Imagine a want ad for an MPP.

“Wanted, high energy individual for prominent position in the Ontario government. Must be willing to work long hours, be constantly criticized and take direction from young and inexperienced unelected advisors. The ability to defend decisions you had nothing to do with — and may in fact disagree — is an asset.

Applicants should enjoy long commutes, extended periods of time away from their family, no possibility of a pay increase, no pension and bleak post-career prospects. Although successful candidates will have a long resume of community service, they must never have made any mistakes, particularly involving social media. Anyone who has ever sent an ill-advised tweet or posted an offensive joke on Facebook that seemed funnier 10 years ago need not apply.”

I am probably being far too negative.

Being an MPP has its rewards, and you can feel that you made a difference. However, most current and former members of the Legislature would agree that the position has many downsides.

Why is this relevant?

Well to start with, the Ontario Liberals made a bit of a splash recently by targeting the number of women, youth, people of colour and representatives of other under-represented groups they want as candidates in the next provincial election.

Other parties are certain to follow suit as everyone scrambles to have as much diversity as possible on the ballot for the next election.

I applaud these efforts. But if you want to ensure diversity in the legislature, you need to do more than establish targets, lower nomination fees, or designate certain ridings “women only”, as the Liberals have done.

No, if you really want to attract a group of quality, non-traditional candidates — make the job better. Make it more attractive to be an MPP.

Let’s start with the basics — remuneration. To attract candidates with real-world financial hardships, you need to pay them properly and take into account that post-political career prospects are not great.

Yes, MPPs make a good salary but is it fair that they have not had a raise in 11 years with little prospect of one on the horizon? As time passes, the salary of a backbencher has become less and less impressive, especially when you take into account many of the personal expenses that go with the job.

Then there is the pension myth. I still encounter people who comment on my gold-plated pension, not realizing that the Harris government eliminated MPP pensions many years ago. This fact, combined with the difficulty that many former Members have in finding a job after politics, often makes running for office financially unattractive.

What about other lifestyle issues? If we want more parents at Queen’s Park, particularly mothers, is it not time that we assisted them with childcare so that they can juggle the demands of the job and raising a family?

I get it. Any party that goes into the next election promising raises, pensions and subsidized childcare for MPPs would be laughed off the ballot.

But there are ways to do these things. An all-party agreement to independently review MPPs' compensation would ensure that it didn’t become an election issue.

In fact, an all-party commitment on a number of fronts might make running for office more attractive.

What if all parties agreed to a code of conduct for the next campaign and limited opposition research and the constant search for “gotcha moments”? What if they at least agreed upon a statute of limitations for tweets and Facebook posts?

What of the role of MPPs? Every opposition party claims, that if elected, they will increase the role of ordinary members and decrease the role of unelected advisors. Yet, every party fails miserably.

Letting go of power is very difficult but if you want to attract good candidates, you have to convince them that they will have a meaningful role in the Legislature. There are many thoughtful ideas on the subject and developing them into a package that could be implemented quickly before those at the top got too comfortable, might go a long way to convincing folks to put their name on the ballot.

I realize that we are in the midst of a global pandemic and talking about MPPs’ working conditions might appear trivial.

But think about it.

Ontario is about to emerge from an extraordinary period where calls for real change, often bordering on the revolutionary, have become an almost daily occurrence. The challenges facing whoever forms government in 2022 will be profound.

We need a team of individuals capable of rethinking our world and creatively tackling our problems. Individuals who represent all of Ontario – not just a sub-section that is often older, whiter, richer and more male than the overall population.

If we truly want the “A” team to be directing Ontario’s future, maybe we need to focus a bit more on the job pressures they face as they work on our behalf.

John Milloy is a former MPP and Ontario Liberal cabinet minister currently serving as the director of the Centre for Public Ethics and assistant professor of public ethics at Martin Luther University College, and the inaugural practitioner in residence in Wilfrid Laurier University’s Political Science department. He is also a lecturer in the University of Waterloo’s master of public service program. John can be reached at jmilloy@luther.wlu.ca or follow him on Twitter @John_Milloy.

Milloy: Parties need more than targets to attract a diverse group of quality candidates for the next election

Read this for free.