CONTENTS
Thursday, May 4, 1995
Bill C-85. Motion for second reading 12151
Mr. Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry) 12186
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 12187
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 12187
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 12187
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 12188
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 12188
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 12189
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 12189
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 12189
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 12193
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 12193
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 12197
Bill C-85. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading and amendment 12197
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 12200
(Motion agreed to.) 12207
Bill C-85. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 12207
(Motion agreed to.) 12211
Amendment to the amendment 12216
Bill C-232. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 12216
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referredto committee.) 12223
Bill C-85. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 12224
(Amendment to amendment agreed to.) 12233
Division on motion deferred 12235
12149
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, May 4, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
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 have the honour to
table in both official languages the government's response to 51
petitions.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have the honour to present the 75th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on the
February 28, 1995 order of reference from the House of
Commons concerning the Main Estimates for the fiscal year
ending March 31, 1996, in particular Vote 5 under
``Parliament-House of Commons'' and Vote 20 under ``Privy
Council-Chief Electoral Officer''.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed
by numerous residents of Ontario, most from the Kingston area,
concerning Bill C-41, asking that Parliament delete certain
sections from the bill.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have the privilege of presenting a petition. I want to
make it clear that in presenting this petition I do not agree with
the actions of the person represented in it.
The petition has to do with the case of Robert Latimer of
Wilkie, Saskatchewan. Numerous petitioners ask Parliament to
recognize that the actions of Robert Latimer were motivated by
love and should not be treated similarly to actions motivated by
other reasons.
It is a very difficult and very distressful situation. I certainly
concur with the mood and the feeling of these petitioners that
there needs to be some recognition in the laws of Canada that
would allow the courts to provide for sentences with leniency
for people based on the motivation of their offence.
It is my pleasure to present this petition on their behalf.
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I have two petitions from citizens in my riding.
The first asks that Parliament act immediately to extend
protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to
extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to
unborn human beings.
I support that petition.
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the second petition asks Parliament to ensure the present
provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted
suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no
changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or
abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
I support that petition also.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to
present three petitions.
The first is from residents of my constituency and
neighbouring constituencies including Burnaby and Surrey. The
petitioners call upon Parliament to reduce government spending
instead of increasing taxes and implement the taxpayer
protection act to limit federal spending. There are about 550
signatures on this petition.
I present that with pleasure to the House today.
12150
(1010)
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, the other two petitions deal with the
importance of Canadians' values in government policy.
Both are from members of my riding. In the first, with
approximately 300 signatures, petitioners pray that Parliament
ensure present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada
prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that
Parliament make no changes in the law that would sanction or
allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive
euthanasia.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, the other petition, also from members of my
riding and with almost 300 signatures, asks that Parliament act
immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by
amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection
enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.
Again, it is my delight and pleasure to present these petitions.
I pray that Parliament will take note of them.
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
honoured once again to rise in the House pursuant to Standing
Order 36 with a petition from people from Elderton, Kamalka,
London, Ontario, Danfield and Lambton county and Elgin
county.
These petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend
the Criminal Code as proposed in Bill C-41, the human rights
code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights
and freedoms in any way that would tend to indicate societal
approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality by
including the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
I agree with this petition.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to rise today on Standing
Order 36 to represent constituents from all over Canada. There
are over 2,000 names here and added to what I previously
presented, we have presented over 15,000 names in this
Parliament.
These petitioners request Parliament to amend the Divorce
Act to give grandparents standing before the courts and
therefore allow them to protect their grandchildren and by doing
so protect the child's right of access to his or her family.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am honoured to present a
petition on behalf of a number of my constituents organized by
Francis Kastelan.
The petitioners request that Parliament ensure present
provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted
suicide be vigorously enforced and that Parliament make no
changes in the law that would sanction or allow the aiding or
abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Not only am I pleased to present this petition but I endorse the
petition as well.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I have two petitions to present this morning. One is
from many constituents in my district and in particular my
neighbourhood. The petition is in relation to section 241 of the
Criminal Code.
The petitioners are asking Parliament not to repeal or amend
section 241 of the Criminal Code in any way and to uphold the
Supreme Court of Canada decision of September 30, 1993 to
disallow assisted suicide, euthanasia.
I table this pursuant to Standing Order 36.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Madam
Speaker, the second petition I have is in relation to the Senate. It
is signed by many people in my constituency and from other
parts of Regina, Saskatchewan.
The petitioners say the Senate is costing Canadians about $60
million, which is about $60,000 too much, and are asking the
House of Commons to repeal sections 41 and 42 of the
Constitution Act, thereby abolishing the Senate which they
believe is a useless institution.
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to present a petition signed by
1,061 Canadians across the country.
The petitioners, recognizing the importance of mining in the
country, call on Parliament to take action that will increase
employment in this sector, promote exploration, rebuild
Canada's mineral reserve, sustain mining communities and keep
mining in Canada.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present
to the House a petition signed by 38 Canadians of Armenian
descent on the occasion of the 80th anniversary of the genocide.
(1015 )
These 38 individuals marched from Montreal to Ottawa from
April 21 to April 24, the day they arrived. They humbly ask
Parliament to adopt their petition and condemn the genocide
against the Armenian people committed in 1915.
12151
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to table two
petitions. They call on Parliament not to amend the human rights
code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights
and freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal
approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality,
including amending the human rights code to include in the
prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase
sexual orientation.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to
stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
12151
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved that
Bill C-85, an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring
Allowances Act and to provide for the continuation of a certain
provision, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Madam Speaker, the pension plan for members of
Parliament has been a matter of discussion and concern by
members of Parliament and by the Canadian public for quite a
number of years. In recent times we have received many
petitions and letters on the subject. Indeed, the House addressed
the issue previously with a full day of debate on November 22,
1994. Members had the opportunity to discuss the various ins
and outs of what needed to be done in terms of the MP pension
plan.
Today, we begin second reading debate on Bill C-85, an act to
amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act.
[Translation]
This matter has been debated publicly for over a decade.
[English]
When the Liberal Party entered the 1993 election campaign it
put forward a policy book of specific recommendations that a
Liberal government would undertake in its mandate. The
Canadian public then elected a majority of Liberal MPs to
govern Canada. That same electorate expected this new Liberal
government to follow through on the stated commitments as
outlined during the election campaign and put into writing in the
book ``Creating Opportunity'', which is frequently talked about
today as the red book.
The red book preamble on this subject matter began with the
words:
-the pension regime of members of Parliament has been the focus of
considerable controversy. It is now the subject of an independent review which
Liberals support. We believe that reform is necessary.
The independent review cited in the red book is the ``Study of
Parliamentarians' Compensation'' carried out by the pension
consulting firm of Sobeco. Ernst & Young. This report was
delivered to the current government in March 1994 with specific
recommendations on compensation issues for senators and MPs
that went beyond just the pension plan.
In addition to talking about that report the red book went
further. It said:
Whatever the results of the independent review, a Liberal government will
reform the pension plan of members of Parliament to end ``double dipping''.
(1020)
It was saying, in effect, that 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.
It goes on to say: ``In addition we will review the question of the
minimum age at which pensions will begin to be paid''.
The announcement of the government's intention to reform
the pension plan, which I made previously in the House, and the
legislation which is currently before us, Bill C-85, will
implement the specific red book commitments made by the
Liberal Party during the election campaign of 1993, and in fact
goes further in this legislation.
Having given that background, I would like to take the House
through a few chronological events which have happened since
the election of October 5, 1993, leading up to the bill we are
debating today.
The first notable event is the consultations and the eventual
report prepared by Sobeco, Ernst and Young. The consultations
which they carried out focused on four groups: present MPs,
senators, newly retired or defeated MPs from the last House and
longstanding retired parliamentarians. Focus groups were held
and a great deal of information came to light on the particular
role of parliamentarians and how the compensation issues
addressed their roles.
12152
I will not go on at length about the methodology or all of the
specific findings of the report. I would urge members to read the
report if they have not had the opportunity to do so already. It
has been made available to all members of the House. However,
I would like to acknowledge the members who participated in
the consultative process. It is very important to have
information about the impact of the compensation and the
pension plan to help to determine what is the best course of
action to take, in addition to those commitments which the
government made during the election campaign.
[Translation]
There were not only government members and senators but
also members of the opposition parties.
[English]
In March of last year I had the opportunity to table the report
in Parliament. Each member of Parliament was provided with a
copy. The focus of the report was to rearrange the compensation
elements for senators and MPs to more adequately reflect their
roles as legislators, public policy makers, public advocates and
representatives of Canadians.
The Sobeco study came forward with concrete
recommendations to decrease the amount paid out in pension to
former parliamentarians who qualified for such a pension, but
simultaneously it recommended an increase in the salary for
members of Parliament; to go up on the salary and come down
on the pension provisions.
Private sector, provincial legislature and international
pension plans were used for comparative analyses. The
consultants did not just consult with members, they looked at
what was happening in other locations and in the private sector
as well. The specific results of these comparisons are detailed
extremely well in the study.
The report suggested tying changes in the salary component
with pension plan changes. This recommendation, however, was
received by the government just one month after the budget of
February 1994. In that budget the government imposed a salary
freeze on parliamentarians until 1997, in accordance with what
we were already doing with respect to the public service. We
have to get the deficit and the debt under control. We had to
provide for that freeze because we could not afford to pay
members of Parliament or members of the public service any
more in compensation. It is in that light the report came forward.
The government would not wait to change the pension plan for
sunnier days. We cannot provide for an increase in wages at this
time but we need to provide the changes we had promised in the
pension plan.
(1025)
The Sobeco Ernst & Young study had said that the
compensation level should remain the same. In fact the overall
compensation level when compared to the private sector was not
near the top at all. If we cannot increase the salaries, which we
cannot do, the question is how much do we go on the other side
of the equation in terms of decreasing the pension plan? That has
been one of the key considerations that we have had to take in
this whole process.
As I said a moment ago, we cannot wait for the day when we
can deal with salary increases as suggested. We cannot afford
them at the moment. While the total compensation approach
outlined in the study is worthy of further discussion, it is not
functionally possible at this time. However the pension
recommendations are being acted on, which is what Bill C-85 is
all about.
The other ingredient in reporting on the question of
compensation comes from the Lapointe commission, a
parliamentary commission mandated by the Parliament of
Canada Act to review the adequacy of compensation for senators
and MPs. The commission was chaired by the Hon. Charles
Lapointe, a respected former federal cabinet minister. The
commissioners who sat with Mr. Lapointe included Jean Pigott,
a former member of the House and Professor C.E.S. Franks from
Queen's University, a noted academic expert on parliamentary
affairs.
The Lapointe commission held hearings and I understand a
number of members of the House testified before that
commission. The commission reported in July 1994, and again
all members received copies of the findings.
The particular recommendation of interest today that was
brought forward by the commission, while not totally mirroring
the Sobeco consulting report, nevertheless was quite similar.
The total compensation approach was again suggested with an
increase in salary and a decrease in pension benefits but overall
keeping the compensation level the same.
Although I am summarizing the general scope of the
consultation process and not going into the finer details of the
recommendations put forward to the government, I would like to
again thank the commissioners for their input to this important
public debate.
The last event in this chronological review is the formulation
of the government's recommendations that culminate in this
amendment to the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances
Act.
On February 22 of this year I publicly announced the
government's position and this has been further elaborated on in
Bill C-85. The Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act
was first introduced in 1952 to provide pension coverage for
members of the House of Commons. Senators' benefits were
added in 1965. While there have been several amendments since
that
12153
time, the most recent were in 1992 when the act was brought
into compliance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act.
I move now to the question of minimum age. The legislation
prior to Bill C-85 provides pension benefits for senators and
MPs after serving six years in Parliament. A member can start
drawing the pension immediately on leaving Parliament,
regardless of age. This is the first amendment that I would like
to address.
The Government of Canada will follow through on its red
book commitment to review the minimum age at which
members can receive a pension by establishing age 55 as the
minimum for service earned under the newly amended act. This
amendment is found in clause 11 of the bill. The public, the
media and members of the House have sought a minimum age
for receipt of a parliamentary pension that better reflects what is
available in the private sector. Private sector and public service
pensions vary in their minimum age requirements. Many
include a combination of age and service provisions, while
many more establish a stand alone age.
The government has put forward its amendment to establish
age 55 based on a number of factors. The first is the adoption of
the Lapointe commission report. That report also recommended
age 55.
(1030 )
Second, the government has acknowledged the relatively
short length of service for parliamentarians which primarily
affected the decision to implement a stand alone age and not an
age and service contribution. Most people who serve in this
House do not serve long enough to collect a pension at all.
Obviously the stand alone age made more sense in that regard.
Finally, the government has attempted to put forward a
system that is transparent and fair establishing a clearly defined
benchmark leaving no possibility of confusion from the very
calculations inherent in age and service combinations. We are
saying quite simply it is age 55.
The publicity that has been brought to the minimum age issue
can perhaps best be characterized by a few celebrated cases of
former members retiring or having been defeated from
Parliament and receiving a pension when they were in their
thirties or forties. While these ages are extremely early and do
not provide retirement funds but an alternate source of income
originally designed to assist in the transition of MPs from public
life to the private sector, it is important to note that an
overwhelming majority of parliamentary pensioners are
presently over age 55, as high in fact as 87 per cent.
When we hear about MPs receiving pensions in their thirties
and forties, it is really the exception and not the general rule.
Nevertheless, it is an issue that this government said it would
address and is addressing. Not all former senators and MPs
leave Parliament with excessive pensions at young ages. Almost
half, as I indicated before, do not even get a pension at all.
Let me address the matter of double dipping because the
second amendment, the one which is found in clause 20, deals
with the implementation of a restriction on double dipping for
retired senators and MPs. The present pension plan does not
provide a mechanism that reduces or eliminates salary or
pension when a member receives income from two federal
sources.
For the purpose of this debate it would be extremely useful to
put forward a definition of double dipping. Bill C-85 provides a
very necessary legal definition of course, but I would like to put
forward my interpretation of double dipping as it relates to this
Parliament.
Double dipping occurs when a former member of this House
or the Senate of Canada is in receipt of a pension under this act
and enters into employment, appointment or a personal service
contract within the federal public sector earning remuneration
from those activities in excess of $5,000 annually. With this
definition I would hope that the jurisdictional lines as they relate
to double dipping are clear.
With that said, I would put to the House that this government
will put a stop to the practice that is unacceptable to many
Canadians. The pensions of former MPs and senators who have
left public office and secured paid employment within the
federal government's jurisdiction will be reduced dollar for
dollar. A $5,000 threshold will be established to avoid
penalizing part time income earners.
The varied definitions of double dipping that have been put
forward in public debate over the pension plan is staggering.
Provincial legislators, public servants, military personnel and
even private sector pensioners have been thrown into the mix at
different times. Some of them sit on the benches of the third
party so I think they would want to be a little quieter during this
discussion.
That is not part of what this mandate was in terms of Bill
C-85. Bill C-85 deals with the question of members of
Parliament who go out from here and get another job in the
federal public service. That is what we said in the election
campaign we would end and that is what we are ending.
I would also like to highlight the leadership the Prime
Minister has demonstrated in ensuring that governor in council
appointments made prior to this legislation coming into force
would be affected. The legislation on double dipping comes into
effect when royal assent is given to this bill, hopefully sometime
within the next few weeks or months. However, there have been
numerous appointments that have been made going back to the
beginning of this government when elected on October 25, 1993.
In this case the Prime Minister has asked appointees who have
served in Parliament, former MPs or senators, and are currently
12154
receiving a pension to return those benefits to the crown or
reduce their salaries by the amount of pension received.
(1035)
There are a number of examples that have been raised in
public debate. It is for resolving those instances of double
dipping that I would like to commend and thank the Prime
Minister. Even though this bill is not yet in effect, he has ensured
that it is in effect in terms that nobody appointed to a position
who collects from the federal purse in the term of this
government also collects a pension. He has specifically ended
that kind of double dipping, going back to the beginning of this
term.
An example of the application of the proposed double dipping
amendment would be that when a former MP in receipt of a
parliamentary pension of for example, $40,000 and who is
appointed to a government post which might have a salary of
$75,000, the former MP would lose all entitlement to a pension
while employed by the Government of Canada. A pension of
$40,000 would be reduced dollar for dollar by the amount of the
salary. In this case, using those numbers, it would leave a zero
balance in terms of pension while that person was collecting
elsewhere on the public payroll.
It is important to realize that a $1 per year adviser to the
government should quite obviously not lose any pension
benefits during service to the crown. That is the reason for this
$5,000 threshold, to exclude those who are earning very nominal
sums or very small part time remuneration.
Members of the House may not believe that legislation could
be debated that prevents the $1 per year adviser from collecting
a pension. Nobody would dispute that. However, I point out to
all members that private members' Bill C-208 last spring would
have done just that. In fact, there is a second private members'
bill currently before the House that would have the same effect,
preventing a $1 per year adviser to the government from
collecting an earned pension, not just while employed but
forever thereafter. I think we are dealing with it in a fair and
reasonable manner.
A final point on the double dipping issue is that former MPs
and senators who are currently appointed to a position in the
federal public sector and are then reappointed after the day on
which our bill receives royal assent will be subject to the double
dipping provision. The Prime Minister has received from them
compliance on a voluntary basis, but after royal assent if a
reappointment comes up they would be subject to the provisions
of the bill.
Let me deal with the question of savings. We are also cutting
benefits that are available to retiring members. The red book
speaks of double dipping and minimum age.
It is quite obvious in those letters and petitions from the
Canadian public and pension plan members that they want more
reform. The Liberal government acted on the need for reform
and has now put forward additional amendments in Bill C-85
that will have the effect of going even further.
The costs of the pension plan have been significantly
decreased, by 33 per cent. That is direct savings to the Canadian
taxpayer of some $3.3 million from a $10 million pension
contribution. These savings are generated in two ways.
First is the establishment of a minimum age which will result
in fewer former members collecting a pension at an early age.
The most important element in the savings equation is the 20 per
cent reduction in the benefit MPs will earn on future service.
This is the accrual rate reduction, as hon. members will know.
Speaking of the accrual rate, the current pension plan
provides benefits for MPs based on the best six years of salary
with a benefit rate or accrual rate of 5 per cent. That is 5 per cent
of an MPs average sessional indemnity, as we call it, per year of
service.
This accrual rate is to be reduced by Bill C-85. Clause 9 of the
bill will reduce the present 5 per cent accrual rate to 4 per cent, a
20 per cent cut in benefits for MPs. It will be this 20 per cent cut
that will provide the lion's share of the savings to the
government and to Canadian taxpayers, which as I said a
moment ago totals 33 per cent savings.
(1040 )
Senators' pensions will not be affected and will remain at
current levels because senators receive 3 per cent. They are
already at a lower level of their average sessional indemnity per
year of service.
The accrual rate of 5 per cent for every year of service for MPs
at present provides for a maximum contribution of 15 years. Not
too many are here for 15 years, but if a member gets to 15 years,
he or she can get to the 75 per cent pension level. If an MP serves
for eight years in Parliament, his or her pension would be
calculated as eight years times the 5 per cent accrual rate,
equalling a pension of 40 per cent of salary.
The amendment act will continue to provide for a ceiling,
which as I say not too many will achieve, of 75 per cent. A new
member under these rules would need to contribute to the
pension plan for 19 years in order to realize a similar benefit as
that of the present plan.
Members may wish to note that the accrual rate reduction
applies to future service only, that is, service after the date when
the act receives royal assent. What members of the House or
former members of the House have accrued up to the date of
royal assent, and the rate at which they have accrued it, is an
entitlement which they have and will continue to have. That is
12155
the way pension plans operate throughout the country. It is part
of the normal pension regime.
Let me deal with the question of tax treatment. Tax treatment
of the overall pension plan is an integral element of the funding
mix and thus is a significant contribution to the actual cost of the
plan. The Income Tax Act prescribes a tax benefit for registered
plans which does not exceed a 2 per cent accrual rate. This
would be the amount which opposition members speak of when
they talk of the legal limits of the pension plan. However, I
would like to clarify for the House at this point that the Members
of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act complies with the
Income Tax Act. I particularly want the members of the third
party to note that. That is a fact which some members have
disputed and even raised in members statements or in question
period.
The act was amended in 1992 when the government of the day
brought the plan into compliance with the Income Tax Act and
provided that all benefits would be fully funded. It did so by
dividing the plan into two parts: a registered pension plan
containing those provisions which fall within the limits allowed
under a registered pension plan or a plan registered under the
Income Tax Act; and a retirement compensation arrangement,
an RCA, which contains those elements in excess of the Income
Tax Act. That is a common element, a common vehicle, for
dealing with pension plans in the private sector as well.
Part I of the act contains the registered pension plan portion
and part II contains the retirement compensation arrangement. I
would stress that both of these parts meet the requirements of
the Income Tax Act. Amendments in this bill primarily affect
parts I and II of the act.
Contributions to the pension plan are made by members
currently at the rate of 11 per cent of his or her annual salary
which is much more than is generally the case in the private
sector. For senators it is 7 per cent of their annual salary.
The contribution rate will be reduced to 9 per cent to reflect
the decrease in the accrual rate. This reduction is found in clause
7 of the bill. Senators contribute 7 per cent of their annual salary,
receive a 3 per cent accrual rate, and that will not change. The 9
per cent contribution rate for MPs, however, is more in line with
the new 4 per cent accrual rate.
[Translation]
The media and some members of the opposition asserted that
this would increase compensation for parliamentarians.
[English]
In fact the total compensation for members will decrease with
amendments to this act. The claim that members will receive a
salary increase of 2 per cent is simply not true. MPs will have 2
per cent more disposable income but they will also have more
that is subject to tax as a result of that. There is no increase in the
compensation level. Again, the compensation level for MPs is
going down.
As I mentioned earlier, the 1994 budget imposed a salary
freeze on MPs, who incidentally have not had an increase for
some six years. The pension benefits are being cut by 20 per
cent. There is simply no way a salary increase could be
extrapolated from what is quite clearly a cut in compensation to
MPs.
(1045)
I should like to deal with a matter that I know is of particular
interest to some of my colleagues beyond here. That is optional
participation. The member for Beaver River will be extremely
interested.
Miss Grey: And the class of '88 too.
Mr. Eggleton: Yes, they all have the same option as the
member has.
Within days of beginning the current legislative session of the
35th Parliament, a question was put to the Prime Minister in
daily question period about allowing MPs to decide for
themselves if they wished to continue to participate in their
pension plan.
This is not something normally done, I might add, in the
private sector or other public sector plans. Canadians are
encouraged by the government and by organizations and
companies throughout the country to provide for their
retirement allowance, to provide for themselves when they are
no longer part of the workforce. It makes sense to save to do that.
We should be encouraging people to do so.
The Prime Minister rose on January 21 and committed to the
House that members of Parliament would have a choice. Pension
plans in Canada are supported through the income tax system to
provide employer sponsored retirement funding for Canadians.
The Government of Canada is no different from other
employers. Pension plans are provided for public servants,
military personnel, RCMP and parliamentarians.
The government believes in retirement benefits for its
employees, pure and simple. However certain MPs have made a
case that they can better provide for their retirement needs and
those of their families, or they think they can.
I should like to say something about that in terms of families.
During the consultation period prior to the introduction of the
legislation I was told numerous stories by present and former
members who originally entered politics at a young age. Many
of them were single at the time. They married during their
political careers. They began families. Their retirement needs
changed. They were vastly different with families from what
they were when they first started out as single individuals.
12156
It is important to note in this context that the optional
participation decision all MPs will make should not be taken
lightly. Most certainly consideration of families should be
included in the decision with respect to optional participation.
Clause 2 allows members who choose to leave themselves or
their families without pension benefits once the changes to these
pension arrangements receive royal assent 60 days to decide
whether they want to opt into the plan. It is a major change that is
being made in the plan. The Prime Minister has given the
opportunity to members of the House.
Members who have six or more years of service and who
choose not to continue contributing to the pension plan will have
their contributions returned to the beginning of this Parliament.
The member for Beaver River may want to hear this point.
Miss Grey: You bet I do.
Mr. Eggleton: It pertains to her specifically. Members with
less than six years will have their contributions returned. The
government will allow these members a one-time only
opportunity to withdraw their participation in the pension plan.
It is something that is not normally done. We have to provide for
our own retirement allowance and that is what the plan is all
about.
For those who choose not to participate, the government will
return their contributions with interest calculated in the same
manner as for any other withdrawal allowance under the statute.
Members cannot later decide to join the pension plan if they
serve continuously as a member of the House or if appointed to
the Senate without a break in service. Members who after a
break in service later re-enter the pension plan will not be
permitted the option of buying back service from this
Parliament should they exercise their option not to participate
during this Parliament.
In terms of another provision of the plan may I finally
mention with respect to common law spouses that in clause 4 of
the bill they will be recognized for survivor benefit purposes as
they are under federal pension plans for public service
employees. It will provide common law spouses with necessary
protection that other Canadian pension plan members enjoy. As
well, the bill provides that a survivor pension can be
apportioned between a legal spouse and a common law spouse.
Where a member is survived by both a common law and legal
spouse the bill provides for the survivor benefit to be
apportioned between the two claimants if the common law
spouse lived with the member while the pension was being
earned.
(1050)
In conclusion I highlight the net result of the changes. Not
only have we as a government lived up to our campaign
promises, the ones clearly defined in the red book dealing with a
minimum age of 55 and prevention of double dipping for former
members who get appointments in the federal service, but we
have gone beyond that in the spirit of the need for cutting
government spending to get the deficit and debt under control.
We have made changes in Bill C-85 to the pension plan that
will save taxpayers significantly; they will cut costs to
taxpayers by some 33 per cent. Overall the Government of
Canada has lived up to its promises on pension reform.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
welcome this opportunity to say a few words on this government
bill which Quebecers and Canadians have been waiting for. At
the same time, the public perception of the pension plan is
sometimes erroneous. Naturally, the most visible irritants often
make the whole pension system look like it gives greater
benefits to parliamentarians than to those in similar fields of
activity.
I think that this bill introduced by the government constitutes
a fine effort and a step forward. Changes were needed. While we
have questions about certain provisions, such as those regarding
spouses' pensions and double dipping, that is, being paid a
retirement allowance and a salary at the same time, we regard
this bill as a step forward in that it remedies the two main
irritants for the public, particularly the one concerning
minimum pensionable age.
Let us start by stating a basic fact: every working person is
entitled to a pension. Everyone wants to make sure they enjoy
some degree of financial security after having reached fifty or
sixty years of age. Most companies, corporations and others,
have set up retirement income security systems in conjunction
with their employees. Non unionized workers or people working
for large companies have built themselves retirement funds with
RRSPs, thanks to the privileges governments grant to those who
make the effort of investing in RRSPs to build retirement funds.
So, the principle of receiving pension benefits must not be
challenged, and the government did not do so in its bill. We
recognize that we are entitled to benefits, however, they must be
comparable to those provided not only in other walks of life, in
both the private and the public sector, but also in what I would
call the political sector, in other governments, in other countries
and in Canada, at the provincial level for instance.
Our pension program must provide no more or less to
members of Parliament, but must be a reflection of the economic
reality of Quebec and Canada. In that sense, as I said earlier, the
12157
bill before us today remedies two major irritants in our plan, one
being retirement age. We must realize, however, that this
concern about retirement age is new, and stems from the
realization that it is possible for individuals as young as 40 or 43
years old to retire.
(1055)
Traditionally, politicians were much older and, generally
speaking, remained in office much longer.
Consequently, when the Members of Parliament Retiring Act
was originally passed, the legislator did not think about setting a
minimum age to be eligible for a pension, since most retiring
MPs were already over 55, or had only served one term and were
not eligible for a pension. The problem simply did not exist.
Elections nowadays are often characterized by a major
turnaround, which results in large numbers of MPs losing their
seats. For example, in 1984, the Conservatives won 211 seats,
which means that several Liberal members left the House of
Commons at a much younger age than the average for the
previous 15 years, when we had minority governments that
would change every two or three years. Indeed, throughout that
period, a Liberal minority government was almost always in
office, which means that the same members of the various
parties were re-elected repeatedly.
Western provinces were always represented by large numbers
of Conservatives and New Democrats, while the number of
Liberal members from Quebec remained fairly stable, along
with a contingent from Ontario and also some from eastern
Canada. Consequently, even though minority governments were
in office, the members remained essentially the same over a 15
year period. By the time they left office, most of these members
had reached the age of 55, 58 or 60. Consequently, the issue of
early retirement was not raised by the public or the House, since
it only concerned a very small minority.
As I said earlier, because of the Conservative waves of 1984
and 1988, and because of a new phenomenon in 1993, namely
the creation of a new party, the Bloc Quebecois, which replaced
the Liberals in Quebec, as well as another one, the Reform Party,
which ousted the New Democrats in western Canada as well as
many old Conservative members who used to get re-elected all
the time, for example in Alberta, there is now a fairly large
number of MPs leaving office who are entitled to pensions. The
example most often heard is that of former minister Perrin
Beatty who, at 43 or 45, is entitled to a pension as a former
minister, even though he is at an age where he can still make a
living by using his skills and knowledge. That example is given
as being representative of the situation of most MPs, but it is
not.
We should take a close look at the findings of the last three
reports. Each time a federal election is held, the MPs' pay plan
and pension plan are reviewed, along with an assessment of their
work as members or chairpersons of committees, and any other
additional duties which they may have as whip, House leader,
etc.
If we take the report prepared by the Balcer-McIsaac
commission in 1980, it says there was no need to tinker with
MPs pensions since there were no cases of younger members
who ended up with pensions.
If we look at the report produced by the Hon. Gerry St.
Germain and the Hon. Francis Fox, it says that after considering
every aspect of the question, the commissioners felt that present
retirement allowances were adequate. Here again, age was not
an issue. The last report, produced by a committee chaired by
the Hon. Charles Lapointe, which included two commissioners,
Mrs. Pigott and Mr. Frank, made the first reference to age
provisions, because there was reason to do so. The report
suggested a minimum age of 55 but did not elaborate on its
significance.
(1100)
If we look at a table, we can see the percentage of individuals
who receive a pension at a specific age. For instance, we see that
under 40, three-tenths of one per cent of members have a
pension. Under 45, one-tenth of one per cent. Altogether, 434 in
the entire history of Canada. There are not thousands, as people
seem to think. Only one-tenth of one per cent. Under 50, we see
5 per cent. Under 55, 7 per cent. This means that those who are
already receiving pension allowances and are 55 and over
represent 77 per cent of all pensioners. Over 60, 77 per cent. Add
to that those over 55, which is 8 per cent, which means 85 per
cent of those receiving a pension today are over 55.
Contrary to the public's perception that parliamentarians get
their pensions at a tender age, those under 50 account for less
than 5 per cent and those under 45 for only one-tenth of 1 per
cent of the total number.
As we set our criteria, bearing in mind our democratic
principles and the current state of our finances, we should also
consider certain documents, in this latest report, which refer to a
study of the allowances of members of Parliament, conducted by
the commissioners mentioned earlier.
Let us first look at the picture in terms of salaries. The public
often thinks that members' salaries are overinflated. However,
if we compare Canada with other countries in the world, such as
Australia, France, Germany, New Zealand, Japan, Sweden, the
United Kingdom and the United States, we find Canada ranks
seventh of the nine countries in salary terms. Six countries in
this list therefore pay better salaries, including Japan, for
example, which pays $196,000 a year for 43 sitting days. In
Canada, the figure is $64,000 for 148 sitting days; in Germany,
it is $102,000 for 66 days; and, in Australia, it is $65,000 for 53
12158
days. That is surprising. In Sweden, the salary is only $36,000,
and, in the United States, it is $169,000 for 144 days.
Therefore, if we place Canada among the nine countries I have
just listed, we realize that it is seventh in terms of salaries paid
to members. In other words, it is well behind a number of
countries including France, Germany, Japan, the United States
and Australia. Also, in terms of pay per day, Canada is sixth
among the nine on the basis of the number of sitting days.
That is to say that the salaries of members of Parliament in
Canada are far from the most generous in the world. Secondly, if
we compare the salary of federal members of Parliament with
their provincial counterparts, we find, as with Quebec, for
example, that they are the same, give or take a few thousand
dollars.
This fact must be taken into account in establishing a pension
plan. Another fact that must be taken into consideration is that
the people who sit here have to give up their businesses or other
duties-this has been my own experience. In teaching, for
example, I was earning $46,000 a year. In 1984, when I was
elected, I earned $52,000 or $54,000 a year-not a huge
difference really. But I had to give up the businesses I owned and
hire additional staff in order to be able to do my work properly.
You know when you are elected as a member of Parliament that
the job is temporary.
(1105 )
That is why we should be entitled to a pension for the period
of time that we put our businesses or other careers on hold, for,
had we not made this choice, we would have continued to
accumulate retirement income for until we hit the age of 55, 57
or 60.
It is only fair that our salaries be comparable to what MPs
receive in other countries and that our pensions compare to
those that public officials and MPs from other provinces and
other countries receive.
Having said this, there were some rough spots, but this bill
smooths them out. For example, it would change the minimum
age, although this would affect only five per cent of MPs
currently collecting a pension. I base my statements regarding
pensions on the report of the Commission to Review Allowances
of Members of Parliament, chaired by the hon. Charles
Lapointe, called Democratic Ideals and Financial Realities:
Paying Representatives in the Twenty-First Century. The report
says that, in 1984, 131 MPs were defeated or chose not to run
again.
Of that number, 56 per cent did not qualify for a pension; 44
per cent did. In 1988, 46 per cent of the 115 MPs who were
defeated or chose not to run again qualified for a pension. In
1993, 67 per cent of the MPs who were defeated or chose not to
run were not eligible for a pension. Therefore, out of the 445
MPs who left office in the last three elections, 58 per cent or 260
did not qualify for a pension. However, we must look at this
system from all angles: some 185 received pensions.
Now, let us look at the amounts involved for all MPs. The
popular belief is that all members can count on the allowance of
a minister or Prime Minister upon retiring, when the fact is that
there are only a few ministers and one Prime Minister. The rest
of us ordinary members of Parliament, commonly referred to as
backbenchers in both official languages, get a much more
modest allowance based on our years of service.
For example, 12 per cent of members receive less than
$10,000 per year in allowances; 17 per cent get less than
$20,000; and 27 per cent, less than $30,000. In total, 75 per cent
of former members receive under $40,000. These are interesting
figures.
If you add up those receiving less than $30,000 in allowances,
that is to say 27, plus 17, plus 12, you realize that 56 per cent of
former members receive a pension of less than $30,000.
It is also the same with the age factor. As I said earlier, only
three tenths of one per cent members who receive allowances
start doing so under the age of 40, like Mrs. Carole Jacques, a
former Conservative member, Mr. Champagne, the former
Conservative member for Champlain, and a few Liberal
members as well.
This needed to be changed and the correction was made. In
addition, although allowances are not as generous as they seem
to be when you take a good look at them, the government not
only removed two irritants having to do with retirement age and
double dipping-the fact of holding a wage-earning position
while in receipt of a pension-, but also reduced by 20 per cent
its contribution to the pension fund. In addition, members have
to hold office longer to get the 75 per cent maximum. A member
elected this year would have to sit in this place for 20 years
instead of 15 to qualify for the maximum retirement allowance.
This is something that we will have to take into account when
voting on this bill.
(1110)
This bill settles the matters of age, double dipping and
contribution rates. These rates, which might have appeared
generous but were comparable, will be reduced because of the
economic situation. I would also like to look at what is being
done in other countries, for example with regard to
contributions.
Let us say right off the bat that Canada's contribution rate of
11 per cent ranked among the top rates in the world. By reducing
this rate to 9 per cent, we bring it in line with rates in other
countries. Let me remind you that the Australian rate is 11.5 per
cent and that many other countries have rates of around 9 per
cent. We are therefore normalizing the situation and making it
more equitable for members of the House of Commons.
12159
Let us now compare the situation in Canada with that in the
provinces, because the provinces also have pension plans. For
example, in Newfoundland, which is a small province, all one
needs to qualify for pension rates of up to 75 per cent is to have
run in two elections and to have five years of service. Members
need six years of service at the federal level, compared to five
years in Newfoundland. As for the minimum age, the member's
age plus the number of years of service must equal 60. This
means that a 55-year old member of the Newfoundland
legislature with five years of service would be entitled to a
pension. A 50-year old member with 10 years of service would
qualify for a pension in Newfoundland but not at the federal
level.
That is an interesting comparison. Given the small size and
population of Prince Edward Island, which has as many people
as my riding but 32 members in its provincial legislature, four
members of Parliament, and a house for the Lieutenant
Governor, one can understand why there is no pension for the 32
members of the provincial legislature. The minimum
pensionable age for members of the Nova Scotia legislature is
50, but it will be 55 for members of Parliament. To qualify for a
pension, all a member needs is to have run in two elections and
to have five years of service.
Let us look at New Brunswick. There is no minimum age.
Members only need 10 sessions under their belts.
An hon. member: That, too, should be changed.
Mr. Plamondon: It may have to be changed but, for the time
being, this bill is a step forward. I hope that the other provinces
will also take this step. A different reality may force us to take
other measures. The situation facing pensioners today has
changed from what it was 15 years ago. Adjustments are being
made.
Take Quebec, where the rule is age plus years of service, with
a minimum age of 50. The same principle is applied in Ontario:
age plus years of service, with a minimum age of 55. Our
situation is similar to that of the provinces, which often offer
more generous plans. Manitoba abolished its plan but replaced it
with a collective RRSP which will be able to offer more or less
the same terms. I believe the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer,
just next door, did a comparative study on the subject which
showed that after 12 years, a collective RRSP was more
attractive than our own system.
In Saskatchewan, the minimum age is again 55. In British
Columbia, the minimum age is 55 and the rule is age plus a
number of years of service. The minimum age is 55 in the Yukon
and the Northwest Territories, and to be eligible for a pension,
members must sit a minimum of seven years in British
Columbia, six in the Yukon and six in the Northwest Territories.
In other words, our system is very similar to those in the rest of
the provinces and, in some cases, is less attractive. It is also very
similar to what is offered in other western countries, and I am
referring to so-called modern countries, countries with a decent
per capita income.
I must admit that the bill also takes into account the current
situation and what the taxpayer can afford. Contributions will be
cut by 20 per cent. There will be a cut of $3.5 million out of a
total $10 million, which means a correction of 33 per cent.
However, certain irritants remain in the bill, and I will probably
suggest a number of amendments when the bill goes to
committee after second reading.
(1115)
I wonder, for instance, about the decision to reject double
dipping. Everyone seems to agree that when you take a former
minister-again, the example of Perrin Beatty-and you
appoint him president of the CBC, he should not get both his
salary from the CBC and his $40,000 to $45,000 pension as a
former minister. I think that is pretty obvious, and I want to
commend Mr. Beatty for voluntarily giving up his pension
before accepting his position at CBC.
I also want to commend Mr. Broadbent who, when his term
was renewed not long ago, also gave up his pension for another
five years although he was under no obligation to do so, thus
complying with the government's intentions and public opinion.
However, we may have a situation where a member who has a
political career in Ottawa is penalized when he obtains another
position, compared to a former member of one of the provincial
legislatures. Senator Prud'homme, for instance. He sat in the
House of Commons, he wanted to sit in the Senate and they have
to subtract his pension from his salary. Mr. Gauthier sat in the
House of Commons. He is now sitting in the Senate, and his
member's pension is subtracted from his salary.
However, Mrs. Bacon, a former member of the Quebec
legislature who has a minister's pension, receives both her
senator's salary and her minister's pension of $40,000 or
$45,000.
Take the case of Senator Simard. Since I do not want to play
favourites, I will take a Conservative senator as an example. The
last two are Conservatives, but Mr. Prud'homme is a former
Liberal. Senator Simard has been in the Senate for 10 years or so
and receives a pension of about $40,000 as a former minister of
New Brunswick. He does not have to subtract it from his salary.
Of course, since we are in a federal jurisdiction our legislation
can only cover the federal level. I am delving into, as will the
committee, the issues of concern to us. That is why I am not
tabling the amendment on whether the following
recommendation would be legal: that, when the Prime Minister
calls someone in the future to offer him or her a seat in the
Senate, the Prime Minister stipulate ``I am offering you the seat
on condition that you fax me a letter giving your commitment
not to collect your pension as a former provincial MP, so that
you are at par with the federal MPs''. Then, if ever the person is
appointed
12160
to the Senate, that person's entitlements would not be any more
or less than those of the other senators.
