Debates of Nov. 22nd, 1994

Supply

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

So now the thinking is hereditary?

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Is this the new politics, Jim?

I look over to the other side, to the members of the Reform Party, and I want every one of them, particularly the member for Beaver River, to know that I hold them in great respect. I disagree with them on many, many issues but I hold them in great respect as members of Parliament, as representatives of the people, as fellow Canadians and as colleagues in this House. I congratulate the member for Beaver River for bringing forward this motion. This matter needs debate.

I am going to veer off briefly in a lighter vein to my colleague and good friend, the member for Mississauga South, and say that I thought I was going to burst into tears before he finished his intervention. There are a number of good reasons for the proper remuneration of members of Parliament. I congratulate the member for Calgary Centre again-take it while you can-on his comments about proper remuneration. He is absolutely right.

We all know right now that political suicide, which is something that I do not think any of us are interested in committing, would be to raise salaries. I think that what really needs to be done over the long term is what is said in the red book. I would be happy to read it in the French version which I have right here. It states that the entire thing needs revamping.

In the meantime, and I am only going to deal with this briefly and I will come to it later in my speech, I support very strongly the elimination of double dipping while at the same time not disagreeing with the member for Kootenay West when he talked about his 22 years as a civil servant, an air traffic controller, one of the most stressful and difficult jobs and one of the most important jobs in this country. The issue is a complex and complicated one on both sides.

I can bring up examples particularly in my previous incarnation in opposition when I was charged with the role of women's

critic. It is harder for women parliamentarians to reintegrate to society just as it is harder for women economically in a number of areas.

That is not the issue. We are not people to be felt sorry for. This is the greatest job on earth as far as I am concerned. This job is incredible. I think a lot of us would do it if we could even if we did not get paid.

Mind you, I want to make a point very strongly in agreeing with the Deputy Prime Minister, the member for Hamilton East, that we are worth what we get paid. The member for Beaver River is worth a lot of money to the people of Canada and so is the member for Calgary Centre, I guess-yes, no-and so is the member for Mississauga South. We are all worth our salaries. We work hard.

There may be some but I personally have no knowledge of members of Parliament who do not, as one journalist called it, have the work schedules of dray horses. I also think that we enjoy these schedules. That does not mean we should not be remunerated. It also means that it is not a simplistic issue that can be easily dealt with. That is why I again congratulate the member for Beaver River for bringing it forward and for giving the opportunity for debate in this House.

I want to talk about something in particular because I think it is important. I think that I as a very partisan member of this House perhaps can say this where some others might not be able to. We have to treat each other with respect and dignity when dealing with this issue. I thought about cracking wise about this but the people of Canada and the people in this Chamber deserve better than that from all of us. This is a serious issue.

Members opposite are quite right when they say we have to be credible as we say to the people of Canada that cuts are coming, that we are changing what we do, that we are putting our own house in order. Again, that is why I support the red book promise.

Some comments were made in particular about the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, my whip, a veteran of this House and a veteran of the Ontario legislature, someone who has given long and hard to public service. I certainly do not want to embarrass the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell but given the comments by the member for Kootenay West, I am not sure if he knows a bit about the history of the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell who started as a busboy in one of the parliamentary cafeterias, who worked his way up, who is absolutely a glowing example of a Canadian success story.

I do not think anybody on either side of this House would deny that there is no better constituency MP in the House of Commons than the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. That is one of the reasons that he gets returned with amazing majorities. I think the last one was somewhere around 85 per cent. There is a quote about the longest serving premier in a Canadian province who was a Liberal premier of Nova Scotia many years. I have a picture of him in my kitchen with a caption that states: "He trusts the people and the people trust him". I think that is a tremendous thing for a person elected to political office to attain. I think that could be said about the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.

When we debate this issue, it is an emotional issue. All of us are emotionally concerned in our own futures. We are all of us concerned for ourselves and our families and we all of us know that these matters are of tremendous importance to us. I do not for an instant accuse the hon. member from the opposition of being unparliamentary. I just want him to know that when the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell or the hon. member for Mississauga South or any hon. members in this House stand and speak passionately about any issue, whether it is our remuneration as members of Parliament, whether it is issues that relate to our constituents, whether it is issues that relate to Canada as a whole, and I know that the member for Beaver River agrees with me on this, we all deserve the respect of our peers and colleagues. We all deserve not to be accused of making these statements for personal gain. That is what I found very difficult in those earlier comments.

As I said, I think perhaps he was unaware of the history of this particular member who is, has been and will continue to be a benefit and an adornment to this House.

This debate has in the past been acrimonious. It has in the past used the logical fallacy ad hominem. I am winding up. I know who is coming in. It has in the past created a great deal of sound a fury, signifying nothing.

In closing, everyone who is here, whether it is the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, the hon. member for Beaver River or other hon. members, we are all aware that our role as members of Parliament is one of integrity, decency and deserving of respect.

