Debates of June 8th, 1995

Members Of Parliament Retiringallowances Act

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am truly sad to have to speak to legislation as deplorable as Bill C-85, the pension bill.

It could be described with many words. I could use the words ignorant, arrogant, indefensible. I think those words probably describe the authors of this legislation as well but they do not even adequately describe how terrible it is. The words it takes to describe the legislation are unparliamentary; I cannot use them. What really troubles me is the government is embarrassed about the legislation and will not even allow a proper debate.

I sat across the table from the Solicitor General of Canada, the government House leader, and he looked me in the eye and said the government will very rarely use closure. He gave me his word we would see the government use time allocation and closure far less than its predecessor, the arrogant Mulroney regime.

Being a new and maybe idealistic member of Parliament, I took the solicitor general's statement to heart that perhaps we were to see a new era in Canadian politics. Perhaps we were to see some progress in this place where we could work together and build a country worthy of the people we are supposed to represent. I was wrong, terribly disappointed.

The government has introduced time allocation and closure far more than the Mulroney government which it vigorously criticized for that undemocratic procedure. The government has introduced in only 19 months a far greater percentage of closure motions regarding bills than the Mulroney administration. That is deplorable and disappointing.

It is particularly disappointing that the government would use such a draconian measure on a bill that gives us personal gain. It is unconscionable, it is wrong. I cannot think of words I can use in the House to adequately describe how troubled I am by the measures the government is taking and the lengths it will go to impose its will on me as a member of Parliament vigorously opposed to the legislation and on Canadians who in no uncertain terms told every member of the House, Liberals as well as Block and Reform members, the pension plan needed to be reformed to that of the private sector on a one to one basis or a self-funded pension plan.

The government has introduced a bill in which it will not allow future MPs to opt out and which is illegal under the income tax act. It will have to put special legislation in place to allow the plan to be legal. The draconian measures it is implementing to get the bill through are truly disappointing. I feel bad for Canadians who will receive such bad representation and bad legislation from the Liberal government.

I am not sure if NDP members will accept this plan. I challenge them to go back to their roots. They came of an agrarian movement, the CCF movement in Saskatchewan. I challenge them to go back to those roots of simple, hard working people who believed a dollar gained was a dollar that should have been earned, and they would not stoop to the levels this bill would impose on them if they agreed to opt into the pension plan.

To the hon. members for Mackenzie and Regina-Qu'Appelle, Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, Regina-Lumsden and The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, I challenge them to opt out of the pension plan as the Reform MPs from Saskatchewan are to do.

I will focus my few remaining minutes on the Liberal members from Saskatchewan. At the top of the list is the cabinet representative from Saskatchewan, the hon. member for Regina-Wascana. He was here years ago and has come back. He was put into cabinet. He is a lawyer. I do not think he understands agriculture very well but he certainly knows how to make money on a pension plan because by the age of 75 he will qualify for $1.64 million. He does not even apologize for that outrageous amount.

Then there is the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt. It is rather embarrassing this member was even nominated in her constituency. She had to be anointed by the leader of the Liberal Party. She did not even have support in her own constituency. They had to cancel the nomination meeting and bypass the democratic process so she would be the candidate who would run in Saskatoon-Humboldt. She will receive almost $1 million from the pension plan should she live to the age of 75. That is assuming, and I think it is a fairly safe assumption, she will never become a Cabinet minister. It would certainly be higher if she did.

Then there is the hon. member for Souris-Moose Mountain-

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am quite disturbed that the member would make a personal attack on a member who is not here and impugn somehow that she has done something wrong.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

With the greatest of respect, that is not a point of order. I certainly listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster and there was no reference to the presence or absence of any member. He was referring to the riding, which is the appropriate way to refer to members in the Chamber.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this is certainly a very personal matter because the pension affects us. I am trying to abide by the rules of the House and I appreciate your consideration of that.

Should Bill C-85 be passed by the House, the hon. member for Souris-Moose Mountain, a somewhat older member, would receive about a quarter of a million dollars.

Then there is the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River who is a much younger member. Should he live to be age 75 he will receive $.83 million should he remain a backbencher for the rest of his career.

