When speaking to Parliament, she never once appeared shaken. Chrystia Freeland remained remarkably composed, measured, factual, and even assertive, even when asked about deficits, tax increases, or skyrocketing food costs. One aspect, nevertheless, continued to garner attention away from talking points and microphones: her personal income.
After accounting for her base MP salary and additional remuneration as both Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, Freeland’s salary in 2024 came to CA$299,900. This amount was significantly higher—nearly six times higher—than the typical household income in Canada. However, controversy was sparked by more than just the figure. The timing was the problem.
Federal ministers earned automatic pay increases—three in Freeland’s case—during the epidemic, when millions of people lost their jobs, postponed rent, or permanently stopped their companies. As part of the framework, these increases were mandated to increase yearly in accordance with inflation. However, the optics were incredibly off-key, especially for someone advocating moderation.
Freeland was able to guide Canada’s finances through some extremely tumultuous years by capitalizing on her reputation as a stern economic thinker. It became challenging to overlook the contradiction between policy rhetoric and individual compensation, though. I still clearly recall her announcing, quite triumphantly, that she had cancelled her Disney+ subscription in order to show how to minimize expenses at home. It seemed like a relatable gesture when taken at face value. However, many saw the move as, at best, symbolic—almost performative—given her six-figure salary.
| Name | Chrystia Freeland |
|---|---|
| Position | Former Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (until Dec 2024) |
| 2024 Annual Salary | CA$299,900 |
| Additional Earnings | Three pay raises during COVID-19 period |
| Background | Former journalist; MP for University–Rosedale since 2013 |
| Notable Fact | First woman appointed Finance Minister in Canada |
| External Source | Parliament of Canada Profile |
However, this has nothing to do with personal fault. There was no covert negotiation about her salary. It wasn’t added through a loophole or given out by a committee. It complied with the regulations. But adhering to the law isn’t always sufficient, as is the case with many matters related to public trust. Particularly when those regulations lead to political leaders making more money while asking the public to have lower expectations.
The fact that payments represent shared expectations rather than just value is frequently disregarded. Naturally, concerns are raised when a finance minister encourages Canadians to “live within their means” while enjoying pay increases. It’s a signal rather than a scandal. Moreover, signals are important, particularly at this time when institutional confidence seems to be eroding.
Freeland’s pay raises a bigger question for early-career public servants and private sector workers observing from the sidelines: what do we expect from people who guide us through difficult times? In times of national emergency, should ministers’ salaries be capped? Should public votes be held in place of automatic triggers for raises? Or would that deter capable leaders from taking charge during challenging times?
The public’s annoyance wasn’t limited to her. The bump went to all 39 Cabinet ministers. The salary of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau exceeded $400,000. However, Freeland became the lightning rod due to her exposure and dual portfolio. Whether justified or not, that focus exposed a deeper issue: a rising disquiet with the systems that control not only the economy but also its managers.
The fact that she hardly ever addressed it directly caught my attention the most. Freeland was quite clear on policy issues, but she hardly ever discussed her personal pay. Maybe she thought it was a diversion from more important economic discussions. However, her silence might have been more audible than any explanation to Canadians who were forced to make difficult financial decisions.
Freeland’s choice to leave Cabinet during her last few months in government rekindled debate. It was seen by some as political repositioning. Others viewed it as burnout, the unavoidable result of years of dealing with consecutive crises. Regardless of the cause, there are still concerns about her pay—more about values than money.
There will probably be profitable chances for her after politics. Speaking engagements, board positions, and even international economic organizations might be offered. Being a private individual instead than a public servant could greatly lessen scrutiny. However, this transitional period, when legacy is formed, is the most important time.
There are trade-offs in public service. Pay is only one aspect. Nevertheless, it continues to be a potent indicator of our values, tolerances, and doubts. History is unlikely to be altered by Freeland’s earnings. However, they have ignited something perhaps more enduring: a public desire for openness that endures long after the news stories have subsided.