The hon. Deputy Prime Minister, the member for Hamilton East, has said in this debate that she will not apologize for the remuneration of members of Parliament. I want to say that I stand four square with her and with other members of the government on that level. Members of Parliament deserve their remuneration. We also need to air these issues, discuss them publicly and to ensure that the people of Canada see that we do respect each other and each other's opinions.

I believe last week the hon. member for Beaver River suggested that I would collect I think it was in excess of $1 million if I were to retire today, the day after my qualifying for a pension. I want to assure the member for Beaver River that I have absolutely no intention of retiring today. I hope I would have no intention of retiring long err this. I would imagine that

the hon. member who becomes pensionable on March 13, 1995 will also not have much intention of retiring.

While we will both attempt to assist our colleagues in aiding both of us to that end in future elections, I think we both know that the work we do here and the remuneration we receive for it is certainly not overwhelming. I want to also say that this is a no win argument in many areas of this country.

I want to say that I am delighted to have taken part in this debate. I thank again the hon. member for Beaver River for bringing forward this motion.

[The Speaker]

I understand that there will be questions put to the hon. member for Halifax in just a moment. I have been given notice of a request to return to ministerial statements. My colleagues, you will have a chance to put questions to our colleague in just a few minutes.

Might I understand, Mr. Prime Minister, that this is a request to return to Statements by Ministers?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

Yes.

[The Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to return to Statements by Ministers?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Governor General Of Canada

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to inform the House that Her Majesty the Queen has graciously approved the appointment upon my recommendation of the Hon. Romeo LeBlanc as the next Governor General of Canada. The installation will take place in early February 1995.

Hon. members are well acquainted with Mr. LeBlanc, who has served Canada with distinction in public life for over twenty years: as a member of this House, as a minister of the Crown, as a senator and, most recently, as Speaker of the Senate.

Born in New Brunswick, Mr. LeBlanc is the first Governor General from Atlantic Canada. He is also the first Acadian to serve as Governor General.

In recommending this appointment to Her Majesty, I was conscious that a Governor General must have a profound love of his country and of the Canadian people in order to effectively carry out the duties of this high office.

I know that Mr. LeBlanc has these qualities. As a teacher, as a journalist and as a parliamentarian, he has made outstanding contributions to Canada and to Canadians. With his understanding of our country and his personal warmth and dedication, I am sure that he will carry out his new responsibilities with success.

At this point I would like also to thank on behalf of all Canadians His Excellency Ramon Hnatyshyn and his wife Gerda. First elected to the House of Commons in 1974, Mr. Hnatyshyn has served Canadians for 20 years. As a member of Parliament, I served with him. He served Parliament with great distinction.

In 1990 Ramon Hnatyshyn was sworn in as Governor General of Canada. Since that time he and Mrs. Hnatyshyn have fulfilled their roles with dedication and dignity. I worked with them for the last year and they have been gracious people to work with.

I would like, on behalf of all the members of this House and the people of Canada, to say to Madam Hnatyshyn and Mr. Hnatyshyn, thank you for a job well done.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the appointment of the Hon. Roméo LeBlanc as Governor General will no doubt be welcomed as good news. I salute the Prime Minister's decision to name an Acadian to this prestigious position, in fact the first one in Canada's history. This is undoubtedly a gesture of openness to Canada's francophone communities.

The Hon. Mr. LeBlanc will be able to continue the efforts that he has always made in his long and fruitful career for the promotion of minority rights. I wish him good luck and great success in his new duties.

Let me also point out the good, solid work of the present Governor General, the Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn, and thank him and his wife for what they have done for their fellow Canadians.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to acknowledge the Prime Minister's announcement of the appointment of Romeo LeBlanc as the next Governor General of Canada and to protest the appointment as unwise and inappropriate.

In doing so I mean absolutely no disrespect for Mr. LeBlanc as an individual, a parliamentarian or a public servant. However, as hon. members know, the prestige and the standing of the Office of the Governor General with the Canadian public is in decline and it is in decline for three reasons.

First, in a democracy an increasing number of people feel that the public should have a say in who occupies the office of chief of state. Second, it is in decline because Canadians prefer the appointee to be above and beyond partisan politics. That reference has not been respected.

Third, it is in decline because the public no longer supports some of the special privileges which pertain to the Governor General's office such as the exemption of the occupant from payment of income taxes and the ability of the occupant to double dip on pensions.

The Prime Minister has disregarded all of these factors in making this appointment which he announced today. Reformers therefore believe the appointment to be unwise, inappropriate, and wish that fact to be registered in this House.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is unprecedented in Canadian history. The Governor General nominated has informed the government that he will accept his pay as a governor and will return his pension to the crown.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Supply

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

We are now entering a 10-minute question and comment period for the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, getting back to the MP pension plan and the need to address it and reform it, I would like to make a couple of comments on the speech of the member for Halifax and also a couple of questions I hope she would take the time to answer.

