House of Commons Hansard #128 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was age.

Topics

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Reform

Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay East, BC

Madam Speaker, the difficulty the Liberals are having with this whole concept is the fact that at this moment our nation is under a tremendous amount of stress in terms of how we are going to fund the social programs, how we are going to be able to fund health care and how we are going to be able to fund the entitlements that people in Canada have become used to.

We are not here to necessarily defend all of those entitlements as they presently stand but the point is people in Canada are being told by the Liberals that there are going to be cutbacks.

The members will know that daily the members of this House receive the publication called Quorum . I was just flipping through it and I noticed a headline saying ``New Brunswick welfare changes foretell the human resources minister's thinking on social program reform''.

I wonder if they cannot understand or why they cannot understand that when the finance minister is one of the 52 who was named yesterday, when members of these committees sitting on the Liberal side going around the country saying that there are going to be cutbacks in entitlements, there are going to be increases in university tuitions, but not me. That is the ultimate NIMBY and I do not think the people of Canada are prepared to accept the ultimate NIMBY. I wonder if the member has experienced the same kind of frustration that I have in my constituency of people saying this not in my back yard philosophy is not good enough when members of Parliament are not prepared to stand up and be counted.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

Reform

Jim Gouk Reform Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC

Madam Speaker, I have had a great deal of dialogue with people on a variety of subjects in my riding, as many of us have done. It is very frustrating that we are placed in this position in which we have to go out to the public and say we are cutting back on these services and we want you to identify to us what you are prepared to give up.

We are looking at cutbacks in some types of pensions, various types of services that we are going to not only be willing to but are able to offer to the Canadian public. It is very hard to stand there with a straight face and tell the public this when we are faced with the kind of gold plated benefits that are currently available to people in this House.

These are the types of things that we have to address. I am one of those people who take a 10 per cent reduction in my pay. I do it through donations to charities within my riding. I do not do this because I think MPs are overpaid, far from it. Those MPs who do their job, truth be known, are probably underpaid in general terms. Most of us do not come here for money, we come here to serve. We can serve the Canadian public best by leading by example and that is what our motion is all about.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

Reform

Hugh Hanrahan Reform Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to address this House on the issue of MP pensions. This is an issue that is of great concern to me.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

Reform

Stephen Harper Reform Calgary West, AB

On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I wonder if you could verify your rotation list. We just had two speakers split their time on this side and I did see the parliamentary secretary who wanted to speak.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

There has been an agreement with the Reform Party and the Bloc to allow four Reformers or two slots to go to the Reform Party. This had apparently been worked out prior.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:30 a.m.

Reform

Hugh Hanrahan Reform Edmonton Strathcona, AB

As I was saying, this is an issue that is of great concern to me, to the Reform Party and to all Canadians.

This pension plan is indefensible even in good times when Ottawa vaults were overflowing and the public was feeling wonderfully generous toward its politicians. In bad times such as we experiencing now when many Canadians are suffering and the government is hard pressed to fund basic programs the MP pension plan amounts to little more than highway robbery.

When I say I know that Canadians truly do want the MP pension plan reformed, I am speaking from results of my constituency survey which I conducted in my riding of Edmonton-Strathcona in the spring of '94. The responses were overwhelmingly in favour of pension reform. When the constituents were asked the question at what age should an outgoing MP be able to collect a pension, 97 per cent of all respondents said that an outgoing or retiring MP should not be able to collect their pension until age 55.

Even more convincing is the fact that 75 per cent of my constituents think that an outgoing MP should not be able to collect his or her pension until after his or her 60th birthday.

A second question that was asked regarding MP pensions was after how many years should an MP serve before being eligible for a pension. The results again were staggering in favour of pension reform. A hundred per cent of respondents said that a minimum number of years should be no less than eight. Eighty-one per cent felt that the minimum number of years of service should be no less than 16. The answers to these questions are a far cry from the present situation which is in place today.

