CONTENTS
Tuesday, November 22, 1994
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 8080
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 8086
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu) 8095
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8097
Consideration resumed of motion 8098
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 8099
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 8112
Mr. Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry) 8113
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 8116
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 8116
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 8117
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 8117
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 8117
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8118
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8118
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 8119
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 8119
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 8119
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 8120
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8122
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 8122
Consideration resumed of motion 8123
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 8126
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 8135
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 8142
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 42; Nays, 190 8144
Bill C-58. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading 8145
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas: 181; Nays, 51 8145
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referredto a committee.) 8146
Bill C-48. Consideration resumed of report stage 8146
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 92; Nays, 140. 8147
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 87; Nays, 145 8148
Motion negatived on division: Yeas, 46; Nays, 186 8149
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 186; Nays, 46 8150
Bill C-53. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 8151
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 140; Nays, 92 8151
(Motion agreed to and bill read the second time andreferred to a committee.) 8152
8077
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, November 22, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
[
English]
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I know one does not normally comment on the presence
or absence of someone in the House, but we have just convened
Parliament without any presence of the official opposition. I am
not referring to a member. This may have happened before but I
wonder if it is appropriate.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sure the hon.
member recalls that we do not refer to the presence or the
absence of anyone in the House.
Mr. Lee: Madam Speaker, if I might on the point of order, I
want to state clearly that I am not referring to the presence or
absence of a member. I am referring to the apparent complete
absence of the official opposition from the proceedings of the
House today.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Any 20 members
compose a quorum in the House and we have that. I would like to
proceed with tabling of documents.
_____________________________________________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I am pleased to table,
in both official languages, the government's response to
petitions.
[English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the
honour this morning of presenting petitions on behalf of my
constituents for the right of grandparents to gain access to their
grandchildren through an amendment to the Divorce Act.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, constituents of
my riding of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt are adding to
the growing number of people who are concerned about the
intrusion of government into the rights of ordinary, law-abiding
citizens.
This intrusion is in the form of adding to the already stringent
gun control legislation in Canada. Canadians are clearly saying
that we have a crime problem, not a gun problem.
The petitioners are calling on Parliament to oppose further
legislation for firearms acquisition and possession, and to
provide strict guidelines and mandatory sentencing for the use
or possession of a firearm in the commission of a violent crime.
I agree with and support the petitioners and urge the
government to reconsider its position.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I would
ask, Madam Speaker, that all questions be allowed to stand.
Mr. Scott (Skeena): Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order.
On May 3 of this year I put Question No. 47 on the Order
Paper. It asked for information relating to the travel and
entertainment expenses of deputy ministers in the years 1991,
1992 and 1993. A part of the question was tabled sometime last
week by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House
Leader. Since an Order for Return was issued, I am asking when
we can expect to have the report for 1991 and 1992?
8078
(1010)
Mr. Milliken: Madam Speaker, I know the hon. member is
apparently dissatisfied with the very lengthy response he
received to his important question.
It was tabled as an Order for Return of the House and it
applied only to the third year of the three for which he asked.
Naturally the government is anxious to provide all the
information it can to the hon. member. I express my concern that
the answer was apparently incomplete when we received only
the one year.
I was informed that the cost of rooting out the other years is
very substantial and that unless the hon. member is quite
insistent on getting the answer that it would not be forthcoming
because it would cost so much to get it.
Might I suggest that if the hon. member is serious in wanting
this additional information, I have no objection to getting it for
him at some cost. I am quite prepared to request that it be
provided.
I would suggest that since the question has been made an
Order for Return and the return has been tabled, it would be
appropriate for him to put the question on the Order Paper again,
at least in relation to the two years for which he has not received
an adequate response. I would then instruct officials to get the
necessary information to the hon. member.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is this on the same point
of order? This is not debate.
Mr. Scott (Skeena): Madam Speaker, yes it is. It is not on
debate.
I appreciate there may be some cost associated with the
government tabling the information in the House. However it is
important for the Canadian people and for accountability that we
do see the information. I would ask the government to pursue the
information with the appropriate officials in the government.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Shall the remaining
questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
8078
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.) moved:
That this House urge the government to replace the current members of
Parliament retirement allowance plan with a pension plan that reflects the
current norms for private sector pensions, with a maximum contribution in
accordance with the Income Tax Act.
She said: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that we finally
get a chance to debate this matter in the House. Yesterday trough
day arrived and we see the important need for changes to the
members of Parliament pension plan.
It is unfortunate that the government did not live up to its red
book promise and make the changes before trough day
yesterday. That certainly would have sent the signal loudly and
clearly to the Canadian public.
The Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act is a very
modest statute introduced in 1952. In the last dozen years or so it
has become really divisive. It is destructive. It is an unfair and
detested piece of legislation in the eyes of most Canadians.
I draw the attention of the House to a report that was just
brought in by a commission to review allowances of members of
Parliament. This plan was started in 1952, which is interesting
because that is the year I arrived on the scene as well. We might
take notice that the prime minister of the day, Louis St. Laurent,
said they wanted to make sure what was happening in those days
in terms of the public service made it impossible for somebody
who was serving as a member of Parliament to provide
adequately for his later years.
I appreciate that pensions are good things. A pension scheme
is not wrong at all. But this particular MP pension is a ``scheme a
dream'' when you think about what has gone on in the last
several years to make sure MPs look after themselves. We need
to come up with a plan that is fair and is going to sell itself to the
Canadian taxpayers who are funding the pension plan.
(1015)
I do not consider myself nor do I consider my friends across
the aisle, who have just qualified for trough day yesterday to get
an MP pension, later years. March 13 is my date coming up, and
I make full awareness to the people of that. I mentioned it in
Question Period the other day. If the government does choose to
put in MP pension reform I find it very strange that it would do it
to its own members to make sure that they were in safe as of
November 21. I have a feeling that it is going to make changes
before March 13 so that I may be set up as the fall guy. I do not
mind being set up as the fall guy if there are going to be
substantive changes to the pension plan. We want to see that.
I am being assured by my friend across the aisle that they will
look after that or they will look after me. Nothing makes me
more nervous than having Liberals say that they are going to
look after me. I will look forward to any remarks in the future
from the member for Kingston and the Islands when he
discusses this plan I am sure later.
8079
I might also mention that my friend from Kingston and the
Islands will qualify if he lives to age 75 and all goes well for him
and he will stand to gain $1,061,976. That is not a bad pay out at
all.
You can see that this is a rather touchy subject across the aisle,
Madam Speaker, and you are on the list as well of benefiting.
Yesterday the class of '88 qualified for ``Lotto for Life'',
reveals editorial comments across the country. We saw
yesterday such descriptions as outrageous, gold plated, golden
parachute, inflation proof, pension paradise and probably the
most descriptive and graphic of all, hog heaven.
I know there are many members across the aisle right now
who are just dreaming of the day when they qualify for hog
heaven. They need to be re-elected one more time.
Is this divisive, is it destructive and is it detested? Yes to all of
the above. This does more to divide parliamentarians and
taxpayers who pay the bills for these parliamentarians probably
than anything else. We see that this is a system in which
members of Parliament are totally exempt from everyone else in
the country. As my friends know, many of them have been in
other professions before. They will know clearly that this
pension plan is more, bigger, better, higher, everything else,
overbloated, than any pension plan they could have ever bought
into when they were working in the private sector. They know it,
we know it and the people who pay our bills know it.
My friend across the aisle says that is not true. There is not a
pension plan in this country that pays dividends of
employer-employee ratios of approximately six to one. I would
like to bet on that and I am looking forward to the members
bringing that to our attention in debate as well as proof.
We are demanded in this country as parliamentarians to put in
11 per cent of our earnings. We have no options on that. We must
put in 11 per cent of our salary toward the MP pension plan.
I am a member of the Alberta Teachers Association and we put
in $92 a month to our pension plan. That was in the regular
private sector. I am forced by the Members of Parliament
Retiring Allowances Act to put in just under $600 a month out of
my salary. Somehow that means that we are putting in a lot but
the government kicks back far more than it puts in. For instance
in Canada we are demanded, as I just said, to put in 11 per cent of
our earnings. It is mandatory, there are no options about that. We
qualify then for a minimum pension after six years of service.
Madam Speaker, you know that, I know that and the Canadian
taxpayers who pay the bills know that. As of age 60 it is fully
indexed to the cost of living allowance-very expensive.
Let us look at the United Kingdom. Its members put in a 6 per
cent contribution level and are eligible after age 55 or age 60
plus years of service equalling 80. That looks very fair. Most of
them are full time. I suspect anyone in public life serves full
time regardless of the number of hours they put in a week.
Let us look at the United States. People who serve in Congress
in the United States have to put in a 1.3 per cent contribution
level. They qualify at minimum age and serve age 62 or age 50
plus 20 years of service. This looks like something that is a little
fairer, a little more level than the pension plan that we have now.
(1020)
I suspect from the amount of noise across the aisle perhaps we
have touched a raw nerve here. That is fine. Touch nerves we
will.
The plan that the premier of Alberta has just brought in has in
effect blitzed members of the legislative assemblies. My friend
across asked me to talk about double dipping. We are against
double dipping. When you are in one level of government, you
may not collect a pension for another level of government.
We are asking this government to make sure that it follows its
red book promises. I suspect these will turn out to be red face
book promises very soon.
The members of Parliament retiring allowances plan simply
must be replaced. There are two aspects to this, the first is the
retiring allowances act which lets members contribute up to 2
per cent years of service on earnings on the limit up to 75 per
cent. This first account under the whole retirement allowance
plan qualifies as a registered retirement allowance plan under
the Income Tax Act. That is fine, nobody has any problems with
that, I suspect even new MPs in the House.
If the MP pension plan were restricted to this first account, the
taxpayer would not complain because our plan would then
conform to normal public service plans. The problem is the
second part of this, the retiring compensation arrangement
account, the RCA. I am reminded of the old ad, they really are
now RCA victors as of yesterday. That is the account that leads
one to question the judgment and fiscal integrity of those who
put it in place and subsequently defended it.
This account draws contributions from members in the
government that exceed the 6 per cent limits prescribed by the
Income Tax Act. I have one word for that, shame. Shame on a
government that would continue to do that and bring it in. It pays
benefits prior to the age and length of service required by the
Income Tax Act to allay accusations of one set of tax laws for
ordinary Canadians and a different set of tax laws for
parliamentarians.
The pretence is that these payments are as is said in the study,
a retirement compensation allowance to compensate members
for the volatile tenure of their jobs. There is not a job in this
country that does not have volatile tenure. This is one of them
8080
but this is certainly not the only job in the country that has
volatile tenure for sure.
I am splitting my time with the member for Calgary West, and
therefore I would like to just finish up by saying that this
program is wrong. It needs to be changed. The government
promised it would change it. It did not do it by November 21,
trough day. Come on, colleagues, this is the time to take action
on this. Let us do the honourable thing. Let us make sure that we
get this thing changed. It is unfortunate it has lost so much
credibility with the Canadian public and taxpayers. Now is the
time to get our trotters out of the trough. It has to be very soon.
Mr. Silye: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, we intended to
announce prior to the first speech of the member for Beaver
River that we would be splitting our time on this debate, 10
minutes each. We would like to put that request in now.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I am rather surprised that there are so few questions while there
were so many while the hon. member was speaking.
In any case, I am rising to discuss the MP pension plan and
just to summarize the obscenity of this plan as the hon. member
for Beaver River pointed out. There is a benefit rate of 5 per
cent, two and a half times the average in the private sector. There
is virtual full indexation, 78 per cent of private plans have no
automatic indexation whatsoever. Age of retirement based on
years of service, could be at any age, could be as young as 24.
Ninety-one per cent of all private sector pensions have a
retirement age of 65. Contributions are well in excess of
anything allowed under the Income Tax Act and there is the
ability to have another federal job while collecting the pension.
All of these things are opposed by the Reform Party and have
been opposed for some years now. Our blue book makes clear
that we would change virtually all aspects of this plan including
the fact that present beneficiaries of the plan should share in part
of the costs of those changes.
Let us recognize that under the present plan we have
accumulated a liability of $220 million that is growing rapidly
and this liability can barely be touched unless some of these
changes are applied to present beneficiaries and to those who are
presently qualified. Some will reply that this is unfair on a
number of grounds and I want to address those changes to really
understand the nature of that kind of argument.
(1025)
First of all, the statement that this would be retroactive is not
true. Retroactive changes are changes to law at a prior time and
no one is suggesting that. We are suggesting that there would be
retrospective changes which legally speaking are changes that
would only affect the future consequences or only affect the
future expectations of law from a prior time which is common to
virtually all legislation.
It has also been suggested that these are contractual
obligations that are somehow sacrosanct. There is no
contractual obligation here. Let us be absolutely clear about
that. The MP pension plan is a legislative privilege. Section 42
of the Federal Interpretation Act makes it clear that Parliament
has the authority to revoke, restrict or modify any privilege or
advantage by repealing or amending the statute that granted that
privilege.
The MP pensions were not entered into on a voluntary or
commercial basis. There were not even two parties in this case.
This is a case of politicians voting something for themselves,
something that there was absolutely no reasonable expectation
that their contributions would give them.
It has been suggested that it would somehow be inherently
unfair to make MPs change their pension plan. In response to
that I believe fully and our party believes fully that
contributions should be protected. To the extent that MPs have
contributed the value of those contributions should be protected.
Let us also be clear that contributions to the plan account for less
than 20 per cent of the benefit. There is absolutely no fairness in
providing such a windfall benefit at the expense of taxpayers.
In terms of charter arguments there would be absolutely no
evidence, notwithstanding the pleadings of the Deputy Prime
Minister, that members of Parliament or politicians in general
constitute a disadvantaged group in our society.
There is no fairness also in suggesting that all of the reduction
in pension benefits should fall upon those who are serving now
or who may serve in the future. There is no fairness in my view
in suggesting that future or present MPs, once the rules are
changed, should be treated differently than past MPs. That kind
of objection goes more broadly to a philosophy that states that
only younger people should pay the costs of the present financial
situation in the country, an implication that I reject entirely.
What are the implications of the kind of argument against
these changes and these retrospective changes? What these
people are really saying is that we can change virtually any plan
in this country but not the MP pension plan. The previous
government changed old age security to provide a clawback.
This Liberal government has not seen fit to change that.
Previous governments changed their obligations on equalization
payments to the provinces. They changed their obligations and
payments in health, in post-secondary education, none of which
this government has reversed. This government has also made it
clear that it is contemplating changes to RSPs, so far as to even
8081
contemplate confiscation in some cases of certain portions of
private savings.
Yet the argument would go that MP pension plans are
somehow sacrosanct. This is a completely untenable position. It
is another example of the House of Commons suggesting that it
should protect itself above all else. Just as we see today where
the procedure and House affairs committee is suggesting that we
should protect the size of the House of Commons from
reduction, we should not share in the general downsizing of
government here, we are seeing a similar argument with the MP
pension plan.
The Prime Minister early in this Parliament promised or said
that MPs should be able to opt out of the plan. As the member for
Beaver River pointed out, we are now paying 11 per cent of our
gross salary which only covers less than 20 per cent of the plan
to pay for the extravagant pensions of those who are already
receiving it. This is something we as Reformers object to. Of
course we would like to see a fair plan but we are prepared to
arrange for our own private savings.
(1030)
The question is: Why is the Prime Minister delaying? I
believe it was August 3, 1993 that the present Prime Minister
called on Kim Campbell to recall the House of Commons and
make changes to the MP pension plan and he wanted it done in
one day. He said it could be done in one day. Now 400 days later
nothing has been done and nothing in particular has been done
on his promise to allow MPs to opt out of the plan.
Why is he so reluctant? The reason is very simple. The Prime
Minister knows he made a mistake in suggesting that MPs could
opt out of the plan. He knows full well that if any MP in this
House opted out of such an obscene and indefensible
arrangement the political pressure on other MPs would virtually
force every other member of Parliament within one term to drop
out of the plan if they were considering seeking re-election. The
Prime Minister knows that.
I urge government members not to be so critical and to read
the motion. The motion is quite reasonable. In principle it is not
unlike what the government itself suggested during the election.
I would suggest that government members consider this very
carefully. Forget the fact that some of them have big dollar signs
in their eyes now and in their dreams. Just remember that the
motion is quite reasonable, vote for it and indicate to the
Canadian people that all parties are prepared to make a change to
this unjustifiable arrangement.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have a question for either the hon. member for Beaver
River or the hon. member for Calgary West.
Accept for argument's sake that in juridical terms what we are
dealing with is not a constitutional right, because unlike the
United States constitution the Canadian Constitution has no
contract clause. We are dealing with a constitutional privilege.
Is it the thrust and intent of the motion not merely to cover
presently operating privileges as to pensions but those that
might be said to be in a private law sense to have already vested,
that is to say, contracts already entered into? The argument as
presented would seem to suggest that this should apply both
retrospectively and prospectively in the full sense. I wonder if
that is in fact the intent and purpose of the amendment.
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): Madam Speaker, I appreciate
the question.
The member for Vancouver Quadra will understand that today
we are not discussing a formal amendment or legislation but
merely a motion that we bring the MP pension arrangement into
line with private sector standards.
In terms of my own address I was talking specifically about
broader Reform Party policy which has suggested that changes
to the MP pension plan should apply retrospectively as well as
prospectively. Once again I would defend that very clearly on a
number of grounds. The most important is that this was not a
voluntary transaction and not a transaction with any defensible
commercial basis. Any privileges that have been gained through
this legislation well above and beyond what could be expected
from MPs' own contributions should not be protected in law, not
for past members nor for future members.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
note my colleague said in his address that over 400 days ago the
Prime Minister had said he was going to make a change to the
MPs pension plan. By way of comment I draw to the attention of
the House that he cancelled a multibillion contract on
helicopters just like that. He cancelled the Pearson airport deal
which was in the hundreds of millions of dollars just like that.
I wonder if the member has any idea why in the world the
Prime Minister would not have done something about the MPs
pension plan when it is the number one item on the hit parade.
The people in my constituency tell me and other members in my
party tell me that when they get to their constituencies it is the
number one issue that stands between them and their
constituents in spite of the fact that our party is attempting to do
something about it.
(1035 )
I find it absolutely amazing that there are only 52 members in
this House of Commons who find that to be true. I wonder if that
is possible.
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): Madam Speaker, I cannot read
the Prime Minister's mind but it is evidently clear that within
8082
the government caucus there is more support for preservation of
the MP pension plan than for respective certain private and
voluntary contracts.
In the case of the cancellation of the helicopters the
government has fulfilled its contractual obligations. Of course
in the case of the cancellation of the Pearson airport, the
government is actually trying to block the right of those people
involved in that contract to even seek some kind of
compensation through a court process. That seems particularly
ridiculous when in the case of the MP pensions it is fairly clear
from my office's study that if retrospective changes were to be
taken to court there would be very little likelihood that MPs
would be successful in achieving these gross privileges they had
voted themselves in the past.
I cannot entirely explain the government's motivation, but I
would repeat once again for the hon. member and for other
members across the way that it would be in the interests of all
parliamentarians if the government would vote for the motion
and proceed on a plan that gave realistic and defensible benefits
to members of Parliament.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure this morning to address the
House on this opposition motion presented by the member for
Beaver River.
The motion says that this House urges the government to
replace the current members of Parliament retirement allowance
plan with a pension plan that reflects the current norms for
private sector pensions with a maximum contribution in
accordance with the Income Tax Act.
Perhaps before discussing the content of the motion itself we
could spend a moment talking about what brought us to this
discussion today. I have a theory and members across are free to
disagree with it. I believe it is reasonably easy still, although
somewhat less than it was a year ago, to bash anyone in public
office. Perhaps that is fair game. We certainly should not be
immune to criticism, all of us who have chosen to seek public
office or to serve in this very honourable House.
Miss Grey: We are not bashing; we are bashees as well.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Now we are going to justify
it.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I see I have already provoked
a few cat calls from across the way. I also am of the opinion that
the mistakes of previous governments, particularly one regime
that was turfed out, should not be equated with criticism against
the institution itself or those who now serve in it.
I believe firmly in what I call the John Diefenbaker way of
looking at it. There is no greater honour for a Canadian than to
serve his or her fellow citizens in the highest court in the land,
the Parliament of Canada. I have said this in previous
Parliaments and I will say it again in this one.
I came to Parliament Hill on October 25, 1966 as a busboy. I
am very proud of the fact that I managed to climb more rungs in
the ladder than those who started in the middle of it. I am very
fond of that and I am not ashamed of that background. On the
contrary, I use it to illustrate what a great country this is when
someone can start with such humble beginnings and end up a
member of Parliament. In my case I am presently the chief
government whip, thanks to the decision of the Prime Minister
on September 15.
Miss Grey: We are talking about pensions here.
(1040 )
Mr. Boudria: The member across the way says she is talking
about pensions. I know exactly what she is talking about. She is
talking about the compensation offered to MPs, those things that
bring us to Parliament and those benefits that are accorded after
one leaves. That is exactly what I am talking about as well.
There is a one man band in this country, the David Somerville
band. The one man band calls itself the National Citizens'
Coalition. It is not national and it is not a citizens' coalition. It
has nothing to do with anything of the sort. It is a business
operated by one person who puts ads in the newspapers inviting
Canadians to give him money. He says he is going to use that
money to buy some more newspaper ads to fight the causes he
says he is fighting. How much money is that person paid? No
one knows. How much money do Canadians give him to fight
these causes which he says are legitimate? No one knows that
either.
[Translation]
Members opposite are saying this is not someone who holds
public office. I never said he was. In fact, I made it clear at the
beginning of my speech that he had his own business. I did not
say he held public office; hon. members opposite should have
listened more carefully.
This individual takes advantage of the Canadian people, who
are often taken in by his malicious attacks against those who
serve in this House, and he puts ads with little pigs in the
newspaper, urging people to send them money. That is his way of
getting rich, not his way of defending the interests of Canadians.
Let us be clear about his agenda.
[English]
Miss Grey: We are talking about MPs pensions from the
inside.
Mr. Boudria: The hon. member across is heckling that we are
talking about MPs pensions. I am talking about the guy who put
the ad in the paper about the MPs pensions, if the member was
listening.
8083
The Reform Act of 1830 in Britain was passed to do
essentially three things and it is part of our Constitution in
Canada. It was passed to widen the franchise to enable more
people in Britain to participate in the democratic process. It was
also passed to do away in large measure with what were called
rotten boroughs and to enable different constituencies to have
equivalent representation or close to it in the British House of
Commons. Also it was to give salaries to members of Parliament
in Britain so that not only the rich could be MPs. Not only the
rich. That is an important issue.
The member across keeps heckling that is salaries. A salary is
part of what an MP gets to do his or her job in this place.
Some years ago when the same Mr. Somerville put one of his
ads in the newspaper I challenged him. I appeared in a television
debate with him. I demonstrated to him that I had served as a
civil servant for many years and when I had withdrawn from the
civil service pension plan I was forced, and I say forced, to
withdraw my contributions to the plan.
Miss Grey: You cannot do that with this.
Mr. Boudria: Yes, as a matter of fact one has to withdraw
their contribution if one has not reached the amount required to
obtain a benefit. The member is completely wrong.
I was forced to withdraw my contributions to the plan without
interest, or I think I received 2 per cent. That was in 1981 when
the interest rate was something like 18 per cent but I received 2
per cent on the money I had invested. I put that in a registered
retirement account.
I debated with Mr. Somerville and said: ``Mr. Somerville, I
will make a deal with you. If you think my MP pension plan is so
great, you can run against me in my riding and if you think your
plan is so great maybe the people will vote for you.
Alternatively, I challenge you to do the following. Let us
calculate it and see, Mr. Somerville, if a registered retirement
savings plan given to MPs''-which is what he was advocating
at the time with employer-employee contributions-``would be
richer or poorer than what we have now''. I challenged him. I
said: ``Do it for me. If your plan ends up being better than what I
would get out of a retirement plan of the kind we now have for
MPs, I will resign''. It was the opposite. In fact I could easily
demonstrate that in my case I lost quite a bit.
(1045)
Miss Grey: Is the challenge still on?
Mr. Boudria: The member across used figures selectively a
while ago. When referring to the member for Kingston and the
Islands she said that he was eligible for a given amount of
pension, therefore this was an unfunded liability of some
millions of dollars, which she demonstrated.
That is hopelessly wrong for a number of reasons and
members across know it. First of all, the unfunded liability is
based on two premises. One, that the person would retire
immediately and live until age 75, which may be the case. Of
course, not too many members have resigned yet today even
though it so-called trough day for 52 of them.
Miss Grey: They qualify now. It is kick-in day.
Mr. Boudria: If the member across will stop interrupting just
for a minute or so, she will know that the second proposition is
even more important. That is the fact that the whole unfunded
liability business is based on the assumption that no new
member would ever be re-elected to make contributions toward
the plan.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): It is so different now that
we are Liberal, eh? Now that we are government.
Mr. Boudria: I do not know what the people across are
advocating, but I personally am not proposing to end
parliamentary democracy in Canada today. I would imagine that
whatever plan there is, there will be new people to contribute to
it and that the unfunded liability is just a bunch of nonsense
perpetrated by Mr. Somerville and now-
Miss Grey: Do you challenge Mr. Somerville again today?
Mr. Boudria: I have challenged Somerville many times. I
have debated him on television. Members across have seen this.
Mr. Ramsay: Unsuccessfully.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Now that we are
government things have changed.
Mr. Boudria: That is not to say that we should not amend the
member of Parliament retirement plan. As a matter of fact, in the
book ``Creating Opportunity'', we have said the following:
[Translation]
The pension regime of members of Parliament has been the focus of
considerable controversy. It is now the subject of an independent review.
Members opposite asked what the government is waiting for.
Two studies were ordered: one, under the previous government,
was the statutory review conducted after each election, and the
other one was done by the former Prime Minister. We were
waiting for the results of these two studies. We have received
them, and the Prime Minister said he would table amendments in
the House.
I will read some more from the red book:
It is now the subject of an independent review, which Liberals support. We
believe that reform is necessary.
Whatever the results of the independent review, a Liberal government will
reform the pension plan of members of Parliament to end ``double dipping''.
Members of Parliament should not be able to leave office and receive a pension
from the federal government if they accept a new full-time paying job from the
federal government.
8084
[English]
That is an important point. How many of the members who are
making these remarks today have said that some members of
Parliament are receiving pensions from the federal government
and are here as MPs. That is double dipping.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): No, it is not.
Miss Grey: No. You are an MP first. It is when you are an MP
first. That it is double dipping.
Mr. Boudria: How about those who used to work, not to name
them, for Transport Canada?
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Can you redefine double
dipping?
Mr. Boudria: That is an interesting proposition. I just heard
the member across say that someone who is an MP first cannot
double dip to be a civil servant later, but that someone who got a
public service pension first can double dip and be an MP later.
That is what I just heard the member for Beaver River say.
Mr. Harris: You have to get elected first.
Mr. Boudria: If that argument works for you, Madam
Speaker, it does not work for me. It is illogical. A double dipper
is a double dipper is a double dipper as far as I am concerned. If
we are to end double dipping, it applies whether someone is a
general, a colonel, an employee of Transport Canada, a retired
MLA or anyone else.
Miss Grey: Or a busboy.
Mr. Boudria: Double dipping is double dipping. If that
displeases the hon. member for Beaver River-
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): That is not what the red book
says.
Mr. Boudria: The red book says clearly that there should be
no double dipping from the federal administration.
Mr. Ramsay: Give it up, Don. You are losing, Don.
Mr. Boudria: We will see a little later how some MPs in this
House react when the government's initiative is announced.
[Translation]
Finally, I want to talk about the salaries of those who serve in
this House and compare them with salaries in other professions.
We already know that according to a study by the OECD,
Canadian parliamentarians are paid the lowest salaries of any
G-7 country.
(1050)
We also know that, in Ontario, mayors of large or
medium-sized municipalities earn anything from $63,000 to
$155,000, police chiefs make $90,000 a year, school principals
in Toronto, $88,000, company officers $90,000 in small
companies, $98,000 in slightly larger ones and $118,000 in large
companies.
[English]
In terms of professionals here are some salaries: journalists,
$60,000; accountants, self-employed, $76,000; lawyers,
$98,600-
Miss Grey: What do they get for pension?
Mr. Boudria: -dentists, $108,400; judges, $112,100; and
doctors, self-employed, $121,100. That is the cash
compensation. If we include other benefits such as pension
contributions they vary and bring some of these salaries I have
just listed as high as $139,000 and $144,000 in some of the
executive positions.
I thank the member for Beaver River for heckling that
particular one. I would not have thought of bringing the total
compensation to public attention.
[Translation]
I would like to read from two editorials, Madam Speaker. The
member opposite said that every editorial writer was against the
members of Parliament retirement plan. I submit to you that it is
not the case. Let me share the following with you.
[English]
This editorial from the February 27, 1992 Hill Times says:
``The Canadian legislator has long since given way to the
professional politician. Without an adequate salary and pension
plan the only people who would apply for the job today would be
the wealthy, the well networked corporate union types, the
weak-willed who would use the position to line their own
pockets''. That is what one editorial said.
[Translation]
I would like to read this other commentary, which is dated
November 21, 1994. It was signed by Dr. Clinton Archibald,
political scientist and professor at the University of Ottawa. In a
piece entitled ``Nos riches politiciens'' (Our Rich Politicians),
he states that the problem with the charges made by the coalition
is that they rest on the premise that it would be to the advantage
of the public not to pay its elected representatives well; if that
were the case, we would have only one class of members in
Parliament: already well-off individuals representing money
interests only or aspiring to do so to compensate for their slender
income.
Not all editorial writers, not all Canadians are against paying
a decent salary to their elected representatives. Yes to pension
reform. The Prime Minister announced that it was forthcoming.
Yes to all of that, but no to holding the position that all
parliamentarians should be entitled to is a paltry salary, paltry
compensation, thereby allowing only the rich to be represented
in Parliament.
8085
[English]
Are amendments necessary? Yes. Are we going to make
changes? Yes. Should MPs be paid less? No. MPs should be paid
a decent salary to do the work that is necessary to be done. I do
not apologize for working hard for my constituents. They pay
me well for it. I work hard for them.
We announced in the book ``Creating Opportunity'' that we
were going to change the plan and we will. Therefore, I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word
``reflects'' and by substituting therefor the words:
``the commitment made in the document entitled ``Creating Opportunity, the
Liberal plan for Canada''''.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I would advise the hon.
government whip that I will reserve my decision on the
acceptability of his amendment and I will come back to him in a
very few minutes.
(1055 )
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I listened in great agony to the member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. While I was listening it
reminded me of the days when I was a young lad working on a
farm in central interior B.C. My job that summer was to clean
out the stables. Listening to the hon. member speak, what he was
saying bore a huge resemblance to what I was throwing out of
the stables that summer.
I want to touch on a couple of points. The hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell made a statement that there is no
greater honour than to serve the people. He referred to the right
hon. prime minister of the past, Mr. Diefenbaker. I would say
that there is no greater disgrace in the House of Commons than
the MPs' pension plan as it currently stands.
We may serve this House as MPs with the honour of serving
the people, but that is counteracted. Any pride we may feel in
this House is counteracted by this obscene MPs' pension plan.
But this government refuses to change it. It says it is going to do
it. When the Prime Minister was in opposition he said he could
do it in a day. Now 400 days later we are wondering how long his
and his government's days are.
The hon. member who just spoke, and I would like to just put
this on record, has been in the House 10 years. If my arithmetic
is right, and we will give him the benefit of the doubt, he has
probably contributed about $75,000 to the pension plan,
averaging $7,500 a year. If he retired tomorrow, and let this go
on the record for all the people of Canada to see, for a $75,000
investment he would collect $2,152,672. Such a deal, such a
deal. It is no wonder the Liberals do not want to change the
pension plan.
The hon. member also referred to the NCC. He said the
Canadian people were vulnerable to malicious, hugely
disparaging ads by the NCC that exposed this pension plan.
What the Canadian people are most vulnerable to is the constant
cash grabs by the government to pay for these things. That is
what they are most vulnerable to.
Let us clarify this double dipping phrase once and for all.
Obviously the member opposite is very confused about what the
Canadian people think about double dipping. That is not
surprising. This government has a habit of not listening to the
Canadian people. The Canadian people hate double dipping
which specifically refers to someone who serves in the House of
Commons for six, ten or fifteen years, is paid reasonably well as
an MP and then is eligible to collect this gold-plated pension.
They collect the pension. As a matter of fact, the hon. member
has been here 10 years and he could collect a pension of $33,540
a year starting next month. The member retires and of course his
Liberal pals are still in government. What happens is he gets
appointed to a key government position. Now he gets a salary
from the same government he just retired from. He is getting
$33,540 a year in pension and now he is eligible to get whatever
in his new job.
That is double dipping. Let us be clear about what Canadians
think of double dipping.
(1100 )
I am sure that today is going to be a fun day on this subject. I
encourage more comments from the Liberals although they have
an indefensible case. I am sure there will be some more rhetoric
and more stable waste coming from the other side of the House
today before we are through.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I will try to be polite with the
member in spite of what he has just said. I do not think his
questions are horse manure. He has a right to ask whatever he
wants no matter how objectionable I privately think his
questions are.
I was asked if I contributed approximately $75,000 in capital
to the MPs pension plan. That is probably true. I have no idea. I
never counted it. We can phone some place in the comptroller's
office and someone can tell us. It could be true.
He would however not take into account interest accumulated
on capital. If one added that based on the basic five-year GIC
rate, I would suspect that the $75,000, if it is the proper amount,
is probably worth somewhere between $150,000 to $200,000
right now. Even invested in a GIC, that amount would generate
probably $15,000 or $12,000 a year. I do not know what it would
generate. That is not the point.
8086
The point is that I am not retiring. I know it saddens members
across the way, but I will not quit. I am not retiring. I was not
elected to retire. I was elected to serve. Maybe that is a concept
that shocks members.
I can understand why Reformers are just a little defensive
concerning double dipping. They say it is okay for someone to
receive a federal government pension and to serve in the House
at full salary later but not the other way around. Could the reason
why the argument is presented in that way by them is because
they have dissension in their caucus with at least three double
dippers at the federal level that I know of, two of whom are
sitting in the Chamber right now as I make this speech.
Duplicity, thy name is Reform.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
will try to bring a civil tone to this debate. I absolutely agree
with the hon. member that it is an honourable calling to serve the
people of Canada.
Yesterday I was in a high school in my constituency. As I was
in a junior high school telling people about the honourable
calling that I had undertaken and trying to get these young
people involved in the democratic process, this subject was
raised by the students.
I suggest to the hon. member that he should be proud of
working his way up the ladder. I suggest to the hon. member that
all members work hard for the people of Canada. Why is it then
that the government side refuses to make these changes within a
responsible, reasonable time when the Prime Minister, then the
opposition leader, said in August 1993 that he was going to be
making the changes. However he does not do it but he does wipe
out contracts worth billions of dollars, making all sorts of
changes.
When the member says the NCC is simply conducting
malicious attacks against members, I suggest that the NCC is
drawing to Canadians' attention the fact that the members have a
gold-plated plan that is unacceptable.
I wonder if the member would agree that perhaps his way of
handling the problem would be for the legislature to outlaw
criticism of the pension plan? Therefore we could get on with
life. Is that the way we should do things?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Time has almost
expired.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I will be very brief. I know
that this hon. member knows much better than what he has just
said. I have the highest respect for that member. He knows that
no one is advocating that Mr. Somerville does not have the right
to state the nonsense he is stating. He has absolutely that right.
This is a democracy. But I also have the right to say what I think
of him just as he has the right to say what he thinks of all of us. I
will continue to do that because that is my right. We have not
refused to deal with this issue.
(1105)
Members will know of the two reports presented in the last
Parliament and they will know of the Prime Minister's
commitments, some of which were made as late as yesterday in
the House of Commons. The member knows deep down what the
Prime Minister said.
Mr. Abbott: Four hundred days.
Mr. Boudria: The member will know that approximately half
of that time was taken up with the two reports, one ordered by
the previous government and the other one which is statutory. In
any event it is going to be done.
I do not know whether it will please the people across the way.
It will perhaps please that member.
Miss Grey: It will please the people.
Mr. Boudria: Not all of them. Certainly I will make one
guess. It is going to make a few double dippers angry.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, don't we have an interesting debate going today? It is
funny how the affairs of men have changed when they become
government, isn't it?
We listen to the hon. member justify how hard he works,
which is important, and how he justifies living off the Canadian
taxpayer through the pension plan. I am going to address double
dipping, among other things.
Perhaps Liberal Party members could ask themselves what is
the difference between the MP pension plan and Lotto 649. The
difference is risk. There is risk in getting Lotto 649, a payment
for life, but there is none in the MP pension plan. Are there not
all kinds of taxpayers out there ready and willing to pay now?
I want to address the red book and the blue book for a moment.
We have heard so much about this red book. Canadians should
think back to how long they have been hearing about this red
book. They have been hearing about it since the election. It was
written during the election to sell taxpayers on what they wanted
to hear.
The blue book is the Reform policy document. Canadians
have been hearing about it for years. That is the difference
between a party of commitment and a party that wants to come to
Ottawa and sell the folks on an election every five years. That is
the difference.
Now that they are the government, here we go. We are going
to hear more speeches from these folks. We are going to hear all
about how we can justify through hard work a pension plan.
There were a number of major issues during the last election. I
would suggest the finances of the country was the number one
issue. Other issues were the criminal justice system, the
problems with immigration and the fact that Parliament needed
an overhaul through things like recall and free votes and so on.
8087
There were two issues that the people put before the
politicians. One of them was the Senate. The people were
saying: ``Either toss that group out or elect them''. The other
issue was: ``What about MP pensions?''
We have elected the Liberals. We have a majority
government. What are the Liberals going to do? They have put
three, count them, of their party hacks in the Senate. I
congratulate the Liberals. They have done exactly what the
Canadian people did not want. Now we hear today about the
Governor General's appointment. I believe he has some
affiliation with the Liberal Party.
