- Ms Kaye is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Mary Carlisle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Prem Gill is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nancy Flight is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Justin Everett is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- John Westover is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Nora Etches is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Edward Henderson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Bharadwaj Chandramouli is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Dean Chatterson is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Marius Scurtescu is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Robert Parkes is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- James Murton is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Susan Doyle is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Vincent Strgar is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Helen Spiegelman is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Subir Guin is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Kimball Finigan is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- Joanne Manley is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
- David Leach is a Tyee Builder. You can be, too.
Spending on BC Politicians Explodes
Total cost of MLA compensation soars over 50 per cent since 2001.
The fat years: tracing recent climb in total MLA compensation.
Released on July 11, the province's 2007-08 public accounts show that B.C. taxpayers last year spent more than $48.8 million on pay and benefits for our 79 members of the legislative assembly, funding for their constituency offices, compensation for their legislative and constituency aides, and operation of the legislature.
That's nearly $618,000 for each and every MLA.
Six years ago, in 2000-01 -- just before Gordon Campbell became premier -- our MLAs' pay package and legislative operations cost a mere $36.3 million, or just $484,000 per MLA.
And, on top of that historic rise in legislative spending, the burden on B.C. taxpayers will grow even heavier this year -- to an estimated $58.1 million, or more than $735,000 for each MLA -- thanks to the exceptionally-generous pay package the MLAs voted for themselves in May.
Responsibility for this explosion in parliamentary spending is shared by the two political parties with seats in the legislative assembly: the BC Liberals and the New Democrats. Neither party looks good in the analysis.
All important 'Vote 1'
As many readers know, the annual provincial budget is divided into a series of "votes," each of which represents a specific item or area of government expenditure from the consolidated revenue fund. There are 50 such votes in the 2007-08 budget.
The government -- the executive council -- presents each vote to the legislative assembly for examination and approval by the assembled legislators. Under our parliamentary system, the government may not spend any public monies until taxpayers have given their consent -- which occurs through the MLAs we elect to represent us.
Vote 1 in the budget estimates is the annual appropriation for the legislative assembly. Among the items covered in this vote are the legislative library, Hansard, the clerk of the house, the sergeant-at-arms, and legislative committees.
But these are relatively minor items of expenditure; the bulk of Vote 1 is earmarked for the salaries, benefits and expenses of the MLAs, compensation for their political aides and other staffers working in the party caucus offices in Victoria, and the costs incurred (salaries, rent, equipment, utilities and so on) to operate the MLAs' constituency offices located across the province.
Team effort by BC Libs, New Dems
The vast number of votes in each year's fiscal budget is set by the Treasury Board, a cabinet committee chaired by Finance Minister Carole Taylor. Eight others -- those that provide funding for the independent officers of the legislature (the auditor general, the ombudsman, the chief electoral officer, and so on) -- are recommended by a standing parliamentary committee.
Vote 1, however, is unique. As the auditor general observed in a special report a few years ago, Vote 1 is "not required to comply with Treasury Board's Budget Instructions, or to go through the same Treasury Board review process as the rest of the government estimates."
Rather, Vote 1 is prepared by the Legislative Assembly Management Committee (LAMC), a special all-party panel currently overseen by Speaker Bill Barisoff, the BC Liberal MLA for Penticton-Okanagan Valley.
Besides Barisoff, the LAMC has three other BC Liberals -- including the government house leader (Mike De Jong) and the chair of the government caucus (John Yap) -- as well as two New Democrats -- the opposition house leader (Mike Farnworth) and the chair of the official opposition caucus (Jenny Kwan).
According to the statute that established the panel, the LAMC is responsible for the "review of estimates of expenditure for the Legislative Assembly for Vote 1 including the preparation of forecasts and analyses of expenditures and commitments...."
The act also specifies "payments to members of the Legislative Assembly to defray expenses in the performance of their duties...," and "payments or services to members for constituency offices, including payments or services for staffing, maintaining the offices, communication expenses and travel expenses...."
In short, the MLAs sitting on the LAMC have statutory authority to determine each year's budgetary allocation for MLA pay and benefits, plus staff compensation and legislative operations. Working together, the BC Liberals and New Democrats prepare Vote 1 and have it included in the annual spending estimates with little if any guidance or interference from elsewhere.
Again quoting the auditor general: "Once LAMC has approved the estimates ... they are transmitted to the Minister [of Finance] for inclusion in the annual Estimates that are laid before the Assembly."
Vote 1: The big jump
Earlier this year, when Taylor unveiled her 2007-08 budget, Vote 1 stood out from nearly all other spending items because of its massive increase in planned expenditure.
