Chong’s big meal claim and MLAs’ sense of entitlement

It’s not really Ida Chong’s fault. She’s a cultural victim.
The minister for health living and sport ran into a storm of criticism when the Times Colonist reported she claimed almost $6,000 in meal allowances last year – while living a few miles from the legislature.
All MLAs can claim a $61 a day for meals when the legislature is sitting or they are in Victoria or Vancouver on government business. (If they live outside the capital, they can also claim up to $19,000 a year to rent or buy a place in the capital.) The capital city allowance, it’s called.
Chong, the public accounts revealed, claimed $5,921 in meal expenses — about 98 days worth. Even though she lives about 10 kilometres from the legislature. And the legislature only sat for 60 days out of the year,
Pack a lunch like the rest of us, angry voters said, especially when your government is cutting programs and telling people belt-tightening is needed.
Chong argued all MLAs collected similar amounts. (Unfortunately for her, Murray Coell, her neighbour and fellow cabinet minister, undermined that defence by claimed $1,321.)
And she said, correctly, that the meal claims were within the rules.
Which raises two underlying issues.
First, the rules are remarkably generous. Most employers reimburse reasonable expenses when people travel on business. But they don’t usually give you $61 for food if you have a long day at the office. MLAs don’t have to provide receipts. If they buy a $6 sandwich for lunch and a $10 pizza for supper, they can still claim the full $61.
It’s not just the expense claims. MLAs have increased their base pay by 34 per cent in the last five years to $99,000. Most get extra money for various roles. Cabinet ministers, like Chong, are paid $152,000.
But the average wage in B.C. rose about 12 per cent in the same period.
MLAs also voted to give themselves a generous pension plan, with taxpayers picking up a large part of the cost.
But only 25 per cent of British Columbians have any workplace pension plan. The majority of taxpayers are paying for a good pension plan for MLAs while they have no plan of their own.
The gap between the rulers and the ruled has widened.
The examples are striking. MLAs think they need up to $19,000 for a part-time home in Victoria. But the government expects a disabled person income assistance to find accommodation for less than $4,500 a year. Perhaps MLAs need nicer places than someone with a disability — but four times as nice?
Chong’s $6,000 in meal claims is twice the income assistance provided to a single person for all living expenses, except rent, for an entire year. It’s five times the monthly income of someone working at minimum wage.
The disparities suggest MLAs have a high opinion of their value and importance — and a low opinion of their constituents’ worth.
Second, MLAs’ sense of entitlement is showing. Just because the rules allow a $61-a-day claim doesn’t mean they have to grab the money. MLAs could submit expenses that reflect what they actually paid for food. At incomes of $100,000 and up, they could opt to pay for their own lunches.
Chong is not an exception. Her claims were revealed because cabinet ministers’ expenses are reported as part of the public accounts.
The five New Democrat MLAs from the capital region have rallied around Chong and — appallingly — refused to say how much they claimed for expenses. Taxpayers are paying the bills, but according to the New Democrats, it’s none of their business what the cost is.
Which suggests that the claims are high and raises real concerns about the kind of accountability and openness an NDP government would provide.
No one should begrudge MLAs an adequate income. But many people are rightly angry at this casual excess.
Footnote: The latest pay and benefit increases followed the recommendations of a three-person review panel appointed by the premier. But the trio included a senior labour relations lawyer, a former B.C. Supreme Court justice back in private practice and a University of B.C. business professor. Their average income was likely north of $250,000, shaping their perspectives.
For more than 20 years, the State of Washington has had a 16-person salary commission to deal with pay for elected officials. A member is selected at random from the voters' list in each of nine geographical areas. The politicians appoint five members — one each from universities, business, professional personnel management, the law and organized labour. The state's HR department and universities get to name one person each.