The second issue was the MP pension plan. Virtually every
Canadian told politicians to do away with it. What happened?
The Liberals said they were going to study it for a year. What do
the Liberals over there have to study? We already know what is
wrong with it.
There was reference to the study. By the way, that study was
supposed to cost around $150,000. I could have provided the
service for very little. It finally ended up costing, if you can
believe it, a little over $200,000. One can check the firm who did
it to see if they have any affiliation or made any contributions to
the Liberal Party. I know what the relationship is.
(1110)
Here we are at trough day yesterday with 52 who are already
jumping into the trough. What have they told the taxpayers?
Where are they over there?
Miss Grey: The one that supports MP pensions.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): The one who supports MP
pensions.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am quite sure the hon.
member is well aware that we do not refer to the presence or the
absence of members in the House.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Madam Speaker, I love a
crowd, that is all.
We have told the people in Canada that we are going to ignore
the Senate. We will do what we want on that, although they
wanted some changes in it during the election. We are going to
ignore the MP pension plan. We are going to make some very
small changes to it. Just watch, when the changes come out to
the pension plan and see what we get. We have got 52 already
qualified, so they will do all right.
I have actually had some personal experience in developing
pension plans. I have developed a pension plan. It is a money
purchase plan. It is significantly different than a defined benefit
plan. I do not want to get into the details because I do not want to
take the time. I am having too much fun having a little
discussion on some of the other things.
I want to talk about the defined benefit plan for a minute. I
will read for clarification. They calculate pension benefit
payments according to a defined formula. That is what is
basically and inherently wrong with this MPs pension plan:
These kinds of plans become more difficult for employers to administer.
Uncertainty in financial markets, changing rules and regulations and problems in
dealing with actuarial surpluses and liabilities have made defined benefit plans
consistently more risky.
Indexing, cost of living increases and so on lead to a deficit in
the MP pension plan. We have to make up a deficit, of course, at
some time or another. That is another whole lesson these folks
have to learn. They are not doing well at that.
We had an actuarial adjustment to the MP pension plan of
$158 million. That is okay. Just throw the $158 million into the
pot for them, because it came from the taxpayer.
Let me give a little lesson to the folks next door. I will say it
like this. ``If you continue to think the things you thought, you
will continue to get the things you got''. That is saying they had
better focus on the future, because they are continuing to go the
same way as the Conservatives and the Liberals before them.
Nothing has changed. They had better learn.
Personally, when I came into the House as a member of
Parliament I asked to be relieved of the pension plan so that I
would not have to pay into it. I wrote the comptroller a letter and
asked him: ``Is it possible to get out of this ridiculous plan?''
Here is the letter I received:
I am writing with regard to your letter of December 7, 1993, in which you
indicate that you do not wish to contribute to the retiring allowances accounts
under the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act. However, pursuant
to the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, members are required
to make pension contributions based on the amounts payable by way of
sessional allowance.
Therefore, we are unable to accede to your request and will continue to
deduct your pension contribution until such time as the existing act is amended.
Here is the part I like:
I trust the above will be to your satisfaction.
(1115 )
It is not to my satisfaction. It will never be to my satisfaction
and it will not be to the Reform Party's satisfaction. It will
change. It must change. It has to change. I replaced a fellow in
my riding 52 years of age with 18 years of service. He is now
picking up $46,803 a year from the taxpayer. That is only about
$2 million if he gets a little older. What the heck, we are only
taxpayers out here, folks.
I just cannot understand. I guess it is because when the Liberal
Party is in opposition it says: ``Ah gee, all these things are
wrong. They have to change. The pension plan is exorbitant. We
8088
do not deserve it''. However, when it gets over there: munch,
munch, crunch a munch at the trough.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Madam Speaker, Bloc
Quebecois members find this morning's debate a little funny
because we do not intend to stay here very long and will not need
the pension plan. Quebec's representatives will certainly leave
this chamber before long; we predict that it will happen in 1995.
However, what I find really funny this morning is what I could
call Reform's self-flogging exercise over salaries. These
people, who engage in grandstanding at the drop of a hat,
regularly come here to talk about cutting the salaries of overpaid
members, despite last year's Price Waterhouse study stating that
members of the House of Commons are underpaid.
Strangely enough, we do not hear much about the members of
that party who collect both their salaries as members of
Parliament and their pensions as former army generals or
members of provincial legislatures.
What is the point of this? I wonder how sincere they are when
they make such comments. Could it be that they found a cheaper
way to engage in grandstanding? The day when a member of the
Reform Party can prove publicly that he has decided not to
collect the various pensions accumulated in the armed forces or
elsewhere, he may earn the respect of the other members here
today.
Furthermore, I wonder if the money they will save on
voluntarily uncollected pensions will be spent on enlarging
prisons, since they are so keen on incarcerating people for
longer periods. Their right-wing policies are not very consistent
with what they said this morning.
So until Reform members can prove that they are acting in
good faith and that those eligible have voluntarily forgone the
benefits accumulated in other pension funds, allow me to
question their good faith and their honesty in this House.
[English]
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Madam Speaker, there is
one thing I agree with, the statement by the hon. member from
the separatist party that he does not plan to be here too long. I
can agree with that. We hope he is not here very long either.
I really think the question was about the savings that we get
from this pension plan. I do not know if the hon. member heard
but we are actually borrowing about $40 billion a year to run this
country. We are spending $40 billion more than we take in. I
kind of think it would be a good idea, although it is hard to
convince the Liberals about this, to try to pay that down. What
do you think of that? Maybe we could just try to balance the
budget for a change.
It is not just a matter of taking the money from some of these
ridiculous accounts and trying to find out what to do with it. This
is a very principled issue. The question is whether or not people
after six years of service anywhere deserve a pension as
exorbitant as this one. The answer according to the taxpayer is
no, so why do we spend all of this time trying to coax this
government into change? We should not be here doing this.
Everybody in this room knows that these changes have to be
made and there should not be debates.
(1120)
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, when I was getting ready to come to the House today to
speak I turned on the parliamentary channel and I listened to the
member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. As a result of
listening to what I think was fairly accurately described by my
colleague from Prince George, I found it necessary to change a
lot of what I was going to say.
The hon. member suggested that this is an honourable
profession and that it is great of us to be here, him included. In
the same breath he went on to talk about the remuneration of an
MP and the benefits, referring to it as ``those things that bring us
here''. Perhaps that is what brings members of the Liberal Party
here but I can assure you, Madam Speaker, that it is not what
brings members of the Reform Party here.
He also discussed at length the concept of the RRSP as an
alternative to the MPs pension. He talked about the suggestion
that this is what should be done with our pensions. Then he put
out a challenge to the gentleman who raised this, suggesting that
if he can show how he could make more through RRSPs and this
type of thing that he would in fact resign. It would be wonderful
if we could bring that about.
That being what it will, he is suggesting he wants the
maximum dollar he can get, the maximum benefits. The only
way he is interested in change is if we can prove to him that he is
actually going to get more. There is no intent of sacrifice there,
no intent of recognizing the financial situation Canada is in,
only will he make more if we make some change in that
direction.
He then went on to suggest that it was a red herring, that the
Reform was cooking up false numbers because there really is no
deficit in the pension plan, that although people retire and get
these huge gold-plated pensions there are more people coming
into the House and as a result they will pay in and this will make
it all right.
The member obviously does not know anything about the
concept of cumulative effect. In fact that may well explain why
we are five hundred and thirty-some odd billion in debt and
going up at the rate of almost $1,500 a second because of the
cumulative effect not only of the overspending by the Tories in
the last nine years but the Liberal Party before that.
8089
The cumulative effect is if a member retires and starts
collecting this money and is relying on those people now in the
House to make that payment, which I might add is what is
destroying the Canada pension plan, then the problem is that that
first member who retires is still collecting while the second
member retires and joins him at the trough. This is the problem
with the type of system we have now.
The hon. member suggested that this is part of the
remuneration package. It is an unreasonable, unrealistic way of
trying to compensate people for coming to the House of
Commons. A realistic way would be if a member simply got a
responsible proper amount in terms of annual compensation.
The difference between that and what we are getting right now is
the fact that no matter what you pay a person, it stops when that
person stops making his contribution. If it becomes a matter of a
difference in salary or a matter of a shared contribution to an
RRSP, the government's obligation ends when that person
ceases to be a member of Parliament but the member then
benefits from whatever resources were built up during that
period of time.
I heard about double dipping from the same member. There
are two things I would like to say with regard to double dipping.
I am glad to see they are talking about the concept of looking at
double dipping for those people who come here, leave, collect a
gold-plated pension, and then get appointed to a government
board. He referred to three people on this side of the House who
in his opinion are double dipping. I am not one to hide behind
anything. I believe I am one of those people he referred to.
(1125)
In looking at double dipping let us first look at the type of
concept by which he suggests I am double dipping and the actual
benefit that I receive.
First, I am getting a pension as a result of having worked as an
air traffic controller for twenty-two and a half years. In addition
to the normal amount that people pay for their superannuation
contribution, I paid an additional 2 per cent of my gross salary
for what is referred to as an early retirement benefit. That is
something that I paid over and above the normal superannuation
deductions for the benefit of being able to retire early from a
profession in which very, very few ever make it to full
retirement.
In addition to that 2 per cent I paid, I took a reduction of 20 per
cent of my calculated pension because I retired early, over and
above the extra 2 per cent that I paid. I have paid well and good
for the benefits that I receive.
Let us look at those benefits. I worked 22.5 years as an air
traffic controller. After 22.5 years I have a pension of
approximately $17,000 a year.
As did other members, I replaced a member in order to come
to this House. The member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke that
I replaced after two terms of office collects a pension of $27,000
a year, 70 per cent more than I get for 22.5 years of service as an
air traffic controller. I think the hon. member might take this
into consideration both in terms of pointing the finger over here
at people like myself with regard to double dipping and, second,
in regard to trying to defend the justification and reasonableness
of a pension plan that pays someone after two terms of office
$27,000 when someone who worked 22.5 years paying 9.5 per
cent of their salary receives $17,000. There is something far
apart.
Everyone who works in this House, except for MPs, the clerks
at the table, the Sergeant-at-Arms, all the people who work in
the House who make the machinery work, who work behind the
scenes, what do they have? They pay 7.5 per cent, two thirds of
what an MP pays. What benefit do they get for that? They get 2
per cent per year based on their best six year average. What does
an MP get? He gets 5 per cent. If we were trying to do it in
proportion it would reduce the MP's pay to 3 per cent. They
cannot retire until they are 55 years of age. They cannot get any
pension whatsoever if they retire before age 50. If they retire
after age 50 they lose 5 per cent of their calculated pension for
each year they are short of age 55.
When you start drawing the comparison to what everybody
associated with the government, every single person with the
exception of the MPs and of course those in the other place gets,
the pension they get is wholly out of line. It is out of line with
industry and it is out of line with every other single person in
government.
I would suggest that the government look very closely at
changing the whole concept of the program of pensions for MPs.
It has to change it to a system that is based on the benefit due a
person for the work they do while they are here that allows them
to put away for their retirement. God knows, the way the
government is going there will not be any other kind of pension
available through the government.
We are telling people that they are going to have to reduce and
we have to start doing it ourselves. Adjust it so that whatever
payment MPs receive from the pension plan stops when those
MPs stop serving the Canadian public. They will then make do
with the resources they have developed as a result of putting
money aside, as most people in the public have to do.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, the
difficulty the Liberals are having with this whole concept is the
fact that at this moment our nation is under a tremendous
amount of stress in terms of how we are going to fund the social
programs, how we are going to be able to fund health care and
how we are going to be able to fund the entitlements that people
in Canada have become used to.
8090
(1130)
We are not here to necessarily defend all of those entitlements
as they presently stand but the point is people in Canada are
being told by the Liberals that there are going to be cutbacks.
The members will know that daily the members of this House
receive the publication called Quorum. I was just flipping
through it and I noticed a headline saying ``New Brunswick
welfare changes foretell the human resources minister's
thinking on social program reform''.
I wonder if they cannot understand or why they cannot
understand that when the finance minister is one of the 52 who
was named yesterday, when members of these committees
sitting on the Liberal side going around the country saying that
there are going to be cutbacks in entitlements, there are going to
be increases in university tuitions, but not me. That is the
ultimate NIMBY and I do not think the people of Canada are
prepared to accept the ultimate NIMBY. I wonder if the member
has experienced the same kind of frustration that I have in my
constituency of people saying this not in my back yard
philosophy is not good enough when members of Parliament are
not prepared to stand up and be counted.
Mr. Gouk: Madam Speaker, I have had a great deal of
dialogue with people on a variety of subjects in my riding, as
many of us have done. It is very frustrating that we are placed in
this position in which we have to go out to the public and say we
are cutting back on these services and we want you to identify to
us what you are prepared to give up.
We are looking at cutbacks in some types of pensions, various
types of services that we are going to not only be willing to but
are able to offer to the Canadian public. It is very hard to stand
there with a straight face and tell the public this when we are
faced with the kind of gold plated benefits that are currently
available to people in this House.
These are the types of things that we have to address. I am one
of those people who take a 10 per cent reduction in my pay. I do
it through donations to charities within my riding. I do not do
this because I think MPs are overpaid, far from it. Those MPs
who do their job, truth be known, are probably underpaid in
general terms. Most of us do not come here for money, we come
here to serve. We can serve the Canadian public best by leading
by example and that is what our motion is all about.
Mr. Hugh Hanrahan (Edmonton-Strathcona, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to address this House
on the issue of MP pensions. This is an issue that is of great
concern to me.
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): On a point of order, Madam
Speaker, I wonder if you could verify your rotation list. We just
had two speakers split their time on this side and I did see the
parliamentary secretary who wanted to speak.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): There has been an
agreement with the Reform Party and the Bloc to allow four
Reformers or two slots to go to the Reform Party. This had
apparently been worked out prior.
Mr. Hanrahan: As I was saying, this is an issue that is of
great concern to me, to the Reform Party and to all Canadians.
This pension plan is indefensible even in good times when
Ottawa vaults were overflowing and the public was feeling
wonderfully generous toward its politicians. In bad times such
as we experiencing now when many Canadians are suffering and
the government is hard pressed to fund basic programs the MP
pension plan amounts to little more than highway robbery.
When I say I know that Canadians truly do want the MP
pension plan reformed, I am speaking from results of my
constituency survey which I conducted in my riding of
Edmonton-Strathcona in the spring of '94. The responses were
overwhelmingly in favour of pension reform. When the
constituents were asked the question at what age should an
outgoing MP be able to collect a pension, 97 per cent of all
respondents said that an outgoing or retiring MP should not be
able to collect their pension until age 55.
(1135)
Even more convincing is the fact that 75 per cent of my
constituents think that an outgoing MP should not be able to
collect his or her pension until after his or her 60th birthday.
A second question that was asked regarding MP pensions was
after how many years should an MP serve before being eligible
for a pension. The results again were staggering in favour of
pension reform. A hundred per cent of respondents said that a
minimum number of years should be no less than eight.
Eighty-one per cent felt that the minimum number of years of
service should be no less than 16. The answers to these questions
are a far cry from the present situation which is in place today.
It is important to illustrate a few facts about MP pension
plans, as it will clearly illustrate why pension reform is needed.
First, pensions are payable immediately upon retirement after
only six years of service no matter at what age an MP retires or is
not re-elected.
Second, payments continue even if the ex-MP holds another
government job which we refer to as double dipping. Third,
pensions begin at $23,390 per year and increase 5 per cent per
year of service to a maximum of 75 per cent of average salary.
Fourth, inflation indexing kicks in after age 60 and finally, MPs
pay 11 per cent of their base salary into the pension fund, the
government matches this amount and covers shortfalls, an
unfunded liability which cost the Canadian taxpayer nearly $160
million in 1992.
8091
By no means is this list inclusive. These are, however, the few
items that are of grave concern to me. I have stated in this House
repeatedly that Reformers have come to Ottawa to make a
difference and I think we have.
We also feel that one way to do this is to ensure constructive
criticism and offer an alternative to the status quo of the
government. I can honestly say that I am offering the Liberals an
alternative to the status quo simply because they are doing
absolutely nothing in terms of legislation reform regarding the
issue of MP pensions or for that matter any issue.
This Liberal government seems stuck in the perennial rut of
talk, talk, talk and discussion paper after discussion paper. The
Liberals state in their red ink book: ``A Liberal government will
reform the pension plans of members of Parliament and put an
end to double dipping''. After 392 days in government I can see
that this was truly an important commitment of the Liberals as
we have seen absolutely no legislation and little or no talk about
MP pension reform.
Obviously the current Prime Minister has forgotten about his
challenge to the former Prime Minister in which he challenged
her to recall Parliament if she were truly serious about pension
reform: ``reforms would pass in one day''. The only time the
Liberals speak on pension reforms is when they are responding
to our questions. Even then all they do is respond with rhetoric
and Liberal double talk.
I was right in saying the other day that Liberals are no
different than their Conservative predecessors. They may even
end up like them after the next election. In the meantime they are
all talk and no action.
(1140 )
We on this side of the House know that this government is
stalling on the issue of pension reform. Perhaps it is because the
Liberals are concerned about having to take another Reform
policy such as they have done in the past on issues such as the
Young Offenders Act, parole reform, criminal justice reform,
debt and deficit reform and let us not forget immigration. All
this stalling is doing nothing but costing the taxpayer more and
more every day.
We all know yesterday was, as the National Citizen's
Coalition called it, national trough day as another group of 52
MPs of all political stripes became eligible for this outlandish
and extravagant pension plan which could collectively amount
to approximately $53 million if all of these MPs quit today and
lived to the age of 75.
While the average citizen in Canada must work 35 years to
accumulate a pension, the average MP must work six years. The
gold plated MP pension plan should be renamed from pension
plan to cash for life rip off of the Canadian taxpayer. This plan is
perhaps one of the federal government's most offensive
examples of government waste.
What strikes to the core of the issue is the fact that we as
parliamentarians have to set an example for all Canadians and
stalling on issues such as pension reform is no way to lead by
example.
Because of time constraints I realize I cannot mention
everyone who is presently sitting as an MP who is eligible for a
pension. I believe that I have not only a duty but an obligation to
point out a few of the more offensive potential payouts of certain
members of this House.
The member for Winnipeg South Centre, initial benefit of
over $59,000 annually, will have a total potential payout of over
$2 million. The member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell,
initial benefit of $33,000 annually, will have a total potential
payout of $2.1 million. The member for Hamilton East, initial
benefit of almost $35,000 annually, will have a total potential
payout of over $2.5 million. The member for Lac-Saint-Jean,
initial benefit of over $26,000 annually, will have a total
potential payout of almost $1 million.
Perhaps I have left the greatest sanctimonious display to that
of the NDP, a party that claims to speak for the common man and
social equality, while the total payout for the member for
Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing will be approximately $1.2
million. The member for Winnipeg Transcona will have $3.4
million.
We could go on and on. Just when voters think that they have
the final word it turns out that politicians had the last laugh.
Highlights of the 1993 election will illustrate the point. One
hundred and thirty-four of the two hundred MPs who were
defeated or resigned before the election had complied with the
minimum six years of service necessary to qualify for a pension.
We must stop this insanity today. We must reform the MP
pension plan now.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
on this matter of MP pensions, there is no question that the
members have raised an issue which has been raised to all of us
by our constituents. However, I note that throughout the debate
the members continue to provide figures but they have not
explained how those figures were arrived at.
(1145 )
Would the member not agree it is somewhat misleading not to
let the Canadian public know that members of Parliament must
contribute to their pension plan? In fact that contribution is 11
per cent of their $64,400 salary. That means they are
contributing over $7,000 a year. The calculations members are
putting forward also assume the member takes early retirement
after six years and then receives that pension until age 75 or
later.
Mr. Silye: They get it for life.
8092
Mr. Szabo: They get it for life but the calculations that have
been provided as examples really go up to age 75 as an average
mortality rate.
Would it not be fair simply to put all of the facts on the table?
Most members are not here just to be here for six years. They are
here to serve, as the member said; they are here to do a job. In
many cases as we can see in this House that job goes on for 20 to
25 years. Those members of Parliament who serve their country,
which presently is at a salary of $64,400, have forgone the
opportunity of their best earning potential during their career
lifespan to serve in this House.
I wonder if the member would like to comment on whether or
not the facts really are on the table and whether or not the full
compensation of the members of Parliament ought not to be
considered.
I personally agree there should be changes to eliminate the
double dipping scenario. There should be changes to the date at
which a member would qualify. I know the government has
committed to making those changes and that those changes will
be forthcoming at Christmastime. That is the undertaking this
government has made to Canadians. We have listened and we are
going to make those changes.
However let us never forget that members of Parliament are
also family members. They have children. They have mortgages
to pay. They have the ordinary costs of anyone else and they are
entitled to a fair and reasonable compensation. As the member
well knows all of the recent third party studies show that the
contribution of members of Parliament in comparison with the
corporate sector make their jobs worth at least $100,000.
Would the member not agree that certain facts have not been
put on the table? If he wanted to be fair with all Canadians he
would make sure they had all these facts.
Mr. Hanrahan: Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to
respond to that question.
The key words the hon. member used were ordinary
Canadians. Ordinary Canadians average 30 to 35 years before
they receive a pension. Ordinary parliamentarians average six
years. It would irritate ordinary Canadians to receive after 35
years what we receive after six years. I do not think the average
Canadian would accept this in any manner, shape or form.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, one
year ago Canadians sent a clear message to Ottawa that they
were tired of the status quo, hypocritical politicians. They
subsequently voted in 205 rookies to the 35th Parliament. My
speech is to the rookies. My message: Let us not let the veterans
corrupt us.
When the voters fired the former frontbenchers, former
backbenchers and former prime ministers, they took away their
power but for most not their paycheques. We will be paying
them for the rest of their lives millions of dollars. We as
taxpayers will be paying 30 per cent of the average of the last six
years of their salary.
The issue before us today is the MP pension plan, technically
described as the members of Parliament retirement allowance
and retirement compensation allowance. Combined, the two
plans force members to contribute 11 per cent of their salaries
toward their retirement, or should I say toward an annual
annuity one month after they leave public office regardless of
age.
(1150 )
The result is a plan that is fully indexed, completely immune
to inflation and payable for life with only six years of service
required. Not bad. A lifetime annuity worth about $19,000 plus,
and a minimum collectable whether you are 35, 25 or 65 years of
age or over just 2,100 days on the job.
For an MP to receive such a generous amount after only six
years of service is ridiculous. The Government of Canada must
contribute 5.85 times what the members put into the plan to meet
the payments. I would suggest that in the very near future this
ratio will continue to rise as more and more MPs are retired
when voters vote with their feet, unless members pay more into
the plan.
I submit this is why so many Canadian taxpayers are upset
with MP pensions, considering them both unfair and unrealistic.
What plan anywhere in the private or public sector in Canada or
in any of the other G-7 countries that this government so
proudly likes to compare itself to has such an overly generous
matching amount from the government side?
In the name of justice and fairness I urge the government to
correct this inequity immediately. What I am saying today is no
different from what the Prime Minister when he was leader of
the opposition said on August 13, 1993: ``We will change the MP
pension in one day''. He has been here for one year and he has
not done a thing except talk about changing double dipping and
raising the age.
If that is all he is going to change, it is not enough. It is the
overly generous matching contribution by the government that
is annoying to the taxpayers of this country. That is what we
cannot get through the heads of those Liberal members on the
opposite side. I plead with them to show some leadership by
example like Reform Party members.
We have all pledged not to take an MP pension in its current
form. Yes, we pledged. The Liberals who are here can laugh, but
we have pledged that because we want to show leadership by
example. Some of us want to opt out of this current type of plan,
but the fact is the government will not let us.
Many of us whether we can afford to or not have also taken a
10 per cent pay cut. It is not because MPs make too much money,
but because as leaders we know that Canadians will need to
sacrifice in the near future and we are prepared to lead by
example at the top. Whether it is one of us, 52 of us or 35 of us is
not the issue. As long as there is someone willing to lead
Canadians will have hope. The Reform Party is here to provide
8093
that leadership. We challenge government members to follow
our lead, because simply put, it is the right thing for them to do
especially when we are asking Canadians to sacrifice.
How can the Minister of Human Resources Development talk
about reductions in social spending, welfare, education and UI
without mentioning his own unemployment insurance scheme,
the MP pension plan? What will he reduce there?
How can the minister complain about 25,000 auto workers
withdrawing $70 million annually from the UIC fund when
taxpayers paid out an estimated $158 million in 1992 to cover
revenue shortfalls in the MP pension plan to which the Liberal
member pointed out earlier we contribute 11 per cent? That is
not enough for what you get out. It is topped off in excess of $2
million every year to do exactly what the Minister of Human
Resources Development is criticizing the auto workers for. That
is hypocrisy.
How can the Minister of Finance talk about taxing RRSPs
without addressing his own retirement compensation allowance
that taxpayers fund more than he does on a disproportionate
basis which is not even allowed in the private sector? This is a
minister of the crown.
The hypocrisy of the Liberal government on this issue is truly
disheartening. It promised to address MP pensions. It promised
to let us opt out and it has not. It has had the report in hand since
March with specific recommendations but has done nothing.
Instead it has waited for 52 more MPs, 46 of whom are Liberal,
to qualify for the golden parachutes.
The majority of Reformers who have taken a 10 per cent pay
cut are also denied access to the 11 per cent the government
takes out of their pay to fund retired MPs pensions. That is 21
per cent or over $1,000 a month less than any one of the Liberal
members opposite get in their paycheques every month. That is
what we are sacrificing to show leadership to the country to get
everybody to participate in the deficit reduction program.
The government is hurting our cash flow and all its members
do is laugh. Well, let them laugh because he who laughs last
laughs hardest. Is it any wonder then why some of us on this side
of the House question the blindness and stupidity of the
government on this issue?
Let me outline the Reform Party's position on MP pensions.
We would end full indexation of these pensions. We would
postpone eligibility for benefits until at least age 60, with
eligibility further postponed by the amount of time in which the
person has already been paid prior to age 60. We would also
subject the MP pension plan to a tax back according to a formula
identical to that of the old age security program.
(1155)
The Reform caucus has already approved the concept of
privately purchased MPs pensions under which future RRSP
contributions for sitting MPs would be matched by the
government up to the legal limit for contributions. After
eliminating the gold plated pension plan this House could agree
to a proper and balanced compensation package that would be
more palatable and compatible with Canadian taxpayers.
Here is my personal recommendation, which is certainly
debatable, but should satisfy our critics and possibly have all the
rookies in this House vote in favour of our motion: Individual
citizens from time to time wish to enter the public sector to help
shape legislation and make a contribution to Canadian society. It
is desirable to attract individual citizens from all walks of life to
Parliament regardless of income. Therefore, a reasonable
compensation package should be offered so as to have this great
institution in the hands of members of Parliament more
interested in serving their country rather than for the pay, perks
and privileges without inflicting undue financial hardships.
This is an important job. Only 295 people in Canada have it at
any given time. They must balance personal sacrifices with the
public interest. Given the current job description of an MP and
people's expectations let us get rid of the impression that MPs
are somehow special, different, or somehow deserve something
that is not available in the private sector.
Let us get rid of the notion that MPs are paid just $64,000 per
year. They are not. They are paid much more. It is confusing.
They have $64,000 in salary. They have a tax free living
allowance of $21,300 and a tax free expense allowance of
$6,000. After six years they get a bonus, a pension for life. They
get $27,000 tax free. Why?
For someone in the private sector to earn $27,000 they have to
make $50,000 plus. This sort of pay structure is nothing more
than planned deception. It gives the Prime Minister the ability to
say he makes less than the lowest paid Ottawa Senators hockey
player. A member of Parliament's total salary is about $120,000
per year if we mark up the tax free portion. This is the kind of
double talk that makes people lose respect for politicians.
The Liberals are in power and the Deputy Prime Minister of
Canada supports the GST. She said during the election campaign
that if the GST was not scrapped she would resign. They have
promised to do it by January 1996. I promised to take a 10 per
cent pay cut. I did. I promised to opt out of the current pension
plan. I will. I promised to take the 10 per cent pay cut for the full
8094
term. I will. Perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister can learn from
this what it means to keep a promise. Will she keep her promise
and resign on January 1, 1996 if the GST is not scrapped?
This job itself with its responsibilities compared to the private
sector is at least at a senior executive level and is deserving of a
$6,000 to $7,000 salary per month. We should get rid of the MP
pension plan, the tax free living allowance and the tax free
expense allowance, limit members to two terms and offer the
following: A taxable salary of $10,000 to $12,000 per month
where members look after their own expenses and their own
pensions. The $10,000 per month is the current minimum as it
reflects basically what MPs are paid now after we mark up the
tax free aspects.
I personally believe that MPs should be paid more. However
once they are removed from office Canadians should not be on
the hook for about $1 million per year per member. They should
be given a private sector pension plan to which they pay 5 per
cent, matched by the government on a 1:1 basis as opposed to
6:1 as is currently the case. Upon departure after two terms or
whenever members would get a one time, one year severance to
help re-enter the workforce and reintegrate their previous lives.
This is more in line with the private sector and should make the
voters and the politicians more respectful of each other.
Madam Speaker, may I ask for unanimous consent to continue
for one minute? I have just three more paragraphs.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry. We do not
have unanimous consent. Questions and comments. The hon.
member for Mississauga South.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I wanted to address a couple of the points the member raised. It
is extremely important because it has painted a picture which is
quite slanted and biased on behalf of the member.
First, throughout his statements he commented about his 10
per cent salary cut. If the member was going to give all the facts
he would also report that as has been reported in the press
Reform members are now reconsidering their 10 per cent cut
because they are not getting enough publicity or benefit from it
by the voters.
Second, the member seems to suggest that members of
Parliament when they leave this place whether by choice or they
are defeated in an election, can somehow simply integrate into
the workforce.
(1200 )
The member knows very well that 82 per cent of the members
who did not return from the last House do not have employment
today. They have nothing to go to. As the member well knows,
when members of Parliament leave here, having been defeated
in an election, they are a nobody. They are lower than a nobody
because they no longer have the influence to speak with people
and to have those contacts.
There are many members of Parliament and many others who
have served in public life who have given so much that have
nothing to go to when they leave public life.
On that basis the member probably should consider that the
so-called gold-plated pension plan is in fact not just a pension
plan for the future retirement of that member once that career
ends but is also to provide some modicum of income protection
or salary continuance because of the difficulty that members of
Parliament have had to get back into the work force.
The member asks for a reasonable compensation package but
you will note, Madam Speaker, that the member was not full and
clear with the Canadian public because he did not mention a
dollar figure. He is unprepared to say what a fair and reasonable
compensation package would be.
Finally, the member made reference to a tax free allowance.
The member said if you take this tax free allowance and convert
it into an effective salary, the member of Parliament makes
much more.
What the member failed to point out to Canadians is that
members of Parliament received these allowances to take care of
real legitimate expenses. As one example, as a member of
Parliament I am here four or five days a week for nine months of
the year. I must have a place here to live. That place costs me
$1,000 a month. That does not come out of some magical bin. It
comes out of the tax free allowance.
The member should really consider whether or not he has told
the Canadians the full truth.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The hon. member for
Calgary Centre. You have about a minute.
Mr. Silye: Madam Speaker, that is a nice application of the
rules. I really appreciate it. I just heard the gun go off outside.
That was hot air just like some of the hot air I am hearing in here.
When the hon. member's leader was Leader of the Opposition
he said he wanted to reform MP pensions. He said he would raise
the age to 55. We go to 60 so we support that a little higher. He
said he would get rid of double dipping which he defines as
receiving appointments from the federal level of government
while on pension. We would support that as well. Whatever way
you want to define double dipping you probably would find the
Reform Party supporting it.
Where we fundamentally disagree and where his party is too
weak, too void, too empty, lacking the political will, is to make
the contributions matching so that if if we give 11 per cent the
federal government gives 11 per cent, or if we give five it gives
five, no better than the private sector. Why should we be any
8095
different, any more special? The MP compensation package
should-
Mr. Szabo: Time.
Mr. Silye: Don't tell me to hurry up. You are the one who was
taking the time and hogging my time with your comment. So if
you are interested in my comment in response-you're not. That
figures. That's the government. That's the government side-
Ms. Clancy: I'm interested. Talk to me.
Mr. Silye: There is a lady across the way who keeps
interfering, Madam Speaker. I think I should be allowed another
five minutes to respond because of the heckling.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry. The time has
expired.
I am now ready prior to recognizing the hon. parliamentary
secretary to rule on the amendment proposed by the chief
government whip.
After consideration the Chair must rule that the proposed
amendment by the hon. chief government whip is out of order
because it goes against citation 579 of Beauchesne's sixth
edition as it sets forth a proposition dealing with a matter which
is foreign to the proposed proposition involved in the main
motion and as it raises a new question. Second, it goes against
citation 929 of Beauchesne's which states:
On an allotted day, during consideration of the business of Supply, an
amendment must not provide the basis for an entirely different debate than that
proposed in the original motion.
(1205 )
Also, as quoted in the ``Selected Decisions of Speaker
Lamoureux'' on page 322, it was ruled by the Chair on March
16, 1971 that:
-for an allotted day, ``the spirit of fair play would require that the day not be
taken away by means of an amendment''.
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration, Lib.): Thank you, Madam
Speaker.
Mr. Silye: Do you want to talk louder so everyone will hear
you?
Ms. Clancy: Now, now. I would ask that the hon. member for
Calgary Centre listen. He might hear something that he might
even like.
Mr. Silye: Should I hold my breath?
Ms. Clancy: Probably not, although I am sure you can try.
I have been in this House six years yesterday when I was
elected.
Oh, please wait to hear what I have to say, ladies and
gentlemen.
Six years ago last night was one of the most exciting and
humbling moments of my life. The opportunity to be a member
of Parliament, to serve the people of Halifax and, I hope, to
serve the people of Canada as everyone of us in this House
does-some of us whether we like it or not-is something that
maybe a lot of us never even dreamed of when we thought about
the way our lives would go.
I want to say something else. I think most people in this House
who know me know that I am a very partisan member of
Parliament and I am proud of that partisanship. I come from a
partisan tradition in my family, in my province, in my region
and in my party. However, I think that this is an amazing and
wonderful place.
Mr. Silye: So now the thinking is hereditary?
Ms. Clancy: Is this the new politics, Jim?
I look over to the other side, to the members of the Reform
Party, and I want every one of them, particularly the member for
Beaver River, to know that I hold them in great respect. I
disagree with them on many, many issues but I hold them in
great respect as members of Parliament, as representatives of
the people, as fellow Canadians and as colleagues in this House.
I congratulate the member for Beaver River for bringing
forward this motion. This matter needs debate.
I am going to veer off briefly in a lighter vein to my colleague
and good friend, the member for Mississauga South, and say that
I thought I was going to burst into tears before he finished his
intervention. There are a number of good reasons for the proper
remuneration of members of Parliament. I congratulate the
member for Calgary Centre again-take it while you can-on
his comments about proper remuneration. He is absolutely right.
We all know right now that political suicide, which is
something that I do not think any of us are interested in
committing, would be to raise salaries. I think that what really
needs to be done over the long term is what is said in the red
book. I would be happy to read it in the French version which I
have right here. It states that the entire thing needs revamping.
In the meantime, and I am only going to deal with this briefly
and I will come to it later in my speech, I support very strongly
the elimination of double dipping while at the same time not
disagreeing with the member for Kootenay West when he talked
about his 22 years as a civil servant, an air traffic controller, one
of the most stressful and difficult jobs and one of the most
important jobs in this country. The issue is a complex and
complicated one on both sides.
I can bring up examples particularly in my previous
incarnation in opposition when I was charged with the role of
women's
8096
critic. It is harder for women parliamentarians to reintegrate to
society just as it is harder for women economically in a number
of areas.
(1210 )
That is not the issue. We are not people to be felt sorry for.
This is the greatest job on earth as far as I am concerned. This
job is incredible. I think a lot of us would do it if we could even if
we did not get paid.
Mind you, I want to make a point very strongly in agreeing
with the Deputy Prime Minister, the member for Hamilton East,
that we are worth what we get paid. The member for Beaver
River is worth a lot of money to the people of Canada and so is
the member for Calgary Centre, I guess-yes, no-and so is the
member for Mississauga South. We are all worth our salaries.
We work hard.
There may be some but I personally have no knowledge of
members of Parliament who do not, as one journalist called it,
have the work schedules of dray horses. I also think that we
enjoy these schedules. That does not mean we should not be
remunerated. It also means that it is not a simplistic issue that
can be easily dealt with. That is why I again congratulate the
member for Beaver River for bringing it forward and for giving
the opportunity for debate in this House.
I want to talk about something in particular because I think it
is important. I think that I as a very partisan member of this
House perhaps can say this where some others might not be able
to. We have to treat each other with respect and dignity when
dealing with this issue. I thought about cracking wise about this
but the people of Canada and the people in this Chamber deserve
better than that from all of us. This is a serious issue.
Members opposite are quite right when they say we have to be
credible as we say to the people of Canada that cuts are coming,
that we are changing what we do, that we are putting our own
house in order. Again, that is why I support the red book
promise.
Some comments were made in particular about the member
for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, my whip, a veteran of this
House and a veteran of the Ontario legislature, someone who has
given long and hard to public service. I certainly do not want to
embarrass the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell but
given the comments by the member for Kootenay West, I am not
sure if he knows a bit about the history of the member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell who started as a busboy in one of
the parliamentary cafeterias, who worked his way up, who is
absolutely a glowing example of a Canadian success story.