Therefore, that is another underlying problem. I was also
wondering about municipal careers. When you appoint someone
like Jean Drapeau, the former mayor of Montreal, to the federal
public service, he receives a generous pension from
Montrealers. The Mayor of Vancouver, with his experience
dealing with Asian countries, would also be a potential
candidate for the federal public service. He would not have to
subtract his municipal pension from his salary. Of course, we are
talking about different jurisdictions, but I am pondering the
issue anyway.
I am giving the government and the minister the leisure to
reflect on this issue and, meanwhile, I will submit it to the
committee. It seems to me that this is hypocritical. On the other
hand, we must also take into consideration the fact that someone
drawing a good pension from Eatons, for example, after working
there all of his career, who is appointed to the Senate
subsequently would not have a problem. But if his career had
been with the provincial government, he would.
It must also be said that the double dipping we are trying to
abolish, to which we all agree in principle, penalizes people
who, after a career in the federal public service, may entertain
appointments as ambassadors or members of a task force on
political party funding, for example. This was the case with the
Lortie Commission to which former MPs were appointed and
with the commission on pension reform. This duty to subtract
pensions, this impediment, would make it easier to recruit
people with parliamentary experience among former provincial
MPs instead of federal MPs.
(1120)
I do not know how the bill could be amended, I have no
proposals or amendments to make, but I do think there is food
for thought here.
I would also point out that, in our consideration of this bill, we
should remember that members' salaries have been frozen for
three or four, if not five, years and will remain frozen until 1997.
I will give you an example. I earn $64,000. Eleven years ago,
when I started here, I earned $54,000. I have therefore had
increases of less than $1,000 a year, or less than $20 a week
since I began sitting in the House of Commons. In the years
salaries were not frozen, all we got was the cost of living
adjustment. When I talk of salary increases, I am including the
cost of living adjustment.
Real efforts have been made in terms of salaries. Twice while
I have been a member, my salary has been reduced by $1,000 in
budget speeches. MPs' salaries are similar to those of MLAs.
Earlier, I compared our pension benefits with those of MLAs. I
could also have compared salaries. I did so with other countries.
We have seen that the situation of members of Parliament,
members of legislative assemblies and western
parliamentarians is comparable. Pensions, with the amendments
that will be made today, will be comparable, with ours being
even sometimes less compared to pension plans in the provinces
or in other countries.
This bill is a realistic step forward. It resolves certain issues
discrediting the role of members of Parliament. It used to be that
we received our pensions at any age and that they were very
substantial. It will no longer be the case. These issues, now
resolved, used to discredit members of Parliament and often
sent those who might be contemplating a career in this noble
place running in the opposite direction. The credibility and
public image of politicians with fat pensions tended to
discourage people from going into politics.
I think that correcting these two irritants can help bring our
pay and pension benefits in line with those in the public sector
and with politicians' pay and pension benefits in other countries
and in the provinces.
In closing, may I remind you that one way for the government
to make further cuts may be to question the need for two Houses
of Parliament. The other place, since that is how we must refer to
it, costs $50 to $60 million. Instead of saving $3 million by
adjusting pensions, you would save 20 times as much by
eliminating a house which, between us, is totally useless.
An hon. member: The Senate.
Mr. Plamondon: We are not supposed to utter the word
``Senate'' here in this House. We must say ``the other place''.
My colleague referred to it by name but he is not supposed to.
We know whom or what we are talking about. We have great
respect for the people there, but we no longer see the need for the
institution itself. We tend to think of it as a leftover from
colonial days, as a big dormitory.
Incidentally, a great lady, Mrs. Chaput-Rolland, now retired,
referred to the other place as a big dormitory in a book that she
wrote. She even talked about ``the hon. sleepyheads''. I think
that she went much too far. However, in this era of budget cuts
and pension review, we should think about the need to maintain
this refuge for the Prime Minister's political cronies.
(1125)
Nova Scotia, Quebec and the other provinces with senates
abolished them. I feel the time has come to think about this and
save taxpayers $50 to $60 million. We should also think about
the need to maintain a house for the Lieutenant Governor in each
of the provinces. Our Lieutenant Governor does not sleep in
Prince Edward Island or in Quebec City very often. Most of the
12161
time, he sleeps in a hotel and not in the house reserved for him.
We should perhaps think about all these houses we have to
maintain and turn them into profitable museums.
Perhaps we should also reconsider the relevance, especially
for a government proclaiming from the rooftops its Canadianity
and its pride in the Canadian flag, of maintaining at the top of
the parliamentary hierarchy a representative of the Queen, a
lieutenant-governor. That is another position that could be
abolished. We could look into that too. There is $10 million
attached to this position. That is how much we could save today.
To conclude, I wonder also about another possible way we
could save money. We have just adopted a bill on electoral
boundaries increasing the number of members of Parliament
from 295 to 301. This is a big problem. If we compare this place
to the legislatures of other countries, we can see that there is
something wrong with the Canadian system. Let us see how we
shape up against our neighbours, the United States.
For a total population of 27 million, we have 295 MPs. With a
population of 270 million, ten times ours, the Americans should
have ten times more representatives than we do, or 2,950. Yet,
there are only 495 representatives in the American Congress. I
think we are the odd ones. Why not take the lead of France,
England or the United States and bring the size of the House of
Commons down, proportionally to population, to say a hundred
or so members?
Considering what each member costs-we are talking about
at least half a million dollars a year-in electricity, stationery,
clerical support, this would mean savings of 200 times
$500,000, or $100 million.
We should consider this if we really want to get back some of
the credibility we lost in the eyes of the public and see our work
in this place regain prestige.
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
am glad to participate in this debate today.
I would like to say by way of introduction that the most
pathetic thing I have heard today is not a government trying to
defend this plan, which is still far too rich for the Canadian
taxpayers' blood, still far too generous, but more pathetic than
that is what I have heard from a Bloc member who is fully
endorsing this plan, who says that it goes a long way and that it
corrects certain irritants.
This is a group of people who want to opt into this pension
plan when at the same time they are sitting here trying to opt out
of the country. That is disgusting. They cannot defend that. It is
indefensible in this Chamber. It is indefensible in any one of the
ridings this member would choose to travel to across the
country. ``Corrects certain irritants''-let me assure you,
Madam Speaker, that the only irritant-
[Translation]
Mr. Plamondon: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
I think that, if you had paid closer attention, you would have
realized that my right to sit in this place is being questioned. I
was elected democratically like every other member of
Parliament.
[English]
Miss Grey: And democratically elected he was. Let us ask
him to carry on in his democratically elected position sitting in
the Parliament of Canada.
I talked about correcting certain irritants. The only irritant is
with the Canadian public, who are paying the bills for this
pension plan. I suspect this will not correct any irritant for them.
We have been trying to do some research during the last
couple of days since this bill was brought in last Friday and
introduced to the House for debate today. As I look at the
figures, the numbers simply do not add up.
(1130 )
I am going to mention this opt-out clause now and then I will
mention it several times again. I am going to keep mentioning it
across this country every chance I get to speak. There is an
opportunity for the class of '88 and anyone who was elected
after them, such as myself and my colleagues, to opt out or not to
opt in. We will look at some of the optics of that later. My friend
from St. Boniface, for instance, and all the rest of them who
were elected in 1988 have the option to opt out. I will be
referring to that later and issuing some challenges to them.
Bill C-85, an act to amend the Members of Parliament
Retiring Allowances Act and to provide for the continuation of a
certain provision for a pension for members of Parliament, is
being debated. It certainly has been a long time coming. It was a
promise in the red book, and I am pleased to see that the
government is doing something about it. The Liberals are
fulfilling their promise for age 55 and no double dipping
allowed, but they do not go far enough to correct the irritant of
the people who are paying for this pension plan. Of course that is
the taxpayer.
I suspect there has been quite a battle in the government
caucus about when they would bring this in. It was made clear to
me by Treasury Board within the last couple of weeks when the
minister's press secretary assured my office that we would have
an opt-out clause for me, Deborah Grey, Beaver River, because I
was obviously so concerned about this.
12162
It looks as though they have gone perhaps one step further on
that and allowed the whole class of '88 to opt out. I applaud that,
and I will have my pen out to write down all those colleagues of
mine who are going to opt out.
We have called for pension plan changes for a long time. The
minister, in his remarks earlier, said that we had an opportunity
to discuss this plan in the House of Commons earlier, as if that
were some kind of noble gesture from the minister. In fact that
was on November 22, when I, the member for Beaver River,
introduced the motion on our opposition day to talk about the
MP pension plan. So it was hardly some great initiative on the
government side.
In fact I would love to quote reams out of Hansard of that day.
People stood in their places, a lot of them from the class of '88
because that was the day after their trough day, when they
qualified for the pension and their benefits had become vested.
They stood in their places and said: ``We do not make all that
much money''. Compared to the private sector, no. Sobeco Ernst
& Young proved that in their report. ``We have families and we
have homes''. Of course we do, and we have to take that into
consideration.
It goes on: ``I just bought a house and I have a mortgage, so I
need a pension; I had to lose my job from before; I sacrificed a
lot for public life''. On and on the tirades went. Yet when I look
at the things they had to say and when I look at how the Canadian
public viewed that debate that day and then I stand and hear
something like this today, it makes me pretty sad. It makes me
pretty mad also, because this is unjustifiable. This plan is
indefensible and we simply are not able to condone it.
We called for changes that would move the retirement age to
regular retirement age, age 60 perhaps. It is not that we are
against a pension. We have never made that assertion. We have
never made the comment across the country that we are against
pension plans for members of Parliament. It is not in our blue
sheet of Reform policies anywhere. One would not find that
Reform MPs are saying we do not want any pension. What we
are saying is that we want a fair pension, brought more in line
with the private sector, moved to regular retirement age. Let us
make sure that we are not getting some sort of special treatment.
I talked yesterday on the lobbyists act about two-tier systems
for lobbyists. I talked about the two-tier health system that
exists in this country for Canadians from coast to coast as well
as for regular public servants on the Hill compared to MPs on the
Hill. There are two tiers on a lot of things.
I do not think that anyone in this House today can justify that
we think we deserve a two-tier pension system. It simply will
not fly in the public. I go around and speak to various people and
I am sure government members do too. They hear from the same
Canadians I do. They travel around and hear from people and
take heat on this.
I suspect that is one reason why the Treasury Board assistant
said to me the other day and again today that the minister is
trying to get this through by the summer recess so that it is all
done, tucked away, and hopefully everyone will just forget about
it and keep quiet.
The last government hoped that a lot of people would forget
about a lot of things and keep quiet also. It simply does not
happen. They did not forget about it. And we will never forget
what happened to them in the last election. Perhaps it is a sign of
things to come.
(1135)
We want a fair pension plan. But we are calling for a pension
plan similar to that of any other person in the country who buys
into a private pension plan. That is, the employer will contribute
one dollar and the employee will contribute one dollar, dollar for
dollar. When I was with the Alberta Teachers Association I put
in x number of dollars a month, and the ATA put in x dollars a
month to match it.
We have seen the numbers. They range from $6 or $7 to $1,
and now we are being told by Treasury Board that it is down to
$3.60 to $1. Whatever it is, it is still obscenely rich. There is not
another person in the country, except this insular group sitting in
the green chamber and the folks on the other side of course, who
are going to be able to say: ``I gave up my life for public service.
This was my sacrifice to the country.'' Well, if it is going to be a
sacrifice to the country to serve in this place, then let us make it
a sacrifice, so that we are not spending some obscene pension
and living on it for the rest of our lives, and we will not feel
guilty about the dollars we collect that other people have paid.
I hear from both sides of the House today, from the
government and the official opposition, that it is okay because
we have made some incredible sacrifice. I do not consider this to
be a sacrifice.
I miss being at home, and I can hardly stand to leave my
husband every week, but when I think about the opportunity we
have to serve in the Parliament of Canada, it is remarkable.
Surely we cannot whine and cry and go home to St. Boniface,
Halifax, or Sherbrooke or wherever and say: ``This was my
sacrifice for the country, so I am going to collect a heap of cash.
Sorry about that, folks, but this is what I did for you and the
country, now this is what you are going to do for me''. It will not
fly. It is indefensible and unacceptable. So why not a fair
pension plan? I do not know.
It would seem to me that the provision for virtually full
protection against inflation is totally unchanged. Surely that is
something that could be brought in. We do not see that in the
legislation.
Many people do not know that at age 60 the present plan will
be indexed to inflation back to whenever it was the person stood
for a pension. I qualify right now at age 42. I would get
12163
everything back indexed for inflation at age 60. That also is
indefensible. Members across can try to convince me and the
people who are paying the bills that it is defensible. I do not
think we would see that anywhere, that any constituents across
the country who will be putting an X somewhere at the next
election are going to say it is justified. It is simply not going to
work.
As I have pointed out before, it is something rarely found in
the private sector. We are not going to find private pension plans
like this. The husband of one of our members is an expert on
mutual funds and RRSPs. He works in the insurance business.
He would never stand publicly and say the private sector has the
same plan as MPs, fully indexed back to age 42. That will never
be seen. We all know it, especially the people who are paying the
bills.
An hon. member: It is a double standard.
Miss Grey: There are also some people who would say that it
is just one way of giving a raise to MPs while avoiding public
scrutiny. A study that was done by Sobeco Ernst & Young talks
about that. The minister went on at great length about how we
are perhaps underpaid and overpensioned. Something has to be
done with the whole package deal to bring it into line. This
certainly is not going to address that.
Many people would say, and I agree with them, that the
increase to MPs' pensions, pay, perks, and everything else
should be debated by the public, the media, and in the House. In
fact, if we are sitting around as a collective, insulated group of
people asking what we are worth: ``Charlie, what do you figure,
how much are we worth?'' We all talk about it and say we are
wonderful, it is unanimous, and we are such and such. That is
exactly the way it has been done for years in this place: ``How
much are we worth, folks? Okay, that is what we have.''
There is an inside group determining the rules and regulations
of MPs' pension plans: Well, we are worth this much pay. What
do you think we are worth, folks, for our pension? Do you not
think we should be looked after? The whole country knows that
we certainly have sacrificed and we are hard done by. So what
are we worth for our pension, $6 to $1, or $4 to $1, to use the
government's new figures? Is that what we are worth? Yes, it is
unanimous again. Are we not wonderful? There we go, we are in
the cash. We are in the trough.
(1140)
Nowhere across the country would one find that.
Let us have an independent, arbitrary commission that will
look at this and say that those people are worth x amount of
dollars for their salary and x amount of dollars for their pension,
and because we are paying the bills, we will determine what they
are worth and what their pension plan will be. Let someone on
the outside of the group who is an expert in this area determine
it, rather than us sitting around in these hallowed halls saying we
are worth a whole lot, so there we are, and my friend thought that
was a great idea; we are here and the government is looking
after us. There is absolutely no logic at all to it.
This bill establishes the minimum age of 55, which is
certainly a step in the right direction, I will give them that. At
least they did not make it any amount, like it was before. The
minimum age is 55 for benefit eligibility, which is still too
young. And it only applies to a portion of some members'
benefits. Many members of this House will still get pension
payments as soon as they leave politics.
For example, my friend from Sherbrooke down the way was
elected young and is still young. If he leaves tomorrow he would
still cost taxpayers over $40,000 a year. If he lived to the age of
75 he could cost the taxpayers $3.5 million. There is no way one
could go to a town hall meeting and justify that.
The Prime Minister certainly is older and has had a long and
distinguished career in this House. We realize and recognize
that. Under the old plan, he would collect $90,000. Under the
new plan, granted he will receive a little less. However, we are
looking at a total of $2.1 million. That is a lot of cash.
My friend from Halifax would collect $19,491 under the old
plan. If she lived to 75 years old she would collect $1.1 million. I
am a little younger than her by about three or four years. The
work done by the National Citizens' Coalition on my pension
was that if I were to retire now, at age 42, because my benefits
were vested on March 13, and if I lived to age 75-and
sometimes in this profession one wonders if they will make it
that long-I stand to make, gain, profit by $1.8 million. I will
not use the word steal, because theft is something we do not
approve of, but I think of other people out there paying the bills
and being demanded to pay the bills by some select few here who
think we are worth more than everybody else.
Because I am opting out of this plan I have been ridiculed and
scorned, which I am used to in this House, by somebody who
says ``Oh, isn't she opportunistic''. That was said to me in
question period just last week or a couple of weeks ago when I
asked the question. They said: ``That Reformer from Beaver
River is such an opportunist''.
Money talks, as Neil Diamond used to sing. If I lived to the
age of 75 and was fully indexed way back at age 60, under the
old plan I stood to gain $1.8 million, which is pretty close to
what my friend across the way would receive, give or take a few
hundred thousand dollars, but what is that when we are talking
those kinds of dollars?
Under this new plan, which is supposed to be so good and so
effective in cutting down so much spending and so much of the
taxpayers' dollars-and I hope they are getting angrier by the
minute, because they are paying the shot for this-I will receive
$1.2 million. Does this seem like a justifiable savings? I would
hardly think so. Yes, it will be less. Yes, the government talked
about the fact that we would be saving taxpayers 30 per cent of
their dollars. But when we look at the size of the pension they are
12164
paying out, it is going from $1.8 million down to $1.27 million.
That is what our calculation is.
(1145 )
In this Parliament they are putting in $3.6 to every $1 that we
are seeing but we still cannot justify that because of the $1 for $1
employer-employee contribution rate I talked about earlier
which every other Canadian would enjoy if they had a private
pension plan. I stand to gain $1.2 million. There is no way
people across the country will buy this, red book or no red book.
When there was a commitment to save taxpayers money, if we
are saving them a little cash from $1.8 million to $1.27 million
we could harp on the savings and make it sound absolutely
terrific but at the same time we think they are paying way more
than they would pay if we had a regular pension plan.
The income tax rules for a registered pension plan state
benefits must be reduced by at least 3 per cent per year if
collected prior to attaining the age of 60, or alternatively has 30
years of eligibility or attaining age and years of service totalling
80 years. Lots of pension plans across the country have that, as
the minister stated, adding age plus years of service.
That point is consistent with the recommendations also made
in the Sobeco Ernst & Young report but this rate at which
benefits accrue has been lowered from 5 per cent to 4 per cent
per year. When we look at that we say that is good. It is going in
the right direction. I draw to people's attention who are paying
the bills for this that the 20 per cent reduction from 5 per cent
down to 4 per cent on the payout will only apply to members
whose benefits do not straddle the existing and revised plans.
Most everyone in the House is a straddler. Many of them were
elected in 1988 and so they are in the old pension plan but they
also straddle the new pension plan. All of us in the House are in
the position that we still have one foot in the old and one foot in
the new because these changes are being brought about in the
35th Parliament.
For far too many Liberal members in the House the reduction
in benefits will be significantly less than 20 per cent due to most
of their benefits having been accumulated at the 5 per cent rate.
Many of us have been in the House for several years now and so
we are looking at the 5 per cent rate. If we are to say that after
royal assent it will be down to 4 per cent, we have been paying in
for years at that rate and the amount will be far less.
In addition, under either the existing or the revised plans the
total contribution of members relative to total benefits received
will not change significantly, as I mentioned with myself. A
member will contribute approximately 6.7 per cent relative to
the total benefits received as they do under the existing plan.
I say let people know we are straddling something here. To me
we have an option. I think of former Prime Minister John Turner
who said he had no option. There are people across the way
today who are still every bit as Liberal as Mr. Turner was and
they cannot say what he said. They have an option. Whether it is
opting out or opting in we will still discuss the semantics of that.
It has been said to us that we have to opt out; in other words, we
have to sign within 60 days if we say we do not want to take this
pension plan. It has also been mentioned that we will have to opt
in; in other words within those 60 days people who will say they
will go on the regular MP pension, they will opt in.
I guess the semantics and the logistics of that are if I am to opt
out I have to take my little trotters out of the trough and that is an
active move for me to step away from the trough and say I do not
want it, I cannot justify that back home, I will take my money
elsewhere and I will invest it in the best way I can.
The flip side is if it is to opt in, and these are the semantics and
the logistics of it, the people of the class of '88 have the option
to opt out because the government did not put it in for the older
ones. It says it cannot bring in retroactive legislation because it
would be unfair. It brought in retroactive legislation, Bill C-22,
on the Pearson airport deal and brought in retroactive legislation
on the EH-101 helicopters. It amazes me that for some things it
says ``retroactive, no problem; it is a red book promise and we
will do it''. On something else that affects the wallet it cannot go
retroactively.
In any event, here is the picture. I have to take my trotters out
of the trough and step back and say I opt out. The class of '88
will have to get their pens ready and make a conscious decision
to step into the trough on all fours. They say: ``This is it. It is a
sacrifice. This is my public service. Dear knows I have served
the constituents of wherever long and hard and, don't you know,
this is owed to me? This is my money''. There is no way they
will ever convince anyone in the country that is their money. It
sounds like the ad on an Edmonton radio station that says: ``I am
talking about your money'', as he gives financial advice.
(1150)
This is not our money. I do not know what it will take to
convince the government and Bloc members that this is not our
money to free-wheelingly spend. They have to crawl back into
that trough, not out. There will be people who will remember
that. They will have the vision in their minds of people saying:
``Here is my letter. I am opting into the pension plan. I am really
sorry but cabinet convinced me to do it. I had no option''. We
know what happens to people who say they have no option.
12165
People will take the option. If they say someone had the option
to opt out but copped out, they will make the decision on the next
election.
The members of the 1988 class in Parliament will have to
make the decision about whose money this is and what they will
do with it. They either opt out or they will cop out, and there will
be a price to pay.
They will be sanctimonious. They will say: ``Look at the
member for Beaver River. There goes Deb again. Does she not
go on and on?'' I am sure my friend who is sitting in the House
today is taking notes and will have a wonderful time with this.
However, I would feel far more comfortable going home to a
town hall meeting in St. Lina, St. Paul, Bonnyville, Mallaig,
Therien or wherever else and saying: ``That was your money and
I will not spend it'', rather than going home to St. Boniface and
saying: ``That was your money but sorry, I will spend it''.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I ask the hon. member to
please try to control the attacking and use normal parliamentary
procedure.
Miss Grey: Madam Speaker, I stand to be corrected. We are
talking about debate and I am sure that all of us need to be
prepared to go into our places at home. If I said anything
unparliamentary I ask your forgiveness and ask the Chair to
straighten me out on that and chastise me. If I am debating I
would like to continue debating.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I have no intention of
chastising the hon. member, but from the very beginning I have
noticed that certain comments are bordering on what I would not
accept as being of the integrity that we have been seeing in the
House. I hope we would be a little more careful.
Miss Grey: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Let me continue by
asking how the government gets around its own laws in paying
these extravagant benefits. It uses the retirement compensation
arrangement. People watching this do not have a clue. They
know that hopefully we pay a lot of money in, $600 a month, and
we get a lot more money out. If that is attack, I do beg
forgiveness again, but those are the numbers and that is the way
it is.
The plan created by the Members of Parliament Retiring
Allowances Act is what we pay into but it contravenes the
Income Tax Act. How do we get to pay more into a pension plan
than those who are contributing in the private sector? We do so
by writing our own rules and using the retirement compensation
arrangement or an RCA account.
As we see in section 4300 of the income tax regulations,
RCAs were originally introduced in October 1986 to prevent
taxpayers in the highest tax brackets and employees of
non-taxable entities from deferring the payment of tax, which
happens across the country. Contributions to an RCA are subject
to a 50 per cent refundable tax under section 207.5(1), which
also applies to any investment income plan; most retirement
plans are invested. It is a very expensive way to fund a
retirement plan for anybody but the government.
As a report produced for the National Citizens Coalition
points out, the use of the RCA means the government is going
through the motions to comply on paper with the provisions of
its own law. In other words, this looks legitimate under the
Income Tax Act because it is all right under the RCA.
(1155)
Madam Speaker, when I was called opportunistic that hurt me
and maybe that bordered on something unparliamentary. I would
have loved it if you had jumped up in my defence because I am
giving up a lot of cash. As somebody who is opting out I should
mention the effect Bill C-85 and the RCA account will have on
me because it is substantial.
I trust there will be some opting out from the government
benches because the full class of '88 is in the same position I am;
all of us on this side of the House with the exception of a few
Bloc members who were here before sitting as Tories.
The portion of my contributions that went into the retirement
compensation arrangement, the RCA, or 7 per cent of everything
I have earned in the last six years I have transferred over. I now
will have to pay tax on it. It is one thing to think that I am
somebody who is opting out and will just scoop up that money.
The government says I can get all the money back that I have
contributed but with zero from the government. It would be
wonderful to say: ``I opt out of the rich stuff, please just give me
my contributions plus matching contributions from yourself''.
That is all we are really asking. Make it fair. Make it in line with
the private pension plans. I will only be able to get back my
money at 4 per cent interest, which is the money I have put in.
It would be wonderful to roll that over into RRSPs, mutual
funds or whatever, but I will have to pay tax on 4 per cent of my
income which is in a separate fund. The portion the government
puts into a legitimate registered pension plan has been sheltered
from taxes.
I do not know if I am making myself clear enough. It has taken
me ages to figure this out and so I do not expect somebody
watching television to figure it out immediately.
The 11 per cent I am putting in is broken into 7 per cent and 4
per cent, with the 4 per cent sheltered from taxes. The 7 per cent
we put into the other fund will be taxable. We will have to pay
tax on that now while we are in a higher tax bracket rather than
later when we are retired and living at a lower tax bracket. It
means we will have to put more in.
If I had the option I would have taken the entire 11 per cent I
have been putting in for six years and some months and gone to
my financial adviser. I would have said: ``Here is this much
money per month; please put this into mutual funds and I will
accrue the interest. You invest it wisely and I will be able to live
12166
on it''. I could have done that. I had the option. Maybe, but no. It
was law that I had to this and put it into this plan.
Really I had no option. I wish I had because I would have
taken that money, the whole 11 per cent I had been putting in,
which is $600 a month, and I would have said: ``Please do
something with this. Put it into RRSPs; put it into mutual funds
and I will collect the interest on that and I will look after my own
retirement. This is my money, my salary, not public money. I
will let regular sources of investment planning look after my
retirement''.
Mr. Penson: Like most Canadians have to do.
Miss Grey: Exactly the same way every other Canadian has to
do it. Instead I was bound to put 11 per cent in there. It will pay
me 4 per cent interest. With mutual funds, if I had been investing
that $600-odd dollars a month, I could have been getting back
probably 9 per cent or 10 per cent. I would have been sheltered
from paying taxes on it now. I would be glad to pay taxes on it
later; it is the way the regular RRSP plan works in this country. I
would have been able to put all of that money in, but instead I
was bound by law. Now I have the option. Now I am taking that
option, although it does seem a little ridiculous that the
government will not even pay $1 to $1 contributions.
Apparently to compensate members for the minuscule
reduction in their future benefit accrual rate the government has
also lowered the amounts members contribute toward their own
pensions. The minister mentioned that. He said that instead of
11 per cent we will now be putting in just 9 per cent.
(1200)
There has been all kinds of talk about whether or not it raises
the salary of an MP. I will not argue about those figures. If I am
not putting in eleven and I am putting in nine that gives me more
disposable income. There will be more cash on my monthly
cheque.
Let us think for a moment about reducing accrual rates from
11 per cent to 9 per cent, what I would have received if I had
opted into the pension and what I might have received if I opted
out. I want to look after my own money, my own retirement. I do
not want to be dependent on the government. When I am older I
want to look after myself with RRSPs. I do not even want to be a
burden to the government if I am younger and collecting the MP
pension plan that is so rich and generous.
If I had been given the option of taking the $600 a month that I
have been putting into the MP pension plan and putting it into
my own retirement plan, I could have put in $600 a month from
1989 to 1997. Let me use that nine-year period. What would
happen if I had put $600 a month into private RRSPs, mutual
funds, rather than into the MP pension plan? Age 75 is the
average lifespan. Many people have calculated the average age
to be 75 and how much they would get by age 75 with inflation at
age 60. If the variables correlate to each other on par and I were
to collect about 7.5 per cent interest, which is reasonable and
fair, I would collect $663,900.
If I put $600 a month in for eight or nine years and let it sit
there accruing interest I would get back at age 75 about
$664,000. If for some reason I was particularly lucky and
obtained a 10 per cent rate I would stand to gain $1.29 million.
Under the pension plan that the government is putting in $3 or $4
to $1, I would stand to gain about $1.2 million.
This is hypothetical because I had to put money into the
pension plan. I would collect about half what I stand to gain
under the new plan if I put the money into RRSPs. It is no fun to
collect only half. I do not think any member in the House would
ask: ``How stupid do I look?'' Is it more fun to collect $1.2
million or $660,000? Obviously whatever we get we could live
into that income, but the fact remains that the $664,000 I
invested, that somebody went out and invested on my behalf,
would be my money. At the grand old age of 75 I would be able
to collect that money and say: ``I did this. I looked after myself. I
was not dependent on government and I feel good about that''.
I would have a hard time collecting the MP pension plan. I
would feel a little guilty spending the money because it was not
my money, because I did not earn it myself or look after myself
financially.
According to the Treasury Board, members will now
contribute $1 for the $3.61 taxpayers contribute. That number
was a lot richer in the last Parliament. It seems as though there
was a great sweep of this place in 1993 and a lot of the older
members left. There are many new members in the House right
now. That is the largest reason. We were told by Treasury
Board-it is not some figment of my Reform imagination-that
it would be $3.61 to every buck we put in. It looks better. It looks
more noble. It looks like there is a real saving but it has nothing
to do with any nobility on behalf of the government.
It has to do with the fact that generally there are more new
members in the House. That is what we were told in the briefing
by the department. The government pays a generous rate of
interest on this account, which is a cost to taxpayers but which is
not included in the total cost of the plan that the government
admits to.
My point is that in the public accounts of 1993-94 last year
they paid interest on $23 million. That is kind of scary because it
goes into government expenditures. At the same time it does not
specifically look like it is paying the MP pension. It is just
amazing. They are spending $23 million on interest and it is
nowhere in the budgetary figures.
12167
(1205)
Many members on the opposite side of the House have spoken
both during their election campaigns and later in the House on
the need for changes to the plan. I do not mean to be critical at
all. In fact I applaud the member for Lambton-Middlesex who
indicated to her constituents during the election campaign that
the MPs pension plan should be, and I quote from Hansard,
``more fair to the general public's pension plan''. I applaud her
for that. It is terrific.
Similarly the member for Waterloo indicated in the House
that during the campaign he supported the minimum age of 60
years. The member for Ontario said that he would opt out of the
plan. This is not something we are trying to make our issue. It
should be a totally non-partisan issue. We are talking about cash
and not politics. It will cost money. Anyone on both sides of the
House who has the nerve should be rewarded and applauded for
opting out of the program.
Let me conclude my remarks by saying that the signal the bill
sends is more important than anything else. It seems unfortunate
to me that the signal being sent is that we are reducing the fat a
bit, that we are sacrificing an incredible amount for the country
but we will still take a lot more cash than anyone who is buying
into a private pension plan.
This is unacceptable to us. We applaud the government for
bring in the bill. I am sorry to say it is not good enough. It will
not withstand the test of fire by the people who are paying the
bills for it. Therefore I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word ``that''
and substituting the following therefor:
That Bill C-85, an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring
Allowances Act and to provide for the continuation of a certain provision, be
not now read a second time but that the order be discharged, the bill withdrawn
and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I rise in the House this afternoon to make some
comments concerning Bill C-85.
Primarily I should like to deal with the issue of fairness in Bill
C-85, to talk about some alternatives the New Democratic Party
has put forward in the past which we will continue to put forward
in the future, and to make a recommendation to the House with
respect to the bill.
(1210 )
I have served in the Saskatchewan legislature in the past. I
have made speeches in public, in legislatures, in private and in
other places about adequate compensation for elected officials. I
have always believed, as the majority of Canadians believe, that
if we pay adequate compensation to elected officials they are
accountable to us. If taxpayers pay the fare for pay and benefits
in a satisfactory way, the elected officials will be accountable to
the taxpayers who pay the pay and benefits whether they are
current or deferred.
I have made this speech in many forums. I have had support
from almost 95 per cent of the people who have listened to my
comments, in particular those in Saskatchewan. They agree that
elected officials should be adequately compensated so that they
can do the business of government and provide good, honest
government.
Unfortunately for eight years in Canada we have seen the
Mulroney government govern in a way that most Canadians
rejected unanimously. As a matter of fact they only elected two
members of Parliament as a result of the Conservative record.
We have seen a government in Saskatchewan under Grant
Devine Conservative for nine years, driving the province into
bankruptcy and being totally dishonest with the people of
Saskatchewan. They are despised by the people of
Saskatchewan. The latest event in Saskatchewan is that
one-third of the former government's cabinet and caucus is now
facing charges before the courts for the type of alleged dishonest
actions the taxpayers and the voters perceived them to be
following when in government.
The Mulroney government drove our country into debt, gave
tax breaks to the wealthy, hurt the poor, attacked the middle
class and served the country in a very dishonest fashion. It is the
same with Grant Devine, premier of Saskatchewan. Taxpayers
have the same attitude toward him. People would say that paying
those politicians a dollar a year would be too much, and I believe
they are right.
Prior to the 1993 federal campaign in Canada and the 1991
provincial campaign in Saskatchewan, we have seen people who
are disenchanted and cynical about elected politicians because
of corruption, dishonesty and incompetence. New Democrats
have always said, and we are supported by Canadians across the
country, that if the government is good and honest and provides
a fair agenda of legislation, pay and compensation will not be
issues. They would wish to pay elected officials in a satisfactory
way.
J. S. Woodsworth once said: ``What we desire for ourselves
we wish for all. Elected officials are elected with integrity, with
common objectives, with individual objectives to serve their
country''. I think J. S. Woodsworth was saying that to get
elected to Parliament to serve the country and do to fellow
Canadians what we would like to have done to ourselves and is
an honourable approach to government. He worked very hard as
have the CCF and the New Democratic Party over the years to
achieve those objectives.
We see in Bill C-85 one step forward to perhaps addressing
the pension issue, the pay and benefits aspect of elected
officials. However I am not sure whether it goes far enough.
Canadians will judge that as time goes on.
12168
With respect to desiring for ourselves what we wish for all, as
J. S. Woodsworth has said and as has been quoted by many
thousands of people over the years, we in the House of
Commons and in the Government of Canada must show
Canadians by example that it is a good government, that we are
parliamentarians with honesty and integrity, and that we will
introduce and support legislation to benefit Canadians as a
whole rather than hurt Canadians. If we do this the attitude
toward politicians will be much fairer and less cynical and we
will be faced with spending a lot less time debating issues like a
pension or salary package.
(1215 )
I also want to make a comment with respect to the Reform
member for Beaver River who said that she is taking a reduction
in pension and that this is an honourable thing to do.
Public service and serving the public is an honourable thing to
do. Firefighters, police officers, provincial, municipal or
federally elected officials are honourable professions in this
country. It is no different from homemaking, working in retail,
working in a steel mill, working as a teacher or in other areas.
These professions are very honourable. They in essence serve
the good of the country and the public.
If I were wealthy, I would gladly do this job for free. Most
parliamentarians in this House would say the same thing.
As a matter of fact in the United States a large number of
wealthy people govern the country, but Canadian taxpayers will
say: ``Who will the wealthy govern the country for? Will they
govern the country for those who are on welfare, those who are
single parents, those who do not have an education, power or
pensions or other sources of income to support them? Who will
they support? Will they support their own kind or will they
support all Canadians?'' In the American example we see very
clearly that to be active in politics you have to be a millionaire or
a multimillionaire just to run for office, never mind serving your
country.
There has to be fair compensation with respect to elected
officials. Most of us would serve if we were not paid and were
able to have some other income to sustain an adequate lifestyle.
As long as members of Parliament set their own benefits,
Canadian taxpayers will believe benefits are too generous.
We see in the Reform Party and others in politics, the former
Conservative governments, that they play the mugs game. It is
not a winning game. It does not matter if we get paid $64,000, or
$90,000 or $15,000 a year, it will still be too much in some
people's eyes. That is fair. They are entitled to their opinion.
The point I am making is that we have to look at this pension
bill in a very broad way. We have to recognize some of the
arguments on both sides of the issue whether it is a mugs game:
``I am going to bid down the pension; I am going to bid down the
salary; vote for me, vote for me,'' or whether we are going to
say: ``I am elected as your member of Parliament. I am going to
conduct myself in this House on behalf of this country in an
honest, hard working way to ensure that my constituents have as
much opportunity as possible for input to government and to
ensure the decisions we take benefit as many Canadians as
possible, not just a few''.
Canadians have to be aware that it is a mugs game when we
start bidding down benefits, and who is to benefit? The
benefactors will be those who are rich and wealthy enough to
seek public office. They will represent those who are rich and
wealthy who already in most part influence this country through
the Conservative Party, the Reform Party and the Liberal
government of the day.
Most of the wealthy corporations contribute to those three
parties. That is something the ordinary taxpayer has to be more
aware of. They have to say that perhaps they should elect to
Parliament people who are not wealthy, who do not support the
wealthy, who are not on big pensions like many of the Reform
members are.
I question the Reform's tactics and motives. In the Reform
Party many members are receiving military pensions, teachers'
pensions, former MLA pensions. They have all sorts of other
private sector incomes and they are saying let us do away with
this and let us do away with that.
Meanwhile they are ignoring the real problems of our
country: the lack of jobs; the lack of commitment and resources
to law and order; the lack of commitment and resources to our
social programs. They do not care about people. They are just
trying to make a political point and play a mugs game which
they may or may not win.
If they win one battle they may be happy with that. The
alternative is that people may not be too concerned about how
low we go. I think they are more concerned about how hard we
work and what kind of positive governance and representation in
this House we give them.
(1220 )
The second point I wish to raise concerns the positive steps
Bill C-85 has taken. I want it to be known that I am not
endorsing the bill. However, I want to say that New Democrats
have led the country in pension reform since 1979, unlike
Reformers who have only talked about it since the last election.
I refer specifically to Saskatchewan Premier Allan Blakeney.
On July 1, 1979 a bill was given royal assent in Saskatchewan to
change MLA's pensions from the defined benefit plan, which we
are now under in the House of Commons, to a defined
contribution plan, which means it is a money purchase plan. It is
like an RRSP. The member puts a dollar in and it is supported by
the employer matching it with a dollar. Whatever is put in and
12169
earned through various investments is what the member will
receive.
The leader of the NDP, the hon. member for the Yukon, went
on record in 1991, 1992 and in subsequent years calling for an
independent commission to review MPs pay and benefits and in
particular the pension plan.
The NDP has been doing this for 16 years. Bill C-85 is a step
in the right direction. First, it reduces pension benefits by 20 per
cent. Second, it raises the age of eligibility to 55 years from no
age before. That is quite positive. Third, it reduces the cost to
taxpayers by one-third, which is an honourable objective. It is
on the right track and I believe most Canadians would agree that
it is a positive step. Further, it eliminates the double dipping
issue, which the minister spoke of earlier.
I would suggest that this bill not be endorsed in its entirety,
but that it be referred to a standing committee-
Mr. Williams: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
There does not appear to be a quorum in the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I do not see a quorum.
Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Quorum is present.
Resuming debate.
Mr. Solomon: Madam Speaker, New Democrats have led the
country in terms of pension reform provincially and federally.
As a matter of fact, in September 1994 I introduced a private
members' bill which proposed a money purchase plan for
members of Parliament that was based on the Saskatchewan
model. There were a fair number of members who considered
that plan and thought it worthwhile.
I also introduced private members' Bill C-314 which is
calling-
Mr. Williams: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
There does not appear to be a quorum in the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): There is no quorum.
Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
(1225 )
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Quorum is present.
Resuming debate.
Mr. Solomon: Madam Speaker, I noticed the Reformers who
are calling quorum do not have any members in the House
themselves, so I am curious about that.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sure the hon.
member has forgotten that we do not discuss the presence or
non-presence of members in the House.
Mr. Solomon: Madam Speaker, Bill C-85 has a double
dipping feature. I might add that I introduced a private
members' bill which calls for addressing the real double dipping
issue. My bill on double dipping is not included in Bill C-85 but
I propose it be considered. Members of Parliament who are
elected and receive pensions or other income would have their
MP salaries reduced dollar for dollar with respect to the
pensions they are receiving.
I say this because a host of members of Parliament stand in
this House from time to time and call for a reduction of this or a
bidding down of that. They are receiving huge pensions,
whether they are military pensions like the Reform Party
members, or MLA pensions like the Reform Party members, or
municipal pensions or provincial government pensions or
pensions from companies or government agencies, boards and
commissions.