It is important to illustrate a few facts about MP pension plans, as it will clearly illustrate why pension reform is needed. First, pensions are payable immediately upon retirement after only six years of service no matter at what age an MP retires or is not re-elected.

Second, payments continue even if the ex-MP holds another government job which we refer to as double dipping. Third, pensions begin at $23,390 per year and increase 5 per cent per year of service to a maximum of 75 per cent of average salary. Fourth, inflation indexing kicks in after age 60 and finally, MPs pay 11 per cent of their base salary into the pension fund, the government matches this amount and covers shortfalls, an unfunded liability which cost the Canadian taxpayer nearly $160 million in 1992.

By no means is this list inclusive. These are, however, the few items that are of grave concern to me. I have stated in this House repeatedly that Reformers have come to Ottawa to make a difference and I think we have.

We also feel that one way to do this is to ensure constructive criticism and offer an alternative to the status quo of the government. I can honestly say that I am offering the Liberals an alternative to the status quo simply because they are doing absolutely nothing in terms of legislation reform regarding the issue of MP pensions or for that matter any issue.

This Liberal government seems stuck in the perennial rut of talk, talk, talk and discussion paper after discussion paper. The Liberals state in their red ink book: "A Liberal government will reform the pension plans of members of Parliament and put an end to double dipping". After 392 days in government I can see that this was truly an important commitment of the Liberals as we have seen absolutely no legislation and little or no talk about MP pension reform.

Obviously the current Prime Minister has forgotten about his challenge to the former Prime Minister in which he challenged her to recall Parliament if she were truly serious about pension reform: "reforms would pass in one day". The only time the Liberals speak on pension reforms is when they are responding to our questions. Even then all they do is respond with rhetoric and Liberal double talk.

I was right in saying the other day that Liberals are no different than their Conservative predecessors. They may even end up like them after the next election. In the meantime they are all talk and no action.

We on this side of the House know that this government is stalling on the issue of pension reform. Perhaps it is because the Liberals are concerned about having to take another Reform policy such as they have done in the past on issues such as the Young Offenders Act, parole reform, criminal justice reform, debt and deficit reform and let us not forget immigration. All this stalling is doing nothing but costing the taxpayer more and more every day.

We all know yesterday was, as the National Citizen's Coalition called it, national trough day as another group of 52 MPs of all political stripes became eligible for this outlandish and extravagant pension plan which could collectively amount to approximately $53 million if all of these MPs quit today and lived to the age of 75.

While the average citizen in Canada must work 35 years to accumulate a pension, the average MP must work six years. The gold plated MP pension plan should be renamed from pension plan to cash for life rip off of the Canadian taxpayer. This plan is perhaps one of the federal government's most offensive examples of government waste.

What strikes to the core of the issue is the fact that we as parliamentarians have to set an example for all Canadians and stalling on issues such as pension reform is no way to lead by example.

Because of time constraints I realize I cannot mention everyone who is presently sitting as an MP who is eligible for a pension. I believe that I have not only a duty but an obligation to point out a few of the more offensive potential payouts of certain members of this House.

The member for Winnipeg South Centre, initial benefit of over $59,000 annually, will have a total potential payout of over $2 million. The member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, initial benefit of $33,000 annually, will have a total potential payout of $2.1 million. The member for Hamilton East, initial benefit of almost $35,000 annually, will have a total potential payout of over $2.5 million. The member for Lac-Saint-Jean, initial benefit of over $26,000 annually, will have a total potential payout of almost $1 million.

Perhaps I have left the greatest sanctimonious display to that of the NDP, a party that claims to speak for the common man and social equality, while the total payout for the member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing will be approximately $1.2 million. The member for Winnipeg Transcona will have $3.4 million.

We could go on and on. Just when voters think that they have the final word it turns out that politicians had the last laugh.

