Debates of June 5th, 2001

Parliament Of Canada Act

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Alliance has repeatedly called for an independent commission to make recommendations regarding MPs' salaries. It is entrenched Canadian Alliance Party policy that the issue and process of MP salaries be transparent. The commission's work has been transparent. I commend the commissioners for their contributions to the issue.

I also commend them for making sure that in the future the Prime Minister will not appoint any more commissions to look at pay, it will be done by the people who look at the judges' salaries, which is independent. They are appointed by the judges plus judicial counsel, both sides agreeing on an independent chairperson. That is a good recommendation and I commend the commission for that.

The Canadian Alliance is pleased that the commission recommended a reduction in the accrual and contributions rate in the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act.

The Canadian Alliance has also promoted the concept that MPs' pensions should be more in line with the private sector. The commission has concurred and we thank them for that acknowledgement.

I know the day we got the report from the commission as house leaders, it was recommending a 2.5% accrual rate. The government had seen to make it 3%. I wish it would have stayed with the 2.5% because that was more acceptable and much closer to the public sector.

[An hon. member]

And the private sector.

[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.”

[The Speaker]

The Chair finds the amendment to be in order.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a bit awkward to speak to a bill like Bill C-28, since it is a matter of parliamentarians addressing the remuneration of members of the House.

Given that there are nevertheless certain unavoidable things that have to be dealt with, certain obligations connected to the position of member of parliament, I believe that we must, as democratically elected representatives of the people, get directly to the subject of concern to us, that is the remuneration of the 301 members of this House.

Given the sensitive nature of the situation, the government decided to seek advice on this matter from an independent committee headed by Mr. Lumley.

We in the Bloc Quebecois are of the opinion that Mr. Lumley and the other two members of his committee have carried out a serious, detailed and well researched study of the situation.

I need to offer what I believe is an appropriate reminder that the members of parliament on both sides of this Chamber, including the government members, did not participate in the Lumley Commission. It is what is termed an independent commission. I have no intention of resorting to innuendo attacking the credibility of Mr. Lumley or the other two members of the commission. Speaking for the Bloc Quebecois, I believe we have been involved in a clear and transparent process.

In the few minutes I have, I would like to look at the commission's recommendations. The first outstanding one builds up the salary structure, no more, no less. We have to ask ourselves whether it is proper, acceptable and realistic for the Prime Minister of Canada to be earning a salary equivalent to that of the highest official he appoints.

I worked in human resources for 16 years before becoming a member of parliament. I worked in pay policy for a paper company called Abitibi Price. I worked with these concepts. We wondered whether a company president should earn as much or less than persons reporting to him. I think the question is perfectly legitimate.

Mr. Lumley's first recommendation is that the Prime Minister of Canada should earn a salary equivalent to that of the highest official he himself appoints. That highest official is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On that premise, with the first level of the pyramid established, we move to the second level. Is it proper and realistic for a minister to earn at least as much or slightly more than his deputy minister? The existing structure allows a deputy minister to earn more than his minister. This is a monumental aberration. It is therefore proper and realistic for ministers to earn as much as their deputies.

Moving on to the third level of the salary structure, members' salary must be proportionate to what a minister and the Prime Minister earn. At this point, I must say that members' salaries provide a good opportunity to engage in demagoguery. They provide a good opportunity to behave like hypocrites.

Quebecers are paying $32 billion in taxes to Ottawa. They are fully justified in electing members who will look after Quebec's interests. Therefore, as long as Quebecers will be paying taxes to Ottawa, we Bloc Quebecois members will not engage in demagoguery or behave like hypocrites on the issue of members' salaries.

We agree with the provision of the bill which provides that members who agree with the salary increase sign a form to that effect.

If, for some reason, an hon. member feels, based on his deep beliefs, that this salary increase is unjustified, he or she will be free not to sign the form authorizing his salary increase. Contrary to what we heard before, the Bloc Quebecois supports the principle of signing a form to get the salary increase.

Earlier, I said it was too easy to engage in demagoguery. Some could say, as we have heard on other occasions, that this does not make sense, it is much too much. However we could receive the salary increase in secret or through internal correspondence and publicly condemn it and say that MPs are paid too much and that it does not make sense, but still pocket that increase. This is to act like hypocrites.

Another attitude consists in watching the train go by, in doing nothing and say “No, this issue is too sensitive. We do not have to shoulder the political weight of this decision”. We can then watch the train go by and pocket the salary increase. This is another example of demagoguery and hypocrisy.

As parliamentarians, we must have the courage of making decisions, defending them and facing public opinion. If some lobbies or groups are not pleased with our decision, they will let us know. Every day, parliamentarians receive an enormous amount of e-mails and letters. In a democracy, people have the right to tell us whether they agree or not with our decisions. However, we must have the courage to defend our decisions and to face public opinion, even if it may sometimes be harsh in its judgments.

On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I say that this bill does not have to be reviewed behind closed doors, in a hurry, at three in the morning. As for the approach adopted by the government House leader, I do not normally make a practice of congratulating him, but I think that, in a democracy, when the members opposite do something that we feel is right and acceptable, we should say so. We should not criticize the government just for the pleasure of it. The approach developed by the government House leader for the introduction of this bill has been transparent.

Notice was given last Friday, June 1. The bill was introduced yesterday and, today, Tuesday, June 5, we are debating the bill at second reading. Tomorrow will be third reading debate, followed by a vote on Thursday.