The NDP and the Liberal MPs from Saskatchewan, there are about ten, would have benefits approximating $1 million each. They would siphon out of the taxpayers' pockets approximately $10 million.

In Saskatchewan we are hard working, industrious and honest people. We work hard for our money and we are quite proud of what we have received as a result of our labours. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the people of Saskatchewan do not approve of the pension plan. I heard it wherever I went. I had calls and letters from people in my province thanking me for agreeing to opt out of the plan. They said I am doing the right thing. They have been very encouraging. It encourages me to plan the next election campaign not only for Saskatchewan but for the entire country, whenever the government has the nerve to call an election. We will go out there and bring more Reformers into the House who will reject these types of unreasonable personal gains at the taxpayers' expense.

I challenge Liberals from Saskatchewan to do the right thing and get out of the plan. They can, they have the option, they do not have to stay in the plan, not one of them. If they want to really please their constituents I know beyond a shadow of a doubt they have no choice but to get out of the pension plan. I commit to the House today to do everything in my power to keep them from being re-elected if they do not do the right thing and opt out of the plan.

[Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais, Liberal, Madawaska—Victoria, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening for a few hours to the remarks and sometimes even the flights of fancy of Reform members, and I would like to remind this House that the Reform Party is against employment equity, against the fact that this Parliament includes women and treats its members equitably.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to make a comment about the hon. member's remarks that we are against women and looking after retirement-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Again respectfully I say to the member for Beaver River that it is not a point of order. Certainly it could be a point of clarification or it could be a matter of debate but it is not a point of order.

[Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais, Liberal, Madawaska—Victoria, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The members of this House who have been here for more than a year should be quite familiar with parliamentary procedure. If the hon. member wishes to respond to my comments, she is welcome to do so, but not by rising on a question of privilege, as she just did.

In the old days, members of Parliament belonged to the financial elite of Canadian society. The Canadian people eventually rebelled and decided that those showing leadership in each of their communities-regardless of social and financial status, age and gender-were entitled to adequate compensation for their work so that they could represent the people properly.

In 1987, I was elected to the New Brunswick legislature for the first time at the age of 31. As in all the other legislatures, there is a pension plan for the people's representatives in the legislative assembly. In 1993, one year before having accumulated all the accrued credits for the Government of New Brunswick pension plan, I chose to run in the election to represent the people of Madawaska-Victoria in this Parliament.

Unlike some Reform members, I do not have an already established provincial pension fund and cheques coming in every month. Neither do I have millions of dollars in the bank or an armed forces pension like certain Reform members. Judging by the hubbub coming from that direction, it sounds as if I hit a very raw nerve in some of my hon. colleagues.

I would also like to remind this House that a Reform member who is a millionaire is rumoured to have said that members of Parliament, in Canada, are not paid what they are worth, and that they should be paid at least $150,000 per year. Again, whatever the topic of discussion, be it members's pensions, official languages or what not, there is this great flip flop. Name the topic, listen to the speeches, and you will notice this flip flop.

I would like to come back to a very sensitive issue that I am committed to, and that is to ensure that, in any election, the people of Canada, from coast to coast, can vote freely, without social, financial or fiscal status considerations coming into play, for the person who can best represent them proudly and honestly in this place. It is the least we can do, as Canadian parliamentarians, for the people of Canada.

I must say in all honesty that, as the member for Madawaska-Victoria, when I look at the work I am doing for the people I represent, I have no qualms of conscience whatsoever about the salary, pension or what not I get from the Parliament of Canada to serve the people of Madawaska-Victoria.

I hope that, even though they are against employment equity, my hon. colleagues from the Reform Party, will be honest and recognize that. I would call upon the hon. member for Lethbridge in particular to rise in this House today and say: "Now that I am no longer a provincial member of Parliament, I relinquish the pension I earned as a MPP. I relinquish this money I am putting in my pocket every month right now". I also call upon him to be true to what he believes in and honest with the people he represents.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we do not have much time left. I am not sure how much time it will take to try to talk some sense into this false debate.