I do not think anybody on either side of this House would deny
that there is no better constituency MP in the House of
Commons than the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
That is one of the reasons that he gets returned with amazing
majorities. I think the last one was somewhere around 85 per
cent. There is a quote about the longest serving premier in a
Canadian province who was a Liberal premier of Nova Scotia
many years. I have a picture of him in my kitchen with a caption
that states: ``He trusts the people and the people trust him''. I
think that is a tremendous thing for a person elected to political
office to attain. I think that could be said about the member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
When we debate this issue, it is an emotional issue. All of us
are emotionally concerned in our own futures. We are all of us
concerned for ourselves and our families and we all of us know
that these matters are of tremendous importance to us. I do not
for an instant accuse the hon. member from the opposition of
being unparliamentary. I just want him to know that when the
hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell or the hon.
member for Mississauga South or any hon. members in this
House stand and speak passionately about any issue, whether it
is our remuneration as members of Parliament, whether it is
issues that relate to our constituents, whether it is issues that
relate to Canada as a whole, and I know that the member for
Beaver River agrees with me on this, we all deserve the respect
of our peers and colleagues. We all deserve not to be accused of
making these statements for personal gain. That is what I found
very difficult in those earlier comments.
(1215)
As I said, I think perhaps he was unaware of the history of this
particular member who is, has been and will continue to be a
benefit and an adornment to this House.
This debate has in the past been acrimonious. It has in the past
used the logical fallacy ad hominem. I am winding up. I know
who is coming in. It has in the past created a great deal of sound
a fury, signifying nothing.
In closing, everyone who is here, whether it is the hon.
member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, the hon. member
for Beaver River or other hon. members, we are all aware that
our role as members of Parliament is one of integrity, decency
and deserving of respect.
The hon. Deputy Prime Minister, the member for Hamilton
East, has said in this debate that she will not apologize for the
remuneration of members of Parliament. I want to say that I
stand four square with her and with other members of the
government on that level. Members of Parliament deserve their
remuneration. We also need to air these issues, discuss them
publicly and to ensure that the people of Canada see that we do
respect each other and each other's opinions.
I believe last week the hon. member for Beaver River
suggested that I would collect I think it was in excess of $1
million if I were to retire today, the day after my qualifying for a
pension. I want to assure the member for Beaver River that I
have absolutely no intention of retiring today. I hope I would
have no intention of retiring long err this. I would imagine that
8097
the hon. member who becomes pensionable on March 13, 1995
will also not have much intention of retiring.
While we will both attempt to assist our colleagues in aiding
both of us to that end in future elections, I think we both know
that the work we do here and the remuneration we receive for it
is certainly not overwhelming. I want to also say that this is a no
win argument in many areas of this country.
I want to say that I am delighted to have taken part in this
debate. I thank again the hon. member for Beaver River for
bringing forward this motion.
The Speaker: I understand that there will be questions put to
the hon. member for Halifax in just a moment. I have been given
notice of a request to return to ministerial statements. My
colleagues, you will have a chance to put questions to our
colleague in just a few minutes.
Might I understand, Mr. Prime Minister, that this is a request
to return to Statements by Ministers?
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Yes.
The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to return to
Statements by Ministers?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
8097
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to inform the House
that Her Majesty the Queen has graciously approved the
appointment upon my recommendation of the Hon. Romeo
LeBlanc as the next Governor General of Canada. The
installation will take place in early February 1995.
(1220)
[Translation]
Hon. members are well acquainted with Mr. LeBlanc, who has
served Canada with distinction in public life for over twenty
years: as a member of this House, as a minister of the Crown, as
a senator and, most recently, as Speaker of the Senate.
[English]
Born in New Brunswick, Mr. LeBlanc is the first Governor
General from Atlantic Canada. He is also the first Acadian to
serve as Governor General.
In recommending this appointment to Her Majesty, I was
conscious that a Governor General must have a profound love of
his country and of the Canadian people in order to effectively
carry out the duties of this high office.
[Translation]
I know that Mr. LeBlanc has these qualities. As a teacher, as a
journalist and as a parliamentarian, he has made outstanding
contributions to Canada and to Canadians. With his
understanding of our country and his personal warmth and
dedication, I am sure that he will carry out his new
responsibilities with success.
[English]
At this point I would like also to thank on behalf of all
Canadians His Excellency Ramon Hnatyshyn and his wife
Gerda. First elected to the House of Commons in 1974, Mr.
Hnatyshyn has served Canadians for 20 years. As a member of
Parliament, I served with him. He served Parliament with great
distinction.
In 1990 Ramon Hnatyshyn was sworn in as Governor General
of Canada. Since that time he and Mrs. Hnatyshyn have fulfilled
their roles with dedication and dignity. I worked with them for
the last year and they have been gracious people to work with.
I would like, on behalf of all the members of this House and
the people of Canada, to say to Madam Hnatyshyn and Mr.
Hnatyshyn, thank you for a job well done.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the appointment of the Hon. Roméo LeBlanc as
Governor General will no doubt be welcomed as good news. I
salute the Prime Minister's decision to name an Acadian to this
prestigious position, in fact the first one in Canada's history.
This is undoubtedly a gesture of openness to Canada's
francophone communities.
The Hon. Mr. LeBlanc will be able to continue the efforts that
he has always made in his long and fruitful career for the
promotion of minority rights. I wish him good luck and great
success in his new duties.
Let me also point out the good, solid work of the present
Governor General, the Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn, and thank him and
his wife for what they have done for their fellow Canadians.
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to acknowledge the Prime Minister's
announcement of the appointment of Romeo LeBlanc as the next
Governor General of Canada and to protest the appointment as
unwise and inappropriate.
In doing so I mean absolutely no disrespect for Mr. LeBlanc as
an individual, a parliamentarian or a public servant. However, as
hon. members know, the prestige and the standing of the Office
of the Governor General with the Canadian public is in decline
and it is in decline for three reasons.
8098
First, in a democracy an increasing number of people feel that
the public should have a say in who occupies the office of chief
of state. Second, it is in decline because Canadians prefer the
appointee to be above and beyond partisan politics. That
reference has not been respected.
(1225)
Third, it is in decline because the public no longer supports
some of the special privileges which pertain to the Governor
General's office such as the exemption of the occupant from
payment of income taxes and the ability of the occupant to
double dip on pensions.
The Prime Minister has disregarded all of these factors in
making this appointment which he announced today. Reformers
therefore believe the appointment to be unwise, inappropriate,
and wish that fact to be registered in this House.
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice): Mr. Speaker, this is
unprecedented in Canadian history. The Governor General
nominated has informed the government that he will accept his
pay as a governor and will return his pension to the crown.
_____________________________________________
8098
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): We are now entering a
10-minute question and comment period for the hon.
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
getting back to the MP pension plan and the need to address it
and reform it, I would like to make a couple of comments on the
speech of the member for Halifax and also a couple of questions
I hope she would take the time to answer.
First of all, the problem with this is that the current Prime
Minister said a year ago in opposition that he would reform the
pension plan in one day given the opportunity. Now he has been
there for a year and has not reformed the pension plan in that one
day as he promised. It is in the red book what he would do, the 55
years, the double dipping.
We would support that except we would expect the age to be
60, not 55. We would go further and get into the area which we
feel annoys the taxpayers of Canada which is the fact that
whatever it is that a member of Parliament contributes, why is it
that the taxpayers have to contribute higher than that. Why is it
that the taxpayers are expected to foot the tab for this generous,
self-serving, gold plated pension plan? Why is it not just a
matching contribution?
Does the member for Halifax not agree that the government's
share of the contribution should not exceed a member's share to
restore respect in the private sector and to restore the confidence
of the Canadian public? That is one of the changes that we would
make in addition to what is in the Liberal red book.
Also, does she not agree that 55 is not high enough, that it
should be 60? It would help to make it more actuarially sound
and it would be more in line with the private sector. If a member
wishes to draw it earlier than that age then they would get a
reduced amount as in similar plans.
All we are asking in our motion is to rectify a wrong. It is
clearly wrong. It clearly annoys the Canadian taxpayer and all
we want to do is address that portion of the MP compensation
which is too generous, not the MPs' salary which is too low.
If we looked at it why can this government not find a balance
between too much and too little? Why can this government not
find a balance between good government and self-serving
government? Why can this government not find a balance and do
the things it said it was going to do when it was in opposition?
Now it is on the other side and it is not doing them, or it is doing
opposite. This is what frustrates taxpayers. This is what
concerns people.
The last question is does she not agree that the government
plan is better than that of any in the private sector? Politicians,
members of Parliament, belong to an exclusive club of only 295
people, which is probably about 30 too many. There should only
be 265. Now they plan to increase it to 301 because they work so
hard. Does she not agree that if we have a better plan than that of
the private sector is it not somehow embarrassing to her that she
has something, or that a member of Parliament has something,
better than that which is out there? We come into this job
willingly. We know the sacrifices. We know what we are getting
into. If we cry about what we are going to lose when we
leave-the member did not, I am referring to some other Liberal
members who made that point-and cry about what we are going
to see out there when we leave, then we should not become MPs
in the first place.
(1230)
Those are my comments. I am trying to be reasonable. I am
trying to ask for support for this motion. It only supports what
the Liberals promised. We want action before 53 more members
qualify under the current rules. We want the current MP pension
plan to be changed. Why does the government not act?
8099
Ms. Clancy: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
Calgary Centre for his question.
In the past the former third party in the House, the New
Democrats, used to be called Liberals in a hurry. I am not quite
sure how we would make that correlation to the Reform Party
members opposite, but I am not quite certain if they understand
what happened yesterday. They know that 52 of us, I
believe-the member for Beaver River does not qualify until
March 13-became eligible yesterday. I am not being funny. I
am being absolutely straight with the hon. member. None of
those 52 people are going to retire overnight.
Miss Grey: No, but they are eligible.
Ms. Clancy: I am eligible for a lot of things. I could enter the
Olympics. I am eligible. I am breathing but I probably would not
do very well.
Mr. Silye: For what you have contributed you deserve a
million dollars when you leave here?
Ms. Clancy: No, no, let me answer the question. The hon.
member posed a question. Let me answer it.
First and foremost when the hon. member asked me the
question, he opened the door and I am going to walk through it.
Miss Grey: Yes, you just did yesterday.
Ms. Clancy: Yes, I did. The answer is that we made a red book
promise and we will keep the red book promise.
Mr. Abbott: When?
Ms. Clancy: When the Prime Minister and the President of
the Treasury Board are ready. Our mandate is not going to end
tomorrow. We are here. Much as the Reform Party may not like
it we are here for at least another three years, maybe four and
probably longer.
Let us talk about what Canadians want. Need I remind my
hon. friends opposite, Canadians sent 177 of us to this House, a
clear, overwhelming majority.
Miss Grey: They sent 178.
Miss Clancy: No, 177 and it went to 176. I know the numbers,
I won a pool. They sent us in an overwhelming majority to this
House based on the red book promises. The red book promises
will be fulfilled. I know that, the minister knows that, the Prime
Minister knows that, and in their heart of hearts the members of
the Reform Party know that.
Heaven knows, if there is one thing I do not want to be in this
debate it is partisan but I may get driven to it. If I get driven to it
I will have to arrive there. I am driven to remind hon. members
opposite that not only did the Canadian people send a clear
majority of Liberals to the House based on red book promises,
including the one we are talking about here, but does anybody
remember the 75 per cent approval rating in which the Prime
Minister is held by the people of Canada today? Does anybody
remember that? I do not know but there we are.
It hurts me to bring this up. It cuts me to the very quick to have
to bring this up in debate. I am almost embarrassed to bring it up
in front of the President of the Treasury Board because I am
afraid it will diminish his hitherto good opinion of me. Does
anybody remember that there is a party that is at 10 per cent in
the polls? There is a Prime Minister at 75 per cent with a
government at somewhere in excess of 60 per cent.
Mr. Silye: Mary, the election is in three years, so check that
poll later.
Ms. Clancy: Exactly, the election is in three years. How
grateful I am to the hon. member for Calgary Centre for bringing
that up. There are all kinds of promises in the red book that will
be fulfilled over the life of the mandate, including this one. I
want the hon. members opposite to be calm, to not worry, to be
happy-
Mr. Silye: Why was the Prime Minister in a hurry a year ago
and now he is not in a hurry? Why the change? That is what is
hurting. That is the perception that is wrong.
Ms. Clancy: Did he say which day? He did not say which day.
The day will come and it will be a day that the Lord hath made
and He can be happy and rejoice therein.
(1235 )
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I remind the hon. member that I knew of a party once that used to
brag about its high standings in the polls. We all know where it is
today. That may be interesting information but in and of itself
will not get anybody re-elected.
The hon. member spent a considerable part of her speech
defending what she perceived to be a personal attack on the
member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. As I heard the
speech from the member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke he
was really quarrelling with some very specific things that the
member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell had said.
The most ridiculous thing he said was that it could be
demonstrated that a private kind of RRSP purchase would be
less generous to him than the current MP pension-
Miss Grey: More.
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): Sorry, if it was more generous,
he would resign.
He actually suggested it would be more expensive if the
public put us on RRSPs in a 1:1 matching arrangement. We know
the current plan is a 6:1 matching arrangement. With all her
rhetorical eloquence, is the hon. member seriously suggesting
that she can make the number six less than a one?
8100
Ms. Clancy: Madam Speaker, there is a long time theory
about women and their inability with mathematics. I can assure
the hon. member that mathematically I am challenged.
I neither heard the speech of the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell-
Miss Grey: I am too, but I can figure out 6:1.
Ms. Clancy: I am sure the hon. member for Beaver River
probably can do that. As a teacher she is trained to do it. As the
hon. member so kindly put it I am trained in rhetorical
eloquence. I will keep to my job.
I did not hear the speech of the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. I did hear the comments of the
hon. member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke. As I made very
clear, I was making a statement about the contribution as a
member of Parliament of the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell of his years both provincially
and federally and the fact that he deserved to be heard without
his motives being questioned, pure and simple.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I wish to inform the
House that pursuant to Standing Order 33(2) because of the
ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by
seven minutes.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Madam Speaker,
the motion before the House today reads as follows:
That this House urge the government to replace the current Members of
Parliament Retirement Allowance plan with a pension plan that reflects the
current norms for private sector pensions, with a maximum contribution in
accordance with the Income Tax Act.
Its wording is extremely vague, when it refers to current
norms for private sector pensions. Which private sector
pensions? Are we talking about the pension plan for executives
at General Motors or Chrysler Canada, or about the pension
plans of employees of small businesses in East Montreal? The
standards are not at all the same. The wording of the motion is
definitely unsatisfactory, and if the wording is unsatisfactory,
we can assume that the substance is as well and that the motion
leaves much to be desired, as it will in the course of this debate,
especially in terms of what is said by the motion's sponsors.
(1240)
We in the Official Opposition feel that the pension plan for
members of Parliament cannot be dissociated from the issue of
members' salaries or the entire budget envelope that is allocated
to members.
If members were paid $200,000 annually, as they are in the
United States, it would be obvious that a pension plan if any,
should be very modest in scale. However, when a member's
salary is quite low, as may be the case today, it makes sense to
have a more substantial pension plan. The two go together. We
cannot separate these issues like the compartments they have in
submarines to keep them from sinking.
I think it is just petty politics to take an issue that is already
controversial and say: ``Look at those people in the House of
Commons. They are overpaid, they have too many benefits and
privileges, they have a shoe shine service, they have people to
cut their hair-'' and other people to split hairs. I think we have
to take a far more comprehensive view, and that is the approach
we support.
We can afford to be very detached about this issue, Madam
Speaker, especially considering the role of the Official
Opposition in this House and its life expectancy, in the light of
its political views. So we have a certain perspective that others
may not have, in the circumstances. Of course, members should
be treated in a way that is commensurate with their
responsibilities. To claim, which is petty politics in my book,
that members of Parliament are overpaid and make such a
pronouncement out of the blue, based on nothing, further erodes
the role of MPs in our society.
There was no shortage of occasions in the past for demeaning
the role of parliamentarians, a role which is often not obvious.
Very few care about the number of hours MPs dedicate to their
work, seven days a week. You know, Madam Speaker, 75, 80 and
90-hour weeks are not uncommon for MPs, but who is counting?
So, the entire system, both the pay plan and retirement plan,
should be reviewed.
We must also be able to attract quality candidates for the
position of member of Parliament. My colleague from
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell referred to the 1830, 1832
legislation which was in fact designed to allow any citizen, from
the richest to the ones from the humblest origins, to have a
chance of becoming a parliamentarian. It is not with this kind of
abrupt rollback of benefits that we are going to be able to set the
course and stay on course, one which is increasingly difficult to
maintain.
One has to realize that, normally, MPs are elected to the
House of Commons at the peak, so to speak, of their working
life, when they are the most productive, building a career,
whatever their line of work is. So, at the end of their mandate or
mandates in the House, MPs very often find themselves in a
vulnerable situation, especially since, as we know, the turnover
rate among members of the House of Commons of Canada is one
of the highest in Western Parliaments.
Unlike in the United States, where members of Congress
serve some 20 years on average, Canadian members of
Parliament serve between five and seven years on average,
which is an extremely short time. We know what happens to
members after they retire or fail to get re-elected, how difficult
it is for them to find new jobs, for all kinds of reasons I will not
get into at this time. But this is a reality members from all
political parties must face. That is why we must make it a little
easier for members
8101
who retire of their own free will or who are forced to retire
because voters have decided it is time for them to do so.
(1245)
Because of their precarious position, members of Parliament
must be given sufficient financial resources to get back on their
feet after retirement or electoral defeat. There is however one
thing on which the Official Opposition has always been clear,
that is, when a member of the House of Commons has the right to
collect a pension from the Government of Canada. We do not
find it normal for a person who is barely 30 but who has
completed two mandates to be able to collect a pension from the
Canadian government immediately.
In our opinion, we should discuss the age at which former
members of the House of Commons should be able to collect this
pension, by comparing apples with apples. Let us look at how
things are done at the RCMP and in the Canadian Forces. This
could help us in trying to determine the age at which former
members of the House of Commons should be able to collect
their pensions.
Of course, we are also opposed to double dipping, that is,
getting two cheques from the Canadian government. We think
that this practice should be abolished. For someone who is
already receiving a pension or an allowance because of their past
services to the Canadian government to be allowed to continue
to collect these cheques while sitting in the House of Commons
is not normal either, in our opinion.
We do not intend to compromise on the age at which one may
collect a pension or on what is commonly called double dipping.
To consider the issue of pensions, we must look at reality.
Many members of this House or of previous Parliaments had a
job in which they contributed to a pension fund in the company
where they worked. When they came to the House of Commons,
they contributed to its pension plan and stopped contributing to
their other plan. Often, a member who leaves this House finds
that he has contributed for a very short time to a private pension
plan, so he will have to continue working for quite a while. He
will be penalized because the pension fund is not transferable.
We should look into this issue.
I do not think that we can solve these problems with an
opposition motion. We will have to wait for a government bill to
frame the issue so that we can really debate it.
We now have a five-line motion. I think that a fleshed-out bill
should have quite a few more provisions and that a non-partisan
review should lead to the government presenting a bill, as the
Prime Minister said a few days ago.
(1250)
Finally, we said that we could consider the government bill
very calmly, but surely not in the heat of a debate that stirs
passionate feelings against members of Parliament, in which
people are led to believe that MPs are literally sucking the teat
of state. The whole benefit package of members of the House of
Commons, particularly their pension plan, must be the subject
of a government bill that is considered as neutrally and
objectively as possible, certainly not in the heat of passion and
especially not one from people who told us at the beginning of
the session that they would cut back their salary, or at least part
of it, that they would give back 10 per cent of it and then said that
they had made a mistake. ``I have unemployed people at home
and I cannot afford to set aside 10 per cent.'' Such an issue so
easily inflames public opinion that perhaps we should avoid
doing it.
For the reasons which I mentioned, the Official Opposition
will vote against the motion before us today.
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, today's motion by the Reform Party is premature. The
government is committed to honouring the red book
commitments with respect to ending double dipping and with
respect to dealing with the question of minimum age. Reform of
the pensions is clearly a matter of interest.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like to
know if the hon. member is speaking in the period for questions
and comments or if he is opening the debate on the issue.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ur): The hon. minister is on
debate.
Mr. Eggleton: Madam Speaker, the government is committed
to the reforms that were outlined in the red book with respect to
pensions.
The member for Beaver River, a member of the Reform Party,
the third party, is very premature and is wasting her time in
presenting today's motion. It has been clearly said previously by
the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and myself that a
presentation will be made to the House before the end of this
year with respect to the government's plans regarding the matter
of pensions.
One of the hon. member's colleagues mentioned that the
Prime Minister had said in the days when he was in opposition
that he could bring in the pension reforms in one day. He did not
necessarily say it was going to be day one and it does not need to
be day one of this Parliament. It does not need to be done with
the kind of urgency the hon. member for Beaver River suggests
it should be.
8102
As has been stated time and time again in today's debate
nobody is retiring between now and the end of this Parliament.
Indeed, there are a lot of things on the government plate that
relate to reforms in many areas that relate to the whole budget
process. Those matters have a great deal more urgency than this
matter.
Notwithstanding that, I understand how Canadians feel about
the pensions and the need for reform. We have said that within
just a little over one year of having taken office we will bring in
a reform of MP pensions that is based on the red book
commitments.
The red book commitments are to end double dipping. Those
members of Parliament who cease to be members of Parliament
would not be able to collect both their pension and another full
time salary in government service. Whether they were employed
in the government service or receive a governor in council
appointment, they would not be able to be in full time
occupation receiving a full time salary with the crown at the
same time as collecting the pension.
(1255 )
That was amply demonstrated today. The bill is not yet before
the House and of course it is not yet in effect. Nevertheless, the
Prime Minister announced today that the designate for Governor
General is a former member of this House and a member of the
other house. He will be forgoing his pension while receiving the
salary for being the Governor General of Canada. It is a
voluntary compliance and the Governor General designate
should be commended very much.
Once the law is brought into effect it will prevent those who
do retire from this House or the other place from being able to
pick up a salary as well as their pension scheme. That is
certainly one of the very clear red book commitments. I again
say that the government is committed to bringing in legislation
and bringing it in early to end double dipping.
With respect to minimum age, again the red book talked about
the concern that some members retire from this House at a very
early age and collect a full pension. Some members collect it in
their 40s, far earlier than the normal retirement age of
Canadians. They collect it as an amount of money that would be
supplementary to other remuneration they might receive in their
new pursuits. It becomes part of a larger income that they then
enjoy.
Canadians generally do not enjoy that kind of pension
arrangement. A great many people have expressed their
opposition and concern about it to me. This government again is
clearly committed to dealing with a minimum age with respect
to the pension payout for former members of this House. It is a
red book commitment and something we will be dealing with
very shortly. I reiterate there will be a statement before this
House before the end of the year.
There is another thing which was not in the red book but has
been added to this consideration. It responds to something the
third party members raised earlier in the term. It is with respect
to wanting to opt out of or not be included in the pension
arrangements, whatever they may be. They want to have the
opportunity not to participate.
Although that has not been an option up until now, the Prime
Minister clearly stated before this House that members of
Parliament would be given that option. Members of Parliament
will have the opportunity to opt in to the pension plan in a timely
fashion. If as the hon. member for Beaver River and her
colleagues have been saying for some time that they do not want
to do so, then they are free to not opt in to the plan. Members of
Parliament can make their own decisions individually as to
whether or not they want to participate in the plan.
A lot of members of Parliament give up some of their best
earning years to serve the public. The pension plan for them is
some further protection. It is one I know that will be given
serious consideration by each and every member of Parliament.
I am sure even members of the third party will give it
individual consideration. After all, they seem to be weakening
in their resolve with respect to reducing their own salary. They
are beginning to understand that they need that kind of money
because of the hours they put in serving their constituents. They
have to maintain residences both here and in their constituencies
and they understand the cost of living and having to do that.
They are weakening in their resolve with respect to this matter.
I suspect we might see some change of heart when it comes
right down to having to make that momentous decision of
whether you opt in to the plan and participate or whether you are
completely out and completely unprotected.
(1300 )
I would not say completely unprotected because there are
some colleagues of the hon. member for Beaver River who are in
that double dipping category who have had previous experience
in other houses and legislatures who collect money in addition
to the money they gain from this House.
They know what double dipping is over there. I think they
understand how difficult it is to give up remuneration. They will
also find that they will have to give very serious consideration
for their own protection, the protection of their families in the
future with respect to the matter of pensions. Opting in becomes
another feature.
There have been some suggestions and there are suggestions
in this motion today, although I agree with my colleague, the
hon. member for Bellechasse, that it is kind of vague. It is
ambiguous and awkward in terms of its wording and it is
8103
premature. They are wasting their time debating this today when
the matter is coming before Parliament shortly anyway.
They are suggesting in the motion in their vague way that
there should be some other changes to the plan. There was as
study commissioned by the previous government by the
consulting firm of Sobeco, Ernst & Young with respect to
remuneration for members of Parliament. That in turn, when it
was completed this spring, was turned over to a commission of
this Parliament, the Lapointe commission as it is known. It
deliberated on it as well.
Through the hon. Speaker the matter was tabled here in the
House in July. That report talked about some other changes in
the pension plan, suggesting there be some modifications to the
accrual benefit package and a number of other aspects of it. It
said quite clearly that members of Parliament were undervalued
by many in terms of the work they do and in terms of the
remuneration they should appropriately receive.
It did say that while there should be some reduction in the
total benefit package for the pension, there should be an increase
in the remuneration for members of Parliament and that overall
it should wash. It should come out as an even package, up on the
salary and somewhat down on some of the other provisions,
including the pension benefits.
This Parliament has determined there will be no salary
increases, not only for members of Parliament, but for the public
service, because we are in a time of restraint. We are in a time
when getting our fiscal House in order is of the highest priority,
a time when we must get the deficit and the debt down.
Therefore we cannot afford to give salary increases to anybody
in the government system including, having to set an example,
the members of this House and the members of the other place.
If there is no increase in the salary then it can well be argued
how do we take a decrease in the other parts of the compensation
program. We would violate the principle of the Lapointe
commission and the Sobeco, Ernst & Young study, which was to
maintain the level of compensation but make adjustments
internally. Obviously we are not in a position where we can do
that. When that day does arrive we can again look at that
package of suggestions as to adjustments that might be
appropriate.
The final point I want to make is in relation to the vesting
period, because much has been made by the third party on the
vesting period. Yesterday six years arrived for 52 members of
this House with respect to qualifying for their pensions. I want
to point out very clearly that vesting does mean that as of now
they are being paid out. Vesting means qualification to be paid
out, but they are not going to be paid out. They are members of
this Parliament. Nobody is planning on resigning or retiring.
They will be here for another four years before the hon. member
for Beaver River would have to really worry about their
collecting that pension.
Yesterday was the qualifying period for them. It is a six-year
qualifying period. That is not an unreasonable length of time as
a qualifying period for a pension plan. For average Canadians it
is frequently less than that. It can sometimes be two years or
three years to actually qualify for the pension. When it is paid
out is another matter. To qualify in this particular case takes
some six years to do. There is nothing magical about yesterday.
It was not an occasion that should require this kind of debate
today.
(1305)
There is a qualifying period that has now been met by another
52 members of this House. With respect to the matters of how
the pension is paid out and when it is paid out, those are all
matters that are still under consideration and are not in any way
prejudiced by what happened yesterday. Not one iota has
anything changed by what happened yesterday.
That is something you do not seem to understand and you are
certainly misunderstanding this. It does not help Canadians
when you make this point about the vesting period.
I think it has to be understood quite clearly that six years to
qualify for the plan is far different from when you pay it out and
the ages you pay it out at. Those are all matters that are going to
be dealt with by the government in living up to and completing
its obligations under the red book commitments that we have
agreed we would do, and do it in a timely fashion, do it long
before anybody is going to retire from this House, long before
you need to worry about any payouts.
There are more substantive concerns at this point in terms of
payouts that relate to getting the deficit and the debt under
control, getting the deficit down to 3 per cent of GDP. There is a
program review that is going on. There is the social security
review. We have gone through a defence review. We have gone
through a foreign affairs review. We are reviewing everything.
We are reviewing the size and shape of government, the roles
and responsibilities that government performs. It is a very major
undertaking, so this government does have a lot on its platter.
Notwithstanding that, the government is quite cognizant of
the concern of the hon. member for Beaver River that we deal
with this at an early stage, and we are dealing with it at an early
stage.
This year the sitting of this House has almost a month to go
and it is certainly my hope that in that period of time I will be
able to rise in the House and advise as to the implementation for
the red book commitments, specifically dealing with those
items of double dipping and minimum age which we are
committed to reforming.
8104
I am hopeful that the hon. member for Beaver River and her
colleagues will support the government in its endeavours to do
that. I know Canadians want to see reform of MP pensions and
we are committed to doing that.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
we are certainly prepared to look at any legislation that the
government does bring forward and if it is worthwhile and
supportable we certainly will support it.
The Prime Minister has talked about opting out and this
minister just mentioned it a few moments ago. He would give
the opportunity for some people to opt out if they wish.
I beg the minister to explain to me how that could be
ultimately fair in terms of making substantive changes to a
pension program. In other words, some may opt out but the rest
will continue to pork out. Is that what I understand? Those
people who are still in an overbloated pension system because
they have qualified now would just continue to pork out while
some people would opt out. I hardly think that is a major reform
of the MP system.
The minister also said that these MPs who qualified yesterday
will not retire tomorrow. Of course not. We are not assuming
that these people are going to retire tomorrow. That is not part of
this argument. It is superfluous to it.
He said there was nothing magical about yesterday. There was
something magical about yesterday and it is that if this
government had acted on what the Prime Minister talked about
last August when in opposition, if these changes had been
brought about before yesterday, the six-year magic marker of
qualification or vesting date, then for example my friend from
Halifax who is in her 40s would not qualify for an MP pension
until her 50s, which is what the red book says.
It talks about deferring the age. It talks about bringing it more
in line, ending double dipping, putting it off to a later retirement
age.
(1310 )
Someone in their 40s would now qualify. That is magic to me,
that is lotto for life, just as simple as pie yesterday that these
people qualify. If the government is even thinking of moving
this further to a retirement age I do not understand how he can
say that there was absolutely nothing magical about yesterday.
They are eligible now for pension. We are not saying they are
going to go out and collect it right away either. That will be after
the next election date, whether they choose to resign or whether
the taxpayers in their ridings choose for them to resign. It will be
one way or the other.
It is also really important to note that when that day the
minister talked about earlier does arrive they will be eligible to
collect a pension also. When a government contributes $6 to $1,
as my friend from Halifax said earlier, it does not take a
mathematical whiz to figure out that this is the most generous
kick in for employer-employee benefits. It is almost $6 to every
$1 that we contribute. There is no way that is actuarially sound.
We can have that proven time and time again.
The minister says they only became eligible for pension
yesterday, there was nothing magical about it whatsoever. If
they brought it in before those 52 MPs qualified for it yesterday
afternoon they simply would not be eligible today. If the
government is going to make substantive changes to this MP
plan it should make sure that it would affect the people who
qualified yesterday.
What part of eligible does this minister not understand?
Mr. Eggleton: Madam Speaker, I am afraid that the hon.
member for Beaver River just does not understand vesting
because she talks about if the government had brought in
legislation before yesterday then somehow yesterday would
have meant nothing. That is not true at all.
The vesting period is not to be confused with benefit payout.
We could bring in a minimum age with respect to benefit payout
and it does not hinge on what the vesting period is. That is all
yesterday was related to.
The member is in a rhetorical fantasy about what yesterday
was. It really does not relate to the question of benefit payouts
and the age they are paid at.
This government knows full well that Canadians are
concerned about people collecting a pension when they are in
their 40s, that they are collecting a pension far earlier than any
other Canadian and we are going to deal with that issue. What
happened yesterday is of absolutely no consequence in dealing
with that issue.
We intend to continue to allow these people to qualify. Why
would we do anything else? The hon. member has her qualifying
day coming up sometime before long.
Miss Grey: March 13.
Mr. Eggleton: She knows it is March 13. She is obviously
very interested in the date.
Let me also deal with her favourite possibility and that is to be
able to opt out so she cannot reach her day. I wonder if she is
really going to decide not to allow March 13 to happen. She can
opt out. The Prime Minister has said that we will provide a
provision that you can opt out or maybe it will be opting in. It
will be one or the other. It will work out the same way. You might
actually have to opt in. You may actually have to sign a piece of
paper saying that you want to be into the plan. However, you
have that opportunity. If you feel that you want to save the
Canadian taxpayer that money then it is up to you to do that.
8105
I would not cast aspersions on other members of this House
who decide to opt into the plan simply because they are
understanding that they put a lot of years into the public service.
They have the obligation, as any Canadian feels they have, to
protect themselves and their families in their retirement years. I
would fully expect that most members of this House would want
to continue to be protected and be a part of such a plan.
Revisions to the plan to make it a better plan, to reform it, to
make it something more reasonable as Canadians are expecting
us to do and as we are promising to do, will all be part and parcel
of it.
(1315 )
Miss Grey: You are still getting it in the 40s.
Ms. Catterall: He did not say that.
Mr. Eggleton: No, no. I did not say that at all. I do not know
how many times I have to say that we are trying to respond to the
concerns of Canadians about a pension being paid in the 40s. We
are going to respond to that in our reforms. The member does not
seem to want to understand that.
Miss Grey: Then Mary should not qualify in her 40s.
Mr. Eggleton: The plan is actuarially sound, if she is
concerned about the 6:1 ratio. It is also worth pointing out that
the contribution rate is very high by members, an 11 per cent
contribution. A lot of money is put in by each individual
member.
The hon. member should not confuse vesting with benefit
payout. We will be dealing with the question of minimum age
for benefit payout. Vesting is a qualifying period of time. It is
actually a higher qualifying period of time than what most
Canadians have in their pension plans. I do not see why it should
be of concern to members of the third party at all. They have
really picked on the wrong thing.
They have done this prematurely. They have picked on the
vesting period because they do not seem to understand that it
does not relate to benefit payout. They do not seem to
understand that the government is going to live up to its red book
commitments, but it is.
Ms. Catterall: Open your ears, Deborah.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Order. The member has
a question for the minister.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, the
minister says he understands Canadians and that our effort is
premature. I wonder if he really understands Canadians. I have
done some research for members who choose to opt out. In my
situation at age 52, if I choose to opt out at the end of six years
and turn over the funds that have been confiscated from my
salary by your government and invest them with a life insurance
company, I will have an income of $380 a month, versus a
member of the Liberals who will have an indexed income of
$1,500 a month.
Mr. Eggleton: Madam Speaker, the member's figures are
presupposing what is going to be in the bill we bring forward. I
do not think he can presuppose that. He does not have to worry
about the money that he wanted to take off and invest. If he does
not opt into the plan, then he can be comforted by the fact that it
is going directly to the bottom line. He will not get it. It will go
directly to the bottom line to help reduce the deficit of the
country.
Mr. Abbott: And pay other MPs.
Mr. Eggleton: That is the option you have. If you do not want
to look after your retirement, as most Canadians do, if you want
to be reckless, you can do that. But we are going to give you the
option to do it.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it
has been a rather interesting day. I have sat through most of the
debate and to be very candid, just about every point that needs to
be raised, has been raised. I was particularly interested in the
minister's comments.
The minister has just finished saying that he understands
Canadians, that the Reform Party in trying to bring pressure on
the government is premature. I do not know if it has anything to
do with the fact that even within his own party there is a
democratic process that is filled, where people work through
their nomination process to become candidates and then on
through the actual election process, and whether having been an
appointed candidate he rather lost touch with Canadians during
the process. There is a real lack of understanding on the part of
the government of the level of frustration. I reflect back to a
debate we had in the House of Commons in March. That was the
time when the Liberals were having their convention. We had
brought the debate to the floor about the Young Offenders Act.
(1320)
According to all of the comments by the members opposite,
the only constituencies that had any concern about the Young
Offenders Act were the constituencies represented by the
Reform Party. That is what we were told all day long. ``Oh, you
are just being extremist, you don't know what is going on''.
I found it rather instructive. Over that weekend, when looking
for something to put me to sleep I turned on the Liberal
convention on television. Before I dozed off I happened to
notice that most of the people who had come to the Liberal
convention were saying that the biggest problem they had in
their constituencies was the Young Offenders Act. Lo and
behold, Madam Speaker, you will never guess what was the next
bill that the justice minister brought in. It was weak and
ineffective, but none the less it was movement on the Young
Offenders Act.
8106
Where did he get the idea from? Somebody said from the red
book. Why is it that it took the Reform Party to draw to the
attention of the members opposite the fact that the people in our
constituencies, and I submit in their constituencies as well, were
upset in a very major way over that act? It is still totally
deficient.
It comes as absolutely no surprise to me that members
opposite are equally out of touch over the issue of MPs'
pensions.
The member opposite asks why don't I read the red book. I
talked about needing things to put people to sleep. That is an
excellent idea. The red book, in my humble judgment, is a catch
all of just about everything written in so much bafflegab that you
can actually make it appear as though what the finance minister
is doing and must be done, and that is to get the deficit and the
debt under control, was actually part of their platform.
Every single Liberal member whom I have asked: ``Did you in
the election in 1993 stand up and say that the deficit must be
brought under control? We must take a look at all aspects of the
economy''. The answers all were: ``Well, it's in the red book''.
This is exactly the same thing. We have brought this topic to
the floor of the House of Commons for the simple reason that the
people of Canada expect better from the politicians they elected.
We are here to drive, to push, this monolithic giant of 177 seats
and the Prime Minister and the cabinet ministers to finally, after
400 days do what the Prime Minister said he was going to do 400
days ago.
He said it would only take one day to do it. What happened?
Why is it so much easier for the Liberal government to blow
away $5 billion worth of work on EH-101 helicopters? Why is it
so easy for the Liberal cabinet to blow away hundreds of
millions of dollars of work on the Pearson airport deal, and yet it
cannot do a simple thing like change the MPs' pensions?
The thing I find the most frustrating, and I realize that I have
already said it, is this. I agree with the member for Halifax that
this job is one of the most exciting, one of the most worthwhile
things that anybody in the House could possibly be involved in
as far as their work is concerned. I do not disagree with her for
one second that virtually every member of the House puts in
hours from 7 in the morning until 10, 11 or 12 o'clock at night
and keeps on serving the people of Canada. I do not disagree
with that for a second.
