Debates of Nov. 22nd, 1994

Supply

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Double dipping is double dipping. If that displeases the hon. member for Beaver River-

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

That is not what the red book says.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

The red book says clearly that there should be no double dipping from the federal administration.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Give it up, Don. You are losing, Don.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

We will see a little later how some MPs in this House react when the government's initiative is announced.

Finally, I want to talk about the salaries of those who serve in this House and compare them with salaries in other professions. We already know that according to a study by the OECD, Canadian parliamentarians are paid the lowest salaries of any G-7 country.

We also know that, in Ontario, mayors of large or medium-sized municipalities earn anything from $63,000 to $155,000, police chiefs make $90,000 a year, school principals in Toronto, $88,000, company officers $90,000 in small companies, $98,000 in slightly larger ones and $118,000 in large companies.

In terms of professionals here are some salaries: journalists, $60,000; accountants, self-employed, $76,000; lawyers, $98,600-

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

What do they get for pension?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

-dentists, $108,400; judges, $112,100; and doctors, self-employed, $121,100. That is the cash compensation. If we include other benefits such as pension contributions they vary and bring some of these salaries I have just listed as high as $139,000 and $144,000 in some of the executive positions.

I thank the member for Beaver River for heckling that particular one. I would not have thought of bringing the total compensation to public attention.

I would like to read from two editorials, Madam Speaker. The member opposite said that every editorial writer was against the members of Parliament retirement plan. I submit to you that it is not the case. Let me share the following with you.

This editorial from the February 27, 1992 Hill Times says: ``The Canadian legislator has long since given way to the professional politician. Without an adequate salary and pension plan the only people who would apply for the job today would be the wealthy, the well networked corporate union types, the weak-willed who would use the position to line their own pockets''. That is what one editorial said.

I would like to read this other commentary, which is dated November 21, 1994. It was signed by Dr. Clinton Archibald, political scientist and professor at the University of Ottawa. In a piece entitled "Nos riches politiciens" (Our Rich Politicians), he states that the problem with the charges made by the coalition is that they rest on the premise that it would be to the advantage of the public not to pay its elected representatives well; if that were the case, we would have only one class of members in Parliament: already well-off individuals representing money interests only or aspiring to do so to compensate for their slender income.

Not all editorial writers, not all Canadians are against paying a decent salary to their elected representatives. Yes to pension reform. The Prime Minister announced that it was forthcoming. Yes to all of that, but no to holding the position that all parliamentarians should be entitled to is a paltry salary, paltry compensation, thereby allowing only the rich to be represented in Parliament.

Are amendments necessary? Yes. Are we going to make changes? Yes. Should MPs be paid less? No. MPs should be paid a decent salary to do the work that is necessary to be done. I do not apologize for working hard for my constituents. They pay me well for it. I work hard for them.

We announced in the book "Creating Opportunity" that we were going to change the plan and we will. Therefore, I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "reflects" and by substituting therefor the words:

"the commitment made in the document entitled "Creating Opportunity, the Liberal plan for Canada"".

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I would advise the hon. government whip that I will reserve my decision on the acceptability of his amendment and I will come back to him in a very few minutes.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened in great agony to the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. While I was listening it reminded me of the days when I was a young lad working on a farm in central interior B.C. My job that summer was to clean out the stables. Listening to the hon. member speak, what he was saying bore a huge resemblance to what I was throwing out of the stables that summer.

I want to touch on a couple of points. The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell made a statement that there is no greater honour than to serve the people. He referred to the right hon. prime minister of the past, Mr. Diefenbaker. I would say that there is no greater disgrace in the House of Commons than the MPs' pension plan as it currently stands.

We may serve this House as MPs with the honour of serving the people, but that is counteracted. Any pride we may feel in this House is counteracted by this obscene MPs' pension plan. But this government refuses to change it. It says it is going to do it. When the Prime Minister was in opposition he said he could do it in a day. Now 400 days later we are wondering how long his and his government's days are.

The hon. member who just spoke, and I would like to just put this on record, has been in the House 10 years. If my arithmetic is right, and we will give him the benefit of the doubt, he has probably contributed about $75,000 to the pension plan, averaging $7,500 a year. If he retired tomorrow, and let this go on the record for all the people of Canada to see, for a $75,000 investment he would collect $2,152,672. Such a deal, such a deal. It is no wonder the Liberals do not want to change the pension plan.

