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.
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Madam Speaker, I know one does not normally comment on the presence or absence of someone in the House, but we have just convened Parliament without any presence of the official opposition. I am not referring to a member. This may have happened before but I wonder if it is appropriate.
Points Of Order
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)
I am sure the hon. member recalls that we do not refer to the presence or the absence of anyone in the House.
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Madam Speaker, if I might on the point of order, I want to state clearly that I am not referring to the presence or absence of a member. I am referring to the apparent complete absence of the official opposition from the proceedings of the House today.
Points Of Order
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)
Any 20 members compose a quorum in the House and we have that. I would like to proceed with tabling of documents.
Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the government's response to petitions.
Daphne Jennings Reform Mission—Coquitlam, BC
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour this morning of presenting petitions on behalf of my constituents for the right of grandparents to gain access to their grandchildren through an amendment to the Divorce Act.
Jim Hart Reform Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, constituents of my riding of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt are adding to the growing number of people who are concerned about the intrusion of government into the rights of ordinary, law-abiding citizens.
This intrusion is in the form of adding to the already stringent gun control legislation in Canada. Canadians are clearly saying that we have a crime problem, not a gun problem.
The petitioners are calling on Parliament to oppose further legislation for firearms acquisition and possession, and to provide strict guidelines and mandatory sentencing for the use or possession of a firearm in the commission of a violent crime.
I agree with and support the petitioners and urge the government to reconsider its position.
Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
I would ask, Madam Speaker, that all questions be allowed to stand.
Mike Scott Reform Skeena, BC
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
On May 3 of this year I put Question No. 47 on the Order Paper. It asked for information relating to the travel and entertainment expenses of deputy ministers in the years 1991, 1992 and 1993. A part of the question was tabled sometime last week by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader. Since an Order for Return was issued, I am asking when we can expect to have the report for 1991 and 1992?
Peter Milliken Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Madam Speaker, I know the hon. member is apparently dissatisfied with the very lengthy response he received to his important question.
It was tabled as an Order for Return of the House and it applied only to the third year of the three for which he asked. Naturally the government is anxious to provide all the information it can to the hon. member. I express my concern that the answer was apparently incomplete when we received only the one year.
I was informed that the cost of rooting out the other years is very substantial and that unless the hon. member is quite insistent on getting the answer that it would not be forthcoming because it would cost so much to get it.
Might I suggest that if the hon. member is serious in wanting this additional information, I have no objection to getting it for him at some cost. I am quite prepared to request that it be provided.
I would suggest that since the question has been made an Order for Return and the return has been tabled, it would be appropriate for him to put the question on the Order Paper again, at least in relation to the two years for which he has not received an adequate response. I would then instruct officials to get the necessary information to the hon. member.
Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)
Is this on the same point of order? This is not debate.
Mike Scott Reform Skeena, BC
Madam Speaker, yes it is. It is not on debate.
I appreciate there may be some cost associated with the government tabling the information in the House. However it is important for the Canadian people and for accountability that we do see the information. I would ask the government to pursue the information with the appropriate officials in the government.
Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)
Shall the remaining questions stand?
Deborah Grey Reform Beaver River, AB
moved:
That this House urge the government to replace the current members of Parliament retirement allowance plan with a pension plan that reflects the current norms for private sector pensions, with a maximum contribution in accordance with the Income Tax Act.
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that we finally get a chance to debate this matter in the House. Yesterday trough day arrived and we see the important need for changes to the members of Parliament pension plan.
It is unfortunate that the government did not live up to its red book promise and make the changes before trough day yesterday. That certainly would have sent the signal loudly and clearly to the Canadian public.
The Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act is a very modest statute introduced in 1952. In the last dozen years or so it has become really divisive. It is destructive. It is an unfair and detested piece of legislation in the eyes of most Canadians.