I agree with the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell
that this is an honourable calling. Why will the government not
listen to what the ordinary citizen is saying? My colleague from
Kootenay West-Revelstoke has pointed out that he worked for
22 and a half years in the pressure cooker of being an air traffic
controller. After all that time he qualified for a $17,000 pension.
The person he replaced worked his nine years as a member of
Parliament and he qualified instantly for a $27,000 pension.
(1325)
Why is it so difficult for the Liberals to understand the
extreme hostility there is toward us as we work hard on behalf of
Canadians, as we work hard on behalf of our constituents? Why
can they not understand that this is the one barrier that stands
between us and our constituents? Why could they not have made
the changes? We do not seem to get any answers.
The member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell quoted from
the Hill Times in February 1992. We all know being in Ottawa
that the Hill Times is a fine paper and puts out all the facts as
they should be and is well received every Thursday with all the
factual documentation that there is in the paper. However it is a
paper that is read only or almost exclusively by people who are
involved with the Chamber in one way or another and to quote an
editorial in support of obscene pensions is just beyond the pale.
What he should have been reading from are the editorials
from the Vancouver Sun, the Globe and Mail, the Calgary
Herald, the Ottawa Sun. I can go on and on. This must be
changed and it should have been changed 400 days ago.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am delighted to address the subject of MPs pensions
today but my perspective has changed over the last year and I
want to describe the change for members.
Just one year ago I campaigned long and hard against the
gold-plated pension plans that members receive, which was
easy to do since I was not at that time eligible to receive one.
Today I stand in a far different position.
For a year now, I have experienced the trials of living far from
home and family, the extra expenses of being a member of
Parliament and the very demanding schedule that an MP must
follow. In short, my whole heart and soul has been required of
me this past year.
Members would be right to ask if my perspective has been
altered by this reality. Under the current system, if I remain here
in the House for five more years, I will be eligible to receive a
pension. I am not alone. Over 200 new members will be eligible
for an incredibly generous pension after just six years.
Most of these new members campaigned to change the
pension plan, a task we could accomplish today if our resolve for
change is not softened in one short year. While my perspective
has changed over the last year, I have certainly not lost my desire
for reform. I still believe that our pension plan needs change.
Change at the top is essential to provide an example for the rest
of the nation. I want to make a few proposals today that would
bring our pensions out of fantasyland and into the real world.
8107
I would also point out to all members that it is a mark of
integrity to desire change even if it hurts so I am happy to see
that Reformers at least are still speaking out on this issue, even
though it could cost them a significant part of their future
income. This is a mark of integrity and the electorate will
remember it.
Allow me to set the stage for a moment so that we can all be
clear about what the pension plan offers to members of
Parliament. I would like to quote from a major international
study on parliamentarian's compensation called the Sobeco
report which was tabled in February of this year.
This is what a retiring member of Parliament receives: ``The
pension plan provides the payment of a retiring allowance to any
person who is an MP for a period of at least six years. This
lifetime pension commences as soon as a member ceases to hold
office regardless of age''.
It goes on to read: ``The amount of retiring allowance for a
member is equal to 30 per cent of the average sessional
allowance after six years as a member and increases by 5
percentage points for each additional year to a maximum of 75
per cent after 15 years''.
(1330 )
This means that a lowly backbencher or an opposition
member like myself could walk away, after being re-elected just
once, with a pension of about $20,000 a year for life. For a few
members of Parliament who are very young, this benefit would
indeed be of great value. Cabinet ministers who have a higher
salary of course fare much better. In 1993 the average pension
paid to cabinet ministers was almost $49,000 annually. Former
Liberal Prime Minister John Turner is receiving $85,000 per
year for life.
The study also notes that the pension is indexed after age 60.
It goes on to say that members pay only 20 per cent of the value
of the plan while federal civil servants contribute 40 per cent to
their plan and private sector executives about 35 per cent. The
pension plan is more generous than those in the private sector
and even in the broader public sector.
I mentioned that the Ernst and Young study was an
international study. How do our pensions compare with those in
other countries? Our system is exceedingly generous. Only
Australia and Belgium top our pensions. In fact our pensions are
triple the pensions that politicians in the United Kingdom,
Sweden and, yes, even the good old United States of America
receive. Not only that, but no country allows the payment of a
pension as early as Canada does. In fact the payment of a
pension before the age of 52 is possible only in Sweden and
Australia. In the U.K. you have to be at least 60. In the United
States a politician must work for 25 years before getting a
pension.
Finally, how do we compare with the provinces? Only the two
most generous provinces, Ontario and British Columbia, offer
comparable pensions but there is a major difference in the cost
to the taxpayer. That is that provincial members are not eligible
for a pension until they are at least 55 years of age in Ontario and
60 in B.C. Can you imagine the difference in cost to the taxpayer
between receiving a pension from age 30 and receiving it from
age 60? The cost differential is of course enormous.
Listeners will not be surprised to find out that just a month
before this study was tabled the government commissioned a
completely new study called ``Democratic Ideals and Financial
Realities'' that looked at all the same things. This is because of a
statutory requirement that the compensation of MPs must be
reviewed at the beginning of each Parliament which is a
wasteful law that should be abolished as far as I am concerned.
However, I would note that the commission's report arrives at
virtually the same conclusions. I do not know how much that
report cost but it is the same.
There are really only a couple of principles that should guide
us on potential pensions for members of Parliament. First, the
pension should not offer to members benefits that are
unavailable to other Canadians. For example, it must have a
maximum contribution level equal to that of other Canadians.
Pensions should pay benefits at retirement age, not when a
member is 45 or even 35 years old, but 55 to 65 like others. The
MP pension plan should be the same for all members.
I hear that the finance minister may soon allow members to
opt out of the plan. I still believe this is wrong. Some members
will opt out but the rest will be allowed to remain with the
current plan which means that after a long communication
strategy in trying to sell what they are doing and much bragging
about change and options and all the rest, most of the MPs,
especially across the way, will remain at the trough and
taxpayers will be even more sceptical of their members of
Parliament. As usual, the more things change around here the
more they will stay the same.
Double dipping must be eliminated. By that I mean that a
retired member must only receive one benefit at one time from
the federal crown.
Pensions must be actuarially sound where the money going
into the plan equals the money being paid out of it. I would
remind members that the unfunded liability of our pension plan
at the end of 1991 was $12.2 million and that was after the
government topped up the fund with 158 million taxpayer
dollars earlier in that same year.
The second broad principle is that our pension plan must show
how members are willing to lead by example when it comes to
government belt tightening. It is no surprise that when Premier
Klein started to cut back on government expenditures, a move
promised but not yet delivered by this government, the first
thing he did was to abolish-he did not scale it back, study it,
8108
consider it or talk about it-the MLAs pension plan. Only then
did he move on to work on other government programs.
A good leader only asks of others what he himself is prepared
to do. Government members would do well to heed this
management principle. The words of comfort to university
students and UI recipients facing cutbacks will ring hollow
indeed if members choose not to lead by example.
A wise saying applies here. It goes like this: ``Your actions
speak so loudly I cannot hear your words''. Let us put the empty
rhetoric aside and start a massive overhaul of our pension
scheme starting today.
(1335)
Finally, we come to the solution. What do we offer MPs who
give their considerable time and effort to serve their country?
We want to be fair and equitable. I think we need a pension plan
that is comparable to private sector pensions, but which ones I
suppose you could ask. There are all sorts of pensions in the
private sector. I think we need pensions comparable to those that
are available to private sector executives, for example.
Private sector executives get where they are because they
display talent, ability and commitment. They are rewarded
according to their performance rather than their seniority. They
make major companies work and prosper in this country and
they compete with the best in the world.
We want to be able to attract this kind of talent, this kind of
person to run for Parliament. We need top flight, private sector
individuals to make our country run. Not only do people
sacrifice careers and time, privacy and family and other things
to become elected officials, they also take a drastic cut in the
salary portion when they enter Parliament.
Since the salary range for members is already lower than the
salary range for private executives, there are few other things
that Parliament can offer them in the way of compensation.
There are fringe benefits, I suppose, such as a certain amount of
notoriety or prestige. Thankfully, this costs nothing to the
taxpayer and it is at best a double-edged sword since it also
means a corresponding loss of privacy.
Another benefit is the personal satisfaction derived from
having direct influence on government policy. Yet another
compensation might be the pension they would receive. I think
MP pensions need to be as generous as possible while remaining
within the industry standard for those types of people.
It would be fair for government to match the contributions of
members like other civil servants rather than paying two and a
half times what MPs currently contribute. I remind the House
that the public service pension fund is in fact overfunded
through employee contributions by a large margin. There should
be no special deals, no long term obligations that would cost the
taxpayer exorbitant amounts of money, just a fair deal that
would allow MPs, like everyone else, to plan their future with a
minimum of government involvement.
Canadians have a right to demand an end to the current plan. It
is an issue that crosses party lines. Let us not grant ourselves
special privileges. Let us lead by example and use this
opportunity to restructure the current plan. By doing this I
believe we can take a step toward restoring the confidence of the
Canadian people in the integrity, the equality and the leadership
of all members of Parliament.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I want to ask the hon.
member for his party's views on double dipping when it comes
between levels of government. I know his party's position is
against double dipping as is ours within the same level of
government.
One of his colleagues, and I will not mention names, does
draw a pension of $61,000 I believe and now is getting a salary
of $64,500. This gives him a salary of $125,000 plus a year.
What is his party's position and his own position on this kind of
cross level of government double dipping?
Mr. Strahl Madam Speaker, I only have to suppose which
member the hon. member opposite refers to. Let me talk at least
in the broad principles. A couple of things are fairly obvious. If a
politician gives 25 years of service to a province or to the
Government of Canada or to the Chamber here, that in itself is a
considerable difference than the six year minimum that is
currently available here in the House.
One thing is the length of time it takes to qualify for such a
pension. I think 25 years is significantly different than six years.
The other is that there should really only be one pension paid to
that individual. I know in the case he is mentioning that has
already been made obvious. The member will not be receiving
another pension from this level of government since he has
already put in 25 years of service in the position of an MLA. I
think that is a very honourable and noble thing he has done. It is
another leadership by example as he explained it well in his
constituency. He has made it obvious that he has refused. He has
written across his forms that he will refuse any future
parliamentary pension because obviously as the member has
pointed out, one pension is certainly enough for any one
individual.
(1340 )
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): Point of order, Madam Speaker.
The smart-ass question which we just got-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): That is not a point of
order.
8109
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the previous speaker from Fraser Valley East talked about a
number of issues on which I want to comment. I also have a
question for him.
The hon. member commented briefly on the opting out issue.
Canadians should understand that the opting out provision he is
talking about has nothing to do with the question that has been
raised by this government in its policy or in fact by the proposals
the government intends to bring forward.
The opting out was a ploy by the Reform Party simply to get
press attention. It had absolutely nothing to do with a legitimate
option. The Prime Minister did say if members want to opt out of
the pension plan he would allow it. It is not being proposed for
members of Parliament.
Second, the member says we should lead by example and that
we should have no special privileges. I think that is a fair
statement to have made. However, members of Parliament on all
sides were elected knowing what the compensation package was
and knowing that the Liberal Party had proposed two changes to
the current government pension program. The first change was
to end double dipping. The second change was to reconsider the
age at which members of Parliament would qualify to receive
benefits.
Members of Parliament knew that. They ran for public office
knowing what the compensation was specified to be.
Now members are saying there should not be special
privileges. I wonder if the member would agree that in fact it is
not a special privilege but a right of any member of Parliament
to know what their compensation is, what they are running for,
and what they are going to have to plan for. I wonder if the
member of Parliament, the previous speaker, would care to say
what exactly he feels members of Parliament should be paid and
if in fact, as he suggests, there should be no pension plan or
something comparable to what is offered in corporate life.
It is only fair that Canadians understand that there is a
compensation requirement.
Mr. Strahl: Madam Speaker, a couple of points were raised,
one being that certainly members on the one hand should know
what they are running for when they seek candidacy. We ran
under one set of rules. We are going to change them. They are in
flux so they are going to change.
I do not think there is anything wrong with changing them on
the fly, as it were. I think Canadians have been demanding that.
Polling will indicate that this is a very poorly received plan as it
currently stands.
The other thing is on compensation. I know the members
across the way have consistently tried to make some hay out of
this but the Reform Party has never felt that the pay package is
too generous for members of Parliament. It is the pension plan.
Again and again we say we are talking about the pension plan
which is too generous the way it stands and six years is too quick
to make that much benefit.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, this has been a valuable and informative debate
because the government is committed to reform of the pension
plan. It has taken this commitment by members of the
government party very seriously and we are in the stage of
discussion and dialogue and testing out ideas. It is quite clear
that this problem can be resolved before the next general
election.
Although hypothetical cases have been cited of members who
could resign tomorrow and acquire large pensions, I do not think
anybody is contemplating resignation at this stage. We have the
time and we have to do this thoroughly.
It is also agreed that salaries and pensions are part of the same
package and there is some disposition to think that members are
underpaid but may be overgenerously treated in pensions.
(1345 )
That is the sort of balance the government must and will
consider. Be assured of the one general consideration today that
we act in the sense of doing equity to everybody and that
members of Parliament suffer with the general public. Therefore
in approaching the reforms we have considerations of this sort
well in mind.
Some aspects were discussed during the election campaign. If
they were not discussed in government papers they were raised
at all-candidates meetings. It is interesting to note the
consensus that develops easily enough on these considerations.
It is agreed that it is unjust for members of Parliament to
receive pensions on retirement from the House while still
young, active, healthy and able to engage in other activities. A
commencement age at 55, I would have said 60 or 65, whatever
the regular national pension scheme finally may be is correct
and is equitable. That is certainly within the government's
consideration.
The double dipping issue was raised during the election. All
of us agree that the flagrant examples, and there have been
several of them cited, are ones that arouse genuine public
concern. Even if numerically they are not very large they do
raise the issue of justice not merely being done but not being
seen to be done. Equity must be done to all citizens. If there is
one case of a former MP taking a large government job at an
inflated salary then people are justifiably saying that is not
right.
There are some complications in relation to this. I do not think
they are insuperable. I think a member opposite said double
dipping reaches only within the area of federal sovereignty.
Sovereignty of course is indivisible. I myself would be
interested in testing a declaratory judgment whether a ban on
double dipping could not reach to pensions of members who
have served in provincial houses or possibly at the municipal
level. I raise this as a theoretical point, but theoretical questions
can and
8110
should be answered when they have practical consequences and
if the practical consequences disturb the general public
conception of what is right and proper.
I hope in considering revisions of the pension plan we will not
merely consider barring former MPs from collecting their MPs
pensions while they take on a judicial, civil service,
ambassadorial or other post. I hope we will consider whether it
should not in equitable terms reach out also to those who have
taken pensions from the provincial domain or even from the
municipal domain.
As I said sovereignty in classical theory is indivisible. I see no
reason why artificial boundaries should be set up. Some might
even raise the issue of whether civil servant pensions should not
be viewed in the same way and when they are federal civil
service pensions the logic becomes very persuasive and
convincing.
I have taken note of the comments already made in the debate
on the balance between contributions by members of Parliament
and contributions by Parliament itself. This is one of the issues
the government will be looking at in its revised plans for the
pension scheme.
To be frank I have in mind one possible reform that would be
crucially affected if there was more nearly a balance between the
two contributions and that is the portability of pensions. Those
of us who know the American system of government or those of
us who have been familiar with universities or other public
institutions will know that the principle of portability is very
well assured.
People may serve at a distinguished university like the
University of Calgary and then move on after a year to another
university. It is a quite common practice for a pension right to
vest after a year's service. It may not be very much. It may
provide only for one good dinner at the Palliser Hotel or
somewhere else but the principle is important enough.
It has always struck me as rather artificial that the pension
rights vest after six years. That provides an inducement to
members to serve a second term where it may be in their own
best interests and the best interests of the country might better
be served if they contented themselves with one term. Obviously
if the pension contributions by one party, by Parliament, are out
of line with the member's own contributions that sort of
sensible reform as I see it tends to break down, or the logic for it
tends to disappear.
(1350)
On the indexing issue which has been raised, it is very clear
that this enters into larger approaches to social security and the
Canadian social security network. Obviously what is good for
one category of society should be good for all categories.
We either move to a general system of indexing, which may be
one way of facing inflation and the generally rising costs of
living, or we have to move out of the areas where that exists.
These again are well within the ambit of the government's
proposals and the government's consideration of reform of the
pension system and should be considered in that light.
This issue has been raised in the House and I think it is worth
considering: Where and when will reforms begin? Can they be
prospective only? Is there such a system as vested rights? Can
you not touch what has gone before?
It is true that as a matter of constitutional law what we are
dealing with is really only a constitutional privilege. That is to
say Parliament has the full competence to apply any reform
measures it may devise retroactively as well as prospectively.
If we were considering that, one thing to consider would be
the condition of the earlier MPs who came in before the present
pension system was devised. I am quite shocked to learn of some
of the pension provisions for people serving from the 1940s,
1950s and 1960s, and some of them are still around, before the
present scheme came in. These are really hardship situations.
Obviously there is a difference between what is
constitutionally permissible and what considerations of equity
would demand. Any revision by the government should perhaps
include a look at these pioneer members of Parliament who
retired before the present scheme came into operation.
It would obviously be easier in terms of general conceptions
of what is right and proper to deal only with present cases, that is
to say members elected in 1993. It may well be that the main
thrust of the reform proposals is directed there.
There has been discussion of self-administered pension
plans. A good deal depends, Madam Speaker, as you are very
well aware, on the competence of those administering the
self-administered pension plans, the financial advisers. We do
need some more details here. If the opposition parties have
suggestions they should submit them in detail into the debate.
Most members of Parliament whatever their other
competencies do not have great expertise in this general area.
One is reminded of the fact that many members of Parliament
are lawyers. Frankly many lawyers have great difficulty in
devising a pension plan that is fair to themselves.
The self-administered pension plan looks to be an easy way
out. However it would have to be some sort of plan that would
look to a co-operative unit within Parliament and that would
require discussion among the parties.
8111
These are my thoughts on what has been a fascinating debate.
It has been a discussion of useful ideas which the government
will certainly be taking into account in its announced reforms of
the pension plan.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
am familiar with the member's riding of Vancouver Quadra. It is
a riding not dissimilar to that of my seatmate and is in a fairly
high income bracket with very professional people. I am sure the
hon. member has probably been apprised of the fact on the part
of his constituents that the whole issue of compensation for the
member of Parliament probably is not an issue.
(1355 )
We could look at other ridings, for example the far eastern
portion of Kootenay East where the coal miners have been put
out of work. In the many situations where thousands of people
are just barely getting by there is probably going to be a
difference of opinion on the part of the constituents.
Notwithstanding that, the chair of the committee on social
reform is one of the people who will be qualifying, as is the
Minister of Finance. The University of British Columbia is in
the hon. member's constituency. The human resources
development department is saying in all likelihood that tuition
fees are going to double.
In view of that, would the member not agree it would have
been a very wise and prudent move on the part of the Prime
Minister and the government to have made this move before
these people were telling the students that their fees were going
to rise from $2,000 to $4,000 and that by the way, there was an
advertisement saying that the committee chair was going to
qualify for a pension that in his lifetime has the potential of
paying $1.4 million? Would the member not agree it would have
been very prudent, expeditious and wise of his front bench to
have made this move in a far more hasty manner?
Mr. McWhinney: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the
thoughtful question from the hon. member. It is true that I have a
very great university within my constituency. I met with the
student leaders there. I met with the administration two weeks
ago. I have also met with universities outside my constituency.
For a number of reasons they have come to me to discuss their
concerns.
I do not regard it as a consequence of the social security green
book that university fees will go up. In fact, I have given my
personal undertaking that I will do my best to see that whatever
emerges under the social security green book proposals that
consequence would not arise. It is not a necessary and inevitable
consequence of the green book at all. Frankly, the remedies are
more within the provincial domain and have very little to do
with federal policy. That is a separate issue from the larger issue
the hon. member raised.
It is true that in my riding the sentiment seems to be to favour
larger salaries for members. This has been put to me by people
who say they would never run for Parliament because the
salaries are too low. Accepting the notion of a pension plan more
in line for example with university pension plans in terms of
balance of contributions would be acceptable. I see that
argument and in fact, I accept it.
An hon. member: Should it have been done sooner?
Mr. McWhinney: I think frankly since the review is going on
and since there is no urgency before the elections, it can be done
in its proper time. I do assure the hon. member I accept that
viewpoint too. I would rather see more balance in the pension
and a different approach to the salaries, but there is no
correlation between this and university fees. I do not accept as a
consequence of the green book that fees will go up.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I am pleased to rise on the opposition motion concerning the
members of Parliament pensions. The member for Vancouver
Quadra has raised some very interesting points as usual.
I particularly want to note for all members that the
government in its election platform and its statements in the
House has said it will end double dipping and the age. Today the
Prime Minister did show his commitment to make those changes
when he announced the appointment of Canada's next Governor
General, the Hon. Romeo LeBlanc. He further went on to say
that the Governor General will draw a salary as a Governor
General but will return his MP pension to the government as a
sign of that leadership. That is outstanding.
The Speaker: Order. I understand the hon. member may have
a little bit of time remaining when we return to the debate.
* * *
The Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the table the
report of the Auditor General of Canada for the fiscal year ended
March 31, 1994.
I remind hon. members that pursuant to Standing Order
108(3)(d), this document is deemed to have been permanently
referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House
will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to
Standing Order 31.
8112
8112
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my statement concerns the recent appointment of Mr.
Willie Gibbs to the chair of the National Parole Board.
The Auditor General points out in his 1994 report that the
method of hiring used shows a need for improvement and this
was followed. Mr. Gibbs, a career corrections civil servant, was
hired through a two stage selection process and face to face
interviews.
This is the first time this type of appointment process has been
held for National Parole Board appointments and we applaud it.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, the fifth anniversary of the Forum pour
l'emploi du Québec has been an opportunity to stress the
importance of occupational training and the integration of
young people in the labour market. That occupational training
should be patriated to Quebec has been agreed for some time by
all political, economic and social partners. Only the federal
government is still turning a deaf ear to these demands.
The Minister of Human Resources Development will have to
admit that local initiatives will achieve their objectives once the
federal government has given the provinces full responsibility
for manpower training.
Why does the minister keep interfering with this sector, when
he cannot even get good results with the measures he dictates
from Ottawa?
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
history of this government to protect our Canadian citizens has
proven to be dismal.
Kenneth Walker, a Canadian businessman, is currently being
hounded on dubious charges by the United States government
and our government refuses to assist him.
Victor Ostrovsky, a Canadian author, listened while a zealot
being interviewed on a morning news show called for anyone to
murder Victor Ostrovsky.
Why is this government allowing death threats toward a
Canadian author and a businessman to go unanswered?
When the British author Salmon Rushdie was threatened with
death, the British Parliament rose in one voice to condemn the
country that promoted violence in the death of the British
citizen.
Not only has silence shown the world that our Canada does not
care or show concern for its citizens, continuing silence will
confirm to radicals, zealots and foreign powers that any
Canadian can be intimidated or killed without action from this
government.
This government must show some backbone and speak out
against threats of any kind against our Canadian citizens.
* * *
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to draw the attention of this House to a matter of grave
concern to 22 of my constituents from Cambridge.
These constituents are former employees of Bundy Canada.
They are all over the age of 55 and have received no income
since they were laid off in 1991 due to problems with the
program for older worker adjustment.
After numerous delays, my constituents are now being told
that they must wait until the spring of 1995 for POWA
designations and a resolution to this matter.
Many of these people have been forced to sell their homes,
cash in their RRSPs and move in with other family members in
order to survive. It is time that we returned some dignity to the
lives of these people and relieved their emotional and financial
distress.
I urge the minister to do whatever he can to encourage the
Ontario government to agree to provide financial assistance to
the affected workers under the current Canada-Ontario POWA
framework agreement.
* * *
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, November is Wife Assault Prevention Month in the
province of Ontario.
Statistics Canada says that one out of every four rural
Canadian women is beaten. My riding of Lambton-Middlesex
is primarily rural in nature. The fear and sense of isolation that
every abused woman feels is compounded for abused women
living in Canada's rural areas simply because rural living is
more secluded and women feel they cannot leave the farm and
farm business in which they are partners.
There is help for abused women in Middlesex county. The
Women's Rural Resource Centre of Strathroy & area, which has
offered protection for 200 area women over the last year, is also
8113
conducting a rural outreach program for farm wives who are the
victims of domestic violence.
(1405 )
In addition, the centre in conjunction with the Middlesex
Board of Education is offering the services of a violence
prevention counsellor for the children attending Strathroy's
elementary schools.
We have to hope that proactive efforts like these will one day
break the cycle of unacceptable domestic violence in Canadian
households, both rural and urban.
* * *
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, with the snowmobile season soon upon us, I rise in the
House today to pay tribute to the volunteers who make
snowmobiling in my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka an
important part of the economy, supporting a large number of
businesses.
Snowmobiling is enjoying an incredible resurgence and it is
fast becoming the number one winter sport. The tremendous
growth has turned snowmobiling into a $1.25 billion industry in
Canada, supporting thousands of jobs across the country.
Largely financed by the user pay system, snowmobiling relies
on the support and dedication of its volunteers.
In Parry Sound-Muskoka close to 850 of my constituents
volunteer their time. Across Ontario the number is 10,000 and
across Canada there are a staggering 30,000 volunteers who
support the snowmobile industry.
Volunteers are a valuable commodity. In my riding these
generous people are helping us fulfil our goal of becoming a four
season tourism destination through the increasing popularity of
snowmobiling.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Laurent Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois were flabbergasted at
the Prime Minister's lukewarm response to the inflammatory
statements made in Washington by the leader of the Cree Grand
Council, Matthew Coon Come, in referring to Quebecers and
their Premier.
Why did the Prime Minister of Canada remain silent after
these attacks, when his government immediately poured
millions of dollars into helping lumber companies in Western
Canada that were criticized for clear-cutting? The Prime
Minister of Canada preferred to avoid alienating his ally in the
upcoming referendum campaign. He preferred to humiliate
seven million Quebecers instead.
During his trip to China, the hon. member for Saint-Maurice
gave us the assurance he would personally defend the interests
of Quebec. Where is the hon. member for Saint-Maurice now?
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
last week an acquaintance of mine driving in the mountains was
stopped by a young man asking for help. He had suffered a car
accident and his friend was still in the car badly injured.
When the police arrived my friend was surprised to find that
the police were on a first name basis with this teenager who
regularly steals cars, takes them up into the mountains and strips
them before trashing them.
The police are more than a little discouraged. They continue
to charge this fellow but under the Young Offenders Act nothing
ever comes of it. A young criminal is still on the loose, more cars
will be stolen and trashed and the teenager's friend is in the
hospital with a broken back because the justice system does not
have the guts to deal with young rebels.
This is just one more example of how the Young Offenders
Act fails the young criminal, fails the innocent victims and fails
the law-abiding Canadian public.
* * *
Mr. Barry Campbell (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Rabbi
Emeritus Gunther Plaut of Holy Blossom Temple in Toronto was
recently in Berlin to deliver the convocation address at
Humboldt University.
The rabbi, one of the world's most renowned theologians, was
forced to flee Nazi Germany in the mid-1930s shortly after
completing his Ph.D. at Humboldt University. His return there
to give the convocation address marks the 60th anniversary of
his receiving his Ph.D.
I know all members of this House appreciate the significance
of this convocation address both for Rabbi Plaut and Humboldt
University. The return in 1994 of a German citizen, a Jew, forced
to flee from Nazi tyranny in the 1930s to address his German
alma mater is a testament to how far Germany has come since
the dark days of the Hitler tyranny.
In his address entitled ``Asylum-The Moral Dilemma'',
Rabbi Plaut spoke of Germany's new, multi-ethnic face. He
challenged Germany's young people to break new ground in
tolerance and understanding and to forsake extremism.
8114
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Rabbi
Plaut on the honour of his being invited to give the convocation
address at Humboldt University in Berlin.
* * *
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today the
Auditor General released his report reviewing government
expenditures and operations.
As vice-chair of the public accounts committee, it will be my
and my colleagues' duty on that committee to review and make
recommendations to this House on how to improve the way
governments do business.
While the opposition may magnify government misspending,
we in the government party realize a more mature approach is to
consult with the bureaucracy in order to resolve these problems.
(1410 )
One of the areas that was reviewed was that of our prison
system. I would like to report that I attended Millhaven
penitentiary only yesterday in an attempt to understand how our
system could become more cost effective.
I believe if the opposition parties took the time to see first
hand how taxpayer dollars were being spent they could made
recommendations that were more practical.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
International Tribunal for Children's Rights was inaugurated in
Paris yesterday. The headquarters of this tribunal will be in
Montreal. The promoters of this extraordinary initiative were
inspired by the Convention on the Rights of the Child, signed in
New York in 1990, where several promises were made on behalf
of children. Today we still find children who are drug addicts,
prostitutes, conscripted, enslaved and even victims of traffic in
body organs.
In this International Year of the Family, I urge members of
this House to support this initiative and I encourage and
congratulate those who will sit on this tribunal. Bravo!
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, in 1963 lacrosse enthusiasts in New Westminster,
British Columbia thought that since the city had such a great
lacrosse heritage it would be the ideal location for the Canadian
Lacrosse Hall of Fame. It took some aggressive campaigning
but it was worth the effort as the hall's charter was awarded in
November 1964 and incorporated under the societies act in
1965.
In 1966, 48 charter members were selected by committees
from the east and west. To date 284 inductees have been
honoured in the hall of fame for Canada's official summer sport.
This past Saturday at the Royal Towers Hotel in New
Westminister, the hall welcomed six new inductees, two
builders and four box players. From the builders was Annie
McDonald of Ontario and Mason Sheldrick from British
Columbia. From the players was Grant Heffernan and Lou
Nickle of Ontario and Bill Rawson and Doug Hayes from B.C.
These six inductees have served Canada's national sport
honourably and I might say they have served it strike free.
Congratulations to the Canadian Lacrosse Hall of Fame.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, the aboriginal friendship centre program in the
department of heritage improves the lives of urban aboriginal
people through the provision of social, cultural and recreational
services.
When the former Conservative government cut the program
by 10 per cent in 1993, the Liberal opposition MPs rose in the
House to publicly condemn the government's actions. Now that
they are in government a department of heritage internal
working document reveals that the Liberals are considering
three proposals for funding reductions, a cut of 25 per cent, a cut
of 50 per cent or a phase out of the program over three years.
Members of the National Association of Friendship Centres
have been trying since last spring to meet the minister to discuss
the proposed cuts, but without success. Because the continued
survival of these centres is essential to the future of aboriginal
people in Canada, I strongly urge the minister to meet with the
National Association of Friendship Centres as soon as possible
and I encourage him to exempt the valuable services that
friendship centres provide from any planned budget cuts.
* * *
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
University of Western Ontario Mustangs finished an undefeated
season with a record sixth Vanier Cup victory Saturday.
An hon. member: Again?
Mrs. Barnes: Yes, again. I remember as a student cheering
them on to their very first Vanier Cup in 1971. The Mustangs
8115
won the Canadian varsity football championship in 1974, 1976,
1977 and 1989, and hopefully next year too.
Saturday's 50-40 victory was the first overtime victory in the
history of the Vanier Cup. The Saskatchewan Huskies' valiant
effort made for an exciting game for the spectators.
A Western fan, 82-year old Professor Emeritus Allen
Philbrick, lapped the field after every Western touchdown, as he
has done for the last 20 years.
I am proud to congratulate the team, the university and all the
fans. I am very happy that they are in my riding.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Fundy-Royal, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was
with immense pride that I heard today in the House our Prime
Minister announce that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth has
accepted his recommendation to appoint the Hn. Romeo
LeBlanc as Canada's 25th Governor General. This is a
wonderful tribute to a man who has served our country for so
long and with such distinction.
The Prime Minister has bestowed an honour on all Atlantic
Canadians, all new Brunswickers and in particular the vibrant
Acadian community of North America.
(1415 )
On behalf of all New Brunswickers I wish to thank the Prime
Minister for honouring us in this way. Romeo LeBlanc will
make an excellent Governor General. He is a man possessed of
unusual human strength, humour and compassion. I know his
modest self-deprecating style and wit will endear him to all
Canadians. He will be the people's Governor General, a man as
comfortable chatting informally in a farmhouse kitchen in
Sussex, New Brunswick, as he will be receiving a head of state at
Rideau Hall.
The Prime Minister has made an outstanding choice.
Members join me in congratulating Romeo, his wife, Diana, and
their children Dominic, Genevieve, Joanna and Sarah. May God
bless and keep our new head of state.
_____________________________________________
8115
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, following the Government of Quebec and the
Mayor of Saint-Jean, Col. Marcel Parisien, Commandant of the
Royal Military College in Saint-Jean, has proposed to the
federal government an alternative to the brutal closure of the
college in Saint-Jean.
In a letter addressed to his superiors, Col. Parisien confirms
that Kingston does not have enough facilities to house the
officer cadets from Saint-Jean and he expresses serious
reservations about the ability of the college in Kingston to
properly integrate French-speaking officer cadets in their
language.
How can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs refuse to
consider Col. Parisien's proposal, since the colonel knows what
he is talking about? Will he finally admit that the college in
Kingston does not now have sufficient facilities for the
French-speaking officer cadets from Saint-Jean?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I checked again with defence department experts
and with the defence minister himself. They confirmed for me
that once all the costs of converting the college in Kingston are
taken into account, the federal government would save $23
million a year net by putting all these military facilities there.
What must be done now is to implement the July 19 agreement
so that the college in Saint-Jean can remain a post-secondary
educational institution.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the minister quotes anonymous defence
department experts for us. He should realize that the expert in
this area, who is there on location running the college and knows
what it really needs and what it must have in future and who also
knows Kingston, is the commandant of the present college, Col.
Marcel Parisien. He contradicts the minister.
The minister's attitude could drive one to despair. He is
needlessly stubborn. When will he finally listen to reason, since
he is practically the only one now who opposes his own
commandant of the college in defending the brutal closure of the
college in Saint-Jean, which Col. Parisien considers to be
irresponsible and unrealistic?
Does he not realize that he is jeopardizing the attempt to reach
the goal of 30 per cent French-speaking students in Kingston?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, again, I rely on the opinion of defence department
experts. The commandant himself is not an expert on the costs of
converting such an institution.
The experts are very clear. The federal government's position
of concentrating all its teaching operations in Kingston is
justified and the only problem still to be solved is to have the
8116
Quebec government respect and ratify the agreement signed on
July 19.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the minister has made himself
look better and convinced anyone by discrediting the present
commandant of the college, saying that he knows nothing about
the operation, when he is himself appointed by the government
to run the college. He is the government's representative to lead
the college and the institution and we are being told that he does
not know his work. They are hiding behind nameless officials
who are under the minister's thumb.
Obviously, the minister still thinks that he alone is right on
this issue. Does he share Col. Parisien's opinion that the college
in Kingston cannot provide officer cadets with proper support to
join the armed forces as French-speaking members and that
their dropout rate will be higher?
(1420)
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is only
appropriate since we are now not talking about the entente
between the Government of Quebec and the Canada but rather
the operations between the Canadian armed forces that I reply to
the hon. member's question.
The commandant in question was sent this summer to wind
down CMR. He was not involved in the original decision making
and is therefore not fully apprised of all of the financial facts
that were available to me as minister and to the department when
the closure was announced.
What has happened here is something that should be
explained. The commandant like a lot of base commanders
across this country, faced with a lot of very frustrated and angry
and upset people who are losing their jobs because of the base
closures, whether they be in Chatham, Cornwallis, Dartmouth or
North Bay, is trying to deal with his people in the best way
possible.
In good faith he thought he was being helpful to the cause. We
have pointed out to him that the facts in his letter do not add up. I
now believe that the commandant realizes that the situation as
we had described it originally and the facts upon which the
original decision was based is the correct one.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, once on
site, the commandant of the college in Saint-Jean who was
tasked with closing the college realized that the orders he had
been given made no sense. This, I think, justifies his position.
In his report tabled today, the Auditor General states that
infrastructure mismanagement in the Canadian Forces costs the
Canadian government over $100 million a year. Furthermore,
the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs claims that closing
the college in Saint-Jean will save $23 million, but he is very
careful not to subtract from this $23 million the amount added to
the budget of the college in Kingston for the teaching activities
that will be transferred there.
Why does the government not admit that it erred by cutting
the military college in Saint-Jean instead of targeting poor
management practices that every year cost four times the total
budget for all teaching activities in Saint-Jean?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
government made the right decision for financial reasons to
close the two military colleges, Royal Roads and Collège
Militaire Royal in Saint-Jean, regrettable as that may be. In fact
we closed a number of facilities across the country. It has caused
a lot of hardship to many communities.
What I think should not be lost sight of here is that the tactics
of the opposition, the Bloc Quebecois, and the Government of
Quebec are really distracting the focus of attention of those
people who have to make a very important decision in their
lives. By January 7 they have to decide whether or not to take the
government offer, the civilian reduction plan, a program which
has been offered to them.
What is happening is that hon. members opposite and their
tactics are giving those people hope that somehow this decision
will be reversed. The decision will not be reversed and they are
doing themselves and the people of the province of Quebec a
great disservice.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is true
that the opposition wants to offer renewed hope to the people of
Saint-Jean, unlike the minister who stubbornly refuses to
change his mind.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval): As the Auditor General of Canada
said, the government continues to spend millions of dollars
more on its real property than what is needed. These
expenditures, says the Auditor General, are based on
ill-considered political decisions.
Does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs realize that
building the infrastructure needed to accommodate 1,200
officer cadets in Kingston, when this number will be reduced to
900 within two years, is a waste of money, especially since such
facilities already exist in Saint-Jean?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are a
number of factual errors in the hon. member's question.
8117
First of all, any new construction that RMC was authorized by
the previous government and amounts to normal replacement.
That construction was scheduled to start in 1995. There will be
no new construction required as a result of the consolidation
process of the two colleges announced in the budget.
