Torontoist vs. Torontoist in: MPP Raises!

2006_12_28to-vs-to-mpp.jpg
Background photo of Queen's Park by Scott Chandler from the Torontoist Flickr Pool.

Last week, Ontario MPPs gave themselves a Christmas present that any of us would have enjoyed: a 25% pay hike. Was this just a long-overdue catch-up, finally bringing MPP salaries into line with their federal counterparts, or the worst kind of political trough-feeding? In our new feature, two Torontoist staffers -- Patrick Metzger and Ken Hunt -- square off to debate the issue.

Torontoist Patrick Metzger: Pro-Hike

I’m not generally particularly sympathetic to politicians of any stripe, so when I learned that the pay raise for Ontario MPPs would see them making almost as much money as Torontoist writers (but without the use of the company jet), I have to say I was a little offended. But on sober second thought, I decided that that maybe it’s not such a bad thing after all.

The most oft-quoted reason for raising the pay of these particular MPPs is to give them a salary closer to that of Federal MPs who do essentially the same job in the same ridings and get paid about 40% more (the raise will still put MPPs about 25% behind their big brothers and sisters in Ottawa). The existing salary for Ontario legislators is also less than the newly increased pay for both Toronto and Ottawa city councilors. Now, perhaps a case could be made that all politicians are overpaid, but that’s an entirely separate question. If the market (in this case the electorate) has decided that this is what the job pays, why should provincial politicians be uniquely disadvantaged?

Beyond the public sector, the current pay is about that of a middle manager at a large company, broadly speaking a much less stressful, and certainly less high profile job than that of MPP. Against the argument that talented, capable people should want to become public servants regardless of pay, consider what might type of candidates might be attracted to the job if the salary were lowered to $12,000 a year. Like it or not, money matters.

People who oppose the raise have expressed dismay that public servants should be getting more cash, when the dollars could be going to single mothers, homeless shelters, or other worthy causes. But that fails to recognize that government spending is not a zero sum game – a competent, honest, government that runs efficiently will have far more resources to allocate to social spending than a corrupt and inept government, even if legislators are paid more. It seems entirely likely that underpaying MPPs would be far more likely to lead to the latter type of government.

Finally, we’re fortunate enough to live what is more or less a democracy. Current legislators who are offended by the raise are more than welcome to give their excess money to charity or put it in escrow or throw it out their office window. When the next election comes, they can use that heroic act as the basis of their campaign, and perhaps be joined by other civic minded candidates who will pledge to work more cheaply. We, the people, will then decide if that is the critical issue around which we wish to build our government. If it is, then the fat cats will be out and the cheap dates in. If not, it means that the people of Ontario – or at least a plurality of them – are in favour of the raise. Either way, democracy works the way it’s supposed to, representing the interests of the entire constituency, and not just those with the loudest voices.


Torontoist Ken Hunt: Anti-Hike

I think we should all be very impressed by our MPPs. They showed us all that when Ontario is facing a crisis they can come together, buckle down, and work around the clock to get the job done. Now, thanks to their efforts, everyone in Ontario will be able to enjoy the New Year secure in the knowledge that our elected officials will no longer have to scrape by on a measly $88,771 a year. I know it's a load off my mind. Extra eggnog for everybody!

My favourite argument in support of the raise is that it will help attract and retain a better pool of candidates. Does anyone believe this, even our current MPPs? If they did, wouldn’t that be like them saying "We lot are awful. We're just the losers who were willing to take on this dangerously underpaid position in public life, but now that the job pays more, we thoroughly expect to be replaced by an intellectually and genetically superior breed of politician, perhaps ones that can fly. You know, like on Heroes?"

Our MPPs also point to the fact that other politicians are paid even more, so their raise is not out of line. This is not very compelling. Politicians are unique in their ability to set their own pay and not have to really compete in any kind of marketplace, so who can blame them giving themselves raises? There are no cheaper politicians out there. There is no opportunity to compare politicians based on price; no price tag next to party affiliation on the ballot, so their pay is naturally inflated. If writers could set their own rates and editors had no choice but to pay there would be a lot of overpaid writers out there too. Unfortunately for me, that’s not the case. But it’s clear that continuing to raise and re-raise political salaries on the basis of others being even more grossly overpaid is laughable.

I’m sure the job is difficult, but so are a lot of people’s jobs. Ask anyone making minimum wage. Besides, the last time I checked, people fought bitterly for these supposedly low-paying MPP jobs. Witness the most recent by-election in Parkdale-High Park. These jobs matter and people want them because they want to have a direct say in the way our society works. Pay is not the prime motivator. Some people even give up higher paying jobs to become politicians. MPPs are leaders in their communities and that’s something you can’t measure in dollars. Plus, even after they step down or get voted out, they can usually parlay their political experience and connections into cushy private sector jobs.

We’re supposed to have a representative democracy, so here’s an idea: What if we paid our MPPs the average salary of a person in Ontario? Not only would they be more in tune with the needs and challenges of the people they represent, they would also have an incentive to lift that average.


Spy vs. Spy image from Mad Magazine, obviously.

Email This Entry


Comments (13) [rss]

So if these low salaries can only attract sub-par talent, leaving the competent and honest pursuing better pay ... what does this say about the people currently in office?

Gloria - I think you've answered your own question.

user-pic

Instead of spy vs. Spy, you should consider using Kenny vs. Spenny for a more Toronto-y feel.

user-pic

How about we do away with representatives entirely?