Those members stand and say: ``Let us cut this and cut that
because we are already getting $61,000 a year or $41,000 in big
pensions''. Canadians have to be aware of that. I would like to
see this bill adopted by this House. If you are receiving a
$60,000 a year pension, then you can serve your country for a
$60,000 pension plus $4,000 more to make up the difference
between the member of Parliament salary and the money already
being received from the public treasury.
However, I do not see the Reform members standing up and
talking about this, or even the Liberal government members.
However I would ask members to consider that.
With respect to the money purchase recommendation I have
said the NDP government in Saskatchewan and New Democrats
across this country have led pension reform. We have had a
tradition of working toward a fair plan. To ensure fairness the
Liberal government must appoint an independent commission to
review this legislation to ensure it is fair for taxpayers and plan
benefactors. As long as MPs are setting their own benefits,
Canadian taxpayers will believe benefits are too generous.
I might add that Saskatchewan is a model yet again today. It
has led Canada for 16 years in pension reform but today it
introduced pension legislation yet one more time. It has
announced a series of reforms to the MLA pensions which are
deemed by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and the National
Citizens' Coalition already to be the fairest in the land.
I quote from an article by the Association of Saskatchewan
Taxpayers:
The pension plan for Saskatchewan MLAs elected after 1979 is one of the
fairest political pension plans in Canada. For every dollar these MLAs
contribute to their pension fund, taxpayers match it by $1. MLAs can only draw
benefits based on what their own fund earns.
12170
This is called a defined contribution plan which is forced to
pay for itself and therefore will not develop an unfunded
liability. The only province with a more taxpayer friendly plan is
Alberta which has no plan.
The article goes on:
The Canadian Taxpayers Federation has called on other provincial and federal
politicians to adopt the 1979 Saskatchewan model of reform, with one exception
which was noted in the May 1994 issue of The Taxpayer. The politicians of 1979
refused to lead by example and hoarded the rich old pension plan for themselves.
This one catch in the scenario keeps growing uglier since we first took issue with
it.
In response to the last part, the Saskatchewan government has
rolled back the pre-1979 pension plan for members. It has
capped the pension for current members who are contributing to
a defined benefit plan at 70 per cent, based on four-year
averages. This will expand restrictions as well in the new bill on
double dipping to include members of the House of Commons,
members of the Canadian Senate, judges of any court and any
employment or service paid for by the Government of Canada or
any other province or territory.
(1230)
Saskatchewan has gone one step further in double dipping as
well as the pension plan. It will eliminate the special pension
allowance for the premier that was introduced in the 1960s by
Liberal Premier Ross Thatcher.
I call on the Liberal government to refer the matter of the
Prime Minister's bonus of $50,000 at age 65 to an independent
commission. The Liberal government should take some
leadership and eliminate the wealthy Prime Minister's special
bonus, as Premier Roy Romanow has done in Saskatchewan with
his pension and those of members who served in the legislature
prior to 1979.
In summary, I appreciate the concern and the interest of
Canadian taxpayers on this issue. Bill C-85 goes a long way in
addressing the major concerns of Canadians. However,
regardless of what we do, when MPs produce and pass
legislation respecting their own salary and benefits, Canadians
will always perceive it to be too generous.
I ask the government to consider this aspect and not to refer
the bill to the procedures and House affairs committee, which is
a nice good old club of MPs, but to refer the legislation to an
independent commission and let it establish once and for all,
apart from elected members, what our pay and benefits should
be.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the comments of the hon.
member for Regina-Lumsden. He expressed his concern about
double dipping which of course I share.
Examples of double dipping cross many party lines. The three
old parties are all guilty. One person who comes to mind is Ed
Broadbent, former leader of the federal NDP who is double
dipping at this very moment.
However, the member talked about those who have served in
the military or in other levels of government and then come to
Parliament as also being double dippers.
I would like to give an example. Someone has served in the
military for 25 or 30 years, or someone has served at a lower
level of government for 20 or 30 years, has made it a career, paid
into an actuarially sound pension, not like the MPs pension
which is funded four to one, five to one by the taxpayers for
every dollar that we contribute. I am talking about actuarially
sound pensions. Is he suggesting that these people should not
collect their pensions after a long and distinguished career of
service in these areas?
Mr. Solomon: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question
from the Reform House leader.
I would like to make two points. First, two months ago the
former leader of the New Democratic Party announced that he
would not be receiving his pension while he was employed by
the government. He terminated his benefits two or three months
ago. As always, the member is misinformed. The former NDP
leader is not receiving two incomes.
Second, the member is suggesting that military pensions or
certain government pensions are actuarially sound. The big
news for members of the Reform Party, to which I would ask
them to listen very carefully, is that these defined benefit plans
are not funded totally right now. They have massive unfunded
liabilities.
Provincial-federal plans are short billions of dollars and
additional revenues have to be pumped into them to meet the
defined benefit aspect of the plan. As leaders of the country we
should undertake to change our plan, make it a money purchase
plan. From there we should go to the various departments and try
to negotiate that with the various unions to ensure that the public
sector is doing what the Saskatchewan public sector is doing.
(1235 )
I might add to the House leader that the Saskatchewan public
sector has had a money purchase plan not since 1979 but since
1977. Even though it has had that plan since 1977-that is
almost 20 years ago now-its defined benefit plan, which was
well run over the years, is still about $2 billion unfunded in
terms of future liability on the part prior to 1977. This is
something that the Reform members should feel quite concerned
about.
With respect to the last question that the member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster asked, should people who are
receiving public pensions serve in the House and receive an
MP's salary in addition to that? I say not because that is the real
double dipping.
12171
You are getting a public pension and then serving the House of
Commons and getting an MP's salary.
Members stand up in the House and say: ``Let us cut this. Let
us cut that. By the way, let us also cut low income people. Let us
cut jobs. Let us cut medicare. Let us cut social services. Let us
cut education. Let us cut everything because I am all right, Jack.
I have a big income. I have a big pension''. That is the message
of the Reform Party.
Canadians see through this very thin argument which has no
merit whatsoever. It is good rhetoric when no one else knows the
facts. When people know the facts, I am sure they will make a
decision with respect to whether the Reform's argument holds
water.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, just
under two years ago Canadians sent a clear message to Ottawa
that they were tired of the status quo, of hypocritical politicians
and subsequently voted in 205 rookies.
My speech is to those rookies and my message is, let us not let
the veterans corrupt us. When the voters fired the former
frontbenchers, the former backbenchers and former prime
ministers, they took away their power but for most not their pay
cheques. As taxpayers we will be paying them for life 75 per
cent of the average of their best six years of salary if they served
15 years.
The issue before us today is the MP pension plan, technically
described as two separate items, the members of Parliament
retirement allowance and the retirement compensation
allowance. This is because the pension plan for parliamentarians
was excessively generous and would not have been accepted as a
registered pension plan under the Income Tax Act so the
politicians split it into two.
I will be talking a lot about double standards. That is my first
example of a double standard, one for politicians and one for the
rest of Canadians.
An MP currently contributes a total of 11 per cent of the
sessional indemnity to obtain pension benefits. Four per cent is
applied to their retirement allowance while 7 per cent is applied
to the compensation allowance. That is a sneaky way of getting
around it. For additional benefits available, an MP with
additional duties such as serving as a minister, there is the same
split of contributions: 4 per cent to basic and 7 per cent to
additional exists.
Under Bill C-85 these percentages and the amount of the
salary that they can contribute has been reduced from 11 per cent
to 9 per cent. Here we have the basis for a plan that is fully
indexed, completely immune to inflation and not available to
people in the private sector.
In the name of justice and fairness, I urge the government to
go further than it has in Bill C-85 and bring all members, past
and present, out of the ivory tower, back to earth and back to
reality. I plead with them to show some leadership by example,
like Reform Party members.
We have pledged not to take an MP pension in its current form
even if this smoke and mirrors bill is passed. Many of us,
whether we can afford to or not, have also taken a 10 per cent
cut, not because MPs make too much money but because as
leaders we know that Canadians will need to sacrifice in the near
future and are sacrificing now probably. We are prepared to lead
by example at the top, no more double standards, one for
politicians and one for the rest of Canadians. We challenge the
government to follow our lead because simply put, it is the right
thing for it to do especially when it asks Canadians to sacrifice.
Personally, I would like to thank the government and the
Prime Minister for allowing Reformers to opt out of the pension
plan. It is unfortunate it is available only to the class of '93 and
not the class of '97. This is a one shot deal.
(1240 )
Nevertheless provinces like Alberta, that eliminated the
government pension plan altogether, will continue to lead by
example. It shows integrity. They do not just talk about it. Most
important, it sets a higher standard for politicians.
I would encourage all Liberal rookies, to whom I am
addressing my speech today, to consider opting out with the
Reformers. Weigh it against being voted out by the Canadian
public in 1997.
How can the Minister of Human Resources Development
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 fund and currently pay in excess of $2 million a year
to do exactly what he is criticizing auto workers of doing? That
is hypocrisy.
How can the Minister of Finance nickel and dime RRSP
contribution limits in his budget without addressing his own
retirement compensation allowance that taxpayers fund more
than he does?
The hypocrisy of the Liberal government on this issue is truly
disheartening. Liberals promised to reform the gold plated MP
pension plan but with Bill C-85 all they have done is nibble
around the edges. Canadians will continue to fork out millions
of dollars to former cabinet ministers and backbenchers.
The Prime Minister takes great pride in stating that MPs are
held accountable at election time. That is when Canadians have
their say about the government's performance. If Canadians say
that the government stinks and sends it packing like the Tories,
these members will still be looked after for life by the Canadian
12172
taxpayers. We may fire them, Canada, but we will continue to
pay millions of dollars to look after them.
That is why we are opting out. We feel there are much better
ways to look after our futures than this current double standard:
one for politicians and one for the rest of Canadians. It is as if
the pension plan is a separate UI program for the aristocrats, the
select elected few who are better treated than the ordinary
Canadian and are somehow, because they serve their country, a
cut above the rest.
The Prime Minister scored great political points in opposition
when he tried to call the Tories back to the House during the
summer to pass pension reform legislation. At the time he
stated: ``If she''-Kim Campbell-``recalls Parliament we
would pass it in one day''. That is how fast he would have moved
in opposition. It sounds great, but what did he do once his party
went over to the other side of the House and he became the Prime
Minister? He waited a whole year for 52 more MPs, 46 of whom
were Liberals, to qualify for their golden parachutes which this
bill protects.
We have three tiers, which I will get to later, of pension
qualifiers. Is it any wonder then that some of us on this side of
the House question the double standard and the arrogance
surrounding the government on this issue?
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, I call a quorum count.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Adams): The hon. member for
Regina-Lumsden has made a quorum call. I see a quorum at the
present time.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it greatly if you
added the extra five minutes this took on to my speech, please.
Let me outline some of the many double standards regarding
pensions contained in Bill C-85. It is fully indexed against
inflation. This feature is not available in the private sector with
the exception of maybe one of the richest companies in the
private sector. This indexation costs a lot of money. Members do
not contribute enough for that privilege. There is one standard
for the elected politician. Yet the ordinary hard working
Canadian taxpayer who looks after their own future in the
private sector does not have that same opportunity, that same
privilege, but a politician does. It is a double standard.
(1245)
The second point is double dipping will not end for former
members, past colleagues of the House like Joe Clark who is
currently on the payroll and is receiving his pension plus his
salary.
Mr. Solomon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, there are no
Reform members in the House. I call quorum.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Adams): I will ask the clerk to
count the members present.
And the count having been taken:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Adams): I do not see a quorum. I
would ask that the bells be sounded.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Adams): A quorum is present,
resuming debate.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member
for Regina-Lumsden made reference to the fact that there were
no Reform members in the House. There are two things I would
like to bring to his attention. That statement is completely
incorrect. There are Reform members in the House.
I understand the rules do not allow members to speak of
members not being present in the House. I want to ensure the
record will show there are and have been Reform members in the
House at all times.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Adams): The member is correct.
We do not refer to the presence or absence of members in the
House. I ask that all members abide by that regulation.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I wish to point
out that members of the House are in the lobbies, many of them
having lunch. It is lunchtime, after all. This perpetual set of
quorum calls is nothing but a delay tactic on the part of the hon.
member for Regina-Lumsden.
The hon. member has flown the coop and there is not a single
New Democrat in the House and there has not been all morning
except for him. If those people do not show up for the debate and
do not participate in the House they should be defeated by their
electors for their non-attendance which is perpetual.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Adams): I think we are engaged in
debate. Unless there is another point of order, resuming debate.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, if this is all intended to get me upset,
ruffled and riled it will not work. I will continue along pointing
out and showing the double standard of the government, the
double standard with which it holds itself in much higher esteem
than the rest of the Canadian public.
I was trying to point out all of the double standards contained
within Bill C-85 and it should be made the same as the private
sector. I pointed out the full indexation which protects the
amount of money politicians get against inflation and not
available in the private sector.
Former members are not touched by this legislation who are
double dipping. It is only if they get reappointed at the end of
this term. That is another double standard. Why leave them
alone? Why leave them untouched? They are the ones who
started all this. They are the ones who started giving themselves
12173
these generous benefits. Why is the government protecting
them?
The accrual rate has been reduced from 5 per cent to 4 per
cent. That is admirable. It is a reduction. It will reflect in
savings. There is no question about that. It still is double that of
the private sector. The private sector is 2 per cent limited by the
Income Tax Act. This defies the Income Tax Act and it goes to 4
per cent. The Liberal government is bragging now that this will
increase to 19 years before members get 75 per cent of their six
best years. In the private sector at 2 per cent it will take 35 years
to get 70 per cent of their salary. It is a double standard; one for a
cut above the rest and the other for the ordinary Canadian.
(1250 )
Pension income in the private sector is limited to 70 per cent
of an individual's three best years, but for those in Ottawa who
are a cut above the rest it is 75 per cent. It is a 5 per cent
difference, but it is still a difference. It is a double standard.
The maximum contribution in the private sector is between 5
per cent and 7 per cent of an individual's salary, which is
matched by the employer. Here in the House it is 9 per cent, in
the Senate it is 9 per cent, and it is matched three and a half
times. It has been reduced from six to one to about three and a
half to one. That reduction is good. It is headed in the right
direction. Come down another 2.5 and I think the government
might have a plan which would be acceptable to the Canadian
public. Once again, there is a double standard.
Bill C-85 reduces the six-year eligibility rule, which was
ridiculous. No one should qualify for a pension for life after only
six years of service. I commend and compliment the government
for that. In its place it introduced the requirement of the age of
55 for a fully indexed pension; once again, another example of
the double standard. In the private sector the age for retirement
is 65. If a person chooses to collect their pension before age 65
they receive a reduced amount. That is not so with politicians.
They are fully indexed at age 55 with no penalties, away we go.
It is 10 years better than the private sector and that should not be.
Cabinet ministers have no cap on the level they can contribute
from their salaries to the pension plan.
We now have a three tier plan. We have the trough regular plan
for all those members of Parliament who were here prior to
1988, such as the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister.
We have the trough light plan, which applies to all the rookies in
the House, the class of `93. If they are dumb enough to take it, if
they are dumb enough not to force the rest of their veterans to
follow along with them, then that is the way it is. Then there is
the trough stout plan. If a member has higher responsibilities
and makes a little extra money there is no cap. We have trough
regular, trough light and trough stout. Those are three plans for
politicians, who are a cut above the rest. There is only one plan
in the private sector. It is another example of the double
standard.
Why not cut out the previous members' generous plans, or the
previous members who are untouched? Why have this trough
stout? Why not reduce it by even 5 per cent to 10 per cent, or buy
them out rather than paying them $1 million, $1.5 million or $2
million over 20 or 30 years? Buy them out for $.5 million and be
done with it. Let us clean it up and fix it properly once and for
all. It is time to cut our losses.
Ministers receive a bonus on top of their salaries; not a bonus,
it is extra remuneration for their extra workload. There is no
limit on how big their pensions can become. They are not
limited to the 75 per cent of the six best years. The Prime
Minister and people who have been here for 30 years could end
up getting 110 per cent of their salary when they are finished.
That is not so in the private sector. That is not so for the rookies
of the class of `93. That is not so if a member remains a
backbencher, a parliamentary secretary or chairs a standing
committee. That is a double standard.
I do not understand why the Liberal rookies did not squawk
more. They do have a chance to lead by example. They also have
a chance to opt out. I hope they do because Canadians will be
looking at whether people opt out and try to have a sensible plan.
They might be voted out if they do not opt out.
The bill sends a message that politicians are not ordinary
people but a cut above the rest. That is why people do not like
politicians. That is what politicians have come to represent:
self-serving interests rather than serving the interests of the
Canadian public.
Reformers would end full indexation of pensions. We would
postpone eligibility for benefits until at least age 65, with
accessibility at a reduced rate. Eligibility would be further
postponed by the amount of time in which the person was
already paid prior to age 65. We would subject the MP pension
plan to a tax back according to a formula identical to that of the
old age security program.
The Reform caucus has already approved the concept of
privately purchased 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 current gold plated pension plan the
House could agree to a proper and balanced compensation
package which would be more palatable and compatible with
Canadian taxpayers.
(1255)
Here is my personal recommendation which is certainly
debatable but which should satisfy our critics. Whereas
individual citizens from time to time wish to enter the public
sector to help shape legislation and help make a contribution to
Canadian society, whereas it is desirable to attract individual
citizens from all walks of life to Parliament regardless of
income, a reasonable compensation package should be offered
to have this
12174
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
one time and they must balance personal sacrifices with the
public interest. Given the current job description and people's
expectations, let us get rid of the impression that somehow MPs
are special or deserve something better than the private sector.
What politicians do is freeze their salaries so they can stand
up in front of Canadians and say: ``We too have made
sacrifices''. Then they overcompensate with this high gold
plated pension plan.
Everyone in the House would agree that if we are truly to
address the pension plan we have to talk about our salaries. That
option is not open because our salaries are frozen. The
government has conveniently blocked real pension reform from
all possible angles.
I know that except for Ottawa and area MPs all of us need to
spend extra money on a second residence and extra
transportation. Therefore let us come clean with Canadian
taxpayers and say: ``Here are the costs of being an MP. We need
a second set of everything. If you want somebody to represent
you, it has to be paid for or very few will be willing to serve''.
The job with its responsibilities compared with the private
sector is at least at a senior executive level and is deserving of a
$12,000 per month salary perhaps. Why not get rid of the MP
pension plan and the tax free living allowance, the tax free
expense allowance, limit members to two terms and offer a
taxable salary at $12,000 per month wherein members look after
their own expenses. These are my personal points of view and do
not reflect the party's point of view whatsoever. MPs should be
paid more but once they are removed from office Canadians
should not be on the hook for about a million dollars per
member. They should be given a private sector pension plan into
which they pay 5 per cent matched by the government on a one to
one basis.
What is so hard to understand about that? Why this six to one,
three and a half to one, 11 per cent, 9 per cent? This is confusing.
Upon departure, I would get a one time, one-year severance to
help re-enter the workforce and reintegrate into my previous
life.
This is no different from the private sector and would make
the voters and politicians happy. It is an honest, clean, simple,
visible, understandable and, most important, above board
recommendation. The rookies in the House have to understand it
is not so much politicians' basic pay that angers Canadians, it is
the gold plated pensions, the tax free allowance, the junkets, the
things unavailable and in some cases illegal for those in the
private sector.
The days of pomp and pageantry are over and it is time to start
paying politicians what they are worth, no more and no less; no
golden handshakes, no fancy accounting and no more double
talk. Rookies of the House, it is up to you, it is up to us.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, can the member identify a member in the House who
receives a $60,012 annual pension from Alberta, who receives
$64,400 MP pension and donates 15 per cent of it? Last year, he
received $21,300 in an expense account for a grand total of
$151,052. Can he identify this MP for the audience in the House
and for the viewers in Canadian living rooms?
Mr. Silye: Madam Speaker, the member's own President of
the Treasury Board this morning stood up in the House and gave
the first intervention on this bill. He introduced the bill.
In the bill the President of the Treasury Board defined double
dipping. Double dipping was defined by the government-in his
own words clearly and specifically, and he did not use the
legalese language-as a former member of the federal
government receiving remuneration for a job after they are
finished serving the Canadian public.
The member the Liberal MP asked me about is not guilty of
double dipping. It is not double dipping. This individual served
in the provincial legislature. This individual resigned from the
provincial legislature. This individual offered his services to the
Canadian public on a federal basis.
(1300 )
He made it quite clear he was receiving a pension from the
provincial government. He made it quite clear how much the
amount was. He was totally above board and open. He did not
run from this topic. He did not hide from this topic. He asked the
voters in his riding and constituency. He said: ``You know my
circumstances, you know where I have been, you know where I
want to go. If you want to send me there, I will be getting this
from the provincial government and I will be getting that from
the federal government''. And they elected him.
We came here and we said that the MP pension plan is too
extravagant, too generous, too gold plated. We are making some
sense. We are getting to the government, because it agreed with
us. The Liberals have changed it; they have improved it. But it is
like everything else: they just go a little in our direction and
claim they have gone all the way. It is like bragging. They are
bragging they have done what the Canadians need.
Yes, I commend them for reducing the cost of the pensions
and making it a little fairer. They are saving $3 million a year.
Nobody's denying that. But if you have something wrong with
the plumbing or the electrical in your house, fix it right while
you are there. When you are doing renovations it is expensive.
This whole process is costing a lot of money. Why waste all of
that money? Why not do it right? Why not fix it all?
12175
An hon. member: We will have to do it again.
Mr. Silye: Now it will all have to be done again.
My point is that now that we have a clear definition of double
dipping and we know what double dipping is, maybe the
members of the government themselves had better find out what
that definition is and stop giving the cheap shots to the hon.
member for Lethbridge.
Mr. Assadourian: Madam Speaker, it seems to me the hon.
member agrees that if someone serves this House for six years
and gets his pension then he can go to the provincial
government, serve there, and get another pension and it will be
okay.
I cannot follow the logic. A pension is a pension is a pension.
They always make the point that there is only one taxpayer in
this country. In this case, the taxpayers of this country are
paying $151,052 for a member of Parliament who is not even
here to defend himself.
Mr. Silye: Madam Speaker, I gather the member opposite said
he did not understand my logic. I do not understand how that
could happen. Let me try to be really clear.
I talked about a double standard. I talked about a method of
politicians paying themselves remuneration that is excessive
and that is different from what is available in the private sector.
We are no better than the people we serve. We are only one
among them who has been asked to serve because we offered to
serve. That does not then put us at a higher, loftier level where
we deserve twice or three times the benefits, protecting
ourselves from the rules of the workplace they have to live with.
That is what is wrong with this system.
Nobody deserves a pension for life after six years of service.
The government corrected that. That is a heck of a step for this
government, and I give it a strong thank you and a strong
compliment for doing that. That is recognizing one of the things
that is wrong with it. The Liberals deserve credit for listening
and I applaud them for it.
However, they introduced 55 as the qualifying age, fully
indexed with full payment, when in the private sector it is 65
years of age. If you want to get it prior to 65, you would get a
lesser amount. None of that is comparable.
Why is it this way for us in the House? It is all from the
old-line politicians; it is not from us rookies. It is not from the
Reformers. We came here to clean it up. I am asking the 205
rookies, why the heck are we not standing up instead of letting
these cabinet ministers that have been here before push their
weight around? We know what is right. Let us do that.
We are ordinary Canadians serving the public. We should get
fair compensation, fair remuneration. It is at a senior executive
level. Pay us $150,000 a year. We will look after our own
pensions. We will have it matched by government. People will
accept that. But these two or three triple standards, this trough
regular, trough light stuff is getting ridiculous. This is all we are
saying.
I am frustrated. I should not have become frustrated, but I am
frustrated when I try to make sense, I try to give reason and I
want to work with the government so the integrity of all
politicians will rise, and they insist on saying: ``No, no, no; we
deserve it''.
It is just like the mileage. Why does an MP deserve 37 cents
and the private sector businesses with salesmen get 31 cents for
their travel allowance on gasoline? That is ridiculous. It is
another example of a double standard.
Why can this government not get it through its head that the
Reform Party is only trying to bring some sanity and integrity
back into this House? We are on their side, but they will not
listen.
(1305 )
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, as I listen to this debate unfold today, and I recognize
there are good people on all sides of the House, I wonder what it
is about the pension that leads to good governance. That is really
what this debate is all about.
Does this pension in any way help Canada have good
governance? Has it over the past 30 years had good governance?
By any rational score card the answer would have to be no. We
happen to be $550 billion in the hole and we are increasing our
debt to the tune of $120 million a day, so that we are in debt now,
every single Canadian taxpayer, $40,000. That is just the federal
part of the national debt.
Then the question is: What is it about a pension that leads to
good governance? Does that pension then attract and retain good
people in the Parliament of Canada? My submission is no, it
does not. In my view, after being here for a year and a half, I
think the governance of our country would be immeasurably
improved in three simple steps. The first is to get rid of the MP
pension plan. We should be here doing what is right, without
having this become a lifelong job and then return to the private
sector.
I ask the member for Calgary West if he would respond to this
question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry, there are
about 30 seconds left. If you would like an answer to your
question, which will have to be 30 seconds, will you please put it
now?
12176
Mr. McClelland: What is there about having a pension that
would lead to good governance? Does it lead to good governance
or has it in the past?
Mr. Silye: Madam Speaker, a fair and reasonable pension that
is commensurate with the private sector with a salary that is
commensurate with the private sector for the workloads
inflicted upon these people would attract and would show some
good governance, and that is what we have to do.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I rise
today to address this House on the subject of Bill C-85,
legislation dealing with proposed amendments to the Members
of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act.
[Translation]
Before presenting my speech, I would like to make a few
comments. First, although I strongly disagree with the hon.
member for Richelieu on a number of issues, including Canada's
future, I want to congratulate him for making a speech based on
facts. He made comparisons which help us get a better grasp of
this whole issue.
It is not often that an opposition member presents facts and
tries to help us better understand what we are doing.
[English]
With respect to the other speakers, it is my opinion that the
Reform Party is exploiting a situation that I think it has whipped
up for political gain. For example, there is the suggestion that if
we take RRSPs this does not cost the taxpayers any money. I am
sorry, that is terribly wrong. There are not millions but billions
of dollars that the government is not getting as a result of RRSP
programs. That is the kind of logic members of the Reform Party
advance. They do not like to hear it, but RRSPs, those very
programs they propose, would cost the government billions of
dollars. They do now. Let us get serious.
Another thing that astounds me is when we talk about double
standards, Reform is the party that said we must shun the
parliamentary restaurant. I have been to the parliamentary
restaurant and I have seen Reform colleagues there. These are
the same people who said they would not go.
An hon. member: Name them.
Mr. Duhamel: I do not want to name them. I do not want to
embarrass them. But if forced, I shall.
``We would never go to those lobbies at airports. That is just
not for us''. Sorry, folks, I have seen some there too.
(1310 )
They have also said they are not flying executive class. Wrong
again. They do. These are the same members that say they are
going to take a cut in salaries. Of course some have, but many
have not. That is a double standard.
When Canadians hear of that party doing that kind of thing, it
will have no credibility. It has very little credibility today.
One of the members said this morning that if the current plan
had continued that member would have received $1.2 million, if
that member lived long enough, but if it had been done through
private investment it would have been roughly half of that,
$600,000. I stand here today hoping very much that I will be able
to retire and receive $600,000 over a lifetime. The way I figure
it, I will be over 80 years old before that happens to me.
Those are the kinds of misleading statements that inflame the
passions of Canadians. It is erroneous logic. They take one
particular example and try to pretend that it belongs to everyone.
That is the kind of nonsense we are facing here today. I am
disappointed.
There is another example. A motion was proposed by the
Reform Party to not have this bill go forward. Is that not
somewhat contradictory? There are going to be changes made
that are going to save Canadian taxpayers money, and that party
wants to hoist it, stop it. If the Reform Party is so concerned
about changes, let us go forward. Let us move. Let us go now.
This is the party that on a very serious matter called for
quorum, knowing full well that there are members just behind
the curtain who are having lunch. This is the kind of seriousness
they apply to this debate.
This is the party that talks about opting out. It is not a question
of opting out; it is a question of opting in. Members can opt in.
The suggestion was that it was only available to Reform MPs. It
is available to whoever chooses to do it out of the class of '93.
Let us get with it. Let us deal with the facts.
I am pleased to observe that many colleagues spoke of the
need for changes to the MP pension plan in the last Parliament,
both here and outside of the House. I am delighted to note today
that we are in fact going forward with Bill C-85, which delivers
on the government's red book commitments to reform MP
pensions to end double dipping and to set a minimum age at
which pensions under the plan may be paid. Those were the
promises that were made, but we did not stop there; we went
beyond. In fact, Bill C-85 goes further than the red book
commitments.
Of course that is not good enough for Reformers, because they
want to exploit the situation. They would have exploited it even
if it had been removed. They would have found something to say
about it.
12177
[Translation]
This bill will also reduce the pension benefit accrual rate
under the MPs pension plan. In the future, instead of an average
sessional indemnity of 5 per cent for each year of service,
members will accrue benefits at a rate of 4 per cent of their
average income over a 6-year period. That represents a 20 per
cent reduction. But, of course, Reform members say this is
nothing.
That 20 per cent reduction clearly shows the government's
firm intention to cut spending, as well as the will of
parliamentarians to make sacrifices like the rest of Canadians to
help put our fiscal house in order.
I am proud to see that, once passed, the proposed amendments
will result in a 33 per cent reduction of the cost, for taxpayers, of
MP pensions. That 33 per cent reduction translates into savings
of over $3 million for 1995 alone.
I want to congratulate the Prime Minister, as well as the hon.
member for York Centre and President of the Treasury Board,
for their role in this respect.
The proposed legislation includes another important element.
Some members objected to the fact that MPs' participation in
the pension plan is compulsory. They suggested that, if allowed
to do so, they would withdraw from the plan.
(1315)
The Prime Minister responded by promising MPs that they
would be free to participate or not in the pension plan. Bill C-85
follows up on that commitment.
[English]
It is on the subject of optional participation in the pension
plan that I wish to focus my remarks today. Hon. members have
asked for that choice and will now be given it. It is a serious
choice, with long term consequences, and I urge all hon.
members to give the choice very careful consideration. In
contemplating their decision, members should bear in mind the
amendments of the bill will bring about features of the pension
plan which some have found to be objectionable.
We are eliminating double dipping. Pensions based on future
service will not be paid before a former member has reached 55
years of age. MP pension benefits are being pared down and
taxpayers' costs will decrease significantly.
When Bill C-85 is given royal assent, a 60-day clock will
start ticking; a 60-day period for passage of the bill within
which members of the House will be able to make an option to
continue their participation as pension plan members.
This is a one time opportunity. Hon. members who fail to sign
and deliver their option to participate form within the 60-day
time frame will cease to be pension plan members and their
contributions to the MP pension plan account will be refunded to
them.
In a few minutes I will speak further of the consequences of
discontinuing plan participation. Now I wish to concentrate on
the process of maintaining membership under the plan. I am
informed that administrative officials of the House will contact
each member immediately following passage of this bill.
Advice and information on the option process will be provided
and each member will be furnished with an option form on
which they may specify their interest in continuing pension plan
membership.
Each member who wishes to stay under the pension plan must
complete the option form and return it to the House
administration within 60 days of the royal assent day. This is a
critical deadline and must not be missed by any member who
chooses to maintain their status as a member of the MP pension
scheme.
Therefore, I caution hon. members they should ensure they
receive their option form and complete and return it before the
deadline if they wish to stay under the plan.
[Translation]
I will complete and return this option form. I will continue to
participate in the MPs pension plan. I have a wife and three
children, and I want to ensure their future in the best possible
way. Given the comments he made outside this House, I know
that the President of the Treasury Board will also choose to stay
under the plan. That plan is just one element of the global
compensation package for MPs.
I also wish to point out that, according to independent studies,
that plan is not overly generous. I am of the opinion that all
members of this House work very hard and put in long hours.
They earn their pay. My colleague from Richelieu proved the
point in his speech this morning when he made the comparison
between us and other parliamentary jurisdictions in Canada.
Let us not forget that past governments have consistently
promoted retirement savings. Retirement plans are an important
part of retirement planning. These plans provide substantial
protection for people against the unforeseen, such as death or
infirmity.
Lastly, the financial protection of MPs' survivors in case of
death should be a central consideration in their decision whether
to opt out of a parliamentary pension.
In my case, if I did not complete my term, basically, if I died,
my wife and family would receive 60 per cent of the pension to
which I would have been entitled. Partners and children must not
be forgotten.
(1320)
[English]
Notwithstanding the considerations which I have just
outlined, I know there are members of the House who have
12178
committed themselves to terminating their plan membership.
Some of these members may already have other arrangements in
place for their retirement and their survivors. Perhaps some are
sufficiently wealthy that they need have no concern about their
economic security or their family's in later years. There are
some who will use their termination of plan membership as a
political statement.
Whatever their reasons, I need to respect and I will respect
their right to choose. The Prime Minister promised them the
choice and now they will have it.
I hope hon. members planning to cease their participation in
the MPs pension plan will consult with their families before
making their final decision. This is a decision which will
directly affect members' families as well as members
themselves. Members should be aware of all of the
consequences withdrawal from the pension plan will entail,
particularly the consequences their choice will leave on their
loved ones.
This will be a permanent choice. Those making a political
statement with that choice will be bound by that statement.
There will be no going back. Pension contributions will be
refunded and periods of service in respect of which those
refunds are paid or future periods where no contributions will
have been made may never in future be counted under the
pension plan.
Hon. members who fail to opt into the plan will remain as
non-members for as long as they continue to serve in Parliament
without a break in service. This will be the case whether they
continue to serve in this honourable House or in the upper
chamber.
[Translation]
I would once again advise MPs who are considering opting
out of their pension plan to look carefully at the other pension
vehicles available to them. They should also prepare for the
unforeseen, such as infirmity, and consider the financial future
of their survivors should they die.
If we were to sacrifice the coverage provided for under the
parliamentary pension plan, what coverage would replace it and
at what cost? We should all make an educated choice. I must
insist that we cannot make such decisions without knowing
beforehand all of the ramifications.
As I mentioned earlier, MPs who opt out of their pension plan
will receive a full reimbursement of their contributions within
60 days of Bill C-85 receiving Royal Assent. I will take this
opportunity to explain the terms and conditions of this refund.
[English]
For hon. members who joined the House for the first time at or
after the beginning of this Parliament, on or after October 25,
1993, the process is quite straightforward. Members who fail to
opt into the plan will be paid a refund of all of their pension
contributions. For members with parliamentary service which
occurred before October 25, 1993 the process is slightly more
complicated. It depends on whether as of October 25, 1993 they
were vested members under the pension plan.
To digress momentarily, under our pension plan a member of
Parliament is considered to be a vested pension plan member
upon completion of six years of service. Therefore when I speak
of members who were vested as of October 25, 1993 I refer to
those of my hon. colleagues who as of that date had been
members for at least six years.
Under the bill a member who was not vested as of October 25,
1993, that is a member who did not have six years of service as
of that date, and refrains from opting into the plan within the 60
days immediately following royal assent, will also be paid a
refund of all of the pension contributions he or she has paid. This
would include contributions made both before and after October
25, 1993.
If the member was vested as of October 25, 1993, the refund
will be restricted to those pension contributions paid since that
date. In this latter case, contributions paid for the six or more
years of service which occurred prior to October 25, 1993 will
be retained in the pension account to provide upon the member's
eventual retirement from Parliament the vested pension benefit
earned in respect of those years.
(1325)
[Translation]
And since our pension contributions are paid into two
different accounts, I must digress again.
The last time the pension plan for parliamentarians was
amended, this was done to comply with pension plan
registration rules provided under the Income Tax Act. As of
January 1, 1992, parliamentarians have contributed to the basic
retirement account and to an account referred to as the
Retirement Compensation Arrangements Account.
Contributions to the basic account will be used to pay
retirement allowances earned pursuant to Part I of the Members
of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, in other words, that part
of the pension plan for parliamentarians that complies with the
tax provisions governing registered retirement plans.
As for contributions made to the Retirement Compensation
Arrangements Account, pursuant to Part II of the Act, these will
be used to pay that portion of retirement allowances earned
under the plan which exceed the maximum allowed for
registered plans under the Income Tax Act.
12179
Here I would like to say, in passing, that all employers in
Canada may offer their employees a non-registered
supplementary retirement plan similar to the retirement
compensation arrangement.
[English]
In instances where refunds of pension contributions are to be
paid to plan members, all contributions paid before January 1,
1992 may, if the member so wishes, be rolled over on a tax
exempt basis to another registered retirement vehicle such as the
registered retirement savings plan. For the sake of precision that
would be in respect of members who had service before October
25, 1993 but who were not vested as of that date together with 4
per cent of sessional indemnities paid to the basic account under
part I of the act since January 1, 1992.
Members wishing to roll over the contributions to an RRSP
should consult administrative officials of the House for
information on the forms and the process for effecting such a
transfer.
[Translation]
However, since the retirement compensation arrangement is
not an RRSP instrument, contributions paid into the RCA
account pursuant to Part II of the Act cannot be rolled over to an
RRSP. Consequently, members who decide to opt out of the
retirement plan will receive directly the amounts they had
contributed since January 1, 1992 to the RCA account, in other
words, 7 per cent of sessional indemnities. Refunds of
contributions to the RCA account will be taxed at source as
income, to be declared by the member as part of his taxable
income for the year in which the refund was made.
There is one last point I would like to make. I would like to
explain another consequence of a member's opting out of the
retirement plan and the resulting refund of contributions. Every
year, a so-called pension adjustment is calculated on the basis of
our regular contributions, and this figure is then communicated
to Revenue Canada. This amount reflects the value of the
retirement benefits we have earned through our contributions in
a given year. This pension adjustment is then used for tax
purposes, to calculate our maximum annual RRSP contribution,
if any.
However, and this will be my last comment, under the Income
Tax Act, a member who elects to recover contributions paid into
the pension plan for parliamentarians will not be able to recover
RRSP contribution entitlements he could not use during those
years when he contributed to the pension plan for
parliamentarians.
I am sorry, I would have liked to add certain other things, but
my time is up.
[English]
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I was very
interested in the remarks of the member for St. Boniface.
It is really quite amazing the passion a member can arouse in
himself when driven by unmitigated greed.
(1330 )
I would take issue with some of the remarks he threw this way
with respect to the consultation of families, for example. I think
most people in this caucus consulted their families. They also
consulted their constituents. The net result that obviously arose
was that people said: ``Thou shalt not steal''. We are in this, and
we are in it together.
The hon. member also made remarks about whether or not
certain members of the Reform Party had given up this perk or
that perk or had made certain sacrifices. I gave up my 10 per
cent. That has nothing to do with this debate, nothing
whatsoever. I occasionally eat in the parliamentary dining room.
So what? I never said I would not. So what are they driving at?
We are talking about a multimillion dollar rip-off of the
Canadian public and the hon. member is talking about trash.
I would like to ask the hon. member, since he is so critical of
others in saying what did you give up or what sacrifice have you
made, what has the hon. member given up? What sacrifice has
he made? Can he name one thing?
Mr. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, I should note to my hon.
colleague that I am always passionate in debate. This is no
exception. To suggest, which Reformers are often prone to do,
that I became passionate about this subject because of a greed
factor is really a low blow. I believe it is beyond a member's
stature, or should be, in the House of Commons.
To suggest this is about thou shalt not steal, from the Bible, to
invoke that in this debate, to suggest this is stealing, is below
being low. And to use terms such as trough to try to excite the
passions of people simply for political gain is even lower still.
When I mentioned the parliamentary restaurant, flying
executive class, et cetera, why did I do that? Because that party
is double-talk; that party pretends one thing and does other
things.
That party is exploiting this issue-not all members, but
some-because it has no issue. The polls are so bad that it
virtually does not exist. That party's members are flailing about,
trying to find something that will capture the imagination of
people. That is the party which comes forward with a budget that
has no sense at all, that is absolutely denounced by virtually
anyone who knows anything about budgets.
Mr. Morrison: Name one.
12180
Mr. Duhamel: Name one? I stood in this House and I
mentioned at least a dozen credible sources that denounced that
pretend budget, which did not even add up. This is why
Reformers have no credibility.
That party tries to use in B.C. the aboriginal land claim
situation in order to further its political agenda. It is the kind of
party that will seize upon any issue in order to try to further its
political agenda. It is not fair; it does not try to be fair. It did not
listen to our colleague's comments from the Bloc when he set
out the statistics and showed this particular reduction is an
important one, which puts us in line with a number of other
provincial legislatures.