In closing, given that this bill includes provisions to eliminate the tax free allowance, which is what the public wanted, and a reduction in pension benefits, and that overall remuneration will now be more equitable and consistent with market trends, we in the Bloc Quebecois support the bill at second reading.

[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?

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order to point out that in the Annotated Standing Orders of the House of Commons , Standing Order 21 reads:

When a Member has a direct pecuniary interest in a question being decided in the House, the Member may not vote. For a Member to be disqualified from voting, the monetary interest must be direct and personal.

Let me anticipate an objection which the Chair may raise to this point. It goes on to say:

As such, measures with a wide application, such as matters of public policy, are not generally considered in this light. Even voting a pay increase to Members themselves does not amount to a case of direct monetary interest, because it applies to all Members, rather than to just one, or to certain Members but not to others.

I will anticipate an objection the Speaker may raise to my colleague's point of order by pointing out that in the bill before us the pay increase does not apply to all members and it does not apply to all rather than to just one.

For instance, I point to the section of the bill that would require members to “opt in to the pay increase proposed therein” which would, by its nature, not apply to all members equally. It would have an unequal application.

I further point to the section that proposes an increase in indemnity for the right hon. Prime Minister of 42%, which is substantially greater than the increase proposed for members of parliament. There is therefore at least one or perhaps several members who would, if the bill were passed, exercise the opt in clause and obtain a direct pecuniary benefit exclusive to themselves, not as a matter of public policy generally applicable to all members of the House but to themselves solely.

I therefore submit to the Chair that the bill before us is in violation of the standing orders.

[The Speaker]

I thank the hon. members for their comments. The hon. member for Calgary Southeast certainly did find the relevant paragraph in the annotated standing orders, to which I am sure he knew the Chair would refer in dealing with the point of order raised by his colleague. I congratulate him for finding it so quickly and pointing it out to me. I find it very helpful and quite instructive in dealing with the situation we are faced with in the House this afternoon.

Perhaps the hon. member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, hearing the whole paragraph, will realize the position he got himself into by raising the point of order.

It states:

When a Member has a direct pecuniary interest in a question being decided in the House, the Member may not vote. For a Member to be disqualified from voting, the monetary interest must be direct and personal. As such, measures with a wide application, such as matters of public policy, are not generally considered in this light. Even voting a pay increase to Members themselves does not amount to a case of direct monetary interest, because it applies to all Members, rather than to just one, or to certain Members but not to others.

In this case, as I understand it, the bill provides for an increase of a specified amount that applies to all hon. members. There are differences between certain members who hold different offices in the House, such as the Speaker, ministers of the crown, parliamentary secretaries, whips, House leaders and so on. They all have different salary adjustments. However the increase is a general one applied across the board with some minor adjustments within those divisions.

I know the hon. member for Calgary Southeast has suggested that only members who opt in get it but the fact is that the opting in provision is available to all hon. members. It is a matter of general application.

Certainly after the expiry of the time for opting in has passed there may be differences in the rates of pay of various members. However the fact is that the rates are established for all members, should they choose to opt in, and every MP has the right to opt in under the bill as I understand it. I have not been able to see anything in the bill before us that would restrict that right.

I must therefore conclude that while the argument may be academically interesting, it is without merit. I do not believe that Standing Order 21, based on the interpretation and the application of the rule since its inception almost 100 years ago, has any formal validity in dealing with this bill. I am unable to find that the hon. members between them have raised a valid point.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I begin by saying as one who has been in this place for 22 years and has gone through a number of processes by which we increased our compensation, that the process we have embarked on today is much superior to ones I have experienced in the past.

I say that with regard to the controversy that exists to some extent about what has been called fast tracking of the legislation. It is only fast tracking in the sense that there is a House order, but the fact of the matter is that this process or debate is taking about four or five days longer than any similar process.

The House and parliamentarians have been criticized in the past because it has been done in an hour. It has been done on the last day before a break. Everything has been done by unanimous consent and there has not necessarily been debate. Things are done on division. There has been a number of different ways in which this has been done in the past.

What we have here, with notice being given on a Friday, the bill introduced on a Monday, second reading debate on Tuesday, committee of the whole on Wednesday and third reading and final vote on Thursday, is certainly a much more prolonged process than has usually been the case. It does give Canadians time to get in touch with their MPs and give them their opinions before dealing with a fait accompli.

The circumstances of this package deserve to be reflected upon. Although it is ostensibly a response to the report of a commission created by statute after every election, there is no question that the impetus and momentum for this pay package come out of discussions within the Liberal caucus and a feeling within that party that it is time for a raise and time for so-called bold action on this file.

The commission made its report, but many commissions have made reports in the past which have not been acted upon. The government decided to act on this report. There is much in the report that the NDP finds commendable. There are things in it that we have asked for over the years. I am thinking first of all of the demand for transparency and that the tax free allowance be converted to taxable income so that there is no illusion as to what members are making. That is a good recommendation of the commission. It is something we support and which is part of the bill.

If the bill is passed we will never need to go through this again. The determination of members' salaries will happen pursuant to a process that will not happen in the House of Commons. That in itself is good. I think every member of parliament going through this experience will, just at the existential level, be glad to know it is not something any member will have to go through again.

We support these things, but we do have a problem with the extent of the raise proposed, the 20% raise. We feel, and we have said so publicly, that a 10% raise would have been more in order and that various indicators could have been used to justify a 10% raise. We find the 20% raise a bit too rich for our understanding of what was needed, so we will be moving an amendment to reduce the 20% raise to a 10% raise.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

I see I have members' attention in any event. Members should feel free to vote for that amendment and we hope they will because we think it would make the package more acceptable to the Canadian public.

