The politics of paying for politicians

Globe and Mail

a day ago

For most employees, a compensation discussion goes this way: the worker makes the case they deserve a certain amount of money and the boss decides. For too many politicians, they're making the case to themselves. They are, unsurprisingly, often successful.
There is such a clear conflict of interest that it's amazing this pattern continues. But it does.
In March, Toronto city councillors voted to boost their annual compensation to about $170,000 after flights of high rhetoric that included the city budget chief urging fellow councillors to 'be brave.' The bravery that is, to approve your own raise. The councillors found the extra bravery to make the increase retroactive to the start of the year.
Then, last month, Ontario politicians shoved a raise through the legislature with unseemly speed. With cross-party support, a bill boosting compensation and creating a Member of Provincial Parliament defined-benefit pension plan was approved in minutes, with neither debate nor recorded votes. Base-level MPP compensation rose to about $157,000, which is 75 per cent of a federal Member of Parliament's pay. It was also retroactive, to February's provincial election.
In fairness, Ontario MPP salaries had been frozen since 2009, a situation that disproportionately affected opposition politicians. The government was able to reward its members with ministerial or associate minister roles – these come with extra money and about half of Tory MPPs currently have such titles – while those on the opposition benches didn't enjoy these bump-ups. But there are right and wrong ways to remedy a situation.
The proper amount to pay politicians is a difficult question. A starting point is that politics must pay enough that it is not a job that can be done only by people who are otherwise wealthy. That would skew representation and leave most of the population unable, practically speaking, to run for office.
Public office should also attract the best and brightest of society. Depending on what job a prospective politician would otherwise do, that may involve some level of pay cut. But it should not mean so severe a haircut that choosing public service is a punitive decision.
That said, pay should not be so high that politicians are motivated to stick around strictly for the money. Political turnover is good for democracy and the incumbent advantage is strong enough that many can stay as long as they like.
Are there ways to thread that needle? Yes, and it can be done without politicians rewarding themselves.
One approach would be to link politician wages to metrics over which they have influence. That could mean compensation for provincial politicians rises when the economy grows, for example, or that city councillors get a raise if homelessness levels decline. School board trustee pay could be linked to education outcomes. In British Columbia, opposition leader John Rustad argues for tying raises for Members of the Legislative Assembly to average salary increases in the province.
Another approach is to benchmark politicians against each other, as Ontario is doing. Corporate compensation is often set this way, based on analysis of peer jobs. But that can lead to galloping upward pressure. And elected positions are hard to compare. Should politicians with more constituents get paid more? Is the size of budget being managed relevant? Do politicians in a whipped-vote party system not have to work as hard? Should councillors in pricey cities make more?
Whatever the method, the fairest way to land on appropriate compensation is to rely on a third-party group. In Ontario, the city of London goes through an independent review process every four years. The current group, volunteers paid an honorarium whose names were proposed by city staff, will report in October its recommendations around salary, severance, workload and staffing support. Council will then vote on the report.
Crucially, though, that vote in London won't change the salaries of the current council. The changes would take effect for the next term of office, meaning that voters still have a chance to weigh in. It's possible they will feel that some councillors aren't worth a raise.
This is a good approach, making the public the ultimate arbiter of whether a pay bump is warranted. Politicians boosting their pay immediately or, worse, retroactively, is clearly unacceptable. If they insist on doing that, their bosses – voters – should send them packing.
Punt back them into the private sector.