I draw the attention of the House to a report that was just brought in by a commission to review allowances of members of Parliament. This plan was started in 1952, which is interesting because that is the year I arrived on the scene as well. We might take notice that the prime minister of the day, Louis St. Laurent, said they wanted to make sure what was happening in those days in terms of the public service made it impossible for somebody who was serving as a member of Parliament to provide adequately for his later years.
I appreciate that pensions are good things. A pension scheme is not wrong at all. But this particular MP pension is a "scheme a dream" when you think about what has gone on in the last several years to make sure MPs look after themselves. We need to come up with a plan that is fair and is going to sell itself to the Canadian taxpayers who are funding the pension plan.
I do not consider myself nor do I consider my friends across the aisle, who have just qualified for trough day yesterday to get an MP pension, later years. March 13 is my date coming up, and I make full awareness to the people of that. I mentioned it in Question Period the other day. If the government does choose to put in MP pension reform I find it very strange that it would do it to its own members to make sure that they were in safe as of November 21. I have a feeling that it is going to make changes before March 13 so that I may be set up as the fall guy. I do not mind being set up as the fall guy if there are going to be substantive changes to the pension plan. We want to see that.
I am being assured by my friend across the aisle that they will look after that or they will look after me. Nothing makes me more nervous than having Liberals say that they are going to look after me. I will look forward to any remarks in the future from the member for Kingston and the Islands when he discusses this plan I am sure later.
I might also mention that my friend from Kingston and the Islands will qualify if he lives to age 75 and all goes well for him and he will stand to gain $1,061,976. That is not a bad pay out at all.
You can see that this is a rather touchy subject across the aisle, Madam Speaker, and you are on the list as well of benefiting.
Yesterday the class of '88 qualified for "Lotto for Life", reveals editorial comments across the country. We saw yesterday such descriptions as outrageous, gold plated, golden parachute, inflation proof, pension paradise and probably the most descriptive and graphic of all, hog heaven.
I know there are many members across the aisle right now who are just dreaming of the day when they qualify for hog heaven. They need to be re-elected one more time.
Is this divisive, is it destructive and is it detested? Yes to all of the above. This does more to divide parliamentarians and taxpayers who pay the bills for these parliamentarians probably than anything else. We see that this is a system in which members of Parliament are totally exempt from everyone else in the country. As my friends know, many of them have been in other professions before. They will know clearly that this pension plan is more, bigger, better, higher, everything else, overbloated, than any pension plan they could have ever bought into when they were working in the private sector. They know it, we know it and the people who pay our bills know it.
My friend across the aisle says that is not true. There is not a pension plan in this country that pays dividends of employer-employee ratios of approximately six to one. I would like to bet on that and I am looking forward to the members bringing that to our attention in debate as well as proof.
We are demanded in this country as parliamentarians to put in 11 per cent of our earnings. We have no options on that. We must put in 11 per cent of our salary toward the MP pension plan.
I am a member of the Alberta Teachers Association and we put in $92 a month to our pension plan. That was in the regular private sector. I am forced by the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act to put in just under $600 a month out of my salary. Somehow that means that we are putting in a lot but the government kicks back far more than it puts in. For instance in Canada we are demanded, as I just said, to put in 11 per cent of our earnings. It is mandatory, there are no options about that. We qualify then for a minimum pension after six years of service. Madam Speaker, you know that, I know that and the Canadian taxpayers who pay the bills know that. As of age 60 it is fully indexed to the cost of living allowance-very expensive.
Let us look at the United Kingdom. Its members put in a 6 per cent contribution level and are eligible after age 55 or age 60 plus years of service equalling 80. That looks very fair. Most of them are full time. I suspect anyone in public life serves full time regardless of the number of hours they put in a week.
Let us look at the United States. People who serve in Congress in the United States have to put in a 1.3 per cent contribution level. They qualify at minimum age and serve age 62 or age 50 plus 20 years of service. This looks like something that is a little fairer, a little more level than the pension plan that we have now.
I suspect from the amount of noise across the aisle perhaps we have touched a raw nerve here. That is fine. Touch nerves we will.