As has been mentioned already, we do not like what I would call the excessive retroactivity of the bill, the fact that it goes all the way back to January 1. Maybe I am a bit naive. I assumed we would start getting paid the new rate after we passed the bill. I could see how April 1 could be justified in terms of the fiscal year, but going back to January 1 we find somewhat unacceptable.

Another thing a lot of us do not like, and I hope it is not just within the New Democratic caucus, is that we find ourselves uncomfortable, as do a lot of Canadians, with some of the arguments offered in favour of the bill, for example, that we have to pay a certain amount of money to get good people into parliament.

There are a lot of good people out there who have run for parliament over the years, who are in this parliament now and who will be in future parliaments and who will be attracted to political life and attracted to parliament because of things that they believe, because of changes that they want to see made. They will not be reckoning on the salary.

If we ever arrive at the day when people are reckoning on the salary as to whether or not they should go into politics, then I think we will have arrived at a particularly sad day. This is an argument that comes more out of the corporate world than anything else, where there may be a lot of people who do have to take a so-called cut in salary in order to become a member of parliament, but for a great many Canadians this is not so and there are a great many Canadians out there that we would do well to attract to political life.

We can attract them by making sure that what happens in this place is more meaningful than it is today. The greatest reason people would have for not going into politics today is to ask themselves the question, what kind of influence can I have as a member of parliament? That is the question that we should be asking and answering instead of the compensation one.

Finally, with respect to something that has been raised by the Alliance, and as I say we will support their motion, I find that the opting in clause in the bill is particularly offensive because it really is a form of intimidation. I think the Alliance House leader used that word. It is a form of intimidation on the part of the Prime Minister. It is basically trying to put us in a position where politically we will be vulnerable if we both express our opinion on what we think is proper and vote accordingly. We are to be put in the position where we will be called hypocrites, we will be called inconsistent et cetera.

We in the NDP say we will not be intimidated on the principle of free speech in the House of Commons. We will say what we think about this particular bill, we will vote as we please and we will vote against this package, and we will abide by a principle that we have always upheld in the past and uphold this day, and that is that all members of parliament should be paid the same, that there should not be any differential rate, that there should not be a two tier system for MPs any more than there should be in any other sector.

We say to the Prime Minister that if he was really interested, as I thought he was for a while, in uplifting and enriching or enhancing the image of parliamentarians in Canadian society, he should have had the courage of his own convictions instead of introducing an element into this legislation that can only create a situation in which people will come to think less of parliamentarians rather than more.

I say to the member from the Bloc who was concerned about demagoguery and so on that I think this so far has been handled with a minimum of demagoguery. We do not intend to be demagogic about it and I have not heard anyone else being that way yet. I hope we can all keep our tone down on this. I hope we can deal with this civilly.

Finally I just want to say that we will vote against the bill, unless of course our amendment is accepted, but we also as a caucus have taken a decision, because we believe in equal pay for work of equal value, that we will be opting in. We will not suffer a situation in which some members of parliament are paid less than other members of parliament.

I encourage members to vote for the Alliance amendment because in effect it would teach the government a lesson for having put this particular element into the bill. I do not expect it to pass.

I would also encourage members to consider our amendment because we think it might make this package, which has some very good elements within it, more acceptable in the eyes of many Canadians.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply troubled by the idea that this parliament would be allowed to vote itself a raise.

Because of some health problems this past week, I was back home in my riding. Even so, I was in my constituency office each day for a number of hours. There was an editorial in the local paper in which the editor stated that all citizens should get in touch with their MP if they did not agree with this raise. We have been swamped, absolutely swamped, with calls. The phones are jammed with calls and there are letters coming in. The calls and letters are not just for Elsie. They are for every member in the House of Commons, for every person. They are saying the same thing.

When we ran to become members of parliament we knew exactly what we would be paid. We knew that we had to have two residences, one at home for the family and one here. There is an image being portrayed out there. Everyone thinks that when we get to the Hill we become very wealthy. I think the take home pay after taxes is probably around $48,000 unless a member is on the government side and is a minister or a parliamentary secretary. It is not very much, but nevertheless we knew that. All of us knew that when we came to parliament.

We talk about a democratic parliament. When the government says “If you do not vote our way, you are out. You have to do it our way”, how can we call it a democratic parliament?

I made some calls today to find out if this had ever taken place in the House of Commons, if any government had said this to anyone on its side as well as on the opposition side. I was told by members who had been here before that no, this has never, ever been done. Nothing like this has ever been put forth.

I believe in my heart and soul that the salaries have to be reviewed and that there should be an independent commission. When I say an independent commission I mean that the House leaders should all sit down and choose who should form the commission, not the government but the House leaders. Whatever is brought forward should be binding. We just do not put our elected people in that position. We just do not do it.

I look at the issues, particularly back home in the maritime provinces, that we should be dealing with. I dealt with one today, asking for a national shipbuilding policy. I look up to the gallery and I see the faces of men, many men whose families are on welfare now. A lot of them have no alternative whatsoever and they are hurting.

I look at the child pornography situation. I do not believe there is a member in the House who wants child pornography in Canada but we are not dealing with it in the right manner. We cannot compare children with animals. We cannot do that. I do not know what has happened to us. I really and truly do not know.

There are so many issues we need to deal with. I see the poor. I see young people on the street begging. For some reason the family unit is becoming weaker, not stronger. We have to do something about it. We have to bring in some policies to help the family unit become stronger.

