The issue of compensating our elected representatives will always be contentious and it should be. What is more and more obvious is that the present system is flawed deeply.
Both the City of Calgary and the province are going through "independent" reviews of political compensation. It should be pointed out that, at least optically, this is more palatable than the cabinet order, after the last provincial election, that gave the premier and his colleagues a 34-per-cent raise.
The City of Calgary, like many municipalities, appoints an independent committee to review compensation. This process is being undertaken at the present time. While listening to a recent interview with the chair of this committee, a troubling issue was presented. It was acknowledged that Mayor Naheed Nenshi of Calgary was the highest paid in the land and aldermanic benefits were the second highest.
The chairman suggested this was as it should be given Calgary's growth rate and dominance in the Canadian economy. Attitudes such as this are the root cause of the explosion in political and corporate compensation. Does Toronto or Vancouver not consider themselves municipal leaders? Given a continual thrust to lead in financial benefits, an upward unending spiral has been created.
The same holds true with corporate benefits. It's common to hear outside "experts" suggest that a company's compensation should be in the "70th percentile" to attract the brightest and the best leaders. Of course, all companies cannot be above average and attempts to do so have resulted in a nauseating escalation of senior executive handouts. As pointed out recently, the average Canadian CEO received a 27-per-cent increase (to $8.4 million) in 2010 compared to 1.1 per cent for the average Canadian ($44,366).
In the interview referred to, the CBC commentator suggested "if you pay peanuts, you will get monkeys." Let me remind readers that if you feed monkeys caviar, you will still get monkeys.
Review of pensions
The prime minister has sparked a nationwide debate over the possibility that the eligible age for the Old Age pension might be pushed ahead a few years.
Conservatives and Liberals alike have expressed opposition to this approach. On the right is the concern over political compensation and other programs such as immigrant benefits. On the left, opponents argue that those that need the benefits the most will suffer. Both positions have some validity.
To begin with the old age pension is "clawed back" for wealthier Canadians. As such the OAS has become more of an income supplement than a true pension plan. Thus, any cutbacks will affect lower income earners more than others.
The "defined benefit" nature of civil servant plans must also be challenged. Not only has the public plan become unsustainable, it has created two distinct retirement classes.
However, correcting these inequities will not be sufficient. The true reality is simple. Three generations ago, the average bloke started working at 16-18, retired at 65 and died at 70. Thus he worked close to 50 years and was subsidized for about 22 of them (including childhood).
Today, a university or trade graduate might not get his first full-time job until 25. If we follow the example of Greece, he would expect to retire at 55 and perhaps live to 90. This example would result in working for 30 years and being subsidized for 60.
Clearly our present system is unsustainable and all of us will have to curtail our present expectations in the future. Let us hope that being weaned off the welfare state will not have the same reaction as occurred with some of our European counterparts.
Don Weisbeck is the former mayor of Brooks and past president of the Wildrose Alliance Strathmore-Brooks constituency association. Your comments and suggestions are appreciated: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .