Business
Pension and Severance Estimate for 110 MP’s Who Resigned or Were Defeated in 2025 Federal Election
By Franco Terrazzano
Taxpayers Federation releases pension and severance figures for 2025 federal election
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation released its calculations of estimated pension and severance payments paid to the 110 members of Parliament who were either defeated in the federal election or did not seek re-election.
“Taxpayers shouldn’t feel too bad for the politicians who lost the election because they’ll be cashing big severance or pension cheques,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “Thanks to past pension reforms, taxpayers will not have to shoulder as much of the burden as they used to. But there’s more work to do to make politician pay affordable for taxpayers.”
Defeated or retiring MPs will collect about $5 million in annual pension payments, reaching a cumulative total of about $187 million by age 90. In addition, about $6.6 million in severance cheques will be issued to some former MPs.
Former prime minister Justin Trudeau will collect two taxpayer-funded pensions in retirement. Combined, those pensions total $8.4 million, according to CTF estimates. Trudeau is also taking a $104,900 severance payout because he did not run again as an MP.
The payouts for Trudeau’s MP pension will begin at $141,000 per year when he turns 55 years old. It will total an estimated $6.5 million should he live to the age of 90. The payouts for Trudeau’s prime minister pension will begin at $73,000 per year when he turns 67 years old. It will total an estimated $1.9 million should he live to the age of 90.
“Taxpayers need to see leadership at the top and that means reforming pensions and ending the pay raises MPs take every year,” Terrazzano said. “A prime minister already takes millions through their first pension, they shouldn’t be billing taxpayers more for their second pension.
“The government must end the second pension for all future prime ministers.”
There are 13 former MPs that will collect more than $100,000-plus a year in pension income. The pension and severance calculations for each defeated or retired MP can be found here.
Some notable severance / pensions
Name Party Years as MP Severance Annual Starting Pension Pension to Age 90
Bergeron, Stéphane BQ 17.6 $ 99,000.00 $ 4,440,000.00
Boissonnault, Randy LPC 7.6 $ 44,200.00 $ 53,000.00 $ 2,775,000.00
Dreeshen, Earl CPC 16.6 $ $ 95,000.00 $ 1,938,000.00
Mendicino, Marco * LPC 9.4 $ 66,000.00 $ 3,586,000.00
O’Regan, Seamus LPC 9.5 $ 104,900.00 $ 75,000.00 $ 3,927,000.00
Poilievre, Pierre ** CPC 20.8 $ 136,000.00 $ 7,087,000.00
Singh, Jagmeet NDP 6.2 $ 140,300.00 $ 45,000.00 $ 2,694,000.00
Trudeau, Justin *** LPC 16.6 $ 104,900.00 $ 141,000.00 $ 8,400,000.00
* Marco Mendicino resigned as an MP on March 14th, 2025
** Pierre Poilievre announced that he would not take a severance
*** The Pension to Age 90 includes Trudeau’s MP pension and his secondary Prime Minister’s pension
From the Fraser Institute
By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro
The Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO)—which acts as the federal fiscal watchdog—released a new report highlighting concerns with the Carney government’s fiscal plan. Key among these concerns is the fact that the government’s promise to balance its “operating budget” does not actually ensure the nation’s finances are sustainable. Instead, the plan to balance the operating budget by 2028/29 gives the appearance of fiscal prudence, but allows the government to continue running large deficits and borrow more money.
First, what’s the new government’s fiscal plan?
While the Carney government has chosen to delay releasing a budget until the fall—leaving Canadians and parliamentarians in the dark about the state of government finances and where we’re headed—the Liberal platform and throne speech lay out the plan in broad strokes.
The Carney government plans to introduce a new framework that splits federal spending into two separate budgets: The operating budget and the capital budget. The operating budget will include “day-to-day” spending (e.g. government salaries, cash transfers to provinces and individuals, etc.) while the capital budget will include spending on “anything that builds an asset.” Within this framework, the government has set itself an objective—also called a ‘fiscal anchor’—to balance the operating budget over the next three years.
Fiscal anchors help guide policy on government spending, taxes and borrowing, and are intended to prevent government finances from deteriorating while ensuring that debt is sustainable for future generations. The previous federal government made a habit of violating its own fiscal anchors—to the detriment of national finances—but the Carney government has promised a “very different approach” to fiscal policy.
The PBO’s new report highlights two critical concerns with this new approach to finances. First, the federal government has not yet defined what “operating” spending is and what “capital” spending is. Therefore, it’s difficult to know whether any new spending policies—such as the recently announced increase in defence spending—will hurt efforts to achieve the government’s goal of balancing the operating budget and how much overall debt will be accumulated. In other words, the government’s plan to split the budget in two simply muddies the waters and makes it harder to evaluate federal finances.