I really was shocked when I heard that if we vote against the bill then we will have a two tier system in the House of Commons. I do not think we would find that anywhere around the world. I do not think we would find that in any parliament around the world.

It tugs at my heart. I have respect for my colleagues on the government side. I have respect for the leader of the government. I do, but am telling the House this: it is pretty hard to stand here and say “Yes, Elsie is worth more than you are paying her”. That is not how people see it, particularly those who are poor and hungry and do not have any money in the bank. I have to say that. There is no way that those people feel we are worth more.

The image out there is that the only thing we do is question period. Nobody knows that when we work on committees we are here night and day, from the morning until usually 10 or 11 at night. If we are in our ridings it is for seven days a week. We know that and we understood that when we came up here.

I will tell members about pay. When I got elected as a councillor in Saint John, New Brunswick I got a cheque at the end of the month. I went to the clerk and asked what it was. I said that nobody could buy me. I was told that I got paid for doing that work. I think it was $9,000 a year. I never knew that before then.

We do not come here because we are looking for a cheque. What we come here for is to see what we can bring forth to help build this country and to provide a better quality of life for all of our citizens. That is what we are here for. That is what we want to do. Will we do more if are able to put more in the bank each week? Will we bring forth better policies that way? Will the government bring forth better policies that way?

If there is to be a review, that review should be done and we should be voting on it for all those who will be running as parliamentarians for the next parliament. It should be their salary, because when we ran every one of us knew exactly what our salary would be. All members on the government side and all members over here knew what our salaries would be.

I am really worried. Our responsibility to Canadian people is to do what is best for them. That is what we are here for. I know that a lot of my colleagues ran for that reason and got elected because they wanted to do what was best for the people.

When Canadians elected us, as they did last November, they did so with the belief and understanding that we would not abuse their trust. I believe that right now this is abusing their trust.

On behalf of all 301 of us in the House, whether on the government side or on the opposition side, I have to say I do not believe that this should be brought before the House and that we should be forced to vote on a raise to increase our salaries.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, for this opportunity to speak on the bill I would like to split my remarks into two parts, the first part with respect to actual compensation and the second part with respect to the role and responsibilities of a member of parliament.

I will not spend a lot of time trying to compare apples to oranges to grapefruit. Am I worth more or less than a nurse or a teacher or a doctor? It is something of a hopeless case trying to compare the role and responsibilities of an MP with those of other professions. One can spend endless amounts of time saying that others are worth more than an MP or worth less or are more or less deserving. We live in a bit of a bizarre society when the entire budget of the Toronto Maple Leafs hockey team would more than pay for all 301 MPs.

I was elected four years ago. It was a little like getting married. I really did not realize what I was getting into. I practised law for 22 years and enjoyed it. I was successful enough to keep my family certainly at a scale of compensation quite a bit in excess of what I earn as a member of parliament. I did realize that as a member of parliament I would earn less than I did as a lawyer, but what I did not realize was that I would actually end up working harder.

I am continuously amazed at how critical the public is of our role while knowing little or nothing about what we actually do. It is almost an industry. To be fair, when I was elected I too did not know what was expected of me so I have sympathy for some who criticize our role because they only see our public role.

If I may take this opportunity, I would like to try to explain to Canadians what I do as an MP. I am sure others can in a similar fashion explain what they do as members of parliament. As I see it this is really three jobs in one. We have our work in our constituency, we have our work in Ottawa and we have our international work.

Last Thursday evening, for instance, I flew home. I dodged in on the Blue Jays game as a guest of Mr. Rogers and Mr. Godfrey and then left a bit early. No doubt they wanted to tell me about the declining fortunes of the Toronto Blue Jays baseball club. I slipped out early, went home and reintroduced myself to my kids. I said “Hi kids, I'm your dad. Remember me?”

Friday morning I was out at the constituency office and saw six rather unhappy constituents. Pretty well all had been turned down by the government for something. Each had a legitimate point to make, and in each instance I could say what I could or could not do for them.

I am quite proud of my constituency office. I would stack it up against any constituency office in the country. We speak eight languages and within our budgetary limitations provide a first class service.

The issues I dealt with that morning were in the range of a denial of a visitor's visa, why their relatives did not get so many points on the immigration scale and a deportation much like the one that has been in the papers recently.

It is not a lot of fun as a politician to have to say no. However we do have an opportunity from time to time to deal with situations which clearly are unfair and offend one's sense of fairness.

The following day, Saturday morning, I then went to four events in the riding. The first was in Highland Creek, which is one of the most degraded watersheds in all of the Great Lakes area. This was the fourth annual cleanup sponsored by me. Once we got that started, I ran off to do a parade in the Guildwood area of my riding. I frankly do not like doing parades but it is expected of us. One of the benefits however of a parade is that at the end we get to talk to people and they share with us whatever concerns they have.

I then left the parade, came back and did the Highland Creek cleanup with my volunteers, did a television interview, thanked the volunteers and then ran off to another event. The other event was at the Beare Road landfill site. With my colleague from Scarborough—Rouge River and my colleague from Scarborough Centre, we presented a cheque to the Friends of the Rouge River and the Rouge Alliance. They are involved in cleaning up the Beare Road landfill site, which is a colossal eyesore in the eastern part of Toronto. These folks are doing absolutely fabulous work.

From there I went home, said hello to my kids again, got dressed and went to downtown Toronto. The University of Toronto at Scarborough was having a reunion for the class of '71 and '76 and had asked me to be the guest speaker. The principal, Paul Thompson, was quite complimentary toward the federal government and its initiatives in the area of millennium scholarships and CFI, the Canada Foundation for Innovation. The university, particularly the university at Scarborough, has been a significant beneficiary of both of those initiatives.