(1425)
Second, when the hon. member talks about the Auditor
General's report, and I have not had a chance to read it, he is
really mixing apples and oranges. Whatever the Auditor General
had to say in that area does not bear direct relationship to what is
at hand with the very serious matter of St. Jean.
If the member really wanted to give hope to the people of St.
Jean, the professors and other employees who work at this very
noble institution, he would encourage the Government of
Quebec to accept the proposal negotiated by my colleague, the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. That would bring them
hope because the college would stay open as a civilian
institution.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the federal government spends more money on social
programs than anything else. The Minister of Human Resources
Development is running around the country discussing social
reform. Yet the Auditor General in his report today says that a
central concern in our study is that Parliament lacks important
information on the performance and effects of existing social
programs. Canadians do not even have the numbers, the actual
costs and values received, not for existing social programs nor
proposed reform.
Will the Prime Minister implement the Auditor General's
recommendations and give Parliament and Canadians the
financial information necessary to make meaningful choices on
social policy reform?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member well
knows, over the past several weeks the Department of Human
Resources Development has tabled a number of very extensive
supplementary papers that detail in a very wide range the
impacts of a variety of options and choices.
I would be very glad to submit to the hon. member copies of
those papers so that he would be fully informed, although I can
assure the House that every single member of Parliament has
received on his or her desk copies of those supplementary papers
that fully comply with the kind of requirements the Auditor
General put forward.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Including
technical reports as well. The weakness of the minister's answer
reveals the fundamental weakness in the government's approach
to social programs. That is an unwillingness and inability to
assess fully the real costs, the long term costs on what is
proposed. Weak on numbers. Sauce in the heart but soft in the
head.
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that this is the
fundamental weakness of the red ink book? It is the fundamental
weakness of the minister's green paper. It is the fundamental
weakness of the government. Will he commit to start doing
something about that weakness?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should
know that the Auditor General prepares his analyses and
assessments months and many times a year before the actual
developments and events take place.
I certainly agree that the Auditor General has clearly
demonstrated in his report the fundamental need for social
reform. He has pointed out how many of the programs have not
worked well, how disincentives have crept into programs, how
there is a dependency growing up. The Auditor General has
underlined as clearly as anybody in this country has the need for
social reform. The problem is that members of the Reform Party
are opposing social reform because they do not want to see those
changes take place.
I would seriously suggest that if the hon. member was really
paying attention to the Auditor General's report he should be
applauding this government for undertaking social reform.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): The
Reform Party opposes tinkering with social reform, not real
reform.
The Auditor General says in black and white what Reformers
have maintained for years, that increased costs in social services
since 1975 have made them, and I use his words, ``financially
unsustainable from tax revenues''.
This is a broader question than just the minister's department.
Will the Prime Minister come clean with the Canadian people
and tell them that with current deficit and debt levels federal
social programs are financially unsustainable and that is the
reason for having real reform rather than tinkering with the
social programs?
(1430)
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one can only draw this
conclusion from the hon. member's questions and general
responses.
The Reform Party is not interested in meaningful reform. It is
interested in mean-minded reform. It simply wants to cut, cut,
cut. It does not want to change the programs to get people back
8118
to work. It does not want to change programs to help children
out of poverty. It does not want to change programs to ensure
that people have a greater opportunity. It simply wants to slash
the programs.
Mr. Speaker, that is not the way Liberals do things.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
As the Auditor General continues to reveal cases of wasteful
spending in the federal government, we learn that the president
of CN, Mr. Paul Tellier, who receives an annual salary of
$345,000, in addition to an annual allowance of about $52,000,
received from his employer an interest-free loan of $432,000 to
buy a house for which he paid $345,000, when he was
transferred from Ottawa to Montreal.
Does the minister feel that at a time of budgetary restraint, it
was appropriate for CN to grant Mr. Tellier an interest-free loan
of $432,000 without a mortgage guarantee, in order to
camouflage this transaction?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the arrangement the hon. member has alluded to with
respect to the interest free loan is not one that comes directly
under the responsibility of the Government of Canada. The
remuneration for the president of CN is a matter for the
Government of Canada and it is set by order in council.
With respect to any arrangements for the financing of a home,
that is a matter between the president of Canadian National and
the board of CN.
The hon. member knows this is a precedent which has been set
over a number of years with CN. It also occurs quite frequently
in the private sector.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as
far as I know, the Canadian government is the sole shareholder
of CN. Since the loan to Mr. Tellier is $87,000 more than the
price he paid for the house, does this mean that CN also lent this
money interest-free and without guarantees, so that Mr. Tellier
could spend it on redecorating the house?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I indicated, the practice at CN which is a crown
corporation is compatible with what has gone on in the private
sector. There is also precedent at CN.
With respect to the question dealing with the evaluation of the
property, I will see if we can clarify the situation and find out if
it resembles in any respect what taxpayers have to do with Mr.
Parizeau's home in Quebec City.
* * *
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I was
shocked, as I am sure you were, to read in the Auditor General's
report that the national defence department is the only
department that keeps track of the implementation of the
Auditor General's recommendations and it implemented only 56
per cent of the 1990-92 recommendations.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Will he ensure that
each government department from now on will comply with the
Auditor General's recommendations to ensure that the taxpayers
get fair value for the money they pay to this government.
(1435 )
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Yes, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, last year
the Auditor General pointed out a tax problem that cost
Canadian taxpayers more than $1 billion. This year the Auditor
General has identified potential savings in excess of $1 billion
again, including one point where over 10 years we spent $1
million to design a boat that was never built.
Can we be assured that all of the recommendations of the
Auditor General will be implemented forthwith so that from
now on we know that we will never see the type of report coming
out again that shows waste and mismanagement right across
government?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I understand that the very diligent minister of fisheries
oversaw the final phase-out of the project.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
In his report tabled today in the House, the Auditor General
indicates that tax revenues totalling $6.5 billion have yet to be
recovered by the federal government, in addition to accounts
receivable totalling $1 billion for the GST.
8119
Does the Minister of Finance agree that before he considers
taxing private health plans and RRSPs, he should first take steps
to recover these billions of dollars in accounts receivable?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that we will collect
the vast majority of the taxes owing and we will do it with
interest.
Canadians should know that the accounts receivable of
Revenue Canada are not some fund which is available to further
reduce the deficit. They are funds taken into account in the
government accounting by the Minister of Finance in budgetary
projections.
The total accounts receivable stopped growing last year and is
now declining. I believe that we will continue to be able to
reduce that sum.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, $5.4
billion in taxes is owed by 400,000 high-income taxpayers.
What explanation does the Minister of National Revenue have
for the fact that so many high-income taxpayers continue to
avoid the tax man and keep putting off paying their taxes? Will
the minister promise to put in place a system that will accelerate
the processing of these accounts receivable?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member appears not to have understood
that the accounts receivable are funds collected by the federal
government, by Revenue Canada. It is not some fund out there of
uncollected money. We constantly collect the accounts
receivable.
I believe this amount of outstanding taxes will continue to
decline as the economic recovery continues. As Canadians
continue to regain confidence in the government and confidence
in the improvements in the economy that has been brought about
since the government came in, we will see the amount of money
that is owed to Revenue Canada declining substantially as the
recession of the past and the past government gives way to the
recovery of the present government.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Auditor
General's report today states that during the past number of
years the Canadian government donated $3.1 billion to the
Governments of Poland and Egypt to help with their debt
reduction payments.
Does the foreign affairs minister agree with this sort of
program for the future, considering our current financial
situation?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has obligations to
fulfil. As members of the G-7 it is important that we fulfil these
obligations.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary question is for the Prime Minister.
When the red ink book talks about reducing the debt and
deficit was it referring to Poland and Egypt or Canada?
Canadians would really like to know the answer.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are on target. We said the deficit in relation to GDP
would be 3 per cent by the third year of our mandate. The good
policies of the Minister of Finance will make sure that we meet
our target.
* * *
(1440)
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
directed to the President of the Treasury Board.
The Auditor General's report tells us once again that the
government is not running a tight ship. According to the report,
since 1987, the Public Service Compensation System has cost
the government $170 for each of its 200,000 employees in the
Public Service, while the unit cost for provincial governments is
between $50 and $70.
How can the President of the Treasury Board tolerate the fact
that the federal government's management of its compensation
system is so costly and inefficient and that the government
absolutely refuses to examine many other cases of wasteful
spending in its administration, something the Official
Opposition has been asking for the past year?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was not around for some of the years hon. members
opposite were. Maybe they know about those practices back in
the 1980s and early 1990s.
The government is determined to clean up those practices and
to make sure the government is open and transparent and
manages its affairs in a cost efficient way.
Certainly we want to study the Auditor General's
recommendations. We want to be able to implement them and
make sure that Canadians are getting value for the tax dollars
they are giving to us, whether it relates to the public service or
any other expenditure. We want to be cost efficient and effective
in the use of taxpayers' dollars.
8120
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the
President of the Treasury Board is now aware of the fact, could
he explain why the government is preparing to spend $137
million on a new compensation system without taking the
elementary precaution of doing a cost-benefit analysis?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, anything that we invest taxpayers' dollars in we do so
carefully. We do so understanding what the return is. We use
new technologies all the time.
In the use of those new technologies we are quite clear that
there will be a recovery, there will be a pay back to the system
that will help reduce the cost of government, help us to meet the
3 per cent of GDP target in three years and to make sure we have
affordable and effective programs that are responsive to the
needs of Canadians.
* * *
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
question for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Northern Ontario workers have suffered great job losses
during the recent recession. In Elliot Lake, which is in my riding
of Algoma, nearly 4,000 miners have lost their jobs since 1990.
Many of these are older workers and many are losing hope.
What measures is the minister taking to address the particular
and pressing needs of all laid off workers in northern Ontario
and Canada, especially older displaced workers?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows
that the plight faced by many older workers when they face a
major dislocation in their industry or a downturn in the economy
is one of the primary objectives that we have put forward as part
of the social reform process.
The great economic tragedies suffered by the people of Elliot
Lake gives us an opportunity to look at the impact. For that
reason one initiative my department is taking under its
innovations program is to provide $2 million to Laurentian
University and the people of Elliot Lake to look specifically at
the impact on the miners who have lost their work, their families
and how a community can begin to recreate itself. This is an
example of how we can do innovative thinking about the
development of new approaches for people who are no longer
able to earn a livelihood through traditional means.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there have been seven escapes in the six
months since the Bath Institute was upgraded to a medium
security prison.
Can the Solicitor General explain why Correctional Services
Canada is putting the public at risk by treating this institution as
a medium security facility?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Solicitor
General, who is attending an international meeting of Solicitors
General, I would like to say that he welcomed the auditor's
report.
The recommendations in the auditor's report will help the
Solicitor General with the work that was already started when he
took office last year. We are implementing those
recommendations that are in place and we will continue to do so.
(1445 )
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, today the Auditor General's report does
indicate there is a need for a better classification system of
inmates for the protection of the public and that greater attention
needs to be paid to the supervision of high risk offenders placed
in the community.
Would the minister not agree that corrections' current
classification system and the supervision given to these high
risk offenders is as leaky as the security at Bath and needs a
major overhaul, not just tinkering?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary
Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Correctional Service of
Canada has already initiated action on a number of
recommendations. For example a senior official has been
appointed to assume responsibility for managing improvements
to practices for supervising offenders in the community.
Let me quote the Auditor General in chapter 18.29. I remind
my colleague that the Auditor General stated: ``The service is
continuously revising its process of risk identification and
management and it is improving the fundamentals of how it
assesses risk. It is changing and improving the way it manages
based on that risk''.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport.
8121
The two train tragedies in Brighton and Rimouski have
revealed major shortcomings in VIA Rail's ability to assure the
safety of passengers in case of accident. Passengers have
pointed out that no one was able to open the doors of the railroad
car that caught fire in the accident and that first-aid kits were
totally inadequate.
Can the minister tell us if he has instructed VIA Rail officials
to immediately correct the shortcomings with respect to
emergency measures and first aid for passengers in case of a
train accident?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no question that the well-known events
described by the hon. member are disturbing. We asked VIA
Rail, which is conducting an internal investigation, to take all
necessary measures on a provisional basis to try to correct the
shortcomings that have come to light especially after the
accident that occurred between Montreal and Toronto.
We will make every effort to assure to the extent possible the
safety of passengers and employees travelling on VIA trains.
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary question. Since VIA Rail's Vice-President,
Customer Services has indicated that emergency measures and
first-aid kits met standards, does the Minister of Transport
intend to upgrade safety standards?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on an interim basis obviously we are going to review
internally at VIA what has to be done, what should be done and
what can be done.
I want to explain to my hon. colleague this was an
unprecedented situation, something that no one could have
foreseen. It is a tragic incident particularly the incident between
Toronto and Montreal.
The safety transportation board is reviewing all of it and will
report. We are going to do everything we can at VIA, at
Transport Canada, at the police forces. Every possible avenue
will be explored to make sure that people who travel in Canada
on VIA trains can do so in safety and security.
* * *
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General reports that the department of
Indian affairs is currently spending approximately $1 billion on
the delivery of social services to on reserve Indians. The Auditor
General also says they are spending this $1 billion with no
substantive legislative authority, no plan, no goals, no
monitoring and no accountability for results.
How can the minister account for the utter failure of these
programs despite the billions of dollars that have been spent on
them?
(1450 )
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as other ministers have
indicated I welcome the Auditor General's report. It is a very
important instrument to my ministry to ensure that we improve.
As well as looking at what is in there and acting on it we will
be working on housing conditions, greater employment skills
development and things that the Minister of Human Resources
Development has indicated today. We will improve.
The aboriginal people have a saying: Walk in my moccasins. I
am sure if Reformers were in government there would be no
moccasins for the aboriginal people. They talk about failures but
they refuse to accept that there are successes. In 1968 there were
only 600 aboriginal people in post-secondary schools. Because
of Liberal policies over the years there are now 150,000
aboriginal people in colleges. That is success.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I remind the minister that it is precisely the fact
that Reformers do care about the plight of the Indians that we
dare to question this. It is something no other party has done in
this House. The government knows it. That is why its programs
serving the natives have been an absolute failure.
Since 1981 the number of individuals receiving social
assistance funding in the native communities has risen from
85,000 to the current 130,000. Spending has gone from $200
million to $1 billion. These are unacceptable results.
Considering this, will the minister take immediate steps to bring
this social spending on native affairs under the scrutiny of the
Parliament of Canada?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what Reformers fail to point
out is that the population of aboriginal people is double that in
the so-called white community.
We welcome the report. We will work within the report. I am
sure at the end of four years we will have a much better system in
place than that which we inherited.
* * *
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
Recent court decisions have confirmed that extreme
drunkenness may be used as a defence for certain crimes. This
has caused many Canadians to be concerned that those
responsible for their drunkenness and crimes will not be
sanctioned and
8122
punished in our criminal justice system thereby leaving the
victims without protection of the law.
Can the Minister of Justice indicate whether he will be
addressing this matter in a way that will assure victims of crime
involving drunkenness that they will have the full support of our
criminal justice system?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in my view the present
state of the law in respect of self-induced intoxication is
unsatisfactory. The government has already published a
blueprint for change which initiated a consultation process some
two weeks ago.
I share the sense of urgency expressed by my hon. colleague
and other members of the House. We are doing everything
possible to accelerate the preparation of a new provision in the
Criminal Code in this regard. Indeed we will make every effort
to prepare an amendment for introduction in the House shortly
after we resume in session following the Christmas break.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as
a follow-up to the same question on the same subject put to the
Minister of Justice, how can the minister use the pretext of
having to consult Canadians, when what is obviously expected
of him is to act now? What is he waiting for, what is keeping him
from taking action?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what is needed in order
to act responsibly is to take into account the views Canadians
want to express on how this law should work. For example I have
already been put on notice by women's groups that they disagree
with the proposals contained in the discussion paper. They want
to speak with me directly about alternatives.
We must confront questions about how to design this law so
that it withstands an attack under the charter. We do not want an
amendment that is struck down six months from now leaving us
back where we began. We will take the time necessary to get it
right.
(1455)
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
think that what we have is not a Minister of Justice but a minister
of consultation.
Why does the minister not table a bill immediately instead of
consulting right and left? We want a bill now!
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have already told
the House, we shall make every effort to have an amendment to
the code prepared for introduction shortly after the House
resumes following the Christmas break. That time will be
necessary to take into account the considerations that arise.
May I add that those cases which may come before the courts
in the meantime will do so with the admonition of the Supreme
Court of Canada itself that this defence is available in the rarest
of cases. The onus is on the accused to demonstrate that the
principle applies.
* * *
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadian real interest rates are the highest in the
industrial world and there are now predictions for another large
increase. While I do not agree, analysts suggest that the solution
to Canada's financial problems lies in a reduction rather than an
increase in these interest rates.
Why does the Minister of Finance not order the Bank of
Canada to lower interest rates?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in an exchange
that did grievous harm to my career and the hon. member's
career he gave me a 90 when I made my presentation to the
House of Commons finance committee. It is with enormous
regret knowing his great reputation that given that question I
must give him a failing grade.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the public record shows clearly that I do not believe
that the Bank of Canada can or should lower interest rates.
The public record also shows that when the Minister of
Finance was in opposition he argued vociferously that Governor
John Crow should be ordered to lower interest rates. What has
the minister learned since those days in opposition?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the position that I
argued in opposition was that the government of the day should
not place all the burden on the Bank of Canada but that it should
take fiscal action itself to get the economy going and that it
should put Canadians back to work. That is exactly what we are
doing in government.
* * *
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Finance.
8123
The Auditor General reports that corporations owe $3 billion
in unpaid taxes to Revenue Canada from 1993. He also states:
``Clearly, reducing deficits through more effective tax
collection is preferable to raising taxes. Taxes receivable are an
important national asset and leaving them uncollected has a
serious impact on the deficit''.
Will the minister stop threatening students with increased
costs of education and working people with cuts to UI and start
paying more attention to collecting the $3 billion owed to
Revenue Canada by these corporations?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I repeat the reply I made to a question
earlier. We are coming off a particularly nasty recession. There
are companies and individuals who have had a tough time of it.
It would be possible for us to drive some of them into
bankruptcy without necessarily collecting any more money.
That would be most inappropriate for Revenue Canada to do. We
will collect the revenues that are owed to us, except for a small
proportion of bankrupt or companies in receivership. We cannot
collect the amount that is in dispute which the taxpayer
persuades us is not appropriate for it to be collected in the first
place.
(1500)
We will collect that money because our record on collection is
very good; far less than one per cent of moneys owed to Revenue
Canada is not collected.
* * *
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Health has just returned from Winnipeg
where she met with her provincial and territorial colleagues
responsible for seniors. I would appreciate knowing the
outcome of that meeting.
What is the government doing to ensure that the needs of the
seniors are met in the face of shrinking budgets and increasing
demand on social programs?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we had some extremely productive meetings. We
agreed to consider all of the concerns of our seniors, to reorient
our programs to those most in need and most at risk. That fits in
very well with what I have been doing as Minister of Health, that
is ensuring that our seniors get the help they need by using those
dollars that are available very effectively to address the most
serious needs of our seniors.
* * *
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 83(1) I wish to table a notice of ways and means
motion to amend the Income Tax Act and the income tax
application rules.
I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration
of the motion.
_____________________________________________
8123
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to continue my remarks with regard to the opposition
motion for today, that this House urge the government to replace
the current members of Parliament retirement allowance plan
with a pension plan that reflects the current norms for private
sector pensions with a maximum contribution in accordance
with the Income Tax Act.
This morning throughout the hours of debate there were a
number of points made by hon. members in the House. I think it
is very important to review a few of those points.
(1505)
I think the most important aspect is the fact that during the
election campaign the Prime Minister promised the Canadian
people that he would reform MP pensions. He made two specific
promises, the first being to end the so-called double dipping
which is a case where former members of Parliament would
receive appointments to government and receive not only a
pension but also the compensation for that appointment to some
government position. The Prime Minister has committed to
eliminate double dipping.
The second was with regard to the age qualification, the age at
which members of Parliament could qualify to start collecting
pension benefits they were entitled to.
Yesterday the Prime Minister rose in this House and
reaffirmed his commitment to make those changes and
specifically said that those changes would be tabled in this
House within the next few weeks.
I think the Prime Minister's commitment to this reform of our
pension plan was very clearly demonstrated this morning when
the he rose in the House to announce that his recommendation to
Her Majesty the Queen that the Hon. Romeo LeBlanc be
appointed as Canada's 25th Governor General had been
accepted. In the House the Prime Minister and the other leaders
of the other parties rose to compliment the Prime Minister on his
selection and nomination of the Hon. Romeo LeBlanc who,
8124
incidentally, is the first Governor General from New Brunswick,
Atlantic Canada.
I thought it was very aptly put by the Prime Minister when in
addition to announcing that appointment he concurrently
announced that the new Governor General would be accepting
his compensation as Governor General but that the Governor
General nominated will forego or return his pension as a
member of Parliament back to the government. That speaks a
great deal for the leadership that the Prime Minister is showing
on the aspect of MP pension reform.
Throughout the debate this morning a number of members
raised interesting points and interesting issues. I receive with
interest the comments of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra
who, through all of the rhetoric going on today, actually sat back
and recalled, remembered and reflected upon members of
Parliament who served in this Chamber prior to pension plans
being formalized and being made for members of Parliament.
I think it behoves all members of Parliament not to forget
those members of Parliament who served back in the 1940s and
the 1950s, many of whom are still active and around, who do not
have those same kind of benefits. I believe there would be some
interest within this House to express some support for some sort
of initiative to ensure that former members of Parliament who so
honourably served in this Chamber would also be given some
consideration in terms of pension reform.
I think most members of Parliament will have received an
awful lot of input from their constituencies about MP reforms. It
is referred to often as a gold plated pension plan and that it costs
a great deal of money.
One of the things that really does not come up with regard to
the discussion of the pension plan is how that relates to the
overall compensation of members. I have to declare right off the
bat that I am very supportive of comprehensive pension reform.
I think it is the right thing to do and I hope that the reform will
take place in conjunction with an overall reassessment of the
compensation of members of Parliament.
I believe that Canadians would want to ensure that all
members of Parliament receive a fair and reasonable
compensation for the work that they do comparable to that
which they could earn within the private sector. I think those
principles should be sought and pursued by the government.
Most Canadians are not very familiar with the lifestyle of an
MP and as most members know when you become an elected
member the first thing you have to do is wind up your previous
affairs. It is virtually impossible to maintain other income
earning activity and still be a member of Parliament. I can speak
from some experience as a chartered accountant. I know that it
took some time for me to make arrangements to have my clients
transferred to others so that they would receive the service they
needed.
(1510)
However, the fact remains that right now my chartered
accounting practice as it existed no longer exists. In the next
election, should I not be re-elected, I will be unemployed just as
anybody else might be unemployed and will have to start again.
That is a sacrifice that members do make. I hope that hon.
members will continue to remind Canadians that all members of
Parliament have left investments that they have had in other
careers to come and serve in this place.
The other aspect of the pension discussion is what members of
Parliament do here. I am sure that most members of Parliament
work four or five days a week in Ottawa, some nine months a
year away from their families. That investment and that
contribution to Canada is very significant. I know this should be
taken into account very carefully when the government
considers compensation to members.
On top of that Canadians should also be aware that when
members of Parliament go home when this House is recessed
that does not mean that all of a sudden members of Parliament
are somehow on vacation. Every member of Parliament has at
least one office in their constituency, their riding. They have
staff there to service the needs of their constituents. Their job in
the riding is just as busy and important as it is in Ottawa. I am
sure every member of Parliament has experienced the same
thing where we find that we are working 80 hours a week to
make a contribution to the betterment of Canada and to the
concerns of our constituents.
When we make changes to compensation plans a fair and
reasonable rule should be that every member of Parliament or
every candidate for elected office should know what the
compensation package is so that they can make an informed
decision. To make changes over and beyond what was promised
to be made, for instance the changes in the pension plan, is
asking a lot for members of Parliament to take at this time
without some reasonable expectation that there would be equity
and fairness for all.
This whole question of when changes should be made really
should come up in the debate. I would be interested if the
Reform Party would care to comment on the general principle
that when changes are going to be made to compensation of
elected officials such as members of Parliament those changes
should be fully debated, discussed, tabled and decided upon
before an election but not to be effective until after an election.
8125
With those comments, I am pleased to have participated in the
debate. Again, I want to thank the Prime Minister for following
through with his election promises to amend and reform MP
pension plans.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
member, when our member for North Vancouver was making
some comments a couple of weeks ago, said that it was the gong
show, that he could ring the gong.
I can imagine that there are a number of Canadians who are
watching the parliamentary channel today who just listened to
this wonderful verbose bunch of hot air and they want a gong.
How in the world can this member say that there should be some
reasonable expectation on the part of members of Parliament
with respect to this particular issue when we have all known that
this has been a major issue? How does that compare with the
people of Canada who have lost their jobs, who are having roll
backs in their pay cheques and who are facing hardship, for
members of this assembly to be sitting around saying: ``Well,
you know, I really wasn't expecting this. Boy, I don't know''?
I have a lot of sympathy, and I mean this in all seriousness, for
the former members in terms of the reform of the pension plan as
was suggested by the member for Vancouver Quadra in the same
way that I have sympathy for Bobby Orr and other people who
are members of the NHL Players Association when they
apparently were ripped off in that situation.
What about the old age security recipients?
(1515 )
What about the people who put away their dollars in good
faith that the Liberals were going to bring in some kind of a
sound policy over the last 25 years so that their retirement
pension plans would not have been eaten up by inflation and so
that their entire pension plans would not have been under attack
by the policies of this government?
Those being my comments I ask the member: Considering
that this issue is the number one issue on the hit parade of all
Canadians, the number one reason why Canadians do not feel
comfortable with politicians, why they think that we consider
ourselves to be in a different class or a different league, which I
do not and I do not imagine any other member does, why does he
think his Prime Minister has delayed and delayed and delayed to
bring forward this very simply reform?
Mr. Szabo: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the member's points,
first, he commented with regard to the aspect of reasonable
expectation on behalf of those who seek elected office.
When I sought elected office I knew very well that the Prime
Minister or the then leader of the Liberal Party had made a
commitment if elected to reform MP pensions. I was expecting
that and I fully took that into consideration. The reasonable
expectation that I am talking about has to do with the constant
suggestion on behalf of the Reform members that all members
of Parliament should now take salary cuts, we should just not
have a pension plan, and so on.
I must say that if this House and the Canadian people want to
attract good people to this Chamber to make sure that the views
of Canadians and the laws of our country are good laws, we are
going to have to make sure that there is a fair and reasonable
compensation. That is all I ask, that there is a reasonable
expectation that it will be fair and reasonable and not somehow
adjusted in major way after the fact.
That is why I raise the point that perhaps changes should be
proposed before an election to be in effect after an election so
that absolutely everyone knows what the story is going to be
during their term.
Finally, with regard to the member's comments about old age
security, I think it is patently unfair to somehow start raising
that there are other social programs. We are talking about
members' pensions. The motion says that it should be the same
as pensions that exist in the ``norms for private sector
pensions''.
I wonder if the Reform Party really means that. One aspect is
that in normal private sector pensions, as a charter accountant I
know there are portability provisions whereby the accrued
benefits that one had during the period that one was there one
gets to take them and transfer them into another plan. As the
member well knows that is not the case with the current plan for
MP pensions.
I would just say that there are some differences. Whatever it
is, whatever it turns out to be, I am very confident that it will be
fair and equitable to members of Parliament and to all
Canadians.
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to address this notion held by some that
pensions are not required around here.
Mr. Abbott: We have never said that.
Mr. Harvard: I have heard it said.
Mr. Abbott: Not today.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I would just like to
remind colleagues so that we can all have the benefit of the
debate to please direct their interventions through the Chair.
Mr. Harvard: They are very sensitive, Mr. Speaker.
In any event, I think most people would agree, even
Reformers, that in this place, the House of Commons,
membership should be open to all Canadians. Membership here
should not rely on personal wealth. That being the case I think it
is incumbent upon us to pursue policies to ensure that not only
rich people are able to come to this House as members of
Parliament.
8126
Consider this for a moment. Someone from a political party
goes to a school superintendent, a school principal, a lawyer, a
doctor or a chartered accountant and says: ``Why don't you
consider serving in public life for five, ten or fifteen years?''
The person says: ``Yes, I would be interested. I know there is a
risk in politics. What have you got to offer me''? He is told:
``Oh, nothing. Absolutely nothing''. Then the person says: ``You
know, I do have a career. If I leave this place for 5, 10 or 15 years
I will have no career to return to. Would you consider that?''
``Oh, no. There is nothing there.'' ``I also have a pension plan. I
have a family. I am 45 years of age. I have been in the pension
plan for 15 or 20 years. If I leave this place and come back 10 or
15 years from now I will have no pension plan. Would you
consider that?'' ``Oh, no.''
(1520)
The person from the political party says: ``If you come into
public life you take the risk completely. Not only will you have
nothing to return to and nothing to soften the landing when you
return to public life, but you will have to win at least two or three
party nominations and you will have to win general elections''.
In other words this possible candidate for public office is
being offered nothing by the employer. ``I am supposed to take
all the risk, give up my career, give up my pension plan, give up
my family so that I can serve in public life.'' The person from
the political party says: ``Yes, that is pretty well it''.
I would think that in most cases the person being pursued as a
candidate would say: ``Well, public life is great, but it is simply
too much for me. I cannot afford it''. The fact of the matter is
that even with the pensions we have now, most Canadians do not
consider public life. Most of them are in mid-life and they
simply cannot afford to leave their private careers. The risk is
too great even if they are eligible for a pension plan six years
after entering public life.
I want to ask the previous speaker if he has considered that.
Mr. Szabo: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has made
some very valid points. The important point is, and I think he
would agree, that people entering any career should have
reasonable knowledge, reasonable expectation of what the
compensation should be and it should not be effective
retroactively to their detriment.
A final comment. I failed to raise this in my comments, but I
do agree very much with the member with regard to his comment
on the family. All members of Parliament make a very, very
significant sacrifice in being away from their families four or
five days a week, nine months of the year. That is the important
contribution they make so that they can serve and make sure we
live in what the Prime Minister says often in this House, the best
country in the world.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I wonder if you could
indicate to the Chair if in fact the practice of splitting the time is
still ongoing.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be speaking for 10 minutes if the Chair allows.
It gives me great pleasure to speak here today on the MP
pension plan. Before I begin I would like to make a remark.
For reasons that elude us on this side, I cannot in my wildest
dreams imagine that when we are speaking here how when the
simple information and constructive solutions we are putting
forth cross the line in this House it gets so distorted so that the
responses from the other side come back being unintelligible.
In any event, we in this party are not saying that we do not
want pensions. All we are saying is that we would like to bring
them into line with the rest of the public. Of all the things the
public finds distasteful and unfair about this government, this
House and these members, it has to be the gold-plated MP
pension plan we have.
In fact, the recent commission that was sent to study MP
pension plans, when comparing them to other countries said that
our plans were the least stringent in terms of commencement
and one of the highest in terms of allowance.
Let us take a look at some other first world countries and make
some comparisons between our pension plans and theirs. In
France and the United Kingdom the minimum age of service is
55 years, not six years like we have. Australia, 12 years of
service or age 60. The United States of America age 62. The
maximum allowance in our country is 75 per cent of our
terminal salary which is just near the top of all the countries I
have discussed. We have about the best that one can possibly
imagine.
(1525)
How lucrative is this plan in real terms? Let us look at the last
election. An MP serving eight years who left office at the age of
37 will receive $28,350 a year initially and $87,000 a year at age
60 for a total buyout of $2.7 million.
An MP serving 13 years who retired at age 50 will receive
$39,700 a year initially for a total buyout of $1.9 million. His
initial payments will increase with the indexing. Therefore the
last payment will be $64,692 a year. Not bad. Nowhere will
members find that in the private sector. Nowhere in the private
sector does such a lucrative plan exist. In fact in the last election
73 eligible defeated MPs will collectively receive over $100
million in buyouts at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer.
Miss Grey: Who's paying the bill?
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): Shame.
8127
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Exactly. In these
days of fiscal restraint, this is completely unconscionable. The
pension plan scheme that we have now is called the defined
benefit scheme where the benefits are paid according to a
specific equation.
It is reasonable to do this kind of scheme in firms where there
is long tenure, long contributions and high retirement ages.
Does this look like what we have here in this Parliament? No. In
fact, it is the exact opposite of what we find here in this House.
MPs retire relatively young after short tenures with minimal
payments into the system. Thus one can see that this type of
system bears a lot of risk for the employer. In this case who is the
employer but the Canadian taxpayer. We are burdening the
Canadian taxpayer with a risk that the private sector would not
take for itself.
The taxpayers in this country are taxed too much and cannot
afford to be taxed any more. They have no obligation nor should
they have to pay these lucrative pension plans that we currently
enjoy in this House today. Currently MPs contribute 11 per cent
of their basic salaries to the plan. The taxpayer picks up the rest.
How much is this?
If one looks at the entire plan, the MPs actually contribute
from 20 per cent of the total amount that they are going to get
paid out while the taxpayer pays 80 per cent. Furthermore these
plans as members know are fully indexed to inflation.
We in the Reform Party as usual would like to make some
constructive suggestions to help bring these MP pensions in line
with the rest of the public, this in the name of fairness, in the
name of togetherness and in the name of collegiality to
eliminate the us versus them mentality that the public perceives
of us, to engage in fiscal responsibility and to do our part in a
small but constructive way to bring the deficit down to zero and
to start attacking the debt.
To make the sacrifices that we are demanding of the Canadian
public I have some constructive suggestions. First, let us
convert these MP pension plans into a money purchase system
that many private companies are doing. This is a shared
contribution system where the MPs and the government put
money into the system and into individual RRSPs. It is a joint
contribution plan.
Second, we must stop indexing the pension plans. Private
plans do not do this so why should we? These measures will help
eliminate the excessive topping up that the Canadian taxpayer
must make in order to fulfil the obligations under the current
payment scheme.
Also, by putting it into private individual RRSPs, we are
adding an element of personal responsibility into the system for
the MPs themselves. Third, by doing this one is ultimately going
to decrease the amount of retirement payments through OAS and
CPP that we would have to incur in the future thereby adding
further savings.
I am going to take a little bit of licence here and bring in the
social service payments to the retired for a moment because it is
an interesting thing to do when we look into the future of a need
that is going to require these social programs for the retired
individual, in particular to enable those retired individuals who
are not well off to have a social program that is going to provide
for their needs in the future. When we look into the future our
current social program schemes will not be able to provide
payments to all retired individuals. Why? Let us look at some
things. OAS pays out around $14 billion per year. CP pays out
$10 billion a year and the guaranteed income supplement is
around $4.5 billion a year.
(1530)
Furthermore the CPP current liability, the unpaid liability, is
$500 billion, a fact that the Canadian taxpayer does not realize.
This amount of money has to be paid and an amount of money
that is not factored into any current debt projections we are
currently hearing. By the year 2030 there will be two working
people for every retired individual. This is an unsustainable
situation and cannot last.
In the near future it will be a necessity for individuals to take
it upon themselves to provide for their own retirement needs
because the government is not going to be able to do it for them.
They will, I hope, be able to provide for the needs of those who
are retired and those people who need it most. This is an
example of prioritizing the spending that we are trying to
convince the government to do.
If MPs were to receive their pensions according to the ways I
have mentioned in a sustainable fashion in the individual
RRSPs, government social handouts would decrease,
particularly government handouts would decrease to those
individuals of which we would be a part. Therefore we could
anticipate considerable savings from these programs.
There is no way to balance this budget without making cuts to
the social program situation as our party has discussed before.
The government should take us as an example of a group of
individuals where we can revamp our retirement program in
order to become self-sufficient and in order for the individuals
here not to become a millstone around the taxpayers' neck.
Last, I would put up the retirement age for MPs. As I
explained initially retirement age for most members of
Parliament in other first world countries is much higher than
what we have here. I would ask the Prime Minister to raise that
to age 55 or 60.
I have heard before that government members make various
arguments that the lifetime of an MP is short and their certainty
of employment is not high. Many members of the public also
engage in jobs where the future is very uncertain. It is no
8128
different for them than for us. They do not receive any lucrative
pension packages and neither should we.
Government members also argue, as has been discussed today
in the House, that many members take large pay cuts, have given
up lucrative careers and that we will not get good people coming
to government unless we have these lucrative pension schemes.
I believe that good people will always come to the top and that
money should not be the motivating factor to get into this job. If
people are prepared to give up their professions in the name of
public service then one is more assured that they will be honest
in their intentions to serve the House and to serve the country.
Much has been said on pensions. The Prime Minister has
promised that he will allow us to opt out and revamp the pension
scheme. I challenge him to rise to the occasion and do this in the
name of fiscal responsibility and also in the name of respect of
the Canadian public.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I want to share with members a little bit of history. This is not an
issue which is new on the public agenda. For example in
Saskatchewan in 1977 the then government of Allan Blakeney,
who was a New Democratic Party premier, foresaw the problems
of unfunded liability with respect to pensions for the civil
service and also with respect to elected members of the
legislature.
Before I get into that historical perspective, for a couple of
minutes I want to say that I believe fundamentally that serving
your country and serving the public is an honourable profession,
whether you are an elected member of a legislature, of
Parliament, or an employee of one of the provincial, municipal,
or federal governments.
People want their elected representatives to be accountable,
to have a pride in serving their country and to be compensated in
a very satisfactory way so that we are responsible to those who
pay our salary as opposed to having large incomes from secret
sources or sources other than the taxpayers. If that is the case we
become accountable to those who do pay our salaries.
(1535 )
The point I want to make in my intervention this afternoon is
that I believe serving your country is extremely important and
our compensation should be adequate. I believe that a pension
system is part of a compensation package, it is deferred income.
I also believe, however, that the pension system we have now is
unfunded in terms of its liability for taxpayers, it is very costly,
and I believe it has to be changed.
I do not just say this. I have undertaken some initiative to see
some change. On September 21 I introduced a private member's
bill, Bill C-270, which is the money purchase plan bill.