First of all, the problem with this is that the current Prime Minister said a year ago in opposition that he would reform the pension plan in one day given the opportunity. Now he has been there for a year and has not reformed the pension plan in that one day as he promised. It is in the red book what he would do, the 55 years, the double dipping.

We would support that except we would expect the age to be 60, not 55. We would go further and get into the area which we feel annoys the taxpayers of Canada which is the fact that whatever it is that a member of Parliament contributes, why is it that the taxpayers have to contribute higher than that. Why is it that the taxpayers are expected to foot the tab for this generous, self-serving, gold plated pension plan? Why is it not just a matching contribution?

Does the member for Halifax not agree that the government's share of the contribution should not exceed a member's share to restore respect in the private sector and to restore the confidence of the Canadian public? That is one of the changes that we would make in addition to what is in the Liberal red book.

Also, does she not agree that 55 is not high enough, that it should be 60? It would help to make it more actuarially sound and it would be more in line with the private sector. If a member wishes to draw it earlier than that age then they would get a reduced amount as in similar plans.

All we are asking in our motion is to rectify a wrong. It is clearly wrong. It clearly annoys the Canadian taxpayer and all we want to do is address that portion of the MP compensation which is too generous, not the MPs' salary which is too low.

If we looked at it why can this government not find a balance between too much and too little? Why can this government not find a balance between good government and self-serving government? Why can this government not find a balance and do the things it said it was going to do when it was in opposition? Now it is on the other side and it is not doing them, or it is doing opposite. This is what frustrates taxpayers. This is what concerns people.

The last question is does she not agree that the government plan is better than that of any in the private sector? Politicians, members of Parliament, belong to an exclusive club of only 295 people, which is probably about 30 too many. There should only be 265. Now they plan to increase it to 301 because they work so hard. Does she not agree that if we have a better plan than that of the private sector is it not somehow embarrassing to her that she has something, or that a member of Parliament has something, better than that which is out there? We come into this job willingly. We know the sacrifices. We know what we are getting into. If we cry about what we are going to lose when we leave-the member did not, I am referring to some other Liberal members who made that point-and cry about what we are going to see out there when we leave, then we should not become MPs in the first place.

Those are my comments. I am trying to be reasonable. I am trying to ask for support for this motion. It only supports what the Liberals promised. We want action before 53 more members qualify under the current rules. We want the current MP pension plan to be changed. Why does the government not act?

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Calgary Centre for his question.

In the past the former third party in the House, the New Democrats, used to be called Liberals in a hurry. I am not quite sure how we would make that correlation to the Reform Party members opposite, but I am not quite certain if they understand what happened yesterday. They know that 52 of us, I believe-the member for Beaver River does not qualify until March 13-became eligible yesterday. I am not being funny. I am being absolutely straight with the hon. member. None of those 52 people are going to retire overnight.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

No, but they are eligible.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

I am eligible for a lot of things. I could enter the Olympics. I am eligible. I am breathing but I probably would not do very well.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

For what you have contributed you deserve a million dollars when you leave here?

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

No, no, let me answer the question. The hon. member posed a question. Let me answer it.

First and foremost when the hon. member asked me the question, he opened the door and I am going to walk through it.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Yes, you just did yesterday.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Yes, I did. The answer is that we made a red book promise and we will keep the red book promise.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

When?

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

When the Prime Minister and the President of the Treasury Board are ready. Our mandate is not going to end tomorrow. We are here. Much as the Reform Party may not like it we are here for at least another three years, maybe four and probably longer.

Let us talk about what Canadians want. Need I remind my hon. friends opposite, Canadians sent 177 of us to this House, a clear, overwhelming majority.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

They sent 178.

[Mary Clancy, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

No, 177 and it went to 176. I know the numbers, I won a pool. They sent us in an overwhelming majority to this House based on the red book promises. The red book promises will be fulfilled. I know that, the minister knows that, the Prime Minister knows that, and in their heart of hearts the members of the Reform Party know that.

Heaven knows, if there is one thing I do not want to be in this debate it is partisan but I may get driven to it. If I get driven to it I will have to arrive there. I am driven to remind hon. members opposite that not only did the Canadian people send a clear majority of Liberals to the House based on red book promises, including the one we are talking about here, but does anybody remember the 75 per cent approval rating in which the Prime Minister is held by the people of Canada today? Does anybody remember that? I do not know but there we are.

It hurts me to bring this up. It cuts me to the very quick to have to bring this up in debate. I am almost embarrassed to bring it up in front of the President of the Treasury Board because I am afraid it will diminish his hitherto good opinion of me. Does anybody remember that there is a party that is at 10 per cent in the polls? There is a Prime Minister at 75 per cent with a government at somewhere in excess of 60 per cent.