Image Credit, Wnk1029
There is no reasonable justification for Members of Parliament to receive a full pension after just six years of service while the average worker in this country spends decades, often into their late 60s, just to scrape together enough for a modest retirement. The disparity is not just unfair; it is a glaring example of a system that values political power over the working class. An MP, who spends a mere fraction of their career in public office, is somehow entitled to a pension that vastly outstrips what the people who keep this country running—farmers, bricklayers, firefighters, postal workers, dishwashers, and restaurant staff—can ever hope to receive.
The numbers alone expose the absurdity of this system. The average worker clocks in roughly 300 days a year, accounting for weekends and statutory holidays, while Parliament is in session for around 127 days. Even if MPs are busy with constituency work, that’s still a significant amount of time where they are not legally required to be in Ottawa, yet their pay and benefits never take a hit. If the average worker decided to skip as many scheduled workdays as an MP, they would be fired. But not only do MPs continue collecting their full salary, they are rewarded with a pension plan that most people can only dream of.
That pension is anything but modest. The average MP makes over $200,000 a year, and their pension, based on the accrual rate of 3% per year of service, roughly equates to $5,000 per month. That’s just for six years of work. A typical worker would have to toil for decades, make diligent contributions, and hope that the pension system provides even a fraction of that amount.
This is not a case of politicians having more responsibility than other professions. A firefighter risks their life daily; a farmer works from sunrise to sunset, ensuring food reaches tables across the country; a bricklayer toils in the heat and cold, building the infrastructure that keeps society moving. Are their jobs less critical than passing legislation, much of which is done in drawn-out debates that often result in gridlock rather than action? Why is public service in Parliament seen as more valuable than public service on the frontlines of everyday life? If the justification for MPs receiving such generous pensions is that their work is essential, then why isn’t the same logic applied to the people who keep the country functioning at its most basic level?
The core idea behind a pension is that if you work hard, you should be able to retire with dignity. But that promise is not applied equally. MPs have secured for themselves a system that guarantees financial security in exchange for the absolute minimum level of service—six years and you’re set for life. Meanwhile, the average worker must contribute to the pension system for decades, hoping that by the time they retire, inflation hasn’t eroded what little they will receive.
This is not a debate about whether MPs deserve a pension. It is a debate about why the system is designed to favor one group over another. If the government truly believes in the dignity of work, then why are there tiers of workers where some are guaranteed security while others are left to fend for themselves? If six years is all it takes for MPs to qualify for a pension, then why isn’t that standard applied to every worker? The hypocrisy is undeniable, and the question is unavoidable: What are we doing here? If a pension is supposed to be the reward for a lifetime of labor, then why does that principle not apply to everyone?
About The Author