It calls for the Government of Canada to change the MPs'
pension system from the defined benefit to the defined
contribution plan of a money purchase. It would be fair. It would
be effective. It would reduce the taxpayers' subsidy of pensions
from $7 to our $1, to a more fair $1 for $1. We contribute a
dollar, the employer contributes a dollar and it goes into an
RRSP-like account, earns interest, and at the time of our
selection to take the money we become eligible to purchase a
joint spousal life annuity which then reduces the amount of
pension that we have, depending on the age of our spouse if the
spouse is younger than us.
This is something that is very important to me. To get back to
my history comment, in Saskatchewan this type of plan was
introduced-the defined contribution plan or money purchase
plan-in 1979 for elected members of the Saskatchewan
legislature. It has proven cost effective. It is the only pension
plan for elected officials in the country that is endorsed by the
Saskatchewan Taxpayers Association, by the Canadian
Taxpayers Association, by the Canadian Federation of
Independent Business. It is even endorsed by the National
Citizens Coalition, to which some people may not be attracted
but at least it is endorsed in the sense of it being fair, equitable
for both taxpayers and members.
I maintain that this is an opportunity for the House of
Commons. When the Prime Minister introduces his bill, we
should look at my private member's bill, Bill C-270. It is
modelled after the Saskatchewan plan which has been in effect
for 15, almost 16, years. It would be a very effective approach to
addressing some of the concerns of taxpayers.
I want to ask the member from the Reform Party whether he
has seen the bill that I have tabled and whether his party would
endorse such a plan which has been endorsed by many of the
same associations which support his party.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
no I have not seen the bill that the hon. member has mentioned. I
would be very interested in seeing it and my party also,
particularly in view of the comments my hon. friend made which
basically echoed what we have been saying in this party before
we were even elected.
Is it not curious that we find the New Democratic Party and
the Reform Party and all of the other groups such close allies on
this particular point, whereas the government for so long has
basically put us off? I hope that the Prime Minister will listen to
the comments just made by my hon. friend and to other
comments that have been made here by my friends in this party. I
hope that the Prime Minister will take them into consideration
and rapidly bring forward a bill based on the constructive
suggestions that have been made here today.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, from time to time,
including about 15 minutes ago, I have heard apologists for the
MPs' gold-plated
8129
pension plan say that we need something like this to attract
``good people'' to Ottawa.
I doubt very many members would admit that they were
motivated to come here in order to rip off their fellow
countrymen. I am sure that if the question were placed on an
individual basis, the terms most often heard would be civic
responsibility or love of country.
Unfortunately, anyone who favours this outrageous dip into
the public trough is by definition suspect, and those members
opposite who defend the system are dirtying the reputations of
all of us by their actions. Everyone in this place is touched by
this national scandal, regardless of his or her personal stand on
the matter.
(1540 )
A little over a year ago when I made my little pilgrimage
across Wellington Street to sign on at pay and services, I also
signed a simple, hand written document regarding the pension.
It said, in part: ``I have no wish to receive nor will I accept any
benefits''. My contributions to the plan are still being deducted
at source because the Prime Minister, in spite of his repeated
hollow assurances that opting out will be permitted, has
declined to act because he did not want to embarrass or
inconvenience the 52 cochons de lait who made their way to the
trough yesterday.
Why did I and about a dozen others, of whom I am aware,
make that particular form of protest? I certainly did not do it
because I do not like money. I am not a hair-shirted masochist
and I am definitely not well-to-do. I did it because my mother
taught me not to steal.
I submit that an elected body in control of its own finances
which concocts a scheme through which its members can collect
six or seven taxpayer dollars for every dollar that they
contribute is involved in something for which an ordinary Bay
Street promoter would be sent to prison.
The suggestion that to attract quality MPs they must be bribed
with a golden parachute is patronizing and insulting. Some of
our greatest parliamentarians, besides working virtually ex
gratia, had to return to their day jobs when they retired or were
defeated. They knew what to expect when they ran for office.
They did not sit back and say: ``Oh dear me, no, I could never run
for office. I need security''.
People with visions of sugar plums dancing in their heads
would be precisely the sort of people we would not want in this
place. Can anyone imagine John Diefenbaker or Stanley
Knowles, when contemplating their first run for office saying:
``What's in it for me?''
The non-pension generations forged a nation. They guided
Canada through depressions and two world wars and then like
other citizens they relied partly on personal savings and partly
on the professions, trades or businesses to which they returned.
Does anyone seriously contend that they were inferior to the
current crop of legislators, that they were less worthy than
members of the Bloc who will receive pensions for trying to
destroy the country?
At this point I must confess I am going to get a little off track
from some of my colleagues. I support this motion because the
adoption would lead to major improvements in the pension
scheme. However, if I had my druthers there would be no MP
pension scheme at all. Since RRSPs became available, people
willing to save diligently have been able to build up modest
retirement nest eggs.
In my own case, because I am forced to contribute my $1 in $6
to this goody bag, I have to stop adding to my RRSP. Surely MPs
with annual salaries and benefits equivalent to about $100,000
in the real world should have enough wit to be able to manage an
honest retirement package. I should be allowed to do so.
We are entrusted with running a country, or at least that is the
theory around here. Are we so dependent and ineffectual that we
cannot provide for our own old age without participating in a
scam?
In conclusion, in addition to putting a lid on the trough,
existing pensions should be retroactively adjusted in the interest
of fairness. I do not suggest that anyone be forced to make
restitution on money already received, but anyone already
drawing a pension should be cut off until he or she reaches age
65. At 65, the monthly payments should be adjusted to reflect a
fair return on actual contributions and nothing more.
(1545 )
In this country retroactive legislation to relieve governments
of contractual obligations is nothing new. The only novelty in
my proposal is that it would be aimed at politicians instead of
the public. Saskatchewan did retroactive financial legislation
with the GRIP. Alberta did it in order to tear up royalty
agreements. This 35th Parliament has already done it once and
would have done it twice if the sleepy folks in the other place
had not woken up and intervened.
Remember I am not, I repeat not suggesting that MP
pensioners be deprived of a fair return on investment. I am
suggesting that they be prohibited from further looting the
public treasury.
The person I replaced here was an ineffective and rarely heard
backbencher. He served nine years in this place. He is 53 years
old and is currently raking in $27,000 a year to augment his
income as a practising lawyer. If he lives to age 75 he will have
collected over a million dollars. During the 1993 election
campaign he made it clear that he would take every nickel that
was on the table. That might be one of the reasons he came
within 100 votes of losing his deposit. People opposite who are
so intent on getting their snouts filled should perhaps bear that
8130
little anecdote in mind when they hear the Prime Minister
shouting: ``Soo-oo-ey''.
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments,
particularly on the opponent he defeated to come to this House
and his view of the great waste of taxpayers' money on MP
pensions.
I remind the hon. member that we ran an election in 1993 on a
thing called the red book with promises to the Canadian people.
In that red book one promise was to reform the MP pension
package. At the present time the Prime Minister insists this is
being done.
Has the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia given his thoughts and input to the
committee working on the reform of MPs pensions? We on this
side of the House are making input daily. We are making
recommendations on what we feel is appropriate, not to satisfy
the Reform Party of Canada but to satisfy taxpayers and
constituents and to bring the pensions into line with those in the
private sector. We are working on a promise we made in the red
book and responding to our constituents and taxpayers.
Has the hon. member put his comments forward to the
President of the Treasury Board as he looks to reforming these
pensions so that we do compare favourably with the private
sector?
Mr. Morrison: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member's
question, no I have not. I serve on other committees. No one can
be everywhere on every subject. If the hon. member would care
to take my place on the natural resources committee then I will
take hers on the finance committee. How is that for satisfaction?
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
perhaps the last question belies the whole problem here. The fact
that there is a complete lack of understanding is and has been an
underlying concern on the part of Canadians for an extended
period of time.
I have cited the example of many people who come up to me in
my constituency. During the course of a day if I talk to 20 or 25
constituents at least five and maybe 10 of them will raise this
issue during the conversation. It is a major problem.
I also suggest it is perhaps a problem with the news media
itself. A couple of weeks ago I had occasion to be on Don
Newman's show which is done in the lobby. The topic of the
show was RRSPs and the comments the chairman of the
Standing Committee on Finance had made about RRSPs.
Because I along with a number of other members in the House
like to do better whenever we can, I called a number of people
and asked them to watch the show and give me an honest critique
as to what was going on. This was happening in the middle of the
afternoon in the B.C. time zone so they along with other people
in their offices watched as they sipped their coffee.
(1550)
During the course of the show Don Newman happened to
mention the MP pension plan. He was interviewing somebody
and asked why the MPs should actually be asking questions
about RRSPs when they have a gold plated plan themselves. I do
not think that discussion between Don Newman and the person
he was interviewing from the insurance industry took more then
90 seconds at the very most.
I had asked those people for a critique on how I had spoken,
was my tie straight, how the interview went. However, every
single solitary one of them, the very first comment they made
was: ``You guys have got to get your MP pensions under
control''. This is something that seems to go right over the tops
of the heads of the Liberals. I cannot comprehend it.
I wonder whether the member has had the same feeling of
frustration that I have had. Somebody like Don Newman or
perhaps one of the commentators in the print media will make
comments about this. However when the Reformers say, and I
am very pleased that one of the NDP members is saying that this
must be rectified immediately, that never ever appears in print.
It never appears on television. I wonder if the hon. member has
felt the same kind of frustration in that the news media will talk
about it but they will not talk about the people who are trying to
make things happen.
Mr. Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I have made the same
observations as the hon. member. This is almost a non-subject
in the media. I do not know why. People in the ridings certainly
think this issue is important. They think it is important to the
extent that it tends to override a lot of major national issues.
When talking to somebody, as soon as the words ``politics'' or
``politician'' are mentioned they do not come at you about the
national debt or the justice system. The first thing they come at
you with is the pensions. Then they get into the big issues, the
justice system, the national debt, and so on. The thing that grates
them, that burr under every person's saddle from sea unto
shining sea is this disgusting rip-off pension plan.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
this will be a brief comment, and I also have a question for the
hon. member.
I certainly agree with the Reform Party on one point. I think
giving a pension to someone who is 27 or 30 years old is really
too much, because these pensions are paid for with taxpayers'
money.
8131
The question is this: When they compare members in this
House with the private sector, when they refer to the private
sector in this motion, what do they mean? Do they mean
seasonal workers or people in management? Do they mean
professionals or individuals who unfortunately had to drop out
of school very early and start work at a very young age? I want to
ask the hon. member what he is comparing us with when he
compares us with the private sector?
[English]
Mr. Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I will have to ask the hon.
member what he means because I did not follow the gist of his
question. If what he meant was do I think the same rules should
apply to people in trades, people who have professions and
people in business, the answer is yes. Anyone who comes here
draws the same salary while here. Anyone who comes here
would be in the same position to contribute to his or her own
personal RRSP to the same degree. Therefore I see no relevance
to what a person's background might have been.
(1555)
Ms. Catterall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I want to
advise the House that the government speakers from now on will
be dividing their time.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure for me to join this debate.
I am a new member to this House. I ran on pension reform and
have worked toward pension reform since the election. Unlike
the member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia I
have worked at it since coming here. I have not waited until
today to do something about it. I have been in touch with the
minister. I have been in touch with my colleagues. As the
member for Cumberland-Colchester said earlier this is what
we should have been doing during this period of time.
This debate on MPs pensions is very important, as the Reform
members say. I am pleased to join it because I am convinced that
the government is committed to reform MPs pensions. I for one
am determined to see that the government does.
I would like to point out to hon. members and the people
following this debate that the opposition motion about replacing
the existing pension plan states that we should replace the
existing pension plan ``with a pension plan that reflects the
commitments made in the document entitled ``Creating
Opportunity'', the Liberal plan for Canada''.
That is of course the red book. I am glad the Reform Party
recognizes the significant contribution the red book has made to
the debate on MPs pensions, just as it has made a significant
contribution to focusing debate in this Chamber for the last year
since the election.
That red book with its list of commitments and with its
articulation of the philosophy of this government has provided a
tremendous focus for innumerable issues including among them
MPs pensions. Within that matter of MPs pensions, it has drawn
attention to one thing which I noticed the members opposite are
not discussing very much. It has focused public attention on the
important question of double dipping.
I would like in the short time that I have available to focus on
double dipping. I know that my colleagues from Halifax,
Vancouver Quadra, Mississauga South and Vaudreuil have
spoken on the matter of the age at which the pension should be
received. I am very interested in and would like to talk
particularly about double dipping.
Double dipping means simultaneously drawing a pension as a
former member of Parliament and a salary from the federal
government. It is a practice that has obviously and I would say
rightly angered may Canadians. I know it has angered many
people in my riding of Peterborough.
Let me remind hon. members of the wording of the red book
statement on double dipping. We said: ``A Liberal government
will reform the pension plan of members of Parliament ending
double dipping. MPs should not be able to leave office and
receive a pension from the federal government if they accept a
new full time paying job with the federal government''. I
suggest nothing could be clearer than that. This is the
commitment that has been repeated by this government since the
last election. We will end double dipping.
Some of the members opposite have been talking about
timing. I myself have argued from this side that we should have
moved earlier on this matter and on the age of receipt of
pensions. There has been pressure on this House to do with the
economy, to do with stimulating the economy, to do with
creating jobs. In that pressure it seems that this matter has been
left but I personally hope it is dealt with very soon. I am sure it is
going to be dealt with.
(1600 )
Before we go any further, we have heard some of this from the
other side, let me say that I do not want to here cast dispersions
on former members of Parliament who were entitled under the
existing act to receive both pension and another federal salary.
There are many MPs who have served this country well and
who are continuing to do good work in other federal positions.
Clearly it is time for the rules under which those honest
members of Parliament work to be changed.
Mr. Speaker, you may wonder why this situation cropped up in
the first place. In the mid-1970s pensions were being viewed
increasingly as an earned right. Some people viewed their
pensions as deferred compensation. In their view reducing or
suspending pensions on gaining another job was similar to
retroactively cutting a pensioner's salary.
In 1975 the government of the day decided that the fairest
approach would be to allow federal pensioners to draw a pension
8132
and a salary unless they again came under the same pension
plan. As an example, a former MP who joined the public service
could get a pension and a salary while a former member who was
later re-elected to Parliament could not get both the MP's salary
and the MP's pension at the same time. The idea was then that a
career of a member of Parliament and a career of a public service
employee are quite distinct, even though they are both paid by
the federal government.
Whatever validity this argument may have, it is clear that
Canadians today feel that drawing a pension and a salary at the
same time from the public purse is unacceptable. They have
strong feelings, as the members have said, about MPs' pensions,
including the double dipping issue. I agree with them.
Whatever hon. members may feel about some of the media's
comments on pensions, I believe the media at this time is truly
indicating the views of most Canadians. Let me give some
examples of what the media is saying on this matter. The Ottawa
Sun said in a July editorial: ``Today politics is a major league
profession with major league bucks, whether it's as an MP, a
lobbyist, a senator, or a budding patronage appointee. We don't
find many former politicians lining up at food banks or
unemployment offices, do we?''.
There are some people, I suppose, who might challenge those
sentiments. I am not one. It is a widespread opinion in this
country and double dipping contributes to the negative image of
this House and of members in it. I particularly like the mention
of lobbyists in that editorial that I just quoted. I do think that
lobbyists might well be subject to the same rules as members of
Parliament in their pensions and in their remuneration.
The Vancouver Sun said in a March 16 editorial: ``Short of
lowering taxes, the federal government could not do more to
reverse Canadians' surly mood than to slash the pay, perks and
pensions of members of Parliament''.
I am not sure that pension changes could single handedly turn
around the surly mood referred to in the editorial. I am
convinced that removing the right to double dip would help. The
symbolism of a change in MPs' pensions today is enormous,
going beyond many of the arguments about what members earn
or what they should earn and things of that type. A change in the
double dipping provision and other changes will have great
impact in Canada and I support them.
From the St. John's Evening Telegram: ``Don't count on many
MPs saying no to the pension cash cow. Preston Manning's
penny pinching Reformers were quickly converted to the
spendthrift ways''-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. It is a fine line. The
member might be quoting from an article. Maybe I lost sight of
that, but let me just take the time to remind members to the
extent possible not to refer to members unless of course
referring to their riding or other portfolios they may hold within
the parliamentary precinct.
Mr. Adams: Mr. Speaker, I do apologize for that. In quoting
the St. John's Evening Telegram I should have said the leader of
the Reform Party's ``penny pinching Reformers were quickly
converted to the spendthrift ways of their fellow Commons
denizens once elected. Meanwhile, the rest of the taxpaying
public gets stuck with the bill''.
(1605)
It seems to me that editorial writers are suspicious even of
opposition members. This concerns me. This doubt about the
interests and purposes of members of Parliament is an important
matter for us all. It is something which is very disturbing and
which is fundamental to the efficiency of what we do in this
House.
I would like to see us move to a pension plan which is fair and
equitable, which abolishes double dipping, which sets a clear
age at which the pension should be received and which sets an
example to other pension plans in the country.
It is my assumption, because it is in the red book, that the
Government of Canada is going to do just that.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, while I agree
with the member in the areas that he has debated, because they
were in the book and they are part of the small agenda of the
Liberals in revamping this plan, I would like to know whether
the member has any affinity at all for making the plan more fair
mathematically, more fair from an actuarial point of view.
Is it fair that a person like myself in my previous position
should pay into a pension plan for 27 years to get the same
benefit that an MP here can get in about six or seven years?
There is an element of unfairness there that I think is perceived
by the Canadian people right across this country that the growth
rate is much too fast, notwithstanding that we contribute
probably a higher percentage than they do. At the same time the
growth is way out of line.
I would like to know the member's opinion because he seems
to be quite in agreement with the need to revamp the pension
scheme.
Mr. Adams: Mr. Speaker, as I said the government is in
agreement with the need to revise the pension plan. It is still the
government's intention to revise the pension plan.
I would say to the member for Elk Island that he and I got the
same number of stars in the advertisement that appeared in the
Globe and Mail the other day.
I personally believe although I am not an accountant that one
of the most serious flaws in the present system is that it is
impossible to calculate what the payout will be. Any plan of this
8133
type, any insurance policy has to be based on some
mathematical calculation.
One of the reasons for that, and I think the member for Elk
Island is aware of this, is the fact that there is no set retirement
date. Without a set retirement date it is impossible to say, to
calculate, to estimate how long people will collect their pension.
This I find disgraceful. It is disgraceful that someone could draw
a pension at 25, and we cannot calculate the fact that they will be
drawing it for 60 years. That is one point.
My second point is that it is not true that if you are in your
pension plan for 27 years you get the same as in this one at six
years. In your plan at 27 years your premiums and your
employers' premiums, if you are employed, are vested after a
certain period of time and you do retain those funds. Then when
you reach retirement age if you were not in it for 27 years you
would draw the benefits of those vested funds.
I think in this case the period of time which we might debate is
simply that, a vesting period. The members who lose an election
after six years leave if they are not of retirement age. At
retirement age they collect a pension which is based on the
vested portion of their pension contributions.
[Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to support the motion put today, which would allow the
government to keep the promises it made with respect to
pensions for members of Parliament. These promises were
published in the document entitled Creating Opportunity,
otherwise known as The Liberal Plan for Canada, the famous
red book.
As the members know, this document contains two specific
commitments regarding the Members of Parliament Retiring
Allowances Act.
(1610)
Not only did the government undertake to end double dipping,
but also to review the question of the minimum age at which
members may begin to draw their pension.
As the member for Peterborough has just spoken about double
dipping, I would like to look at the second issue, the one
concerning age.
[English]
The Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act
currently does not require a member to have reached a specific
age before becoming eligible to receive a pension. Once a
member has six years pensionable service to his or her credit he
or she can draw the benefit immediately upon leaving office
regardless of their age at that time.
The philosophy behind this feature was that an MP's pension
should provide some immediate income which will assist the
member in making the transition from public life to private life.
As all members of Parliament know, our tenure in this House is
by no means guaranteed. Job security is not just a feature of
public life. Our careers as parliamentarians are frequently up for
renewal and can be abruptly brought to an end. As well it is not
always certain that on leaving office we will quickly or easily
find alternative employment.
The availability of immediate income on leaving office can be
a particularly important factor for members who have young
families who must consider the need for another source of
income when no longer receiving a seasonal indemnity but have
not yet found new employment.
[Translation]
This does not mean that I think that the existing provisions
should remain as they are. I do, however, think that in the
absence of appropriate transitional measures to help members of
Parliament who leave office meet their financial needs, some
members may suffer a loss, especially those who leave office
when they are still relatively young.
Under the existing plan, a member who is defeated after six
years of service does not receive a lump sum separation
allowance. Such an allowance is paid only if the member is not
entitled to a pension on leaving office.
Many private companies offer employees whose career is
unexpectedly interrupted an amount of money to compensate for
their involuntary departure, even though the employee may also
be entitled to a pension. This provides the laid-off employee
with some income while he is looking for a new job and starting
over in a new career.
[English]
If the payment of pensions under the Members of Parliament
Retiring Allowances Act is deferred so that pensions do not
become payable until a certain age is reached it may well be
necessary to introduce improved separation benefits to ensure
that MPs' immediate financial needs are properly met much like
the severance pay offered in the private sector.
The question is what would be an appropriate minimum
pensionable age for members of Parliament. Some would argue
that age 65 should be the pensionable age because this is the
most usual age for Canadians to begin drawing a pension. Then
again others might feel 60 is appropriate as this is also a
common retirement age, especially in the public sector.
I feel that age 55 is justifiable since finding alternative
employment at or after this age is not an easy matter.
8134
[Translation]
We should also ask ourselves whether there should be a
minimum age for eligibility for a reduced pension, say 50 years,
and whether members should be allowed to draw a pension
before this minimum age in cases of disability.
Should we base our approach on the pension plans offered by
other Canadian employers in order to settle on an appropriate
pensionable age for members of Parliament, or should we be
looking at what is done in other Canadian legislative
assemblies?
There are marked differences between the pension plan
provisions of the various provincial legislative assemblies. New
Brunswick has no minimum pensionable age. MLAs in
Saskatchewan, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories cannot
draw their pensions until age 55; in Nova Scotia, the minimum
age is 50.
A number of provinces use a formula to establish pensionable
age. In Newfoundland, the age and the number of years of
service must add up to 60. In Ontario, a member may begin to
draw a pension when his age and years of service add up to 55.
[English]
The province of Quebec provides for a pension to begin when
a member of the National Assembly reaches the service and age
of 65. The member must be at least 50 years old before receiving
a pension.
I am confident that I speak for the vast majority of my fellow
colleagues in the House when I state that none of us were
motivated to run for public office by mere financial rewards. I
am sure that I can confidently say that we all knew what we were
getting into despite the many hardships our families must
undergo, despite the extra expenses such as clothing, lodging,
transportation and others.
We are debating today pension reform. Those who feel
underpaid as an MP and those who feel they should be paid what
the private sector pays are correct, but that makes for an entirely
separate debate. My concern is that if we undervalue the work,
dedication and sacrifices made by an MP and their families, we
stand to discourage Canadians from wanting to offer their
services for public office.
Two questions come to mind immediately. Will people in their
forties and late thirties be motivated knowing that they may face
the prospects of re-employment near the end of their career?
Will we not instead be encouraging only older individuals or
rather wealthy individuals to run for public office? Canada
would best be served in my opinion by having young and old,
small and large business people, young and older lawyers,
accountants and professionals. The successful as well as the less
successful must all be motivated to seek public office, not just
the wealthy.
(1615)
[Translation]
As the hon. members can see, the government should consider
the various choices it has and take into account a number of
factors in reviewing the Members of Parliament Retirement
Allowance Act. The government knows full well that the
Canadian taxpayers are against former members of the House of
Commons being allowed to receive generous unreduced
pensions years before normal retirement age.
We also know that this matter of public concern can be dealt
with in a number of different ways. This government remains
committed to winning back public confidence and keeping its
promise with respect to the reform of MPs pension.
[English]
In closing, I fully support the reform of MPs pensions. As
well I support the removal of double dipping and I fully support
increasing the minimum age to 55 at which an MP may obtain
their pension.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the member's comments. I want to make a couple of
comments regarding his speech and ask him a question or two.
He said he would certainly support any government
legislation which would raise the age of anything with a
minimum of six years service to age 55. Our party I suspect
would support that in the House of Commons if and only if the
member's employer-employee contributions would be changed
from six to one to one to one. For every dollar we contribute out
of our salary the government would match that.
As it is now, and the hon. member should know, the
government is putting in about $6 for every $1 that we are
putting in. That is unsaleable from sea to sea to sea in this
country. I suspect that when he goes home it is not a lot different
from my situation or from anyone else here when they hear how
people feel.
He talked also about the re-entry to private life in the private
sector. There is no one in this Chamber who would disagree that
it may be difficult to get back in and work back into the clientele
you had before or whatever your professional job was. My
trough day will be March 13. I hope we have made substantive
changes before then. It is unfortunate that we missed 52 other
members. I am willing to say let us make substantive changes to
the program before my trough day on March 13.
If I were to re-enter private life then I would get a pension
straight through from age 42 on. There is something dreadfully
wrong about that. My question to this member is, why can we
not have some sort of a severance package for people who are
re-entering their private lives? If we are going back into the
workforce let us have some sort of severance package that the
government would offer. That is fine. But why not defer
pensions until a later age? Why should I and other members get
a pension straight through from the day after an election? Bang,
it
8135
takes place the very next day. Why should I, for instance, be
allowed to get a pension the next day?
(1620 )
Why not some sort of generous severance package that will
help members reintegrate into life and then the pension is
deferred?
I have heard any number of members, including the member
for Mississauga South, today talking about this being a family
issue now and how painful it is for each of us to go back to
private life and get another job. Fair enough. Why not just a
severance package that would see us into that entry phase and
not a pension that is going to click in the next day and go on for
ever and ever, amen?
Mr. Discepola: Mr. Speaker, I said that in my speech. Part of
it was in French and the hon. member may not have had her
listening device on but I said two things in my speech. The first
thing is that I agree there are two separate issues here. One is a
question of severance pay when a member is defeated.
The general fallacy here is that when we serve six years, we
seem to be able to collect a pension of a million dollars or so. I
defy the members opposite to do their records and search. The
average tenure of a member of Parliament is probably fewer
than six years. I would say it is somewhere between five and six
years. That is the average tenure of a parliamentarian. It is
because of that job insecurity factor that I spoke about.
I come from a municipal background. Even councillors and
mayors have a severance package built in. The law in Quebec
now is a formal law that allows for a certain amount of severance
package over a certain number of years.
The question of severance is one thing. I agree with the
member that we should provide for it in the new legislation to
allow people to reintegrate into the workforce. My own personal
case is that I had to sacrifice the computer business that I built at
the age of 29. I do not think that computer business will survive
without me. I hope it will.
The other question is the question of pensions. I disagree with
the member totally that the amount of the pension is over
generous. If we bring the age up to 55 like I am proposing, that
will solve a lot of the problems that the member is speaking of.
The average pension of a member of Parliament at age 55 will
be about $18,000 or $19,000. The hon. member may feel that
$18,000 is not justifiable in her case. I know that I worked very
hard in my case. I have made a lot of sacrifices and my citizens
are telling me: ``Nick, reform the pension, yes because it is
outrageous the way it is now but make it equitable''. I think
$18,000 at age 55 is not unreasonable and not inequitable.
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise on this opposition day to speak to the
opposition motion, which provides:
That this House urge the government to replace the current Members of
Parliament Retirement Allowance plan with a pension plan that reflects the
current norms for private sector pensions, with a maximum contribution in
accordance with the Income Tax Act.
I will try to contribute to the debate by offering some food for
thought, because I think that the issue of pensions raises
considerable concern among Canadians, who ask us many
questions on this subject. They ask us these questions because of
their perception of members' pensions and benefits.
First of all, the Official Opposition is clearly opposed to the
motion as it stands, and I will tell you why. Adjusting pensions
in accordance with private-sector standards does not tell us
anything about the type of adjustment and the type of private
sector.
We wonder if our pensions should reflect the plans
established for senior officials and company executives or the
already very inadequate pensions collected by some workers in
different sectors. The motion does not tell us which way to go.
We must do more thinking on the issue and set the conditions in
which this reform must take place, before going ahead with such
a vaguely worded motion.
It is true that people's perception of members' pensions and
benefits is often shaped by the media, which call attention to the
significant benefits enjoyed by members of Parliament.
(1625)
In this regard, we think that the Reform Party's debate on
members' pensions should revolve around two extremely
important issues.
First of all, the Official Opposition wants to avoid all kinds of
double dipping, for example when someone retires after
working for the government and then takes another government
job, thus accumulating other pensions. I think that, on this, we
clearly agree with the other parties that the practice of
accumulating multiple pensions must be eliminated.
Our second point is extremely important. Our constituents
often bring up the age issue. The matter of pensions must be
dealt with fairly and equitably. In this regard, I think that we
agree with everyone that the age issue must be reviewed.
May I remind you that one of the Reform Party's election
promises was to cut what the party itself calls the three Ps,
namely the pay, pensions and privileges of members. That
political formation estimates that a significant cut in members'
pensions would save around $1.5 million over five years. The
approach used is important because members' functions, duties
and responsibilities must be considered. I think that dealing
8136
with the issue of members' pensions by cutting government
spending is entirely beside the point.
According to Jean Dion, an editorial writer in Le Devoir,
cutting members' benefits would, of course, save money. After
the election, it was estimated that pensions payable to defeated
members totalled $109 million over a period of twenty years or
one-quarter of one per cent of the deficit for the financial year
1992-93 alone.
A review of allowances, benefits or pensions payable to
parliamentarians should not, in our opinion, be seen as a way to
put government finances on a sound footing, as a way to fight the
federal deficit or to achieve that great common ideal of fair
distribution of wealth in our democracy. We should be realistic
and consider the context.
On the issue of pensions, of course pensions and salaries are
linked because they are part of the total compensation plan. It
would be irresponsible to separate them. I think we should
follow certain guidelines when we look at the treatment of
members' pensions. We should consider making them
commensurate with the responsibility a member has. I think
there is a context we must consider. We should be able to take
this debate a little further. To all the people who are watching us,
to all those who sent us to Parliament to manage the
government's affairs, we should be able to explain the
responsibilities of a member as such, because once we are
elected, the first thing a member has to do is to take on the
responsibilities and activities that go with his position.
So we should take a good look at the issue of level of
responsibility, because it is a factor throughout our society in
every area of activity. A society functions and develops because
people in a variety of sectors and organizations, both private and
public, are responsible and take on certain responsibilities. We
should look at members in the same way, as people who perform
tasks with a high level of responsibility.
(1630)
Account should also be taken of what attracts people to the job
of member of Parliament. There is no doubt that most of the
people elected to this House are people who want to have a
responsibility in how the government is run, who want to make a
contribution to society, to help it evolve, to see progress made.
We are talking about members from many different
backgrounds, men and women, with a variety of skills and
training, who are able to seek office and come here to pool their
talents and knowledge with other members. In this context,
there must also exist a certain number of conditions that will
attract people of quality to political life.
Another factor to be considered is our individual financial
independence, our own resources to draw on in carrying out our
work, with the expenses that entails, and our independence from
outside contributions. We must therefore remember that those
elected to office must be able to operate in a context of financial
independence.
The question cannot be examined without looking at the
fundamental framework. Earlier, I listened to my colleagues as
they raised a number of concerns that I share. I would like, on
behalf of the official opposition, to reiterate a number of these
points that we feel are essential to the debate on whether to
reform the pension plan of members of Parliament.
First of all, I think that we are all well aware of the
precariousness of the positions we hold. I often say to my
colleagues and co-workers that we must never forget that we are
just passing through, and some do so more quickly than others.
Our mandate is for a very specific length of time.
We must, during this mandate, keep the promises and
commitments made to the voters. We must deliver the goods in
the sense of doing what has to be done within the allotted time
frame, bearing in mind that our time here must be time spent
doing good work, which means working energetically and
steadfastly. We are here for three, four or five years, but we must
put in quality time here. We feel that this reflection I am sharing
with this House on behalf of the Official Opposition is a
fundamental one.
Second, retirement age. Obviously, as we consider the various
options, we can see that several different plans are in place in
our society. In some professions, retirement age has already
been set at 50 or 55 years of age. We know for example, that in
the police force, civil service or Armed Forces, you become
pensionable at 50. It is important to point out that serious
thought should be given to the age issue, on the basis of current
developments and what is currently offered in our society in
terms of quality.
Members of Parliament, as it turns out, often launch their
parliamentary career at a time in their lives when they are at
their best in terms of energy. Age data show that indeed a great
many of our elected representatives are at the peak of their form,
at the peak of their capacity, which does not detract from the
skill and quality of younger members or those with a longer
experience. But we can see that this is an important time of our
lives when we devote to Parliament energies that could
effectively been put to use in a career in some other field, like
the one we left to come here, one we are dedicated to and may
return to when we are done here. But at this important time when
we devote ourselves to public management, to the development
and
8137
advancement of our society, we do so with all our energies, in
the prime of our life.
So, this is food for thought at this important time when
members of Parliament devote time and energy to the state and
to social development.
(1635)
I would add that a political career often interrupts a person's
significant contributions to existing pension plans. That is why
we must provide members with benefits that are at least as good
as those they left behind. It is a matter of fairness. We are not
saying that members must be paid handsomely and receive
endless benefits. Members must not come here feeling that they
will hit the jackpot in four or six years with a good pension
whatever their age, that they will be happy to take people's
money. That is not what we are talking about here. We are
talking about important elements in members' lives.
Before coming here, all members of this House already had
their own careers in the private sector or in business, industry,
professional services, education, health, etc. They had their own
lives but they decided to get involved in politics, the vast
majority of them, I am sure, to make a contribution to and
benefit society through a political party by participating in the
legislative and public administration process. Their previous
lives, careers and pension contributions cannot be dismissed out
of hand. They should in fairness be taken into consideration.
For all the reasons I just listed, the Official Opposition urges
all members to continue to work on pension reform without
overlooking any of these elements. In conclusion, I reiterate that
we are opposed to this motion as long as the alignment of
pensions on private sector plans does not take into account all
the elements I referred to earlier involving members'
responsibilities, precarious position and previous entitlements.
Pensions cannot simply be aligned on the private sector as if by
magic; a comprehensive review and clear reference points are
needed.
Of course, the Official Opposition rejects this motion but
urges everyone to continue working on pension reform, keeping
in mind the two important factors we recognize. First, the age at
which members can collect pensions. We do not feel that
pensions are a privilege to which we are entitled at any age in
defiance of societal norms. That is something we recognize.
Second, the issue of multiple pensions. We find it unacceptable
that someone can retire from a job and receive a pension, then
turn around and get rehired. We are against this practice. In our
opinion, these two elements should be an important part of
pension reform. To achieve a truly comprehensive pension
reform that is fair to all elected officials, be they men or women,
we need a very clear guide to the fairness criteria leading to a
real reform.
[English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
thank the member for his dissertation. I know he spent a lot of
time talking about financial independence and the importance of
financial independence for members of Parliament.
I wonder how he reconciles that. We have heard a lot in this
House about independence for the province from which he is
from. I just wonder how he reconciles those two things, the
independence of a member of Parliament, the independence to
receive money from the Government of Canada on the one hand
and on the other hand that somehow we do not need Canada for
any other purpose. How is it possible that the Government of
Canada is good enough to receive a pension from but not
continually tax the people of Quebec?
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure
that I really understood the question, except that the word
``independence'' seeems to have led to some misunderstanding.
The member heard ``independence'' and is confused. I do not
know. Financial independence is good for anyone. We are not
talking about independence for Quebec; we are talking about
financial independence for anyone who holds a position. Of
course, it is clear that whatever pension rights the Bloc
Quebecois has obtained for elected members, it will maintain
them in a sovereign Quebec. A sovereign Quebec would give its
elected officials the same conditions.
(1640)
I would like to give a very simple, direct answer on the issue
of financial independence. A person should be paid for the work
he or she does on the basis of the expenses incurred in doing it. It
is also a matter of equity so that elected officials are not placed
in situations where they always have to seek compensation from
people or organizations providing some service or other because
the elected officials do not have the financial independence they
need to do their job.
That is why we wanted to include some expenses required in
their work as part of the budget members of Parliament have, so
that they do not have to have any Tom, Dick or Harry pay their
restaurant bills every time, or their hotel accommodation,
travel, air fare and so on. We are talking about financial
independence so that members can act responsibly and
completely free of bribery by others. It is very simple.
[English]
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe, in the
comments you had addressed the fact that you believed that age
should be-
8138
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I do not want to be left out
of this whole debate. Although I do not get to speak I would
appreciate your speech to go through the Chair.
Mrs. Brushett: Mr. Speaker, through you to the hon. member
for Richmond-Wolfe, in your comments you indicated that age
was certainly a criteria that should be looked at. The member
also indicated double dipping in terms of future employment.
Would the hon. member also consider previous government
pensions as a deterrent in addition to an MP pension as we look
at double dipping?
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, on the
subject of fairness, we must be careful not to take away acquired
rights. There are acquired rights. If it is felt that people have too
many acquired rights and as a result of some administrative or
other process they were given too much, if something was given
which upon analysis and consideration is unacceptable, I think
that amends must be made.
I will qualify that by saying that we must be careful, on the
issue of fairness, to really state the question responsibly, so as
not to penalize people who have already obtained certain
advantages as a result of some regulation or law, perhaps
entirely in good faith. Withdrawing these benefits would be
somewhat like going back on one's word. I think that is the
opposite of what we want to achieve.
What we want to do is to get things straight and put them in
perspective. Above all, we want to be able to answer people who
tell us that the double dipping which goes on in the present
system is wrong. An MP is in Parliament for six years and
regardless of age has a pension that he can take away with him. It
is the same for the Senate. It is the same with the other House.
Someone is appointed senator and has a salary until age 75, no
questions asked, etc.
There is a question of fairness for the future. We must get
things straight and not necessarily attack others.