I took the opportunity to lobby him with respect to the university's involvement in the community, particularly with respect to the degraded watershed of the Highland Creek which flows right through the university campus and the Morningside landfill site which sits right opposite the campus.

The second part of the job is what we do in Ottawa. Last week I spent a very productive evening with my colleagues on the justice committee arguing about Bill C-24, the anti-gang bill. This is a bill that enjoys large support among all colleagues in the House. We had a pretty animated discussion for four hours on Tuesday night with some rather bizarre happenings, at least bizarre according to this place, where government members were not supporting government amendments and opposition members were supporting government amendments.

Similarly, we had other initiatives where opposition amendments were being supported by government members and being voted against by other opposition members. I think at the end of the day after a vigorous debate, we had a better bill coming out of the committee than we had going in.

I like other members want to make sure that the police have the tools to do the job. The Canadian public also needs to know that we spend a great deal of time with lobbyists. These are people with a particular point of view, some are paid, some are not paid. I frankly like interacting with lobbyists because they fill up my informational void. I wonder sometimes however why if we are so marginal, such voting machines, so irrelevant, so useless or one can name the pejorative adjective applied to us by the press, these lobbyists spend so much time, effort and money on us trying to persuade us to their point of view.

The third part of the job is the international part. It is frankly not one that I appreciated when I was in the private sector. I thought parliamentary junkets were what the newspapers described them as, wonderful pool side parties with beautiful women and drinks. However, the reality is somewhat different.

I have been to China, Mongolia and Israel this year. I expect I will be leading a delegation to Taiwan in the summer. Strangely enough, when other countries' taxpayers are paying the bill, they have the strange idea we should actually work when there. The usual experience I had was that around 6.30 a.m. in the morning they expected us to start our working day and end it around 9 o'clock or 10 o'clock that night. They expected us to do that each and every day we were there.

On the Canada-Taiwan Parliamentary Friendship Group, of which I am the president, those will be fairly extensive discussions. We have no government to government direct relationships between Canada and Taiwan. As a consequence, our parliamentary friendship group gets to be used as a vehicle for a number of exchanges between those two countries.

I was in China on the day the American spy plane was shot down. Needless to say, that led to some rather animated conversations between ourselves and our Chinese hosts. It was also a useful occasion on which to subtly remind our hosts that we took a somewhat different view than our American friends.

On the break week I was in Israel, and while there several instances of terrorism occurred, including the M16 attack. Now I certainly read newspapers with a clearer insight into what is going on there. We arrived a week after the Minister of Foreign Affairs was there, who had upgraded himself from being burned in effigy to being a respected third party interlocutor.

In the very brief time I have left this is a summary of my life as a member of parliament. I find the job stimulating and intriguing. Unlike some I think it is one that Canadians can hope that their children think to be worthy. To be sure, it has its level of foolishness and frustrations, but may I end with a quote form an 18th century political leader, who said:

Politics is the most hazardous of all professions. There is not another in which a man can hope to do so much good for his fellow creatures; neither is there any in which by mere loss of nerve he may do such widespread harm; nor is there another in which he may so easily lose his own soul—With all the temptation and degradation that besets it, politics is still the noblest career man can choose.

I would urge all hon. members to support this initiative.

[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.

[Roy H. Bailey, Canadian Alliance, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure there are more people across the country watching the debate and listening to the speakers than we have had in a long time.

At the outset I want to make it abundantly clear to everyone in the House that I do not want, in my actions, to hurt any one individual within my party or within the government party. It is not in my nature to be spiteful or hateful. Whatever an hon. member chooses to do with his or her vote on the bill is all right with me. However I do not want anyone coming back and saying that what he or she selected to do hurt them. Let us make it clear that this is a free vote on the bill.

I was really disturbed after reading the press reports on the bill. The press has made fun of this institution and of members of parliament and, in doing so, have made fun of me to the point of being incompetent, not being able to accomplish anything and not doing anything. That does not serve the House at all and it does not serve the country one little bit.

Let me relate what amounts to a day's work for me. My office door in Ottawa opens at 7.30 every morning and the average time that office door closes is 9.30 at night. The press does not report on that. The press does not report that in the last two weeks I attended four different committee meetings. The press does not report that I leave here on a Friday night and finally get home in the wee hours of Saturday morning to wake up at 6 a.m. so I can get to a special event that has been organized. The press does not report on that.

The comments I have read about people in the House who were elected just like I was are irresponsible. Yes, there are people here not doing their jobs. There are always people in the House not doing their jobs but they are few. We should not all be branded by the press as being totally incompetent.

When I was elected to this institution in 1997 I was asked to serve my constituents. I was born only 40 miles from the town in which I now live. I know most of the people in my constituency by their first names. Four years later, last November, those same people, I like to think because of the service I provided to them, increased my vote by 23%. They did that because of the work we have to do to be professional members of parliament.

It bothers me to be intimidated by those saying if we do not vote for this we are not as good as those who would vote for it. I come from an area where I have spent all but 12 to 13 years of my professional career. I watched communities across my rural area go from booming institutions downhill to a point where I can take a given area in a 50 mile radius where there is not one new housing start. I have watched paved highways being turned into gravel roads. I have watched farming people trucking their grain 80 miles in one direction.

We have before us a bill. I am very proud to say that the most important people in my career, aside from my wife, are my constituents. I listen to them everyday through phone calls, letters, e-mails and so on.