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): How about Alberta? It is zero.
Mr. Duhamel: Oh, Alberta. Okay.
That party would not acknowledge that during the last three
Parliaments almost 60 per cent of the MPs who were here are not
receiving a pension today. That party pretends everybody is
getting a large pension. If I were walking out today my pension
would be in the $19,000 range. If I were to die today, that would
be one-third less for my wife and three kids. That is the kind of
party that would like to see that kind of remuneration. I have no
time for that.
An hon. member: Can you not look after yourself?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Order. I would like to
request that the House take a little time and think about some of
the comments being made to colleagues. It is a very emotional
issue for a lot of us. I think we have to stop and think before we
fling comments back and forth across this House.
(1335 )
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
today we are here to debate an act to amend the Members of
Parliament Retiring Allowances Act. Canadians know this as the
MP pension plan. That is what we are really talking about today.
I am happy to rise and make some comments about the MP
pension plan that is being introduced.
Unfortunately, it is not as good as the model that was brought
forward by the President of the Treasury Board in December.
But he was not able to sell that plan to his Liberal caucus, and
now we see the results: an MPs' pension plan that is being
introduced today that is still obscene because it is twice as rich
as any public sector or private sector pension plan.
During the run up to the election of 1993, when I was seeking
the nomination and I was out campaigning I heard from my
constituents in Peace River over and over and over again on this.
It was the issue that captured my attention and the attention of
all other politicians from all other parties who were
campaigning there. They heard from the Canadian public and
the public in Peace River that MPs have a pension plan that is a
double standard with what most Canadians can receive, either in
the public or private sector.
That to me has developed a very cynical electorate out there.
There were a number of new members elected to the House in
the election. One reason they were elected is because the public
is very cynical about politicians. This used to be a noble calling.
That is not the way the Canadian public regards it any more.
I have to tell members a story about one of the first meetings I
attended as a politician after my nomination. It said a lot about
how people regard politicians and politics and the reason for it. I
was speaking at a small community meeting of about 40 people.
I had spoken for about 10 or 15 minutes and then we stopped to
have coffee. I was circulating and talking to different members
of the audience. One fellow about 75 years old, a rancher type
who had spent a lot of time outdoors, a weathered and very
interesting fellow, came up to me and we had a very interesting
conversation for about four or five minutes. Finally, he was
going to take his leave and wish me well and say goodbye. The
comments he made I thought were very relevant. He said: ``You
know, Charlie, I wish I had met you before you went into
politics. I think I would have liked you''.
That says a lot about how people regard politicians these days.
One reason for that degree of cynicism about politicians is that
they see we have double standards. The double standard that is
most obvious, I believe, is the MP pension plan.
During the course of the campaign I think I heard only one
comment about MPs' salaries. It was not an issue. People think
that MPs should be paid well. But they do not believe they
should get a pension plan that is five or six times more generous
than that of the average person in the public. And that is what we
are addressing here today.
This pension plan is a step in the right direction. Like so much
of the legislation the party across brings forward, this is a step in
the right direction but it is not far enough.
An hon. member: It is a small step.
Mr. Penson: I think we have to examine the past plan. Let us
do a comparison. As I said, we only had to be in the House for
two terms or six years to be eligible for the MP pension plan
under the previous plan, which is five or six times more
generous than the average Canadian private sector or public
sector plan.
So what is introduced in the new pension plan, the one that is
going to correct the problem? We have a pension plan where we
are still eligible at age 55. That does not seem to fit with most
public and private plans. It certainly is not the case with the old
age security. In fact, we are talking about moving that to age 67,
since the plan cannot be sustained.
12181
What else do we have? We still have a plan that is two and a
half or three times more generous than the average public or
private sector plan. It does not fit. It is not acceptable.
What about the future? We know there is an opting out
formula in the plan of 60 days for those members who wish to
opt out. I am one of the members who wants to, and I certainly
will. But that will not apply to future MPs. They do not have that
option. Why not? It would seem to me it is a reasonable option to
put in there. Anybody who wants to look after their own
retirement should be able to do so, but not under this plan as far
as future MPs are concerned. They will be obliged to belong.
There again is a problem.
(1340)
We had the minister and some other members stand in this
House this morning trying to justify the new plan that is being
brought forward. As I said, there are many reasons why the
Canadian public is not going to accept this.
All of this is happening at a time when politicians need to
show strong leadership in this country. It is a time when we have
a record federal debt: $550 billion and growing at the rate of
$120 million a day. It is time for MPs to stand up and show
leadership. What would that mean? It would mean accepting a
plan that is the average of what most Canadians have. Is that too
much to expect from leadership in this country? I do not believe
it is.
We have Canada's official loyal opposition-what do those
members intend to do with this plan? It seems very ironic that
those members, with the expressed goal of wanting to opt out of
Canada, as they tell us every day in this House, want to opt into
the new MPs' pension plan. I do not understand the logic. It must
mean that they plan on staying longer than they originally had
intended. It seems to me that is a real contradiction. I cannot
understand why they would not want to take the opt out formula
along with the rest of us in the Reform Party.
Mr. Williams: They want to opt out of the country but stay in
the pension plan.
Mr. Penson: Let us examine the rhetoric from this side of the
House when the members who are over on the government side
now were over here. We had the famous rat pack. I think we all
know who they are. They enjoy some of the front benches over
there now. What did they say? They called for a change to the
MP pension plan. My understanding is that when the President
of the Treasury Board brought in what was a reasonable plan in
December to the Liberal caucus, they were the ones who led the
charge against it. So the rat pack it seems has become the fat cat
pack these days. We see this every day.
Who is going to be the judge of this MP pension plan? It is not
me as the member for Peace River, in the final analysis. It is not
going to be the member for St. Boniface. It is going to be the
Canadian public, the voters, our constituents.
The member for St. Boniface said that we should carefully
consider and consult our family members when and if we decide
to opt out. He would seem to suggest that we have not been doing
that. Well I do not believe that other members of the Reform
Party caucus did not consult their families. I know I certainly
did, and it was a joint decision. However, it becomes more than
consulting family. I also consulted constituents. I have been
doing it for a long time. And constituents tell us that this plan is
still far too generous.
The member also seemed to lump the business of pay and
salary into the MP pension plan. It is all part and parcel as far as
he is concerned. I do not believe it is. I believe that if we have a
problem or we do not believe the pay is high enough for a
member of Parliament, we should deal with that issue up front
and involve the Canadian public in that discussion. This is a
separate matter altogether, and it has to be dealt with that way.
The member for St. Boniface also talked about the RRSP. He
suggested that the Canadian taxpayer would be on the hook for
more money through a loss in taxes if we went the route of all
members opting out and using the RRSP. There is certainly some
merit in what he says, but it is not making special rules; it is
following rules under the RRSP program that other Canadians
are under. So we are all in the same category. That is talking
about having the same standard for everybody.
I know that many members of our caucus intend to use that
route once we are able to access our money that is being
currently collected under the MP pension plan, the 11 per cent
that is being deducted, to put it into RRSPs. Many of us have
been doing that for a long time. I think it shows leadership in the
fact that we are willing to look after our own retirement. That is
what a lot of Canadians are going to have to do in the future,
because the old age security plan and Canada pension plan are
not sustainable. The reason they are not sustainable is that this
country is in very serious financial problems.
I know the Minister of Finance recognized that to some degree
in his budget when he suggested that we need to cut $4 billion in
services to Canadians. He also said we should raise a billion
dollars in taxes. It was very interesting that in doing so we would
almost expect the federal budget for this year to be decreased by
$5 billion, the amount of those cuts and the extra money that is
being raised. In fact, the budget is going to be higher by almost
half a billion dollars. Why is that? It is because the interest on
the debt is starting to be a very serious problem in this country. It
is taking a larger and larger portion of our government budget.
(1345)
It is eating into those necessary services we are talking about,
both the Canada pension plan and old age security. We need to
encourage people to look after themselves through their own
retirement savings. That does not mean the Government of
12182
Canada is doing it for them, such as the MPs. It means that they
look after themselves through RRSPs and any other private plan
they can put in place.
I am going to wrap up here. To me, the most important thing is
that the Canadian public will be the final judge of this plan. If
cautions are going to be issued by members across the way in
regard to the seriousness of opting out, we should also be
cognizant that the Canadian public is watching very closely
what is happening in this Chamber today during this debate on
the MPs pension plan.
The public wants a plan that is reasonable, that is consistent
with national standards for both the public and private sectors,
not anything MPs give themselves over and above what is the
norm in Canadian society. The public will be the final judge next
election day. I throw that out as a caution to members opposite.
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, it is always difficult to speak on a subject like this,
especially if you try to defend the pension plan for members of
Parliament. Your adversaries will always try to paint you as
being self-serving.
I have been in opposition. I know it is very easy for members
of the Reform Party to stand and accuse anyone who might
defend any elements of the pension plan as being self-serving
and greedy. It does not take any bravery on their part to say the
outrageous things they have said.
The previous speaker just said that political life at one time
was seen in a good light, that it was a noble calling, but not any
more. I wonder why. It is because people from the political right,
members of the Reform Party have made it their calling day in
and day out, month in and month out, year in and year out to go
around and say how bad politicians are, how bad this institution
is, how bad democracy is. It is little wonder when a band of
people like that goes around this country year in and year out bad
mouthing this institution that some Canadians say: ``Gee, I
guess it is true''.
Mr. Hermanson: It is true.
Mr. Harvard: It is a sad comment.
Mr. Hermanson: That is why they sent us here. You guys are
never here.
Mr. Harvard: Do you want to listen to me or not?
Mr. Hermanson: It is because of you guys that we are here.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Order. It is unfortunate
that the level of emotion remains extremely high. I ask you once
again to remember that we are in the House of Commons. We
have a high level of integrity toward one another. May I ask that
we maintain a certain level of decorum.
Mr. Harvard: Madam Speaker, it is easy to attack the
political profession. There are a lot of good people in this
institution. I do not know the people from the Reform Party very
well but I suspect there are some very good people over there as
well. How can we move forward when people over and over
again do everything they can to besmirch the political
profession?
There is one other point that I want to make. Members of the
Reform Party constantly chant this line that the MPs pension
plan is twice what is found in other sectors, particularly in the
private sector. They never talk about the need for a package of
remuneration for MPs.
(1350)
If MPs had a normal career, if MPs started at age 22 or 23 and
were in their profession for 30 to 40 years, do we really think
their pension plan would have to be much different from those in
other sectors? Of course not.
Why is our plan different? It is because most of us come to
this career in our forties. For example, take someone who is in
their forties. They have a family. They have children in school,
perhaps in university. For them to come into public life we want
them to give up their careers. We want them to give up their
private pension plan. When they come into public life we want
them to take all the risks and absolutely nothing will be done on
the part of the Canadian government to assuage or mitigate the
risk that they face.
When banks arrive at loan rates they take risks into account.
The Canadian public must do the same. I am trying to put the
pension plan in context. This is the thing they never do. The
member who just spoke should reflect on the points I have made
and should stop bad mouthing this profession. This life is
difficult enough without the kinds of contributions we get from
those people over there.
Mr. Penson: Madam Speaker, one of the comments by the
member for Winnipeg-St. James was that year in and year out
he has heard the Reform Party being cynical and talking about
how bad politicians are in this country. It seems to me that we
have not been around for all that long, but the Canadian public
has had some cynicism with regard to politicians for quite a
while. Probably a lot of that was during the time he was on this
side of the House.
The hon. member has a reputation for being one of the worst
members in terms of attack, yet he is talking about the Reform
Party. We hear personal attacks every day from him. I think he is
totally out of line.
If he did not want to run for office, nobody forced him. He can
retire.
12183
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-85
dealing with MPs pensions.
I am particularly pleased because it was the very first topic I
addressed after I was elected, and the first time that I was in
caucus. I am a strong supporter of reform of MPs pensions. I am
a strong supporter of the red book commitments to that reform. I
am also a strong believer in the fact that what MPs do is
extremely important in a symbolic sense. It is very important
that we lead by example.
I want to speak principally today to the particularly stringent
double dipping components of this legislation. They are much
more stringent than I had envisaged when I first read the red
book.
Before I do that I would like to say that to me, one of the most
critical things in giving some order to the MPs pension plan was
to establish an age of retirement. It seems to me that no pension
plan can be fully financially viable unless it has a fixed age of
retirement. We cannot calculate, for example, how many MPs
might retire at 25 or 30 or something like that. Therefore, it is
critical for the financial viability of this plan that there be a
reasonable retirement age.
(1355)
I personally favour 65 as the retirement age. That is the
normal retirement age for the Canada pension plan. I realize that
in many occupations there are earlier retirement ages, and I
realize that under some circumstances a person can draw CPP
benefits before the age of 65. I feel that 65 is the most
appropriate age for this plan.
The establishment of 55 as a fixed age of retirement, as a fixed
age at which a member of Parliament can draw this pension, is a
huge step forward in giving the plan financial viability. I am
very pleased that has been done.
I also support the slower rates of accrual of the pension. The
accrual results in a 20 per cent saving. It is important that the
cost of this plan to the taxpayer be reduced.
During the debate on double dipping it was pointed out that
strong pension plans are a normal feature of employment in
government service, whether that government service be at the
local level, the provincial level or the federal level. It was often
pointed out for example, that the military has a very strong
pension plan which is designed to enable its members to retire
early.
It appears that re-employment of public service employees by
the government after they have taken an early retirement is quite
common. During the debate on double dipping it was pointed out
that people in the public service everywhere have the
opportunity of going back to work in the area from which they
retired if there is a suitable vacancy. I do not want to open the
entire question now, but I must say that I have some sympathy
with that.
The Speaker: My colleague, of course, will have the floor
immediately following question period.
It being two o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), we
will now proceed to statements by members.
_____________________________________________
12183
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House today to congratulate Elspeth Hogg
of Utterson in my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka. Mrs. Hogg
has been selected as one of just 23 recipients of the 1995 Canada
volunteer award medal and certificate of honour for her
contributions to her community.
Mrs. Hogg is recognized for serving on the first board of the
Muskoka Women's Advocacy Group and for serving as chair
from 1984 to 1989. She is credited as instrumental in the
establishment of Muskoka Interval House, a much needed
women's shelter, and for recruiting countless volunteers and
donators of supplies.
In addition to this work, Mrs. Hogg served the Elizabeth Fry
Society, the Hospital for Sick Children, the YWCA and the Boy
Scouts as well as volunteering on boards such as the Canadian
Corrections Association and the Canadian Mental Health
Association.
I wholeheartedly congratulate Mrs. Hogg for her tremendous
achievement and for giving so freely of herself. We are all very
proud.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
clearly, the Minister of Human Resources Development has lost
control of the Atlantic Groundfish Strategy. Not only is this
strategy not creating jobs, but it is encouraging workers to quit
their jobs to take advantage of the benefits of the program.
Processing plants are complaining about the departure of a
number of their employees and of the costs this entails. The
minister prefers to stick his head in the sand and continue
extolling the virtues of his program. The representatives of the
fishermen even came to Ottawa last week to complain about the
program's ineffectiveness.
The minister must recognize that his program is not working,
that he is gobbling up billions and that the federal government
on its own is incapable of resolving the Atlantic fishing crisis.
12184
[English]
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, millions of Canadians have just completed their
income tax returns for yet another year. Every year families and
individuals go through the tortuous process of calculating and
completing their returns in a diligent and timely manner. The
process has become so complex that millions are now frustrated
by the exercise.
Recently I received a call from a retired constituent who has
become so frustrated that he has finally had to enlist the help of a
tax professional to prepare his return.
This practice is far from unique. Increasing numbers of
Canadians seek outside assistance as they battle the ever
increasing complexities of our national revenue labyrinth.
Why should taxpayers, already at the limit of their tax
tolerance, have to pay additional moneys for assistance in filing
their tax returns?
There is an urgent need to simplify the tax system. Reform's
flat tax would do just that. It is fair, efficient, equitable, and
would greatly ease the burden of the long suffering taxpayers of
Canada.
* * *
Mr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville,
Ind. Lib.): Mr. Speaker, during the recent Easter break I had the
privilege of visiting India to meet with various senior
government officials.
India is a country that is growing rapidly. The economic
development that I personally witnessed was phenomenal. The
economy is booming at an extraordinary rate of 8 per cent per
year. India is rapidly becoming an economic tiger of all
developing countries.
Throughout my meetings with cabinet ministers of the Indian
government and the chief ministers of several important
provinces the discussion always centred on developing closer
trade ties between Canada and India. Canadian expertise and
technology combined with India's pool of manpower would
create tremendous job opportunities for both countries.
This desire was not only expressed by senior politicians but
by industrialists I had the pleasure to meet with as well. The
interest is there, and I call on the government to work diligently
toward developing an increased trade level with India. There are
limitless opportunities and there can be no doubt that both
countries will greatly benefit.
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
tomorrow national Elizabeth Fry Week is being launched on
Parliament Hill. It takes place every year, the week preceding
Mother's Day, to acknowledge the fact that the majority of
Canadian women who come into conflict with the law are
mothers.
This year the week's theme is alternatives to incarceration,
focusing on new avenues in corrections for women and working
to enhance public awareness and education regarding the
circumstances of women involved in the criminal justice
system.
Most women at the time of their incarceration are the sole
supporters of their families. When mothers are sentenced to
prison their children are sentenced to separation. Elizabeth Fry
Week ends on Mother's Day to draw attention to this reality.
Let us show our support for the hard work of the volunteers
and employees of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry
Societies. We are welcome to the Commonwealth Room
tomorrow between 9 and 5 to talk about these important issues.
I thank the volunteers for their dedication to justice in
Canada.
* * *
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
over 160 nations are currently meeting at the United Nations in
New York to decide the fate of the most important international
arms control agreement in force today, the nuclear
non-proliferation treaty, the NPT.
Canada supports the indefinite unconditional extension of the
treaty for three essential reasons. First, the NPT establishes a
barrier to the further proliferation of nuclear weapons. Second,
the treaty provides the framework for peaceful trade in nuclear
technology by establishing a system of effective international
safeguards. Third, the treaty commits the nuclear weapons
states to work toward nuclear disarmament.
Those who argue that the NPT should not be made permanent
keep open the possibility of its disappearance at some future
point. This must not happen. We are now firmly on the road to a
world with fewer nuclear weapons.
On Friday, Canada will table the resolution, joined by more
than 80 nations, for the indefinite extension of the NPT. The
treaty has served us well for 25 years. Now is the time to
permanently enshrine the benefits for future generations.
12185
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute members of the 1939
Casino Band of Stratford, Ontario.
Band members have enriched the lives of citizens for five
decades with their musical talent. These musicians originally
played for community dances in the 1940s but now perform
voluntarily for events throughout my riding.
The band can frequently be found performing at hospitals,
nursing homes and various community events, including the
Stratford Festival's annual garden party. For the past two
summers the band has performed afloat on the Avon River for
thousands of tourists who visit Stratford.
These men should be commended for bringing such musical
delight to our community. Not only is it one of the most talented
jazz bands in Ontario but it is one of the most kind spirited.
The members of the 1939 Casino Band include Jack Hayter,
Jack Smith, Mervin Doerr, Robert Hayter, Bill Fowler, Walter
Gladding and Andy Munroe.
I wish band members many more years of music and laughter
together.
* * *
(1405)
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
the Standing Committee on Transport submitted its report on the
national marine strategy. Disregarding the principles of caution
and prevention with respect to the environment, the committee
questioned compulsory pilotage, particularly in the St.
Lawrence and in the Seaway.
This proposal is contrary to the worldwide trend to expanding
pilotage areas and raising safety standards. A catastrophe like
that of the Exxon Valdez would be an environmental disaster for
the St. Lawrence River and the Great Lakes.
The Liberal majority on the Standing Committee on
Transport, with its concern for cost cuts and free competition,
has completely set aside environmental concerns. We hope that
the Minister of the Environment will use her influence with the
Minister of Transport to ensure his decisions reflect the
principle of sustainable development.
[English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, sometimes in our lives we are given the opportunity to
help those who have spent their lives helping us, those who have
worked hard, paid their taxes regularly and have been
responsible Canadian citizens. Many of them fought in the
second world war and risked their lives for each one of us to live
in peace.
These law-abiding citizens have paid their way. We have our
health programs, UIC, workers' compensation and good
working conditions today because this group of Canadians
worked for them.
We, the MPs of the 35th Parliament, have the opportunity to
do what our constituents sent us here to do: to work together for
the good of Canadians. I am speaking of an issue which is of
importance to all our constituents, many of whom will be
closely watching the results of our vote. It is a non-partisan
issue, a Canadian issue.
Please help me to give our Canadian children the opportunity
to see and visit with their grandparents. I ask for support on Bill
C-232.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, it is bad enough that the Liberal government is
planning to privatize rather than rebuild and enhance the
services of Canadian National Railway, but now we learn that
the shameful privatization initiative will not have any foreign
ownership limits imposed upon it.
This obviously opens the doors for American ownership and
control over our national railway, which until now has been the
main economic link between eastern and western Canada and
which has been a critically important player in the transport of
grain to export positions.
If Canadians lose control of this vital component of our
transportation infrastructure, we will be forced by default to
allow such things as a continental grain market, which in turn
will lead to the demise of the Canadian Wheat Board, another
Canadian institution worth fighting for.
It appears the Liberals want to get rid of CN so badly that they
are willing to sacrifice important and economically beneficial
pieces of national identity. I call on the government to
reconsider any rail line privatization plans, especially ones that
do not limit foreign ownership.
12186
Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, mens
sano in sano corporae. Everyone remembers the old saying, a
healthy mind within a healthy body.
Today I would like to reverse the phrase. Without a healthy
mind the body will not thrive. That is why I inform the House
that this week is Mental Health Week.
During this week the Canadian Mental Health Association
sponsors events across Canada to raise public awareness of
mental health issues, to reduce the stigma of mental illness, and
to encourage the acceptance of those who suffer from them.
Health Canada supports the Canadian Mental Health
Association through its grants to national voluntary health
organizations.
The theme of this year's campaign is social support. There is
no denying that positive interaction among family members,
friends and co-workers will help to prevent both mental and
physical illness.
This year the Canadian Mental Health Association is
highlighting social support relating to stress, youth, physical
health, the workplace and special needs in rural areas.
I hope members of the House will work with the Canadian
Mental Health Association to make this week a success so we
can all have healthy minds and healthy bodies.
* * *
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it was 50 years ago that people around the world began
celebrating the end of the long years of World War II. For
Canadian soldiers, sailors, air crew, nurses, the merchant marine
and all who served in the frontlines in northwest Europe, Italy,
Sicily and Hong Kong, VE day ensured liberty for future
generations.
(1410)
We are proud of these people and of all Canadians at home
who contributed so much in support of the war effort. In
Etobicoke-Lakeshore we take special pride in the efforts and
sacrifices of the men and women of our community and over
coming months will recognize the value of their contribution.
We are proud also to see our Prime Minister representing
Canada overseas as many countries come together to
commemorate VE day and to honour those who lost their lives in
war. The message the Prime Minister brings in 1995 is that
Canadians treasure peace as much as they did in 1945.
I thank the many Canadians who struggled to give us the
ultimate gift of freedom.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, the Quebec minister responsible for
restructuring released the findings of a study on the impact that
separation would have on companies with head offices in
Quebec.
The main finding is that 5,000 jobs currently located in these
head offices could be moved out of the province if Quebec
became independent. Once again, Montreal would be the hardest
hit, since most corporate head offices are located in that region.
As the study shows, Quebec's independence would be
extremely costly to Montreal's economy. Quebecers are fed up
with these studies, these tricks and these U-turns.
The Pequiste government must stop causing this job drain
with its obsession to achieve independence, and instead help us
revitalize the economy.
* * *
Mr. Laurent Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, before a partisan audience, the Prime
Minister claimed to be convinced that the No camp would win
the Quebec referendum, adding that he would continue to hold
out his hand to the Quebec premier and ask him to join Team
Canada.
However, since he took office, the Prime Minister keeps
saying no to Quebec's legitimate demands. He closed the
military college in Saint-Jean and he still refuses to approve a
conversion program for the defence industry. His ministers also
rejected MIL Davie's recovery plan, and his government refuses
to withdraw from the manpower sector, in spite of the plea made
by all those concerned in Quebec. And now the Prime Minister is
tabling a bill designed to impose Canadian standards in areas
under provincial jurisdiction. Quebec will not make the mistake
of voting No at the referendum.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, nations around the world recognize that to preserve
civil liberties there must be limits on governmental powers,
including those of spending and deficits.
A growing number of provincial governments have balanced
budget laws. We Reformers now urge the application of similar
restraints at the federal level. We are proposing the adoption of a
12187
taxpayers protection act which compels future governments to
balance the budget every year.
The act will have sharp teeth. Members of any government
that runs a deficit would face pay cuts of up to 30 per cent and a
75 per cent majority of Parliament would be required to override
the provisions.
Canadians have long supported limits that prevent a
governmental attack on individual freedoms. It is now time to
limit government attacks on individual wallets. This is why we
are proposing a taxpayers protection act as an economic bill of
rights for beleaguered Canadian taxpayers.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Le Conseil de la langue française made
public a study on language of work indicators in Quebec.
I am pleased at the progress French has made as language of
work in Quebec. The report reveals that, among other things, in
1991, over 67 per cent of senior jobs were occupied by
francophones. The percentage of bilingual anglophones in
Montreal has increased from 45 per cent in 1971 to 68 per cent in
1986.
All of this clearly indicates that the French fact is established
in Quebec in all spheres of activity and that francophones, like
anglophones, now have access to all the top jobs.
The study by Le Conseil de la langue française confirms what
we have known for decades: it is possible to live and to succeed
in a united Canada.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 25 years ago
today on a beautiful May morning a young woman put a daisy in
the barrel of a national guardsman's gun. A few moments later,
nine young men and women lay dead. With them died the dream
of peace of the sixties generation.
(1415)
Kent State's tragedy brought the Vietnam conflict home to the
United States, but at the same time it pointed out a great
difference between the cultures of Canada and the U.S. That
same week thousands of young Canadians graduated from
universities and the joy of our success was tempered by the
tragedy in Ohio.
In our contemplation then as now, we were grateful for our
kinder, gentler nation. We still are. For many of the sixties
generation who now serve here, we pay tribute to those fallen
youth by promising to stand forever on guard for tolerance.
_____________________________________________
12187
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, with
Bill C-88, the Agreement on Internal Trade Implementation
Act, the government is acting as though it is eager to impose
sanctions in the case of trade disputes between two provinces.
The bill provides that the federal government may cut off
transfer payments and suspend subsidies to any province that
fails to comply with the internal trade agreement.
Would the Minister of Industry confirm that with the powers
the federal government has assumed pursuant to Bill C-88, it
will be able to suspend or reduce any contribution for social
programs financing in the case of a province that does not
comply with the agreement on internal trade?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I could go along with the hon. member's suggestion,
but the answer is no.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, if we
read subclause 9(d), that is what it says. Since that is not the
government's intention, I would like to ask the Minister of
Industry whether he could make a clear commitment to amend
the bill so as to exclude retaliatory measures in the form of
suspending or reducing transfer payments for social programs
financing in the case of a province that did not comply with the
agreement.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think the bill is quite clear. It concerns only the
amendments required in federal jurisdictions to ensure that our
statutes reflect our obligations under the agreement on internal
trade.
If the Bloc wishes to propose amendments, it will be able to
do so in the course of the parliamentary process.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I want
to make this very clear. This week, when we were discussing
cuts in social transfers, the Minister of Finance rose in the
House and said that they were going to change the bill, that it is
not what they wanted to do, although that is what it says in the
bill.
Today, the Minister of Industry tells us they do not want to cut
social transfers to the provinces, although that is what it says.
Would the minister agree that the retaliatory measures
provided in Bill C-88 are so broad that they would allow the
federal government to interfere in disputes that are, first and
foremost, a matter between two provinces, disputes that are
none of its
12188
business, so that the federal government would be able to cut
social transfers to the provinces as a retaliatory measure?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to make very clear what the federal
government's position has been throughout the negotiations last
year on the internal trade agreement and as we bring forward the
legislation which will implement that agreement with respect to
the federal level.
We have entirely and totally pursued a process which is
consensual. All 10 provinces signed the accord last July 18. The
new Government of Quebec stressed at the one meeting which
has been held since the most recent Quebec election that it is
fully supportive of the internal trade agreement.
(1420 )
This has been a process in which some have criticized the
federal government for not using powers which it is said we
might have. The fact is we prefer to see the regulation of internal
trade, interprovincial trade, affected by agreement among the
partners to Confederation. That is why we signed an internal
trade agreement. That is the policy of the government and there
is no further clarification required.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
In a document dated March 23, the Department of Human
Resources Development brings into question all programs and
services provided to the unemployed, notably by closing down
many employment centres in Quebec and Canada.
Does the Minister of Human Resources Development confirm
his department's intention to reduce direct services to the
unemployed, and is this a new, concrete initiative by the federal
government to fight poverty?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): On the contrary, Mr. Speaker. In fact, we
established a new program that will provide direct services to
many unemployed workers across Canada. It is very important
that the Department of Human Resources Development reform
the unemployment insurance system.
I want to assure the hon. member and all her colleagues that
the reason behind the important changes resulting from the
reform was to provide more effective and advanced services to
the unemployed, and particularly to foster co-operation among
all stakeholders, including unions, business people, provinces
and municipalities, in order to fight unemployment and poverty.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I think
it is important for the minister to understand that we know about
a project that will considerably reduce the number of
employment centres throughout Canada and Quebec. We also
know that there will be major layoffs in late May and that many
places will have to make do with automated job banks.
Does the Minister of Human Resources Development admit
that unemployed workers outside the major centres will be the
main victims of this reduction in services, as many of them will
no longer have access to expert staff and will have to make do
with machines?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is getting
highly agitated over a decision that has not yet been made. She
has built in all kinds of assertions, assumptions, propositions,
hypotheses, none of which she can bear out by any fact.
The reality is that of course we are reorganizing. With the
advent of new technologies by which we can share information
much more effectively between centres, by decentralizing our
programs so that we can work in partnership with local groups
and not have to deliver through central bureaucracies we believe
we can achieve a much more effective delivery of services to the
people who need them.
I am surprised. Here is an hon. member who in the past has
given us grand declarations about the need to devolve and
decentralize to community control and community operations.
We are doing it and now she is complaining.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, according to National Sea Products, 25 of its fish
processing workers have left full time jobs for assistance under
the Atlantic groundfish strategy. That is TAGS, the
government's $1.9 billion temporary aid package for
unemployed fishermen and unemployed plant workers. National
Sea alerted the human resources development department of this
development on February 16 but has yet to receive a response
from the federal government.
My question for the minister is: How many of the 25 National
Sea Products employees in Lunenburg were accepted into TAGS
and what is the minister's response to this unsettling
development?
12189
(1425 )
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for the question. Let there be no misunderstanding. Those who
voluntarily quit their jobs are not eligible for TAGS. If they do
so, I will disqualify them immediately.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the bottom line is that it would appear easier to qualify
for assistance under TAGS than it is for unemployment
insurance in Atlantic Canada. The fisheries workers with full
time jobs are being induced to leave gainful private sector
employment to take a chance on the government sponsored
TAGS lottery. This effect is precisely the opposite of what TAGS
was supposed to deliver.
What is the minister's explanation for how this program, after
all the time and thought that was supposedly given to it, could be
having precisely the opposite effect of what was intended?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's
question would be greatly helped if he knew something about
the program and did not simply get his information from the
front page of a central Canada newspaper.
Up to the first nine months of operations we have received
over 52,000 applications. Thirteen thousand have been rejected
because they were not eligible. It is not an easy get-on.
Applicants must demonstrate a long term attachment to the
fishery, which is a very clear requirement. They have to have
actual weeks of employment in the fishery to determine it. If
there are other criteria that are objected to, we will not accept it.
I have just told the hon. member that I will not accept abuse of
the program. If anyone tries to get around the rules and tries to
apply for TAGS when they are not eligible, I will disqualify
them from the program. If the hon. member has any actual
information, I would be glad to receive it.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if the minister's statements are accurate, one wonders
how this program can already be $400 million underfunded
because the demand is higher than what was expected. When
this program was announced, the minister said it would serve as
a test case for the government's new approach to social
assistance from dependence on government to independence
through training.
Price Waterhouse and now National Sea Products have
provided evidence that this Ottawa originated social
megaproject approach to unemployment simply does not work.
The minister has been listening to the voices of 1960s Liberals
and tired old bureaucrats when he should have been listening to
the people of Atlantic Canada and to fresh thinking on social and
economic development.
Given the problem identified by National Sea Products and
given the advice by the government's own paid consultants, will
the minister commit to rethinking completely his entire
approach to the social and economic crisis in Atlantic Canada?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this question comes from
an hon. member whose party just recently put out a statement
that it would eliminate about $12 billion from social programs.
That would force most of the people in Atlantic Canada into
abject and utter poverty.
The program has been in place for nine months. In that nine
months we have received 52,000 applications; 40,000 people
have been processed; 26,000 have been given basic benefits;
15,000 are on well-designed training programs; and over 1,000
are working on conservation resource projects. This is in the
first nine months.
We do not deny it was an enormous and difficult task to try to
rescue an entire industry that has collapsed in that region, but at
least we are trying. We are working with the people of Atlantic
Canada. We are relying on their resourcefulness, not the kind of
negative 18th century thinking of the hon. member.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
In this House yesterday, in answer to my question regarding
Colonel Oehring's report, the Minister of National Defence
claimed that he had already answered the same question in reply
to the Reform Party. Once again, the minister was mistaken. The
Reform Party was concerned with Brigadier-General Jeffries'
report, while I was concerned with the Oehring report, which
stated that military personnel were consulting chaplains and
psychiatrists more often and that a lack of leadership had
resulted in an increase in the number of suicides.
(1430)
How can the minister so casually dismiss this consequential
report, confusing it with another?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps
the hon. member should go back a little further in the record.
This report was made public some time last fall.
12190
I know the member for Saanich-Gulf Islands, the Reform
critic, referred to this in the House. I did address those concerns
either in question period or in debate. That does not mean to say
we minimize some of the concerns in Colonel Oehring's report,
which was not scientific but which did outline some of the
difficult problems faced by members of the Canadian Armed
Forces.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it
is unlikely that this was discussed last autumn, because Colonel
Oehring's report was only issued in December 1994 while the
Reform Party's questions date back to March 15, 1995.
Will the minister admit that, in this report, of which he was
obviously unaware yesterday and still is today, one of his
colonels states that one of the problems facing the armed forces
is that the minister is not fulfilling his responsibilities?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, not to
argue about specific terms, but when one talks about fall in this
country it usually ends December 21, the first day of winter.
The report was unscientific, some findings by a colonel who
had some concerns about problems of morale in the forces. It
was made available to the commander of land forces. We have
looked at it. Some of the concerns are being addressed, as are the
concerns addressed by Brigadier-General Jeffries in his memo.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians will not be fooled by the government's half hearted
attempt at MP pension reform because really nothing has
changed.
MPs pensions will still be unacceptably high and Canadians
will still be forced to top up the trough to the tune of $7 million
annually.
The President of the Treasury Board said these changes will
save taxpayers over $3 million a year. That would just about
cover the Deputy Prime Minister's pension under the new plan.
Why did the government not replace the entire MP pension
scheme with a more realistic private plan such as others live
with outside these walls?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the bill is being dealt
with during debate but I categorically reject the statement of the
hon. member that I will not be covered under the new plan. I will
be covered under the new plan.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that
was my point. She is covered under the new plan and apparently
seems to be proud of it.
The government has released me from its obscenely lavish
pension plan. I am no longer trapped at the trough but I would
like to take a few members of the class of '88 with me because
they are also able to opt out.
Not only has the government allowed me but has also allowed
anyone who was elected in the class of '88 to opt out. That
means the ministers of finance, health, transport and industry
can all take their trotters out of the trough, hold their snouts high
and opt out-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Of course the Chair will grant virtually as
much latitude as it can in the questions. The hon. member
realizes today the bill on MP pensions is under discussion. I am
trying to hear the question. The preamble was skirting
dangerously close to the bill.
If the question is general enough I would like to hear it now.
(1435 )
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask it now. Why will
the government not open the doors to all 295 members of the
House so they can make the same choice, do the right thing and
opt out of this obscene plan?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Yesterday, we could read in The Citizen that the federal
government is about to host an international conference on
tobacco farming in the third world and that this conference will
be held at a beautiful resort in the Italian Alps, thousands of
kilometres away from the Canadian capital.
Does the minister find that it makes sense, at a time when cuts
are made left and right in the health sector, for Health Canada to
spend nearly $1 million on a conference on tobacco farming in
the third world?
[English]
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has been
the victim of misinformation.
On the whole issue of the tobacco conference, the government
has joined with other governments to give money to the
International Development Research Centre looking at the issue
of tobacco use in developing countries.
The government has given that group $700,000 over a period
of three years. The group is now holding its meeting to fund
12191
raise. The World Bank and other international organizations
will be at the meeting to contribute more money to the fund.
It is being held in Italy because the site has been donated by
the Rockefeller Foundation. It is being held in Europe because
most of the members will come from the eastern European bloc
countries and it will be cheaper for them to attend.
Health Canada has not been asked to attend. No Health
Canada officials are going.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how
can the federal government reduce medical research funding and
transfer payments, forcing the provinces to cut back on health
care, while at the same time wasting $1 million to host a
conference in the Italian Alps?
[English]
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, maybe I did not make my answer
clear the first time.
Health Canada and the government have not donated a single
penny to the conference in Italy.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we heard yesterday the tragic story of 40 children who
were abused both physically and sexually at the Lac Barrière
reserve in Quebec. Several of them also have drug and alcohol
problems.
In addition, Health Canada spent $150,000 on controlling
drug and alcohol abuse, fighting family violence and promoting
mental health.
Since the minister assured us just the other day that he was
making progress on these issues in Quebec, what does he intend
to do about this?
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the
minister of Indian affairs and the Minister of Health, I will have
to take the specifics of the question under advisement.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, let us try another.
Last year a group from this same Algonquin reserve sent the
minister a letter pleading with him to remove the chief, who is
unelected and has been convicted of assault.
The minister has a fiduciary responsibility for the personal
safety of band members and this tragedy is clearly a violation of
the person. What does the minister intend to do about this?
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development,
Lib.):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
(1440 )
I apologise. I will take the question under advisement and
give it to the minister.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
1989, Hughes Aircraft signed a $380 million fixed cost contract
to computerize the Canadian air traffic control system known as
CATS. We have learned that the project, which was initially
slated for completion by 1995, is far behind schedule and that its
implementation has been postponed until the end of 1998 or
later, at an additional cost of $250 million to Canadian
taxpayers.
Does the Minister of Transport confirm that Hughes Aircraft
is unable to complete its contract under the terms laid down, and
what does he intend to do about this?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question because it is,
indeed, an extremely difficult situation for the government. As
soon as I learned about the potential problems with this project,
I asked the auditor general to launch an investigation. I have also
asked the deputy minister to start negotiating right away with
Hughes Aircraft to find a solution that would be acceptable to
the Canadian government and especially to Canadian taxpayers.
I totally agree with my hon. colleague. This is a situation that
we will monitor very closely. However, I think that we have
taken the appropriate measures at this time, and I fully intend to
follow this matter very closely.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
since the minister confirms that he asked his deputy minister,
Nick Mulder, to reach an agreement with Hughes Aircraft, could
he confirm that Hughes Aircraft plans to reduce the size of its
contract by 40 to 50 per cent, which would cost Canadian
taxpayers another $250 million?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the hon. member indicated in his first question, the
contract was entered into some time ago. It is problematic.
There are negotiations under way. I can confirm there are
problems with the contract, with the delivery time and the cost
of the contract. We are concerned about the technology and I
12192
want to assure my hon. friend that every attempt will be made to
negotiate a settlement in the best interests of the Canadian
taxpayer.
I do not want to confirm or deny the exact numbers being
discussed. I do want to share with my colleague our deep
concern about a matter which has not been dealt with
appropriately in my view which has resulted in some corrective
measures being taken with the personnel administering that
contract. The deputy minister and others who are interested will
be reporting to me and I would be more than pleased to keep my
colleague informed about the progress of this matter.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental
Affairs.
A study initiated by the Government of Quebec was published
yesterday. The report indicated that Montreal could lose 5,000
corporate jobs if Quebec were to separate.