Overall, Taylor's budget boosted year-over-year outlays (that is, those from last year's budget to those in this year's budget) by just 5.6 per cent, a modest increase which largely reflects B.C.'s growing population and the bite of inflation.
Most government departments received insignificant lifts over the previous year. For example, the Ministry of Health appropriation (Vote 36) -- and remember that the BC Liberals, as well as many members of the news media, claim that health spending is out of control -- grew by 6.5 per cent. Taylor's own Finance department (Vote 31) was up 5.9 per cent, and the Ministry of Education (Vote 25) rose by a meagre 2.5 per cent.
Several departments actually saw budgetary reductions. One such was the Ministry of Children and Family Development (Vote 20), which lost 3.2 per cent from the previous year's allocation.
It was a much different story for Vote 1, however, which soared by whopping 14.8 per cent over the previous year. And within Vote 1, the amount earmarked for MLA compensation ("Members' Services") jumped by an astounding 17 per cent, while planned outlays for their staff and constituency offices ("Caucus Services") leaped upward by nearly 15 per cent.
Paish commission a sham?
Taylor's 2007-08 budget was unveiled February 20. The BC Liberal and NDP members of the LAMC, therefore, had to have prepared and presented to Taylor their Vote 1 allocation well in advance of that date -- likely some time in November or December, 2006.
So, when Premier Gordon Campbell announced on January 30, 2007, that he had appointed a three-person panel to conduct "a fair and impartial review" of MLA compensation, it is near-certain that BC Liberal and NDP MLAs already had agreed to an $8 million boost to Vote 1 -- primarily for handsome pay increases for themselves and their staff.
In other words, the so-called "Independent Commission to Review MLA Compensation," chaired by Vancouver lawyer Sue Paish, was little more than a sham. Long before Paish and her colleagues embarked on a round of public hearings in major cities, commissioned a public opinion poll of more than 600 British Columbians, consulted with "experts" in other provinces and finally released their "comprehensive" report on May 1, BC Liberal and New Democratic Party MLAs on the LAMC had laid the groundwork to award themselves an enormous lift in compensation.
Our honourable MLAs
Of course, once the Paish report was made public, the New Democratic Party MLAs purported to be shocked -- yes, really shocked! -- by its eye-popping salary and benefit recommendations. The New Democrats, you see, desperately wanted an enormous pay hike (and many NDP MLAs had made confidential presentations to Paish and her colleagues so to convince them just how hard legislators toil on behalf of their constituents), but, golly, they didn't want an increase as enormous as that proposed by the "Independent" commission.
So, in late May, as the legislative assembly debated Bill 37, the Legislative Assembly (Members' Remuneration and Pensions) Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, a succession of New Democrats rose in the House to argue -- passionately, of course -- against the pay raise that they, themselves, had cooked up with the BC Liberals a few months earlier.
On May 31, the final day of the legislature's spring sitting, all of the assembled NDP MLAs voted against Bill 37 on its second reading at 5:30 p.m., and again on third reading at 5:40 p.m. Five minutes later, at 5:45, those same New Democrats remained mute when Vote 1 was called, and each silently assented to the funding increase that would provide them with the pay raise they claimed not to want.
Sadly, the manifest hypocrisy of B.C.'s official opposition is closely matched by the greedy mendacity of our government MLAs. Consider that for the past year or so, Gordon Campbell and his BC Liberals have expressed horror at what they claim are unsustainable increases in the province's health care spending. One of the yardsticks they use to buttress this dubious assertion is the doubling of Victoria's health expenditures over the past decade.
Yet, look at the chart at the top of this page. It shows that Vote 1 spending also has nearly doubled over the same period: from just over $30 million in 1997-98, to this year's allocation of almost $60 million.
To be a BC Liberal, then, is to believe that a doubling of health outlays over a 10-year period is very, very bad, but a near-identical increase in MLA compensation is a good and desirable thing.
Full cost of MLA raise not certain
Would you be surprised to learn that this year's Vote 1 expenditures could finish even higher than the $58.1 million approved by the legislative assembly? Yup, ever the clever ones, our MLAs approved a nifty clause in Bill 37 to provide additional funds if needed.
"If, for the fiscal year [2007-08]... money is required as a result of the Act ...," section 21(1) of the statute states, "[which] is in excess of any available appropriation..." then the government can obtain those funds "from the consolidated revenue fund."
Which means that if Vote 1's $8 million increase is insufficient to cover our MLAs' pay raise, the government will simply dip into the budget's contingency fund to find the necessary cash.
So, British Columbians will have to wait until next July, when the public accounts for the current fiscal year are released, to find out the full cost of providing for our illustrious and distinguished MLAs. Can you wait for it?
Related Tyee stories:
- BC Legislator: Nice Gig!
