Bill C-28 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the Salaries Act

Parliament Of Canada Act

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I sat in the House most of the day and listened to the debate on Bill C-28. I particularly enjoyed the speech made by the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain.

I have empathy with him because I can suggest to the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain that when I put my name forward and was elected on November 27 for the second time never was this an election issue. I remember debating quite frequently with candidates from the Liberal side of the House. Never did they ever put forward the suggestion that one of the first orders of business on coming to the House would be to look at members' pay packets and to put forward some compensation changes.

We talked about health care and agriculture. In my case we talked about defence and the possibility of the PPCLI coming to Shilo. We talked about all major issues that were necessary during an election campaign but not once did the topic of members' compensation packages come up.

I mention that because I appreciate what the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain is saying and what the government is doing, particularly the Prime Minister. He should take full responsibility because he is putting the hon. member and other hon. members not only on this side of the House but on that side of the House in a very difficult position.

Our party has said, and I will get into my own personal circumstance later, that it was unfair to put members of parliament in the position of voting on their own compensation packages for the same reasons the member just articulated. We said that if we were going to put together a reasonable pay package or compensation package for members of parliament, it should be done for the next parliament.

Let us have the studies, let us have the suggestions as to what a reasonable amount of money is for members of parliament and put that forward in the next parliament, so that when we sit on the podium and debate the issues we know that everyone is equal, we know that the next decision has already been made and that is what one is trying to attain.

When I ran for parliament I knew what the compensation was and I was happy with it. By the way, surprisingly enough, I am still happy with that compensation.

I said the party position was that we should do it for the next parliament. I had a previous life and was a politician in that life. I lived by that rule. Unfortunately or fortunately, whichever way one may look at it, it did not quite work out that way.

On principle I also said not to give me a raise in my capacity as mayor, but if people wanted to attract someone to replace me in the next election, then put that forward in the next campaign and in the next election. My council of the day decided that that was not going to happen and it was passed by my council on my behalf. Yes, I took it because I felt that it was something the council wished to put into legislation. It was accepted.

Honestly, in principle, I still believe it should be for the next parliament. Then the hon. member from Souris—Moose Mountain would not be put in this position, would not have to vote no against it, would not have to say he was not going to take it and become in my mind a lesser member of parliament than members on the backbench of the Liberals. There will be a two tier system and we will talk about it later. However, first we should do is make the decision now for the next parliament, not for this parliament.

We also have in this piece of legislation a suggestion that committee chairs should be compensated for their jobs. I have thought about this quite often actually, because there are different levels of compensation for different levels of responsibility. I might even accept that but for the fact that those chairs are appointed by the Prime Minister. There is no open and honest election. In fact we tried that. I know the Alliance Party suggested that there should be at the very least a secret ballot, and there should be.

I have a lot of good faith with committee work. I think committees could work extremely well and probably better than they are now if there were a less partisan member sitting as the chair of a committee. Let us have secret ballots. Let us have, goodness gracious, the possibility of a member of the opposition sitting as the chair, as opposed to the chair having to be a member of the government. That is shocking.

Would it not be wonderful if we could have a member of the opposition as the chair of a committee? Then the committee could operate as a true committee, not as one that is being tailored either by the minister's hand or by the Prime Minister's hand. Again, I and my party do not accept the fact that there should be additional compensation for the chair unless it is an open, honest and true election for the chair of a particular committee.

I think it was mentioned earlier in debate, but we also believe there should not be any retroactivity. We were elected on November 27.

[Rob Anders, Canadian Alliance, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Young Offenders Act has created and worsened problems with serious repeat offenders for years and a registry of pedophiles would help curtail the sexual predation of children.

I could go on with a lot of things that the House could be dealing with, but instead for three parliaments these and other issues have not been substantially or satisfactorily dealt with. However, the MP compensation package which we are debating today will spend less than a week here in the House of Commons.

By comparison, some legislation in this place is dealt with in a glacially slow manner, while some, like this legislation, passes in what is the equivalent of the blink of an eye. I have constituents who over the last little while have been rightly complaining about that process.

M. Spevack wrote me today over the Internet. One question posed was “What is the urgency that it has to be passed in three days, since it is retroactive to January anyway?” That is a perfectly good question. If this is retroactively applying legislation there is no need to have this done in three days, in less than a week.

The other question this constituent posed was “Why can't other, more important legislation pass as quickly?” That is something that we should all spend some serious time contemplating about. I hope our constituents at home over the summer will remind members of parliament of that.

For the last six days I have been trying to do what I could, wrapping up yesterday, by doing my best to deprive unanimous consent from the government House leader to fast track this legislation. It involved some sacrifice on my part, but I thought it was important because the process we engaged in last time was an atrocious one. I thought we at least could learn from that example and better what we would do this time. I cannot say we have made much of an improvement over the last time because the process has been almost as fast.

