Each provincial election brings a cast of new MPPs to Queen's Park. But with winners, there are also losers. And a CP wire story estimates severance costs for 43 defeated or non-returning MPPs to be in the neighbourhood of $2.5 million. Each MPP is entitled to 6 months severance pay plus one month per year of service up to a maximum package of 12 months salary.

For members who were defeated on June 3rd, this approach is comparable to private sector mid-level executives who are let go due to downsizing, corporate office moves, etc. It is both fair and reasonable. But we object to the severance provisions for 21 "retiring" MPPs that constitutes about $1 million of the $2.5 million mentioned earlier.

In response, Etobicoke Centre MPP- and Speaker of the Legislature - Chris Stockwell lashed out at the CTF with fabrications and misrepresentations of our position on this issue. He slams the messenger (us) because he can't slam the validity of the message.

Mr. Stockwell opined to Global TV that, "it's a pious, self-serving argument." Excuse me! We think people who decide to quit their jobs (sometimes months in advance) or who serve for only eight months (as is the case for one MPP) should not be entitled to a generous 6-month severance package. In the real world, taxpayers that voluntarily quit their jobs aren't entitled to EI or other generous benefits. Mr. Stockwell should take a walk through low-income neighbourhoods in his riding, like Capri Road or Yucca flats, and ask his constituents if they think that politicians who voluntarily quit their jobs and then get a package to boot is self-serving

Then Mr. Stockwell went on to say, "I don't think they'd (referring to the CTF) be happy unless you're working in the dark on orange crates with no pay and no pension. You know … and I don't think you could ever satisfy their particular position. I think paying politicians is almost abhorrent to them."

From these remarks it is crystal clear that Mr. Stockwell has the faintest clue about our "particular position." So for his benefit, allow me to clarify our position. We applaud the Ontario government for converting their offensive, mostly taxpayer funded, old pension scheme into a matching dollar-for-dollar group RRSP scheme after coming to power in 1995. It is now in line with the 40% of Canadian private-sector workers who are lucky enough to have a company pension plan.

When it comes to compensation for our politicians they should be compensated fairly and adequately for their service. But don't look to us for any sympathy for the long hours, family stresses, or the oft-repeated argument of career interruptions, blah, blah, blah.

These pressures are well documented and one hopes that the decision to seek elected office is made with a great deal of forethought. As for the "take pity on me, I gave up a lucrative private sector career" argument, don't waste my time. In legislatures across the land, usually 1/3 of members have taken a pay cut, 1/3 are making the same before they went into office, and the final 1/3 are making the best salary of their lives.

Simplicity, transparency, accountability and fairness should be the pillars upon which fair compensation packages for MPPs are designed. Note: Poor lighting conditions, orange crates and demands for volunteer labour are not amongst our compensation principles.

Hopefully Mr. Stockwell now has an understanding of our "particular position." However, if he wants to continue this debate, I'll be in Toronto on June 16th and will make myself, and my "pious and self-serving arguments" available.

Finally, if it makes Mr. Stockwell feel more comfortable, I'm not averse to holding the debate in a dark room with orange crates for podiums.