Highlights of the 1993 election will illustrate the point. One hundred and thirty-four of the two hundred MPs who were defeated or resigned before the election had complied with the minimum six years of service necessary to qualify for a pension. We must stop this insanity today. We must reform the MP pension plan now.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Madam Speaker, on this matter of MP pensions, there is no question that the members have raised an issue which has been raised to all of us by our constituents. However, I note that throughout the debate the members continue to provide figures but they have not explained how those figures were arrived at.

Would the member not agree it is somewhat misleading not to let the Canadian public know that members of Parliament must contribute to their pension plan? In fact that contribution is 11 per cent of their $64,400 salary. That means they are contributing over $7,000 a year. The calculations members are putting forward also assume the member takes early retirement after six years and then receives that pension until age 75 or later.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:45 a.m.

Reform

Jim Silye Reform Calgary Centre, AB

They get it for life.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:45 a.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

They get it for life but the calculations that have been provided as examples really go up to age 75 as an average mortality rate.

Would it not be fair simply to put all of the facts on the table? Most members are not here just to be here for six years. They are here to serve, as the member said; they are here to do a job. In many cases as we can see in this House that job goes on for 20 to 25 years. Those members of Parliament who serve their country, which presently is at a salary of $64,400, have forgone the opportunity of their best earning potential during their career lifespan to serve in this House.

I wonder if the member would like to comment on whether or not the facts really are on the table and whether or not the full compensation of the members of Parliament ought not to be considered.

I personally agree there should be changes to eliminate the double dipping scenario. There should be changes to the date at which a member would qualify. I know the government has committed to making those changes and that those changes will be forthcoming at Christmastime. That is the undertaking this government has made to Canadians. We have listened and we are going to make those changes.

However let us never forget that members of Parliament are also family members. They have children. They have mortgages to pay. They have the ordinary costs of anyone else and they are entitled to a fair and reasonable compensation. As the member well knows all of the recent third party studies show that the contribution of members of Parliament in comparison with the corporate sector make their jobs worth at least $100,000.

Would the member not agree that certain facts have not been put on the table? If he wanted to be fair with all Canadians he would make sure they had all these facts.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:45 a.m.

Reform

Hugh Hanrahan Reform Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to respond to that question.

The key words the hon. member used were ordinary Canadians. Ordinary Canadians average 30 to 35 years before they receive a pension. Ordinary parliamentarians average six years. It would irritate ordinary Canadians to receive after 35 years what we receive after six years. I do not think the average Canadian would accept this in any manner, shape or form.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:45 a.m.

Reform

Jim Silye Reform Calgary Centre, AB

Madam Speaker, one year ago Canadians sent a clear message to Ottawa that they were tired of the status quo, hypocritical politicians. They subsequently voted in 205 rookies to the 35th Parliament. My speech is to the rookies. My message: Let us not let the veterans corrupt us.

When the voters fired the former frontbenchers, former backbenchers and former prime ministers, they took away their power but for most not their paycheques. We will be paying them for the rest of their lives millions of dollars. We as taxpayers will be paying 30 per cent of the average of the last six years of their salary.

The issue before us today is the MP pension plan, technically described as the members of Parliament retirement allowance and retirement compensation allowance. Combined, the two plans force members to contribute 11 per cent of their salaries toward their retirement, or should I say toward an annual annuity one month after they leave public office regardless of age.

The result is a plan that is fully indexed, completely immune to inflation and payable for life with only six years of service required. Not bad. A lifetime annuity worth about $19,000 plus, and a minimum collectable whether you are 35, 25 or 65 years of age or over just 2,100 days on the job.

For an MP to receive such a generous amount after only six years of service is ridiculous. The Government of Canada must contribute 5.85 times what the members put into the plan to meet the payments. I would suggest that in the very near future this ratio will continue to rise as more and more MPs are retired when voters vote with their feet, unless members pay more into the plan.

I submit this is why so many Canadian taxpayers are upset with MP pensions, considering them both unfair and unrealistic. What plan anywhere in the private or public sector in Canada or in any of the other G-7 countries that this government so proudly likes to compare itself to has such an overly generous matching amount from the government side?