There are three main reasons I will be voting the way I will on the bill. Three young couples live within the same block: Deb and Rob, Marlo and Audrey, Carl and Penny. They each have two children with both mom and dad working. They are finding it tough to make ends meet. Can one imagine my voting for a raise up to $130,000, going back to talk to them and their kids, and their having the same respect for me as they did previously? I do not believe so.

Can one imagine my going to hundreds of poor people who have come to my office to show after they have completed their income tax and paid their rent how much money they have left to buy their food, fuel and medicine? I do not believe so.

I know some of colleagues will be able take this pay raise to their constituencies and very little will be said. I know people who have said that I would crazy not to take it because people will forget about it in six months. I am reminded of the statement from Shakespeare:

This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man.

When I go out to the agricultural community I know very well that the average net income of farmers in my constituency last year was $7,500. That means a lot of them went into the hole. I know that some of them have had negative income for three years in a row and do not see any future. Currently there is a drought over half of my constituency. No, I could not go home to face the people who elected me. For that reason I cannot support the bill.

I probably have more reason to support the bill than most people because this September I will have a balanced portfolio. I will have four grandchildren in university. I did not come here to make a lot of money. I am not used to being rich. I am a very common, ordinary individual. I will not support a bill that would absolutely be a slap in the face to 65% of the people who put their X beside my name.

I will not quarrel and make animosity with any member on this side or that side of the House. We will still be friends, but I hope those people watching this debate understand my position. Maybe we should all think twice before we walk away with that amount of money.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre, Government Loans; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, Health.

[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.

[An hon. member]

We knew what the pay was.

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

We knew what the pay was. We have gone there already. The fact is we are in the month of June, soon to take a summer recess and all of a sudden in the legislation package it says to pay the people retroactive to January 1. That was not expected when we got elected on November 27. That was not even in the card nor was it suggested. Now all of a sudden there is retroactivity to January 1.

Here is the deal. Why do we not put a cap on it right now and let the legislation sit in limbo until we come back in the fall? Let people talk over the summer as to what we should or should not do and how we should handle it. Let us not have the retroactivity. Let us go through the summer and into the fall and talk about what it is the people of the country would like to see.

The opt in clause is possibly one of the most blatant, undemocratic positions the Prime Minister has ever taken. It shows the total gross arrogance of a government that has nothing but contempt for the opposition, as well as its own backbench MPs. What the Prime Minister is attempting to do is absolutely disreputable. Let me give members an example of what I mean.

The Prime Minister is telling members that if they do not support his position, this is not a even government position, he is prepared, as being the lord of the land, to take the increase away. Some members will be paid less than other members who sit on that side of the House. There will be a two tier level of MPs.

The member from Moose Mountain said he works hard. However, 90% of members of the House work equally as hard as he does. I will not mention the names of the remaining 10%, but they are usually on the government side. I will not go any further than that.

Ninety per cent of the members in the House work diligently and hard on behalf of their constituents. Now the Prime Minister, in his arrogant way, is telling members that if they do not vote the way he tells them to vote, they will not get the same as what others on that side of the House will get. That is absolutely terrible. That is absolutely dishonest to the Canadian public. It should not happen. The next time that party goes to the polls I hope that it happens—

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With respect, to characterize any actions of a member of parliament to be dishonest is not within the decorum of this place. I would ask the member to withdraw that allegation.

[The Deputy Speaker]

While I would encourage the member for Brandon—Souris to be more judicious in the selection of his words, I do not find cause for the Chair to ask for the withdrawal of his comments. They certainly were not directed toward an individual member. In the spirit of the debate of the day, I would ask the member for Brandon—Souris to be a bit more judicious.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your latitude. I do appreciate that.

As well as the Alliance Party, the Progressive Conservative Party will have a free, open, transparent and honest vote. How anyone votes on this issue remains to be seen because there is the wonderful little opt in clause, which in itself is terribly hypocritical.

The Bloc member who spoke said Bloc members would support this legislation. Good for them. However, I find it rather interesting that they always try to put a separatist spin on everything, and I never heard that spin this time. They will take good Canadian cold hard cash and put it into their pockets. There is no separatist spin at all on this issue.

I know we will have an opportunity to vote and to speak to this matter many times again.

[Brian Pallister, Canadian Alliance, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Brandon—Souris for his comments. I share many of the views expressed he expressed.

The bill begins and ends with some errors in it. One of the key errors is it seems to misunderstand in its writing the fact that this is not the private sector we are talking about. Many of the members in the Chamber could be in the private sector earning more. Many of them came from the private sector where they were earning more. Many came from jobs in the private sector or the public service where they were earning less.

The fact of the matter is many members in this Chamber, if they were in the private sector, would have been fired long ago. The fact is that many of the members in this Chamber, if they were in the private sector, would have taken demonstrable cuts in their pay because of their inability to serve their constituents well or because of their unwillingness to serve all their constituents rather than just the few who perhaps supported them.

The reality is that this is not the private sector. To be fair, the reality also is that there are many members in the House who would in the private sector have earned bonuses and additional pay because the job they have done is above and beyond the call and the responsibility.

However the fact of the matter is this is not the private sector. Therefore, the fundamental principle that is at work here is that all members are equal and that all members are paid equally. The fundamental flaw that lies in this bill is the opt out provision which the Prime Minister has clearly designed to try to muzzle opponents to the bill.

The reality is there is a fundamental principle in our society and embodied in some of the acts of parliament that requires equal pay for equal service. The reality is that in most cases it is impossible in the public sector to measure the value of that service. Nonetheless the fundamental principle exists.

