Debates of May 12th, 1995

The House resumed from May 10 consideration of the motion that Bill C-85, an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and to provide for the continuation of a certain provision, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the motion that the question be now put.

Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

When we last discussed this matter, the member for Wild Rose had two minutes remaining in his intervention. I do not see the member for Wild Rose. Accordingly we will resume debate.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak today to a particularly compelling issue, which is the MP pension reform.

So many of my colleagues on this side of the House have spoken with thoughtfulness and compassion for Canadians who, like us, are struggling to make ends meet.

During the 1993 campaign this issue came up over and over again on the doorsteps of those hard working taxpayers in my constituency. They were very frustrated with the fact that MPs could come into such a wonderful job as this and were greatly compensated for their work here after only having spent a short six years in the job. At that time I realized the importance of the issue and I made a pledge to my constituents that I would never ever participate in any kind of an MP pension plan while I was a member of Parliament or afterward.

I would like to read to the House for the record the promise I made to my constituents. It was signed by me on June 15, 1993 and witnessed by members of the riding who were at the town hall. This is what I said:

I, the undersigned, Jan Brown, Reform Party candidate for Calgary Southeast, strongly oppose the current extravagant pension plan of members of Parliament. It is time our leaders demonstrated some leadership. I therefore totally oppose former members of Parliament receiving excessive pensions, when Canadians are being asked to tighten their belt. I will, moreover, vote against any bill maintaining or increasing members' pensions. I therefore state that I, personally, will not participate in the current extravagant pension plan of members of Parliament.

I went on to say:

I support the policy of the Reform Party to significantly reduce the pension plan for MPs to bring them into line with pensions offered in the private sector and I will work vigorously toward achieving that objective. However, I hereby declare that I will personally choose not to participate in any taxpayer funded MP pension plan. As your elected MP, I, like many of you, will plan for my future financial needs independently and free of taxpayer support.

As I said, I signed that on June 15, 1993. Now more than ever, my sense of that declaration has gathered importance in my life and certainly to those members of Calgary Southeast who I represent.

There seems to have been a great deception in the Liberal red book when it came to pension reform. I say that because the public was given a perception that the Liberals were most intent about pension reform. However, the red book did not say anything concrete about the reform of pensions.

The Liberals just said that the pension regime of members of Parliament had been the focus of considerable controversy and it remains so. The red book went on to state: "It is now the subject of an independent review, which Liberals support". This constant focus on reviews, consultations and discussions continues over and over as a mantra of the Liberals.

The red book further states: "Whatever the results of an independent review, a Liberal government will reform the pension plan of members of Parliament to end double dipping. MPs should not be able to leave office and receive a pension from the federal government if they accept a new full time

paying job from the federal government". The Liberals went on and on with issues that have not been addressed at all in the bill.

In fact, this is what has happened with the new Liberal proposals. The lower benefit accrual rate has gone from 5 per cent to 4 per cent per year, twice the rate allowed in the private sector under the Income Tax Act. Once again, there was the perception in the red book that there was change whereas in actual fact there has been no real change, just a perception.

Benefits will increase with inflation, unlike 80 per cent of private plans. MPs are to collect 75 per cent of the annual salary after 19 years in office. The average Canadian has to work 35 years to collect 70 per cent of an annual salary.

The Liberals have also allowed a one time opportunity for MPs to opt out of the new plan, but MPs elected in the next election will be forced to take part in the plan. That sounds like some kind of arbitrary punishment for those of us who brought forward the whole issue of reform of our pensions.

Former MPs or senators appointed after retirement stop receiving their pensions while serving, but the benefits continue to grow.

It sounds like I have struck a chord over there. The babble starts once again when we strike a nerve over there that there is something which is not quite fair here.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

You will have your turn.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Going further, this actually goes to the core of leadership in government and demonstrates to Canadians that before politicians ask them to make any more financial sacrifices that we should lead by example. When I hear the empty rhetoric from the other side that we are reforming the MP pensions, indeed we are not. The Liberals have made only marginal improvements to the MP pension plan. They have merely paid lip service to Canadians' demands for a pension plan that is in line with those in the private sector.

[Some hon. members]

Oh. oh.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

As you can hear, Mr. Speaker, the babble is rising on the other side because they know this strikes a very uncomfortable chord with them.