The government House leader then rose in his place just across the way and used Standing Order 56.1, a fairly obscure procedure used an average of maybe twice a year. It basically fast tracked the legislation and imposed closure on the debate. Since 25 opposition members did not stand it was done. It was as simple as that because he is a minister of the crown.

The standing order is not something which has existed from the beginning of time with regard to parliamentary procedure. It was created on April 11, 1991. It has only been used five times since 1998: Monday, April 12, 1999; March 22, 1999; March 19, 1999; June 9, 1998; and the last time which I traced back for the purposes of this debate was February 9, 1998. It just goes to show how obscure some of these things are and that when the government is intent it will find a way to get its will.

I also rose on a point of order today right after question period. I was seeking the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw the order passed by the government House leader on Monday, June 4, pursuant to the standing order. It was forcing a fast track and all stage guillotine of Bill C-28, the bill that deals with MP and senator compensation. I was deprived of that unanimous consent.

I will speak to the commission because a lot of people have spoken with regard to the independent commission. The commission recommended that there be no increase in the MP pension plan as a result of these changes. I would like to read into the record what the commission said on page 20 of its report. It said:

The commission recommends that these changes not result in any material impact, either positive or negative, to the benefits that parliamentarians receive from the pension plan.

That was the committee's recommendation. Instead we have in Bill C-28 an increase in total compensation from $109,500 to $131,400 for the House, and from $88,200 to $105,840 for the Senate, and that it will have a commensurate impact on the pension.

I want to read into the record the other recommendation of the commission found on page 26. It said the legislation should be “retroactive to April 1, 2001, once the legislation is proclaimed”. That is not what the legislation has done. It has not followed the recommendation of the commission. It went ahead and made it retroactive from January 1.

My party is going to move an amendment to the legislation to the effect that the pay raise should come into force after the next general election. The reason we are proposing this amendment is so that the decision of parliament would be implemented after a subsequent election. This would avoid the conflict of interest members of parliament would have in voting on their own salary increases, rather than that of those who follow them, which I think would be the wiser course of action.

Those encapsulate some of my real problems with this process and as well how the policy did not follow even what the commission recommended to the tee.

I would like to lay out what I think would be an improvement to the situation. It is not party policy. It is something that I happen to believe.

I believe we should have a super retirement savings plan, similar to an RRSP, but it would be mandatory. Five per cent of individuals' salaries, whether they were janitors, presidents of a corporation, members of parliament or prime ministers for that matter, would be set aside in this account. People would know what they were contributing to their own fund. They would know the total amount of moneys they had contributed and what type of return on investment they would actually be getting.

I challenge any member in this place or anybody for that matter to know exactly how much they have put into the Canada pension plan and what benefits would be accruing to them. I would allow people to invest in bonds, treasury bills, guaranteed investment certificates and even mutual funds because in that way it would be owned by the individuals and not by the government. There would be a personal stake in making sure they knew what was happening with those funds.

I think people are fairly intelligent and they respond to incentives. The more people who work under a bureaucrat, just as an example, the more the bureaucrat earns, and so bureaucrats tend to build empires. That is the nature of government. It is a problem.

Madsen Pirie, with the Adam Smith Institute, in his book Blueprint for a Revolution , laid out how we could combat that natural built in incentive in any bureaucracy or corporation, and that is to reward people for saving taxpayer dollars.

Some of my constituents have raised concerns about the whole MP pay package because it did not have merit based pay nor performance indicators. I think our salary could be tied to our attendance, to whether or not we cast votes as we are hired to do and to whether or not we have a presence on a committee of our choice. I would even go so far as to link our salary to producing a balanced budget, lowering taxes and, for my friends in the New Democratic Party and others, maybe even having a social component to it so that if there were increased literacy, decreased surgery waiting lists, lower homicide rates or longer life expectancies, it would affect the performance rating for a member of parliament.

I will vote against the bill affecting MP's and Senator's compensation. I voted against many bills before because of their flaws, whether it was with the policy or the process, and I will have to oppose the bill as well.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As we are debating Bill C-28 at second reading, I have the Standing Orders of the House of Commons here. Chapter II, Standing Order 21 reads:

No Member is entitled to vote upon any question in which he or she has a direct pecuniary interest, and the vote of any Member so interested will be disallowed.

It seems to me, based on the standing orders and Bill C-28 which we are debating, that there is a clear conflict. Could the Speaker please rule on this?

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

And the private sector also. The issue of MPs' salaries has always been a contentious one. Accordingly, the Canadian Alliance will treat each vote on the bill as a free vote for our members.

The member over there can smile and laugh but that is what the House is all about; it is about integrity and making one's position and one's point with a free vote.