In the name of justice and fairness I urge the government to correct this inequity immediately. What I am saying today is no different from what the Prime Minister when he was leader of the opposition said on August 13, 1993: "We will change the MP pension in one day". He has been here for one year and he has not done a thing except talk about changing double dipping and raising the age.

If that is all he is going to change, it is not enough. It is the overly generous matching contribution by the government that is annoying to the taxpayers of this country. That is what we cannot get through the heads of those Liberal members on the opposite side. I plead with them to show some leadership by example like Reform Party members.

We have all pledged not to take an MP pension in its current form. Yes, we pledged. The Liberals who are here can laugh, but we have pledged that because we want to show leadership by example. Some of us want to opt out of this current type of plan, but the fact is the government will not let us.

Many of us whether we can afford to or not have also taken a 10 per cent pay cut. It is not because MPs make too much money, but because as leaders we know that Canadians will need to sacrifice in the near future and we are prepared to lead by example at the top. Whether it is one of us, 52 of us or 35 of us is not the issue. As long as there is someone willing to lead Canadians will have hope. The Reform Party is here to provide

that leadership. We challenge government members to follow our lead, because simply put, it is the right thing for them to do especially when we are asking Canadians to sacrifice.

How can the Minister of Human Resources Development talk about reductions in social spending, welfare, education and UI without mentioning his own unemployment insurance scheme, the MP pension plan? What will he reduce there?

How can the minister complain about 25,000 auto workers withdrawing $70 million annually from the UIC fund when taxpayers paid out an estimated $158 million in 1992 to cover revenue shortfalls in the MP pension plan to which the Liberal member pointed out earlier we contribute 11 per cent? That is not enough for what you get out. It is topped off in excess of $2 million every year to do exactly what the Minister of Human Resources Development is criticizing the auto workers for. That is hypocrisy.

How can the Minister of Finance talk about taxing RRSPs without addressing his own retirement compensation allowance that taxpayers fund more than he does on a disproportionate basis which is not even allowed in the private sector? This is a minister of the crown.

The hypocrisy of the Liberal government on this issue is truly disheartening. It promised to address MP pensions. It promised to let us opt out and it has not. It has had the report in hand since March with specific recommendations but has done nothing. Instead it has waited for 52 more MPs, 46 of whom are Liberal, to qualify for the golden parachutes.

The majority of Reformers who have taken a 10 per cent pay cut are also denied access to the 11 per cent the government takes out of their pay to fund retired MPs pensions. That is 21 per cent or over $1,000 a month less than any one of the Liberal members opposite get in their paycheques every month. That is what we are sacrificing to show leadership to the country to get everybody to participate in the deficit reduction program.

The government is hurting our cash flow and all its members do is laugh. Well, let them laugh because he who laughs last laughs hardest. Is it any wonder then why some of us on this side of the House question the blindness and stupidity of the government on this issue?

Let me outline the Reform Party's position on MP pensions. We would end full indexation of these pensions. We would postpone eligibility for benefits until at least age 60, with eligibility further postponed by the amount of time in which the person has already been paid prior to age 60. We would also subject the MP pension plan to a tax back according to a formula identical to that of the old age security program.

The Reform caucus has already approved the concept of privately purchased MPs pensions under which future RRSP contributions for sitting MPs would be matched by the government up to the legal limit for contributions. After eliminating the gold plated pension plan this House could agree to a proper and balanced compensation package that would be more palatable and compatible with Canadian taxpayers.

Here is my personal recommendation, which is certainly debatable, but should satisfy our critics and possibly have all the rookies in this House vote in favour of our motion: Individual citizens from time to time wish to enter the public sector to help shape legislation and make a contribution to Canadian society. It is desirable to attract individual citizens from all walks of life to Parliament regardless of income. Therefore, a reasonable compensation package should be offered so as to have this great institution in the hands of members of Parliament more interested in serving their country rather than for the pay, perks and privileges without inflicting undue financial hardships.