The hon. member also referred to the NCC. He said the Canadian people were vulnerable to malicious, hugely disparaging ads by the NCC that exposed this pension plan. What the Canadian people are most vulnerable to is the constant cash grabs by the government to pay for these things. That is what they are most vulnerable to.

Let us clarify this double dipping phrase once and for all. Obviously the member opposite is very confused about what the Canadian people think about double dipping. That is not surprising. This government has a habit of not listening to the Canadian people. The Canadian people hate double dipping which specifically refers to someone who serves in the House of Commons for six, ten or fifteen years, is paid reasonably well as an MP and then is eligible to collect this gold-plated pension.

They collect the pension. As a matter of fact, the hon. member has been here 10 years and he could collect a pension of $33,540 a year starting next month. The member retires and of course his Liberal pals are still in government. What happens is he gets appointed to a key government position. Now he gets a salary from the same government he just retired from. He is getting $33,540 a year in pension and now he is eligible to get whatever in his new job.

That is double dipping. Let us be clear about what Canadians think of double dipping.

I am sure that today is going to be a fun day on this subject. I encourage more comments from the Liberals although they have an indefensible case. I am sure there will be some more rhetoric and more stable waste coming from the other side of the House today before we are through.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will try to be polite with the member in spite of what he has just said. I do not think his questions are horse manure. He has a right to ask whatever he wants no matter how objectionable I privately think his questions are.

I was asked if I contributed approximately $75,000 in capital to the MPs pension plan. That is probably true. I have no idea. I never counted it. We can phone some place in the comptroller's office and someone can tell us. It could be true.

He would however not take into account interest accumulated on capital. If one added that based on the basic five-year GIC rate, I would suspect that the $75,000, if it is the proper amount, is probably worth somewhere between $150,000 to $200,000 right now. Even invested in a GIC, that amount would generate probably $15,000 or $12,000 a year. I do not know what it would generate. That is not the point.

The point is that I am not retiring. I know it saddens members across the way, but I will not quit. I am not retiring. I was not elected to retire. I was elected to serve. Maybe that is a concept that shocks members.

I can understand why Reformers are just a little defensive concerning double dipping. They say it is okay for someone to receive a federal government pension and to serve in the House at full salary later but not the other way around. Could the reason why the argument is presented in that way by them is because they have dissension in their caucus with at least three double dippers at the federal level that I know of, two of whom are sitting in the Chamber right now as I make this speech. Duplicity, thy name is Reform.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will try to bring a civil tone to this debate. I absolutely agree with the hon. member that it is an honourable calling to serve the people of Canada.

Yesterday I was in a high school in my constituency. As I was in a junior high school telling people about the honourable calling that I had undertaken and trying to get these young people involved in the democratic process, this subject was raised by the students.

I suggest to the hon. member that he should be proud of working his way up the ladder. I suggest to the hon. member that all members work hard for the people of Canada. Why is it then that the government side refuses to make these changes within a responsible, reasonable time when the Prime Minister, then the opposition leader, said in August 1993 that he was going to be making the changes. However he does not do it but he does wipe out contracts worth billions of dollars, making all sorts of changes.

When the member says the NCC is simply conducting malicious attacks against members, I suggest that the NCC is drawing to Canadians' attention the fact that the members have a gold-plated plan that is unacceptable.

I wonder if the member would agree that perhaps his way of handling the problem would be for the legislature to outlaw criticism of the pension plan? Therefore we could get on with life. Is that the way we should do things?

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Time has almost expired.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be very brief. I know that this hon. member knows much better than what he has just said. I have the highest respect for that member. He knows that no one is advocating that Mr. Somerville does not have the right to state the nonsense he is stating. He has absolutely that right. This is a democracy. But I also have the right to say what I think of him just as he has the right to say what he thinks of all of us. I will continue to do that because that is my right. We have not refused to deal with this issue.

Members will know of the two reports presented in the last Parliament and they will know of the Prime Minister's commitments, some of which were made as late as yesterday in the House of Commons. The member knows deep down what the Prime Minister said.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Four hundred days.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

The member will know that approximately half of that time was taken up with the two reports, one ordered by the previous government and the other one which is statutory. In any event it is going to be done.