[English]
Mr. Tony Ianno (Trinity-Spadina, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
gives me great pleasure to speak on the motion before us. I am
delighted because this is an important issue, an issue which the
government has pledged to resolve.
The motion talks about replacing the existing MPs' pension
plan with a pension plan that reflects the commitments made in
the document entitled ``Creating Opportunity, the Liberal Plan
for Canada''.
I am glad the motion recognizes the significant contribution
that the red book is making to the debate on MPs' pensions. The
red book has helped to focus public attention on the changes
required such as double dipping and, one step further, the need
of a minimum age requirement.
It is on double dipping that I wish to speak today. As we know,
double dipping means simultaneously drawing a salary from the
federal government and a pension as a former member of
Parliament. It is a practice that many of us have problems with.
(1645 )
Let me remind hon. members of the red book statement on
double dipping. We said that a Liberal government will reform
the pension plan of members of Parliament to end this double
dipping. MPs should not be able to leave office and receive a
pension from the federal government if they accept a new,
full-time, paying job from the federal government. Nothing
could be clearer than that.
This commitment has been repeated by the government since
the last election. We will end double dipping. Former MPs will
no longer be able to receive a pension and a salary from the
federal government at the same time.
Before I go further let me say that I do not wish to cast any
aspersions on former members of Parliament who were entitled
under the existing act to receive both a pension and a federal
salary. There are many former MPs who have served this
country well and who continue to do good work in other federal
positions. It is clear that the drawing of a pension and a salary at
the same time from the public purse is unacceptable though. It is
time that these rules are changed.
In the mid-1970s pensions were viewed increasingly as an
earned right. Some people viewed pensions as deferred
compensation. In their view reducing or suspending pensions on
gaining another job was similar to retroactively cutting a
pensioner's salary.
In 1975 the government decided that the fairest approach
would be to allow federal pensioners to draw pensions and
salary unless they again came under the same pension plan.
Today this government believes that double dipping must go.
The act which this opposition motion attempts to address is of
course the Members of Parliament Retirement Allowances Act.
However, the optimum word is retiring. The act was not
intended to supplement working former parliamentarians but to
provide a retiring allowance for them.
Many Canadians are expressing dissatisfaction with their
politicians' pensions and double dipping is contributing to this
negative image. We must continue changing the attitudes
Canadians have toward their members of Parliament. Turning it
around will require time and firm decisions. One of those
decisions must be to end this double dipping.
8139
Personally I am not sure that pension changes will
single-handedly turn around this perception but I am convinced
that removing the right to double dip will help.
I recognize that double dipping is a term that can be applied in
different ways. There are several types of double dipping:
governor in council appointments where the salary is met by
statute; governor in council appointments where the salary scale
is discretionary; appointments to the public service under the
Public Service Employment Act; serving as a member of the
RCMP or the Canadian forces; or by acting as an independent
contractor to the federal government. Therefore, dealing with
the double dipping question is more complicated than it appears
on the surface.
Some members opposite speak of the need for urgency to end
double dipping. There is somewhat of an urgency but not as
much as some members would like to think as of today.
Members will not quit tomorrow to get their pensions. Many of
them work hard and serve their constituents. They continue to do
so and will continue to do so.
There are some members opposite who do not feel the
urgency. One is already collecting a federal public service
pension and another is collecting a provincial pension as well as
their federal salaries. These members have said they earned
their pensions and will not give them up. Could not the Governor
General make the same argument?
One of the aims of this government since its election has been
the responsible reform of the MPs pension plan. I am sure that
hon. members opposite share with us the desire to see that the
job of pension reform is done well and not in a haphazard
manner. We will not cut the pension plan in order to appease
certain interest groups. We must be thorough and fair in what we
do.
The political representatives in this Chamber serve Canadians
well, as I said earlier, but there is a widespread perception that
politicians want to feather their nests. That view is wrong. Yet it
will remain as long as we fail to deal with the irritants such as
this double dipping.
Politics is a noble calling, referred to earlier by the member
opposite, and reflects members' wishes to serve the people of
Canada and give something of themselves to their communities.
(1650 )
I reject the claim that most politicians are in politics for the
money. No one comes to this place for the sake of money. It does
not pay. Many members of Parliament were doing better
financially in other careers before they entered politics. They
were making contributions to their pension plans and RRSPs
which reflected their financial positions.
We must ensure that entering Canadian politics is not a
financial drain and that no one is unduly penalized. This place
must be accessible to all, not only the rich. It must reflect all
aspects of Canadian society. The sacrifices are not only
monetary. All members can attest to the time away from their
families. One member opposite said: ``Of any criticism I ever
made of a politician I am now biting my tongue, having lived the
life for a year. It is quite demanding.''
Although the sacrifices are real they are not an excuse for
double dipping. The pension and the salary come from the same
taxpayer who has a single pocket. That is why I consider the
government's commitment to end double dipping as a very
positive signal to the country. It is a sign that this government is
listening to Canadians and acting on what it believes in. It gives
me hope that Canadian political life will gain in stature in the
eyes of the people.
Again, Mr. Speaker, it pleases me that this motion was put
forward today. I am pleased that the movers of this motion saw
the importance of the red book position, particularly the
statement on double dipping. I look forward to their support
when the government introduces legislation in the near future.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's speech raises the following
comment: What a pity the government did not do its homework
in this case and has no comprehensive proposal it can table on
this issue, because what we have here is a motion that is
unsatisfactory.
The Reform Party's motion has no really comprehensive
approach to the questions being asked by all voters. Earlier, the
hon. member said it contained a point similar to what was said in
the Liberals' red book. I think some modesty is in order. The
point was raised by all voters we met during the 1993 election
campaign. Everyone everywhere, in Quebec and the other
provinces, at all levels of society, was wondering how their
elected representatives had managed to get terms of
employment that were far better than those of most people in
this country.
The government, by the way, has yet to meet its commitment,
because it has not yet tabled legislation it promised to introduce.
And of course the Reform Party could be blamed for presenting
a motion that is so vague we cannot vote in favour of it, since we
really do not know how the alignment with private sector plans
would work.
It seems to me that in his speech, the hon. member talked a lot
about avoiding double dipping and also about reviewing the age
at which members would receive a pension and introducing a
minimum age, and I think we could agree on that. For instance,
during the election campaign, people said: Paul, you are 40
8140
years old, which means that when you are 46 or 47, you will get a
pension for life, and we pay for it. Nice work if you can get it!
Fortunately, I had the right answer, because I kept telling
them: No sir, I do not intend to sit for more than one term in the
Parliament of Canada, because I hope I will not have to come
back, once we have settled the constitutional issue. I must say I
found this answer very convenient.
In concluding, I would like to try to modulate the hon.
member's views, and I would ask him whether he does not think
it would be advisable for the government to table its bill in the
near future, because it has already finished its first year. People
who would like to get into politics during the next election, in
about three or four years, should have a good idea of what they
are getting into, and as well, it may be easier to deal with these
issues at the beginning of a government's term.
You have had time to consult the way you consult on all kinds
of things. We have probably had enough consultations. So, is the
government going to make a decision very shortly so that during
its first term, it will have responded to the wishes of all voters
who want to ensure that their members are well paid but not
excessively so? Their working conditions should make it
attractive for talented people to run for Parliament, but at the
same time, fairness should be a major consideration within the
Canadian system as a whole.
(1655)
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I would ask the member
for Trinity-Spadina for a short reply.
Mr. Ianno: Mr. Speaker, first it is our intention to introduce
what our commitment was in the red book, as we have done with
many of the commitments we have stated in the red book and
have fulfilled.
There is a slight concern now. That is we want Canadians to
get back to work. That is much more important than worrying in
three or four years time about who is thinking about running for
this Parliament. Our ultimate responsibility is to make sure that
Canadians participate in the economic viability of this nation.
Working with small businesses and many of the issues we are
dealing with to try to get the economy back in gear is very much
more important than this aspect the member addresses.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon.
member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake-Endangered
species.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak on the motion before
us. This is an important issue that, as has been pointed out, was
dealt with in the red book. This appears to be a controversial
issue. Much has been written in the papers and shown on
television. The issue raises a question: Are the current pension
provisions for members of Parliament appropriate?
The motion proposes to replace the existing pension plan with
a pension plan that reflects the commitments made in the red
book. It is an issue this government wants resolved. This
government plans to keep its promises. The Prime Minister has
given a clear indication that we will deal with this issue. The
details still have to be worked out.
Today I want to place the issue in context. One of the
measures by which we can judge whether the current provisions
are appropriate is to look at what other governments are doing
around the world. In its report on parliamentarians'
compensation, Sobeco, Ernst and Young compared our overall
compensation with that of parliamentarians in other countries.
These countries were Australia, the United Kingdom, Belgium,
Sweden, France and the United States.
As members recall, Sobeco based its studies on our
indemnities, allowances, services and benefits as well as those
of senators. The firm looked at compensation practices and
policies, trying to determine similarities and differences in
approach from other countries. Then it estimated the value of
total compensation for parliamentarians in each nation. While
the roles of parliamentarians differ somewhat in the various
countries studied, that does not take away from the validity of
the comparisons in the consulting study.
Looking first at total compensation the consultants included
base salary, the annual value of the pension plan and private
insurance. The results show that Canadian MPs rank in the
mid-range of the seven countries studied. The best paid by far
are American members who receive more than double what
Canadian, Australian and French parliamentarians get.
Australia, Canada and France are closely bunched together
and they are significantly ahead of the United Kingdom,
Belgium and Sweden. Taking sessional indemnity, our basic
salary, we are in much the same position internationally.
American legislators are way ahead of us. Their salaries are
estimated at over $169,000, while ours are $64,400. The
Australians and the French get slightly more and the rest lag a
bit behind.
In terms of pensions alone, we rank somewhat behind both
Belgium and Australia and ahead of the remaining countries
examined. The pension rules vary from country to country.
Parliamentarians are entitled to a pension as soon as they are
elected in Belgium, France and Britain, while they must serve at
least five years in the United States, six years in Canada and
Sweden and eight years in Australia. In other countries the
pensionable age ranges from a low of 12 years service in Sweden
and Australia.
8141
(1700 )
In Britain pensions can be paid to former MPs at 60 if their
age and years of service add up to at least 80. Some countries
provide reduced pensions to former members if they are retired
before the normal pensionable age. The amount of retirement
pension required for each year of service is lower than the
Canadian rate in Belgium, France, Britain and the United States.
It is higher or comparable in Australia and Sweden.
There is quite a wide range in contribution rates as well.
Members do not have to contribute at all in Sweden, while the
rates are 7.5 per cent of salary in Belgium, 11.5 per cent in
Australia, and 1.3 per cent in the United States.
It is difficult to compare group insurance plans in the various
countries because of the different social programs in place.
Group insurance is paid entirely by the government in all of the
countries studied except the United States where the members
pay about 50 per cent of their group insurance programs.
Australia and Belgium provide severance allowances to their
parliamentarians. In Belgium it is equal to about one month of
salary for each year of service and in Australia it ranges from
three months salary after one year of service to 26 months after
eight years of service.
It is interesting to look at the various allowances available to
parliamentarians in Canada and other countries. With expense
allowances there is a wide range of practices. France and
Belgium have non-taxable and non-accountable expense
allowances. In Australia and Sweden this allowance is taxable
but work related tax deductions are permitted.
As for travel expenses, Australia, Belgium and Sweden pay
for all work related travel by their legislators. In France only the
costs of travel between the constituency and Paris are paid.
Most countries have some sort of severance allowance and
resettlement provisions to help parliamentarians make the
transition to private life. Interestingly, the personal financial
situation faced by parliamentarians as they return to private life
in France and Sweden has an impact on amounts they are
entitled to receive.
From this overall comparison we are neither the best paid
parliamentarians at the international level nor the worst. While
our pensions may be better than those of parliamentarians in
some countries, they are not quite as good as they are in others.
In overall comparison we lag well behind our American cousins.
As I said earlier, the Prime Minister has made clear the
government's commitment to introduce legislation to change
the pension plan. Our party is committed to ending double
dipping. I applaud pension reform. I do think it is important for
everyone to realize that in terms of overall compensation,
Canadian members of Parliament are no better paid than
colleagues in most other major western countries and we lag
behind a number of countries.
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member just referred to the bill on the members' pension fund
and mentioned several countries, including the United States.
The question we must ask ourselves is this: Are the 205 new
members in this House, who have no vested rights in the old plan
for MPs, not showing good will by wanting to have a new
pension plan for members?
The Canadian government could show Canadians good will in
managing public funds by showing its good will, and this is an
excellent way to do it, by making us elected members do our fair
share by cutting some of our pensions, which are paid for from
taxpayers' money. Today the government tends to cut social
programs, which affects the most disadvantaged people.
I think that as parliamentarians, with the salary we are paid, of
course we work long hours and have many responsibilities, but
we are paid for the hours we put in and we must realize what it
involves when we decide to run for office.
(1705)
I think that when we talk about cutting the fat, the operations
of this House and its members, this is an excellent way to show
good will and show Canadians that we are ready to do our fair
share.
When comparing ourselves with the United States, we must
consider the ability to pay. Can the United States afford to pay
into a pension fund for their elected officials? With the debt we
have in Canada, which forces us to make cuts in all programs, it
would be rather outrageous if members' pensions were not
affected.
I want to ask the hon. member a question. Would he agree that
the government should show once and for all that it is ready to
make an effort by cutting the pensions of elected members or at
least eliminating double dipping? We have a 24-year-old
member. It would be a little ridiculous for him to have a pension
for life after six years, at age 30. Would you agree with me that
members' pensions should be cut to prove to Canadians that we
are ready to do our fair share as members of Parliament?
[English]
Mr. Bodnar: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the
question. It is difficult to disagree with a suggestion that there
have to be certain changes in the pension scheme. Obviously
that is what we proposed in the red book, one of them being the
elimination of double dipping.
Certainly another aspect that has to be looked at very
seriously is the age at which pensions do commence. With
pensions commencing as they do now, it is probably quite unfair.
The age should be raised. The question would be at what age
should a
8142
member obtain pension benefits and as well what benefits
should be attributed to that member at that age. It is difficult to
disagree with the comments made by the member.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to rise today to speak to this motion.
Before I begin to refer to the body of my text, I have to
comment on the waxing eloquence of my hon. colleagues from
the Liberal Party regarding the red book. I would very much like
to point out to my colleagues that on August 12, 1993 the Prime
Minister of today challenged Kim Campbell, then Prime
Minister, about pension reform.
On August 11 he challenged Kim Campbell to recall
Parliament and said: ``We would pass it in one day'', meaning
pension reform. He was feisty in his request because he added
that his party had been proposing these reforms for months:
``It is 1984 all over again'', Chrétien charged. ``They said `here is a fresh face'.
They promised a new dimension of objectivity and representation. Now it is the
same speech, the same lies and the same promises''.
So much for the red book.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I am trying to
grasp the context of some of the remarks of the hon. member. In
referring to lies, I would hope that we are not in any way
insinuating that any one member in this Chamber from any one
party would be lying in any way, shape or form. I ask members to
keep that in mind.
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I was
quoting from an article by William Walker of the Toronto Star.
Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I too am
trying to reconstruct the words of the member opposite who
quite closely linked the word lies with the name of the Prime
Minister. I would ask that you as Speaker review the blues and if
you find cause, come back to this House and ask the member to
please withdraw.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I accept the intervention
of the government deputy whip and I do take the undertaking to
the House that I will review the blues. If necessary I will come
back to the House.
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I am going
to clarify this right now. This is a quote from an article by
William Walker and those are the very words that are printed
here that are attributed to the then Liberal candidate, Mr. Jean
Chrétien. It is in this article from the Toronto Star.
I certainly would never presume to have associated that term
with our Prime Minister today. I strenuously object to any
suggestion that I would do so.
Mr. Bodnar: You never said it was an article before.
Miss Grey: She sure did.
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I shall
continue.
(1710 )
Because the issue of MP pensions enrages more Canadians
than any other issue in contemporary politics today, and we can
certainly see the sensitivity of my Liberal colleagues in the
House today, today's motion goes to the heart of what matters in
Canada. Believe me, voters will be looking on this day's debate
in three and a half years time and they will be looking at what
was said and who said it.
This goes to the core of leadership in government. It
demonstrates to Canadians that before the politicians ask them
to make any more financial sacrifices we will lead by example.
This motion demonstrates our sincerity on this side of the House
to lead by example, to cut government spending and to inject
new levels of integrity into this House. We do this by securing
reform of the MP pension plan.
It is ironic to suggest that reforming the MP pension plan is a
sacrifice for members of Parliament. All we are doing is taking
our existing, outdated, lavish, unfair and expensive pension plan
and correlating it with the private sector provisions for
employees. This is no sacrifice.
It is an expectation from our electorate that we reform this
outrageous pension plan. More than anything else Canadians
resent that they are asked over and over again to tighten their
belts, that they must pay higher taxes, that their hard earned pay
cheques are taxed back to the government. Let us not forget
about the eight million Canadians who have no pensions at all.
Canadians are at a point where they no longer believe their
politicians are worthy of their support. I know I can speak to the
constituents of my riding of Calgary Southeast. In town hall
after town hall on the issues of the day that come up number one
is MP pensions: ``When are you going to get rid of that terrible
plan?''
The motion today which states that the House replace the
current members of Parliament retirement allowance plan with a
pension plan that reflects the current norms for private sector
pensions with a maximum contribution in accordance with the
Income Tax Act should be supported by all members of the
House.
I urge members to put their self-interest behind them and to
recognize this proposal is a sound one. Two legislatures have
already made cuts to their MLA pension plans. Alberta and
Prince Edward Island have made those cuts. These provinces
have taken the lead on this issue and it is time that federal
politicians followed suit.
8143
Let me share with the House what is happening in my home
province of Alberta regarding pension reform. In the spring of
1993 Premier Klein announced that there would be no pension
plan for members of the legislative assembly after the next
election.
In May 1993 a bill was passed in the legislature to amend
Alberta MLA pensions. The members' pension was to be
scrapped after the next provincial election. For MLAs who were
retiring before the next election their benefits were reduced
from 4 per cent to 3 per cent. Members of the legislative
assembly's pensions would be suspended if they worked more
than a limited period of time for any employer covered by the
public service management pension plan, thus eliminating
double dipping.
This is a concrete example for change and of a promise that
was kept. It is also an example of a decision taken by a
government listening to what Canadians are saying.
Let me quote from a letter about pension reform. It was
written by a constituent of mine and it is addressed to the Prime
Minister and the finance minister:
Dear Gentlemen,
You gentlemen have suggested Canadians must decide on (1) reduced
spending or (2) increased taxes.
Well, this redneck from Alberta gives a resounding voice for reduced
spending-reduced spending and no for tax increases in any form.
A good place to start is by example and reduce those obscene pensions
enjoyed by MPs (including former MPs as well) to that which is normal for
Canadians in the private sector. This would be real leadership. You will find that
such action will be received as a demonstration of responsible stewardship and
will motivate an atmosphere to undertake a similar we mean business review of
all government expenditures by our peers and the senior civil servants for the
same purpose.
You will also find that such action and extension thereof will be required to
earn the respect of Canadians. It is time for action, not more talk.
The Trudeau regime was undoubtedly the originator of spend beyond your
means philosophy. Since then there has been little comfort whether it be Liberal
or Conservative governments.
Let us get with it and turn this country around. We just cannot afford
non-productive overspending. Think of how proud you would be if you were a
real winner.
Yours truly, Ed Ringrose from Calgary Southeast.
(1715 )
Yesterday was trough day. Fifty-two more members of
Parliament qualified for gold-plated pensions worth $53
million. We call these gold-plated because they give unlimited
protection against inflation. They are payable after only six
years in office. We have heard this over and over again and it is
fair evidence that this needs to be changed. They are payable
immediately after retirement regardless of age. One of my hon.
colleagues just mentioned someone who was 24 years old and
who perhaps in six years would be eligible for one of these
gold-plated pensions.
They accumulate one and a half times faster than the legal
maximum in the private sector and are funded about 85 per cent
by taxpayer contributions.
I have done my part to reform our pensions. I stated during the
election campaign that I would reject outright any MP pension
and I have done that. I take far greater comfort in taking care of
my own retirement, thank you very much, than a pension plan.
Many of my colleagues have done the same.
I urge the House to realize that we need to reform the pension
plan. In particular, I challenge the 52 MPs who just became
eligible yesterday for a pension to take out of the program only
what they put in plus a reasonable interest that they would have
received had they invested it for themselves. I challenge them to
show leadership by rejecting these gold-plated pensions.
My message today has been straightforward and it reflects the
expectations and the emotions of Canadians everywhere. I have
spoken often about integrity in government. Canadians have lost
faith in their politicians. The last 25 years of profligate spending
is clear evidence of the need for reform and leadership in
government. We all need to demonstrate a willingness to
change.
Canadians want politicians to keep their word, who will bring
integrity back to government and who will do everything to give
government back to them.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member spoke eloquently about the need for
pension reform. It is nice to hear that Reform is on side with us,
that it is in favour of reforming pensions. It is a question of what
to do.
Quite often people who most often ask for pension reform in a
certain manner and ask for certain changes to be made are, as
this member very eloquently said that she would not care for a
pension from the government, are quite often independently
well to do, have other sources of income, or otherwise.
My question is whether this member could tell us how many
Reform MPs do not have another business such as farming,
ranching, et cetera, or an income from another source or an
income from another pension. How many do not have such a
source of income?
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I am not
aware of the exact number but as far as I know most do not.
I am going to take the next few minutes to make a further
response to the hon. member's intervention because I do have
something I would like to share with him and with others in this
House.
I was reading in the Globe and Mail yesterday a small article
called ``Nuspeak'' from The Economist. It was a series of
definitions that have come forward in the last several years. One
word I had never heard before was disentitlementarianism
which is a belief that entitlement programs should be dis-
8144
mantled. I look on this gold-plated MP pension plan as one of
those entitlement provisions that over time the House of
Commons has given to their members.
I guess I would have to call myself a disentitlementarian
because I will continue in this regard as far as a pension is
concerned.
The constituents in my riding are furious. They continue to be
furious about MP pension plans. In the townhall meeting I had
last week it did not matter what the topic, it always came back to
MP pensions. You could see the red start to rise above their
collars. As I said before, voters, the electorate, will remember
what has been said today. We have to address that and ignore
their concerns at our peril.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I recognize that I do not have a lot of time to speak
on this issue but there are a couple of things I would like to
respond to that were brought forward, particularly by members
on the other side.
Several times I heard speakers say that MPs have to be
properly remunerated if we are going to get quality in this place.
I remind the hon. members that we have a best selling book out
right now called On the Take written by Stevie Cameron. It
speaks about MPs who are paid very well and who are
subscribing to this gold-plated pension plan. The book outlines
scandal after scandal of abuse of privileges that are available in
this House. Yet this situation is not of concern to the members on
the other side because they do not seem to think that the
remuneration and the gold-plated pension plan will have an
impact.
I suggest that if we can attract people to this place who do not
want to be on the take and who are not looking at the pension
plan we will probably get better quality. It is those people who
are looking for a fleece-lined retirement, looking for that
paradise that comes with parliamentary service, that we want to
exclude from this place.
I am concerned about these multimillion dollar pensions that,
for instance, the member for Sherbrooke will be receiving
should his party be decimated and the final two members moved
into extinction.
The other concern that I have is that if we do not deal with
some of the perks and particularly the pension, Stevie Cameron
will write another book and that book will be called ``On the
Take No. 2''. It will refer to the current Liberal government and
those members who put their own best interests ahead of the
interests of Canadian taxpayers, those members who looked for
every possible excuse and made flowery speeches about how
deserving they were of all these dollars the taxpayers worked so
hard for, to which they are entitled after six short years of
service. It is unconscionable.
I urge the other members, in the few remaining minutes and
seconds we have, to consider the situation, to support the
Reform motion today and to commit to reforming the MPs'
pension plan to please Canadians and to restore respect to this
place, which is what Canadians are crying for.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 5.22 p.m., it is my
duty, pursuant to Standing Order 81, to interrupt the proceedings
and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the
business of supply.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The vote is on the motion
standing in the name of Miss Grey (Beaver River).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 109)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Benoit
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Chatters
Cummins
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Kerpan
Manning
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West)-42
8145
NAYS
Members
Adams
Allmand
Althouse
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Asselin
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bachand
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Bellehumeur
Berger
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bethel
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélisle
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Canuel
Caron
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Jong
de Savoye
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Fillion
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lastewka
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paré
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Rock
Rompkey
Sauvageau
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Young
Zed-190
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Members
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Dingwall
Dubé
Dumas
Goodale
Gray (Windsor West)
Lincoln
Mercier
Parrish
Plamondon
Pomerleau
St-Laurent
Whelan
(1750)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion lost.
* * *
The House resumed from November 17 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-58, an act to amend the Public Service Staff
Relations Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, be
read the second time and referred to committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to the order of
Tuesday, November 17, 1994, the House will now proceed to the
taking of the deferred division on the motion for second reading
of Bill C-58.
(1755)
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, as the Chair and all members of
this House are aware, we have a long list of votes this evening.
To speed up the process, I think you will find there is unanimous
consent to do the following.
I think you will find unanimous consent to apply the vote just
completed to Bill C-58 which is before us now, as follows:
Liberals, in favour; the Bloc Quebecois, opposed; the Reform
Party, in favour; the New Democratic Party, opposed; and the
hon. member for Beauce wishes to be recorded as having voted
in favour of this motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion which was agreed to on the
following division:)
8146
(Division No. 110)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Adams
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Benoit
Berger
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chatters
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cummins
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Karygiannis
Kerpan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Rompkey
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Solberg
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
White (Fraser Valley West)
Young
Zed-181
NAYS
Members
Althouse
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Bouchard
Brien
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Jong
de Savoye
Deshaies
Duceppe
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Solomon
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-51
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Members
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Dingwall
Dubé
Dumas
Goodale
Gray (Windsor West)
Lincoln
Mercier
Parrish
Plamondon
Pomerleau
St-Laurent
Whelan
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion
carried.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)
* * *
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-48, an act to
establish the Department of Natural Resources and to amend
related acts, as reported (with amendments) from a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45, the House will now proceed to the taking of the
deferred division at the report stage of Bill C-48, an act to
8147
establish the Department of Natural Resources and to amend
related Acts.
The first question will be on Motion No. 3, standing in the
name of the hon. member for Matapédia-Matane.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find there is
unanimous consent to apply the vote just completed on the
previous motion as follows: Liberals, opposed; Bloc Quebecois,
in favour; Reform Party, in favour; New Democratic Party, in
favour. I may add that the hon. member for Beauce has indicated
that he wants his vote to be recorded as nay.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 111)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Althouse
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Bouchard
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chatters
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Jong
de Savoye
Deshaies
Duceppe
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West)-92
NAYS
Members
Adams
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Berger
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Rompkey
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Young
Zed-140
8148
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Members
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Dingwall
Dubé
Dumas
Goodale
Gray (Windsor West)
Lincoln
Mercier
Parrish
Plamondon
Pomerleau
St-Laurent
Whelan
(1800)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion lost.
The next division will be on Motion No. 4, standing in the
name of the hon. member for Abitibi. The result will also be
applied to Motion No. 6.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is unanimous
consent to apply the vote just completed to the motion before the
House, as follows: Liberals, nay; Bloc Quebecois, yea; Reform
Party, yea; New Democratic Party, nay; and the hon. member for
Beauce wishes his vote to be recorded as nay.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 112)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chatters
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Deshaies
Duceppe
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Solberg
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West)-87
NAYS
Members
Adams
Allmand
Althouse
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Berger
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
de Jong
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Rompkey
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Solomon
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Young
Zed-145
8149
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Members
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Dingwall
Dubé
Dumas
Goodale
Gray (Windsor West)
Lincoln
Mercier
Parrish
Plamondon
Pomerleau
St-Laurent
Whelan
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 4
lost, and consequently, I also declare Motion No. 6 lost.
The next division will be on Motion No. 5.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find there is
unanimous consent to apply the vote on the previous motion to
the motion before us, as follows: Liberals, nay; Bloc Quebecois,
yea; Reform Party, nay; New Democratic Party, nay; and the
hon. member for Beauce wishes his vote to be recorded as nay.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 113)
YEAS
Members
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Brien
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Deshaies
Duceppe
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-46
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Adams
Allmand
Althouse
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Benoit
Berger
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chatters
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cummins
de Jong
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Karygiannis
Kerpan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Rompkey
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
White (Fraser Valley West)
Young
Zed-186
8150
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Members
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Dingwall
Dubé
Dumas
Goodale
Gray (Windsor West)
Lincoln
Mercier
Parrish
Plamondon
Pomerleau
St-Laurent
Whelan
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare Motion No. 5
lost.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.)
moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find there is
unanimous consent to apply the vote just completed on the
previous motion to the motion before us, as follows: Liberals,
yea; Bloc Quebecois, nay; Reform Party, yea; New Democratic
Party, yea; and the hon. member for Beauce wishes his vote to be
recorded as yea.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 114)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Adams
Allmand
Althouse
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Benoit
Berger
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Blaikie
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Chatters
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cummins
de Jong
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Grubel
Guarnieri
Hanger
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Karygiannis
Kerpan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McWhinney
Meredith
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mills (Red Deer)
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Rompkey
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Stinson
Strahl
Szabo
Taylor
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
White (Fraser Valley West)
Young
Zed-186
NAYS
Members
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Brien
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Savoye
Deshaies
Duceppe
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-46
8151
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Members
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Dingwall
Dubé
Dumas
Goodale
Gray (Windsor West)
Lincoln
Mercier
Parrish
Plamondon
Pomerleau
St-Laurent
Whelan
(1805)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion
carried.
* * *
The House resumed from November 21, 1994, consideration
of the motion that Bill C-53, an act to establish the Department
of Canadian Heritage and to amend and repeal certain other acts,
be read a second time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45, the House will now proceed to the taking of the
deferred division on the motion for second reading of Bill C-53.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find there is
unanimous consent to apply the vote just completed on the
previous motion to the motion now before the House, as follows:
Liberals, yea; Bloc Quebecois, nay; Reform Party, nay; New
Democratic Party, nay; the hon. member for Beauce, yea.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 115)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assadourian
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Berger
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chan
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Karygiannis
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lee
Loney
MacAulay
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McWhinney
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rock
Rompkey
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Young
Zed-140
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Althouse
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Bouchard
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chatters
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
Debien
de Jong
de Savoye
Deshaies
Duceppe
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Grubel
Guay
Guimond
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Kerpan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Manning
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
8152
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Penson
Picard (Drummond)
Ramsay
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Stinson
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West)-92
PAIRED-MEMBERS
Members
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Dingwall
Dubé
Dumas
Goodale
Gray (Windsor West)
Lincoln
Mercier
Parrish
Plamondon
Pomerleau
St-Laurent
Whelan
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I declare the motion
carried.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)
_____________________________________________
8152
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should, in anticipation of
global climate change, consider the advisability of promoting energy
conservation and efficiency, as well as placing greater reliance on renewable
sources of energy so as to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and nuclear power.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in essence this motion is about climate
change. It is an issue for the 21st century which has to be tackled
in this decade. It is an issue that has serious economic and
environmental consequences.
Climate change as predicted by meteorologists and scientists
all over the world would have serious consequences on forestry,
on agriculture, on fisheries, on biodiversities. Most important
from a human perspective are the consequences on sea levels
and what that might do to populations around the Pacific whose
existence would be threatened by rising sea levels as predicted
by some.
(1810 )
Leading scientists and technical experts are telling
governments all over the world that greenhouse gas emissions
resulting from human activities are increasing substantially. For
instance, according to Environment Canada statistics the
emissions of carbon dioxide, which I will refer to as CO2, in
Canada alone are on a constant increase and represent by
comparison to other nations 2 per cent of all emissions produced
in the world. That is second only to the United States.
If we look at the statistics on a per capita basis then we as a
nation are at the top of the list when it comes to carbon dioxide
emissions. This is due to a number of understandable reasons. It
has to do with our climate. It has to do with the great distances
and size of our country. It has also to do with lifestyle.
However, the result of these emissions is to be found in an
increase in average temperatures in the earth's surface. It is
interesting to note there is clear evidence that the average
surface temperature of the earth has gone up by half a degree
Celsius over the past century. In the case of Canada alone it has
been measured as having gone up by 1.1 degree Celsius. The 10
warmest years of the last 100 years have occurred and have been
measured since 1980.
Consequently climate change was discussed at length and was
almost central in the debates at the 1992 United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio. On
that occasion Canada ratified with many other nations a
convention which calls for governments to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions to at least 1990 levels by the year 2000. We are
very close to that date.
Recognizing the urgency of this issue and recognizing our
international responsibilities, the government has actually made
a further commitment. It is contained in the 1993 election
campaign red book. This commitment is to cut by 20 per cent the
carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2005.
As a result of that commitment, federal-provincial
negotiations have taken place at an intense pace over the past 10
months culminating with the meeting in Bathurst, New
Brunswick a couple of weeks ago. On that occasion environment
and energy ministers of the federal, provincial and territorial
governments of Canada discussed this matter at length.
We learned on that occasion from newspaper clippings that
the representatives of the Alberta government were opposed to
any regulations aimed at lowering carbon dioxide emissions in
Canada. From the clippings we learned that Alberta wants a
voluntary approach only and that this position is also favoured
by certain industries. I quote from the Gazette of November 8
where we learned the following:
Alberta won't go along with a plan by Ottawa and other provinces for
mandatory regulations to reduce carbon pollution and clean up the air. ``We're
not participating,'' Alberta's Ty Lund said yesterday as he emerged from a day
of talks among Canada's environment ministers.
(1815)
Mr. Lund, who is the environment minister for Alberta,
scoffed at Ontario minister Bud Wildman's comment that some
mandatory requirements would have to be put into place to cut
8153
the amount of pollution from smoke stacks and car exhaust
pipes.
The question is why is the Government of Alberta opposed to
such regulations? Why does it support regulations in other
sectors? It accepts regulations and support regulations in
aviation, agriculture, health and hygiene, you name it, but it
does not want regulations with respect to climate change. Why
does the Alberta government not want to help in meeting an
obligation to the world community and reduce greenhouse
gases, particularly carbon dioxide which is the most prevalent of
all the greenhouse gases as we all know?
On the other hand, people in Alberta support the environment
and we know that. People in Alberta understand the
international obligation that we have. It seems to me that
Alberta members of Parliament and senators have a role to play
here in convincing the provincial government to co-operate.
In support of what I just said I will quote from the Globe and
Mail of November 8. According to a poll taken by the Environics
Research Group Ltd., the paper stated:
The public apparently supports change, too. The results of a poll of 1,500
adults taken in August and September showed strong support for strong
measures, including majority approval of a 10 per cent increase in energy prices,
if the money was used to cut pollution-
That is quite an interesting expression of public opinion. In
the
Gazette of the same day the same point is being made. It
states:
Apparently, so does the Canadian public. Most people interviewed in a new
poll said they would be willing to pay 10 per cent more for their energy if the
money were redirected to reduce pollution.
Today and for the next three months leading into February the
federal Minister of Natural Resources has a very difficult task of
seeking the co-operation of provincial and territorial
governments so that a national plan can be forged to reduce this
type of dangerous emission.
The question is, does Alberta want to isolate itself from this
effort? What good would it serve to be alone, saying no to an
effort that will attempt to reach the desired goal of reducing
carbon dioxide emissions and which cannot be left to the
voluntary sector alone?
The question also arises here, to have a complete picture, is
what needs to be done? Today's energy policies need to be
looked at thoroughly and they need to undergo a profound
change at the federal level of government as well as the
provincial and municipal.
(1820 )
Let us take, for example, the federal level and in particular the
federal Department of Natural Resources, formerly known as
energy, mines and resources.
Here we find year after year in the budgets of that department,
and particularly in the last 10 years, generous subsidies to the
fossil fuel industry. Alone in 1994 and 1995 natural resources,
Canada's energy division, just one division within that
department, expects to spend a total of $383 million.
Would you believe it, Mr. Speaker, that 87 per cent of this
amount will be spent as grants and contributions with most of
these funds going to fossil fuel projects? Only a very small
portion goes to energy efficiency, energy conservation, and
research into alternative sources of energy. In this day and age
against the background of the climate change issue, this does not
make sense any longer.
Look at the Department of Finance. Here we find generous tax
rebates and tax expenditures all favouring the Canadian fossil
fuel industry. Actually, if one looks over a period of time, for
years the fossil fuel industry sector has enjoyed extremely
generous subsidies in the form of outright grants, tax
deferments, write-offs, loans, loan guarantees, and exploration
subsidies. You name it, Mr. Speaker.
Every year, according to the calculations we have conducted,
the federal government gives over $5 billion in the form of tax
concessions to the fossil fuel sector. Over $5 billion in tax
concessions. If you apply to this amount a tax rate of 20 per cent,
this kind of assistance or hand-out, depending on how you want
to call it, results in over $1 billion in lost revenue.
As recently as October 1993 during the last campaign, some
$85 million was given to the Lloydminster heavy oil upgrader
which finally had to be cancelled some six weeks ago. I
congratulate the Minister of Finance for that decision. It had to
be cancelled after a loss incurred on the part of the taxpayers of
Canada of some $945 million.
The amount of $85 million that was made available in October
1993 exceeds by some $20 million the entire 1994 budget for the
efficiency and alternate energy program. I repeat, the amount
that was given to the Lloydminster project, on its deathbed if
you like, exceeded by $20 million the entire 1994 budget for the
efficiency and alternate energy program.
This does make sense. There is no coherence in these kinds of
financial decisions and budgetary decisions.
To make things worse, the 1994-95 funding for approved
efficiency and renewable energy projects was cut back because
of budget constraints. In addition, the government in Ottawa
currently has a large sum invested in fossil fuel megaprojects,
notably Hibernia, which represents a commitment of some $3
billion.
(1825 )
If you put this picture against the background of Canada's
commitment to stabilize and then reduce carbon dioxide
emissions by 20 per cent, these subsidies clearly must be
examined
8154
and must be reapplied and invested in new directions, first for
the purpose of increasing energy efficiency and, second, in
reducing over the long term our dependence on fossil fuels.