MLAs got full-time pay for nine week session. Gordon Campbell is arranging a raise. - BC Health Spending Exploding? Don't Believe It
The real story is a provincial budget skewed by deep cuts to welfare, local government and transportation. - Taylor's Do It Ourselves Budget
After tax cuts, it's far less than meets the eye.



16
Login or register to post comments
Skywalker
4 years ago
Aah the rarified air of the Legislature!
Could we look forward to a public discussion on the runaway costs of the MLA as we had with health care. The gloom and doom we heard about how health costs were not sustainable and where the ghost of privatization was lurking in the background. We keep paying these people this kind of money and sure as hell we won't be able to afford anything else. And here am I still paying 50% more for my MSP, I have had my Pharmacare coverage reduced and I can't get my eyes checked more than once every three years and now my teeth checked only once a year. All this courtesy of this bunch who think they are worth this kind of money.
Kind of makes you want to quit voting. Enough already Will, I'm going to be on antidepressants soon!
verso
4 years ago
...
Another fine article Will, wish we saw more of you here.
I quite like this:
That said, shame on both parties -- I want real opposition to this government. Hell, give me the Kwan/Mcphail duo over this lot any day.
Chris H
4 years ago
Where was the media on this?
"Taylor's 2007-08 budget was unveiled February 20. The BC Liberal and NDP members of the LAMC, therefore, had to have prepared and presented to Taylor their Vote 1 allocation well in advance of that date -- likely some time in November or December, 2006."
Does our media spend so little time examining what our legislature is doing that they didn't see this? If the decision had already been made, you'd think some good investigation by some journalist would have uncovered this; especially with such a glaring hint in the budget! They sure as hell spent a lot of time "reporting" of the MLA salary increase.
Grumpy
4 years ago
When governments stink
When corrupted governments begin to gorge at the public trough, they know they are not long for this world and 'gettin', while the 'gettin' good.
An extremely weak opposition and one of the most evil governments in BC's history has now lead to the 'rape' of the taxpayer. All I can say is "A pox on all their houses!"
murdock
4 years ago
the pox
well put Grumpy.
now can we all 'go viral' and deliver that pox by voting independant only?
one can only hope.
Jeffrey J.
4 years ago
Still Hope for the NDP
While some may liken the differences between the NDP and Gordon Campbell's Liberals a Hobson's choice, the two parties are NOT the same. Yes, the NDP have fallen prey to a number of poitical foibles, including self interest in the amount of their pay. But the NDP has also constistently been vilified by CanWestGlobal. That alone speaks volumes. Who does corporate Canada really fear: the NDP or Gordon Campbell? We have ICBC, BC Hydro and a high standard of living all because of the NDP. Yes, sometimes the NDP have failed us, but many times, they have not. If the press gave each party a balanced coverage, who do YOU think would form the next government? Great article however. Thanks Will Martin and the Tyee!!
Working Man
4 years ago
Well Said
"I want real opposition to this government. Hell, give me the Kwan/Mcphail duo over this lot any day."
The sad thing about our "opposition" is they think that they can win the next election by default, ie by sitting around and doing nothing.
When they get creamed next time they will point fingers and blame; at anybody but themselves.
NoLeftNutter
4 years ago
Either,
You get what you pay for or pay for what you get…..
Tieleman
4 years ago
McMartin right on as usual, NDP a write off
Unbelievable that the BC NDP don't realize how badly they've screwed up the pay and pension issue repeatedly - because as McMartin outlines, they've done it again.
And as David Schreck has pointed out at Strategicthoughts.com the NDP and BC Liberals have quietly boosted their pay even further!
But where are the rest of the media?
- Bill Tieleman
Kam Lee
4 years ago
Pigs at the trough
Fab article Will! Whenever I think of hiding facts, EDITED FOR LEGAL CONCERNS -- TYEE EDITOR drinking too much, gorging at the trough, making the people pay way too much in taxes and service charges, I think of gordo. This is a continual barrage of bs from his office. Lets us all realize he is trying to sell out the province. When a baby's diaper is soiled, like this leader agenda... change it!
Skywalker
4 years ago
No, Working Man.
They will still be blaming Glen for their poor showing.
When I questioned the failure of the NDP in 2005, I often heard the party members blame Glen Clark for the failure to unseat Campbell in 2005. I couldn't believe my ears but there it was, the explanation for much of what drives the current powers that run the NDP. Even during the campaign James repeatedly dissed anyone who worked for the Party in the 90's. I thought it a strange way to increase party support because it was as though she assumed she would get all the support from the old as well as the newcomers to the Party by dumping over the old.