I do not know whether it will please the people across the way. It will perhaps please that member.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

It will please the people.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Not all of them. Certainly I will make one guess. It is going to make a few double dippers angry.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Madam Speaker, don't we have an interesting debate going today? It is funny how the affairs of men have changed when they become government, isn't it?

We listen to the hon. member justify how hard he works, which is important, and how he justifies living off the Canadian taxpayer through the pension plan. I am going to address double dipping, among other things.

Perhaps Liberal Party members could ask themselves what is the difference between the MP pension plan and Lotto 649. The difference is risk. There is risk in getting Lotto 649, a payment for life, but there is none in the MP pension plan. Are there not all kinds of taxpayers out there ready and willing to pay now?

I want to address the red book and the blue book for a moment. We have heard so much about this red book. Canadians should think back to how long they have been hearing about this red book. They have been hearing about it since the election. It was written during the election to sell taxpayers on what they wanted to hear.

The blue book is the Reform policy document. Canadians have been hearing about it for years. That is the difference between a party of commitment and a party that wants to come to Ottawa and sell the folks on an election every five years. That is the difference.

Now that they are the government, here we go. We are going to hear more speeches from these folks. We are going to hear all about how we can justify through hard work a pension plan.

There were a number of major issues during the last election. I would suggest the finances of the country was the number one issue. Other issues were the criminal justice system, the problems with immigration and the fact that Parliament needed an overhaul through things like recall and free votes and so on.

There were two issues that the people put before the politicians. One of them was the Senate. The people were saying: "Either toss that group out or elect them". The other issue was: "What about MP pensions?"

We have elected the Liberals. We have a majority government. What are the Liberals going to do? They have put three, count them, of their party hacks in the Senate. I congratulate the Liberals. They have done exactly what the Canadian people did not want. Now we hear today about the Governor General's appointment. I believe he has some affiliation with the Liberal Party.

The second issue was the MP pension plan. Virtually every Canadian told politicians to do away with it. What happened? The Liberals said they were going to study it for a year. What do the Liberals over there have to study? We already know what is wrong with it.

There was reference to the study. By the way, that study was supposed to cost around $150,000. I could have provided the service for very little. It finally ended up costing, if you can believe it, a little over $200,000. One can check the firm who did it to see if they have any affiliation or made any contributions to the Liberal Party. I know what the relationship is.

Here we are at trough day yesterday with 52 who are already jumping into the trough. What have they told the taxpayers? Where are they over there?

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

The one that supports MP pensions.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

The one who supports MP pensions.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I am quite sure the hon. member is well aware that we do not refer to the presence or the absence of members in the House.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Madam Speaker, I love a crowd, that is all.

We have told the people in Canada that we are going to ignore the Senate. We will do what we want on that, although they wanted some changes in it during the election. We are going to ignore the MP pension plan. We are going to make some very small changes to it. Just watch, when the changes come out to the pension plan and see what we get. We have got 52 already qualified, so they will do all right.

I have actually had some personal experience in developing pension plans. I have developed a pension plan. It is a money purchase plan. It is significantly different than a defined benefit plan. I do not want to get into the details because I do not want to take the time. I am having too much fun having a little discussion on some of the other things.

I want to talk about the defined benefit plan for a minute. I will read for clarification. They calculate pension benefit payments according to a defined formula. That is what is basically and inherently wrong with this MPs pension plan:

These kinds of plans become more difficult for employers to administer. Uncertainty in financial markets, changing rules and regulations and problems in dealing with actuarial surpluses and liabilities have made defined benefit plans consistently more risky.

Indexing, cost of living increases and so on lead to a deficit in the MP pension plan. We have to make up a deficit, of course, at some time or another. That is another whole lesson these folks have to learn. They are not doing well at that.

We had an actuarial adjustment to the MP pension plan of $158 million. That is okay. Just throw the $158 million into the pot for them, because it came from the taxpayer.

Let me give a little lesson to the folks next door. I will say it like this. "If you continue to think the things you thought, you will continue to get the things you got". That is saying they had better focus on the future, because they are continuing to go the same way as the Conservatives and the Liberals before them. Nothing has changed. They had better learn.

