The salaries and benefits earned by elected officials in Winnipeg and Canada as a whole have steadily risen to a level out of sync with the economic realities most Canadians face. Take, for example, Winnipeg’s Mayor Scott Gillingham, who receives a hefty $213,328 annually—more than the premier of Manitoba. Meanwhile, city councillors earn $114,609 each year, which is above the salary of a Member of the Legislative Assembly, who takes home $106,603. Then there is the Mayor’s inner circle, who receive approximately $15,000 more in pay, such as Evan Duncan, a vocal opponent of the Mayor’s inner circle prior to being elected. I guess money changes people’s minds, and then there is Jeff Browaty, Sherri Rollins, and Vivian Santos, who enjoy the top-ups for their positions within the mayor’s inner circle. Finally, there is Janice Lukes, who receives not one but two additional salaries for her Deputy Mayor and Chair of Public Works roles, further padding her income.
Not only do these individuals benefit from salaries and roles that provide additional compensation, but they also have higher expense accounts. Travel, events, and meals are covered by funds that are bolstered by the taxpayers of Winnipeg. It’s worth noting that Mayor Gillingham and the City Council recently approved an additional $800,000 per year for councillor expenses. This is on top of city council members' automatic pay raises each year.
All this comes at a time when the mayor is publicly lamenting Winnipeg’s revenue issues. The Mayor’s message is that the city does not have enough revenue and, therefore, must seek new financial arrangements with the province. But as we consider these pleas for provincial assistance, one must ask: what has this council actually done to cut costs? To the naked eye, very little. We’ve seen grants cut to various groups and services but no moves to reduce the compensation packages of council members themselves. Each councillor happily accepted their own raises.
It is both surprising and disappointing that elected officials are comfortable with annual raises and enhanced benefits, especially when the city struggles with budget constraints. Some perspective is in order. During the pandemic, Manitoba’s Progressive Conservative cabinet ministers had a percentage of their salary withheld, only to be paid out if they met budget targets. Recently, these funds were not released because the government fell short. To many, this system may seem reasonable and fair, as it ties pay to performance. In the private sector, senior leaders and executives are often compensated with salaries that are bonus-heavy. Shareholders and owners demand results, and incentives are provided only if those results are delivered.
Why, then, should the government not operate similarly? Elected officials’ salaries should be tied directly to performance metrics. If officials achieve budget targets while maintaining essential services, they earn a performance bonus. If they fail to meet those objectives, they should forgo increases altogether.
To some, these ideas may sound radical or even impractical, but the need for reform is urgent. The current compensation model for elected officials is well beyond what many Canadians would consider reasonable. At a time when citizens are repeatedly asked to make financial sacrifices, it’s clear that elected officials should be leading by example, not reaping the benefits of unchecked pay raises and perks. Yet we hear no calls from our elected officials to freeze their own salaries or cut back on their own expenses until government finances are stabilized.
It’s also a fact that, for many officials, this is the most money they will ever make in their professional lives. And the pattern repeats across all levels of government. This past year, Members of Parliament received a pay increase, yet not a single MP objected or suggested a freeze or reduction until the country regains its fiscal footing. This unresponsiveness erodes public trust and raises questions about the motivations of those in power. Shouldn’t elected officials be the first to make sacrifices when asking the same of their constituents?
So what could be done? One suggestion is to set a base salary cap of $100,000 for elected officials, with bonuses contingent upon their ability to meet clearly defined objectives, such as staying under budget or increasing efficiency. I’m realistic enough to know that such measures will face resistance. I encountered a similar mindset when I first entered politics. Proposing that elected officials should be paid less or be held financially accountable for performance does not win you many friends in political circles.
But that doesn’t change the reality that Canada spends far too much on wages, perks, staff, offices, travel, and other expenses associated with elected officials. Our public funds should be directed toward essential services, infrastructure, and resources that provide tangible benefits to communities, not excessive pay and benefits for politicians.
It’s time for a drastic change. Taxpayers deserve a government that values fiscal responsibility, a government that does not view public office as a lucrative career path but as an opportunity to serve. Elected officials should lead by example, making personal sacrifices when necessary and placing the needs of citizens above personal financial gain.
Imagine if we made these changes and began seeing the government as a body of public servants accountable to those they serve. The impact would be profound, setting a standard of integrity that could inspire trust in government and encourage accountability.
It’s a fundamental truth that the highest honour of public office is the opportunity to serve, not the opportunity to profit. While it may be an unpopular position within political circles, we should never shy away from calling for fairness and transparency. This city—and this country—deserves nothing less.
Comments