We have looked at the pension program that has gone on for years in this place. People stand and say: "I have no problem with the pay that I get or with the pension that I am going to get". May they realize that when they say they are worth it that is fine in their estimation; maybe they think they are worth it. We will see what the voters think they are worth at the polls the next time around.

When we look at a pension plan which is simply seven times more generous than any public sector plan and four times more generous than any private sector plan, how in the world can anyone stand in their place and not be ashamed of it? Why are we any more special?

Are we in favour of special status for some? No. That is why the Reform Party came to this place. We do not think groups of people should have special status. Yet we hear people inside this hall saying: "We deserve it. We are worth it because we work hard". It just does not add up.

I see my friend from Edmonton East here. I want to make a comment about that. Is this person going to opt out? The government has allowed members of Parliament elected in 1988 and forward to opt out. Why only some of us get the option to opt out I do not know, unless it is politically motivated. I am challenging her to opt out of the pension plan because she cannot sell it in downtown Edmonton. Our ridings abut. I challenge her to a debate in my riding or in hers. We will take on toe to toe. We will talk about this pension plan. I will bet my pension plan that she will not be able to sell it there.

Not only that. I challenge my friend from Edmonton North as well who thinks that he is able to collect a plan. I am challenging him today, and I have some respect for him, to opt out of the plan because he will never sell it in Edmonton North.

I am challenging my friend from Edmonton Northwest to opt out of the plan too because she has the option to opt out. She does not exactly have a huge healthy majority with which she slipped into this place. I think the last count officially was that it was by 11 votes that she came into this place. I challenge my friend from Edmonton Northwest to a debate, as I do my friends from Edmonton North and Edmonton East, in my riding or theirs. I will be happy to do it. I land in Edmonton every week at the Edmonton airport before I drive three hours home. I challenge her to a debate. I also challenge her to opt out of the plan willy-nilly, just do it. If ever she has a hope of getting re-elected, even with her cabinet money that she is able to throw into it, just do it. She should not just think about it but just do it. I ask her to come to Beaver River and have a debate, or I will go there and have a debate. I guarantee I will get off at the municipal airport. It is right handy there. Let us have a debate toe to toe.

The longest serving MP in the House from Alberta is my friend from Edmonton Southeast for whom I have an incredible amount of respect. I am challenging him as well to opt out of the plan. There is no technical way he can do it because of the way the legislation is written. Only members elected in 1988 or beyond are able to do it. Edmonton Southeast, I will be there for a debate on the pension plan, or he can come to my riding, any

place any time. I will get off the aeroplane in Edmonton. Let us have a debate and see how it goes.

The member who just spoke before me tried somehow to drag in employment equity or the fact that as a woman I am hard done by in this place. There are many women in this place and there is no way they are able to justify the pension plan regardless of gender, race or ethnic background. Absolutely not.

I am being heckled by two rookie female MPs. The third one is not making any comments at this point. However, as I stand here as a women I tell not only these members but every Canadian woman that I will make it on my own and that as a woman I do not need special treatment-

[Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais, Liberal, Madawaska—Victoria, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to say first that I am not a rookie. Second, I have been challenged to-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

With the greatest of respect to all my colleagues, again this is not a point of order. All these matters might be taken up at another time and another place.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, try as they might through points of order, through heckling or whatever, let me rephrase my last statement. I am a woman in Canada and I am proud of that fact, but I do not need to claim any extra treatment or special status for the fact that I deserve somehow an MP pension. I do not.

If we talk about employment equity, let me be equal with every other woman in the country who will receive a pension plan that is fair, just the way every other Canadian does it. I do not need that special treatment because I am a woman. Neither do they. It is as simple as that.

Let me just finish by saying that I was disappointed in what I have seen in this debate. When I was listening to the debate as it was going on and when I heard time allocation being invoked today it made me sad. I sat and had coffee in the last Parliament. It was not with these rookies or first term members. You were there too, Mr. Speaker. We visited and said that if the Liberals got into power or if they became government next time we would not see the same arrogance we saw in the Mulroney years.

