The hidden face of MPs’ salaries

Let’s agree on one thing right away: our elected officials deserve to be better paid.

Currently, a deputy minister has a higher salary than the minister for whom he works. And a political attaché earns more than the deputy whose right arm he is.

It’s a sign that something is wrong when an employee earns more than his boss, isn’t it?

So yes, it is time to review the remuneration of members of the National Assembly, as the Coalition avenir Québec (CAQ) is preparing to do with the tabling of a bill on Thursday.

But you still have to do it right. Not by skipping steps. Not by keeping only the ingredients that we like in the recipe.

Rarely have we seen an issue progress so quickly on Parliament Hill.

February: an independent advisory committee is mandated.

April: he presents his report.

May: the bill is tabled, the last day allowing adoption before the end of the session in June, minimizing the duration of debates on this taboo subject.

In this expedited process, the committee drew inspiration from the excellent report prepared 10 years ago by former Supreme Court Justice Claire L’Heureux-Dubé.

At the time, she was careful to say that her recommendations formed a “cohesive whole” and that it would be “inappropriate to choose only certain elements”.

But that is exactly what is happening today.

On the one hand, the committee recommends increasing the annual salary of MPs from $139,745 to $169,950¹ to be comparable with that of CEOs and Vice-Presidents of the public service. Either. This follows the approach of the L’Heureux-Dubé report.

But on the other hand, the committee does not say a word about the elements of the remuneration of the deputies that the report suggested to be reduced, starting with the generous pension plan.

This makes it possible to accumulate a pension credit of 4% of salary, each year. This means that after 25 years of service, a deputy can receive a pension equivalent to 100% of his salary. All payable from age 60, without penalty.

Ask an actuary and he’ll tell you that it costs about $90,000 a year to fund the pension promise of a 50-year-old parliamentarian earning $169,000.

This salty bill is the hidden face of MPs’ salaries.

We are far, very far, from the conditions of civil servants who accumulate a pension credit of 2%, the level recommended for elected officials in the L’Heureux-Dubé report. That would be fairer, in a context where the vast majority of Quebecers no longer have access to a plan with a guaranteed pension.

Some will say that the generosity of the pension scheme compensates for the fact that MPs put their careers on hold, without the assurance of finding an equivalent position after leaving politics.

But let’s not forget that they are entitled to a transition allowance (two months’ salary per year of service) when they lose their elections. Moreover, it is not normal for a member who resigns to be able to receive this allowance. Another recommendation from the L’Heureux-Dubé report that has been forgotten.

Oh yes, and there was also a question of slaving away in the health insurance program, entirely paid for by Quebec…

In fact, the committee only analyzed the salaries of MPs. Not their overall compensation. Error. But it was the mandate given to him by the Bureau of the National Assembly, made up of elected officials. A truncated mandate that calls into question the credibility and independence of the exercise.

Let’s say it again: elected officials deserve to be well remunerated. Pivotal to our democracy, they have a significant impact on society. And their life is not easy, always in the eye of criticism, always on the move, which requires family sacrifices.

But their compensation should be looked at as a whole, without blinders. Taking into account their salary… and its hidden side.

1. This amount includes the expense allowance, but not the travel allowance ($9,900 to $24,600, depending on the riding), reimbursement of accommodation expenses in Québec (up to $17,800) and reimbursement travel expenses (on receipt).