Parnell, Therrien should have walked the walk
Last spring, Peterborough Coun. Diane Therrien led a charge to have a committee of citizens review compensation for herself and her fellow city councillors. Against the objection of three councillors, a councillor compensation committee began its work in the fall and recently released its findings in a report authored by the city clerk. In essence, it called for no changes to the current level of compensation paid to city councillors. Its recommendations were approved by all councillors.
Curiously, the citizen committee’s report was silent on any discussion of the merits of retaining or abandoning the most significant financial benefit provided to city councillors, that being the tax-free status of one-third of their salaries. This benefit has been refused by councillors in other cities and, as uncomfortable as it might have been to remind taxpayers of this generous tax advantage, a discussion of its merits should have been part of the reporting.
One focus of the debate has been the provision of workplace employment benefits for city councillors. Presently, Peterborough councillors receive no such benefits, although they have responsibility for a city hall workforce that does. The citizen committee surveyed eight comparable Ontario municipalities, seven of whom reported that their councillors received employment benefits such as pensions, life insurance, dental care and vision care.
Only Timmins and Peterborough offered their councillors no benefits. In addition, six of our city councillors – a majority – advised the committee that they would like to be considered for employment benefits.
In spite of this support, the committee rejected the idea of employment benefits, offering the dated suggestion that part-time workers like councillors shouldn’t receive benefits; and arguing that, because household income in Peterborough is low and many fulltime workers don’t receive benefits, councillors shouldn’t either.
The extension of that contorted logic is the troubling notion that we should all settle for the lowest of standards rather than lift up workers when we have the opportunity to do so.
Much of the employment benefit debate has gender and feminist aspects, about which the all-male citizen committee was silent. The current level of compensation is not seen to be sufficient to attract a wide variety of candidates to the job.
Benefits that add to that compensation have a disproportionately positive impact on those who are young, have young families, or have family or parent caretaker responsibilities. Most of these beneficiaries are women.
Peterborough’s two female councillors both spoke on the issue at committee.
Coun. Lesley Parnell made the case in favour of employment benefits, particularly for women. She said, “I hate to admit it but there is a gender inequality within politics ... less women are in politics ... less women have access to benefits.” Nonetheless, she voted to deny benefits.
Coun. Diane Therrien was featured in a local panel discussion in January in support of attracting more women to political office. She gave a speech about the need for incentives to bring more women into politics and then she too voted to deny councillor benefits.
Our two female councillors chose not to support workplace benefits for the next generation of women on council, demonstrating the gap between talking the talk and walking the walk.
Ironically, female politicians at Queen’s Park have recently taken the lead in providing paid time off for pregnancy and parental leave for city councillors like Parnell and Therrien. Peterborough’s own women on council didn’t take a stand in line with their stated convictions which – even in a losing cause – would have brought them respect and admiration. When they waffle, progress for women in politics is made all the more difficult.