The plan that the premier of Alberta has just brought in has in effect blitzed members of the legislative assemblies. My friend across asked me to talk about double dipping. We are against double dipping. When you are in one level of government, you may not collect a pension for another level of government.
We are asking this government to make sure that it follows its red book promises. I suspect these will turn out to be red face book promises very soon.
The members of Parliament retiring allowances plan simply must be replaced. There are two aspects to this, the first is the retiring allowances act which lets members contribute up to 2 per cent years of service on earnings on the limit up to 75 per cent. This first account under the whole retirement allowance plan qualifies as a registered retirement allowance plan under the Income Tax Act. That is fine, nobody has any problems with that, I suspect even new MPs in the House.
If the MP pension plan were restricted to this first account, the taxpayer would not complain because our plan would then conform to normal public service plans. The problem is the second part of this, the retiring compensation arrangement account, the RCA. I am reminded of the old ad, they really are now RCA victors as of yesterday. That is the account that leads one to question the judgment and fiscal integrity of those who put it in place and subsequently defended it.
This account draws contributions from members in the government that exceed the 6 per cent limits prescribed by the Income Tax Act. I have one word for that, shame. Shame on a government that would continue to do that and bring it in. It pays benefits prior to the age and length of service required by the Income Tax Act to allay accusations of one set of tax laws for ordinary Canadians and a different set of tax laws for parliamentarians.
The pretence is that these payments are as is said in the study, a retirement compensation allowance to compensate members for the volatile tenure of their jobs. There is not a job in this country that does not have volatile tenure. This is one of them
but this is certainly not the only job in the country that has volatile tenure for sure.
I am splitting my time with the member for Calgary West, and therefore I would like to just finish up by saying that this program is wrong. It needs to be changed. The government promised it would change it. It did not do it by November 21, trough day. Come on, colleagues, this is the time to take action on this. Let us do the honourable thing. Let us make sure that we get this thing changed. It is unfortunate it has lost so much credibility with the Canadian public and taxpayers. Now is the time to get our trotters out of the trough. It has to be very soon.
Jim Silye Reform Calgary Centre, AB
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, we intended to announce prior to the first speech of the member for Beaver River that we would be splitting our time on this debate, 10 minutes each. We would like to put that request in now.
Stephen Harper Reform Calgary West, AB
Madam Speaker, I am rather surprised that there are so few questions while there were so many while the hon. member was speaking.
In any case, I am rising to discuss the MP pension plan and just to summarize the obscenity of this plan as the hon. member for Beaver River pointed out. There is a benefit rate of 5 per cent, two and a half times the average in the private sector. There is virtual full indexation, 78 per cent of private plans have no automatic indexation whatsoever. Age of retirement based on years of service, could be at any age, could be as young as 24. Ninety-one per cent of all private sector pensions have a retirement age of 65. Contributions are well in excess of anything allowed under the Income Tax Act and there is the ability to have another federal job while collecting the pension.
All of these things are opposed by the Reform Party and have been opposed for some years now. Our blue book makes clear that we would change virtually all aspects of this plan including the fact that present beneficiaries of the plan should share in part of the costs of those changes.
Let us recognize that under the present plan we have accumulated a liability of $220 million that is growing rapidly and this liability can barely be touched unless some of these changes are applied to present beneficiaries and to those who are presently qualified. Some will reply that this is unfair on a number of grounds and I want to address those changes to really understand the nature of that kind of argument.
First of all, the statement that this would be retroactive is not true. Retroactive changes are changes to law at a prior time and no one is suggesting that. We are suggesting that there would be retrospective changes which legally speaking are changes that would only affect the future consequences or only affect the future expectations of law from a prior time which is common to virtually all legislation.
It has also been suggested that these are contractual obligations that are somehow sacrosanct. There is no contractual obligation here. Let us be absolutely clear about that. The MP pension plan is a legislative privilege. Section 42 of the Federal Interpretation Act makes it clear that Parliament has the authority to revoke, restrict or modify any privilege or advantage by repealing or amending the statute that granted that privilege.
