When provincial MLAs cut their salaries the other day by $3,600, they performed a rare public service. Predictably, several MLAs - while agreeing with the cut - have already complained that the Canadian Taxpayers Federation picked on politicians, and is in fact anti-politician, or that this director thinks cabinet ministers don't work hard enough. Wrong on all counts. (This always happens. In opposition, no one is more anti-politician than Opposition MLAs. Once in power, those same MLAs are rather more touchy.) But given the accusation, it is a perfect time to discuss symbolism, substance, and pay for politicians and also for the public sector.

In Canada, symbolism - especially that practiced by politicians - is often assumed to be an empty gesture, without content or meaning at best, or cynical and manipulative at worst. In Japan, where this writer spent two years, symbolism is taken more seriously and is better appreciated. Similar to good manners, symbolic gestures acknowledge the underlying importance of an issue and send a message to those affected: your concerns are valid. For example, that's why Japanese company presidents have in the past visited someone wronged by their underlings and apologized in person.

Quaint Perhaps. But Canada's political class would do well to pay attention to the importance of such symbolism. In this country, ministers who lose track of public money stay in cabinet for years. If they really embarrass their colleagues by handing out pork too visibly, they get sent to Denmark as an ambassador. (Tough job, but someone's gotta enjoy Europe.) Thus, provincial MLAs set a decent example in taking a cut in pay while cutting the size of government - a policy many British Columbians support. And it's an exception to the usual negative symbolism in Canada.

As it concerns substance, one MLA argued the Canadian Taxpayers Federation should pay more attention to substantive big-dollar issues. Fair point, except that we do. Those who doubt that can spend some time reading through our volumes and pages of federal and provincial reports on corporate welfare, health care, pre-budget submissions, gas taxes, and B.C. Ferries, to name but a few.

On the general point of political pay, the situation in British Columbia (where the government is cutting spending) is somewhat unique. That said, and as it concerns political pay, generalizations are not very helpful. Are politicians overpaid or underpaid It depends. And people phone the CTF offices in Canada with views on both sides of the issue. A Harvard-trained lawyer such as Attorney General Geoff Plant would likely earn more in the private sector; some MLAs might earn less.

The answer to the above question is never likely to be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. As a sensible and fair policy for both politicians and taxpayers though, the CTF last year made a recommendation to a federal committee examining this topic, that such increases (at least anything beyond inflation) should take effect only after the next election. That removes any potential conflict of interest, and it is precisely the system used by U.S. presidents; Bill Clinton set in motion a salary increase that could take effect for the next president, but not himself. All of this is beside the point in the current environment in B.C., but once the budget is balanced, it is a policy the government should remember.

As it concerns non-political public sector pay, the CTF's October pre-budget submission recommended that the government review all salaries in government with an eye to private sector comparisons. While the civil service is technically non-political, many salary levels over the past decade were set according to political calculations and not economic ones. More on that issue next week.