[An hon. member]

Settle down.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

I thank the hon. member on the other side who is asking his people to settle down. It would be very helpful.

Reformers are ordinary people who have families to support and mortgages to pay. They would like nothing better than to participate in a pension plan that is fair, but the Liberal plan is so extravagant that Reformers must opt out on principle. That is where it comes back to leadership.

It is ironic to suggest that reforming the MP pension plan is a sacrifice for members of Parliament. As I said, this is a wonderful job, a job to publicly serve a country where democracy is the cornerstone of our political system. We should not take advantage of that by having to be paid through these obscene pension plans after leaving here.

All we have ever suggested doing is to take our existing, outdated, lavish, unfair and expensive pension plan and correlate it with the private sector provisions for employees. This is no sacrifice. It is doing what every other Canadian out there is doing, which is trying to take care of themselves. It is an expectation from our electorate that we reform this outrageous pension plan.

More than anything else, Canadians resent that they are being asked over and over and over again to tighten their belts, that they must pay higher taxes, that their hard earned paycheques are taxed back to the government. Let us not forget that about eight million Canadians have no pensions at all. Canadians are at a point where they no longer believe their politicians are worthy of their support.

I know I can speak to the constituents of the riding of Calgary Southeast on this issue and get that kind of response. In town hall after town hall on the issues of the day, this one keeps coming up: "When are you going to get rid of that terrible MP pension plan?"

I have mentioned in this House before about the reforms that were happening in my home province of Alberta. In the spring of 1993 Premier Klein announced there would be no pension plan for members of the legislative assembly after the next election. Indeed, Mr. Klein kept that commitment to Albertans. It is no wonder that Mr. Klein's leadership retains one of the very highest levels of support in the history of Alberta.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying I was caught a little off guard. We hear a lot about the government's need for integrity and about trying to increase integrity in the House of Commons. I came here today fully prepared to talk about Bill C-67, the veterans affairs bill but was told: "Oh, we will do it later".

The government said Bill C-67 would be the first bill up today. I have concerns because I am here for a very specific purpose which was to deal with that and now we are thrust into this debate on pension plans for members of Parliament. I am more than willing to speak on this issue because it was an issue during the election campaign. The constituents of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt spoke very clearly about their feelings on it.

The MP pension plan this legislation deals with is excessive. It is over and above what the private sector has for their pension

plans. That is what is so discouraging about this government in its facade to change and reform the MP pension plan.

The Canadian public, including Reformers, have nothing at all against pensions. We believe there should be a pension plan. Every member in this House should have a pension plan and all Canadians should have pension plans. Many Canadians fought long and hard to have pensions. Canadians get mad and upset when there is an excessive pension plan that is not available to all Canadians, such as this pension plan.

In the heat of debate, many people say things which may sometimes not be quite accurate. The hon. member for Calgary Centre stated in one of his speeches that the compensation should perhaps be increased to $150,000. I do not necessarily agree with what my friend the hon. member for Calgary Centre said. However the intent of what he was saying was that the whole compensation package for members of Parliament should be reviewed independently and brought back to this House so that the Canadian public can buy into this whole compensation situation. The figure is not important. The fact is that it is out of whack. An assessment has to be made by the people of this country that it is something they can agree with.

I do not need 10 minutes, 20 minutes or 40 minutes to say what the Canadian public is saying. It is clearly saying it wants the MP pension plan brought in line with the private sector. Why on earth can the government not see that is all it is asking?

What is the government afraid of in the House of Commons representing all the people of Canada? It is lining its own pockets. It is looking after its own self-interest. It is not representing the people of Canada. The government should be ashamed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

On a point of order, I seek unanimous consent to speak again to this bill. Standing Order 44(1) states:

No member, unless otherwise provided by standing order or special order, may speak twice to a question except in explanation of a material part of his or her speech which may have been misquoted or misunderstood, and the member is not to introduce any matter, but then no debate shall be allowed upon such explanation.

I stated something in debate. I have spoken to the bill. What I stated has been misunderstood. I seek unanimous consent to clarify this.