Personally, when I came into the House as a member of Parliament I asked to be relieved of the pension plan so that I would not have to pay into it. I wrote the comptroller a letter and asked him: "Is it possible to get out of this ridiculous plan?" Here is the letter I received:

I am writing with regard to your letter of December 7, 1993, in which you indicate that you do not wish to contribute to the retiring allowances accounts under the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act. However, pursuant to the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, members are required to make pension contributions based on the amounts payable by way of sessional allowance.

Therefore, we are unable to accede to your request and will continue to deduct your pension contribution until such time as the existing act is amended.

Here is the part I like:

I trust the above will be to your satisfaction.

It is not to my satisfaction. It will never be to my satisfaction and it will not be to the Reform Party's satisfaction. It will change. It must change. It has to change. I replaced a fellow in my riding 52 years of age with 18 years of service. He is now picking up $46,803 a year from the taxpayer. That is only about $2 million if he gets a little older. What the heck, we are only taxpayers out here, folks.

I just cannot understand. I guess it is because when the Liberal Party is in opposition it says: "Ah gee, all these things are wrong. They have to change. The pension plan is exorbitant. We

do not deserve it". However, when it gets over there: munch, munch, crunch a munch at the trough.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members find this morning's debate a little funny because we do not intend to stay here very long and will not need the pension plan. Quebec's representatives will certainly leave this chamber before long; we predict that it will happen in 1995.

However, what I find really funny this morning is what I could call Reform's self-flogging exercise over salaries. These people, who engage in grandstanding at the drop of a hat, regularly come here to talk about cutting the salaries of overpaid members, despite last year's Price Waterhouse study stating that members of the House of Commons are underpaid.

Strangely enough, we do not hear much about the members of that party who collect both their salaries as members of Parliament and their pensions as former army generals or members of provincial legislatures.

What is the point of this? I wonder how sincere they are when they make such comments. Could it be that they found a cheaper way to engage in grandstanding? The day when a member of the Reform Party can prove publicly that he has decided not to collect the various pensions accumulated in the armed forces or elsewhere, he may earn the respect of the other members here today.

Furthermore, I wonder if the money they will save on voluntarily uncollected pensions will be spent on enlarging prisons, since they are so keen on incarcerating people for longer periods. Their right-wing policies are not very consistent with what they said this morning.

So until Reform members can prove that they are acting in good faith and that those eligible have voluntarily forgone the benefits accumulated in other pension funds, allow me to question their good faith and their honesty in this House.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Madam Speaker, there is one thing I agree with, the statement by the hon. member from the separatist party that he does not plan to be here too long. I can agree with that. We hope he is not here very long either.

I really think the question was about the savings that we get from this pension plan. I do not know if the hon. member heard but we are actually borrowing about $40 billion a year to run this country. We are spending $40 billion more than we take in. I kind of think it would be a good idea, although it is hard to convince the Liberals about this, to try to pay that down. What do you think of that? Maybe we could just try to balance the budget for a change.

It is not just a matter of taking the money from some of these ridiculous accounts and trying to find out what to do with it. This is a very principled issue. The question is whether or not people after six years of service anywhere deserve a pension as exorbitant as this one. The answer according to the taxpayer is no, so why do we spend all of this time trying to coax this government into change? We should not be here doing this. Everybody in this room knows that these changes have to be made and there should not be debates.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Madam Speaker, when I was getting ready to come to the House today to speak I turned on the parliamentary channel and I listened to the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. As a result of listening to what I think was fairly accurately described by my colleague from Prince George, I found it necessary to change a lot of what I was going to say.

The hon. member suggested that this is an honourable profession and that it is great of us to be here, him included. In the same breath he went on to talk about the remuneration of an MP and the benefits, referring to it as "those things that bring us here". Perhaps that is what brings members of the Liberal Party here but I can assure you, Madam Speaker, that it is not what brings members of the Reform Party here.

He also discussed at length the concept of the RRSP as an alternative to the MPs pension. He talked about the suggestion that this is what should be done with our pensions. Then he put out a challenge to the gentleman who raised this, suggesting that if he can show how he could make more through RRSPs and this type of thing that he would in fact resign. It would be wonderful if we could bring that about.

That being what it will, he is suggesting he wants the maximum dollar he can get, the maximum benefits. The only way he is interested in change is if we can prove to him that he is actually going to get more. There is no intent of sacrifice there, no intent of recognizing the financial situation Canada is in, only will he make more if we make some change in that direction.