On energy efficiency we find that Canada's global
competitors, including Japan, Germany, you name it, have
enjoyed strong economic growth because many years ago they
understood that energy efficiency means a measure that brings
about economic advantages at the same time.
They adopted strong energy efficiency measures. We by
comparison must admit that we still have a long way to go.
Studies conducted in the United States, New Brunswick,
Quebec, and British Columbia all confirm that investments in
energy efficiency consistently create more jobs than
investments in conventional energy supply projects.
A 1987 study by the Department of Energy, Mines and
Resources, which is back quite a while, concluded that
investments in efficiency create an average of 19 direct and
indirect jobs per every $1 million invested compared to an
average of seven jobs per $1 million invested in oil and gas
extraction. This is quite a stunning comparison for which we are
indebted to the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources
which, however, does not seem to be capable of putting its own
findings into practice.
Clearly, money saved by industrial, commercial and
residential investors in energy efficiency would be freed up and
could be respent in other areas of the economy. According to a
report for the British Columbia Energy Council by Marbek
Resource Consultants and G.E. Bridges and Associates, this
respending accounts for more than 50 per cent of all new jobs
created and 90 per cent of the net jobs created over equal
investments in conventional energy supply projects.
To conclude, if we are to act in our own self-interests for the
long term and if we are to meet our obligations internationally
because we want to behave as good members of the family of
nations where the recognition has been made that there is a
serious problem that must be dealt with, Canada needs a national
plan on carbon dioxide as other nations already have. Those who
do not have it are working at it quite laboriously.
This kind of national plan would set out for each province
what each economic sector is to do and what each level of
government can do through various means, through budgets,
taxation measures, and regulations. All this would be done in
order to achieve greater energy efficiency which is an economic
plus to achieve reductions in carbon dioxide emissions and
therefore slow down the trend in climate change. Finally, it
would be to achieve for generations to come this very difficult
but necessary, gradual shift in our dependence on fossil fuels to
a dependence on renewable sources of energy.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
motion M-168 put forth by the hon. member for Davenport in
this House today really caught my interest.
I have had the opportunity to work on regular basis with the
hon. member on the Standing Committee on Environment and
Sustainable Development, of which he is the chairman.
(1830)
It is an honour for me to become the vice-chair of this
committee. When you look at the background of the hon.
member for Davenport and see what kind of work he does on the
committee, his care and concern for the important issue of the
environment really becomes apparent. He is, of course, a great
conservationist, but he is also a great advocate of federalism.
We need not look any further to understand why the people
opposite, the Minister of the Environment in particular, have no
qualms interfering with the provinces' jurisdiction in that
respect. The Liberals wrongly associate the federalist cause
with that of the environment. In their view, provinces are small
and incompetent entities which are incapable of looking after
such a great cause as the environment all on their own, as an
exclusive area of responsibility.
They tell us that air and water know no boundaries-what a
revelation!-and that this is why the federal government has the
duty to control, protect and preserve the environment. They
justify encroaching upon a provincial jurisdiction by claiming
to be in a better position than the provinces to do so and, of
course, by arguing that Canada is a big country, so big in fact
that all activities have to be centralized in Ottawa in order for
the environment to be protected.
Yet, it is common knowledge that the centralized
administration of this huge country does not necessarily have a
positive impact in the field. On the contrary, centralizing to
excess generally puts increased distance between what is going
on in the field and the decision-makers. It is a phenomenon
known as ivory tower phenomenon.
But the environment is about what happens in the field. So,
serious thought must be given to the implications of increased
centralization in that regard.
The hon. members opposite also rely heavily on the global
approach argument to justify increasing federal interference
with provincial jurisdictions. Their redundant message to the
effect that pollution know no boundaries has become their creed
and their justification for set themselves up as great national
conservationists.
8155
Basically, the government is creating new structures,
unscrupulously, without paying any attention to duplication, to
what the provinces are already doing. Worse, it takes advantage
of grey areas and non-established areas to impose itself upon
them. Some have gone along with this federal tactic. It is their
choice. Others, on the other hand, see things differently and feel
threatened and bullied by the federal government. But
regardless of the fears expressed by certain provinces, the
federal government, in the name of federalism and a
comprehensive approach, pushes ahead and imposes its way of
doing things, its standards and its administrative structures.
If this twisted line of reasoning were taken to its logical
conclusion, Canada itself would be subordinated to a broader,
North American, maybe even planetary, organization with
overall responsibility for the environment.
We do not think that this is the best way to preserve and
protect our natural environment. We are, of course, in favour of
harmonizing standards and requirements, and we certainly
support agreements for specific sectors. But we firmly maintain
that these standards, requirements and agreements must be
implemented on a smaller scale if we are to attain environmental
objectives quickly and effectively. The federal government
should therefore limit its role, and leave the implementation and
administration of environmental matters to the provinces.
The motion by the member for Davenport mirrors only too
well his government's desire to centralize and dominate. He
would like the federal government to step onto an already very
crowded playing field. When he speaks to us about energy
conservation and efficiency, the member for Davenport is light
years behind Quebec and other provinces who have already
taken action in this area.
For several years now, Hydro-Québec, which reports to the
government of Quebec, has been offering its consumers
programs promoting energy conservation and efficiency. Again
yesterday evening, I saw a Hydro-Québec television
commercial offering information and a brochure on a new
energy conservation program.
(1835)
I wish to remind the hon. member who tabled this motion that
all provinces also operate such programs through their
power-producing corporations. The Power Smart Program,
among others, has been around for a few years. The hon.
member should also know that the federal Department of
Natural Resources runs several programs resulting from the
Green Plan. There is even an Efficiency and Alternative Energy
Branch within this department.
Is the hon. member telling us through his motion that the
federal government's own actions are inefficient? That would
confirm what we have known and noted for a very long time.
The hon. member's motion shows very clearly once again the
federal government's lack of recognition for provincial
initiatives and desire to meddle in areas of provincial
jurisdiction. I ask the hon. member for Davenport: Why should
the federal government promote energy efficiency in Quebec
and in the other provinces, when it is already being done, Mr.
Speaker?
Would implementing such a motion not lead again to useless,
inefficient and costly overlap and duplication, to a waste of
public funds which would not achieve anything, except for
spreading federal government propaganda?
I am asking myself serious questions regarding the hon.
member for Davenport's intentions in putting forward this
motion. Even his wishful thinking lacks vigour. The wording of
the motion itself is very timid. It says: ``That the government
should-consider the advisability of promoting-''. Let us say
simply that one could not go very far with such words. The hon.
member for Davenport is usually more specific and vigorous in
his proposals.
I want to look at another part of the hon. member for
Davenport's timid motion, and I quote: ``-in anticipation of
global climate change-''. The hon. member talks about climate
change; he is no doubt referring to global warning mostly caused
by greenhouse gases.
I find it a little funny that the hon. member is telling us this
when the Minister of the Environment recently admitted that she
was not sure she would be able to honour an ambitious promise
in the famous red book. This promise in the Liberals' bible said:
``Our immediate priority will be to work with all major
stakeholders to design a plan to cut carbon dioxide emissions by
20 per cent from 1988 levels by the year 2005''. Asked whether
she was convinced that this objective could be attained, the
minister replied: ``Oh, my God! Am I convinced? No. I am not
convinced''.
She thus admitted her political inability due to the lack of
support and backing in Cabinet. Nevertheless, this promise is a
key plank in the Liberals' environmental platform. So what is
the motion from the member for Davenport worth when an
important promise of his party is so easily flouted by Liberal
ministers?
Another disturbing point about this promise is the idea now
being considered of passing our responsibilities off onto
developing countries. Indeed, Canada is showing some
openness to the idea of taking credit on its own account for
reducing greenhouse gases when it supports or takes such action
abroad. If that were so, it would be a blatant admission of failure
and proof of the Liberal government's weakness.
The motion of the member for Davenport seems somewhat
futile to me. First, it asks the government to duplicate what is
already being done in the provinces and in the federal govern-
8156
ment itself; second, it highlights a red book promise that will not
be kept, concerning the reduction of greenhouse gases.
The member's motion is not very solid. It shows an obvious
lack of front-line information. I am sure that the member can
present us with much more substantial motions.
I conclude on an energy-saving note by telling you that on
December 8, 120,000 Christmas lights will be lit on and around
Parliament Hill-I repeat, 120,000 lights.
(1840)
Also, I invite you to count how many government vehicles are
left idling on the Hill, with their engines running, all day long. A
good contribution to saving and the greenhouse effect! I believe
that the federal government should do its own homework before
imposing on others.
[English]
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
one of the main justifications for the use of renewable over
non-renewable sources of energy is the greenhouse effect. I
believe this is the rationale for this motion from the member for
Davenport.
The greenhouse effect is the concept that increased emissions
of greenhouse gases caused by human activity such as the
burning of fossil fuels will lead to increased temperatures in the
global climate, hence the move toward renewable sources of
energy as opposed to the burning of fossil fuels.
It is a fact that the earth's surface temperature and human
emissions of greenhouse gases have both increased over past
decades. However, to suggest that we must abandon traditional
sources would be unwise to say the least.
It is important that any shift from non-renewable to
renewable resources be based on the merits of that resource, not
simply on an anticipation of what may or may not happen.
Energy policies must be based on economic, environmental and
industrial concerns. I agree that Canadians need to actively
participate in energy conservation and efficiency. This does not
mean the government should be issued a blank cheque to
promote this concept.
The member for Davenport suggests that we should place
greater reliance on renewable sources of energy over
non-renewable resources. Many renewable energy technologies
are available. They are already in use around the globe and can
provide different alternatives.
There are several sources including solar power, wind, wave,
tidal, and hydro or water power. I would like to go into this a bit
to show there is really no easy fix in this huge equation.
Other less known sources include biomass, which is the
conversion of plant and animal matter into energy, and
geothermal energy which is from within the earth and is very
popular in New Zealand.
Converting to renewable sources of energy is not an easy
procedure. We need to look at the whole picture when we talk
about non-renewable and renewable forms of energy because it
is not as simplistic as it may appear at first glance. Renewable
energy is not without its own problems. There are economic,
environmental and practical considerations that must be taken
into account.
California uses several forms of solar energy. There are huge
energy collectors which provide electricity for hundreds of
thousands of homes at competitive rates. Solar energy is also
used for hot water heating in buildings and current solar energy
research is looking into the concept of converting direct sunlight
into electricity.
Although solar energy appears to be a sound environmental
choice there are still considerations. The manufacture,
installation and disposal of solar power systems involves
environmental health and safety considerations. We need to
question how much fossil fuel energy input is required for solar
systems compared to fossil energy consumed by comparable
conventional energy systems.
The manufacture of solar cells also uses hazardous material
such as arsenic and cadmium. Some of these materials can be
quite hazardous to the people who use them. What I am simply
pointing out is that every area has its problems.
Another concern with solar power is the large amount of land
required for the plants. Approximately one square kilometre is
required for every 20 to 60 megawatts generated and this causes
a problem.
Wind energy is another source of renewable energy.
Windmills have been around for centuries and are still
functioning in many areas such as California and Denmark.
Presently wind turbines produce 1 per cent of the electricity for
California and Hawaii and many nations are currently looking
into this resource as a positive alternative.
What needs to be noted when we examine these various
sources of energy is that almost every energy source has some
kind of negative environmental impact. Renewable sources of
energy are not without their problems and considerations.
For example, although wind power produces no air or water
pollution and does not involve toxic or hazardous substances, it
faces public opposition because of its visibility and the noise of
the turbines.
(1845 )
Our traditional form of renewable energy is hydro power.
Dams generate the electricity through the weight of water going
8157
through the turbines. In Canada hydro electric power produces
nearly two-thirds of all of our energy consumed.
Though hydro power is the main form of renewable energy,
there are many problems or potential problems connected with
it. For example, most of us are aware of the Kemano project in
British Columbia. Because this project was exempted from a
full environmental assessment by the previous government,
resource and community concerns remain in debate with hostile
stakeholders in many areas.
The Great Whale project near James Bay also illustrates the
continuing environmental concerns of many of these energy
megaprojects. As such, British Columbia has gone away from
many of the larger projects into much smaller even to the point
of small streams and rivers generating small areas that are more
environmentally friendly than a huge megaproject.
The seas can also be utilized to create wave and tidal power.
Temperature differences between deep cold water and warm
surface waters are utilized as a power source called ocean
thermal energy conversion.
By and large it is going to be in the end market forces and
public demand that will direct the energy market whether it be in
favour of renewable or non-renewable sources of energy.
To conclude, these are just some of the issues surrounding the
use of renewable sources of energy which need to be considered
when we consider whether we should be promoting this form of
energy. I am mentioning these because it is easy to look at only
one side of the issue without considering some of the associated
concerns.
When we talk about shifting from one form of energy to
another it is important that the contribution of energy
development to the material welfare of Canadians be balanced
against environmental sustainability.
In 1992 the production of energy supplies was valued at over
$35 billion or 7 per cent of our gross domestic product. It
employed over 300,000 people. Energy accounts for 11 per cent
of total exports, 17 per cent of all investments and is responsible
for an annual trade surplus of over $10 billion. It is a big player.
In summary, I am not suggesting that we promote one form of
energy over another or that we should not consider using more
renewable sources of energy. However, I do suggest that the
energy consumption habits of all Canadians are an area for
scrutiny. Rather than generate more energy we need to learn to
use less. Therein lies the solution.
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank you and the hon. members of this House for
permission to sit due to a cast on my leg.
I heartily endorse the motion introduced by the hon. member
for Davenport this evening. The House has heard something of
the history of climate change and what the world and Canada are
doing about it.
I should like to present some thoughts on the economic
aspects of this issue. Ultimately climate change could have a
major impact on jobs, business and farms throughout our
country. That makes it a matter of vital importance to every
Canadian. We all need to understand and better know what its
effects will be.
The impact could potentially be crippling. A melting polar ice
cap could disrupt east coast fisheries. Rising sea levels could
inundate low lying areas of the Atlantic provinces. On the Great
Lakes water levels could fall sharply, stranding industries. We
could see more frequent and more violent storms. Draughts
could worsen on the prairies. New diseases and insect pests
could infest our crops and threaten human health. Flooding
could occur in the Fraser River basin. In the north the permafrost
would no longer provide a solid foundation for buildings and
pipelines, putting existing installations at risk.
These developments would translate into economic loss and it
could be more severe because of the particular nature of
Canada's economy. This is highly dependent on resource based
industries such as agriculture, fisheries and forestry, all of
which are very sensitive to climate change.
In view of that sensitivity, Canada must act vigorously to try
to mitigate possible climate change. The most direct way that we
can do so is by reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases,
especially carbon dioxide.
While Canadians make up only half of 1 per cent of the global
population, we do account for 2 per cent of the worldwide
emissions of greenhouse gases.
(1850 )
On a planetary scale we generate far more than our fair share
of greenhouse gases. Unless Canada and other developed
countries take the lead and demonstrate that we are serious
about cutting our emissions the developing world will not begin
to do its part to bring the problem under control.
To remedy the situation we first need to understand why it has
occurred, where do Canada's greenhouse gases come from and
why are they so high in proportion to our population. The
answers to these questions have to do with Canada's geography,
demography and economic infrastructure.
We live in a huge thinly settled country of cold climate and
long winters. We must make heavy use of transportation,
heating and artificial lighting. Our population is growing faster
than that of most developed nations. Our economy relies to a
disproportionate degree on resource extraction and agriculture.
These activities are generally more energy intensive than
manufacturing.
8158
We also rely on abundant reasonably priced domestic energy
sources such as coal, hydro, natural gas, uranium and oil. We
sell to other countries mainly forestry products, minerals,
agricultural goods and various energy products.
When the time comes for drawing up international accounts
the emissions associated with the activities producing these
exports are attributed to Canada, not to the countries that
consume the exports. In contrast, Canadian imports are
generally less energy intensive but we receive no credit for that.
However, the last factor affecting greenhouse gas emissions
cannot be blamed on anyone else and that is the relatively
affluent lifestyle of Canadians. We regard as necessities what
would be unimaginable luxuries to most inhabitants of third
world countries, but those necessities come at a price, our
disproportionately high release of greenhouse gases. With many
factors conspiring to drive up our use of energy and our
greenhouse gas releases it might seem a daunting task to try to
hold them to acceptable levels.
Though the picture I have painted may be grim, there are
grounds for optimism and the source is the concept that has
become a rallying cry for our times, sustainable development.
The idea of sustainability entered the public awareness about the
same time as the threat of climate change in the mid-1980s. For
radical problems it proposes a radical dynamic solution;
re-establishing a balance between human activities and natural
systems, integrating economic and environmental goals,
working not for short term profits but for long term benefits and
enhancing the quality of life.
Earlier it had seemed that advocates of the environment had to
be adversaries of human progress and vice versa. Sustainable
development taught us that this is not the way things have to be.
Countless times in the past humanity has turned seeming
obstacles into challenges and barriers into opportunities for
advancement. That is what the environmental challenge of our
time is.
That is what the threat of planet change is, a looming danger
certainly but at the same time a spur to find new and better ways
of doing business and living our lives. It is an opportunity to do
things more efficiently, more effectively, more competitively
and, above all, more sustainably. The problem has been clearly
identified: rapidly increasing emissions of greenhouse gases
accumulating in the atmosphere at record levels, altering
climate in ways that may not be completely predictable but are
quite possibly very severe. The solution surely is obvious,
bringing the emissions under control to keep the changes of
climate within acceptable parameters.
The question then becomes how can we control or reduce
emissions. We need to reduce the energy needed to power our
economy. We need to continue building a less energy intensive
economy and choosing a less energy intensive lifestyle. That is
by no means a fantasy. After all, over the last two decades we
have seen the automobile industry wrestle successfully with this
problem. Today it manufactures cars that go much farther on a
litre of gasoline and that burn their fuel much cleaner than in the
1960s. That is only an indication of what is possible but it shows
us the direction we should take.
We need to work toward energy conservation, energy
efficiency and the use of non-polluting renewable energy
sources. As representatives of the Canadian public there are
many ways in which we can further this effort. One of the most
important is by fostering science and appropriate technology
development in pursuit of our climate change goals. We must
support the people who are looking for new knowledge and new
solutions. We must encourage research and development and we
must smooth the path from thinking up bright ideas to
successfully marketing them on a large scale. New ideas are
central to Canada's environmental industries which make up one
of the fastest growing sectors of the economy today.
(1855)
A few weeks ago the government announced a Canadian
environmental industry strategy, a co-ordinated approach to
promoting this sunrise sector. The potential is for this to become
one of Canada's export leaders, developing new energy saving
techniques and marketing them domestically and abroad.
Infrastructure renewal is still another opportunity for
promoting resource conservation. The old deteriorating
installations squander energy and release pollutants. The
government's municipal infrastructure program is helping
replace these relics of the past with clean and efficient facilities.
I mention as well the high cost of transportation in Canada.
Now a new expressway beckons us, one that will not become
snowbound in winter or develop potholes in the first spring
thaw.
I am referring of course to the information superhighway, the
electronic network with possibilities that organizations and
individuals are only starting to explore. It is the kind of business
that Canada should be involved in where distances and weather
are immaterial and energy expenditures are minimal.
These are all measures that promote energy conservation and
efficiency and do the right thing for climate change. At the same
time, however, they and other initiatives are creating business
opportunities and jobs. Another example is the growing
technology not only of government installations but also of
private homes, offices and industrial plants.
The measures are transforming our country's economy,
making our companies more efficient, more productive and
more competitive. After all, the firm that can get more for its
energy dollar is the firm that can sell at a lower price. In today's
cost
8159
conscious, competitive markets, that is the firm that is going to
get its customers back.
I have heard claims that we cannot afford action to avert
climate changes, that it comes at too high a cost and will price us
out of the global marketplace. The very reverse is true. We
cannot afford not to act.
Our major trading partners have plans for stabilizing their
greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2000. They include
Britain, the United States and Germany. Denmark is a northern
country with cold temperatures like Canada. Despite that, it has
a plan to achieve a 20 per cent reduction in emissions by the year
2005. There may be some doubt about whether all these
countries will actually achieve stabilization of emissions at
1990 levels as they are setting out to do but at least they have
made the commitment and have started along the path toward
that goal.
They are taking steps that all can see and measure. Canada
must do the same and members can begin by giving their support
to this motion now before the House. It is only sensible to adopt
a precautionary approach in addressing the issues of climate
change. We must take steps now, not wait until later when more
painful or more costly solutions may and will be required.
Granted, climate change poses a great threat to Canada but the
effort to counter climate change is an undertaking that summons
all the best qualities of Canadians, imagination, drive, a
willingness to innovate, an entrepreneurial spirit and a taste for
hard work. These are the qualities that built our country and
have repeatedly won for it the number one ranking by the United
Nations human development index.
Those qualities will help us face the challenge of climate
change and in doing so we will ensure a bright, sustainable
future for Canada. It is a fine line between a healthy
environment, a sustainable environment-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I regret, the
member's time has elapsed.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak to the motion tabled by the hon. member for
Davenport. We both sit on the Standing Committee on
Environment and Sustainable Development. Through our
numerous meetings, I have come to know the hon. member, who
is a former environment minister and also a man dedicated to
promoting a sound environment.
However, I am surprised that, given his professionalism, he
would table a motion which, albeit positive, is excessively
vague and non directive.
(1900)
Motion M-168 reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should, in anticipation of
global climate change, consider the advisability of promoting energy
conservation and efficiency, as well as placing greater reliance on renewable
sources of energy so as to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and nuclear power.
With all due respect, I submit that this motion does not have
any substance.
``The government should- consider the advisability of
promoting-'' I have often seen laws and regulations designed
to monitor stakeholders more closely. I am referring to the
opposite of what is called a toothless piece of legislation. The
motion says: ``The government should''. Does this mean
``should'' or ``should really''?
At the rate Liberals are examining, consulting and discussing,
they will consider the issue for a long time. Let me give you an
example. The health sector: Four years and $12 million later the
government suddenly realizes that this field falls under
provincial jurisdiction. It was a mistake. Not to worry. We just
start all over again.
Why this vague wording? Maybe the hon. member knows that
the government is not able or does not have the will to
implement its laws. Canada's environmental act is one of the
most comprehensive and complex. We are in the process of
reviewing it.
The Canadian Environmental Protection Act gives the
Canadian government several powers to reduce our dependency
on fossil fuels. However, the act regarding political party
financing allows oil companies to make substantial
contributions to the party in power. There may not be a link, at
least, this is not what I meant.
As I was saying, under the Canadian Environmental
Protection Act, the government could have promoted the
reduction of energy consumption. It is easy to say, less easy to
prove. I will anyway.
The preamble of the act states ``Whereas the government of
Canada in demonstrating national leadership should establish
national environmental quality objectives, guidelines and codes
of practice-''
I am not saying I agree with this, but it is in the preamble.
Further in the preamble, it says: ``And whereas Canada must
be able to fulfil its international obligations in respect of the
environment-''. I will speak later about the failure to meet the
commitments made by Canada in Rio to reduce at the source the
emission of greenhouse gases. A lack of will, probably.
In section 2 of the same act, we are told that we can take both
preventative and remedial measures in protecting the
environment. Preventative and remedial. However in a 1994
catalogue
8160
about human activity and the environment, Statistics Canada
shows that between 1985 and 1991, the net production of coal
rose from 60,000 kilotonnes to 71,000 kilotonnes.
Statistics Canada lists in this report environmental
considerations relating to coal production, including idle land,
land cave-in, surface erosion and inorganic detrital matter.
According to the same report, with respect to carbon dioxide
emissions caused by the use of fossil fuel, CO2 levels have
increased from 387 megatonnes in 1982 to 436 megatonnes in
1992. What we are talking about here is a greenhouse gas. Given
these figures, I do not know what to think of the advisability of
promotion, as the hon. member for Davenport puts it. At any
rate, let us see what else the Canadian Environmental Protection
Act says.
In Part II, Clause 47 reads: ``The Governor in Council may
make regulations prescribing, with respect to any fuel or fuel
used for any purpose, the concentration or quantity of any
element, component or additive that, in the opinion of the
Governor in Council, if exceeded, would, on the combustion of
the fuel in ordinary circumstances, result in a significant
contribution to air pollution''.
(1905)
Under the new gasoline regulations made in March 1991,
Environment Canada carried out 1,141 inspections, but
conducted only two inquiries and issued five warnings.
Considering that, based on Statistics Canada figures, between
five and ten tons of oil are spilled every year in oil-producing
provinces, one can wonder if this government really has any will
to act.
Before putting forth such a motion, we should check whether
or not legislation has already been enacted regarding energy
efficiency, fossil fuels and nuclear power. As it turns out in this
case, several acts already deal with these subjects.
The Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, a federal
act, the National Energy Board Act, the Environmental
Protection Act, the Canadian Petroleum Resources Act and the
Oil Substitution and Conservation Act are already in place to
control this type of energy.
As I just tried to explain, Canada has extensive legislation
dealing with an area that, I may recall, falls under provincial
jurisdiction. Consider Hydro-Québec, which for many years has
promoted the cause of saving energy, for instance, through its
1-800-ÉNERGIE line, which is more readily available and
accessible than proposals coming from the federal government.
Furthermore, as the Minister of the Environment said herself
in Bathurst, if reducing gas emissions is a provincial
responsibility, then saving energy should also be a provincial
matter. In concluding, as the hon. member for Davenport may
have noticed, I felt that his motion lacked consistency and
tended to ignore the many jurisdictions around us.
[English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this
motion because the framer has used the old debater's trick of
setting up a straw man in order to knock it down.
The motion is predicated on the assumption that because there
has been a recent warming trend, that we have entered into a
period of global climate change. This is alleged to be due to
intensification of the greenhouse effect by increased
atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide due to combustion of
fossil fuels. If that sounds convoluted, I guess it is because it is
convoluted.
The framer of the motion, the member for Davenport, has
inferred that this hypothesis is universally accepted by
climatologists. I would hasten to say this is not true. In fact, I
believe that the concept of catastrophic global warming has a lot
more popularity in the press than it does in scientific journals.
We are now confronted with doomsday scenarios. The hon.
member for Cumberland-Colchester repeated a few of them.
It reminds me of a quotation from Goethe who said: ``The
phrases that men are prone to repeat incessantly end by
becoming convictions and ossify the organs of intelligence''.
Climatic changes have been observed throughout recorded
history and they have been a feature of life on earth for
millennia. I am not talking about the gross shifts which resulted
from continental drift many millions of years ago. I am referring
to changes that have recurred throughout the Pleistocene period.
There have been a series of ice ages and some climatologists
suggest that we are still living within a warm cycle of one of
them. In any event, it is only a few thousand years ago that this
site was overlaid by many hundreds of feet of ice.
On a smaller, more humanly comprehensive time scale there
is much evidence of climate change within the last couple of
thousand years. For example, I have examined ancient mine
workings in the deserts of North Africa and Yemen. These mines
date from the very early days of the Islamic period. They come
complete with very large piles of slag and piles of water-washed
tailings which to me is absolute proof positive that there were,
within recorded historical time, large numbers of trees and lots
of water available in what is now desert. I am not talking about
simple desertification of the sort that we have going on in the
Sahel today. I am talking about massive climate change. This
has been within the last 1,200 or 1,300 years at most.
8161
(1910)
There have been cold periods too. The Norse settlements of
Greenland, which existed between the 11th and 14th centuries,
disappeared because of a climate change. The glaciers actually
advanced out over the settlements. They lost all contact with the
old country and some hundreds of years later when people came
back they found some genetic vestiges of them in the Eskimos. It
is only in very recent years that they have begun to find their
ancient stone and earth works because the glaciers have been
receding again.
Less than 300 years ago Europe had what was called the little
ice age, when hundreds and thousands of peasants died of
exposure or starvation because their crops failed. We had this
terrible cooling period.
Cores of ice from Greenland and the Himalayas prove that
carbon dioxide levels on earth have varied radically over time.
Curiously one peak period of atmospheric carbon dioxide
corresponds to the period of the little ice age.
How much time do I have left, Mr. Speaker?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Regrettably one minute
would be about the tops right now.
Mr. Morrison: I would like to present some facts and figures.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Well, it might be helpful
to the House if the member could indicate how long that might
be.
Mr. Morrison: About four minutes.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is there unanimous
consent to allow the member from Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia to conclude his remarks?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Morrison: I thank the House. We have two
well-established facts before us. The carbon dioxide content of
the atmosphere is higher than it was a century ago, and the
average earth temperature has been increasing for a little over a
decade.
Are these two phenomena related? We do not know. There is
no convincing evidence to say that they are, and I would say that
it ain't necessarily so. There are just too many variables and they
are not well understood.
The earth's reflectivity, for example, varies from year to year,
depending on the amount of frost and snow we get in the polar
regions, or depending on the amount of cloud cover. Ocean
currents, particularly in the eastern Pacific, have a gross effect
on temperatures. Solar flare activity is probably the most
important, and yet this is a factor that has never been thoroughly
studied and is only partially understood.
However, let me play devil's advocate and say that, okay, CO2
increasing in the atmosphere is truly a problem. Termites are
said to contribute 50 billion tonnes a year of carbon dioxide to
the atmosphere. That is more than is produced by all of the
human consumption of fossil fuels on earth. If we are having an
increase in CO2, the major contributor is probably a negative
rather than a positive effect. I am referring to the destruction of
the world's rain forests which serve as a carbon sink. If the
carbon dioxide has nowhere to go it stays in the air.
To proceed with an energy plan based on flimsy and rather
badly scientifically studied evidence I would say is
irresponsible, and I wonder if the long term motive behind all of
this might be to excuse the installation of the carbon tax. We
have discussed that several times in the House.
But suppose global warming is a real threat? What are the
reasonable alternatives? The motion speaks of alternative
energy sources, but in my experience alternative energy, as most
people describe it, could more properly be described as
``supplementary energy''. Wind, solar and biomass all have a
legitimate place in the energy mix but to quote Dr. Petr
Beckmann: ``You cannot run a modern industrial state on
sunbeams, summer breezes, fumaroles and chicken manure''.
There are only three practical energy alternatives and those are
coal, oil, and nuclear.
(1915)
The hon. member for Davenport as a scientifically trained
man knows that wind and sunlight are very diffuse sources of
energy. For example, the total energy output from the sun which
can be received on earth under optimum conditions at the
equator is not much more than one kilowatt per square metre.
I would suggest that my colleague's estimate of land
requirements for solar thermal conversion are low by a factor of
about five. I sharpened up my own pencil and using very
optimistic assumptions of thermal and mechanical efficiency,
panel spacings and so on, I calculated that a 600 megawatt solar
plant would occupy a land area of about 50 square kilometres.
This monster, according to the Solar Energy Research
Institute, or some figures I have extrapolated from one of its
publications would require about 20,000 tonnes of aluminum,
1,200,000 tonnes of concrete, 350,000 tonnes of steel, 45,000
tonnes of glass, and 4,500 tonnes of copper.
What would be the energy balance? I would hesitate to try to
calculate it. I do not feel I have the competence but I wonder
with all of those extremely high energy consuming materials if
we would not end up with a solar plant serving out its total
operational life and giving out less energy than what went into
building it in the first place.
8162
I had a few more words but I think I have run out my four
minutes. I got in what I really wanted to get in and I thank the
House and the Speaker for their courtesy.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Let me ask, colleagues, if
that same co-operation would allow us to go to the mover of the
motion. The hon. member for Davenport under right of reply is
entitled to two minutes to close off the debate on this motion.
Agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, thank
you for this opportunity.
Indeed as in every other debate there is a lot to be learned. I
have learned a lot during this hour from the input given by my
colleagues whom I would like to thank.
The member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia
has done a lot of homework. It seems to me however that he is
putting forward observations that over the centuries have been
made by the scientific community and which are geologically
proven, no doubt.
However he is not aware of the fact that in recent times, in
1988 in Toronto at the international conference attended by
scientists the scientific community concluded that there is a
problem here in terms of climate change. Yes, there were a few
dissenting voices but nevertheless a large part of the scientific
community was of the opinion that we have to deal with climate
change resulting from greenhouse gas emissions. That
conclusion was reinforced and fleshed out in more detail in 1991
at the climate conference held in Geneva.
Next year in March a second conference on climate change
will take place in Germany at which governments will
participate to work out a global plan.
Evidently the scientific community first and then the
politicians in the world have come to a conclusion of substance
here despite all the understandable and justifiable doubts that
have been expressed by the hon. member.
I concur with the member for Comox-Alberni in his warning
that it is a difficult path. Change cannot be achieved overnight.
We have to look at a mix if I understood him correctly and not
rely on a shift from one set of sources, the non-renewable to the
renewable, and hope that the problem will dissolve. He is quite
right. We cannot do it quickly and it is a very long and difficult
path.
(1920 )
It seems to me that the members for Laurentides and
Terrebonne missed the point. We, or at least I look at this issue
as a form of co-operative federalism. They interpret this issue
as one of interference in provincial jurisdiction. Evidently there
is a profound ideological difference.
To conclude, I would like to thank and express my gratitude to
the member for Cumberland-Colchester for her impassioned
and very interesting intervention, for her incisive analysis, for
her support and for warning us about the importance of the
precautionary principle.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96 the order is dropped from the
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
8162
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, on November 17 the Minister of the Environment
released a discussion paper concerning endangered species in
Canada. That discussion paper proposes that the laws protecting
Canada's endangered species be strengthened. I could not agree
more. In fact there is something in this that most Canadians do
not know.
Canada is one jurisdiction in the world that does not have
federal legislation protecting species at risk. We do however
have provincial laws that have been praised for their efforts. In
Ontario I might mention Jim Wiseman. The NDP MPP for
Durham West has brought forth a private member's bill that has
received broad support. Wiseman's bill which passed second
reading with unanimous consent of the provincial legislature
last week would promote identification and assessment to
conserve, protect, manage, restore and reintroduce as well as
rehabilitate endangered, threatened and vulnerable species in
their habitats.
In spite of this eight out of Canada's ten provinces and two
territories have no specific legislation protecting endangered
species. Most provinces do have general wildlife laws, but these
are directed primarily at regulating hunting of game species. We
cannot forget that Canada is a nation with a strong international
reputation for environmental awareness. It is a shame that we
still do not have federal legislation dealing with endangered
species.
Although Canada does a good job at identifying species at risk
and preparing lists of species that require attention, Canada does
not have any laws requiring that anything be done once a species
is listed in any way. I have heard the situation described as
operating similar to a hospital which records the names of its
patients, assesses their illnesses, but does absolutely nothing to
treat them.
8163
As a member of Parliament from the prairies I want to bring to
the minister's attention the example of the burrowing owl. It has
been listed as endangered for years. It is a small owl with the
unusual habit of nesting underground.
The biggest threat to its survival I am told is the use of a
particularly toxic pesticide called carbofuran. There are other
chemicals that could be used to do the same thing. Some farmers
have joined a World Wildlife Fund program to save the
burrowing owl by setting aside certain parts of their fields, but
their actions are purely voluntary.
At the same time as this activity is going on at the federal
level, the registration of carbofuran is still under review by
Agriculture Canada. If Canada had endangered species
legislation, alternatives for carbofuran could be mandated to
protect the burrowing owl before it slides further toward
extinction.
It should be noted that Canada played a leadership role at the
Rio de Janeiro international United Nations environment
conference in the negotiation of the biodiversity convention
now signed by 160 countries. Canada would therefore have an
obligation in international law to live up to its terms which
include a commitment to establish legislation or regulations for
the protection of threatened species and populations.
In follow up, the House Standing Committee on the
Environment in November 1992 unanimously agreed to
consider the necessary legislation that would act to protect
species, habitat, ecosystems and biodiversity in Canada. We
have yet to live up to that commitment or the recommendation of
the committee.
Canada, we recognize, does have divided and overlapping
jurisdictions but it is essential that Canada's federal, provincial
and aboriginal leaders work in a co-ordinated way to ensure that
this happens as soon as possible.
The Rio convention on biological diversity was signed by
Canada on June 11, 1992. The convention stands for the
recognition of the value measured as economic value, aesthetic
value, value from ecological services and even the spiritual
value of maintaining the wealth of plant and animal species and
of their genetic diversity found on the planet earth.
It would be most appropriate for Canada's first federal
legislation dealing with species protection to be ready for
introduction on June 11, 1995, the third anniversary of the
signing of the convention.
The Minister of the Environment has indicated in the
discussion paper that she and her department will consult with
Canadians with an idea to bringing in new legislation. In
suggesting that the minister consider June 11 as the target date, I
ask that she plan for a specific date for the introduction of what
will be significant and important legislation for all of us.
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last Thursday the Deputy Prime
Minister in her role as Minister of the Environment met three
young children who came from three Canadian cities, Calgary,
London and Moncton, asking this Parliament to do more to
protect endangered species.
As the hon. member has noted, on that same day the minister
released a discussion paper for a new framework to protect
endangered species. That paper sets out a national framework
for comprehensive protection of all endangered species in
Canada. Currently there are 236 endangered, threatened and
vulnerable animal and plant species in this country.
We released this paper to stimulate public thought and
discussion. In January and February there will be public
consultations. We need the views of scientists, aboriginal people
and environmentalists, as well as farmers, fishermen, labour
groups, businesses and local communities.
The discussion paper sees federal framework legislation as
one component of a national approach that could be introduced
in the House next spring. This legislation could establish a
national, independent, scientific body and it could also set up a
process for assessing the status of species considered to be
nationally endangered. The species listing from that process
would become a schedule under the federal act but also could be
incorporated into provincial legislation.
The federal government cannot nor does it want to move alone
to ensure protection for all species. We need to work closely
with the provinces. A national approach to endangered species
protection will allow federal and provincial actions to
complement each other, not compete.
We are only going to succeed to save endangered species if all
Canadians co-operate and if we listen to the concerns of all
Canadians. We must ensure that federal and provincial laws
work together. That is the only way we can save our endangered
species.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 38, the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to
have been adopted.
Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2
p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.28 p.m.)