I can't really elaborate at the moment (but will when I get home), but even though I see both points, I have to agree with Patrick on this one. Equal (er, well, almost) pay for equal positions.

user-pic

Don't forget that while federal MPs get very generous pension plans, Mike Harris did away with the provincial pension plan when he was in office, making the disparity between what representatives at the two levels of government take home even greater.

I simply don't see any compelling reason why Olivia Chow should make $60,000 a year more (plus a pension) than Rosario Marchese, when they both represent the same riding (same boundaries, same number of constituents, etc.)

The argument that public service is supposed to be its own reward and that people looking to represent the public for noble purposes shouldn't care about the money (and argument I know Ken doesn't exactly make but that Patrick himself makes and refutes) doesn't really hold water. Take teachers for example. There are arguments made across the political spectrum that teachers (as well as firemen, EMTs, and a host of other public service employees) are underpaid in relation to what they do for society (as compared to, let's say, divorce lawyers or plastic surgeons). Other than when threatened by strike, no one really disputes that these people deserve more money for what they do for the rest of us. Obviously, if all anyone cared about was money, we'd all have MBAs or law degrees or be selling crack. But just because someone chooses a life of public service, doesn't mean we can't recognize that and compensate them FOR that choice (which, because of the system in place, means they have to initiate that process). Maybe it would work better if pay raises were a mandatory ballot question at the same time as a general election, with every voter deciding yay or nay on whether the government they're electing deserves more compensation for the job they do. That way the bad optics of having politicians give themselves a raise are done away with. The way it is now, they have no choice but to hike their own pay, or they'd still be making whatever politicians made when these legislative bodies became full-time, paid institutions.

If you want to see how great it is when your politicians aren't overpaid, look no further than Texas. Their legislators receive a salary of $7200 a year (plus a $30 per diem while the House is in session), and I'm sure that nobody could possibly question Texas's commitment to quality governance and social progressiveness.

Andrew,

I understand what you're saying, but must respectfully disagree. If we're to compensate politicians for their hard work, we should do the same for single mothers and volunteers and a lot of the other actually underpaid people who keep society going.

Teachers, EMT, firemen all go through extensive training to do specialized work. In some of those cases it's a physically dangerous job which should carry a pay premium. All these people have gone to school, gone through licensing boards and usually worked their way up from the bottom. In these jobs, pay is set by their employer based on performance reviews, their level of knowledge and the economic situation (as well as union action/wage pressure).
In contrast, there are no professional requirements to be an MP or MPP. Mike Harris' education minister was a high school dropout who inherited his dad's used car business. Others are lawyers or just have undergrad degrees or OSSDs. Some are poli-sci grads or former professors. There is also noone above them with the power to set their pay, nor any rhyme or reason for the amounts they make beyond studies that always recommend pay raises.
MPPs are not administrators--that's the job of deputy ministers, bureaucrats and civil servants, all of whom are generally paid in line with the going rate for said work.

The job of MPPs (and MPs and councilors) is to be the representatives of the people. That's it.
In order to be in touch with the people, MPPs must NOT be insulated from reality by disconnected pay scales. I'd personally like them to make the median salary of the province/country, though recognizing that this might encourage bribery I'd even settle for double the median salary. The important thing is that politicians' pay is meaningfully linked to their performance as measured by the prosperity/living standard of their average constituent. If $34K (or whatever it is at the moment) isn't enough to live comfortably on, MPPs should be spending their time in office either reducing the cost of living or increasing their constituents salaries. Anything else is a failure on their part and should not be rewarded.

(P.S. In this situation I find the federal pay much more worrisome than the provincial pay... the feds are responsible for less, yet make how much more money?! If one good thing comes from this, it's that a needed reduction in MP pay will now automatically reduce MPP pay as well)
(P.P.S. Sorry for the rambling and ranting)

I'm sort of waiting to pass judgement on this.
Reason being, Cheri DiNovo has proposed a bill to raise the minimum wage to $10/hr that will come up after the break. If they pass it, then I have no problem with them raising their own salaries.

I feel the same way as Chris, but everything I'm hearing indicates they're probably not going to vote through the $10 minimum wage.

My stance on the pay raise has softened a bit, though I still promise I wasn't knee jerking when I said they get paid too much. I still disagree, but not as angrily. And I laughed out loud, Patrick, at your line about how MPPs who don't agree with the raise can "throw it out their office window." I don't know why, but I thought it was hilarious. Maybe because it's so implausible that it would happen:)

John,

You make excellent points, and maybe some sort of linkage to average or median salaries in the province would work better. Even a specific multiplication of the minimum wage (as I think Eye or some other publication advocated) might work well, as it would keep politicians raising the lowest wages in order to raise their own. I guess all I'm saying is that to say politicians never deserve a raise because they're not supposed to be doing it for the money ignores the realities of the world we live in, whether we particularly like those realities or not. Idealist parties like the NDP might like to use their office as a platform to change those realities for all of us, and that's noble. But economics and human nature being what they are, it's unrealistic to expect all the best minds to also be the most selfless.

"The important thing is that politicians' pay is meaningfully linked to their performance as measured by the prosperity/living standard of their average constituent."

A MPP who doesn't serve their constituents gets their pay cut to $0. That seems like a pretty meaningful linkage to me.

Post a comment (Comment Policy)

TIP US OFF

Tip us off with news, leads, links; anything at all.
Subscribe to get events, weather, contests, and stories in your email inbox—daily.

EMAIL (required)

About Torontoist

Torontoist is about Toronto and everything that happens in it. It's edited by David Topping and Marc Lostracco, and you should totally advertise on us.

More about Torontoist.

Recent Comments

The Tall Poppy Interview

Follow Torontoist...