If members of that party over there want to talk about integrity, I would ask them to talk about the minister for multiculturalism and her integrity about flags burning in Prince George. If they want to about integrity, we will talk about that. If they want to talk about integrity, let us talk about Bill C-15 and how they will not split a bill that is very important for all Canadians. We are prepared to do that.

The government also did one thing that was not put in the report by the commission. The commission recommended that it be retroactive to April 1. The government wants it to be January 1. That is greedy and not acceptable. It should be April 1, which is our fiscal year. That would have been fine with members on this side.

It has also been the policy of the Canadian Alliance that our constituents have their say on the issue of MPs' salary increases. Accordingly, we will move at the report stage that the increase, if passed, come into force after the next general election. This fulfils our policy that voters be involved in the issue.

There is a strange twist in Bill C-28, and it is something that I think should be talked about. I have checked for precedent, including with the crucible of our parliamentary system Westminster. I can find no precedent. Bill C-28 calls for an opting in, in order to receive a salary increase. I have heard of opting out, which of course we saw in the issue of MP pensions. However Bill C-28 has an implied threat that if anyone does not sign on in 90 days, then one does not receive the salary increase.

The Prime Minister's threat of a week ago has come home to roost. It is intimidation, which I find unparliamentary. The government, obviously as instructed by the Prime Minister, is entertaining the notion of two classes of MPs. Rather than take the recorded vote as final determination on the bill, and consequently salary increases, the government is holding MPs hostage to another step in the process: sign a document within 90 days of passage of this bill indicating they are opting in or they will receive less than other colleagues.

Even the House leader said that is unacceptable. Nobody in the House should be earning any different from anybody else, yet it is in the bill.

Is this not a form of double jeopardy? It certainly is stealthy politics in an already sensitive and contentious issue. Why would the government want to add further dimension to the issue other than to embarrass certain MPs from certain parties? Passage of a bill on third reading in our parliamentary system is final determination. Does the government have the constitutional right to alter this entrenched process? That is a very good question.

The new way of determining the outcome of articles in legislation may even contravene pay equity. Does the government have the right to establish two classes of MPs? I may not be stretching the point by saying that this opting in initiative may be an affront to parliament itself.

Section 31 of the charter of rights and freedoms states that nothing in the charter extends the legislative powers of any body or authority. Is the government overextending its legislative powers by the addition of this fourth step, the new opting in requirements in Bill C-28?

The nuances of opting out of something as opposed to being forced to opt into something that the majority of parliament may pass is not subtle. It is a dynamic and dramatic departure from legislative precedent and nothing but intimidation and mendacity on the part of the government.

There is an implied threat in Bill C-28 that has no place in our parliament. Politics may ensue during debate on a bill, but I do not believe that a political manipulation should be encapsulated in a bill and then foisted on MPs after passage of a bill. It is a mockery of our process and diminishes the significance of the three stages of the passing of legislation. Why have debate? We could anonymously sign on to any initiative and that would determine the outcome. Has the government become that arrogant?

In view of that clause of the bill, I move:

That the motion be amended by replacing all the words after the word “That” with the following:

“this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-28, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the Salaries Act, since the principle of the bill contravenes the spirit of pay equity by establishing a two tier pay scheme for Members of Parliament.”

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved that Bill C-28, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the Salaries Act, be read the second time and referred to committee of the whole.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-28, which I had the honour to introduce yesterday.

As members of parliament, we have a responsibility for fairness and accountability in all of our work in this House as representatives of Canadian taxpayers. This is particularly true for the matter of parliamentary compensation.

The Parliament of Canada Act requires that an independent commission be set up after each election to review the allowances of parliamentarians. A commission, chaired this time by the hon. Ed Lumley, was appointed on January 12 of this year. The Lumley commission's report was tabled last Tuesday, May 29, in the House.

The Lumley commission concluded that the current compensation for parliamentarians needed to be made more transparent and brought into line with compensation for other similar professions.

The commission remarked:

Parliamentarians' salaries are important, not just to the members of parliament themselves, but to all citizens; certainly, how we compensate members of parliament can influence the ability to attract good candidates.

The bill before us today is straightforward. It implements the Lumley commission's recommendations.

Let me outline the key provisions of the bill. First, the current tax free allowance is eliminated. Many people had asked for that. It is to be converted into a taxable amount and added to the base salary of parliamentarians. This will increase the transparency in parliamentary compensation.

Second, the base salary of members is to be increased by 20%.

Third, a new allowance is provided for committee chairs and vice-chairs. This recognizes the valuable contribution and the responsibilities of such workloads. It also builds on the commitment the government made in the throne speech to increase Library of Parliament research and support parliamentary committees. Together these measures will strengthen our committee system as part of our ongoing work on parliamentary reform.

