Monday, June 4, 2001
Getting their money’s worth - THE COMMENTARY
By Joseph Planta
VANCOUVER -- Great hay was made this past week over a report that was released suggesting that MP’s should be paid more. I totally agree that the politicians of the land be paid more, but with further examination it does give one some food for thought. I think that $109,000 is reasonable. However someone once said that in politics, perception equals reality. The optics of this one ain’t so virgin.
The commission which made the recommendations, delivered its report on Tuesday. The chair was Ed Lumley, a former Liberal cabinet minister. Co-commissioning were former Tory cabinet minister Jake Epp and Hugette Labelle, a former bureaucrat. Their recommendations have been given serious consideration, and the Prime Minister himself has warmed to them. Word is that they’ll be passed quickly before the summer recess.
The names Hedy Fry, Rahim Jaffer and Tom Wappel, by their recent actions could be reason enough to deny our elected representatives the pay raise. But as the job may sound lofty and have such perks, the stories of broken marriages or financial ruin are heard too regularily. Travelling is a huge factor and the work seems endless for MP’s who are expected to be in Ottawa during the week and in their home constituencies on the weekend. Add to that the responsiblity a cabinet post entails, or any other role other than a mere ‘nobody’ would shoulder.
The report also suggests Cabinet ministers receive higher pay packets and rightfully so. The Prime Minister himself deserves a pay raise, as he makes less than the top civil servant in the land. The Prime Minister’s salary reflects a pittance to that of men and women who head corporations, no less a country. There is also that spin that the raise will attract the best men and women to run for political office. I don’t buy that one, rather if we gave the lowly MP more power, then we would truly see the cream rise to the top.
My biggest objection to the proposed pay raise is that echoed by Stephen Harper of the National Citizens Coalition. These Members of Parliament were just elected in November. They relented to having their names placed on the ballot, because they felt they wanted office. They must have known the stress, pressure and perks of the job, or else they’d have abdicated their nominations to other folks. So they knew what was going to be. Why then insult their own judgement, not to mention the citizen’s and vote themselves, what amounts to a self-serving dip in the trough.
The correct way of approaching this would be to debate the merits of the proposals and set up the guidelines which would be adhered to, after the next election. Somewhere in some Act of Parliament contains the provision that parliamentary remuneration be looked into following a general election. The Lumley Commission has. I merely disagree with those recommendations, to take effect forthwith. To do so would be terribly arrogant on the part of the Prime Minister and his government. The honourable thing to do is make these raises effective when the ‘honourable members’ of the thirty-eighth Parliament sit, sometime within the next five years. Absolutley not now.
Another other point I have trouble with is that of how much Senators should be paid. The report suggests that their pay packets increase to higher levels -- higher than that of MPs. Constitutionally their roles are technically more ‘noble’ than that of Members or Parliament. However in our current situation the Senators are appointed (all political appointments, as of late) and their work somewhat minimal, compared to MPs. There are many Senators who do effective and noteworthy work. Examples are few, but you can read about them in a Barbara Yaffe Sun column of last week. (Note also that MPs are directly accoutable to the people.) The Senate has been one of those elephants we talk about on an inconsistent and abnormal basis. Senators should not receive more pay than MPs, as it stands. Should the Senate excercise it’s powers to the extent as defined in the Constitution and reforms take effect, then I would relent on boosting and execceding pay. But to just set the compensation bar at a level to reflect a hierarchy totally wrong, is wrong itself. The Prime Minister wouldn’t tolerate that either, in our cut rate democracy.
The whole issue has the underlying theme that changes need be made. Jean Chrétien and its most ardent of boosters will think passing these pay increases as fulfilling the recent Liberal promise for Parliamentary reform. Sadly, the reforms badly needed are too dangerous a line for the Liberals to take. This is nothing. The instituions of our land need a real good look. All this would prove is the Liberals’ toeing of the status quo line. They think it's a great end, when it hardly constitutes a decent or honourable means.
- 30 -
Questions and comments may be sent to: editor@thecommentary.ca
An archive of Joseph Planta's previous columns can be found by clicking HERE .