Let's see now, in June it was MPs hiking their pay packages in an odious spectacle. Now it's July, and MPPs are doing the same? Well not exactly since they're not currently sitting at Queen's Park, but the Integrity Commissioner - an independent officer of the Ontario legislature - has been tasked with determining if and how much a new pay regime for MPPs should be worth.

Amidst all the fuss and debate over pay for federal politicians in June, their Ontario counterparts quietly slipped through Bill 82 - MPP Compensation Reform Act (Arm's Length Process) 2001 on June 28th which amends the Legislative Assembly Act and gives the Integrity Commissioner the binding power to set the level and structure of compensation our for MPPs.

Okay Robinson, you might say, why are you writing about this event in the dog days of July a month after it happened? A good question I would say … and thank you for asking. Well it's because the Integrity Commissioner has taken out advertisements in Ontario newspapers seeking your counsel on what you think your MPP is worth.

But here's the potential rub. In the Integrity Commissioner's advertisement he notes that part of Bill 82 stipulates that his report "provides for a salary change, the change takes effect on the date that the report is delivered to the speak and if the report so provides, an increase is retroactive to the date set out in the report.

But before you write (and I hope you do), some important facts should be reviewed. To start, MPPs, unlike their federal colleagues, made some fundamental reforms to their compensation packages way back in 1996. Shortly after the provincial Tories came to power, they abolished the tax-free allowance component of MPP pay and reformed the rich, defined-benefit MPP pension plan into a more private sector comparable, defined-contribution pension plan for members of the legislature.

So on the principles of simplicity and transparency, MPPs already receive high marks for the structure of their pay packages. However, when it comes to accountability and fairness, the jury is still out.

Tory and Liberal MPPs (who voted for Bill 82) will tell you that it was the best response in a bad situation (admittedly, more pay for politicians is never an easy sell). After witnessing the poor process in Ottawa where MPs went further than the Lumley report recommended on the timing (read: Sooner than proposed) of hiking their pay and changing their pension (read: More generous than proposed) payout provisions, provincial politicians rightly wanted nothing that even closely resembled this greedy and conflict of interest laden process.

But in their rush to sprint away from anything resembling a conflict of interest, they moved to an equally untenable position where they have fundamentally abdicated their responsibility to be accountable for the expenditure of public dollars. By crafting a Bill that makes the recommendation of the Integrity Commissioner "binding" and potentially "immediate," they have set a dangerous precedent.

Why stop with MPP pay? Why not remove the accountability for fiscal policy or let's be really extreme, the setting of a budget entirely? This is the precedent MPPs have set by asking an independent officer of the legislature - albeit an impartial and respected one - to make fiscal decisions.

Instead, MPPs, or let's be clearer, the Harris Tories, could have drafted a Bill which made the Integrity Commissioner's recommendations binding if you must, but only to take effect after the next provincial election. Such a process would have been blatantly more accountable and fairer to politicians and taxpayers alike.

With the present process, MPPs have politicized the Office of the Integrity Commissioner and potentially weakened the commissioner's ability to speak with any moral suasion on true issues of conflict of interest in the future should Ontarians vehemently object to his MPP pay recommendations. Nonetheless, this is where we now find ourselves.

So we should make the best of a bad situation. At the CTF we have already written the Integrity Commissioner (while Bill 82 was being debated) and may do so again, detailing our recommendations.

Yes our MPPs are underpaid relative to some of their provincial counterparts across the country, so a slight upward adjustment to their pay packages is in order. As well, annual salary adjustments should be set to an index mechanism to reflect an average of public and private sector provincial wage growth. And in the years where there is no wage growth, well MPPs would be in the same boat with the rest of us.

Finally and despite the section quoted from the Bill above, our reading of Bill 82 doesn't preclude the commissioner from recommending a two-step process: first, no changes to the current structure but after the next election, a new, enhanced pay regime with indexing can take effect. The current crop of 103 provincial MPPs were elected in 1999 knowing full well what the salary structure was and upon taking their oath of office, they entered into a moral contract with voters indicating that they would serve out the mandate of the current government knowing full well that their pay package would be $78,007 per year.

But enough about our recommendations, your opinion counts as well. Fire up the computer and make your voice heard.