Fourth, parliamentary compensation would be based from here on in on the compensation of the supreme court chief justice. This is not a new idea. Officers of parliament, such as the information commissioner and the chief electoral officer, already receive the same compensation as a federal court judge, so the precedent is there for officers of the House. What we are proposing here is to do the same for parliamentarians.

Under Bill C-28, the prime minister would receive the same compensation as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, not one dollar more but the same compensation. Most Canadians probably believe that was already the case. Ministers would receive 74% of the salary of the chief justice; parliamentary secretaries, 55%; and members of the House, 50%. Senators would receive 50% of the salary of the chief justice, minus $25,000, which is the difference between the current tax free allowance between the House and the senate.

This would restore parliamentary compensation closer to the levels we used to have. For example, members may be interested to note that in 1963, when the Deputy Prime Minister was first elected to parliament, or thereabouts, a member of the House of Commons earned at the time 12% more than a federal court judge. Today a member earns 54% less than the same judge.

Even if the bill were to pass, which I hope it will, a member would still earn 36% less than a judge when the same person would have earned more a few decades ago.

In 1980 the prime minister earned 28% more than the chief justice of the supreme court. Today, as we speak, the Prime Minister earns 42% less than the chief justice. Under the bill the Prime Minister would earn the same salary, not more but the same.

In the future, changes to the compensation of the chief justice would be applied to parliamentarians. This means that the current political process for parliamentary compensation will end. Under Bill C-28 parliamentary compensation would apply to results of the completely independent and non-partisan process established for judicial compensation. If it is any consolation, if we adopt the bill hopefully we will not have to go through this exercise again.

Members will not have to be placed in the sometimes difficult position, and I acknowledge that it is for some, of having to decide their own compensation level. It makes parliamentary compensation more accountable to Canadian taxpayers because from here on in it will be strictly based on this independent commission that also acts for the judiciary.

The Lumley commission recommended that parliamentary pensions be adjusted to limit the cost impact of higher compensation levels I have just outlined. To this end, Bill C-28 reduces the accrual rate from 4% to 3% for members of the House. It would remain the same for members of the Senate. They are already at 3%. This is a 25% reduction in the accrual rate which would reduce the pension costs that would have resulted from the higher parliamentary compensation. At the same time, it is to be noted that the premiums of members of parliament to the compensation, and this was not raised yesterday by the so-called taxpayers foundation, would be increased by $2,900 a year. This makes the plan more sound. I think everyone who is an objective observer will recognize that.

The lower accrual would mean that the number of years to accumulate a pension equal to 75% compensation, in other words the maximum pension, would now be 25 years. Surely no one can claim that it is the wrong approach. That is the correct approach. Only 5 out of 301 members sitting in the House today have 25 years of service. The average tenure in the House, for the information of Canadians, is about eight years. When I was re-elected as a government member in 1993, it had dropped down at that point to some six years.

Most people are not here for a very long time and certainly would not collect that full pension that it was alleged yesterday we would. In addition, the number of years for a member's pension would be made the same as it is in the public service.

The bill would also extend the current disability allowance, which is available to members up to age 65 right now, to age 75 or the date of the next election. Again, this is keeping in conformity with what is done in the Judge's Act. Although this provision is not specifically mentioned in the Lumley commission report, it is based on representations made by parliamentarians.

Bill C-28 would also adjust the designation of Parliament Hill by moving the boundary from Bank Street to Kent Street to take account of recent changes and for the new justice building which will now form part of the parliamentary precinct.

In conclusion, I would like to thank all the members of the commission for their work: the commission chair, the hon. Ed Lumley, and the other members of the commission, the hon. Jake Epp and Dr. Huguette Labelle.

The commission's work reflects their consultations with all parties, with outside experts in the area of compensation, and with other interested Canadians.

I also wish to thank all members of the House for their approach to this very important issue.

The support of members on both sides of this House for the recommendations of the Lumley commission is evidence that the commission's recommendations are reasonable.

The praise of many commentators from the private sector and many members on both sides of the House also indicates the fairness of the bill before us today.

The broad support of Canadians for the Lumley report shows that the provisions of this bill are fair. I would therefore invite all members to support this bill.

I hope that all members will sign the form in order to be part of this bill and adhere to it.

Finally, should some members not wish to vote for the bill, I still hope they will adhere to the bill and sign up for the benefits. I sincerely believe that all members of parliament are equally worthy of the high task asked of us all, and I hope they will not only support the bill but adhere to the clause of being part of it.

Presence In Gallery

[Rob Anders, Canadian Alliance, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw the order passed on Monday, June 4 pursuant to Standing Order 56(1) by the hon. government House leader forcing a fast track and all stage guillotine on Bill C-28.

Parliament Of Canada Act

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-28, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the Salaries Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)