Huge Pay Raises, the Silent Issue
Libs gave selves big pay hikes, zero to minimum wage earners. But NDP can't complain.
We'll show how your MLA cashed in.
The current general-election campaign has given B.C. politicians a welcome opportunity to discuss wages and salaries. Not their own, of course. Other people's.
Take the BC Liberals, who are campaigning against a minimum-wage increase for the province's lowest-paid workers. It is a position emphatically asserted in their party platform (see page 36, here). Boosting the minimum wage, it's claimed, would result in "job losses" and push countless small businesses "into bankruptcy."
The New Democrats, for their part, vow to rollback last summer's salary hikes for B.C.'s senior public servants. And this, too, is a platform commitment (see pages 20, 45 and 47, here). The government -- can you believe it? -- gave its "top aides big pay raises." Oh, my.
But to date nary a peep has been heard from either party about the massive pay and benefit lifts our MLAs awarded themselves just 23 months ago.
Premier's $60,951 raise
How big were those pay raises adopted by the legislature in May 2007? In a word, huge.
Consider the two major party leaders, Gordon Campbell and Carole James. Campbell, premier and head of the BC Liberals, saw his annual compensation soar from $126,638 to $187,589 between 2006/07 and 2007/08. That's a one-year hike of $60,951, or 48.1 per cent.
Carole James, leader of the official Opposition and the New Democratic Party, won a pay hike from $120,762 to $145,373 in the same period. That's a lift of $24,611, or 20.4 per cent.
(These numbers were calculated by comparing each MLAs' pay in the 2007/08 public accounts, pages 7 to 9, here, to those of the previous year, here. MLA compensation for the most-recent fiscal year, 2008/09, which ended on March 31, will not be released until later this summer.)
In total, MLA and cabinet minister compensation -- paid by B.C. taxpayers; that is, the voters -- skyrocketed from $8 million to nearly $9.7 million between 2006/07 and 2007/08. That's an increase of 20.3 per cent -- and does not include increased payments made by British Columbians to the MLAs' pension plan.
The lion's share of the increase, nearly $1.2 million, went to the then 46-member BC Liberal caucus -- an average of about $26,000 per MLA. The 33-member New Democratic Party caucus garnered a total of $478,000, or an average of about $14,500 per MLA.
Four steps to greater wealth
The story, as Tyee readers learned, began late in 2006, when BC Liberal and NDP MLAs connived to create a process that would culminate in sizeable pay increases. Briefly, it was to be a four-step manouevre.
First, members of the all-party Legislative Assembly Management Committee (LAMC) quietly inserted a massive lift for MLA compensation into the 2007/08 fiscal budget's Vote 1 ("Legislature"). Next, Campbell appointed a three-member panel of non-politicians to study MLA salaries and benefits, and make recommendations.
In the third step, the commission's findings were drafted into a bill to be approved in the legislative assembly. And fourth, after passing the legislation, the MLAs voted to approve the Vote 1 expenditures snuck into the budget by the LAMC months earlier.
It seemed foolproof, and the first two steps went like clockwork. So did the fourth, as MLAs from both parties unanimously assented to the massive budgetary increase in Vote 1. But by then the original scheme had gone awry, because the New Democrats belatedly balked at the third step.
James and her New Democratic Party MLAs -- many of whom had met behind closed-doors with the commission to plead for a pay increase -- professed to be shocked at the panel's recommendations. Some even spoke against Bill 37 when it was introduced in the legislative assembly. (And all vowed to contribute their unwanted pay raises to charity, which they did not, but that's another story.)
The bill passed, of course, and B.C.'s legislators -- BC Liberals and New Democrats alike -- obtained a massive pay hike and a sweetened pension. (Although Bill 37 was not passed until May 31, the MLAs thoughtfully made it retroactive to the beginning of the fiscal year, April 1, 2007.)
Hypocritical stand by Libs
That was then. Today those same MLAs who schemed to get themselves a huge pay raise are seeking re-election, and letting us know how they feel about wage and salary hikes for other people. They don't like them, and the numbers they offer to buttress their election platforms simply do not add up.
Take the BC Liberals, whose platform states that "the last thing small businesses need is a $450 million cost imposed by the NDP to increase the minimum wage." The result of such an increase, the Campbell Liberals claim, would be "more layoffs, more job losses and cash-strapped businesses that would be pushed into bankruptcy."
