In Print

When a non-confidence vote is a matter of life or death

By Kevin Steel ⋅ January 23, 2006 ⋅  Email this post ⋅  Print this post ⋅ Post a comment

Sick MPs often find themselves surrounded by rumours that they’re looking out for their families, not their constituents

As MPs stood up to vote in the non-confidence motion that brought down the Liberal minority, several received standing ovations from their fellow partisans. The loudest applause was reserved for those who made the arduous journey to Ottawa despite grave illnesses, such as Conservative MPs Darrel Stinson and Chuck Strahl, both battling cancer. Everyone knows that those MPs have the most to lose. Dissolving the government when you’re facing a life-or-death struggle comes with a particularly high price: not making it through the next election can cost your surviving family members hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Like all public servants, MPs’ death benefits fall under the Public Service Superannuation Act; if they die in office, their survivors are entitled to a Supplementary Death Benefit–a one-time payout of roughly two times their salary (MPs make about $141,000 a year). In addition, survivors qualify for pension benefits, which are tied to length of service. “Certainly, the longer you keep Parliament going, the better your benefits are on the whole,” says Stinson, who is not running for re-election in his North Okanagan-Shuswap riding. But, he says, the money’s not worth sticking around for. “I know if I was diagnosed as terminal, I would not be going back to Ottawa.”

But whether accurate or not, ill MPs often find themselves surrounded by rumours that they’re looking out for their families, not their constituents. When independent MP Chuck Cadman cast a crucial vote to spare the federal government a defeat in a non-confidence vote in May, some suggested it was because Cadman knew he was dying and needed to stay in office. Cadman had been a longtime Conservative, but had lost his seat in a riding battle, and was Parliament’s loudest critic of the Liberals’ soft-on-crime approach. Cadman passed away in office, just eight weeks after voting to prop up the Liberal minority.

Strahl, who is seeking re-election in Chilliwack-Fraser Canyon, says he doesn’t think any MP would be guided by posthumous pay packages–and finds such suggestions offensive.

“I can’t imagine anyone running for the death benefit. That’s kind of pushing the realm of credibility,” says Strahl, who has been diagnosed with lung cancer. But he does believe that MPs need to be open about the benefits. In his case, he says a recent checkup shows the cancer isn’t spreading and his doctors say the 48-year-old could live another 20 years. Like most people dealing with cancer, Strahl says he’s not planning to “hide under the covers,” but rather fight his disease and get on with his life.

Besides, notes Strahl, there’s no shortage of MPs who are dangerously unhealthy. “I know a person on the other side of the House who is 100 pounds overweight and ripe for a heart attack. What’s he doing? Angling for benefits?” Strahl jokes. “He’ll probably outlive you, me and everyone else even though he’s a walking time bomb.”

[This article appeared in the January 23, 2006 issue of the Western Standard.]