The MP pensions were not entered into on a voluntary or commercial basis. There were not even two parties in this case. This is a case of politicians voting something for themselves, something that there was absolutely no reasonable expectation that their contributions would give them.
It has been suggested that it would somehow be inherently unfair to make MPs change their pension plan. In response to that I believe fully and our party believes fully that contributions should be protected. To the extent that MPs have contributed the value of those contributions should be protected. Let us also be clear that contributions to the plan account for less than 20 per cent of the benefit. There is absolutely no fairness in providing such a windfall benefit at the expense of taxpayers.
In terms of charter arguments there would be absolutely no evidence, notwithstanding the pleadings of the Deputy Prime Minister, that members of Parliament or politicians in general constitute a disadvantaged group in our society.
There is no fairness also in suggesting that all of the reduction in pension benefits should fall upon those who are serving now or who may serve in the future. There is no fairness in my view in suggesting that future or present MPs, once the rules are changed, should be treated differently than past MPs. That kind of objection goes more broadly to a philosophy that states that only younger people should pay the costs of the present financial situation in the country, an implication that I reject entirely.
What are the implications of the kind of argument against these changes and these retrospective changes? What these people are really saying is that we can change virtually any plan in this country but not the MP pension plan. The previous government changed old age security to provide a clawback. This Liberal government has not seen fit to change that. Previous governments changed their obligations on equalization payments to the provinces. They changed their obligations and payments in health, in post-secondary education, none of which this government has reversed. This government has also made it clear that it is contemplating changes to RSPs, so far as to even
contemplate confiscation in some cases of certain portions of private savings.
Yet the argument would go that MP pension plans are somehow sacrosanct. This is a completely untenable position. It is another example of the House of Commons suggesting that it should protect itself above all else. Just as we see today where the procedure and House affairs committee is suggesting that we should protect the size of the House of Commons from reduction, we should not share in the general downsizing of government here, we are seeing a similar argument with the MP pension plan.
The Prime Minister early in this Parliament promised or said that MPs should be able to opt out of the plan. As the member for Beaver River pointed out, we are now paying 11 per cent of our gross salary which only covers less than 20 per cent of the plan to pay for the extravagant pensions of those who are already receiving it. This is something we as Reformers object to. Of course we would like to see a fair plan but we are prepared to arrange for our own private savings.
The question is: Why is the Prime Minister delaying? I believe it was August 3, 1993 that the present Prime Minister called on Kim Campbell to recall the House of Commons and make changes to the MP pension plan and he wanted it done in one day. He said it could be done in one day. Now 400 days later nothing has been done and nothing in particular has been done on his promise to allow MPs to opt out of the plan.
Why is he so reluctant? The reason is very simple. The Prime Minister knows he made a mistake in suggesting that MPs could opt out of the plan. He knows full well that if any MP in this House opted out of such an obscene and indefensible arrangement the political pressure on other MPs would virtually force every other member of Parliament within one term to drop out of the plan if they were considering seeking re-election. The Prime Minister knows that.
I urge government members not to be so critical and to read the motion. The motion is quite reasonable. In principle it is not unlike what the government itself suggested during the election. I would suggest that government members consider this very carefully. Forget the fact that some of them have big dollar signs in their eyes now and in their dreams. Just remember that the motion is quite reasonable, vote for it and indicate to the Canadian people that all parties are prepared to make a change to this unjustifiable arrangement.
Ted McWhinney Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC
Madam Speaker, I have a question for either the hon. member for Beaver River or the hon. member for Calgary West.
Accept for argument's sake that in juridical terms what we are dealing with is not a constitutional right, because unlike the United States constitution the Canadian Constitution has no contract clause. We are dealing with a constitutional privilege.