She got the support of the CanWest media when she did this. Why wouldn't they? They wanted to see a stronger opposition but a Liberal government in power and it worked very well. The campaign was a tea party for Campbell and James never could get a good platform together. It gave us party policy determined more by the media than Party members. When most people get tired of this and Campbell gets his third term maybe then the NDP will be renewed. Then it may be too late but the MLA's will have their compensation - fat salaries and a "gold plated pension."
BobbyPeru
4 years ago
It's worth it
You guys have lost sense of the proportion, importance and reality of running a govt - of whatever party. Spending $50 to 60 million on the MLAs is peanuts compared to the spending decisions they have to make. And don't forget alot of that is spent on support, consultants and various infrastructure to enable decision making on complex, large scale projects valued at many billions of dollar.
Or what do you expect MLA's to be paid or what should we spend on them? You need a salary that makes it reasonably attractive to work as an MLA. Or do you expect them to work for peanuts? I want the highest quality people working as MLA - NDP or Liberal. Whether they were former business executives or social workers, I want the best brains on average. Don't you?
BC operates in a global economy where local decisions impact BC's competitiveness in the global market. We need legislators who can make decisions with that in mind. I know some of you socialists want to pull out of the global marketplace, but that is no longer possible or acceptable to the vast majority of BC people.
So before you scream they are being paid too much maybe one of you can tell us what they should be paid. I don't mind the benefits and the gold plated pension plan because after a lifetime of public service someone may not be employable in the private sector. Again, it's a small price to pay to attract reasonable talent.
And it costs money to maintain a constituency office, move around to meet people- ask anyone who runs an office.
What's the problem with Glen Clark? You mean you NDP supporters haven't learned a single thing from his disastorous leadership? Stop making union trouble makers the head of your party and premier. None of these people are capable of running a govt because their backgrounds are so lopsided and out of sync with the real world. And stop whining about why the NDP can't win elections- create some sensible and attractive policies for the middle class. This means moving to the political middle as painful as it sounds. Otherwise, you'll be waiting for the Great Depression to win again.
Skywalker
4 years ago
I think we got your point Bobby that
if the NDP had pulled a stunt like this when they were in power you would be crapping all over them as your jaundiced view of them in the last paragraph indicates. You make no mention of the fact that the salaries were set in previous years by two separate third party groups who got rid of the "gold plated pension " because the public and the liberals thought it obscene, Yes Campbell was one of them, So then the raised the salary and cut the pension.
Now they introduce a richer pension, raise the salary by 30 % and 54 % in Campbell's case then add an increase on top of that and because you hate the NDP and just love the liberals, that is all just peachy.
None of them are worth that kind of increase when compared to the average person. Given how they use the money we pay them to spin the truth it really does seem a waste even if you yourself like being lied to as long as you gain a few bucks in your pocket.
They all knew what the salary was when they ran for the office in 2005. So did the Premier and it was hardly peanuts. Most people would have been happy to work for that and done just as good a job. The world commodity prices had improved, transfers from the feds had increaded and you could have got more caring government from Ralph Klein than these guys and that is saying something.
Skywalker
4 years ago
And furthermore Bobby!
All constituency office expenses as well as staff costs are covered by the taxpayer separately so that doesn't even factor in. Secondly the fact that you are willing to pay six figure salaries does not mean you are going to get the best brains available. It's a crap shoot between used car salesmen, property developers, unemployable lawyers, union activists, and average BCers. The person is decided by the party faithful and that is maybe a few hundred of the 20 to 40 thousand in a constituency. Third, if this was really to get the best, then each one of these MLA's would put their seats up for grabs by any and all comers and then if they make it get their $100,000 plus benefits.
All you are doing is making excuses for your favorites, the liberals, and avoiding the obscenity of greed by all of them.
BobbyPeru
4 years ago
Politics of Envy
Come on, my post covered both Liberals and NDP politicians. Like I said, compared to the multi-billion dollar projects MLAs must decide upon you should be paying these amounts. Sure, not all the MLAs are great, but the same could be said for executives in a large company. But, you have to pay enough to make it worthwhile to shoulder the responsibility.
If you expect MLAs to work in service of the people for peanuts then you will get even worse results. Unfortunately MLAs aren't in the position of average people; in fact, there's nothing average about what they do and decisions they take affect us much more than the cashier at Wal Mart.
Stop being envious of what other people make for a living.
Skywalker
4 years ago
It ain't envy.
If I didn't have to have my taxes go up to pay them, it wouldn't bother me at all. Nice try at an ad hominum deflection.
As I said, everyone of them knew the salary when they "applied" back in 2005 and if it was inferior then I guess we may assume from Bobby that they were inferior for agreeing to work under it? They are still the same group so what does that make them now? Right. Greedy, and isn't that the point here?