Let's examine that assertion. Assume that someone earning the current minimum wage of $8 per hour works eight hours a day, five days a week and 50 weeks out of the year. That's an annual total of 2,000 hours, putting their yearly income (2,000 hours x $8) at $16,000.
An increase to $10 per hour would push a minimum-wage worker's annual compensation (2,000 hours x $10) to $20,000. That's an increase of $4,000 over one full year.
Using Statistics Canada data, the BC Liberals claim that the number of British Columbians earning the minimum wage is about 50,800. The total cost of the NDP's proposed increase in the minimum wage, therefore, would be ($4,000 x 50,800) about $203.2 million.
How do the BC Liberals more than double that figure to $450 million? Well, instead of using the latest StatsCan data, they're relying on a B.C. Chamber of Commerce report that's at least two years old.
But, using either number, we should remember that B.C.'s economy -- our annual gross domestic product, in real dollars -- is about $200 billion. That means the NDP's proposed hike to the minimum wage would represent a "cost" to the provincial economy of either 0.01 per cent ($203.2 million) or 0.02 per cent ($450 million) of provincial GDP. Is it really possible that such tiny percentages would have the devastating impact on British Columbia as claimed by the BC Liberals?
More importantly, a minimum wage hike wouldn't actually be a "cost", as the Campbell Liberals claim. That's because nearly all low-wage workers would spend their pay raise as soon as they got it. Far from being removed from the economy, a minimum-wage raise would be re-circulated almost immediately.
And is it necessary to add that in B.C., in both 2006 and 2007, corporation profits before taxes were about $21 billion annually -- or about one hundred times the "cost" to businesses of a hike in the minimum wage? (See table A1.4 on page 62, here)
NDP's own double standard
Meanwhile, James and her New Democrats don't do any better with their math. Let's go back to last summer, when the Campbell government awarded pay raises to its non-partisan, senior public servants.
Forty-one deputy ministers had their pay lifted to an average of nearly $218,000 annually, while 117 assistant deputy ministers were boosted to a yearly average of $158,000.
James exploded. "It's not fair to the people who work hard and pay their taxes for the Campbell government to spend their money on massive pay increases for premier's top advisors," she said in an August news release.
Two months later, in a televised address following one by Campbell, James made numerous references to the bureaucratic pay raises, at one point even calling them "obscene."
Now, the NDP platform pledges that a James government would "restore British Columbians' faith in the openness and accountability" (in our politicians) by "rolling back the huge 43 per cent pay increases approved by Gordon Campbell for his top officials and advisors."
First, according to the government (see here), the deputy ministers' pay was bumped up by an average of only seven percent, while the ADMs got an average boost of 21 per cent.
The 43 per cent increase to which James refers was the maximum possible for just one person: Jessica McDonald, Campbell's deputy. But McDonald, following a media and public backlash, rejected that raise in August -- nearly eight months before the NDP released its platform.
Second, the government calculates -- and the New Democrats agree -- that the total cost of its bureaucratic pay raises is $3.15 million annually. Divided between 158 senior bureaucrats, that's an average increase of about $20,000.
James professes to be horrified by that lift, even though it's comparable to the pay raise she and other legislators gave themselves in 2007 ($1.63 million divided by 79 MLAs = $20,600). And, of course, James herself got a hike of $24,611.
Third, the NDP platform claims that the $3 million or so to be saved by rolling-back the bureaucrats' pay raise is part of an overall $1.2 billion in savings they'll achieve in the current and next two fiscal years. The other savings allegedly will be derived from slashing contracted services, whacking the public affairs bureau, cutting government travel, and draining the two-year-old Housing Endowment Fund.
This is, simply, fantastical, especially when considering that these NDP reductions are on top of the $297 million in one year "administrative savings" already outlined in the Campbell Liberals' 2009/10 budget (see page 30, here)
Churlish and mean
If B.C. voters are going to accurately assess election promises on the minimum wage and bureaucratic compensation, it seems only proper that they should do so within the context of the massive pay hikes our legislators gave to themselves barely two years ago.