Is it the thrust and intent of the motion not merely to cover presently operating privileges as to pensions but those that might be said to be in a private law sense to have already vested, that is to say, contracts already entered into? The argument as presented would seem to suggest that this should apply both retrospectively and prospectively in the full sense. I wonder if that is in fact the intent and purpose of the amendment.
Stephen Harper Reform Calgary West, AB
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question.
The member for Vancouver Quadra will understand that today we are not discussing a formal amendment or legislation but merely a motion that we bring the MP pension arrangement into line with private sector standards.
In terms of my own address I was talking specifically about broader Reform Party policy which has suggested that changes to the MP pension plan should apply retrospectively as well as prospectively. Once again I would defend that very clearly on a number of grounds. The most important is that this was not a voluntary transaction and not a transaction with any defensible commercial basis. Any privileges that have been gained through this legislation well above and beyond what could be expected from MPs' own contributions should not be protected in law, not for past members nor for future members.
Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay East, BC
Madam Speaker, I note my colleague said in his address that over 400 days ago the Prime Minister had said he was going to make a change to the MPs pension plan. By way of comment I draw to the attention of the House that he cancelled a multibillion contract on helicopters just like that. He cancelled the Pearson airport deal which was in the hundreds of millions of dollars just like that.
I wonder if the member has any idea why in the world the Prime Minister would not have done something about the MPs pension plan when it is the number one item on the hit parade. The people in my constituency tell me and other members in my party tell me that when they get to their constituencies it is the number one issue that stands between them and their constituents in spite of the fact that our party is attempting to do something about it.
I find it absolutely amazing that there are only 52 members in this House of Commons who find that to be true. I wonder if that is possible.
Stephen Harper Reform Calgary West, AB
Madam Speaker, I cannot read the Prime Minister's mind but it is evidently clear that within
the government caucus there is more support for preservation of the MP pension plan than for respective certain private and voluntary contracts.
In the case of the cancellation of the helicopters the government has fulfilled its contractual obligations. Of course in the case of the cancellation of the Pearson airport, the government is actually trying to block the right of those people involved in that contract to even seek some kind of compensation through a court process. That seems particularly ridiculous when in the case of the MP pensions it is fairly clear from my office's study that if retrospective changes were to be taken to court there would be very little likelihood that MPs would be successful in achieving these gross privileges they had voted themselves in the past.
I cannot entirely explain the government's motivation, but I would repeat once again for the hon. member and for other members across the way that it would be in the interests of all parliamentarians if the government would vote for the motion and proceed on a plan that gave realistic and defensible benefits to members of Parliament.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure this morning to address the House on this opposition motion presented by the member for Beaver River.
The motion says that this House urges the government to replace the current members of Parliament retirement allowance plan with a pension plan that reflects the current norms for private sector pensions with a maximum contribution in accordance with the Income Tax Act.
Perhaps before discussing the content of the motion itself we could spend a moment talking about what brought us to this discussion today. I have a theory and members across are free to disagree with it. I believe it is reasonably easy still, although somewhat less than it was a year ago, to bash anyone in public office. Perhaps that is fair game. We certainly should not be immune to criticism, all of us who have chosen to seek public office or to serve in this very honourable House.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Madam Speaker, I see I have already provoked a few cat calls from across the way. I also am of the opinion that the mistakes of previous governments, particularly one regime that was turfed out, should not be equated with criticism against the institution itself or those who now serve in it.
I believe firmly in what I call the John Diefenbaker way of looking at it. There is no greater honour for a Canadian than to serve his or her fellow citizens in the highest court in the land, the Parliament of Canada. I have said this in previous Parliaments and I will say it again in this one.
I came to Parliament Hill on October 25, 1966 as a busboy. I am very proud of the fact that I managed to climb more rungs in the ladder than those who started in the middle of it. I am very fond of that and I am not ashamed of that background. On the contrary, I use it to illustrate what a great country this is when someone can start with such humble beginnings and end up a member of Parliament. In my case I am presently the chief government whip, thanks to the decision of the Prime Minister on September 15.
