The profession of deputy is not a profession like the others, it is the least that one can say. We can access it in many ways and without always deserving it. Some candidates from safe counties don’t even need to campaign as the game is won in advance. Others, conversely, will campaign repeatedly without ever winning. As for the quality of work, it seems very relative, as in all areas of activity. The former defector from the Conservative Party of Quebec, Claire Samson, has already declared that the job of deputy was the easiest she had exercised in her life. Others, it is true, almost lose their health.
Nevertheless, should we increase their remuneration as François Legault suggests by generously using sophistry? One of these flawed arguments is this comparison with the work of civil servants. As far as I know, when they are hired, it is generally following a rigorous and methodical recruitment exercise. Political parties often go there in a much more risky way.
When, to everyone’s surprise, the New Democratic Party (NDP) had elected 59 deputies in Quebec in 2011, propelled by the unique popularity of Jack Layton, many of them were simple “poles”, as they say. in political jargon. Extras only designated to fill in the electoral ballot. Among these extras, we remember Ruth Ellen Brosseau who “campaigned” in… Las Vegas.
If there is a comparison to the profession of deputy, one would think more of a participant in a reality show than of a civil servant. At least in the “recruitment” phase. This is perhaps why the choice of candidates is often based on their notoriety. This is what seems to have guided the Prime Minister in the composition of his deputation, he whose objective, from which he never hid, was to seize power.
Among the sophisms used by the PM to justify the spectacular increase in the salaries of deputies, there is this other pearl: we want to attract the best possible candidates. Besides the fact that our deputies are not in misery, isn’t it better to attract those driven by their social values and their commitment rather than by their personal ambitions?
In other words, will Quebec be better governed because its members, apart from those from the federal government, will be the best paid in the country? Will its roads, its health and education systems, its housing stock, its bureaucracy, its policies be better? And an even more fundamental question: will widening the gap between ordinary citizens and those who represent them improve Quebec democracy?
The result of the Léger poll commissioned by Québec solidaire suggests just the opposite: 74% of Quebecers questioned are opposed to such an increase. This is a huge disavowal. The entire political class risks suffering from this decision. In reality, Law 24, which the government is about to pass, gives off an odor of sticky partisanship where politicians seem to be both judge and judged.
In this regard, François Legault’s muddy justifications for the recommendations of the “committee of experts” appointed by the Coalition avenir Québec and a few hand-picked elected officials seem to be stitched together with white thread. Despite the unpopularity of Bill 24, the government is preparing to act as it has often done since the last elections: like a sovereign board of directors, indifferent to any reality other than the interests of its small privileged club.
Because it is with such a club that the average Quebecer will want to associate a class of citizens who will have this immense and rare privilege: to vote their own salary increase according to their good will. Let us not come later to complain about the cynicism of the plebs towards politicians…