In that light, it seems churlish for James and her New Democrats to want to take from B.C.'s bureaucrats the same kind of salary increase our MLAs awarded themselves in May 2007.
And as for Gordon Campbell and his BC Liberals seeking a mandate from voters to deny low-income British Columbians an increase in the minimum wage, well, words just can't describe that kind of mean-spiritedness.
A footnote: The 2006/07 public accounts showed that members of the non-political commission studying MLA compensation got $50,000 apiece for their work during that fiscal period. The 2007/08 public accounts show that additional payments were made in that year.
For about three months work, then, Susan Paish and Josiah Wood were paid $75,000 apiece; Sandra Robinson got $76,393.
MOOLAH FOR YOUR MLA: Who got the biggest raises?
The table below shows the incumbent MLAs who are currently seeking re-election, both BC Liberals and New Democrats. They are ranked in order of the pay increases they gave themselves in 2007/08. (The MLAs who are not seeking re-election have been excised from the list.)
| MLA | Party | Salary 07/08 | $ Increase | % Increase |
| Gordon Campbell | Lib | 187,589 | 60,951 | 48.1 |
| Gordon Hogg | Lib | 146,463 | 43,095 | 41.7 |
| Kevin Krueger | Lib | 143,524 | 42,143 | 41.6 |
| Linda Reid | Lib | 145,267 | 35,846 | 32.8 |
| Kevin Falcon | Lib | 159,840 | 34,053 | 27.1 |
| Colin Hansen | Lib | 156,714 | 33,121 | 26.8 |
| John Les | Lib | 162,351 | 32,270 | 24.8 |
| Barry Penner | Lib | 161,243 | 31,388 | 24.2 |
| Wally Oppal | Lib | 150,325 | 30,899 | 25.9 |
| John van Dongen | Lib | 144,567 | 30,659 | 26.9 |
| Rich Coleman | Lib | 162,264 | 29,646 | 22.4 |
| Patrick Bell | Lib | 161,911 | 29,432 | 22.2 |
| Murray Coell | Lib | 145,020 | 29,297 | 25.3 |
| Ida Chong | Lib | 148,866 | 29,125 | 24.3 |
| George Abbott | Lib | 162,912 | 29,016 | 21.7 |
| Michael de Jong | Lib | 152,783 | 25,741 | 20.3 |
| Sue Hammell | NDP | 130,530 | 25,242 | 24.0 |
| Carole James | NDP | 145,373 | 24,611 | 20.4 |
| Shirley Bond | Lib | 157,092 | 24,442 | 18.4 |
| Rob Fleming | NDP | 111,218 | 22,878 | 25.9 |
| Mike Farnworth | NDP | 116,032 | 21,917 | 23.3 |
| Mary Polak | Lib | 111,218 | 21,318 | 23.7 |
| Ron Cantelon | Lib | 110,920 | 21,158 | 23.6 |
| Jenny Kwan | NDP | 116,032 | 20,403 | 21.3 |
| Raj Chouhan | NDP | 109,135 | 20,269 | 22.8 |
| Richard Lee | Lib | 111,218 | 19,818 | 21.7 |
| Leonard Krog | NDP | 106,503 | 19,342 | 22.2 |
| Randy Hawes | Lib | 116,032 | 19,246 | 19.9 |
| Blair Lekstrom | Lib | 111,218 | 19,175 | 20.8 |
| John Yap | Lib | 116,032 | 18,659 | 19.2 |
| Diane Thorne | NDP | 105,376 | 18,106 | 20.7 |
| Guy Gentner | NDP | 106,339 | 17,830 | 20.1 |
| Robin Austin | NDP | 111,711 | 17,807 | 19.0 |
| Joan McIntyre | Lib | 106,404 | 17,701 | 20.0 |
| Bill Barisoff | Lib | 145,373 | 16,671 | 13.0 |
| Harry Bloy | Lib | 116,032 | 16,439 | 16.5 |
| Bruce Ralston | NDP | 104,732 | 16,292 | 18.4 |
| John Horgan | NDP | 97,241 | 16,061 | 19.8 |
| Dave Hayer | Lib | 111,218 | 15,927 | 16.7 |
| John Rustad | Lib | 111,087 | 15,511 | 16.2 |
| Katrine Conroy | NDP | 116,032 | 15,525 | 15.4 |
| Harry Lali | NDP | 105,430 | 14,307 | 15.7 |
| Iain Black | Lib | 107,041 | 14,142 | 15.2 |
| Maurine Karagianis | NDP | 96,892 | 14,120 | 17.1 |
| Jagrup Brar | NDP | 96,892 | 12,352 | 14.6 |
| Michael Sather | NDP | 96,892 | 11,864 | 14.0 |
| Claire Trevena | NDP | 96,892 | 11,702 | 10.0 |
| Shane Simpson | NDP | 96,892 | 11,407 | 13.3 |
| Harry Bains | NDP | 96,892 | 11,008 | 12.8 |
| Nicholas Simons | NDP | 97,563 | 10,934 | 12.6 |