Given that the rate of unemployment in Montreal is
unfortunately already at 12 per cent, how could the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs convince the Government of Quebec
to cancel the referendum entirely and work seriously with the
federal government to resolve the problem of unemployment in
Montreal?
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, there is no doubt that the Parti Quebecois and the
Bloc Quebecois platforms are causing increased economic
uncertainty and costing us jobs.
(1445)
What is even more convincing is that this study was done for a
minister of the Parti Quebecois, and it concluded that
sovereignty will cost thousands of jobs in the Montreal area and
that the platforms of the two parties, up to now, have weakened
Montreal's economy.
The federal government was able to help create 76,000 new
jobs in Montreal last year. We spent $175 million through phase
1 of the Infrastructure Program, and we are extremely
disappointed to again see studies proving that sovereignty is
costing thousands of jobs in Quebec and in the Montreal area.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, three years ago Revenue Canada granted
charitable status to the Kamloops based Babbar Khalsa Society.
This militant organization has been dedicated to the violent
separation of the Indian state of Punjab for over 10 years. The
now deceased founder of this organization is suspected of
masterminding the terrorist bombing of Air-India flight 182 in
June 1985, which resulted in the death of 329 individuals.
Can the Minister of National Revenue please explain how
such a group could obtain and continue to receive charitable
status?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, some 72,000 organizations have charitable
status and the ability to hand out receipts for tax purposes.
The member should recognize that the vast majority of these
act very much in the public interest, carry out necessary
functions in this society whether it be with respect to health,
education, relief of poverty or other such matters.
Many in this group deal with immigrant groups in Canada.
Many of them carry out excellent work. The member is wrong to
single out a particular organization of which there may be one or
two individual members about whom I know nothing and
attempt to blacken the entire charitable status of all
organizations dealing with immigrants. These organizations
assist them to integrate into Canadian society.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Babbar Khalsa Society in Kamloops
continues to provide financial support to Babbar Khalsa
International, one of the few militant groups still committing
acts of terrorism in the Punjab.
Could the minister please explain to the citizens of both
Canada and India why the Canadian taxpayer is subsidizing
terrorist activities in India?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made allegations for
which she has given no substantial support in this House by way
of evidence.
It is important for her to recognize that there may well be
organizations that have activities overseas that are difficult for
Revenue Canada to supervise and check. We have an ongoing
program within Revenue Canada to examine the charitable
status of all organizations that are involved in the charity or
non-profit area. We do this on a continuous basis with the
resources that we have.
12193
There may be some activities overseas of some organizations
on which I would be happy to receive information so we can
check further. Under those circumstances, I would be grateful if
the hon. member would provide that information so that
investigations can be carried out rather than simply making
allegations of the type she has made today.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
directed to the Minister of Human Resources Development.
Rejecting the proposals for unemployment insurance reform
tabled by the Minister of Human Resources Development, the
task force on seasonal work recommended, as did the Standing
Committee on Human Resources Development, dropping the
provisions in his green book that discriminate against women
and seasonal workers.
Considering the broad consensus that has developed on the
discriminatory aspects of these two proposals in the green book,
will the minister promise to drop them immediately?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows,
the consultation around the whole issue of social security
reform, including unemployment insurance, is probably the
broadest public consultation ever undertaken in this country.
Over 100,000 Canadians, in a variety of ways, responded to a
number of initiatives so their interests and views could be heard.
(1450)
The committee report of the House of Commons is the key
document. We supplemented that, as the hon. member said, with
reports on seasonal work and other areas we have been working
on. We are simply examining all the representations at the
present time.
No decisions have been taken, but I can assure the hon.
member that we will take very seriously the concerns and issues
raised in both the Commons report and in the seasonal workers'
report.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the minister
apparently is in no hurry to answer the question, but aside from
this evasive reply, does the minister not realize that
discrimination, whether it is directed against women, seasonal
workers or young people, is entirely unacceptable and has no
place in his proposals for unemployment insurance reform? It
seems to me he could at least say that today.
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have no problem in
saying that any reform we want to propose to unemployment
insurance will seek the ultimate in fairness and distribution of
opportunities.
However, I want to repeat to the hon. member something
which I think he knows is important because he was very active
on the committee. There was a very large and overwhelming
consensus in the country by all those who reported that we must
shift the emphasis from unemployment insurance simply as a
payment of benefits to providing investment in individual
Canadians to help them get back to work. Perhaps the most fair,
just and equitable thing we can do is give every Canadian a
chance to work.
* * *
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday I asked the immigration minister what he was going to
do to stop abuse of Canadian generosity by Sri Lankans who
claim to be refugees but then take vacations in Sri Lanka.
Unbelievably, the minister said that he had not been told about
the problem. He did not know that all through 1994 immigration
officials had been identifying people in Sri Lanka who had
refugee status in Canada.
Was the minister aware that bogus refugees were being
identified in Sri Lanka? If he was, why did he not do anything
about it?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member just said bogus
refugees in Sri Lanka. The member cannot prove that individual
refugee claims that may have been placed years ago were bogus.
People were accepted as refugee claimants, became landed
residents and ultimately became Canadian citizens. They had
the ability to travel and with different clans persecuting other
clans, circumstances changed. Conditions do change.
If a person makes a refugee claim, is granted asylum as a
refugee and immediately turns around and goes into the area
where he or she had been persecuted, of course I do not condone
that. In fact applications have been revoked for that very reason.
However, one cannot in perpetuity suggest that somehow a
refugee claimant at one point in time is not permitted to travel to
any other part of the country. A number of legitimate refugee
claimants take their security into their own hands. It may be
because they have to go back to bury their mother or father. They
may want to go back to take possession of the homes and
12194
properties that were confiscated when they were persecuted.
There are a lot of mitigating circumstances and we should not
draw blanket conclusions.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada's humanitarian missions should be to seek out the needy
and weed out abusers. Too bad the minister does not share that
vision. His compassion extends to special interests and only
second to real refugees.
If the minister did not know about the Sri Lankan abuse then
what about the 380 Israeli claimants from democratic Israel who
were accepted as refugees in Canada by his friends at the IRB?
When will this minister wake up, stop the abuse and protect
real refugees who are being bumped back in the queue by these
frauds? Quit talking and do your job.
The Speaker: I would ask members to please address the
Chair in all of the questions and in the answers.
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the problem with members of
the Reform Party is they subscribe to jungle justice. Moments
ago we heard from a member who undermined an entire
organization operating in Canada because of guilt by
association. If a person from the legion in British Columbia is
guilty, does that mean we should say the entire legion is guilty?
If a Canadian of Italian extraction commits a crime does the
whole community have to pay?
(1455)
Mr. Speaker, how do you know who is a refugee and who is
not?
* * *
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
recently the provincial NDP government in Ontario wrote to 833
municipalities and alleged the federal government was not
following through on the financial commitments of the
infrastructure program.
I can tell the House the letter from NDP minister Ed Philip
created a great deal of concern among mayors and municipal
councils in the province.
Can the minister tell me what steps have been taken to
reassure Ontario's municipalities of the federal government's
intentions regarding the Canada-Ontario infrastructure works
program?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the program was progressing quite well until the
minister of municipal affairs of Ontario put out a letter which
consisted of scaremongering in the information it put in front of
many municipalities.
As a result of that I have today released a statement jointly
with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario which
indicates quite clearly that municipalities in Ontario can and
should proceed with their projects.
The bottom line in the statement is this. No one should be
holding back on tenders or contracts because they are unsure the
federal government will live up to its commitments under the
infrastructure works program. If a project has been approved,
they can be absolutely sure the Government of Canada will meet
all of its obligations and pay its share on time.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in a
letter to me that included references to the Quebec City bridge,
the Minister of Transport wrote, and I quote: ``At a time when
restructuring has made it necessary for CN to cut personnel, the
company could hardly be expected to spend substantial sums of
money out of mere aesthetic considerations''.
How can the Minister of Transport claim that the maintenance
of a major structure that is part of the railway network is merely
a matter of aesthetics, when rust is eating away at the structure,
which is bound to shorten its life expectancy?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, to answer the hon. member's question, we would not
want to give the impression that the bridge is not safe. All these
structures are checked regularly to ensure they are in proper
shape to do the job for which they were built.
I know there is a problem with the bridge, especially the way
it looks, and we intend to ensure that, as far as safety is
concerned, there is no problem. However, I would not want to
give the impression that for some reason, because of our concern
about CN's finances or for some other reason, the bridge is not
absolutely safe.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, along with the
Reform Party, all provinces are now asking that Ottawa define
core health services. This is imperative. The provinces want to
know where the government stands on health care.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us if the government will
open up the Canada Health Act to define core essential services?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, no.
12195
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport. Three weeks ago the
Minister of Transport stated that he was not prepared to put a
cent into the port of Belledune as far as a grant was concerned
any more than he would put grant money into the port of Saint
John or anywhere else.
This week we have discovered that a $5.8 million grant was
transferred from the federal government to the port of
Belledune.
(1500 )
How can the minister justify giving a $5.8 million grant to the
port of Belledune when a loan of $20 million has already been
authorized to develop the port of Belledune and it has received
almost $6 million from the provincial government as well?
Would the Minister of Transport please tell us how he can
justify this when it is against his policy as stated by him three
weeks ago?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what I stated and what I will continue to maintain is
that Transport Canada is not in the subsidies business.
What I want to explain to the hon. member is we have
responsibilities for ports across the country. The Standing
Committee on Transport has come forward with some
recommendations which we will study very carefully.
We will continue to make sure ports like Saint John, Halifax,
Vancouver and others have the facilities required to be able to
conduct their business.
With respect to the situation at Belledune, it is a wonderful
precedent that the Government of New Brunswick, the
Government of Canada, Ports Canada and local municipalities
are all contributing to the enhancement of the facilities at that
port.
While we are making a loan of $20 million through Ports
Canada to the port of Belledune, I want to reassure the hon.
member that although the authorities at Belledune believe they
can repay the loan I will take into account the request from Saint
John to not have to repay the loan for $20 million we have
already made to it.
* * *
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the
presence in the gallery of the hon. Wayne Matthew, Minister for
Emergency Services and Minister for Correctional Services
from Australia.
I would also like to draw your attention to the presence in the
gallery of Mr. Spyros Yatras, member of Parliament from
Greece.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: This brings to a conclusion question period. I
have two points of order.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order today arising out of question
period. I do so with some reluctance. This practice has
continued now for some time and I want to draw to the House's
attention and also to Your Honour the rules in respect of
question period which do apply and which I think are relevant
when the opposition considers questions it wishes to ask in the
House.
This afternoon, Sir, you ruled a question or two out of order
and I want to draw to your attention the provisions in citation
409 in Beauchesne:
In 1975, the Speaker expressed in general principles in order to clarify the
regulations and restrict the negative qualifications which traditionally have
guided the Question Period.
On that occasion the Speaker said:
A brief question seeking information about an important matter of some
urgency which falls within the administrative responsibility of the government
or of the specific minister to whom it is addressed, is in order.
It goes on under number (12):
Questions should not anticipate a debate scheduled for the day but should be
reserved for the debate.
That view was reinforced by a ruling by the Speaker in 1986
and which is quoted in citation 410 of the sixth edition of
Beauchesne:
In 1986 the Speaker put forth further views in light of more recent conditions
and precedents. It was observed that-
I need not repeat the entire citation but I turn to paragraph (14)
thereof:
Questions should not anticipate an order of the day although this does not
apply to the budget process.
I know hon. members opposite would like me to dispense with
reading these important practices of the House. They have been
rigorously enforced for many years. I know Your Honour in
seeking to enforce them today was acting in the very best
traditions of the House.
I can only urge Your Honour to continue to do so with vigour
and ensure practices outlined in 1975 and 1986 are adhered to by
the opposition.
(1505 )
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I am very disconcerted by the words of the hon.
parliamentary secretary for the government House leader.
12196
There are two points that I would like to make. First, I have
observed in the House in past debates, one example being a
question on Bill C-76 about deliberations in committee,
abrogating the rules, that the hon. member was not concerned
with that matter whatsoever.
Members on the government side have challenged the results
of votes in the House. That is against the rules and that has not
been challenged. More important, the hon. member for Beaver
River in her question did not deal specifically with the bill under
debate today but rather the agenda of the government which was
brought forward in discussion papers and in the bill being
debated today. She did not speak specifically to the bill. She did
not mention the bill. She talked about something the
government has been putting forward for debate for some weeks
or even months.
I do not understand why some in the House can specifically
speak of bills by name which are under debate in committee or in
the House with no challenge when the hon. member for Beaver
River spoke in a general way about the agenda of the
government and was not permitted to complete her question.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the two points raised by the
hon. House leader across the way. First, the citation in question
in Beauchesne specifically excludes the budget. Therefore the
allegation that this should have been applied to the motion to
discuss the main budget bill does not at all have anything to do
with the issue now before the House.
Second, the issue in question is further complicated by the
fact the hon. member who asked this question earlier today
specifically about the content, the main subject, dare I say, of
the bill now before the House being debated this day in
contravention of the citation has also proposed a motion today in
the House to amend the bill now before the House. She was
debating her own motion at the time we are speaking of which
further strengthens the point raised by the hon. parliamentary
secretary.
The Speaker: I do not want a debate back and forth. When
hon. members are on their feet and want to speak on a point of
order, as much as possible their arguments should be contained
in the time they are on their feet.
I will allow the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster
to make a brief statement.
Mr. Hermanson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do want to
respond to what the government whip mentioned.
We were not talking about a debate on the budget, we were
talking about a specific bill, the Budget Implementation Act,
which is a bill like all others, which was specifically mentioned
in the House and was not challenged by the government side or
by the Chair. It was much more specific than what the hon.
member for Beaver River said in her question.
I believe the hon. member for Beaver River acted properly
according to the rules and I ask hon. members on the opposite
side to recognize that.
The Speaker: Colleagues, you have left decisions to the
Chair to be made in the course of question period and in the
course of debate. I am well aware of the quotations cited by both
sides from Beauchesne. As much as possible, in the course of
question period I have tried to give as much latitude as I can to
members asking questions and to members giving answers.
(1510)
If you are to challenge your Speaker every time I make a
ruling in the House, I make the ruling with the very best of
intentions, that the rules be followed. If you wish to pursue this
conversation with me, I invite you to come into my chambers.
For today from my point of view from what I heard, I permitted
the first question from the member because although I thought it
was borderline it was general enough to be asked. In my view the
second question was out of order. I ruled it as such.
If every time I make a decision on our behalf as to make the
House function we will be coming into these points of order, we
will be using a great deal of time.
On the other hand, I recognize we have legitimate points of
order, perhaps every day. I am always willing to listen. I beg you
to give your Speaker enough latitude to conduct question period
as it should be.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order under Standing Order 37.
Today we raised a serious question about the sexual abuse of
children on a reserve in Quebec. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to agree
contempt was shown to Parliament by not only the
parliamentary secretary who made light of the question but the
government side members who laughed in derision on this very
serious issue regarding the sexual abuse of children.
The Speaker: In response to a question an hon. member
spoke in another language. There is no rule I know of that says
we cannot speak in other than either of the two languages.
It makes it more difficult for us to understand but what I heard
from the hon. member was that he would take the question under
advisement.
As to any other reaction, the Chair has 294 reactions to
virtually every question and answer given. I do not find a
question of contempt of Parliament in this issue. I thought it was
in the normal course of give and take and that is why I did not
intervene.
I do not find contempt of Parliament in this circumstance.
12197
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is of course directed to the Leader of the Government.
Could he perhaps inform the House about the business of the
House for the coming days?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with second reading of
Bill C-85 on MP pensions.
When this is completed we will return to third reading of Bill
C-43 on lobbyists, followed by report stage and third reading of
Bill C-67 respecting veterans, second reading of Bill C-70
concerning income tax, and report stage and third reading of Bill
C-54 regarding old age security, the Canada pension plan and
related matters.
Friday we will resume at the point where we left off today. On
Monday the House will not sit until two o'clock in the afternoon
to enable members to attend services commemorating the end of
the European part of the second world war.
In the afternoon after question period and on the following
days we will resume business where the House left off Friday.
This will be followed by second reading of Bill C-88 regarding
internal trade, Bill C-87 regarding chemical weapons, Bill C-86
regarding the Dairy Commission and Bill C-82 regarding the
Mint.
(1515 )
The Minister of Transport intends to introduce a bill
tomorrow concerning the CNR. It is the intention of the
government to propose that the bill be referred to committee
before second reading, using one of the new procedures adopted
by the House last year.
It is my hope we can deal with that motion early next week. I
would also like to find the time to deal with report stage of Bill
C-41 regarding sentencing. Finally, next Thursday shall be an
allotted day.
_____________________________________________
12197
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-85, an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring
Allowances Act and to provide for the continuation of a certain
provision, be read the second time and referred to a committee;
and of the amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The hon. member for
Peterborough has approximately 17 minutes remaining.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, before
the break for question period I was speaking to Bill C-85 which
is designed to reform the pensions of senators and members of
the House of Commons. I was making the point that I was
pleased by the fact the double dipping provision was so strong in
the proposed legislation.
Previously I mentioned other aspects of the bill which I am
sure will be addressed by other members. I should like to spend
the time remaining to me dealing with double dipping. I begin
by placing on the record a definition of the term double dipping,
which has become so widespread in recent months.
When I speak of double dipping I refer to the practice whereby
a former member of the House of Commons or a senator
simultaneously draws a pension under the Members of
Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and is paid in respect of
employment or an appointment or a contract for services by the
Government of Canada.
In the changes in Bill C-85 the government is carrying
through on the promise made in the red book to end the practice
of double dipping. Canadians have made it very clear that they
find the practice unacceptable. In response to this criticism the
government announced early in its mandate that amendments
would be made to the pension arrangements for MPs to put a
stop to double dipping.
Before we look at the actual proposals in Bill C-85 I should
like to say a few more words about the public's concern about
former members appointed by the federal government to jobs
that some might characterize as being in the gift of the
government. These so-called appointments are within the
control of every government. The government has recognized
that the public views the appointment of a former MP in receipt
of a pension to a position of this nature with a good deal of
concern.
In this context members present today may wish to take note
of the fact that in the case of a number of recent appointments
made by the government, appointees who are also former
members of Parliament have either taken salary cuts in their new
jobs or have made a gift of their pensions to the crown. In the
practical day to day sense the double dipping terms of the new
legislation have already been put into practice by the
government.
The government takes the concerns of Canadians so seriously
on the issue that it is putting an end to double dipping even
though some view pension entitlements as an earned or accrued
right. Viewed as an earned entitlement, some pension experts
believe that subsequent employment should have no effect on an
individual's pension.
12198
However the government accepts the public's concern
regarding the issue and realizes that pensions for former
members are and must be viewed in a different light. As I
mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, I believe the
symbolism of what members of Parliament do is very important.
(1520 )
It would be instructive to begin our examination of the double
dipping proposals in Bill C-85 by looking at what type of
re-employment will be subject to the new rules. The proposals
in the bill are very inclusive. If a former MP entitled to a pension
becomes employed in any capacity by the federal crown or by a
crown or departmental corporation, the former member is
required to report that he or she has obtained the employment. In
addition, the report that is made must also reveal how much
remuneration will be paid in respect of the employment.
Perhaps at this point I should say a few words about the
reporting system, the system of monitoring whether a former
member becomes re-employed in the federal sector. The same
system applies to a former member who is appointed to a
position or obtains a federal contract. It is built upon
self-reporting. It is the responsibility of the former member
appointed or employed to report that it has occurred and how
much remuneration is attached to the job. The government has
no desire to see a huge bureaucracy built up in an attempt to
monitor the activities of former MPs.
I should like to make one more digression. When I refer to
crown corporations and departmental corporations it might be
useful for members of the public if I gave an example of each,
just to give some idea of the breadth of the new prohibition on
double dipping.
Canada Post is an example of a crown corporation and the
Atomic Energy Control Board is an example of a departmental
corporation. These are the crown corporations that will be
covered by the bill. As I said, the same reporting requirement
applies to any appointment of a former MP in the federal public
sector, that is any appointment under the auspices of the federal
crown including crown corporations and departmental
corporations. An appointment to judicial office would be
included, as would be an appointment to diplomatic office.
Any appointment that may be made by the governor in council
is included. Any appointment to any board, tribunal, agency or
commission in the public sector is regarded as an appointment to
which the double dipping provisions of Bill C-85 will apply.
Finally, it should be noted that any contract for services
entered into by a former MP with the federal crown is also
covered by the amendments in Bill C-85. The former MP will be
required to report that the contract has been entered into and
how much remuneration will be paid in respect of the services to
be rendered under the contract.
I should also add a further point with regard to the issue of
contracts to illustrate how far reaching the pension reforms are.
The bill goes one step further than just mandating that a contract
between a former MP and the federal crown, broadly defined,
must be reported. The bill also includes a provision that seeks to
prevent a former MP from establishing a corporation,
association, partnership or other entity which then concludes a
contract for services with the government for the purposes of
avoiding the application of the new double dipping prohibition.
To that end, where a former MP controls a corporation,
association or like entity and the entity enters into a contract
with the federal crown, Bill C-85 deems that contract to have
been entered into by the former MP. As well, the remuneration
the former MP must report is deemed, in the words of Bill C-85,
``to equal the amount of the salary, fees and other compensation
paid to the former member for or in respect of the services
provided by the former member under that contract''.
Moving on to the subject of remuneration received in respect
of employment, appointment or contract, it must be said that the
net under the legislation is cast very wide. All remuneration that
comes in whole or in part out of the consolidated revenue fund is
caught by the proposals of Bill C-85.
(1525)
In addition, any remuneration paid out of moneys
appropriated by Parliament is also included as remuneration that
must be reported if it is paid to a former MP entitled to a pension
under the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act
because the former member has obtained employment, an
appointment or a contract with the federal crown.
While the aim of the bill is to cast a wide net in an effort to put
an end to double dipping, it is not the government's intention to
eliminate the practice in a way that will be unfair to former
members in receipt of a pension who obtained employment,
were appointed to a position, or entered into a contract for
services prior to the coming into force of the amendments.
Perhaps I should mention that the amendments will come into
force only when Bill C-85 is approved by both Houses of
Parliament and given royal assent.
Another issue of fairness is raised by the amendments. I am
referring to the trigger that will activate the double dipping
prohibition as proposed in Bill C-85. Previous private
members' bills that dealt with the issue of double dipping would
have caused former members to lose entitlement to their
pensions if they were in receipt of any remuneration from the
federal crown.
12199
This would mean that the entire pension would be suspended
or abated if a former member earned as little as a dollar a day as
a result of employment or appointment. One day's per diem
from a part time position would have had this draconian effect.
The government felt that would be very unfair. Therefore the
amendments proposed in Bill C-85 have set a ceiling of $5,000.
If a former member earns remuneration of less than $5,000 a
year, there will be no reduction in his or her pension. If more
than $5,000 is earned the pension will be abated dollar for
dollar.
The proposal put forth in Bill C-85 is reasonable and allows a
former member to earn $5,000 before the double dipping
provision is triggered. This will allow a former member to take a
very short term appointment or a part time position and suffer no
pension loss.
Bill C-85 provides regulations to be made to facilitate the
pension reduction. In particular, there will be provision for the
recovery of pension overpayments since it is quite likely that
where reductions must be made in a former member's pension
the actual reduction may not be made at the exact point when the
former member commenced to receive remuneration from
employment, an appointment or a contract.
I repeat that the government believes the proposals in Bill
C-85, which will put an end to double dipping, are fair and
effective. They are not retroactive because it would not be fair to
change the rules of the game halfway through the game.
The proposals also allow a former member to receive a small
amount of remuneration without pension penalty. I think
members present will agree that the government has cast a wide
net in its efforts to put to an end double dipping. It has been
responsive to the concerns of members of the public who made it
very clear that they do not approve of the practice.
Immediately following the election I followed pension reform
very carefully. I am glad the government has now moved to meet
its red book commitments. The double dipping component of the
legislation, which I have just described, actually goes beyond
what I envisaged was the commitment in the red book. I am
delighted to see that.
(1530)
For myself, as I mentioned at the very beginning of my
remarks before the break, I do think that thought should be given
to the matter of double dipping in the broadest public sector,
elected and unelected officials at the local, provincial, and the
federal level. I am delighted that in this legislation we members
of Parliament in the federal House have moved to set an example
in that direction.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
quick comment about the concept of changing the rules of the
game.
I was approached by a gentleman in my constituency who
would be in his early seventies and who retired from a coal mine
also in my constituency. In good faith, he had paid into a pension
plan, as had the company. Unfortunately, the company went
bankrupt, and due to a number of different issues it turned out
that the pension plan ended up being completely underfunded.
Now that was not very fair. Here is a gentleman who was
enjoying a modest income who suddenly dropped down to about
$100 a month in his pension, where he had in good faith during
his working life paid into that. It was absolutely and totally
outside of his control.
I raise that as a point of interest to the member. Very
frequently we have seen politicians who have said this is out of
our control, or the people retired previously, so it must be fair,
and so on and so forth. Well doggone it, unfortunately, in
Canada, as everywhere in the world, there are an awful lot of
things that happen that are unfair. So to just dismiss the idea of
not looking at those who have retired and not asking if there is
some fair and equitable way to put an end to the countless
millions of dollars that are being paid out to them and in a fair
way to reimburse them and then let them get on with their lives
so that Canadian people can get on with their lives, maybe that is
something that should be looked at.
I would be interested to know what, in his former life, the
member did for a living. Listening to him, I assume that he must
have been a professor of very dry subjects or a lawyer or
somebody who loves to use 75-cent words all strung out in a
long row when talking about the double dipping and all the
issues involved in the legislation.
This act that is being brought forward by the government is
attempting to cover every single, solitary eventuality. In fact, I
believe that what the people in Canada are saying is they do not
think politicians should be able to put themselves in some kind
of unique category and unique classification.
Would he not agree that the people of Canada would accept,
instead of a three to one or a four to one or a five to one payment
on their part to what the politicians are going to be putting in, the
idea of an industry standard of one for one? If the politician puts
in $5 the people of Canada put in $5, instead of the politician
putting in $5 and the people of Canada having to cough up $20,
which is what this legislation still calls for.
Would he not agree that it would be the simplest thing in the
world to wipe out what is presently in existence relative to the
pension plans and come back with a program that would say that
the politicians may, for every $1 they put in, up to a particular
limit, be matched by $1 from the taxpayer? Then we do not need
12200
to worry about double dipping, triple dipping, or any other kind
of ice cream dipping. It does not make any difference, because
in fact then the person would be in charge of their own destiny
and would be out of the pockets of ordinary Canadians.
Mr. Adams: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great sympathy to
the first part of the member's remarks about the miner he
described and the unfairness of that particular case. My
response to him on that, while I have great sympathy for that
situation, is that quite simply two wrongs do not make a right.
Because there has been one unfairness, I think it is important
that wherever we can we try to avoid creating further unfairness.
(1535)
On retroactivity in this case, if we went back to all the former
members of this House who are now out in the workplace, we
would find some who have returned to the public service. They
could be former bureaucrats who have gone back into the
bureaucracy; they could be people on appointments; they could
be people on contracts; and so on. Some of those people may
have moved from western Canada to Ottawa and made
complicated family and financial commitments. Therefore, to
undo their financial base at this time would be truly unfair. By
the way, it would also be a great complication if we were to think
of complicated legislation.
As to his question about my profession and the matter of
dealing in dry subjects, I was a professor, but not of dry subjects.
My field of research was ice, and I worked in the area of
hydrology, so the work I did was really quite wet. My research
was on ice and I worked on sea ice and lakes in all parts of the
north. For example, I worked on the effect of ice on fish.
However, I moved away from that type of work to skating on
thin ice in this House. I would also say to the hon. member that
my remuneration has changed considerably, and considerably
for the worse.
Having said all of that, I do not apologize for trying to explain
legislation as well as I can to members of this House and to the
people of Canada. We all have difficulty reading bills and
reading the acts that govern this country. I understand why they
have to be written very carefully and in very precise legal
language, because of precedents and the way the courts will
have to interpret them and so on. I would say to the hon. member
in all sincerity that I think one of our duties is to try to explain
legislation to the best of our ability, whatever our abilities are,
to the people of Canada. That is what I was trying to do in the
area of double dipping.
As all members know, we cannot control the future through
written legislation. However, as far as is humanly possible this
legislation with respect to double dipping is written to try to
prevent people from getting around it, which unfortunately all
sorts of people appear to do with our legislation.
I do not apologize for trying to explain legislation to the
people of Canada to the limits of my ability.
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I was not intending to be critical of
the hon. member's explanation of all of this verbiage that is
contained in the agreement, although with his reference to ice I
must say that a lot of people in Canada think that legislation
typically goes through the House at the speed of a glacier, so
there is some connection with ice there.
However, my question still is that rather than having a whole,
long, complicated document that the member has to stand up
and, to the best of his ability, explain, why is it not just wiped
out? Why do we not just match one for one? Why do we not go to
an industry standard? Why does he not put down his $5, I will
put down my $5, and the Canadian taxpayers can put down their
$5?
Mr. Adams: Mr. Speaker, I do have sympathy with the remark
regarding this House sometimes moving at glacial speed. I know
it does. I think that all members have been frustrated from time
to time. One of the reasons for that is the system of enormous
checks and balances that are placed on us.
I would point out to the member, and perhaps we can discuss
this afterward, that it is my hope that this legislation moves
through at the rate of a glacier surge. If the member does not
know what surging glaciers are, there are about 200 glaciers in
the world that are moving at a speed that for glaciers is quite
catastrophic. It is my hope that this legislation will move at least
at that speed.
(1540 )
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I do not intend
to talk about glaciers. I do not intend to talk about all of the
aspects of C-85 either.
I heard a number of comments prior to question period,
particularly from the member for St. Boniface, which I believe
have to be answered. Accusations were made that many of us on
this side of the House ran for some fairly questionable reasons.
We have heard that a lot of times. Maybe we should just go back
and review very quickly why most of us on this side of the House
ran and I am sure on that side of the House also ran.
Certainly we were concerned about the debt and deficit. It is
only fair to say that when we looked back at 1984 we thought
that a change had to be made. We were at $180 billion. We had
someone who promised he would take care of it. By 1988 he did
take care of it. We were at $375 billion, and we were told it was
still a problem. By the time we got to 1993 we were at $489
billion and then we really knew we did have a big problem.
An awful lot of us got involved back in that 1988 period
because we saw not only this debt and deficit, but we saw
corruption, mismanagement, waste, and a government that was
not listening to the people. We saw that by not listening it meant
that a message would come down from on high and go back to
the riding and we would be told what was good for us from the
party.
12201
The message was always going the wrong way, and the people
desperately wanted to be heard. What they wanted to be heard
was that they wanted to end so many of those things. They
wanted to end the perks and the gold plated pension plan, which
became a battle cry for citizens out there who were looking at
that and asking what it meant.
They also were fighting the arrogance this place had. I would
say that a lot has improved here, but certainly what we saw in
question period today was not an improvement. We had a
question answered in another language and everyone was
laughing and cheering about it. That is arrogance and disrespect
for this place. If that sort of thing continues the people will
speak again. We can count on that.
We have problems in this country. The debt and deficit of
course are getting worse. We have a criminal justice system that
is in decay. The people are demanding change. They are asking
about young offenders, parole, victims' rights, the time taken by
the courts, the crime and the law and order out there. They are
asking what the government is doing and if it is listening.
Instead, the government is fooling around with things like gun
control and its own selfish, greedy pensions. That is what the
government is wasting time on in this House. The public is
listening and evaluating what this House is doing on that matter.
They demand parliamentary reforms. They demand that we do
something about that other place over there, that waste of money
and time that we have. They demand that they are able to recall
and fire an MP who does not do his job. They demand that they
can talk on social issues and that we bring them back to them and
speak for them. They demand in fact that people have the right in
this place to have free votes. They demand that if they tell their
member to vote against something a party whip should not be
able to whip him into shape so that he has to go along with party
lines or lose his committee position and position in this place
because they go against the party, the almighty party from
Ottawa that tells you what you have to do when you get home.
The government is not listening.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I am quite aware that
there are some very strongly held views in any debate, this one
certainly not being the exception. But I would remind
colleagues on both sides of the House from all parties that all
interventions be made through the chair and through the Speaker
and not directly to you or whomever else.
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, I maintain that the
government is not listening. It is not listening on the young
offenders, on crime control, on victims' rights. And it is not
listening on pensions for the MPs.
(1545 )
We heard them, certainly in the dribble that was spewed out
by the member for Winnipeg St. James. He talked about why
politicians have such a low profile. He said that the people on
this side are the ones that keep talking about it. That is not true.
It is the people that are talking about it.
Ironically, a letter was delivered to me in the House just now
from a constituent of mine. Parts of it might convey the
message. It was sent as an open letter to the Prime Minister:
As one of your employers, I expect Canada to be managed by real leaders
worthy of trust. In the 1993 election campaign you promised to restore integrity
to government.
Where's the integrity in your MP pension reform, especially in light of your
recent budget? You promised to reform pensions, then made only minor changes
that don't come close to bringing MP pensions into line with pensions like mine. I
have to save for my retirement and can't even depend on Canada Pension Plan any
more, yet politicians get pensions that I pay for. Worse yet, many of your cabinet
colleagues and long-sitting MPs manage to get away with no changes whatsoever
to their original pensions.
I think that says an awful lot.
If we must expect less, shouldn't our leaders also expect less? You promised
integrity, but we see business as usual. Patronage continues, spending is out of
control, and promised reforms and action plans have only meant discussion
papers or empty words.
That is from someone at that grassroots level and it explains
why people do not trust politicians. Let us look at other reasons
they do not trust politicians. We have all read the books
On the
Take and
Beyond the Law. We read that stuff and we see what
kinds of things have happened in this place.
In the Hill Times the chairman of the committee I am on, the
member for Rosemont, although he is misquoted a little, says
that the joint foreign affairs committee had an $800,000 budget.
He said: ``Most committee chairs overestimate their budgets for
the year. You do not know how much you need so you pad
everything like mad''. That is what people are seeing. That is
why people are asking questions and that is why politicians get a
bad name.
We are talking about savings and pensions for people. One of
the biggest problems Canada has is that its people have about 7
per cent savings to the GDP. Countries like Chile have 25 per
cent. Many of the countries in the Orient have savings higher
than that. That is what provides stability for a country. People
see politicians not taking care of those kinds of things. We
should be encouraging people to save through RRSPs to build
that savings level, so that money is invested in Canadians.
The GST is a good example of what we are talking about now.
A party decided the GST was good for people. You MPs that
were here then should take that home-
12202
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I caution the House and I
remind all members that all interventions must be made through
the Chair. If I can be more direct, the word ``you'' in reference to
any other member of the House will not be accepted by the Chair
in this debate or in any other situation.
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): MPs were told to take the GST back to
their constituents and tell them how well it would work and how
it was best for them. Mr. Speaker, you saw what happened when
MPs went back and told the people that the top down message
was the way to go. The message was loud and clear. It is not us
across here that are giving politicians a bad name.
(1550 )
It is one of many things that have happened. Take the example
of gun control. Gun control is being dealt with as a message
from on high. What do the people want? People want crime
control. They are not asking for gun control.
I come now to pensions. What is being done with this
pension? The people of Canada do not mind paying the salaries
of those members of Parliament who do the job for them. I have
not heard much complaint about the salaries. However, they
expect the pension to be the same as they can get in industry.
That is all they are asking. If that were the case, I do not think
there would be a problem.
What I really think happened was that a number of senior
members on the other side decided no, we are here, we have it,
we are not going to give it up. They demonstrated like so many
do that they are not prepared to make sacrifices for the country.
Why should Canadians make a sacrifice if the leaders will
not? The people who were elected in 1993 are caught in this
thing. They know what people are saying because they are still
in touch with their constituents. That is some 200 plus of us.
I am sure it was felt that members on this side would be split
on this item. We feel so strongly about it in the Reform Party that
52 of us are going to take that exemption and get out of the
pension plan. That is a pretty big surprise to the governing party.
I bring members to what is going to happen in 1997-98. We
are all standing on a stage at an all candidates forum. I think
about the questions from that crowd. I think about them saying:
``Okay, there is a candidate up there who has opted out of the
gold plated pension that some 85 per cent of Canadians in a
survey said must be eliminated. Someone has opted out. All of
the rest cannot opt out even if they wanted to because their party
said they had to belong to that gold plated pension plan''.
It will be a pretty tough position for other candidates to
defend. Throw in a bit of gun control. Throw in a few of the other
major issues and it will be even more difficult. We know that
governments defeat themselves. They are seldom defeated from
the outside.
It is just amazing that something like this would be dealt with
this way. I can hardly believe, with all the spin doctors and all
the professional consultants that the other party has, it would
even consider gambling with something like this gold plated
pension unless a lot of members plan to opt in or opt out,
however it is going to work. It is certainly going to be an
Achilles' heel in the coming election.
The people will be able to speak. The people have shown that
already. The people have power now. In case members have not
noticed, they demonstrated it in 1992 with the Charlottetown
accord. They demonstrated it in the election very strongly about
the GST and the corrupt items that we talked about. They
certainly demonstrated it to the cable television companies.
Members better believe that they are going to display their
power in 1997-98 or whenever the next election is. The battle
cry is going to be gold plated pensions. I guarantee it will be at
the top of the list.
This is the sort of issue that to me touches everybody. All
people think about their health, their old age and protection and
security for themselves and their families. This is something to
which every one of them can relate.
When you get something that everybody can relate to, Mr.
Speaker, you now have a very definite issue. Members of the
Reform Party are not going to let voters forget about the pension
plan. We might be talking about guns, we might be talking about
other things but those issues do not touch everyone. When we
have an issue like taxes, an issue like pensions that touches
everyone, people will respond.
(1555)
I suppose the purpose of this House is for us to point out to
everyone here the issue, the problems and what the people of
Canada are saying about an issue like this. I respectfully put
forward this point of view and say this is an issue we must deal
with.
Mr. Murray Calder
(Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with interest to the hon. member's speech.
The hon. member has made a comparison between what a
member of Parliament and someone in the business community
makes. It is important for him to remember and understand the
fact that to have credible government we have to have credible
people here.
In my other life I was a poultry producer. I was respected in
that occupation and 18 months later I hope I am respected in this
one. Personally I have not changed.
12203
To become a member of Parliament it cost my farming
operation over $12,000 a year. That was just in workmen's
compensation payments and unemployment insurance to
replace me.
When the hon. member talks about gold plated pensions and
so on, a study was done that stated that members of Parliament
were underpaid. We have by the way frozen our wages again. I
know it is not an option because we cannot give ourselves a raise
when we are telling everyone else to hold the line. However, the
report recommended an increase in pay for members of
Parliament. I would be more than happy if that happened to see
the pensions done away with and work within an RRSP program.
We know we cannot have an increase in pay. The public will
not stand for it. I agree with that. Therefore I feel the pension
reform is more reflective of what that increase in pay would
have been. I know if a member of Parliament was working in the
business community he would be making a heck of a lot more
money than what he is making right now.
Does the hon. member think a member of Parliament makes as
much as a person in the business community does if he is doing
the same job that we are doing?
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, first, we are talking
about pensions, not salaries. I will answer the hon. member's
question about salary.
The Canadian public does not know what an MP does. I must
admit that some of us who came here for the first time probably
really did not know how much work was involved. If people
knew the number of hours involved I think there would be
support for higher salaries. In any business there would be some
MPs who would not qualify but generally speaking MPs are
underpaid.
A pay increase at least is honest. It is straightforward. If it is
explained properly the Canadian public would understand that.
They cannot understand a pension that MPs have rewarded to
themselves that is totally different from other pensions. It is
three and a half times better than you can get in industry.
Canadians cannot accept the dishonesty of that sort of a
pension. What they could accept would be the honesty of saying:
``These are the hours, this is the job that is done and this is the
salary that should have been obtained''.
You say you took a salary cut. I took a big salary cut too.
(1600 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. If we get into an
exchange of a personal nature by using the words you, me and so
on, we could be getting into a very dangerous area. By and large
our debates are conducted in a very parliamentary fashion, to the
credit of all in the Chamber.
I remind members to direct their comments and interventions
through the Speaker.
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, I apologize. This is an
emotional issue. It is one we feel very strongly about. It is
certainly one about which my constituents feel very strongly. If
there is one issue that has been raised more times than any other
in the four years I have been involved, it has to be the one of
MPs' pensions.