The truth of the matter is that for most of the members of the House this is not at all about the money. This was not about the money when they ran. It is not about the money now that they are here, and it probably will not be about the money when they leave. It is about something entirely different. It is about making a difference. It is about coming here to try to better society. It is about coming here to try to create a better society than the one that existed before we came here. Those things are far more in the minds of most of the members of the House, I expect in all parties, than the money. It is about making a difference.

Because so many members in the House are absent from the processes and the actual power making, there is a great sense of frustration. I would say frustration would be the dominant emotion on all sides of the House. With the possible exception of the front bench of the government, most members feel absent from the opportunity to really make a contribution and a difference. That being said, just because they cannot make a real contribution does not entitle them to get what they can out of the job in terms of financial compensation.

The argument has been made that by increasing the compensation Canadians will benefit because we will be able to draw a better class of people to this place. That does not say much about the people who are here now. I do not buy that argument any more than I buy many of the arguments made by the government in defending this bill.

There is a fine quality of people here generally and the reality is that most of them, as I said before, were not drawn here because of the money.

Why then would this bill be fair? It is fair in some respects. It is fair in part because the process which led up to it being drafted, for example the arm's length nature of the way in which the recommendations were developed, was good and we supported it. As the Canadian Alliance has said for a long time, we believe that the arm's length process should be followed in terms of the compensation determination for members of the House. As well we have supported the greater transparency that will be embodied in part by some aspects of this bill. The changing of tax free compensation to taxable is a move in that direction.

I supported as a provincial legislator a number of measures to increase the greater transparency and understanding taxpayers would have concerning legislation, regulations and compensation of members and people in the public service. I believe very strongly that this greater transparency is something to be applauded and it is something that we should support.

As well, I believe there are some positive aspects the bill in terms of the future removal of direct involvement by members of this House in the determination of what their compensation would be. These things are good, fair and comprise part of the bill.

However on balance I cannot support the bill. We will support our amendments to hoist this particular piece of legislation. I see it as largely unfair. I see it as departing from the so-called arm's length panel's recommendations in some key ways, particularly the MP pension calculations. It departs significantly from the recommendations made by the panel. That is not right. In terms of the retroactivity of the benefits back to January, it departs from the panel's recommendations, yet again creates greater generosity toward the members of the House than was the intention of that independent panel. That is unfair. That should not be the case. I cannot support the bill on those bases.

As well, this was not an election issue, as was mentioned by the member for Brandon—Souris, certainly not in my riding or in his. Nor, do I expect, was it an issue in the ridings of most members of the House. It was not an election issue. It was not raised. Why the hurry now? What is the rush? What is the reason that we have to push this thing through as quickly as this? I do not understand that and I do not think most members on this side of the House understand or accept the arguments made by the government on that issue.

There were election issues and there are issues that are important to Canadians that have not been addressed, very urgent and important issues in terms of agriculture, in terms of a decaying infrastructure and in terms of a growing sense of regional alienation across the country. Meaningful ways of addressing those serious and urgent problems should be sought and must be found. Instead the government moves to push this to the top of the order paper.

There are clearly three options that each of the members in the House must choose from in regard to this legislation, apart from abstaining which I will not include. I will include in these options whether or not they choose to opt out or in of these benefits.

First, they can say yes to the bill and obviously would therefore say yes to the benefits. If they believe on balance that this is a good bill, an urgent and necessary one, then that would be their position.

The second position would be to say no to the bill and no to opting in, thus creating by their decision, their moral decision, which is their rightful decision to make, a two tiered structure for members of parliament in terms of their compensation, based on a system that would punish those who stand on the basis of principle and reward those who choose to support the bill. Clearly this is what the Prime Minister had in mind when he put the opting out clause in the bill itself.

There is a third option. The third option is this: to say no to the bill because on balance it is seen to be wrong, because it is weak in many ways, because it needs to be debated more stringently and more fully by the Canadian people and for many other good reasons. The option is to say no to the bill, but then to be forced to make a decision subsequent to its passage, which the government may choose to force, to say yes to the benefits.

What would happen if someone were to do that? That person would be labelled a hypocrite, certainly by the Prime Minister I am afraid, certainly by certain members of the public. That person would be labelled a hypocrite but the reality is that this might not be the case at all.

In regard to including an opt out provision, I will reference Shakespeare. This is something from Othello which I was reading the other day:

Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing; 'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to a thousands; But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him, And makes me poor indeed.

The attempt by this government through this Prime Minister's design of this piece of legislation is to rob honourable people of their good names. It is to rob proud people who stand on moral ground and say no. It is to rob them of their income and then to rob them by accusation, if they choose not to support a two tiered compensation system for members of parliament, to rob them of their good name by calling them hypocrites.

I would say it would be hypocritical of a government to create that circumstance. I know of no good reason why the government would include such an obligation as to opt in or opt out of compensation and create a two tiered system within the House when such has not been the case in the past. Nor should it be the case in the future. Equal pay for equal work should be the rule that governs this society and it should govern in the House as well.

In closing, I want to say that there should be a free vote. Our party would support a free vote in the House. We should be mindful and respectful of the views of all who express their opinions on this issue.

I will not give in to muzzling attempts. I will not give in to threats. Threats do not work with me and they should not work with any thinking and respectful member of this parliament.

I encourage the members on the opposite side to join with us and hoist this bill six months into the future so that Canadians can be part of this important discussion just as much as the members of the House have been.