The PBO’s second, and more alarming, concern is that even if the government achieves its goal to balance the operating budget, federal finances may still continue to deteriorate and debt may rise at an unsustainable rate (growing faster than the economy).
While the Liberal election platform does outline a fiscal path that appears to balance the operating budget by 2028/29, this path also includes higher deficits and more borrowing than the previous government’s plan once you factor in capital spending. Specifically, the Carney government plans to run overall deficits over the next four years that are a combined $93.4 billion more than was previously planned in last year’s fall economic statement. This means that rather than the “very different approach” that Canadians have been promised, the Carney government may continue (or even worsen) the same costly habits of endless borrowing and rising debt.
The PBO is right to call out the major transparency issues with the Carney government’s new budget framework and fiscal anchor. While the devil will be in the details of the government’s fiscal plan, and we won’t know those details until it releases a budget, the government’s new fiscal anchor gives the appearance of prudence without the substance to back it up.
To my great surprise I recently noticed that, despite being deeply engaged in wars against at least four determined enemies, Israel doesn’t spend all that much more on their military than Canada does on its forces. What might that tell us about government efficiency?
There’s fairly universal agreement that Canada doesn’t spend enough on its military. But before we can even ask how much we should be spending, we should understand how much we’re already spending. And figuring that out isn’t nearly as easy as I’d expected.
According to the 2025–26 Expenditures by Purpose data released by the Treasury Board Secretariat, the Department of National Defence (DND) was allocated $35.7 billion (CAN). However, the New York Times recently reported that Primer Minister Carney’s $9.3 billion increase would bring the total defence-related spending to $62.7 billion – which suggests that, prior to the increase, we were set to spend $53.4 billion (CAN).
So I’ll work with both of those figures: $35.7 billion ($26 billion USD) and the pre-announcement $53.4 billion ($39 billion USD). By contrast, Israel currently spends around $37 billion (USD) on the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) which is in the neighborhood of 18 percent of their total budget.¹ The IDF is (literally) getting a much bigger bang for their buck.²
I’m going to compare the military inventories of both countries to get a sense of what a dollar of government spending can get you. I understand that this isn’t an apples-to-apples comparison and there are many complicating factors here. But I think the exercise could lead us to some useful insights. First off, here’s a very rough estimate of existing inventories:
 |
I’m sure there are plenty of caveats we could apply to those numbers, including how much of that equipment is actually fit for service on any given day. But they’ll have to do.
In addition, there are currently 68,000 regular troops in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) along with 22,500 reserves, while the IDF employs 169,500 regular troops and 465,000 reserves. They also cost money.
Based on some very rough estimates,³ I’d assess the value of IDF assets at around 2.6 times the value of comparable CAF assets. That means that the IDF – using their procurement systems – would need to spend just $14.4 billion (USD) to purchase the equivalent of the current set of CAF assets.
Now compare that with our actual (pre-increase) expenditures of either $26 billion USD or $39 billion USD and it seems that we’re overspending by either 80 percent or 270 percent.
I think we’d be wise to wonder why that is.
For full context, Israel receives around $3.8 billion (USD) in military aid annually from the U.S.
Speaking of which, for simplicity, I completely left the ongoing costs of ordinance out of my calculations.
If you’re really interested, you can see my calculations here.
Subscribe to The Audit.
For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.
Unanimous Supreme Court Ruling Inspires Hope For Future Energy Project Permitting
Ottawa Slams Eby Government Over Chinese Shipyard Deal, Citing Security and Sovereignty Risks
Carney’s exercise in stupidity
Unified message for Ottawa: Premier Danielle Smith and Premier Scott Moe call for change to federal policies
-
National23 hours agoPreston Manning: “Appearing to Cope” – Is This The Best We Can Do?
-
Energy1 day agoEnergy Policies Based on Reality, Not Ideology, are Needed to Attract Canadian ‘Superpower’ Level Investment – Ron Wallace
-
International23 hours agoTrump’s Strike on Iran Reshapes Global Power Balance, Deals First Blow to Beijing and CRINK Axis
-
Business1 day agoHigh Taxes Hobble Canadian NHL Teams In Race For Top Players
-
conflict1 day agoU.S. cities on high alert after U.S. bombs Iran
-
armed forces23 hours ago
How Much Dollar Value Does Our Military Deliver?
-
illegal immigration9 hours agoHeightened alert: Iranians in U.S. previously charged with support for terrorism
-
conflict10 hours agoAmericans abroad told to stay alert as Iran threatens retaliation