I get emotional about it. It has been four or five years that I
have been talking about it. It is not something new. It is not a
matter of just jumping on the bandwagon and saying we oppose
it, as two former members said we were doing. If they checked
the record they would find that most of us feel strongly about the
issue. Mr. Speaker, your constituents feel strongly about it as
well.
We have to put the facts on the table. I respect what the hon.
member just said about salaries. That is how it should have been
presented. If it had been done that way it could have possibly
received all-party agreement. If it had been simply presented as
a trade-off and package, bounced off the people to find out if
they agreed, there was a good chance they would have accepted
it. However I am certain they will not accept this type of pension
plan.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, one of
the frustrations for Canadians on issues such as this one is not
knowing how to do something about it.
If we reflect on the Charlottetown accord, every politician in
the House of Commons lined up to try to jam the Charlottetown
accord down the throats of Canadians, with the exception of the
Reform member for Beaver River. Canadians saw through the
Charlottetown accord. They lined up on the cable issue. They
lined up on a number of issues.
I have a question for the member. If Canadians are as upset
about the issue as we believe they are, does he have any
constructive ideas ordinary citizens might be able to use to make
members on the other side aware of how frustrated they are?
Mr. Mills (Red Deer): Mr. Speaker, I would certainly hope
the Canadian public has learned how to become involved in the
process. I would go back to the last election and how they got
involved and made a major change. The major change was a
response to issues such as this one. They said: ``Do not tell us
what is good for us. We will tell you what we are prepared to
have and to pay for''.
I would tell Canadians to make sure they talk to their members
of Parliament. They must talk to them, write to them, phone
them, and tell them where they are coming from. They must do it
soon. They must do it before the end of June so they will have
input. When the bill gets to committee, I hope the government
will deal with it in that way.
12204
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I remind the House that every member has come
here with honesty and integrity, working their buns off 24 hours
a day in some instances for seven days a week. I do not think
many came here looking for the pension. My only hope is that I
live long enough to enjoy it after the gruelling work days we go
through.
(1605)
I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the
debate on Bill C-85. I would like to ask hon. members to think
carefully about some of the issues underlying the design of the
pension plan.
Over the last few years there has been a growing chorus of
complaints from Canadians about the generosity of the pension
plan. In general, the complaints focused on two features of the
plan. The first was the immediate availability of regular
monthly pension payments from the day of leaving Parliament
for the rest of the individual's life. The second was the
frequency with which former members were seen as being
rewarded, not only with this lifetime benefit but with
appointments to highly paid posts in public life.
The first criticism is certainly understandable. We all
understand that the purpose of a pension plan is to provide
income for individuals who have reached an age when ability
and willingness to work have declined. At that stage of life it is
reasonable to think that retirement from the workforce should be
possible without catastrophic alterations in lifestyle
expectations. That is why our system of taxation includes
measures to encourage Canadians to save toward retirement
years during their employment years and encourages employers
to participate in the goal by providing employer sponsored
pension plans.
While undoubtedly improvements could be made, I cannot
imagine that anyone seriously questions the importance of
maintaining a system of tax assistance for retirement savings.
Obviously the question of when it is reasonable to begin
receiving what is meant to be retirement income is a different
matter.
We should really ask ourselves if we have in place adequate
financial arrangements to allow a member of Parliament, who
leaves the House before what could be considered normal
retirement, to make the transition back to private life in a
reasonable way.
The answer to that question, however, is not to begin paying a
pension to someone who is only in his or her thirties or forties.
Such a person will look for employment elsewhere and most
likely will continue to accumulate retirement savings so that
ultimately on retirement pension may come from several
sources.
The establishment of a minimum pensionable age for the
Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act as proposed in
the bill ensures that the pension plan takes its place as building a
portion of ultimate retirement income for a person who may
have several different types of employment during a full career.
As I have indicated, I fully support the action proposed in the
bill with respect to the issue of what is commonly referred to as
double dipping by former members who are receiving pensions
and are appointed or become employed in federal jurisdictions.
To a great extent the problem has its genesis in the previous
issue of the age at which pensions have become payable. The
public is understandably concerned when a 40-year old is
drawing both a generous pension and a salary from public funds.
Obviously it would not be fair. Nor would it be in the public
interest to preclude qualified former members from public
service at the national level. However it is fair and respects the
public view to act in the manner proposed in the bill to expect
the former member to report such income and receive less or no
pension for the period concerned.
The legislation responds to two specific criticisms of our
pension arrangements. I commend the President of the Treasury
Board for carrying through on our commitment in this area. I
draw attention to the fact, however, that the president has gone
even further and has made a very significant change in the
formula used to calculate benefits under the plan. The change
will affect all present and future members of the House by
reducing the level of pension benefits earned.
Until this time members of the House of Commons have
earned pensions at the rate of 5 per cent of average sessional
indemnity for each year of pensionable service. For service after
the bill takes effect the rate will be reduced to 4 per cent of
average indemnity. This means that members will be earning 20
per cent less pension in future, which I am sure anyone would
agree is a very significant reduction in retirement expectation
for members of Parliament.
(1610)
For example, based on current indemnity levels, a member
will be accumulating $640 less pension for each year of service.
We are told by the President of the Treasury Board that this
reduction coupled with the introduction of a minimal
pensionable age will amount to ongoing savings to taxpayers of
something like 33 per cent of the present cost of the plan. This
would mean that government contributions to the plan would be
lower by more than $3 million every year.
Undoubtedly some will say this reduction is not enough, that
the government has not gone far enough, that MPs are not worth
what they are paid, that pensions are part of the compensation
and so on, that the plan goes far beyond what is provided
elsewhere, that the plan is illegal, and that no one else in the
country would be permitted to have such a plan.
12205
Clearly the question of how much is enough is one with no
factual answer. Every Canadian will reach his or her own
conclusion on whether or not the government has gone far
enough.
A number of points should be considered by the thoughtful
people of the House before coming to a conclusion. I should like
to address the much publicized view that the plan is illegal in
some way. Those who suggest that no other Canadian could have
such a pension arrangement because of other legislation such as
the Income Tax Act are either misrepresenting or
misunderstanding the rules.
While the income tax rules for registered pension plans are
complex, the general concept is simple. The rules put limits on
the maximum benefits that can be accumulated under a pension
plan and thus govern the amount of contributions that can be
made and tax sheltered. The rules do not prevent individuals or
employers from setting aside other funds to provide additional
retirement savings. They simply do not provide tax assistance
for such savings.
As well, where employers sponsor such additional
arrangements and set aside funds to pay for them, I am told that
special tax rules come into play that considerably increase the
cost of providing the benefits by applying a refundable tax of 50
per cent of all revenues to the plan.
The Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act was
amended in 1992 to conform with the rules we expect other
employers to obey. Part I of the plan provides the benefits that
are permitted under the tax rules, while part II provides the
benefits that are offside of the rules. The benefits are provided
on a funded basis, which means the contributions are made at a
level that provides for the 50 per cent tax I mentioned.
While this is a complicated and technical area, it is important
to understand the plan provides an arrangement that is not
denied to any other Canadian by law. The reason it is done this
way is to ensure we disclose to the public the full cost of
providing the benefits on the basis available to any other
employer. That is why the government is paying taxes to itself to
ensure full disclosure.
Having ventured into the arcane and mysterious world of tax
treatment of pension plans, I will with some trepidation presume
to place on the record a few thoughts about the financing
arrangements for MPs pensions.
We have heard many allegations about the total amount that
members will receive in pension benefits over their lifetime.
Often these comments are accompanied by the suggestion that
there would be huge but unknown demands placed on future
taxpayers to cover the cost of pensions. The suggestion is that
we are hiding from the public the total obligations that are
coming in the future. This is simply not true. It is not the case.
(1615)
The Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act
imposes the requirement that each year the government
contributes the amount which together with members'
contributions will pay the cost of benefits earned by all serving
members in that year. This means that enough money must be
put in the pension account and shown as a government
expenditure to provide for all pensions that will be paid in future
in respect of members' service in that year.
In addition, every three years a report must be tabled in
Parliament from the government's actuary giving his
professional advice on whether or not the amounts in the plan
are adequate to cover all the benefits to become payable under
the plan. If there are shortages, the government must make
additional contributions to cover them. This is disclosure.
While the funding of pensions is another complex and
technical area, the point to be understood is that the full cost of
all benefits, including those which may not be payable for many
years hence, are recognized and expensed as the liabilities
accrue. There are no hidden obligations which will only surface
at some future date.
As I have indicated, these pension arrangements are legal.
The proposal in Bill C-85 will make them significantly less
generous for the future. I do not suggest this pension plan will be
typical of the retirement arrangements found on average. It will
still constitute a very good plan. Undoubtedly, some of the
public and some members feel we should have gone further than
a 20 per cent reduction in pension, but the consequences of such
a step should be examined.
Rational people would agree that you get what you pay for.
They would agree that members of Parliament should be fairly
compensated for the work done on their behalf. It is unlikely that
many of us are here for the generosity of the compensation
package. I hope we are here in the spirit of service to our fellow
citizens. We are here to do a very important job in the best way
we can to serve our constituents.
The decision to seek public office is seldom an easy one in
personal terms. It may involve personal sacrifice for each and
every individual and for those closest to him or her in terms of
their private time and their privacy. It certainly can involve
financial sacrifice in terms of interrupting or abandoning a
career outside government.
The question is: What level of compensation do we believe is
necessary to ensure that qualified individuals continue to offer
themselves for the service of this great country?
The Sobeco study commissioned by the previous government
and tabled in 1992 certainly indicated that the overall com-
12206
pensation package for members of this honourable House was
less than that provided to individuals employed in other sectors
in terms of what the report sees as equivalent responsibilities.
The authors of that study, who are professionals in the
compensation field, did suggest that one element of the package,
the pension plan, was unduly rich and should be cut back in
favour of greater direct compensation. We are making a 20 per
cent cut in that level of pension and instituting a pensionable
age, a step the report also recommended. We are not increasing
our pay. In fact, sessional indemnities remain frozen at the 1992
level and will for two years to come, and maybe more.
We have gone a long way in Bill C-85 in responding to the
public's outcry that we do reform MPs pensions. We have gone
beyond the promise in the red book that there would be an age
limit and that we would reduce the input. We have responded to
the public's interest and to their concerns while maintaining a
compensation package that will not discourage well-qualified
candidates from coming forward to serve this great institution.
(1620 )
We should not be reluctant to say to Canadians that we believe
what we are doing on their behalf is important enough that it
warrants a fair compensation package and that we will listen to
their response.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
member was trying to tell us how justified members of
Parliament are in receiving the compensation and how we are
entitled to receive fair compensation.
Nobody denies fair compensation. Nobody denies a bank
president, a janitor, a farmer, a parliamentarian just
compensation. What we are talking about here is the pension
plan that is uneven. It can reward one parliamentarian to a
tremendous degree and another parliamentarian perhaps to a
smaller degree and it is called fair compensation.
Not only that, the member talked about how members
contribute and the government as the employer contributes.
Therefore it is all out in the open as to how much it costs
Canadian taxpayers for the pension plan.
Can the hon. member tell me how much over the last year the
Government of Canada has contributed to the members of
Parliament pension plan?
Mrs. Brushett: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that hon.
members who have come here have not come looking for a
pension.
Mr. Williams: Then they should walk away from it.
Mrs. Brushett: They have come to serve their country. Let
me give members a personal note as to why I am here.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Again, to remind
colleagues that within parliamentary debate there can be a great
risk if we become too personal in our discussions across the
floor of the House. Respecting that a question has been asked by
one member, we now will hopefully hear the reply from the
member for Cumberland-Colchester.
Mrs. Brushett: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to remain objective
when we wonder what motivates others.
The pension plan is equitable for all members who are serving
this honourable House. We have fulfilled a promise according to
the red book to the public of this country and they are satisfied.
The hon. member refers to a bank manager. The bank
managers I read about in most of the annual reports are earning
something like $350,000 or $500,000 a year. Hon. members of
this House earn $64,400 a year. That is the salary of hon.
members of this House.
The pension is equitable for the amount of fairness in the
system and in equation to our frozen salaries and is meeting the
needs of the economic recession we are in. We have done the
reform that badly needed doing. We have responded to
Canadians and Canadians are satisfied.
Any Canadian who elects someone or throws someone out of
office of this hon. House will not do it on the basis of the pension
plan.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask a question on this
very issue.
I would like to comment first on a figure just given by the hon.
member. If the bank managers could hear the statistic that was
quoted, they would be delighted if it were reality. For a bank
manager to earn $350,000 would be by far the exception rather
than the rule in this country, certainly the ones I am personally
aware of. Perhaps this shows a lack of a sense of reality in this
country.
(1625 )
Has the member calculated how she herself would benefit
from this pension plan as compared to other pension plans? I
wonder if the Liberal members have done that and then
compared it to what they would have earned in another pension
plan. I am not familiar with the hon. member's background, but
what would her pension have been in her previous occupation?
Mrs. Brushett: Mr. Speaker, in response to the first part of
the hon. member's question, from the annual reports of the
Royal Bank of Canada and Bank of Nova Scotia, the salaries of
the CEOs are quite significant. If the hon. member checks them
out she will find they are substantial. The average salary for an
elementary school teacher, as I understand it, is approximately
$55,000 to $58,000. I do not think it is appropriate to use the
time of the House to go down the list of salaries.
12207
In terms of my previous life, my background was in science
and research and I was a business woman. This is my first
experience with a pension plan. I have always invested-
Mr. Williams: And you cannot wait to get it.
Mrs. Brushett: I hope I live long enough to get it, with the
long days we put in seven days a week. I believe the constituents
in my riding knew they were getting a hard worker which is why
they elected me. It was not because of the pension plan. It will be
in addition to or will supplement investments I have made. I
remind the House that I still have children in university. Who
knows what is ahead of any of us down the road?
This is an equitable and very fair plan. We have kept the
promise to the people of Canada that we would reform. We have
set the age limit which was an important factor in this country.
We have reduced the luxury of this pension plan in relationship
to the salary that members of this honourable House are paid and
the package that is there, those who will attain it.
I must remind the member also that more than 50 per cent of
members who come to this House never receive a pension. That
is a very important factor to keep in mind.
_____________________________________________
12207
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent for the
following motion. I move:
That the Subcommittee on Aboriginal Education, composed of five
members, of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern
Development, be authorized to travel to Vancouver-Sechelt, Kuujjuaq,
Cornwall, Cape Breton and Conne River from May 9, 1995 to June 3, 1995, and
that a staff of three do accompany the subcommittee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Does the hon.
parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the
House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
12207
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-85, an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring
Allowances Act and to provide for the continuation of a certain
provision, be read the second time and referred to a committee;
and on the amendment.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-85 on the pension
plan, which has been brought before us. This is the Liberal
government's attitude toward reform and, according to the last
speaker, this was equitable.
The previous speaker talked about the fact that because our
salaries are so low we need this exorbitant, gold plated pension
plan that is an obscenity in the fiscal arrangements of Canada.
Even though the member was arguing about the fairness of this,
she admitted that 50 per cent of members do not collect. That
just totally destroys the argument right there.
If we are concerned about inequity in the salaries or
compensation arrangements, that we are entitled to more, then
surely we get a larger salary, not a larger pension. The pension is
not the compensation for the work we do in this House. It is to
keep us going in the years when we are unable to work because
we are so old and decrepit. That is the theory of pensions. We
find that while private and government sectors consider 60 or 65
to be the normal age before you are too old and decrepit to go to
work, for parliamentarians it is 55, because we work so hard and
make such a great sacrifice for our country. If I look around this
room I do not think I will find one person who was dragged in
here kicking and screaming in order to make a sacrifice for the
country. They are here because they have chosen to be here.
(1630)
Before they came here they knew what the salary
arrangements were and they knew what the pension plan was.
That is why they said: ``Now I am here, I want to hang on to what
I have. We know the Canadian public is mightily upset by what
we have, therefore we will make a bit of a change and hope the
masses quiet down so we can ride off into the sunset at age 55
with an indexed pension plan which will keep us going from the
day we retire in our anonymity and enjoy the sun in our
retirement at the expense of other Canadians''.
This has been a debate today unfortunately about mistruths,
half truths, innuendoes, blatant twisting of facts. The previous
speaker talked about the benefits we pay under Bill C-85 being
perfectly within the limits of the Income Tax Act. Of course they
are. The only problem is every other Canadian has to work 30 or
12208
35 years before they accumulate the same benefits we under this
new bill will acquire in 19 years. Before that we acquired it in 15
years.
The previous speaker also said the contributions we make fall
within the limits of the Income Tax Act. They do but let us take a
look at the Income Tax Act. Members of Parliament have two
pension plans. Let every Canadian know we have two pension
plans.
The first meets the definitions of the Income Tax Act which
say the maximum benefit we can get is 2 per cent per year. We
make a contribution to a pension plan that falls within normal,
allowable limits.
Then we make the contribution to the top up, the Retirement
Compensations Allowances Act. Nobody else can have a top up
because there is a penalty. An employer who has a pension above
the bottom one has to pay a 50 per cent tax to the federal
government. The federal government cannot pay a tax to itself,
therefore it can have the top up pension plan with absolute and
total impugnity.
That is why we have built the rules and the House has made
the rules to accommodate members of Parliament who have
been able to bend them for their own benefit. Nobody else can
even think about having a pension plan as gold plated as ours,
even though it may be legal, because there is a 50 per cent tax
applied.
I mentioned we have mistruths, half truths and innuendoes. I
could use worse words but you may want to intervene, Mr.
Speaker, so I will leave it at that. I am sure everybody knows.
Let me quote a release dated April 20, 1995 from the Treasury
Board secretariat, quoting the President of the Treasury Board in
relation to Bill C-85: ``The bill goes even further than the red
book commitment and will reduce government spending on
MPs' pensions by 33 per cent''. That amounts to $3.3 million of
the $10 million the plan currently costs the government.
(1635 )
Let us take a look at cost. Cost is perhaps the central issue in
this whole argument. House of Commons estimates, 1995-96,
table 5, under ``Members of the House of Commons-salaries
and allowances of officers, members of the House of Commons
under the Parliament of Canada Act and contributions to
members of Parliament retiring allowances account and the
members of Parliament retirement compensation arrangements
account'' are $56,352,000.
I go back to the release from the Treasury Board that this
amounts to $3.3 million the $10 million the plan currently costs
the government. There was a little discrepancy there I thought.
There is $56 million in the estimates and $10 million released by
the Treasury Board.
I checked it out. I went back to the public accounts 1994, table
7.9: ``Members of Parliament retiring allowances account''.
Contributions by members are $944,000. Contributions by the
government are $2 million. The top up is contributions by
members, $1.5 million; contributions by the government, $10.3
million.
The previous speaker said we contribute and the government
contributes. If there is a shortfall the government contributes
more. How much is more? I went to the 1993 public accounts,
table 7.9: ``1991-92 actuarial liability adjustment'' under the
members of Parliament retiring allowances account, $158
million; for one year $158 million extra actuarial liability
adjustment. In the year 1991-92 that is what the Government of
Canada paid to top up the unfunded liability of the members of
Parliament pension plan, right here in the 1993 public accounts.
I am quoting from the government document. During that year
members contributions-this is just the ordinary one, this is not
the top up-were $945,000. Contributions by the government
were $2 million. A bit of smoke and mirrors crept in here. After
we threw in $158 million the fund goes up and to make sure the
pot is relatively sweet we are paying 10 per cent interest on that.
The interest the government paid jumped from the previous year
of $3.4 million up to $20 million of interest the government
threw in on top of its own contribution. It is still liable if it is
underfunded to pay the extra.
Those are direct quotes from the Public Accounts of Canada.
Mr. Milliken: That is not a direct quote.
Mr. Williams: It is a direct quote. One hundred and
fifty-eight million is what it cost Canadians extra; extra for the
ordinary pension plan. I have not even talked about the top up
provision. That is from the Public Accounts of Canada.
That is why Canadians are absolutely outraged. We talked
today about the member for Beaver River who believes she
walked away from a pension plan in which she would receive
benefits in the neighbourhood of $1.25 million. I said to her:
``Does that make you an ex-millionaire or a could have been
millionaire?'' We talked about that a little bit. We did realize
that for everybody who opts into this pension plan they are want
to be millionaires.
(1640)
That, at the taxpayer's expense, is totally and absolutely
unjustifiable. There is that ad on TV: Retire at age 55, freedom
day on the beach in Bermuda; shorts, the sun is up. He is there
with his wife. The ad says: ``This could be you, too''. Of course
it is you over there.
12209
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Again I remind the House
and all participating in this debate that all interventions will be
made-I will remind you as often as I need to with the greatest
of patience that I can find-through the Chair.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. It was within
context. I hope you appreciate that.
The ad I was talking about says: ``You could be there''. I was
not referring to you, Mr. Speaker. I was talking to the
government side.
The point I am trying to make is here we have written the
perfect plan paid for by the taxpayers of Canada, not by one's
own resources: age 55, on the beach in Bermuda, lapping it up, a
drink in your hand and everybody else is back home working.
That is a crying shame. One of the other things I was thinking
about was in the New Brunswick Telegraph Journal on May 3.
There is an article about the indebtedness of Atlantic Canada as
if Atlantic Canada were a country.
It says the indebtedness of Atlantic Canada would be
somewhere between Uganda and Nigeria, in the most severely
indebted countries: ``The ratio of net public debt to GDP ranges
from 121.8 per cent in Newfoundland to 93.1 per cent in New
Brunswick''. Here we are in Atlantic Canada drowning in debt.
The federal government and the provincial governments have
a responsibility to manage our resources for the benefit of all
Canadians. Here we are lapping it up for ourselves at the same
time as we are allowing the country to dig itself into a hole $550
billion deep with no sign whatsoever that the government can
even get out of it.
It is making the hole even bigger and yet its members continue
to say: ``It is a sacrifice for us here in the Parliament of Canada.
We need this gold plated pension plan''. Everybody else has to
struggle for their jobs, struggle for their paycheques, pay taxes
through the nose so that we can, with a gold plated, freedom 55
pension plan, be on the beach in Bermuda courtesy of the
Canadian taxpayer. I do not think that is good enough.
I have an article about Liberal broken promises which says the
Liberals promised not to increase the tax burden of Canadians.
That is in the red book. We find in the last budget taxes are going
up 1.5 cents on a litre of gasoline. Corporate taxes are up.
Surtaxes are up. Everything is up.
The poor taxpayer is finding we are grabbing more and more
money out of his pocket while he is concerned about his job. He
is concerned about his mortgage as interest rates go through the
roof. He is concerned about the education of his kids. He is
concerned about what his kids will do, whether they will get a
decent job while we take more and more taxes out of his pocket
so we can make this great sacrifice and go and sit on the beach in
Bermuda with freedom 55.
The Liberals promised to base federal appointments solely on
competence rather than patronage. We heard the President of the
Treasury Board today tell us about how he would put an end to
double dipping.
This bill would stop double dipping because Canadians are
fed up to the teeth with our gold plated pension plan in one
pocket and a government salary in another pocket and maybe
two pension plans after that is all done in another pocket. We can
get out there and enjoy life after the great sacrifice we make
while they have to pay after they try to educate their kids and pay
their mortgage.
(1645 )
When he defined double dipping he said if you get money out
of the general revenue fund of the Government of Canada, that is
double dipping and therefore your pension is going to be
reduced dollar for dollar.
Patronage appointments are things like being appointed to the
board of Air Canada or to other boards of crown corporations. I
was reading On the Take about the days when to be appointed to
the board of Air Canada was a coveted patronage position,
because, next to the Senate, which had all of the privileges
granted by this House, the Air Canada board allowed people free
Air Canada passes wherever Air Canada flew.
Appointments have been made by the government to crown
corporations and not a nickel of the payments made to those
people come out of the general revenues of the Government of
Canada. Therefore double dipping will continue under this
proposed Bill C-85 just as much and just as unjustifiably as it
was before. And they tell us they have reformed the system.
Reformed? Not one bit.
It goes on and on. They tell Canadians that they are going to
get this place organized, that they are going to ensure that they
will make a great sacrifice and that this country will get back on
some kind of economic sound footing. Unfortunately, the only
people who will get themselves on a sound footing are the
people who get themselves elected to this House to make that
supreme sacrifice of getting the gold plated pension plan so that
they can get their freedom 55 and sit on the beach in Bermuda
and enjoy it all while the poor Canadians have to work to pay the
taxes and the debt and look after the kids.
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I did want to have an opportunity to ask the hon.
member a question and perhaps make a comment in advance of
doing that.
He is quite right that MPs do make sacrifices. One of the
sacrifices I have had to make is to give up one of my favourite
pastimes of reading fiction. Fortunately, sitting in the House
today has been some compensation for that.
12210
Let us talk about the figure of $156 million that he bandied
about. Let us understand what that is. That is an accrual figure.
For those members who understand a balance sheet, it would be
like counting depreciation as a cash layout. It is not any such
thing. It is a liability that would suggest that if every member of
Parliament lived to their actuarial age and if every member of
Parliament qualified for a pension, that would be the lifetime
expense of the pension. First, 50 per cent of MPs never receive
it, so that figure is nothing but an accrual figure that is used by
actuaries who are dealing with a pension plan. It is not a true
government expense.
Let us get down to what the true government expense is. Right
now, under the present regime, it is between $10 million and $11
million. That will drop by 33 per cent.
Let us put into context what this great party across the way is
battling and why it is so worried about economic concerns. This
represents six one-thousandths of one per cent of the total
government expenditure. The party that has come here to control
expenditures, the party that has come here because Canadians
have told them that we are spending too much, has all of this
outrage to deal with six one-thousandths of one per cent of
government expenditure.
Let us put it in a better light. If a member was earning $40,000
a year and decided they needed to cut back on their expenditures,
the amount the MP's pension would represent in equivalent
terms of that $40,000 is $2.40. That is all they would be dealing
with, and that is all we are dealing with in the cost.
(1650 )
So I think that when the member describes these expenditures
he should do it accurately and in the appropriate context.
I have one other point. He talks about the fact that double
dipping is going to continue. I point out there are four members
of his party who are double dipping using the definition he just
used. I ask the hon. member: Are those four members going to
stop their double dipping? Will they stop drawing their pensions
from the public purse while they sit in this House and draw the
MP pension? Or are they going to continue with double dipping?
It will be interesting to hear the answer.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that in my speech
I did say this was a debate of mistruth, half truths, twisting the
truth and so on.
To answer the member's question, in the Public Accounts of
Canada, 1991-92, on page 7.9, and in the 1993 public accounts,
volume one, it does say quite specifically ``an actuarial liability
adjustment of $158 million'', which he tried to tell us was just
one of those fictitious accounting entries that mean nothing to
Canadians. The only point is that the following year this
fictitious accounting adjustment that means nothing attracted
about $17 million worth of interest the taxpayer had to dig into
his pocket to find. In 1991-92 the interest paid on the retirement
allowances account was $3.44 million, and that jumped because
the value of the fund went up because they put in $158 million of
taxpayers' money. That interest jumped from $3.4 million to
$20,493,768. That is accurate. I am quoting from the public
accounts.
I am saying this was real money the Canadian taxpayers had to
come up with. That is the shame of the whole affair. Remember I
quoted the President of the Treasury Board when he said that this
new plan would reduce the costs by 33 per cent. That amounts to
$3.3 million of the $10 million the plan currently costs the
government.
I recall the questioner saying this $158 million was some kind
of fictitious accounting adjustment to bring things all the way
through to cover off pensions that would not be paid. This is an
actuarial liability adjustment. The plan needed that.
I never talked about the retirement compensation
arrangements account, which will likely need a significant
top-up as well. If the member cares to read the public accounts,
he can study how his government spends its way through $165
billion.
They talk about balancing the budget, yet spending stays
constant. They hope to squeeze more taxes out of Canadians in
order to balance the budget. If they think that is the way to go, let
them go back and ask their constituents if that is what they want,
if they want the government as they balance the budget to take
them by the neck and give them a rattle and a shake until the
money falls out so that we can pay these pensions and balance
the budget. I do not think so.
Mr. Mitchell: I will ask my question again, because there
were two questions. I got a part answer in one and no answer in
the other. I will start with the one I did not seem to get an answer
to.
There are four members of your party who are double dipping
by the definition you used.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I would caution members
to please put all interventions through the Chair.
Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, there are four members of the
third party who, using the definition of the last speaker, would
be considered to be double dipping using the term the way we
use it here. I had asked for an explanation as to whether those
members will stop that practice that he finds so abhorrent. That
would be the question.
(1655)
Now the second question. We talked about that famous line,
and those of you who know how to read a balance sheet know
that an accrual figure is not a cash expense. I ask the hon.
12211
member to say what is the cash expense to the government for
the past fiscal year. That is debatable.
What I really want though is the answer to that question about
those four members of the third party who are doing the double
dipping, as he describes it.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, it is hard to come up with figures
just on the spur of the moment. When we are trying to find our
way through $165 billion worth of spending it is difficult
sometimes to find exactly where the numbers are. On spending
cash, writing cheques, let me see if I can find it.
From the 1993 public accounts we made payments and other
charges, annual allowances-and this is out of the ordinary
pension plan-of $9.8 million. Out of the other one we paid out
$13 million or $14 million. This totals about $23 million, and we
as members only contributed 10 per cent of that, about $2.3
million.
To answer his other question, their definition of double
dipping is to be paid out of the general revenues of Canada. As
far as I am aware, no member of the Reform Party is getting paid
out of the general revenues of Canada or is enjoying a patronage
appointment by the federal government. Therefore the
innuendos he applies to the Reform Party are totally false.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I intend to split my time with the next speaker. I would
like to indicate that. It is a pleasure to participate in this debate.
I move:
That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary time of daily adjournment
for the purpose of considering the second reading stage of Bill C-85, an act to
amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and to provide for
the continuation of a certain provision.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Will those members who
object to the motion please rise in their places?
Fewer than 15 members having risen, pursuant to Standing
Order 26 the motion is adopted.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Just to set matters
straight, having been given an indication previously, before the
parliamentary secretary moved the motion he gave an indication
to the Chair and the House that he was splitting his time. I would
interpret that to mean that the member for Durham will have ten
minutes for his speech and there will be five minutes for
questions and comments. Resuming debate, the hon. member for
Durham.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, on a point order, if extended hours
have been requested, to what extent will the hours be extended?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): As I understand it, there
are no limitations under the motion that was moved and agreed
to.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Durham.
(1700 )
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives
me great pleasure to speak in the debate on Bill C-85. I do not
think any piece of legislation has enraged people in the country
more than the concept of MP pensions.
I remember back to my days in private professional practice
when we said we should not drive a car our clients could not
afford. I think in some ways that is how people regard MP
pensions.
The system being revised here today is possibly better than
most private pension plans. Possibly one problem we have in the
whole issue of debate is we have not properly focused on the
whole concept of remuneration of members of Parliament, and
MP pensions are one factor.
Unfortunately things often get confused in Ottawa when we
look at various aspects of remuneration, even in the public
service. The public service has something like 1,400 separate
agreements that cover remuneration for public employees.
The point I am trying to make is when we look at pensions we
cannot strictly look at the concept of pensions and compare them
with private industry. We have to look at the whole concept of
remuneration of members of Parliament.
Another aspect is exactly what does the public expect and
what kind of qualities and qualifications do members of
Parliament need to come to this place? For most people it is not a
matter of money. I believe that is true of all my colleagues in the
House. In my case I really did not even know how much
members of Parliament got paid until I came here. When the
first paycheque showed up in my bank account it quickly
enlightened me to the fact I was being employed for less than
half of what I made in the private sector.
The government commissioned an independent study to
review the whole matter of MP pensions and also remuneration
of members of Parliament. The study came back basically
saying reduce MP pensions to reflect the norms of the private
sector. At the same time it talked about changing the entire way
we are remunerated in terms of salary.
The reason our salaries are so strange goes back over a long
period in our history and there are some aspects that have been
picked up over time that probably belong to the past. I suppose it
is much like laws on the books in Parliament. We often take a
great deal of time to update and modernize them.
12212
That is what is happening with this whole issue. The
government clearly has gone far beyond its commitments. I will
read from the red book because there seem to be points members
opposite have missed entirely. It says Parliament will end
double dipping. That is what this legislation does. It also talks
about reviewing. I point out and underline it says ``review the
question of the minimum age at which pensions will begin to be
paid''. We are doing more than reviewing them. We are
changing them, moving them to the age of 55.
We have actually surpassed the red book commitments
because we also have talked about the accrual rate at which we
can receive pensions. Currently the accrual rate is 5 per cent
which means we get a 75 per cent pension after 15 years of
service. By reducing from 5 per cent to 4 per cent we have
increased the number of years we have to be in the plan to get a
75 per cent pension from 15 to 19.
We actually have a reduction in the total remuneration of
members of Parliament. It is a wage roll back. Not only have our
salaries been frozen for a number of years but now the
government, through this initiative, has actually reduced our
salaries, our remuneration, which includes pensions as a part of
that.
(1705)
Clearly this goes way beyond our commitments to the public.
We have ended double dipping. The first $5,000 of other income
a former member can have from an appointment or whatever is
excluded.
Any moneys over that, he will have to basically claw back off
his pension. If somebody were to get a $50,000 appointment and
were collecting a $12,000 pension, he would not get any pension
at all.
There is a very interesting study by Mr. Jeffery. This is very
interesting, very allusive for some of the members of the
Reform Party who are so quick to possibly give up their options
in this plan.
These are members of the former Parliament. I have little
clips here. It is very allusive as to how members' remuneration
is affected after their life in Parliament. We all think we will be
here forever.
The reality is, as many of my colleagues have mentioned, less
than 50 per cent of members will ever collect a pension. Here is a
quote from a former member: ``My advice to those who are
neither on leave from a tenured position nor wealthy would be
not to seek office until sufficient means to live independently
beyond leaving office''. These are people who have paid the
price: ``Life after defeat was quite different. I feel that my time
in politics has drastically curtailed my credibility when seeking
employment. So much for service to one's country''.
Another quotation: ``My experience as a member of
Parliament was a major hindrance to finding employment''.
This is from a cabinet minister: ``Cabinet experience was no
great help, not compared with the loss of income opportunities
over 17 years''.
Another quote: ``My oldest son is about to enter university. I
had hoped my retirement allowance would be available to fund
his education if necessary. It has been required to keep up the
mortgage''.
If I had to retire after 22 years in the House on my gold plated
pension, the euphemism often given by the Reform Party of
$46,000 without additional income from a job, I would be in
tough shape.
The record is very clear about what we are talking about.
What we are talking about is the remuneration of people who
have given up their careers or whatever to come into this great
House.
In some ways I see MP pension as a form of danger pay. These
are things that do not really make the Toronto Sun or for that
matter the National Citizens' Coalition.
We talked about the fact that less than 50 per cent of members
collected. Another interesting statistic is that of the ones who do
collect, the 50 per cent who do collect, less than 30 per cent
receive pensions in excess of $50,000.
Why is that? It is because they are unable to attain the
six-year vestiture period. My Reform colleagues constantly
argue why this is not comparative to the private sector. If the
private sector were involved the vestiture period would be two
years.
I wonder why some of our Reform colleagues are opting out of
this plan. There is another interesting aspect. Right now MPs are
required to contribute 11 per cent of their pay into this plan. The
new plan will be 9 per cent.
Could it be that the Reformers are not very good savers? What
they want to do is spend. In other words, by taking the 9 per cent
of these pension contributions they will give themselves more
disposable income. Could it be they are not very good financial
advisers, not very good at managing their own affairs? They
want to spend for today rather than save for tomorrow.
(1710 )
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the
issue of MP pensions today. We are debating Bill C-85, which
should be entitled an act to make minimal changes to the gold
plated MP pension scheme.
I have heard Liberal members speaking about their MP
pension plan and they do not want to give it up. They sound like
spoiled children, whining about how difficult life would be if
12213
they did not have their MP pension plan. I hear the sound of
violins out of tune on the other side. It is really pitiful that we
have to listen to this screeching, wailing and complaining.
Canadians deserve better than what they are getting from their
Liberal representatives today.
My colleagues and I in the Reform Party are proud that our
constant pressure on the issue has finally led to some
government action. It did not want to do anything.
Unfortunately the government has failed to propose any
meaningful changes and as a result the bill falls well short of
what the public expects and what Reformers can accept.
What the government fails to understand is that all of us in the
Chamber work for and are paid by the public. We must ensure
the compensation package for members of Parliament,
including the pension portion, is in line with public sector
standards and what Canadians want to pay us. We must respect
taxpayer money as if it were our own. I would like to repeat that
because I do not think the Liberals understand. They do not think
about the concept that we must respect taxpayer money as if it
were our own.
We would not spend money foolishly. We would not spend it
so extravagantly, especially if we were running a country $550
billion in debt. I do not know why the Liberals cannot
understand taxpayer money is very important. It is precious.
They worked hard for that money. Why should they see it so
extravagantly thrown to the wind?
I know the Prime Minister and many others on the government
side have waxed poetic about all the hard work MPs do. It is true
that the majority of MPs do work very hard. What the
government forgets is most Canadians across the country work
very hard also. I do not think any Canadian gets the kind of
pension plan MPs receive. None of them receives such a lavish,
extravagant remuneration after their retirement or defeat.
Canadians are aware of the long, hard hours members put in
and I do not think they actually begrudge the salary of a member
of Parliament. After all, there are many professions in Canada
where the pay is higher than that of a member of Parliament.
Senior teachers, for example, can earn in excess of $65,000 in
some jurisdictions, and sometimes school board officials
receive upward of $100,000. What angers Canadians are the
pensions of MPs. There is no private sector precedent for such a
lucrative plan.
It is important to recognize the opinions of Canadians matter
when it comes to issues of members' pay and pension. The
government has forgotten that it is the Canadian public that it is
here to represent. It is the Canadian public that it works for. It is
the Canadians who pay all the bills. It is a strange arrangement
where the employees design their own pension plan and brag
about it even though it outrages Canadians, the people who
actually pay the bills. The views of the taxpaying public on this
issue should be heard and respected.
The government is only going through the motions of pension
reform. It reminds me of lip syncing the old country and western
song, ``If you've got the money, honey, I've got the time''.
Government members have years and years of a retirement life
with $30,000, $70,000 a year, totalling in some cases several
million dollars. Perrin Beatty, recently appointed as the
president of the CBC, has an MP pension which will total over
$5 million by the time he reaches 75. The MP pension plan
attracts selfish opportunists to political life.
I heard a member of the NDP saying members have to be paid
properly if we are to attract good quality representatives to the
House. I do not believe that. I believe the motives of the
members of this place must be higher than fixing their sights on
the remuneration and the pension plan they receive. It is a bit
revealing when we hear members discuss these issues as to their
motives for seeking election and why they are here.
(1715 )
Bill C-85 is a cynical attempt at a public relations job rather
than a significant policy change. The Liberals are trying to give
the appearance that they are taking action on the issue of gold
plated MPs pensions but in fact are not.
The government is making what it sees as the minimum
necessary changes in its opinion to the pension plan. It is the
least it could do, and certainly it does the very least.
The Liberals have decreased the annual accrual rate of
benefits from 5 per cent per year to 4 per cent. The provision
makes a minor change in the rate at which pension benefits
increase, but it does not change the maximum pension amount
members can receive. It slightly increases the time it takes to
reach the maximum. There is no substantive change here. There
is a slight accounting change that has been dressed up to give the
public the impression of reform. It is not the real thing.
It is a lot like the noise the finance minister made about real
cuts to overall spending in his budget. Total spending this year
will be higher than the total spending last year. Despite this fact
the Liberals have their spin doctors and media people spinning a
tale of real spending reductions when there has been a spending
increase. Canadians know who the real reformers are and they
are not on the government benches. The legislation proves it.
I can hear the Minister of Health saying that instead of a very,
very generous pension plan it is a very generous pension plan.
It is difficult to find a positive side. The positive side is by far
the smaller side on a multi-sided sphere. On the positive side the
government has established a minimum age for eligibility
although it is set pretty low. I wonder how many private pension
plans set a normal retirement at age 55. The normal retirement
age is 65.
12214
The old age pension begins to be paid at age 65. If people in
the private sector take early retirement they receive lower and
lower benefits for each additional year they draw from the plan.
This is done with private sector pensions because it is believed
they should be actuarially sound. This concept seems to be
foreign to a government that thinks it does not matter if the
numbers add up at the end of the day, that it is somebody else's
money and that it will do with it as it pleases.