I see someone standing to get my attention. I appreciate that so much but she is not being recognized. She should sit down and relax. I know this hurts.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I did not hear anyone asking to rise on a point of order. Unless the member for Beaver River has completed her remarks, I would not recognize anyone else on debate. 5:30 is coming up.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, 5:30 is coming up and so is the next election. I challenge all these people. I have watched the debate today and saw people trying to defend something which is simply indefensible. The Canadian public is watching today and I bet it is scandalized. Who pays for these pensions anyway? It is the people who are sending in tax money.

They talk about: "the government looking after me because don't you know I have given service, years, time and energy to this place". Nobody forced me to do it. I chose to be here as did all of us, which was the best thing we could do. When we think about the people who are sending in every dollar of their tax money and financing this thing it is unbelievable.

After question period this afternoon some farmer from the area-I do not even know who he was-brought a little truckload of piglets up here and there they were, Liberal MPs right in at the trough. It is terrible to have to denigrate a little piglet that way but that is the way it is.

As I saw those little piglets I said to the interviewer: "How do you feel about this?" When I see Liberal members, because that is who is bringing this bill in and ramming it through, forcing this through, saying they deserve better, they think they are wonderful and it is unanimous; it is a pity to see them squealing and trying to justify this. With that the little piglet let out a squeal. It made me think I was sitting in the House of Commons. It is shameful and a price will be paid in the next election, believe me.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.

Criminal Code

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

moved that Bill C-301, an act to amend the Criminal Code (violent crimes), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-301 is the culmination of a commitment I made to my constituents in Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca in 1993. I made a commitment to bring the bill forward in the interest of public safety for them and for all Canadians from coast to coast.

I am disappointed the bill was not made votable considering the fact it has a precedent in the United States where it has been passed and enacted in over 26 states. It is commonly called the three strikes, you are out bill to deal with violent offenders, repeat violent offenders.

The hallmarks of justice are the protection of society, restitution to the victim, rehabilitation and protection of the individual. The bill comes as the culmination of the public outrage I hear not only in my riding but from police officers across the land from coast to coast. It is an area where they feel the justice department does not protect them. It does not protect them from individuals who continually fly in the face of the norms of

human behaviour, instead exhibiting extreme human behaviours that show a total disregard for innocent people.

Bill C-301 deals with those individuals who on three separate occasions commit a violent offence that will put them in jail for 25 years without parole. Again, the purpose is to protect innocent civilians. Too often innocent civilians are not protected in society today.

Mr. Speaker, we seem to have two debate going on here which is very intriguing.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. I wonder if I might seek the co-operation of members to take other business behind the curtains or outside the Chamber.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read some statistics from the United States. According to the FBI index, this is very interesting-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I have a point of order from the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria.

Points Of Order

[Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais, Liberal, Madawaska—Victoria, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to have an apology from a certain member who just came over here, tried to bully me around and actually physically pushed me. That is not the kind of respect we should receive in the House.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I am aware a conversation was going on. I say with the greatest respect to the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria, who raised the point of order, I do not see it as a point of order. I am trying to think of another way that we may be able to deal with this point.

I wonder if the Chair could be given some time to give some thought to the matter. I would encourage the member also to seek the guidance of the Speaker's office. We can return to this matter some other time. At this time, to the best of my knowledge and ability, I say respectfully, that I do not see a point of privilege.

[Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais, Liberal, Madawaska—Victoria, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I think that-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Let us just take this very slowly. While I am standing you can speak all you want, but it is not being recorded. If there is something new to be added to the point of order I will listen but I hope we can be somewhat succinct and concise and the matter can be dealt with at the appropriate time in the appropriate fashion. I firmly believe at this time there is not a point of order.

[Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais, Liberal, Madawaska—Victoria, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the member in question was the member for Beaver River and it was an assault on me.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Again, I do not rule that there is a point of privilege at this time. I will give an undertaking to the House that I will seek the guidance of the Speaker's office concerning the matter being raised. I encourage the parties involved to do likewise because I do not feel at this point, as far as I can judge, there is a point of order.

The House will return now to private members' hour.