The Written Word
for March 11, 2001

I find myself unable to join the chorus of boos for the severance pay defeated MLAs will get. One month’s pay for every year served is pretty much in line for executive severance packages so why should it be different for our parliamentarians?

I will tell you of my misgivings in a moment but let’s be fair here. When one runs for public office it is usually at or near the best earning years. It’s true that some MLAs couldn’t get an MLSs’ pay in the private sector but on the other hand many take a pay cut.

It is said that they volunteer for this job so why should they be compensated when they’re turfed out but that seems to me to be a pretty lousy argument. Unless we only want as MLAs those who are independently wealthy, surely we want to offer something which can attract our better citizens.

We seem to have this need to kick our politicians as if they were some sort of social dirt. We sneer at them and consider them to be third class citizens at best. Which leads me to the other side of the coin.

It’s true that we don’t get full value out of all our MLAs – especially those on the government backbench. Much of the time the Premier has to find make work projects for them. They are often half employed and can, if their attainments permit, do other work and supplement their income. Perhaps part of our annoyance at their severance package is because we don’t get full measure for the money we pay them.

The trouble is in the system and I’ve discussed this before. MLAs should be part of the legislation process, not just rubber stamps or paid hecklers. In the American system, legislation does come form the legislators – it can be a long tortuous process and senior legislators can put many roadblocks in the way but at the end of the day laws come from the legislators, not from on high. It’s true that "from on high" can propose legislation and can veto it but every legislator, be it in the House of Representatives or the Senate knows that he is an integral part of the process.

Gordon Campbell has promised to revive, if that word can be used to bring to life that which never lived, the committee process. This is a very good thing, provided it is done properly. The appropriate committees should have at least two uninhibited functions – it should vet legislation proposed by the government and it should investigate issues that fall within its mandate. The committees must come from the legislators and not be appointed by the Premier and must be able to set their own agendas.

Of course they will be dominated by government members but this can be offset by having opposition members as chair. But even without that, as the committees slowly find their feet I think you will find that more and more they will provide a useful source of criticism both constructive and otherwise. They will – and this will take time – take on a life of their own. As they get bolder in their adventures, they will attract more media attention. They will also provide the premier with a good way of assessing talent.

On the main point, however – and notwithstanding the fact that some MLAs who have lost their nomination will abuse the system by running as independents – I think that a severance package for MLAs is fair and reasonable.