyst Group Inc., has a 25 per cent interest in Layton Holdings Ltd., is a joint owner of an investment property in Toronto and collects a municipal pension.
Jack Layton, you sly capitalist dog, you!
Of course, none of this really comes as any surprise. Former Prime Minister Paul Martin took great pains to avoid the taxman looking into his extra income as owner of Canada’s largest shipping company, Canada Steamship Lines. Mr.Martin used his inside knowledge of Canadian tax loopholes for firms like his own to do business with Barbados. The Caribbean island is a tax haven for foreign companies.
I think this is prototypical of the separation of idealism and realism. Leftwing Politicians are always ready to donate our tax dollars in the name of some collectivist cause of some nature, but are extremely careful about how much of their own tax dollars go toward that purpose.
Well,Little Trudeau needs those trip to his utopic Cuba to meet daddy dearests buddies .
Fidel and Che Gueverra,the same Che that makes Marc Lepine( Gamil Ghrabi during his Muslim era) look like Walt Disney for the way he raped and murdered females and now his his face on T-Shirts as a freedom fighter.
Yep, typical “Do as I say, not as I do” liberals. Very generous with money they rob from taxpayers; not so willing to share their own money for the “social justice” causes they promote. They make me want to puke.
I noticed that they only mentioned one Conservative in the whole article. Is this a willful omission, or have most of the Conservatives just distanced themselves from their businesses while they are in power?
Any idea how one would go about getting the information that the Free Press has analyzed?
No idea, other than to email the writer of the article. I’ve no doubt that the Conservatives also make plenty of cash on the sly.
I don’t understand. Are you saying people who earn money legitimately are bad?
Your caption suggests this is being done “on the sly”, however since the information about who is earning extra money was clearly available to the media, I am not sure why you suggest this.
I know lots of people who earn money from more than one job.
As for government pensions, my question is whether Baird, Flaherty and Toews are collecting them from their time in provincial politics.
By the way, I heard somewhere Prime Minister Stephen Harper is writing a book about hockey, while he is Prime Minister. I wonder, should he ever finish that book, will he be giving it away???
I know.
Great reply. I guess the questions I pose were too much for you to handle…again.
When they are elected to represent their constiuents they are paid amply for said services, they should not be allowed to moonlight. Obviously we are paying them to work half time thus cut their wages in half after we audit their expense accounts.
In reality we do not know Gail, the only figure the article mentions, is if your making more the 10 K (I am assuming annually), you have to declare your moonlighting. What puzzles me, if these guys are as busy as the continually tell us, how do they ever find time. I moonlighted down town when I was posted in Edmonton, installing infastructure for computer systems, and hell that was a full time job by itself.
Andrew, All the information is available on the ethics comissioners website if you have the time to go through 308 MPs.
I wonder how many MPs serve as Directors on company boards and the number of directorships they hold. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of them hold even upto 20 directorships.
So long as the extra income earned does not present a conflict of interest with their job as a MP, who gives a damn if they make extra cash.
Welcome to capitalism baby!
Funny how there are rules for the peasants and rules for the high and mighty. MP’s who make over 100 K a year can “moonlight” with impunity, yet when I was a civil servant in the Forest Service,making about 25K a year, we were expressly forbidden to moonlight.
It was a firing offence.
I’m sure that Mr Layton’s continued political advocacy for things “green” would do nothing to improve the bottom line of his corporate interests.
Snark, snark.
Nothing to see here folks, move along….
I don’t see anything particularly wrong about MP’s earning income from businesses or properties they own. I don’t think most people mind that either. Moaning about some MP also owning a bakery and getting dividend income from it will probably seem like sour grapes to most people.
Jack Layton’s pension may not look so great, but I think that’s largely because we think of all governmental pensions as gold-plated affairs that start far too early and are only available to those divorced from the real world. (House of Commons pensions are a good part of why we think of governmental pensions that way.) But Layton is sixty years old. Most non-governmental pensions will let you start collecting that early as long as you’ve left the job. At sixty years old, it’s hard to see how Layton couldn’t reasonably collect a pension from a previous job.
On the other hand, Ms. Sgro’s “arrangement” with her children smacks of thievery. That’s not a case of having another source of income, that’s defrauding the system to enrich your children. Her pathetic excuse for an excuse doesn’t even begin to cut it. “For personal reasons, I put the condo in the kids’ names,” she said. “I had no idea at any time there would be a conflict.” As I see it, this can only mean that her sense of entitlement is so strong that she couldn’t see that which is obvious to everyone else.
Her little fraud deserves it’s own news story. While I wouldn’t expect him to jump right out with a comment, I’d hope Mr. Ignatieff puts this bit of information in the “never give that woman any authority and see if her constituents would prefer a Liberal candidate with a firmer ” file. It’ll fit in nicely next to the note titled “this person used her position as Minister of Immigration to give the stripper working on her campaign a work permit and legal temporary residency”.
I’d assume that meant you weren’t allowed to moonlight within the forest sector. Presumably collecting rental income on property you own, share dividends or money for delivering newspapers wouldn’t be out of line. (Don’t laugh, I’ve known a couple of adults who supplemented their income that way.)