Mandated by the Office of the National Assembly, the Independent Advisory Committee on the Review of Members’ Compensation released its report last week recommending a 21% increase in their overall compensation, from $139,745 to $169 $950, which includes their expense allowance. Their salary without this allowance would climb to $131,766, compared to $101,561 at present.
This is an “acceptable minimum”, considers the committee made up of a president, Jérôme Côté, specialist in human resources compensation, and two former deputies, Lise Thériault and Martin Ouellet. This is not the kind of assertion called to be unanimous in the population.
This is a delicate subject, and setting a price for the various responsibilities assumed by an elected official is not easy. The Côté committee was largely inspired by the report tabled in 2013 by retired Supreme Court Justice Claire L’Heureux-Dubé, who chaired this other “independent” committee. In 2015, the Couillard government presented a bill applying most of the recommendations of the former judge and substantially increasing remuneration, much like we are proposing today; he had to give it up. The opposition had not failed to remind him of the “indecency” of these increases in view of the cuts that the Liberal government had decreed.
In assessing fair compensation, comparisons with the legislatures of other provinces and the House of Commons are of little help. Elected officials from other provinces, who receive no expense allowance, are generally less well paid than their Quebec counterparts. Credit where credit is due, MPs are much better paid than their provincial peers, at $194,600 a year. This gap clearly illustrates a vision of the Canadian federation where the federal government considers itself to be of a superior order dominating the provincial governments. Objectively, the responsibilities and work of a Member of the House of Commons compared to those of an elected member of the National Assembly do not justify this disparity. And what about the senators, who pocket a base salary of $169,000 a year, a colonial relic that is part of the regime’s rich tradition of patronage.
The Côté committee recommended that the annual indemnity of parliamentarians be aligned with the salaries paid to the chief executive officers and vice-presidents of public bodies (class 4). This is what the L’Heureux-Dubé committee proposed. It’s somewhat arbitrary, but he had to set the bar somewhere.
In all of this discussion, we must not forget that in Quebec City, only 10 of the 125 MPs receive only their basic allowance. All the others receive additional remuneration of at least 15% of their salary, often more, for their parliamentary functions (party leaders, leaders, whips, parliamentary assistants, chairmen and vice-chairmen of committees): all in all, they earn at least close to $120,000 a year.
One of the arguments advanced for a significant increase in the emoluments of MNAs is that the National Assembly must attract the “best talents”, an expression that Lise Thériault and Martin Ouellet had in their mouths during the press conference. . Is a simple deputy close to the people and knowing his constituency like the back of his hand worth more or less than an elected official from the elite who could be appointed minister? Given the different roles assumed by members, both legislators, critics of the government when they are in opposition, representatives of the population and spokespersons for their concerns, without forgetting the assistance they provide to citizens in their dealings with the State, etc., it is not easy to determine the criteria for selecting these best talents, a choice that is in any case up to the voters. Of course, the committee did not have the audacity to follow through with its reasoning by demonstrating that the National Assembly did not have enough “talent” or that too many elected officials lacked it at the present time.
It is embarrassing that even today, it is the elected officials who vote themselves increases. Moreover, there is never a good time to make such an improvement. And the current context is no exception, given that the Legault government is in negotiations for the renewal of the collective agreements for state employees. These union members have no chance of benefiting from a wage catch-up of more than 20%.
We often hear our elected officials say, hand on heart, that it is a privilege to represent their fellow citizens. We can believe that enjoying this privilege, closely associated with the notion of public service, is a benefit that is worth more than a few thousand dollars left on the table.