The government does not have the foggiest notion of the
consequences of lavish spending that has sunk us over $550
billion in debt. It says that we should look after ourselves. It is
the selfish baby boomer MPs who say: ``Too bad for the rest of
you. Good luck to future generations. We don't care if we
bankrupt you. It is your tough luck''.
The 55 years of age provision is better than what we had
before. If I suddenly won the 649 and became a multimillionaire
I could walk away from this place, if I were an irresponsible
person. I assure the House that I am not. Had I won the election
in 1988 when I first ran I would have been here for six years and
would have been able to receive the gold plated pension at age
42. The 55 figure is a little better but certainly not what
Canadians are asking for.
Again the Liberals have done the very least. They have made
minimal changes. The government does not realize, or perhaps it
does not care, that if the benefits are too high and retirement age
is too low it will have to dip into public money to make up the
difference. The Liberals seem to have trouble differentiating
between public money and their own. It is no wonder the country
is in debt up to its eyeballs. Again the government is going with
the minimum necessary to give the impression of change. It does
not realize that the public sees through this type of masquerade.
The elimination of double dipping that used to occur through
members taking another federal job or patronage appointment is
a positive move. I am pleased that in the face of public opinion
and constant pressure from Reform benches the government is
beginning to move on the issue.
There are many examples of people in patronage appointed
positions who are collecting the MP pension. I will name a few.
Ed Broadbent has apparently taken a slight reduction in his
salary just so he could keep on receiving the MP pension plan.
He was not going to be reappointed to his position unless he
knuckled under. He would have gladly taken that pension had his
term not expired and had he not needed to be reappointed.
I mentioned Perrin Beatty a little earlier. We also know that
Mr. David Berger was named an ambassador. He still gets his
MP pension. They had to do some wheeling and dealing to make
it politically acceptable. He had to state that he would take a
lesser salary than he would normally take to compensate for the
pension.
It points out to the House that there is a chance for behind the
scenes manoeuvring in the setting of salaries. Certainly it is not
the type of scenario we want to allow retired members of
Parliament to find themselves in. They are very vulnerable to
corruption and wheeling and dealing behind the public's back
with regard to their salary and total pension benefits.
(1720)
In some cases the recipients of a cushy patronage plum will
announce their new salary is being reduced by the amount of
their MP pension. How can the taxpaying public know the high
salary these people are paid would not have been different if the
appointee did not have a fat pension? The whole system has the
potential for abuse. It is all smoke and mirrors with the Liberals.
Why do they not simply get into step with the rest of the country
and come clean about the details of the appointments and
positions?
The pension scheme remains out of line with what other
Canadians have available to them. What they would approve for
us brings up a very important issue, the issue of making the plan
voluntary or having an opting out or opting in provision.
Bill C-85 includes an opting out or opting in provision,
however we want to look at it, that is designed solely for the
purpose of trying to get some crass political advantage for the
government. It does not allow long time members of the House
the option of completely leaving the plan. Only members
elected within the last six years prior to the 1993 election have
the option of refusing to participate in this taxpayer rip-off.
That includes those elected for the first time in 1993 and in
1988. My hon. colleague from Beaver River was elected in a
byelection in 1989. Incredibly the government wants to make it
mandatory for all future members.
If it is good enough for us to have a chance to opt out or opt in
now, why not for the class of 1997 or whenever the government
screws up the courage to call an election? Why just the one-time
opting in or opting out option? What possible reason could the
government have for denying future members of the House the
freedom to opt out of this gold plated scheme?
The government obviously views membership in the Camber
as some sort of caste system or inherited aristocracy. MPs are
not royalty. I am getting worked up. I am very serious about the
issue. It really bothers me. Members of royalty are specifically
excluded from becoming members of Parliament despite Liberal
attempts in this place.
Future members of the House should not be forced to inherit a
royal pension. Why should we in the 35th Parliament have the
privilege of opting out while it is denied to future members?
This may be a question of privilege. The government is
attempting to create a two-tier pension scheme: one for
members with a
12215
conscience and one for those who want to get as much from the
trough as they possibly can.
I was listening to my colleague from Calgary Centre. He gave
a very good illustration of the confusion around the pension
plan. He said that originally we thought we were to have trough
light and trough regular. Now he has found out there are trough
regular, trough light and trough stout.
The problem with the bill is that some of us want to abstain
altogether. Future MPs will not be allowed that option and that is
wrong. The legislation needs to be changed to correct a terrible
precedent. The government is attempting to create a two-tier
pension scheme: one for members with a conscience and one for
those who are out for themselves, those who call themselves
number one rather than the Canadian taxpayer who is paying the
bill.
There is no reason why all future members should not have the
choice of opting out of the pension scheme. It is unacceptable
that future Reform members, and there will be many, will have
to participate in this outrageous pension plan along with future
Liberal members, if there are any.
If the government arranges it so that no members can opt out, I
suppose Liberal MPs can continue to show sympathy for
overburdened taxpayers who complain about MP pensions
without having to make any sacrifices themselves. The only way
to solve the problem and clear up the mess is to elect a Reform
government and create a modest and a respectable pension plan,
one of which we as MPs can be proud. We would not have to
hang our heads in shame because we contribute to such a plan
and, even worse, collect from such an outrageous plan.
The Liberals know that the way the current severance package
works for defeated or retiring members could be affected by
exercising the opting out provision of the bill. They knew this
yet made no provision for those effects of the legislation. They
are trying to place many disincentives for opting out in the way
of members wishing to do so. It is nothing more than an attempt
to punish members for doing the responsible thing and opting
out of a system that is unfair and out of line with the
expectations of Canadians.
(1725)
Canadians are well aware of the ratio of public money to
members in the contributions to the plan. They know the current
pension plan would contribute $4.1 of taxpayers money for
every dollar that members contribute. The minor changes in Bill
C-85 move this ratio to $3.6 to $1. That is not much
improvement when the number should be $1 to $1. The design of
the pension plan is a little less scandalous, a little less immoral,
if we follow the provisions of Bill C-85.
Canadians are not happy that they contribute over three and a
half times as much as members will to the new scheme. The ratio
comes nowhere near the approximate $1 to $1 ratio used in the
majority of private pension plans. Canadians are not happy with
the souped up benefits for MPs. They want to know what
justification exists for this imbalance.
Miss Grey: None.
Mr. Hermanson: The member for Beaver River says there are
none and I totally agree with her. The government cannot answer
the public because there is no justification for such an inequity.
The government should take into account that the days of
traditional employment when someone worked for the same
company or even in the same profession for their entire working
life are over. I have heard the arguments in the House about
being a successful business person or a school teacher who
decided to make a sacrifice and run for election, about being
elected and it ruining careers, about being unable to go back to
their teaching positions or into business. I understand, but the
solution is not to create a crazy pension plan like the one the
Liberals are supporting. The solution is not only to enable MPs
but all members of society in various professions to move their
pension from one occupation to the next so that when they reach
a legitimate retirement age they have an adequate pension in
place.
Let us talk about some common sense solutions to our
problem. Let us not sit and whine and complain and say that
because I made a voluntary decision to get into politics
somehow I need to be coddled, babied and given an ultra lavish
pension plan.
Members of Parliament are good examples of people who
change their professions. Most members have active careers
before they are elected to this place and many return to them.
Many times becoming a member of Parliament gives us an
advantage when we go back into the workforce. It is not all
gloom and doom like the Liberals would have us believe.
Even some of the awful Conservatives who did all those
terrible things and got kicked out of this place are gainfully
employed right now. They are probably making as much or more
money than they made when they were in the House. It certainly
is not all gloom and doom.
Miss Grey: Perrin Beatty is one of them.
Mr. Hermanson: As the member for Beaver River said,
Perrin Beatty certainly seems to be doing all right for himself as
are many of his colleagues and many former Liberals. With the
quality of Reformers I am sure they will do well when they
decide to leave political life.
12216
Before the budget when anti-tax rallies were being held
across the country I had the privilege of attending one in
Saskatoon. The people in that crowd did not want to see higher
taxes. They told us in no uncertain terms to tell the government
not to increase taxes in the budget. It did not listen. It brought in
higher taxes. The people also said in no uncertain terms that the
government had no right to increase taxes as long as it had a gold
plated pension plan.
I remember one person who came to the microphone and said:
``I know MPs work hard but I work just as hard as they do. I
make $20,000 a year and I do not get any pension. Why should
they get an immoral pension, one that is so extravagant, just
because they get to design their own pensions and I do not?''
It is unfair. We should not be designing extravagant, lavish
pension plans for ourselves. We should be considering the
people in the real work world who work just as hard as we do and
deserve fair treatment. We should be prepared to give them fair
treatment.
Bill C-85 fails to deliver an effective pension reform in two
ways. It fails to bring MP pensions in line with the private
sector. More important, it fails to bring MP pensions in line with
what Canadians are willing to provide for members of
Parliament. We cannot lose sight of the fact that we work for the
Canadian public. If our employers think our pensions are too
high then they must be reduced. It is the people's opinion that
counts.
(1730 )
For these reasons, unless the bill receives some very
significant amendments along the lines of those my colleague
from Beaver River mentioned in her speech, I would call on the
members of the House to join me in defeating Bill C-85. In fact I
would call on them to support the amendment that my colleague
put forward.
This bill is so flawed it needs to be sent back to committee.
With your indulgence, I would like to move an amendment to the
amendment made by the member for Beaver River. I move:
That the motion be further amended by adding the words ``and report back to
the House no later than June 23, 1995''.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The amendment to the
amendment is in order.
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 Kamloops-The
budget.
It being 5.32 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on
today's Order Paper.
12216
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from March 13 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-232, an act to amend the Divorce Act
(granting of access to, or custody of, a child to a grandparent) be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
Ms. Paddy Torsney (Burlington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
speak on this issue as someone who grew up without knowing
her grandparents because her grandparents were in another
country. I have observed, as my brothers and sisters have had
children, the special relationship that has developed between my
parents and my nieces.
Bill C-232 can be supported in principle for attempting to
address a very distressing situation. The relationship between
grandparent and grandchild is something very special.
Particularly after their parents' divorce a grandparent can be an
important resource to children, someone who can offer care and
support and buffer children from the many changes and stresses
associated with family breakdown.
Research confirms the importance of the
grandparent-grandchild relationship. Arthur Kornhaber, a noted
child psychiatrist and researcher has conducted three years of
lengthy, in depth, personal interviews with some 300 children
and as many grandparents. His conclusion is that: ``The bond
between grandparents and grandchildren is second in emotional
power and influence only to the relationship between child and
parent''. He has stated that a healthy and loving bond between
grandparents and grandchildren is necessary for the emotional
health and happiness of all three generations. This bond is a
natural birthright for children, realized through an emotional
attachment, a legacy bequeathed by their elders that benefits
everyone in the family.
(1735 )
Given this very special and valuable role that grandparents
play in a child's life, it is very upsetting to hear about cases
where children are being denied access to their grandparents
because of some very bitter disputes.
It is hoped that the situation is limited to unusual cases where
the divorce has been especially bitter. However, it occurs
frequently enough to warrant the formation of support groups.
Organizations such as the Canadian Grandparents' Rights
Association and Grandparents Requesting Access and Dignity
help grandparents cope in these situations and do an admirable
job.
12217
The reality is there are cases where grandparents who wish to
be able to continue to have contact with their grandchildren are
being denied this contact and are forced to withdraw from their
grandchildren's lives.
It is this situation that Bill C-232 proposes to address by
identifying changes to the Divorce Act that could promote
grandparent access. The main focus of Bill C-232 is an
amendment to subsection 16(3) of the Divorce Act which
currently states that a person, other than a spouse, may not make
an application for child custody and access without leave of the
court.
That means that currently the grandparent-grandchild
relationship is accorded the same value as a child's relationship
with any other third party. Grandparents must obtain leave of the
court to make an application for custody or access to the
grandchild.
The bill proposes an amendment that would distinguish the
grandparent-grandchild relationship as a distinct type of
relationship. It would give grandparents the same standing as
parents so they would no longer be required to obtain leave to
make such an application. Instead, grandparents would have
independent standing to apply to the court for access or custody
of their grandchild at the time the grandchild's parents are
getting a divorce.
This is an important change to make to the Divorce Act. It
would mean that the Divorce Act would formally recognize
grandparents' legal rights to have access to their grandchildren.
Another important implication of the proposed amendment is
that it would grant grandparents who have strong legitimate
interests in their grandchildren greater leverage in their
negotiations with the child's parents. This new legal standing
would allow a grandparent to challenge a parent who is
threatening to withhold or deny access without good cause.
Hopefully the threat of a lawsuit would be enough to motivate
that parent to resolve the dispute.
For these reasons I rise in support of Bill C-232 and suggest
that we should applaud it for attempting to emphasize the
beneficial role that grandparents may play with respect to their
grandchildren. However, I must say that there are some aspects
of the bill as it currently reads which must be reviewed.
First, there is concern that the bill may be over-reaching when
it places grandparents on the same footing as parents for custody
when the real problem is access. Consideration should be given
to treating these two matters differently.
In addition to allowing grandparents to apply for custody and
access as of right, the bill proposes an amendment to section
16(5) of the Divorce Act to give grandparents the same rights
that this section currently provides to the parent who is granted
access, namely the right to make inquiries and to be given
information as to the health, education and welfare of the child.
This proposal is problematic because private and confidential
information such as this is normally only available to parents. It
is not clear that there are valid policy reasons to allow
grandparents with access rights to obtain this information,
especially since other grandparents, those with grandchildren in
intact families, may have no such right.
It is also important to ask why grandparents need this right. It
has to be recognized that different grandparents may have
different motivations and that there is a potential for this
amendment to promote further intergenerational disharmony if
grandparents make use of the information they receive to
challenge the custodial parent's decisions.
This part of Bill C-232 should be reviewed carefully by the
Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, of which I am
a member. The committee in reviewing the bill should be guided
by the standard set out in section 16(8) of the Divorce Act which
provides that in making any custody or access order the court
should only take into consideration the best interests of the child
of the marriage.
This is the standard that has come to be accepted both in
Canada and internationally as the appropriate standard to apply
with respect to matters relating to children. It means that laws
directly affecting children should focus on the needs and best
interests of the child rather than on the rights of adults.
It is this standard that the Standing Committee on Justice and
Legal Affairs should utilize in assessing the other proposals of
Bill C-232, such as the proposal to amend section 16(9) and (10)
of the Divorce Act to include the word ``grandparent'' in the
wording of these two provisions.
(1740 )
It is important that courts, in assessing whether grandparent
access would be in the child's interest, continue to consider the
quality of the relationship that has existed in the past between
grandparent and grandchild, as well as the amount of prior
contacts. Evidence about the prior relationship between the
parents and grandparents, especially if it is conflictual, is
arguably also very important.
In reviewing Bill C-232, the committee should also consider
that while it allows grandparents to apply as of right to the courts
for access to the grandchild, it does not address the problem
about the high costs of these legal proceedings, costs which may
very well be prohibitive to many grandparents and custodial
parents.
There is another important point that must be made. It should
be recognized that there are limitations to what a court order can
12218
accomplish and what the law can do to enforce it. It would be
ideal if a court order awarding grandparent access could ensure
that meaningful access could occur without further problems.
Unfortunately this is not the case. The court cannot order
people to change their attitudes, their feelings or manners of
relating to one another. If the custodial parent continues to
oppose access, the reality may very well be that attempts to
enforce any access order would only lead to more conflict and
perhaps even more litigation with the child caught in the middle.
This can be detrimental to the well-being of the child.
It may be that there is a need to attempt to address some of the
underlying fundamental problems surrounding the issue of
grandparent access. The issue is closely related to other child
custody and access issues and perhaps should be addressed in a
more comprehensive way.
The committee in reviewing Bill C-232 may want to consider
whether legislative reform alone can provide a solution to this
very complex problem. Other non-legislative options that have
been identified include judicial education, parenting education
and improved counselling and mediation services. The
committee may want to explore some of these longer term
solutions to provide more services and supports to divorcing
couples and their families, including the grandparents.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak on Bill C-232, an act
to amend the Divorce Act. The aim of this bill is to relieve
grandparents of the obligation to obtain special leave from the
courts to apply for a provisional, permanent or amended court
order for the custody of the children or access to them.
At the moment, the Divorce Act contains no provision for
grandparents' rights. Grandparents wishing to obtain custody of
their grandchildren now must first apply to the courts for leave
to debate the custody of their grandchildren.
This bill would entitle grandparents to obtain information on
the health, education and welfare of the child. It also provides
that the amendments to the Divorce Act would be subject to
review by a parliamentary committee four years after their
coming into force.
Bill C-232 would eliminate the need for grandparents to make
this initial application and would enable them to be a party to the
dispute.
Parents divorce, but children do not. Today's family is
considerably different from yesterday's. The patriarchal family
of the past has changed and become mobile and temporary. With
divorces, common-law unions and other arrangements, the
family tree has been uprooted.
The family of the year 2000 is born of the break-up of
couples. The reconstituted family is a collection of members
who are not all biologically related. No model exists for this new
family. Each member must adjust by finding a way to function
within the family unit.
Studies tend to show that children can benefit from family
reconstruction, which gives them another chance.
The traditional family, when divorce did not take place, hid a
lot of frustrations behind its air of respectability. However, the
number of divorces still evokes some bitterness. Solutions have
to be found for children to overcome their suffering, and
grandparents have a vital role to play following the breakup of
the family unit.
(1745)
As the official opposition critic for seniors organizations, I
have a keen interest in this bill, but I feel I must point out some
of the shortcomings of this attempt to improve the status of
grandparents.
In recent years, grandparents who were denied access to their
grandchildren often asked the courts to intervene and grant them
visiting rights.
A number of anglophone associations were established,
including GROWTH-Grandchildren-Grandparents Right of
Wholesomeness Through Heritage, GRAND-Grandparents
Requesting Access and Dignity, founded in 1983 in Toronto, and
the Canadian Grandparents Rights Association in British
Columbia. In French, GRAND becomes GRANDIR, which
stands for Grands-parents réclamant accès, nouveau départ
incitant retrouvailles. These associations are asking for federal
legislation that would give grandparents easier access to their
grandchildren.
I think I should point out the excellent work being done by the
organization Grands-parents-tendresse in Saint-Jérôme, in the
riding of the hon. member for Laurentides, headed by Cécile
Lampron, whose purpose is to develop intergenerational
relationships by visiting schools, organizing group excursions
with the children, helping young mothers after the birth of a
child or during convalescence, and by offering services to single
seniors.
First of all, this bill is aimed only at the children of couples
who are either divorced or about to divorce. The federal
government has jurisdiction over divorce proceedings, but Bill
C-232 may exceed this authority. Grandparents are not directly
involved in the marriage, as is the case with parents and the
children born of the marriage.
Parental authority is a provincial matter, under subsection
92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867. This is clearly an intrusion
into an area under provincial jurisdiction.
Unlike Canadian common law, the access rights of
grandparents to Quebec children are already provided for
explicitly in Quebec's civil code. Section 611, passed in
December 1980, says that the parents cannot, without good
reason, prevent the
12219
child from having a personal relationship with its grandparents.
If the parties cannot agree, the terms and conditions of this
relationship will be determined by the courts.
Section 611 of the Civil Code may be invoked at any time
before or after the divorce of the parents. In addition, this clause
does nothing to define the notion of grandparents in the Divorce
Act. We presume that section 579, which states the following,
takes precedence: ``When adoption is granted, the effects of the
preceding filiation cease''. The rights of the parents of a father
or a mother could be revoked at the same time as those of the
biological parents.
In Quebec, section 611 resolves the issue of the grandparents'
access to grandchildren and they may submit a petition at any
time. Quebec has resolved this problem, but Canada's other
provinces have not. Bill C-232 improves the position of
grandparents and their grandchildren in other provinces, but
only covers the children of married or divorced parents. As a
consequence, this bill will change very little about the current
laws regarding grandchildren in Quebec.
Therefore, all common law provinces should pass a law like
that in effect in Quebec. We believe Quebec's legislation shows
the way in this area and should be used as a model.
This bill has another shortcoming: grandparents' access to
medical and school records. The Act Respecting Access to
Documents Held by Public Bodies and the Protection of
Personal Information is a law of Quebec governing a matter of
provincial jurisdiction.
(1750)
Quebec has legislative power over marriages, property and
civil rights, marriage contracts, adoption, separation from bed
and board, custody, etc.
Consequently, Bill C-232 increases the overlap in family law.
In addition, under subsection 92(13) of the Constitution Act,
1867, parental authority bestowed on the couple is an
exclusively provincial jurisdiction. Therefore, the bill also
infringes on a provincial jurisdiction.
I mentioned earlier that Bill C-232 tends to protect the rights
of grandparents in the other provinces of Canada, but
unfortunately, it has shortcomings and the Bloc Quebecois must
point out this obvious infringement on a provincial jurisdiction.
Grandparents have an enormous role to play in the lives of
their grandchildren during the years following a separation.
They are exceptional compensations for the partial absence of a
father or a mother. They can bring emotional and other stability
to a child's life. Grandparents can often detect problems, but
they cannot take part in discussions, because, often, intruding in
such a way can only aggravate an already adverse climate.
In closing, the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, will
put aside the few misgivings it has and will support Bill C-232
which was introduced by my kind colleague for
Mission-Coquitlam.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is in the name of my
own mother, who was a mother and a grandmother, and in view
of the progress being made in the changing family unit
nowadays, that I support the spirit of this motion.
[English]
The family is a changing unit in 1995. Certainly from my own
perspective, I have to pay a special tribute to my mother who
prevailed upon me to make sure I got my views on this issue on
the record. From the perspective of my daughter, my mother has
been an invaluable role model and a very important anchor in a
changing world. I understand the difficulty sometimes of
legislating familial relationships. Obviously the best interest of
the child has to be the guiding principle in any dispute of a
familial nature, but the spirit of this legislation is worth
supporting.
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak on Bill C-232, an
act to amend the Divorce Act, sponsored by my colleague from
Mission-Coquitlam who is herself a grandparent. I know she
has put a lot of time and effort into creating and promoting this
piece of legislation. I must commend her.
I would also like to make reference to the gallery and the
attendance of a number of interested persons in this particular
legislation. I commend them for their attendance.
With reference to the previous speaker's comment on the
changing world, I sometimes wonder if we are not today playing
a bit of catch up here. Some of the principles or the things we
were used to in days gone by just slipped away from us because
of various other things that were occurring in our world.
For example, technological developments such as
transportation and communication have had a tremendous effect
on how we live our lives today. We travel farther. The world is
much smaller. On the other hand, we can communicate much
quicker with each other. We have E-mail for example. Even in
my lifetime, and I do not like to think I am that old, I can
remember the first telephone in our neighbourhood.
We look at such an amendment where we are talking about
general access and we have the technological equipment. The
resources are there for this kind of thing.
12220
(1755)
Another thing has snuck up on us from the days when a small
percentage of people did not have access to grandparents due to
distance, death or whatever. It now seems to have turned the
other way. We are suddenly aware that this very important
aspect of our lives has slipped away from us.
One of the other things that contributes to that is the advances
made in health care, not only from the point of view of our
attitude toward living a healthier lifestyle but also through
medical research with which we can prolong our life.
Consequently, we are living longer. The average person's
lifespan has gone to 72 years from 25 or 30 years ago when it
was six months after one retired at 65.
Some of the things we have seen come out of what has
affected our lives are such things as higher divorce rates and
family break-ups. The average marriage lasts something like
five years. It might be seven, I am not exactly sure on that
statistic. A higher divorce rate is a given in today's society.
Family break-ups are occurring. It is a two working parents
society as well. The standard of living that could be enjoyed on
one income in 1960 now requires two.
Those kinds of things have had an effect on us. They have
created situations in today's society. We find ourselves trying to
come up with some way to get that component back into our life
of the family, including the grandparents.
One of the previous speakers got into a legal concept. What I
am suggesting here is that we look at the intent of the law more
so than the letter of the law. There will be time enough for the
letter of the law when it gets into committee. Then we can get
our learned people in those areas to address those issues. This
House has to say what the intent is. The intent is to get a family
structure or have the grandparents included in the family
structure.
Another thing in our society today versus 20 or 25 years ago is
the advent of new Canadians who do not necessarily have a
European background. We hear more and more about the
extended family. We are trying to put that into some sort of a
parameter as to what that actually means. We also hear of the
extended family in our aboriginal groups.
It is time that we looked at these new concepts. If there are
some legal barriers in recognizing these in law, then it is our
responsibility to see how we can overcome them. The extended
family could include the grandparents quite nicely. I would
prefer that.
I realize there are very many different ways a divorce
situation can turn out. On the other hand, if there are children
involved in a situation who are going to go into the social service
realm and foster parent situations and there are grandparents
sitting right there who have to get a court order to apply to get
into that situation, that just does not make logical sense to me.
When we address this point by point, we must look at the
bottom line and know that the overall objective is what is best
for that child. On average, we can argue that the family and the
grandparents in normal situations are what is best for the child.
There will always be the isolated cases.
When we get down to looking at it line by line or looking at
the letter of the law, that is when we address those issues. What I
am trying to say now is that there are four amendments here. One
is asking not to have to go to court to make an application to
apply for access. That does not mean to say they are going to get
it, but when they have made the decision to make an application
they have to trot off to court first.
(1800)
Another amendment we must address is the right to know. As I
related earlier, we have all of these wonderful advances such as
E-mail and television and we can fly on the Concorde to
goodness knows where and how fast. I certainly think that at
some point we should be able as the intellectual animal of this
planet to come into some sort of situation in which we can
recognize what is best for the child. If there is animosity at the
time the court is making these kinds of decisions, I still believe
there are ways in which what is best for the child can be
addressed and that we can use this technology to that end. A year
from now the situation might be a little better and people might
get over their feelings and start thinking more about what is
actually happening to their loved ones on both ends of the age
scale.
Another thing that comes into this concept is our roots and our
family tree. If we do not keep in touch with each other that will
be much more difficult to keep track of. I believe there are a
number of people who find that important in their lives.
With respect to geographic living conditions, I am not too
familiar with what is happening in divorce rates, but it is my
understanding that when access is granted to one of the parents
there are usually restrictions placed upon where these people
can live. They get a geographic area in which they can live so
that the other side can have access. I am suggesting that will not
survive long in our society. At some point that will be addressed,
and maybe this is a good time to do it. As I have said,
communication and transportation are not the problems they
once were. I am much more familiar with the geography of
British Columbia, and I can remember when it took two and a
half days to get from Kimberley to Vancouver, which can now be
done in almost nine hours, or ten hours if you are not speeding.
Surely to goodness we should be able to look at these kinds of
things to resolve these barriers.
I would like to reinforce that it is a given when we look back at
situations in our past, when there was the family unit, including
brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, and grandparents, that it was
always the grandparents in that family unit who were constant. I
12221
may have lost touch with my brother and his wife for a while,
but I never lost touch with my parents.
I encourage this House and all hon. members to unite behind
this non-partisan issue and support the bill.
Mrs. Anna Terrana (Vancouver East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise because I also feel very strongly about this bill. I have the
fortune of having grandparents and I have the fortune of having
an extended family. Unfortunately, my son never had that
luxury. My parents and my in-laws are in Italy. I always felt
guilty, because I know what a comfort grandparents can be, both
for the family and for the children.
When I went to Italy with my son, who was then five, I
realized how much he and his grandfather were alike and how
much they missed each other and how much they enjoyed each
other.
I believe that we have to always take into consideration the
needs the children have. We seem to forget that many times.
Since we are adults and we are the ones who have to help
children to get what they need, I think we should definitely
support this particular piece of legislation and make sure that
the children are taken care of and that we allow their
grandparents to take care of them whenever possible.
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour today to speak to this private
member's bill. My colleague from Mission-Coquitlam I know
has worked very hard over the last few months travelling across
the country talking to groups about this legislation. I would like
to advise the House that the response out there has been
overwhelming in support.
(1805)
There are many voids in the Divorce Act. For example, at the
present time in a divorce case grandparents do have to seek leave
of the court to obtain standing to discuss the question of access
to their grandchildren. This bill will give grandparents an
automatic right to the standing to participate at court.
I am not a grandparent, but I hope to be some day. I think most
of us want to experience that joy. Sure, it might make us feel a
little older, but these days what does not make us feel older?
As parents and grandparents we want to see that our
grandchildren have the best quality of life. There is nothing
wrong with this. But the law can divide, and we need to mitigate
against that. To me, grandparents have always seemed rather
stable. Perhaps it stems from the notion that the older you get,
the wiser you become.
I recently read an article in which a federal official was quoted
as saying: ``In the great majority of cases, it would be in the best
interests of children to see their grandparents. They can be a real
stabilizing force''.
I understand the Minister of Justice is not quite in support of
this legislation. Why? Apparently he feels that if Bill C-232 is
passed the courts would be flooded with litigation, causing a
tremendous backlog. I do not think so.
I spent enough time working within the British Columbia
family and divorce courts to know that including grandparents
in contested divorce cases will only improve matters, not make
them worse. As the Divorce Act currently states in section
17(2), ``a person other than a spouse may not make an
application under paragraph 1(b) without leave of the court''.
The minister may say that if we allow grandparents a say at
the original hearing it will increase litigation. My experience
says otherwise. Extended families must be encouraged to take
more responsibility for their own and come to the rescue or
backstop the social alternatives considered in child custody and
access disputes.
In clause 3(1) it states: ``On the expiration of four years after
the coming into force of this act, the provisions contained herein
shall be referred to such committee of the House of Commons or
of the Senate or of the Houses of Parliament as may be
designated or established by Parliament for that purpose''.
If that measure is adopted, Parliament will conduct a
comprehensive review of these provisions in four years. The
Minister of Justice is afraid of guarantees like this. He does not
put guaranteed reviews into his bills because he is perhaps afraid
that down the road legislation may be changed because it is
really flawed. Why does the minister not put such a clause in
Bill C-68, for instance? Maybe he fears the results.
Certainly family law needs fundamental review. I am not
encouraged that the justice minister will produce any
substantive changes soon. But this bill is not only about
grandparents, it is also about grandchildren. It is vitally
important that we have legal protection for them.
We recognize that all grandparents are beneficial for their
grandchildren. There are times when they should be denied
direct access or should not be involved, but that should be the
exception by an order. This is why we have courts and judges.
They are the decision makers in those contested cases. All
relevant voices must be heard in difficult cases, and this bill
facilitates that help. The best interests of the child is still the
operative principle.
All that is being done here is awarding the grandparent the
right to have a voice. That is essentially all we are asking to have
changed.
This morning I received a copy of the speech the Liberal
member for South Shore was to give today but could not because
of previous commitments. The member clearly is in favour of
this legislation. The member for Nepean is another member who
I know supports this legislation. Therefore, I would encourage
members of the Liberal Party to consult with their colleagues on
this bill and find out what their feelings are.
12222
Certainly members of the Reform Party are behind this
legislation. We believe that it is needed as one small step in a
larger effort to update and simplify family law.
Reading some of the comments the member for Nepean has
made on this bill, I understand that there are some parts she has
difficulty with, but this is understandable. This is why the House
of Commons has standing committees: to deal with legislation,
to bring in the experts and go over it with a fine-tooth comb.
I have been a divorce mediator. As an officer of the court in
the past, I have investigated circumstances and made
recommendations and written recommendations about child
custody and access. It is my considered opinion from within the
system that in general family law is in somewhat of a disarray.
But clarifying the role for grandparents in hotly contested cases
is a help, not a hindrance. A strong legal climate as a backdrop
encourages mediated settlements and alternative solutions.
Indeed, the court is a very blunt instrument to settle family
matters, but clarity and resolve in the law can only help children.
Sometimes these matters deteriorate into a swirl of struggles
and manoeuvres and the real needs of children and their wishes
are forgotten.
(1810)
This bill deserves to be sent to the standing committee. It
would represent a very positive step toward the protection and
development of the child who is caught up in these unfortunate
circumstances.
Therefore, on behalf of many grandparents rights groups
across the country, including the British Columbia based
Canadian Grandparents Rights Association, I want to fully
endorse this bill and commend it to this House.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few minutes and say a few words on
this bill. In particular, I think I would be remiss if I did not take
the time of the House to remind all of us not only of the good
work the hon. member proposing the bill has done, but equally
the work of the hon. member for Nepean.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, you will allow me to say this in spite of
the fact that it is not customary to our rules, but the member for
Nepean is unable to be here because of illness. Because of that, I
hope, Mr. Speaker, you will be lenient with the application of
that rule.
The hon. member for Nepean is ill. She had very extensive
surgery some time back and of course cannot participate in this
debate today. However, I am sure all members will know of the
work she has done, as well as the hon. member proposing the bill
today. If the member for Nepean were here, she would no doubt
want to be participating in this debate and giving it her full
support as well.
On behalf of the hon. member for Nepean, I thought I would
take a moment in the House to indicate what I believe to be her
support and the support of several other hon. members who have
worked on this initiative as well.
[Translation]
As we all know, the hon. member for Nepean had tabled a bill
similar to the one now before the House several years ago during
the previous Parliament. She put forward an analogous bill
during this Parliament. Being absent from the House for health
reasons, she is unable to address this House today. I know that
the House will vote on this motion in a few minutes.
I am unable to vote by proxy on her behalf because that is not
the practice in this House. However, if such were the case, I am
sure she would have asked me to vote in favour of this bill. The
least I can do is to mention all the work she has done on this bill,
along with the hon. member who proposed the bill today. I also
wish to commend the hon. member for Nepean for her work on
this issue, not only in this Parliament but also in the past several
years.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
a pleasure to rise today to make a few comments on Bill C-232
tabled by our hon. colleague, the hon. member for
Mission-Coquitlam.
Since the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell
spoke about the health of the hon. member for Nepean, allow me
to point out that we think about her often, especially when we
are dealing with issues such as this one which affect the most
vulnerable in our society.
The bill before us today is no magic solution. I believe,
however, that it is a step in the right direction. Indeed, Quebec,
which is concerned about its areas of jurisdiction, has always
looked with a very critical eye at amendments to the Divorce Act
and to family law, because it knows that we must still live in a
federal system for a certain time and tries to balance federal and
provincial jurisdictions.
Are we dealing with a filiation problem or a divorce problem?
What is the situation? We could debate this for a long time.
(1815)
In any case, we have before us a provision which would allow
grandparents to avoid the additional step required of any third
party in divorce proceedings. A neighbour is not treated any
differently from a child's grandparent in being granted access or
custody rights in divorce proceedings.
12223
That obstacle would be eliminated. In the eyes of the law,
grandparents would, for all practical purposes, be reintegrated
into the slightly extended family unit. So this provision may be a
step forward.
As I said at the outset, we should not see this amendment to
the 1985 Divorce Act as a magic solution. A similar provision,
which covers all children, whether they were born to married
couples or common law partners, has been in effect in Quebec
since 1981. Having practised family law since 1981, I can tell
you that grandparents are not rushing to make applications to the
courts. Since 1981, few grandparents have applied for access in
Quebec.
Today, grandparents applying to the courts in Quebec do so
only when the conflict is quite serious. Grandparents, the
grandfather or grandmother-who should have reached a point
in their lives when they could start relaxing a little-often must
go against their wishes and say: ``Well, I must retain the services
of a lawyer, I am going to take my own son or my own daughter,
or my son- or daughter-in-law, to court and I am going to take
this to the limit, with all of the emotions that go with it''. Not
many grandparents insist on an all-out battle: their lives already
have been one, they have had their children, raised them and
worked all of their lives. So, we must not think that this clause
will be the magic solution.
However, the fact that such a disposition is even included in
the bill could make many divorce lawyers strongly advise their
clients to do the following: ``Give the grandparents the right to
visit their grandchildren. Otherwise, they could take you to
court in the future to fight for it''.
This kind of provision could prevent a great number of legal
disputes and is better than using court cases to settle them.
I also think that we could use our vote on a bill like this one to
send a very clear signal to the courts which must interpret these
laws, and that is to listen very carefully to the petitions of
grandparents before declining their requests for the right to pick
up their grandchildren to take them out from noon to four for a
pop and a Big Mac and to bring them to a park to play before
being forced to take them back home. The courts should perhaps
also give them a little more time together, because it takes time
to bond. In the era of broken families, we are all aware of how
difficult it is to rebuild the ties between our children and their
parents and grandparents.
Thus, all of the aspects that have been raised during this
debate show that we have the opportunity to help remedy a
rampant and very serious social ill. And, although this bill is not
perfect, I think it should be passed at second reading and sent for
consideration to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal
Affairs.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Resuming debate.
Colleagues, the Chair was given an indication previously that if
an opportunity arose the mover of the motion, the member for
Mission-Coquitlam, asked that she be able to summarize for
not more than two minutes, understanding that no one else
would speak afterward. She would close the debate. Is that
agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to close the third hour of
debate on the bill. I want to personally thank all those members
who took part in the debate.
As many members know, this bill has a long history. In the last
Parliament my good friend from Ottawa West championed the
cause of grandparents. She presented petitions containing over
8,000 names requesting that the Divorce Act be amended to give
grandparents status before the courts in the case of divorce of
their married children along with status to ensure that the
presiding judge would take into consideration the rights of
grandparents to grandchildren.
My good friend from Nepean, who could not be with us
tonight, has worked very hard on this. I have been talking with
her on many occasions on this bill, which both of us had before
the House.
More important, this bill addresses the cause of many
grandchildren across the country who seek access to their
grandparents. I have had the great privilege in the past few
months to meet and speak to literally hundreds of grandparents
across the country. They tell me that what they want is the
opportunity to be heard in the courts.
There have been many concerns expressed about the part of
the bill that gives grandparents the right to make inquiries about
the child, inquiries the parents may not have the right to make.
This can be amended in committee.
It is my belief that the bill will reduce litigation, not increase
it. All outstanding issues will be dealt with at the same time
under the same judge.
Again, I would like to thank everyone present. I urge all
members to vote in favour of sending this bill to committee for
further study.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 6.20 p.m.,
pursuant to Standing Order 93, the time provided for debate has
expired. Accordingly, the question is as follows. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
12224
12224
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill
C-85, an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring
Allowances Act and to provide for the continuation of a certain
provision, be read the second time and referred to a committee;
and of the amendment; and of the amendment to the amendment.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my delight to rise to speak to Bill C-85. I speak in
opposition to this bill, an act to amend the Members of
Parliament Retiring Allowances Act.
I found it very interesting today to listen to the debate and to
some of the rhetoric that has surrounded it. As we address the
debate from this side of the House, we certainly are representing
the mood and the voice of Canadians in opposing a pension plan
which is far above and beyond anything any other Canadian
outside of this place could enjoy or ever think about.
The Reform Party bases its decision on the principles put
down within the party from its inception. My opposition to this
bill is based on certain of these principles that the Reform Party
holds. Let me remind members of two of those.
Principle 17 of the party states: ``We believe in public service,
that governments, civil servants, politicians and political parties
exist to serve the people and that they should demonstrate this
service and commitment at all times''.
Principle 18 states: ``We believe that public money should be
regarded by government as `funds held in trust' and that
government should practise fiscal responsibility to balance
expenditures and revenues''.
Both of these principles deal directly with the issue at hand
today. It is from these principles that this party, since its
inception, developed a policy on MP pensions.
The Reform Party policy on MP pensions states that it
opposes the current pension schemes for members of
Parliament. 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 subject
the MP pension to a tax back according to a formula identical to
that of the old age security.
Compare our policy with the vague and general policy I have
heard quoted here today of which the Liberals seem proud which
is outlined in their red book: ``The pension regime of members
of Parliament has been the focus of considerable controversy. It
is now the subject of an independent review which Liberals
support. We believe that reform is necessary''.
(1825)
It is of some small comfort to know the Liberals have finally
and only seemingly recently realized the MP pension scheme is
an affront to Canadians. I have heard it and I am sure they have
heard it. It has taken a while to sink in though. It is also
interesting to note the Liberal policy uses the word reform. I will
quote again: ``We believe reform is necessary''.
From the vague Liberal policy, which often happens with
vague policies, Bill C-85 has flowed, a bill that I believe is
totally unacceptable.
I am sure everyone has heard that 52 Reform MPs will be
opting out. My Reform colleagues have come here from
ordinary communities, homes with families. We have mortgages
too. Like our colleagues on the other side, we want security for
our homes. We want security for our families, for ourselves and
our loved ones, just like every other Canadian. However, we
have come to this place to show leadership in difficult times. We
were sent here to show leadership in difficult times. We as a
party cannot in good conscience claim to lead by example by
participating in a plan such as has been shown here.
