The “Ferrari” of MPs | The Press

(Quebec) The second woman and first Quebecer appointed judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in 1987, is delighted to receive a phone call.

“Excuse me if my voice is hoarse,” said Claire L’Heureux-Dubé. We don’t talk much here. We are often alone. »

“Ici” is a private residence for the elderly in Quebec, formerly the convent of the Dominicans of the Trinity.

“Why are you calling me?” »

The remuneration of deputies, Madam. The subject is back in the news.

“Ha! I am 95 years old, but I remind you that my report was tablet! »

It was in 2013. The retired judge had chaired an independent committee responsible for reviewing the overall remuneration of elected officials.

She was supported by Claude Bisson, jurisconsult of the National Assembly at the time, and François Côté, former secretary general of the National Assembly.

The committee proposed a balanced solution, at little or no cost to taxpayers, recalls Ms.^me L’Heureux-Dube.

His report¹ gathered dust after a dispute between parliamentarians. François Legault, in opposition at the time, was the first to refuse that elected officials receive a bigger paycheck when everyone was asked to tighten their belts to regain a balanced budget. “Austerity”, remember. But the CAQ leader only retained part of the report to deliver his attack and block a reform.

Certainly, the committee recommended raising the salaries of MPs. But in return, he proposed to eliminate certain allowances, to clean up others and, above all, to impose a slimming cure on the pension plan for elected officials.

“You know, the pension plan for MPs, there is no equivalent anywhere. It’s a Cadillac, even a Ferrari! “, had launched François Côté at the time. It is, by far, the most generous in Canada, where there is “a very clear trend of downward revision of the benefits of MPs’ pension plans”.

The report explained that Quebec elected officials pay contributions representing only 21% of the cost of their pension plan; the rest, 79%, is assumed by the State. “This situation contrasts sharply with the large public and parapublic sector plans in Quebec, which are funded equally by employers and employees,” the report notes.

The pension fund for elected officials is in deficit by more than $200 million today. The State assumes, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the payment of pensions.

If there is “no equivalent anywhere else”, it is because the MP accumulates each year a pension credit representing 4% of his salary – without exceeding 25 years, because we then reach a pension equal to 100% of career salary. It is still in effect today. The Ferrari engine is still roaring.

There is an example of calculating the pension² on the Revenu Québec website based on figures that are not up to date. Let’s remember that a chosen one builds up a larger cushion for his old age more quickly than the average bear.

The L’Heureux-Dubé committee recommended reducing the annual pension credit accumulation rate to 2%, the rate in effect in other plans such as those for government employees. He also wanted a deputy not to be able to accumulate a pension greater than 70% of his indexed career salary. The elected officials would thus assume 41% of the costs of the plan, instead of 21%.

Claire L’Heureux-Dubé remembers the logic: we must improve the salaries of deputies and at the same time slim down the pension plan. Such a measure could perhaps attract more candidates without encouraging them to become career politicians.

However, there is no change to the pension fund in a new report tabled this week on the remuneration of deputies. The committee, made up of former MPs Lise Thériault and Martin Ouellet, among others, recommended a 30% increase in base salary – 21% if we talk about total compensation – saying that it was inspired by the L’Heureux report. -Dube³.

Lise Thériault defends herself: “We didn’t have the mandate to look at the pension plan! The mandate was thus defined by the Office of the National Assembly, the board of directors of the Parliament made up of elected officials from all parties.

In its report, the committee recognizes that if the base salary – therefore without taking into account the expense allowance and additional allowances – increases by $30,000 to $131,766 as proposed, this will cause the value of the pension credit accumulated by elected officials.

He proposes a future “global analysis of the working conditions” of elected officials in order to possibly look into the subject, but he recommends that the salary increase apply as of this year.

Meanwhile, the government confirms its interest in implementing the committee’s recommendations, but is awaiting the reaction of the other parties. Québec solidaire opposes it, saying that “MPs should not vote their own salary”.

A past position of Legault

Another step back is in order. In the fall of 2014, François Legault had the National Assembly adopt a motion for members to “contribute 50% to their pension plan”. He had played this card because the Couillard government was then imposing this measure on municipal employees. “We cannot, on the one hand, ask municipal employees for one thing, then not apply it to ourselves,” pleaded the CAQ leader.

This measure was never adopted. Including under the Legault government… which nevertheless passed a law in 2019 to increase the expense allowance of deputies in order to compensate for the decision of the Canada Revenue Agency to make it taxable. The average taxpayer would surely like to receive compensation when the tax authorities tighten their net…

François Legault’s position in 2014, is that old story?

Suffice it to say that it was also in 2014 that the CAQ chief spoke out for the first time in favor of a third bond!

“If I remember correctly, at the time, not all MPs wanted to pay 50-50 for their pension plan. My memory of the case is that they looked after their own interests! “says Claire L’Heureux-Dubé with a little laugh.

The solution to fixing the remuneration of deputies can be found in his 2013 report: “the problem where the legislator is both judge and party in terms of determining his own working conditions can only be resolved in the long term by establishing a regular mechanism for analysis by an independent committee whose recommendations would be binding”.

This week’s report also suggests creating an independent process one day. The Office of the National Assembly has already thought about it without going ahead so far.

At the time of concluding the interview, Claire L’Heureux-Dubé insists: “Our report was really a good report, go read it. I tell you. I’m old, but I still have my head. »