This is an important job. Only 295 people in Canada have it at any given time. They must balance personal sacrifices with the public interest. Given the current job description of an MP and people's expectations let us get rid of the impression that MPs are somehow special, different, or somehow deserve something that is not available in the private sector.

Let us get rid of the notion that MPs are paid just $64,000 per year. They are not. They are paid much more. It is confusing. They have $64,000 in salary. They have a tax free living allowance of $21,300 and a tax free expense allowance of $6,000. After six years they get a bonus, a pension for life. They get $27,000 tax free. Why?

For someone in the private sector to earn $27,000 they have to make $50,000 plus. This sort of pay structure is nothing more than planned deception. It gives the Prime Minister the ability to say he makes less than the lowest paid Ottawa Senators hockey player. A member of Parliament's total salary is about $120,000 per year if we mark up the tax free portion. This is the kind of double talk that makes people lose respect for politicians.

The Liberals are in power and the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada supports the GST. She said during the election campaign that if the GST was not scrapped she would resign. They have promised to do it by January 1996. I promised to take a 10 per cent pay cut. I did. I promised to opt out of the current pension plan. I will. I promised to take the 10 per cent pay cut for the full

term. I will. Perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister can learn from this what it means to keep a promise. Will she keep her promise and resign on January 1, 1996 if the GST is not scrapped?

This job itself with its responsibilities compared to the private sector is at least at a senior executive level and is deserving of a $6,000 to $7,000 salary per month. We should get rid of the MP pension plan, the tax free living allowance and the tax free expense allowance, limit members to two terms and offer the following: A taxable salary of $10,000 to $12,000 per month where members look after their own expenses and their own pensions. The $10,000 per month is the current minimum as it reflects basically what MPs are paid now after we mark up the tax free aspects.

I personally believe that MPs should be paid more. However once they are removed from office Canadians should not be on the hook for about $1 million per year per member. They should be given a private sector pension plan to which they pay 5 per cent, matched by the government on a 1:1 basis as opposed to 6:1 as is currently the case. Upon departure after two terms or whenever members would get a one time, one year severance to help re-enter the workforce and reintegrate their previous lives. This is more in line with the private sector and should make the voters and the politicians more respectful of each other.

Madam Speaker, may I ask for unanimous consent to continue for one minute? I have just three more paragraphs.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

I am sorry. We do not have unanimous consent. Questions and comments. The hon. member for Mississauga South.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:55 a.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Madam Speaker, I wanted to address a couple of the points the member raised. It is extremely important because it has painted a picture which is quite slanted and biased on behalf of the member.

First, throughout his statements he commented about his 10 per cent salary cut. If the member was going to give all the facts he would also report that as has been reported in the press Reform members are now reconsidering their 10 per cent cut because they are not getting enough publicity or benefit from it by the voters.

Second, the member seems to suggest that members of Parliament when they leave this place whether by choice or they are defeated in an election, can somehow simply integrate into the workforce.

The member knows very well that 82 per cent of the members who did not return from the last House do not have employment today. They have nothing to go to. As the member well knows, when members of Parliament leave here, having been defeated in an election, they are a nobody. They are lower than a nobody because they no longer have the influence to speak with people and to have those contacts.

There are many members of Parliament and many others who have served in public life who have given so much that have nothing to go to when they leave public life.

On that basis the member probably should consider that the so-called gold-plated pension plan is in fact not just a pension plan for the future retirement of that member once that career ends but is also to provide some modicum of income protection or salary continuance because of the difficulty that members of Parliament have had to get back into the work force.

The member asks for a reasonable compensation package but you will note, Madam Speaker, that the member was not full and clear with the Canadian public because he did not mention a dollar figure. He is unprepared to say what a fair and reasonable compensation package would be.

Finally, the member made reference to a tax free allowance. The member said if you take this tax free allowance and convert it into an effective salary, the member of Parliament makes much more.