Let me explain a few points on how this diverts directly from
what ordinary Canadians might experience. First, this bill raises
the age of eligibility to age 55. It raises it to age 55. But what
about the age of 55? This is totally unacceptable. Ordinary
Canadians only receive their full pension benefits, their CPP and
old age security at age 65. Notice there is a difference of 10
years. What is 10 years? Ten years is a long time.
Why does the government still persist in maintaining this
discrepancy? Fairness calls for members of Parliament to be
eligible at the same age as the people they purport to represent.
After all, the entire concept behind our parliamentary system is
that all of us in this House represent the common people. That is
why it is called the House of Commons. Have they forgotten this
on that side of this House?
A second concern is that under Bill C-85 full indexation of
the MP pension to the level of inflation remains from the date
that an MP retires. This again is an affront to the average
Canadian whose pension income is not indexed to inflation. It is
another example of how privileged members of Parliament have
been and will continue to be under this government's proposed
``reform'' of the pension scheme.
I also find it interesting that once again this bill shows a
duplicity in high sounding statistics. We are told benefits will
now accumulate at a rate that will drop by 1 per cent. An accrual
rate of 4 per cent instead of 5 per cent is still above the legal
limit of what any other Canadian enjoys. It has been
accommodated by book work, or by putting it into two pots or
whatever.
12225
The fact remains it is something Canadians legally cannot enjoy
otherwise.
At the same time as this goes down by 1 per cent, the amount
the MPs pay into the plan decreases by 2 per cent. Perhaps I
could throw in the concept of one for you and two for me and if
we do it quickly enough maybe no one will notice. It is a sort of
shell game. It is no wonder the Canadians I hear have given up
faith in this place. They have a right to be cynical if government
plays games with the numbers and with the things they
represent.
The government also claims that significant savings will
result from these measures. It is true that now the taxpayers'
contribution will be at a ratio of approximately 3.5 to 1
compared to the members' contribution, down from what we
considered to be seven to one before. That was obscene.
It is also true that most of this change resulted from the
actuarial realities of a lower rate simply because of the large
number of new members in this place. That is, this ratio even
with the old plan would have been approximately four to one had
no changes at all been made to this pension plan because of the
difference in the membership in this place.
(1830)
Therefore little has changed in spite of the government's
rhetoric and platitudes on this issue. The bill it put forward is
smoke and mirrors. In fact little has changed in this place in
spite of the government's rhetoric and platitudes on many
things.
In my riding in the greater Vancouver region there is a
significant and expanding portion of the population that is
retired and receiving pension income. How can the government
and the President of the Treasury Board who proposes this bill
justify keeping the full indexation of MP pensions that those
people, those families, those individuals in my area do not
enjoy? How can the government and the President of the
Treasury Board justify not making the age of pension eligibility
consistent with what average Canadians can expect and what
they experience?
This bill represents the gulf between what Canadians expect
and what the government delivers. Should the rules be different
for those that lead than for those whom they serve?
Our party brought this issue to the fore. As a result the
government has given the House and the Canadian people a mere
token. The government has failed once again to bridge that gulf,
and the gulf between it and the people of Canada remains even
after the rhetoric of this bill.
On page 11 of the red book it states that Canadians have to see
themselves as belonging to a society of reciprocal obligations in
which each of us is responsible for the well-being of the other.
Canadians know this intuitively. That is mighty sounding but I
would like to take that quote within the context of this MP
pension plan and compare it to the 45,000 civil servants that now
are facing being laid off from their place of work.
I take that quote within the context, and take the obscene
pension plan that we still see in place and compare it with
government cutbacks in the funding of medicare to the
provinces. I take that quote within the context of the MP pension
plans and compare it with struggling Canadian families faced
with outrageous tax burdens, many of whom therefore are not
even able themselves to put money toward an RRSP at the end of
the year.
Another concern I have with the bill is that it has been
thoroughly politicized. Initially the President of the Treasury
Board was to have introduced the bill in February before the
government tabled its budget. It is now May 4. Four months
have gone by. What delayed its introduction? The President of
the Treasury Board had to ensure that all the various interests
within the cabinet and caucus were represented and that those
interests were placated.
I ask the President of the Treasury Board, whose interests is
he representing? Is he representing the interests of his cabinet
and caucus colleagues or is he, as he should, representing the
interests of the Canadian people who have been loudly
demanding genuine reform to the MP pension scheme for a long
time?
Politics and rhetoric are an integral part of the government's
approach. Good schemes and fair proposals have been put
forward by outside sources and even by some government
members. These have been rejected and replaced by rhetoric
which is answered at every turn by comments about pay scales
and double dipping.
When challenged on the continuing arrogance of the new
pension plan, why does the government insist on talking about
pay scales? If MPs' salaries are not acceptable, then change
them. Do not use them as an excuse for the pension plan. Do not
divert the issue from the scandalous pension scheme that
continues to exist.
What of the issue of double dipping? What is the real issue
here? Once again the government tries to divert attention in
other directions. The issue that concerns Canadians is
patronage. The issue is choosing political friends to fill
positions, letting them feed from the public trough and the
attitude of gross arrogance toward the taxpayer in doing so.
(1835 )
I will only take the time to briefly recall for Canadians some
of the very recent and ongoing issues that relate to this, like the
Pearson airport review, the Lobbyists Registration Act, the
expensive and self-serving byelections made necessary by
Senate and other appointments, the Power Corporation contro-
12226
versy that exists today and even our elusive and unaccountable
ethics counsellor. The list goes on and on.
The real issue here is special favours, concessions and
decisions made by the government that fly in the face of the trust
of Canadians and the trust that they expect in their
parliamentary system. What do we get in terms of pension
reform? What is significant in their version of the end of double
dipping?
It only means that the obscene amounts of publicly funded
pension dollars grow behind the scenes for those lucky
recipients of government appointments. I would like to say that
an abuse of the public trust is an abuse no matter which way you
cut it.
With the help of some professionals within the insurance
industry, actually the Mutual Life branch in Surrey, I have
received some numbers for normal pension expectations. I
related it to our longest standing Reform MP, the member for
Beaver River, who would in the old plan receive $1.8 million in
pension at age 75.
With this bill and the changes that have been introduced, the
government comes to the Canadian people and boldly says that
this is a fair plan. The numbers indicate that our qualifying
member would have received, had she chosen not to opt out,
mostly at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer, a whopping $1.2
million still. The pension is reduced from $1.8 to $1.2 million.
That member plus the rest of the Reformers have chosen to opt
out. I would like briefly to put forward the cost she will pay to do
this very thing.
It is of note that Canadians should be aware of that difference.
They should know what the difference is between what normal
Canadians might have to do in putting aside their own pension
and what it is that this place considers fair, equitable and can
receive without blushing at the fact that they will take this
without an apology to the Canadian people.
It is a statement of the integrity of our member that she is
prepared to opt out. If that member contributes her portion of the
pension allotment into her own RRSP plan instead of this gold
plated pension plan of the government, she would receive a
pension at age 60. I put it at age 60. It is not like age 55. It is not
the freedom 55 that is proposed by the government. At age 60,
like some other Canadians, or perhaps 65, that pension would be
less than $15,000 a year. Therefore her total payment if taken to
age 75 would be approximately one-quarter of a million dollars.
It is something like $228,000.
In trying to put aside her own pension scheme, she will come
out with a one-quarter million dollar payment as opposed to the
revised government plan which would give her one and a quarter
million dollars. Making this decision will cost our member
approximately $1 million. Do members think she is doing that
easily? Do members think she is doing that on a whim? The very
fact that we would take this position shows how strongly we
feel. We in turn mirror how Canadians feel on this issue.
Leadership must start in this place or else the future of the
country is in very great danger. Our party wants a fair plan. Our
party wants a plan that is comparable to the private sector. Our
party also wants to provide security for our families and for
Canadian families. The plan must start here.
(1840)
Some of the details of the plan are these. All members who
have less than six years of experience as of October 25, 1993
have the right to opt out of the plan. As we have said, it will not
be and it is not an easy decision for the class of '88 in this place.
However, on the basis of principle, we challenge the class of '88
or later members on the Liberal side to do what is right and just
for the Canadian people. If you go to your constituents and ask
them, I know the answer-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I wish to remind the
House that all interventions must be made through the Chair and
not directly across the floor, using the word ``you this'' or ``you
that'' but having everything through the Speaker.
Mrs. Hayes: Mr. Speaker, if they go to their constituents they
will certainly hear what I have heard, that the people of Canada
are sick to death of the abuse of their tax dollars. They need
leadership which responds to what they have to go through these
days.
An hon. member: It is not so in St. Thomas.
Mrs. Hayes: I would be very surprised if that is the case.
For those who have more than six years of experience, they
will continue to receive this gold plated pension for that period
under the old regime. We have members of the front bench and
the back bench on this side and on the other side who have to be
accountable to the people they represent.
I will conclude with some statements on the challenges that
we are facing. Canada is facing challenges like never before.
Those challenges are in the areas of finance, socially and
internationally. The challenges we have these days are extreme,
unique and great.
This government and this place needs to walk with Canadians
hand in hand. First it must connect with the reality that
Canadians face day to day. The gulf between this place and
Canadian people has widened vastly in the last 20 years.
For the government to try to cross that distance with a bridge
that goes only a fraction of the way is no solution at all. It does
nothing to reconcile the distance. Actually it puts the
government at a very great risk. If the bridge between this place
and the
12227
Canadian people is not built in its entirety, the chasm between
the two will swallow those who simply pretend to cross it.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
address the subamendment to Bill C-85 which requests that the
government report back by June 23 with some improvements to
the bill.
I would like to do two things: cover an area that is in the
Liberal red book on pensions and talk a little about what is
happening here tonight.
In the red book at page 92, the Liberal government says that
the pension regime of members of Parliament has been the focus
of considerable controversy. That is an understatement. It is now
the subject of an independent review which the Liberals support.
They believe that reform is necessary. We agree. ``Whatever the
results of the independent review, a Liberal government will
reform the pension plan of members of Parliament to end double
dipping''.
This is the issue I want to have clarified. I hope when they
report back by June 23 it is clarified to the degree that all these
accusations from across the floor about double dipping and
which members are double dipping will cease and desist.
(1845 )
Today the President of the Treasury Board explained what
double dipping was. He said that MPs, people who have been in
the House, should not be able to leave this office and receive a
pension from the federal government if they accept a new full
time paying job from the federal government. In addition, they
will review the question of the minimum age at which pensions
will begin to be paid.
The government introduced a minimum age of 55, which
should be 65. On the issue of double dipping I would like to
point out members on the other side like to accuse a certain
member on this side, the member for Lethbridge, of double
dipping. The member for Lethbridge is elected to this position,
not appointed to this position, as former MPs are like Joe Clark,
who was appointed to head up some agency is getting an MP
pension plus a salary for heading up that agency, a position to
which he was not elected.
There is a big difference. Double dipping means you are
appointed to an agency or a board and still receive an MP's
pension. That will cease and desist. I commend the government
for that.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Silye: I will applaud once the other side understands what
double dipping is.
The thing I would like to point out is the Reform Party's
criticism of the MP pension. It is three tier, trough regular for all
the old MPs, trough light for all the rookies who are too weak
and lack the fortitude to stand up to the veterans, and the trough
stout, all the extra perks and privileges this pension provides to
those cabinet ministers where there is no cap on what they
contribute on their extra salary.
This three tier pension plan is unacceptable to the Canadian
public we believe simply because it sets a double standard, one
for politicians, MPs and senators, and one for the private sector.
The reason it is so high is they say the salary is low. I have heard
today about the sacrifice of the family, the children and the
grandchildren and it is something they build toward. I do not
deny those emotional arguments.
On the same emotional basis why not come clean with the
Canadian public and simply state the compensation package
should be addressed? We should not have three or four different
sets of rules. Let us clean it up. Let us pay politicians what we
believe they are worth or what they deserve.
Mr. Knutson: Give us a number.
Mr. Silye: Twelve thousand dollars a month and then look
after your own pension plan. This is my point of view.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I am again trying
to maintain the best parliamentary debate possible. I encourage
members to address themselves through the chair. In the event
that we get to question and comments they will have an
opportunity to debate the last intervention.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate those comments. You
remind me of my football coach who said that if you have rabbit
ears you will never be a success in this business. I believe that
should apply in the House as well.
As of today I will no longer have rabbit ears. I will only focus
my comments to you and through you to the other side and to the
public.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I cannot pass it up. Maybe
it is the hour. I know all of us make promises. I know we do our
best, our darndest, to meet each and every one of those.
Mr. Silye: Thank you, coach-I mean, Mr. Speaker.
I want to explain to voters what is happening. The Reform
Party wants a proper pension plan commensurate with the
private sector, compensation for MPs at a level that the sacrifice
is compensated for. The salaries are too low. The pensions are
far too great. We should have a balance between the two. That is
what we are recommending.
We are trying to debate this fully. We want to see full
disclosure on all the items in this pension plan so the Canadian
public understands it.
(1850 )
The government today introduced a motion to extend the
hours of debate. It wants us to use up all our speakers so it can
rush this through to committee so the Canadian public does not
12228
get an opportunity to see what is in it, to understand the full
message about the pension plan.
I would not be surprised if in the future as this bill works its
way through the system, the Liberals use time allocation on this
bill. I will predict the Liberals will use time allocation on Bill
C-85, the pension plan bill. That is totally unworthy of
government members who pride themselves on parliamentary
reform, integrity and restoring integrity to the government like
they said they would. It is the lowest of low tricks they can do in
a democracy when they are too afraid to let debate on a sensitive
issue take its normal, full and natural course.
This is what is happening tonight. We have tried to not lose
the opportunity to allow our members to speak to this bill, to
point out why they appreciate the opportunity to opt out, why
they like the fact they can lead by example and perhaps through
this mechanism restore some integrity to this whole fiasco of the
gold plated MP pension plan.
We would appreciate if the government would allow proper
debate to continue. We would appreciate if the government
would stop playing these games with extended hours and if we
could go ahead and live our normal day and work it out properly.
There is a lot of time if it would follow the normal procedure.
What is the rush? If you had a good bill, Mr. Speaker, would
you not be proud to present it before the Canadian public for as
long and as often as you could, to get the credit for it if you
could? Would you not do that, Mr. Speaker? Would you not be
proud and hold your head up high to be able to show the people
of Canada what a great pension plan you had introduced? I know
I would.
If the Liberals want to rush it through, want to get it through
committee, do not want to have the proper amount of time on it
and introduce time allocation, that will be the proof they are
embarrassed by the little they have done on it. They are
embarrassed by how weak their legislation is and that they have
not totally and fully used the benefit of all the arguments of all
the members of the House.
Therefore I will conclude my comments on the
subamendment to Bill C-85.
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, members on this side of the House are very much used
to working 7 a.m. to 11 p.m., seven days a week if necessary. If
the member has a problem with working evenings we can
appreciate that, but that is not the government's way of doing
things. The way on this side of the House is that we work hard,
we continue to work hard from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m., seven days a
week on behalf of our constituents.
When we are not in the House we are in our offices or in our
constituencies doing constituency work on behalf of our
constituents. I challenge the member to indicate what the
problem is working here this evening for whatever time it takes.
We are listening to the comments being made from the other side
of the House, as ridiculous as some may be. We are open to listen
to them. We are prepared to work. Are they not prepared to work
whatever hours it may take? We will be here.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I will accept that comment as the
cheap shot that it is. We are not at all afraid to work late hours.
We have done so often. I will also predict we will be the only
ones putting up speakers. The Liberals want us to exhaust all of
our speakers. They will not have any speaker on this. They will
not have a member rise and speak for 20 minutes on the MP
pension. They will not have a member rise and speak on the MP
pension tonight for 10 minutes. They are here to exhaust our
speakers. They are playing a game.
When the member said he works hard for his constituency,
every member of the House works hard for their constituency
regardless of their political view point, regardless of where they
stand on an issue. I do not think they work hard; they work long.
We put in a lot of hours. The people who do the hard work are
those who do the research, who dig out the facts, who have to get
our messages out through communications.
We are the spokespersons. We have to put in long hours. The
cheap shots notwithstanding, the debate on the MP pension plan
should be focused on how we can make it better. That is what an
opposition party is here for. We are trying to be constructive. We
are trying to point out the flaws. We are trying to show where it
is weak. They do not have to listen if they do not want to. They
do not have to make any changes if they do not want to. It is
obvious they do not. However, we are happy to opt out. We are
proud to opt out because we know it is the right thing. If they do
not opt out they will get voted out.
(1855)
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member seems to be suggesting that sitting
late is somehow unfair.
Mr. Abbott: Unnecessary.
Mr. Milliken: The hon. member says it is unnecessary. We
have made very little progress this week on government
legislation. We expected to get two or three bills done yesterday
afternoon but we did not get any.
Tuesday was an opposition day. On Monday we expected to
get two bills. We got one motion to a vote which, as I recall, was
on an amendment. The motion to set up a special joint
committee to study ethics was opposed particularly by the
Reform Party. It has been stalled and is not happening now. We
have a tremendous number of bills to deal with. The government
is anxious to move on with its legislative agenda.
12229
Because we have had very good co-operation until the last
few weeks we did not feel it necessary to sit late very often. Hon.
members will note we did not. However, now that we have an
extremely heavy agenda, dozens of bills waiting to be dealt
with, it seemed only reasonable that we allow members to
express their views on a bill to which we recognize there is
significant opposition from Reform Party members who for
various reasons do not like this bill. Some of us have views on
what those reasons are but I will not go into that on a comment.
Mr. Abbott: Why not?
Mr. Milliken: I would not want to bore the House or impugn
motives to members as they have done in respect of some of the
members on this side of the House in the debate.
However, it is fair that we give members every opportunity to
express their views. One of the things we do not like doing is
cutting off debate. Often, as the hon. member knows, when we
have used time allocation in the past we have offered to sit late
to avoid having to use time allocation so members could get an
opportunity to express their views. That is exactly what we are
doing tonight.
I want to ensure that all members who want to express their
opinion on this bill are given a good opportunity to do so. Sitting
late tonight gives all members that opportunity. They may have
to leave their office or skip the movie they were going to go to,
but most of us are here until 11 o'clock at night anyway working,
so it is no problem and we are happy to stay and listen to hon.
members.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, the issue is not sitting late or working
late. The issue is giving proper time to a proper audience.
Debate is progress. Being heard is progress. Passing bills is not
necessarily progress. All the bills the government has
introduced do not have all the answers or all the solutions,
notwithstanding the Liberals may think they do and
notwithstanding that all the years they were in opposition they
now feel they have a licence to go ahead with any legislation
they wish to. Therefore, they really do not like to have input
from opposition members. That is what democracy is all about.
If in this bill we have the opportunity to point out those
elements we feel will make the bill better, which is by making it
closer as much as we can to what is available in the private
sector, in a way we are hurting ourselves because if they did that
they more than likely will get voted back in at the next election. I
am sort of in a conflict here. I do not know if I should be giving
them this advice.
Nevertheless, I do so on behalf of Canadians who work hard.
Politicians are not a better class of people. They are not better
than the people who voted them in. They are not a cut above the
rest. Why we have this double standard in so many areas of this
MP pension plan, why we have double standards in so many
other areas like the travel allowance for MPs, 37 cents instead of
31 cents, which is allowable in the private sector, is what makes
the public suspect of the motives of politicians.
The government was elected on a promise in the red book that
it would restore integrity to politicians. Instead of doing that,
they just give lip service and use all the tricks of the standing
orders at their disposal to push bills through without proper
debate. They want to do it at times when certain members are not
here who would like to speak to it.
(1900)
All the things they went through when they were in opposition
they are trying to take advantage of on a Thursday evening when
those key people who would like to speak to this are not
available. This is what I do not like. I feel that it is totally
uncalled for.
There were a lot of emotional comments made today, but the
main issue was missed. That is, the government is not listening
to the people. It is not listening to the taxpayers, who feel that
the pension plan is too generous. The taxpayer is not saying that
the salary is too high. They are not asking us to take a salary cut.
They are saying make what government and politicians do equal
to what is in the private sector.
Yes, we have an important job now. And yes, the Canadian
public expects us to lead. But they also expect us to lead by
example. If there is a double standard and we treat ourselves
better than the public sector can treat itself, is that setting a good
example? Is that what government members will be proud of
when they go back to their constituencies, that they fought for a
pension plan that is better than those of their constituents? Is
that what they want to do?
I for one do not want do that. That is why I stand before
government members in debate to point out that our party would
like to have them listen to what voters are saying. But the
government is not listening. This is an opportunity. It might be
the last opportunity if they keep forcing these tricks on the
House.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I enter the debate with some reluctance. However, I
must say that the whip or the caucus co-ordinator, or whatever it
is one is supposed to call the person who has that job in the
Reform Party, has just said I am supposed to call the person the
hon. member. The hon. member talks about cheap shots after
standing for 20 minutes in the House calling the government
everything under the sun and impugning the motives of the
government.
One of the last things the whip of the Reform Party said
tonight was that the government was using a procedural trick.
Who introduced today a dilatory motion, the purpose of which is
to not read the bill?
12230
Mr. Milliken: The Reform Party.
Mr. Boudria: Yes, the Reform Party, as my hon. colleague
said.
So if moving procedural tricks is the wrong thing to do, I have
to ask why the whip of the Reform Party made these disparaging
remarks against the member for Beaver River.
Mr. Milliken: It is the pot calling the kettle black.
Mr. Boudria: It is the pot calling the kettle black. That is
exactly what it is.
I think that what has been said here has not been thoroughly
researched. But we all know, of course, that Reform Party
research is an oxymoron. One can never be equivalent to the
other. They are diametrically opposed.
We have heard again from the same member that we should be
leading by example. Now, I ask myself the following question.
Is this the same political party that is asking us to lead by
example when the leader of that party had a limousine provided
to him by the government and he said he did not want the
limousine, then reconsidered the position? He ordered the
limousine and had the staff of public works, or whoever does
these things, wax the car and bring it here. It took a day or two of
work to get it all prepared. Then he did a giant publicity stunt
with the car, which had already been sent back. He made a
presentation of giving the keys back and put a ``for sale'' sign in
the window of the car. It probably cost thousands of dollars at
the expense of the government to orchestrate that scene.
Now, as if that was not bad enough, someone said that the
ultimate result was that he got rid of the car. That is what you
think. No siree, Mr. Speaker. He had a limousine subsidized by
the taxpayers through the back door of the Reform Party
provided to him after refusing the first limousine in the publicity
stunt I have just described.
(1905)
Those are the people who talk to us about leading by example
and governing with integrity. Yes, those are the same people.
Let us talk a bit more about governing with integrity. Let us
talk about what I would qualify as suitable leadership. Yes, the
leader of the Reform Party decided that he wanted a 15 per cent
pay cut, but he had his suits bought by the Reform Party in order
to supplement his income. That is leading by example. Mr.
Speaker, do your constituents or do my constituents receive
subsidized suits? Hardly. If they did they would probably be a
taxable benefit. I wonder if it is a taxable benefit for the member
of the Reform Party. Perhaps some of our colleagues in the
House who are accountants can enlighten us on that subject.
Let us develop that a bit further. The leader of the Reform
Party, from what we were told, is also receiving, thanks to the
taxpayers of Canada, contributions to his RRSP and all sorts of
other things like that. If that is not bad enough, some Reform
Party members said they were taking a 15 per cent pay cut. I
know their performance has not been all that great, but to say
that it was only 85 per cent as valuable as everyone else's, not
even I would go that far. Let us assume that they were worth the
same amount as other MPs, which I know is a debatable point.
We had the following situation. Some of them did this and
some of them did not. And then the whole thing was reversed
because, as they said in a press interview, the people were not
appreciating it sufficiently. They did not change their minds
because it was wrong or right, but because they did not get the
right amount of publicity.
Mr. Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is there
not a House rule that requires speakers to keep to the subject? I
thought we were debating Bill C-85 and the amendments
thereto.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The hon. member for
Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia raises an issue that is
often raised in this House with regard to relevance. Of course in
a speech of a potential maximum of 20 minutes, sometimes
members take a little longer than others to get to the actual point
in debate. But I am sure that the speech of the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, who is an experienced
parliamentarian, will certainly be relevant to the bill that is
before the House.
Mr. Boudria: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am reminded that we
are discussing the pay and benefit package of MPs. Of course
that is what I was addressing in this House. I know that I was
addressing the pay and benefits of Reform MPs-
Mr. Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order.
The hon. member says that we are discussing pay and benefits.
There is nothing about pay in the bill. We are discussing
pensions, period.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I do not believe that is a
point of order. We are getting into debate.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying before I was so
rudely interrupted, we were discussing the benefits of MPs. The
hon. member invoked the rule of relevance, and perhaps
discussing what some MPs are worth, particularly the Reform
kind, is not really a relevant issue. Perhaps there is some merit to
what the member said. However, let us get back to the central
issue of the debate. We are discussing how MPs of any political
party should be paid.
The salary I get for being an MP is about the same as that of a
high school teacher in my constituency. That is fair game. I
knew the salary before I got into this, and I accept it. I think I
work somewhat longer hours, but that is okay. That is certainly
acceptable in my book. I do not ask for anything more. However,
I do resent those people who come here and say that we are worth
less, that our salaries are too big and that the benefit package
12231
offered to members is too high. These people do the same kinds
of things in terms of getting backdoor salaries.
(1910)
I also resent people who pretend that MPs somehow get too
much in the way of pension when they or their own colleagues
are getting federal government pensions at the same time as they
are sitting in the House of-
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I want to clarify
that I had just said in my speech that MPs' salaries were too low,
not too high.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): This is not a point of
order. We are engaging in debate. Resuming debate, the hon.
member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, it is true that that member invoked
a huge pay increase for MPs, so I am not going to say that he
asked that the salaries be reduced. But others who spoke not long
before he took the floor tonight referred to the fact that we were
overpaid.
There are a couple of further points to consider in all of this.
One, allegations are made about our so-called golden pension
and so on. I know it is not easy to defend one's salary, one's
paycheque. It is a lot easier to say no.
I remember those days in the Ontario legislature, where I sat
in a previous incarnation. The odd three or four MPs would vote
against a pay increase and none of them of course would ever
refuse to take the increase once it had been given, in spite of
voting against it. We are seeing the same kind of thing going on
here.
The bill that we have before us is to reduce MPs' pensions.
Whether or not that is a good idea is a matter that is open for
debate, but we were elected on a specific program to reduce it. It
is a commitment we made. What we are delivering on tonight is
in excess of the commitment we made. We were elected on that.
Fair game. I could have disagreed or agreed with the individual
parts of the red book, but I was elected on the red book and I will
vote for that.
At the same time, it does not mean that any of us in this House
should cater to the likes of David Somerville of the National
Citizens' Coalition, who raises money by printing in the
newspaper little pigs saying that little pigs represent MPs and
that to cut off their salaries would be a good thing and that if
Canadians want those benefits for MPs cut off all they have to do
is send their money to David Somerville in a little box, which
happens to be at the bottom of the same newspaper ad all the
time.
What does he do with that money? I am sure he sticks it in his
own pocket. Who is he accountable to? He has an outfit called
the National Citizens' Coalition. It is not national. It is not a
citizens' coalition. It is nothing of the sort. It is a business. It is
run by him and for him for his own benefit. He does not disclose
how many members he has. He never discloses any of the names
of any members. And he makes no disclosure of the salary he
gets from generating these contributions from Canadians. That
is not an honest way of doing business.
People know how much I make. People know how much the
member across the way makes. And he does not pretend, issuing
a press release, that people should send him money so that he
can blast David Somerville in Toronto. He would not do that.
Neither would I. But he gets away with that, and a few of us cater
to that kind of nonsense. It is not right, and it is about time some
of us said it.
On the issue of the pension itself as it is today, it is going to be
reduced with this bill. I am 45 years old. I have worked in the
government all my life. I worked for 14 years as an employee of
the federal government. Because I had only nine and a half years
of contributions to the pension plan-in the beginning. I was a
sessional employee-I had no pension. I had to withdraw my
contributions. I was given 2 per cent interest on the money I had
invested there. Are they the kinds of funds I would have had in
an RRSP? Surely not.
Then I served under another golden pension plan as a member
of the legislature. I served there for nearly four years. Interest
rates in the 1980s were in the area of 18 per cent.
(1915)
An hon. member: Who got them there?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Again, I caution
members. I know there are some very strongly held views on
both sides of the House, but please direct the interventions
through the Chair.
Mr. Boudria: After four years I was given my premiums
back, no employer share, no transferability, no portability and 4
per cent interest when the interest rate was 18 per cent. Would
anyone else invest their contributions that way? I suggest not.
I have contributed to the federal MPs pension plan since 1984,
11 years. The Library of Parliament research office calculated
the value of the premiums I have paid plus interest, based on the
regular guaranteed investment certificate rate. I have
contributed in interest and premiums, $136,988. That is what I
have paid personally toward the plan, interest and premiums
included.
Some members across the way were asking why all of this was
not in an employer-employee plan, jointly contributed, a money
purchase plan of sorts where both sides contribute the same
amount. If that would have been the case with me I would now
have $273,976. Just the interest on an amount of that size at 10
per cent would be $27,000 a year which I could draw right now.
If I were defeated today as an MP I would get about $30,000
12232
instead of $27,000. That is the gold plated pension plan those
people across the way talk about.
They talk about these unfunded liabilities. These unfunded
liabilities are based on assumptions of the nature that the money
I contributed toward the plan bears no interest. Who has ever
said that? Nobody. That is why they make these kinds of
allegations but they need to be substantiated with some facts and
some truth.
Yes, of course, Mr. Speaker, you could probably find
someone's grandmother here and find an unfunded liability for
their old age security cheque. If you revealed those numbers,
someone who is 65 and expected to live until 85, 20 years times
an OAS cheque, plus the supplement if they so qualify, that
would make a huge amount too. Are the people across the way
suggesting we cancel that?
If that were the only element of debate it would be awfully
shallow. It is awfully shallow. I am not ashamed of the
paycheque I get as an MP. I am not asking for more at all. I think
I do an honest job of trying to serve the people who sent me here
many years ago.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Boudria: I said at the beginning of my remarks that I had
been a federal civil servant. I know I have said this before but I
will repeat it now. I started here as a busboy in the parliamentary
restaurant. The other day I looked at my paycheque when I first
started. It was $86 for two weeks. That was on October 25, 1966.
I work hard for my constituents and I think we should be
working hard. There is nothing wrong with our doing that. I am
not complaining about it. I am glad that I work hard. I am glad I
have the health and so on to do that which is required of me to
properly serve my constituents. At the same time we should stop
pretending that MPs are overpaid and underworked, do not do
anything and so on.
If the only thing wrong with that would be that we criticize
each other, I suppose it would be secondary. However we are
diminishing the whole institution by keeping this up. Of the G-7
nations, Canada is either sixth or seventh in terms of the
compensation it offers to its legislators at the national level. It is
not the highest. We are not pigs at the trough. What kind of
nonsense is that?
An hon. member: Garbage.
Mr. Boudria: It is garbage and that is all it is. We are trying to
do the appropriate job for those who sent us here.
I sit with a number of others on the Board of Internal
Economy. We have made cuts everywhere we could and we are
continuing to do that. We are going to continue to strive to do a
good job, one that is economical for those we serve. At the same
time, I say to members across the way that when they start doing
things like saying members are worth nothing or very little, they
do not win.
(1920)
Some members across the floor were high ranking people in
the military. How many people in the military are chauffeured
around with limousines as part of their jobs? Do they have to
account for that every day? Do members of the military have to
put up with this kind of debate about their pensions? No, and I
am not saying they should.
We were told by one member that the normal age of retirement
and getting a pension is 65. That is what he said to us. We are
going to be dealing with bills shortly to bring the retirement age
in the public sector from 55 to as low as 50. So where is the truth
in what we heard earlier? It is not there.
I end on the tone I started on. We made commitments through
the red book. We are going to deliver to the people of Canada. At
the same time, it does not mean we are doing a service to
democracy by doing the damage that some people are trying to
do.
I am now at an age where some of this is starting to make less
and less difference. I am already here. I have been elected. My
children are advancing in terms of university and everything
else. None of this will probably affect me in the future, or if it
does, very little. People who are 25 or 35 years old and want to
run in the next election, I do not want for them to be unable to
run because they cannot afford to, because they cannot afford
the compensation package and because they cannot afford to
leave the workplace.
As I said, I am already here as are all of us, but we have to
remember that we are not here permanently. Others will come
after us. To destroy the institution is serving no one.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I wanted to follow up on my colleague's remarks and
comment on the extensive damage this debate is doing.
I ran as an MP solely because I wanted to serve my country.
Many people on the other side of the House, certainly the
Reform Party, would have us believe they did the same thing and
I believe them. Bloc members also have run as members of
Parliament because they have an idealism, they believe in a
cause. I might not agree with that cause, but they have run for the
very best of principles.
I have received 20 letters on this issue, 20 special letters.
They are from a school in my riding and the children are only 12
years old. Those letters condemn me as a member of Parliament
as a result of this debate. They accuse me of being at the trough.
They ask: Why am I taking these inflated salaries? Why am I
cheating the public? Obviously this group of school children
12233
have a teacher who has the same view as the members of the
Reform Party.
What is happening is this debate has destroyed the face of
those children.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Bryden: Laugh if you will, members of the Reform Party.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. As I said earlier, I
know there are some strongly held views on this debate as is the
case on every debate, but the interventions must be made
through the Chair.
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I was getting a little heated there
anyway. I do want to make the point that it is terrible to read
those letters from those children and to see they have lost faith
in their members of Parliament, not just me but all members of
Parliament and the institution. That is the price of attempting a
political advantage by this debate. That is exactly what it is. The
members who have initiated this debate should really think
twice. I agree with my colleague that they are destroying the
institution and they are destroying the faith of the children in
this land.
(1925 )
Mr. Boudria: In Britain in the 1830s the great reform act was
passed. I think it was eventually passed in 1832, if my memory
serves me. The debate lasted a very long time. The reform act
had two purposes at that time. One was to widen the franchise
because very few people had the right to vote in the United
Kingdom, which included Ireland. Some of the people who
fought the most to ensure both features were included in the
legislation, widening the franchise and giving salaries to MPs,
were the people of Ireland.
It was their feeling that if a person came from a disadvantaged
group the chances of their kind being represented in Parliament
were nil. Daniel O'Connell was elected to the Parliament of the
United Kingdom. He was known as the liberator. The liberator
was elected to Parliament but he came from a very wealthy
family.
In spite of the fact that he was elected, I believe, in 1829 it
took a number of years before others could get elected because
there were no salaries for MPs. If they were fortunate enough to
sit on the government side they had the government benefits at
the time. They had what they called offices; they served in
various functions. If they did not receive government benefits,
as the minority Catholic members obviously would not have,
they received no salary for being an MP. That was seen as being
the biggest disadvantage for people seeking public office.
Widening the franchise enabled everyone to vote and made it
possible for people to seek public office because they had a
salary by which to transport themselves to Parliament. Those
were seen as the two important things. That is the history of that
Parliament. Our lot is not the same and I will not say it is.
I would like to close by saying what I said initially. I was able
to run for election to be an MP notwithstanding that I started
from the lowest rung of the ladder. If I had been rich I could have
run notwithstanding anything else. I was not and I am still not
rich but I was able to run notwithstanding. I am today a member
of Parliament in the highest court of the land representing my
constituents.
Because there is a salary and benefits it makes it possible for
not only wealthy middle aged men to run, but for young people,
people from disadvantaged groups, and all others to come here.
Parliament, if it is a democracy, should be a microcosm of those
we claim to represent. Rich people should have a right to run,
poor people should have a right to run, men and women, all
equally. In our efforts to make things better let us ensure we are
making them better, not worse. That is the point I wish to make.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
(1930 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question is on the
amendment to the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the amendment to the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Amendment to amendment agreed to.)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Resuming debate on the
amendment, as amended, with the hon. member for Kootenay
East.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
interesting to me as an absolute novice in the House that we are
at the mercy of people on the other side like the member who just
spoke. They have parliamentary knowledge having gone to
England and learned at the feet of the masters how to run
different affairs within the House of Commons. It is particularly
disappointing on an issue that is key to my relationship as a
politician with the people I represent that the government would
try through procedure to slip it through the House tonight so that
it could get it under the cover of a committee.
The member from Hamilton talked about the fact that young
people in his constituency have approached him and written him
letters saying that they have a low regard for politicians. The
problem is that he does not understand the actions of the
government today in the House of Commons are a duplication of
the actions of previous governments of the Liberal stripe and of
the Conservative stripe, whereby politicians consistently looked
12234
after themselves to the best of their ability. That is the reflection
these young people have.
We can look at the fancy words in the red book about restoring
integrity and about building bridges between the people in the
constituencies and the politicians. However we see in the
actions tonight, in the total waste of time of this assembly, the
reality. The reality is that the government will do anything it
needs to do to slide this kind of process through the House.
In looking at the issue it is interesting how we as members of
Parliament arrived here. Totally contrary to the assertions made
by the Liberals, the member for Calgary Centre and I as do all of
us agree that the pay package or the actual salary package is
deficient against the number of hours being put in and the level
of responsibility of members of Parliament.
What did previous politicians do? They said that it was too
visible, too transparent, that people would see they were doing
something to change it around. Therefore they came up with the
gold plated pension plan. Now we are faced with a situation
where in taking a look at the pension plan and at the changes
proposed in the legislation currently before the House we simply
compound error upon error. We simply continue to generate a
situation where we have a wall between ourselves and our
constituents.
(1935 )
I find it absolutely astounding for the Liberal members to
assert that somehow it is only in Reform constituencies, that it is
only our constituents who are concerned about this issue.
It makes me think of when we were having a debate about the
very meagre, weak-kneed measures that were brought forward
by this government with respect to the Young Offenders Act. We
were having a debate in this House of Commons, I believe on the
Thursday immediately prior to the Liberal convention.
Reform members of Parliament were being told that
everything was fine and the only place where there were any
problems and any desire to make changes to the Young
Offenders Act was in the Reform constituencies. What an
amazing thing. There were only 52 constituencies out of 295 that
had a problem with the Young Offenders Act, or so it was being
represented by the Liberals.
It was particularly fascinating that what ensued out of the
convention convened by the Liberals on the Friday, Saturday
and Sunday is that members of their constituency organizations
told them that Reform was right. They told them that there was a
problem.
Could someone inform me what the annual membership fee is
to be a Liberal party member? I assume one has to pay or do they
give them away?
Mr. Knutson: Ten dollars.
Mr. Abbott: Ten dollars. In other words, for people in Canada
to get a message through to Liberal members of Parliament they
should line up, pay their $10 and then maybe they will be
listened to within the confines of one of those meetings. That
seems to be the only place that this kind of communication is
actually taking place.
I am relating this young offenders story specifically to this
issue. The situation in this House is that within our party, as
members of Parliament, we walk around trade fairs and we walk
up and down the streets in our constituencies and people
approach us saying that this is the issue. I challenge members
present to tell me with a straight face that people in their
constituencies do not see this as a problem. I cannot comprehend
that this is a problem in only 52 constituencies.
One of the problems it has created is when one ends up with
the travelling information gathering road shows the government
puts on. I should not say that in such a way because it does sound
rather denigrating. When the government makes an effort to
listen to the people it moves a standing committee around
Canada.
As an example, the member for Cape Breton
Highlands-Canso went around last fall getting input on social
programs. I wonder if there were any walls between him as the
chair of that standing committee and the people he was talking
to about the downgrading that was going to have to happen with
respect to social programs. According to the figures I have in my
hand, if he were to resign today he would be eligible for
$1,495,663. Yet he in that capacity, in spite of being eligible for
$1,495,663, was telling people: ``I am sorry, we are going to
have to downgrade the social programs''.
There is that kind of wall. I appeal to the best sense, if they
have best sense, of the people on the other side of the House. I
ask them to listen to the people if they ever go to trade shows or
if they ever go walking up and down the streets.
If they listened they would hear that the issue is the major
barrier between all of us as politicians and ordinary Canadian
citizens. It is simply not right that we should be able to have a
program three times as generous as can be had in the private
sector. It is a wall; it is a barrier. I appeal to members opposite to
take another look, to wipe out the existing legislation and go
with $1 to $1. Let us get out of the faces of ordinary Canadians
and break down the wall.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The question is on the
amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
amendment as amended?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
12235
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:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): At the request of the
representative of the whip of the official opposition, pursuant to
Standing Order 45, the recorded division on the motion now
before the House stands deferred until Monday at the usual hour
of daily adjournment, at which time the bells to call in the
members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.
The House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant
to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 7.43 p.m.)