| Scott Fraser | NDP | 96,892 | 10,558 | 12.2 |
| Doug Routley | NDP | 98,745 | 10,410 | 11.8 |
| Norm MacDonald | NDP | 96,892 | 10,211 | 11.8 |
| Gary Coons | NDP | 96,892 | 10,075 | 11.6 |
| Adrian Dix | NDP | 96,892 | 8,833 | 10.0 |
| Charlie Wyse | NDP | 96,892 | 8,139 | 9.2 |
| Bob Simpson | NDP | 96,892 | 7,340 | 8.2 |
| John Nuraney | Lib | 96,892 | 5,629 | 6.2 |
| Ralph Sultan | Lib | 96,892 | 4,465 | 4.8 |
| Bill Bennett | Lib | 113,098 | 814 | 0.7 |
Related Tyee stories:
- BC ministers will suffer smaller pay cut than Premier Campbell claimed: Schreck
- $800,000 per Lucky MLA
BC Libs' pension grab offered a fat target. The NDP whiffed. - Afraid to Raise Minimum Wage?
We shouldn't be. Research proves it. - Spending on BC Politicians Explodes
Total cost of MLA compensation soars over 50 per cent since 2001.
![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
dorothy
28-04-2009
I knew I heard something...
Oink, Oink!
No, seriously, the salaries, gross as they may seem to a hard-working grocery clerk anywhere, reflect that these people are not professionals in what they do. Look, for comparison, at salaries hauled home by such people as high-ranking pathologists. The salary is 'commensurate' with the magnitude of liability one could incur. Making the wrong call for an MD could be in the millions. So, hefty liability insurance. Making the wrong call for a Minister or even the Premier of our fair province - naah, it's free.
Luke Skywalker
28-04-2009
A Good Balanced Article...
I fully agree that the minimum wage should have been lifted to $9.00/hour at least two years ago. I don't know why the Lib numskulls didn't move forward with same.
That said, I was never aware of this factoid:
But all politics... all the time:
Yet...
You forgot to mention that MLA's are much more qualified than the upper echelon of the professional public service. ;)
All hypocrasy... all the time.
DPL
28-04-2009
Don't forget the large
Don't forget the large pension deal they managed to cook up as well. I did write C. James reminding her that my 35 years military and Federal crown cost me 7 percent of my salary for all those years toward a pension. The MLA's pay only a percentage of the amount and guess who pays the rest. US. Yes the NDP put their raise to assorted charities, I never heard of a Liberal doing that. But those amounts then became a tax benefit. Big question. Does anyone plan on doing the , over to charities excercise, after this election? Maybe the candidates could answer that one
RickW
28-04-2009
Maybe, if we are to be chnging the way we vote....
....we should include "none of the above"(NOTA) as a category. Combined with some form of PR, NOTA would be represented by empty seats. As well, elegible voters who do not vote, would be counted as NOTA.
So, in the 2005 election, fully 40% of the seats would be empty. That would be 32 MLAs we wouldn't have to pay for.......
Moonbug
28-04-2009
a few thoughts...
The NDP MLAs did give a large portion of their salary increase away. I don't see that mentioned here.
Besides, they aren't making very high salaries. I know this sounds like heresy, but for the number of hours they put in (pretty much every waking hour) they are not getting super high renumeration. When you are an MLA you are on the job every moment of the day.
It is wrong for the MLAs to get a raise without raising minimum wage, but the New Dems have called for a min wage increase...
realisticman
28-04-2009
Good article!
Fair and balanced. That's what good journalism is - to me.