What the member failed to point out to Canadians is that members of Parliament received these allowances to take care of real legitimate expenses. As one example, as a member of Parliament I am here four or five days a week for nine months of the year. I must have a place here to live. That place costs me $1,000 a month. That does not come out of some magical bin. It comes out of the tax free allowance.

The member should really consider whether or not he has told the Canadians the full truth.

SupplyGovernment Orders

Noon

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

The hon. member for Calgary Centre. You have about a minute.

SupplyGovernment Orders

Noon

Reform

Jim Silye Reform Calgary Centre, AB

Madam Speaker, that is a nice application of the rules. I really appreciate it. I just heard the gun go off outside. That was hot air just like some of the hot air I am hearing in here.

When the hon. member's leader was Leader of the Opposition he said he wanted to reform MP pensions. He said he would raise the age to 55. We go to 60 so we support that a little higher. He said he would get rid of double dipping which he defines as receiving appointments from the federal level of government while on pension. We would support that as well. Whatever way you want to define double dipping you probably would find the Reform Party supporting it.

Where we fundamentally disagree and where his party is too weak, too void, too empty, lacking the political will, is to make the contributions matching so that if if we give 11 per cent the federal government gives 11 per cent, or if we give five it gives five, no better than the private sector. Why should we be any

different, any more special? The MP compensation package should-

SupplyGovernment Orders

Noon

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Time.

SupplyGovernment Orders

Noon

Reform

Jim Silye Reform Calgary Centre, AB

Don't tell me to hurry up. You are the one who was taking the time and hogging my time with your comment. So if you are interested in my comment in response-you're not. That figures. That's the government. That's the government side-

SupplyGovernment Orders

Noon

Liberal

Mary Clancy Liberal Halifax, NS

I'm interested. Talk to me.

SupplyGovernment Orders

Noon

Reform

Jim Silye Reform Calgary Centre, AB

There is a lady across the way who keeps interfering, Madam Speaker. I think I should be allowed another five minutes to respond because of the heckling.

SupplyGovernment Orders

Noon

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

I am sorry. The time has expired.

I am now ready prior to recognizing the hon. parliamentary secretary to rule on the amendment proposed by the chief government whip.

After consideration the Chair must rule that the proposed amendment by the hon. chief government whip is out of order because it goes against citation 579 of Beauchesne's sixth edition as it sets forth a proposition dealing with a matter which is foreign to the proposed proposition involved in the main motion and as it raises a new question. Second, it goes against citation 929 of Beauchesne's which states:

On an allotted day, during consideration of the business of Supply, an amendment must not provide the basis for an entirely different debate than that proposed in the original motion.

Also, as quoted in the "Selected Decisions of Speaker Lamoureux" on page 322, it was ruled by the Chair on March 16, 1971 that:

-for an allotted day, "the spirit of fair play would require that the day not be taken away by means of an amendment".

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

Halifax Nova Scotia

Liberal

Mary Clancy LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

Reform

Jim Silye Reform Calgary Centre, AB

Do you want to talk louder so everyone will hear you?

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

Mary Clancy Liberal Halifax, NS

Now, now. I would ask that the hon. member for Calgary Centre listen. He might hear something that he might even like.

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

Reform

Jim Silye Reform Calgary Centre, AB

Should I hold my breath?

SupplyGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

Mary Clancy Liberal Halifax, NS

Probably not, although I am sure you can try.

I have been in this House six years yesterday when I was elected.

Oh, please wait to hear what I have to say, ladies and gentlemen.

Six years ago last night was one of the most exciting and humbling moments of my life. The opportunity to be a member of Parliament, to serve the people of Halifax and, I hope, to serve the people of Canada as everyone of us in this House does-some of us whether we like it or not-is something that maybe a lot of us never even dreamed of when we thought about the way our lives would go.

I want to say something else. I think most people in this House who know me know that I am a very partisan member of Parliament and I am proud of that partisanship. I come from a partisan tradition in my family, in my province, in my region and in my party. However, I think that this is an amazing and wonderful place.