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to address Bill C-28 today. I want to compliment my friend from Portage—Lisgar for his excellent speech and the excellent points he made respecting the bill.

I have to say that I am just as frustrated as he is with Bill C-28. The reason I am frustrated is that while there are some good things in it, very obviously the government has attempted to politicize this issue. I am in politics and I understand the temptation to do that, but why do we have to do that on everything?

This was an opportunity for the government to use the independent panel to establish remuneration for members of parliament and in doing that really set a precedent whereby MPs could vote for the recommendations or vote against them based upon what the independent third party had done. Instead the government felt it had to meddle in this, to politicize the whole process and poison it in doing so. I will get back to that in a moment.

Let me talk about some of the things that are in the bill. First of all the Canadian Alliance has taken a number of positions on and has policy with respect to MP remuneration. We have said in article 70 of our principles that we believe MP remuneration should be set by an independent third party. Substantially that is what we have with this commission. We have no problem with that.

Second, we have said that the remuneration should come into effect after the next election, for obvious reasons. If the public is dissatisfied with this issue, with the package that has been proposed, it can be an election issue. MPs will not be in the position where they directly implement a pay increase that affects them, because of course their fate as members of parliament will not be known until after the next election. We believe in that very strongly. The government had the opportunity to put that in the legislation and did not do so.

Second, we have said that we believe in converting the tax free expense allowance into salary that is taxable. The commission recommended that and it is in the bill. We agree with that.

We believe, and we have said in the past, that the accrual rate for the MP pension should be reduced and brought in line with the private sector. To a substantial degree, but not completely, the commission did that when it recommended an accrual rate of 2.5%. For reasons that are not clear to me, the government moved it up to 3%.

The House leader from the government side is here and he says it did not do that. He is technically correct. What the government said was that it should produce the same result as the previous pension plan. We had a 4% accrual rate on a much lower salary. Now we have a much higher salary and at the same time the government is recommending goosing the accrual rate so that we end up with higher pensions. That is about an 18% increase for the typical MP over what it would normally be. The government should not have done that. That poisons the whole thing.

The next point is that we believe this should be fully vetted in the House of Commons according to the regular procedure for any other bill. We are pushing this through. I know that there will be arguments made that this was agreed to, but I still want to argue that this should have been put off until the fall. We could have had a regular debate and even have had witnesses. That would have removed the appearance that we are pushing this through simply because we want to avoid the political heat. I am grateful for the chance to speak on this, but now that we are pushing this through we do not have that excuse any more. We cannot say that we did allow people to come and comment on this and bring forward their testimony. The result is that people will rightly say that we pushed it through. I think that is one of the problems.

The last point I want to make with respect to a stand that our party has taken in the past is that we believe very strongly that the government has poisoned the process by putting the opt out clause in the legislation. What it is attempting to do is suggest to the public that if we have concerns about the legislation and want to vote against it, then we should be duty bound to opt out. That is wrong. That is reprehensible. My friend said it correctly a minute ago: equal pay for equal work. This is a blatant attempt to unduly politicize this thing.

The problem is that the public is already confused by this. It is complicated. This confuses the issue even more. It is a blatant attempt to politicize this whole process. We should reject it. A pox on the government's house for suggesting it. It is clearly political manipulation, both of the public and of MPs who have concerns about the legislation.

My concerns do not end there, but those are some of the things we have raised in the past. I wanted to address them today to explain how some of the recommendations meet concerns that we have had and how other recommendations are completely at odds with our position.

There are other things I want to mention. I want to mention the retroactivity. I disagree with that. That was not a recommendation. I do not understand why we have the retroactivity. I do not understand why we have the extra salaries for chairs of committees and for vice-chairs, of which I am one, when we do not have parliamentary reform to go along with it.

My friend, our former House leader, brought forward a whole suite of changes that the Canadian Alliance would have liked to have seen introduced last February. They were sensible changes. They were changes aimed at democratizing this place, changes that would introduce democracy really for the first time in this place in a way that would do justice to this place, which is supposed to be the home of democracy in Canada.

Instead of that, we got some pretty lukewarm changes which the government introduced just the other day. We appreciate those changes, but they really hardly go anywhere near where we need to go so that people have confidence that this place is concerned about really allowing MPs to represent their constituents. We have not gone anywhere near far enough.

Until we have members of parliament from the opposition allowed to be elected to serve as chairs of different committees, apart from the couple that are already allowed, I do not think we can support that. I cannot support vice-chairs getting extra wages. I think it is wrong. I do not think we should not be doing it. It is not part of the recommendations. It is not what Canadians want, I think, until this place is really reformed. I oppose that and I think my colleagues in the Alliance and other MPs oppose it. We speak against that.

I want to conclude by saying that this is always a difficult issue. I do not enjoy being in a position where I have to vote on my own wages. MPs are fundamentally in a conflict of interest position. It is impossible for us to disentangle our personal interests from public policy. I am grateful that because of the recommendations this will be, I hope, the last time we have to deal with this for a long, long time, perhaps ever. I hope that is the case.

I strongly condemn the government for meddling in this process. We had the chance to bring down a set of recommendations from an independent third party that really would have given the appearance that this was an arm's length set of recommendations. That has been sullied now by the actions of the government.

Just so I am clear, I want my constituents to know and I want Canadians to know that I will support Canadian Alliance amendments to substantially alter this legislation. If they do not pass, I will vote against this legislation. Like many of my colleagues, I believe that Alliance MPs should be paid as much as other MPs because we believe that we do the same amount of work and we should receive the same pay, so we will opt for that as well.