I like strong opinions but in a piece like this I want both sides of the issue explained so that I can judge for myself what went on. I expect there are others that feel the same way.
I too cannot understand why the minimum wage is so low. Recently a young person (twenties) and I were discussing a project and she casually mentioned that she charges $50 hr. I thought nothing of it. Seems okay if she knows what she's doing. Whenever I hire casual workers I always pay them $18-$20 hr. minimum, even if they ask for less. Perhaps the market will/is just moving ahead of the rules - it often does. Maybe there are very few actually earning minimum.
Tony Martinson
28-04-2009
Define "few'
Stats Can says there are 300,000 British Columbians making less than $10/hr. Is that few?
RickW
28-04-2009
R/M
Perhaps not. But factor in the (IMO) excessive number of part-time positions, and it really doesn't matter what the hourly wage is............
Moonbug
28-04-2009
I never made above min wage
I never made above min wage until two years ago, and I am in my mid twenties. I lived in poverty pretty much. The only difference between then and now is I got a lucky break - someone saw my skills and hired me outside of the food/service industry. Most of my friends still make 8-10 an hour.
I know several young single/might-as-well-be-single mothers trying to raise their kids on wages like that, and no real help for daycare either.
It is a crime. If you don't know anyone making minimum wage it is because you are simply not in the class of folks making that wage. We like to think here in Canada that class is a non-issue - but that is bullsh-t. If you are making min wage chances are you don't have access to the social spaces where non-min wage earners meet and congregate (which further reduces your social circle and lessens your chances of crawling out of the min wage hole)
Of course you can always get a student loan to try and escape the min wage cesspool... but then you just get to effectively make minimum wage for 10 more years while you pay it off!
peasant43
29-04-2009
Silent Nothing
I'll say it for the bazillionth time, Will. The real silence is the story of why no one ever does anything about it.
Stump
29-04-2009
Don't believe the hype
"Besides, they aren't making very high salaries. I know this sounds like heresy, but for the number of hours they put in (pretty much every waking hour) they are not getting super high renumeration. When you are an MLA you are on the job every moment of the day."
No they don't. They work hard, but no harder than most small business owners or a motivated self-employed person. The real insult to the taxpayer is the self-appointed mega-raises while preaching and practicing belt-tightening in every other aspect of the provincial budget that doesn't reward cronies and the party faithful.
Jeffrey J.
29-04-2009
Bottom Line: Raise the Minimum Wage
The bottom line is, who is more likely to help disadvantaged citizens, raise the minimum wage, support initiatives like ICBC (brought in by the NDP), Agricultural Land Reserve (ditto), freezing of tuition for college kids (ditto), freezing of new fish farm applications (ditto), creation of more parks and conservancies (ditto).
On May 12, citizens can choose the NDP, or four more years of Mr. Campbell. The differences are significant.
Rod Smelser
29-04-2009
One thing missing
There's one thing missing in Will McMartin's article. How would he establish a process for setting pay and benefits for senior career bureaucrats (DMs and ADMs), various government appointees (eg, Crown Corp CEOs, University Presidents, Provincial Court Judges), and last, but hardly least, MLAs and Cabinet Ministers that will stand the test of public scrutiny?
Remember that the problem here is that it doesn't really matter if the process is good according to some HR specialist or accountant, it matters what the press and public reaction is. The press reaction is largely determinant of the public reaction, and it's in turn dependent on how reporters relate to the government and the opposition and their press relations staffers.
Skywalker
29-04-2009
They are all overpaid.
The NDP did try to mute criticism by offering to make a few donations with their increase. I'm sure that will stop for the next year. This also does not mention their pensions nor the hypocrisy of the liberals for speaking in favour of getting rid of it in '96 and then reinstating it for themselves. It does not include their expense accounts which are substantial. The notion that some of these folks are worth a basic 96 grand is ludicrous.
It sure won't change with STV. That really is a joke.
driftwolf
29-04-2009
voting
NDP and Liberal are both corrupt. If I didn't need to vote NDP to make sure the local Liberal candidate couldn't win, I'd vote Green. Unfortunately, with a first-past-the-post system we have now, I can't vote for the party I'd rather vote for, because doing so would be basically throwing my vote away.