He then went on to suggest that it was a red herring, that the Reform was cooking up false numbers because there really is no deficit in the pension plan, that although people retire and get these huge gold-plated pensions there are more people coming into the House and as a result they will pay in and this will make it all right.

The member obviously does not know anything about the concept of cumulative effect. In fact that may well explain why we are five hundred and thirty-some odd billion in debt and going up at the rate of almost $1,500 a second because of the cumulative effect not only of the overspending by the Tories in the last nine years but the Liberal Party before that.

The cumulative effect is if a member retires and starts collecting this money and is relying on those people now in the House to make that payment, which I might add is what is destroying the Canada pension plan, then the problem is that that first member who retires is still collecting while the second member retires and joins him at the trough. This is the problem with the type of system we have now.

The hon. member suggested that this is part of the remuneration package. It is an unreasonable, unrealistic way of trying to compensate people for coming to the House of Commons. A realistic way would be if a member simply got a responsible proper amount in terms of annual compensation. The difference between that and what we are getting right now is the fact that no matter what you pay a person, it stops when that person stops making his contribution. If it becomes a matter of a difference in salary or a matter of a shared contribution to an RRSP, the government's obligation ends when that person ceases to be a member of Parliament but the member then benefits from whatever resources were built up during that period of time.

I heard about double dipping from the same member. There are two things I would like to say with regard to double dipping. I am glad to see they are talking about the concept of looking at double dipping for those people who come here, leave, collect a gold-plated pension, and then get appointed to a government board. He referred to three people on this side of the House who in his opinion are double dipping. I am not one to hide behind anything. I believe I am one of those people he referred to.

In looking at double dipping let us first look at the type of concept by which he suggests I am double dipping and the actual benefit that I receive.

First, I am getting a pension as a result of having worked as an air traffic controller for twenty-two and a half years. In addition to the normal amount that people pay for their superannuation contribution, I paid an additional 2 per cent of my gross salary for what is referred to as an early retirement benefit. That is something that I paid over and above the normal superannuation deductions for the benefit of being able to retire early from a profession in which very, very few ever make it to full retirement.

In addition to that 2 per cent I paid, I took a reduction of 20 per cent of my calculated pension because I retired early, over and above the extra 2 per cent that I paid. I have paid well and good for the benefits that I receive.

Let us look at those benefits. I worked 22.5 years as an air traffic controller. After 22.5 years I have a pension of approximately $17,000 a year.

As did other members, I replaced a member in order to come to this House. The member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke that I replaced after two terms of office collects a pension of $27,000 a year, 70 per cent more than I get for 22.5 years of service as an air traffic controller. I think the hon. member might take this into consideration both in terms of pointing the finger over here at people like myself with regard to double dipping and, second, in regard to trying to defend the justification and reasonableness of a pension plan that pays someone after two terms of office $27,000 when someone who worked 22.5 years paying 9.5 per cent of their salary receives $17,000. There is something far apart.

Everyone who works in this House, except for MPs, the clerks at the table, the Sergeant-at-Arms, all the people who work in the House who make the machinery work, who work behind the scenes, what do they have? They pay 7.5 per cent, two thirds of what an MP pays. What benefit do they get for that? They get 2 per cent per year based on their best six year average. What does an MP get? He gets 5 per cent. If we were trying to do it in proportion it would reduce the MP's pay to 3 per cent. They cannot retire until they are 55 years of age. They cannot get any pension whatsoever if they retire before age 50. If they retire after age 50 they lose 5 per cent of their calculated pension for each year they are short of age 55.

When you start drawing the comparison to what everybody associated with the government, every single person with the exception of the MPs and of course those in the other place gets, the pension they get is wholly out of line. It is out of line with industry and it is out of line with every other single person in government.

I would suggest that the government look very closely at changing the whole concept of the program of pensions for MPs. It has to change it to a system that is based on the benefit due a person for the work they do while they are here that allows them to put away for their retirement. God knows, the way the government is going there will not be any other kind of pension available through the government.

We are telling people that they are going to have to reduce and we have to start doing it ourselves. Adjust it so that whatever payment MPs receive from the pension plan stops when those MPs stop serving the Canadian public. They will then make do with the resources they have developed as a result of putting money aside, as most people in the public have to do.