I hope BC-STV gets in, that might shake things up a bit. Not the way the proponents think it will, probably, but at least give proportional representation half a chance.
fernwoodguy
29-04-2009
Did any Liberals do this with their raises, after their cuts...
June 21, 2007
VICTORIA - New Democrat MLAs Carole James, Maurine Karagianis, David Cubberley, and Rob Fleming announced today that they will be pooling contributions from their pay raises to support the Mary Manning Centre, a non-profit agency dedicated to treating child survivors of sexual abuse.
"The Mary Manning Centre has been pleading with this government for more funding," said James, whose constituency of Victoria-Beacon Hill includes the Mary Manning Centre. "Gordon Campbell and the Minister of Children and Family Development have refused to provide the $170,000 the Centre needs to keep three therapists on staff. Those therapists provide counseling for children who have survived sexual abuse and any cuts will lead to an unacceptable increase in the wait list. Hopefully our contribution will help keep these important services in place."
Skywalker
29-04-2009
driftwolf
Considering the quality of candidate that the Green Party usually runs across the province; college kids and such, it would be far too much money for them as well. I dare say that even one of them with a 96 Grand salary would probably become just another politician. So STV won't change that one bit. Nobody making 96 Grand can have any significant empathy with the average taxpayer in BC. The higher the salary the less empathy. Gordon proves it.
G West
29-04-2009
From Hansard
May 28, 2007:
Hon. G. Campbell: I think the Leader of the Opposition will have an organization chart to highlight some of the positions that take place. Of course, there is the chief of staff. There's the deputy chief of staff and the executive assistant to the Premier. [Lara Dauphinee] She is responsible for the Premier's communication branch, the Premier's scheduling branch, the Premier's correspondence branch.
She's responsible for the recruitment and hiring of administrative coordinators and support staff in the Victoria minister's office. She's responsible for operations of the Premier's Vancouver and Victoria offices, including recruitment, hiring and ongoing review of administrative coordinators and support staff. She is responsible for the Premier's tour and special events. She is the lead liaison with the protection detail. She organizes the Premier's travel and meetings and events, and she ensures that follow-up takes place.
That should be conservative enough for you
Now, readers can decide for themselves whether or not those duties merit a pay packet which puts Ms Dauphinee at #316 out of 5,452 high earners in the Vancouver Sun's database.
Gabe
29-04-2009
How about this?
How about a legislated ratio of full-time positions to part-time positions at a company? (This ought to bring out the trolls)
Might stop the practice of hiring a lot of minimum-wage part-time expendable employees for just under 30 hours a week.
Employers should be required to commit more to their employees. They'd probably see a good return on that investment.
morechatter
29-04-2009
Chain Gangs
And not of the sporting variety but the working as unable to pay a person a wage to live so Chain Gangs may be the answer as used in US. As gangs members end up in prison for lack of training and education just like Canadians.
Well here is an opportunity of a lifetime for gang members to get some 6 dollar training of a life time instead of being behind bars. This way they can deduct the bill of locking them up off the $100,000 as security and policing escalates or more.
I'm certain the government can use every cent they can get their hands on and its what they are good at as their is not a small needy child these guys have not dipped their hands into their pockets as even the Children's Hertritage fund was not safe from their greed. As Campbell takes it from children who are in dire need.
And just think of it if these convicts think your ripping them off they will just help themselves so it will all balance out.
As it was okay to get them to work for 40 but its not okay for them to get paid a living wage for it? Where is the logic in that I can't afford to own a business unless you can work for next to nothing? http://www.term-papers.us/ts/eb/lfm246.shtml
I also hear Campbell is a real family man as he has a couple families going on at one time.
morechatter
29-04-2009
And finally
Roll back those wages and those pensions are a killer as clearly these guys are good at what the economy? Why do you say that because they have created an economic climate that in none conducive to business?
Just trying to clarify the reasoning as small business complains of the added cost of $4000 for the year while small business talks of the added cost of $4000 in added rents for rents if not more. Why is that? Don't you have to work in this province and make money as this is sure no way to go about it? Highest gas taxes, highest rents, carbon taxes, along with GST and PST to the bill but when it comes to the struggling workers Liberals say hey loser why don't you get yourself a real job like me and quit complaining your working aren't you?