It is very important the Canadian public understand that what I said has been misunderstood. It is being distorted by the government. It is being distorted in the press and the media by the government. I want to see the government restore integrity to the House and let me speak.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In the 16 years I have been here I have never seen this matter arise. The member is correct in citing Standing Order 44(1). It is a provision I was not aware of, and I doubt very many people on the government side were aware of it either. It says "except in explanation of a material part of his or her speech".

The question is a good one. I do not see any requirement for unanimous consent for a member to explain some matter of his speech. I will be happy to hear from all members who wish to speak to this.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, Standing Order 61(1) reads:

The previous question, until it is decided, shall preclude all amendment to the main question and shall be in the following words-

Standing Order 61(2):

If the previous question be resolved in the affirmative, the original question is to be put forthwith without debate or amendment.

It is very clear from all the precedents that on the previous question a member may only speak once. There is no possibility of further speech once the previous question has been moved. That question is before the House. Since there is no person rising to speak who is entitled I ask Your Honour to put the question.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, to assist your ruling, it is clear the hon. member for Calgary Centre wants to speak under this rule. He has no intention of moving any amendment and so in no way does he violate the standing order referred to by the member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

There are two points to be brought to the Speaker's attention. The first one was raised by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. He has indicated to the Speaker that because we are dealing with the previous question not only does this preclude amendments, it makes it such that we must dispose of the previous question before anything else is invoked.

Quite clearly the rules are designed so that when the previous question is moved this matter is to be disposed of at the conclusion of members having spoken. Rules elsewhere in the standing orders are not applied when we are using the issue of the previous question.

Second, as it invokes Standing Order 44, no member speaking twice with the exception referred to by the hon. whip of the Reform Party, I submit to the Chair that the member in question has not spoken in the House this day and therefore a clarification

of comments he made in the House is not in order at this time even if this rule were to apply, which I submit it does not.

Finally, it is obvious that invoking this rule by the hon. member in question is completely out of order because it does not satisfy the requirement of his giving an explanation to a speech in the House he gave several days ago when there were plenty of opportunities in questions, Standing Order 31 and questions to other hon. members in order to correct any misconception he thinks the House might have about remarks he made in the Chamber not today but several days ago.

On the comments the hon. member is invoking to clarify today, I submit that in the unlikely event the Chair allows these clarifications, the Chair will hear clarifications made with regard to the response the member gave in answering questions to another hon. member not on the motion we are discussing now but on the previous question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

When the hon. whip for the Reform Party is speaking to the point of order would he also indicate the date of the speech he made in the House and, without giving any details, the point of misunderstanding he wishes to clarify.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will include those two points and further add some points in order to help you make your decision in response to what the government whip just said.

Nothing under Standing Order 44 says I must avail myself of using Standing Order 31. I am speaking to the same question and nothing in Standing Order 44 says I have to have spoken earlier today.

Specifically, the issue is a comment I made during debate in my speech when I talked about MP pensions. I pointed out a salary figure. That was on Thursday of last week. Since that time I have been misquoted and misunderstood by the President of the Treasury Board, who is sponsoring the bill, and that is extremely important in the Chair's consideration. The President of the Treasury Board has been misquoting and misrepresenting what I said. Therefore the Canadian public misunderstands my point. I said this on Thursday. It is to the same question. I do not have to speak on the same day.

If there is any integrity in the House, if the government has any integrity, I should be allowed to make my point.

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

Mr. Speaker, the whip for the Reform Party conceded he did make these remarks last week and has since spoken on the same bill. I remind the Chair that if he has spoken since that time even if this rule were to apply, which it does not, he had that opportunity and failed to exercise it.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Would the whip of the Reform Party indicate whether the point he wishes to clarify was his speech on the amendment, the subamendment or on the main motion.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday when the government, in order to get the legislation into committee so that the Canadian public would not know everything about it, introduced extended hours on Thursday on our amendment to exhaust all our speakers. It knew some of our speakers had left to go home for the weekend, as many government members did. Therefore we had to introduce a subamendment.

I am trying to be as factual as I can and recollect whether in my speech when I referred to the $150,000 it was on the subamendment or on the amendment. I quite clearly state we were not debating the main motion on Thursday. I will concede that. If that has a bearing on the Chair's decision, so be it.

This is a very serious matter and I do appreciate proper consideration on this because I have been misunderstood.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Colleagues, this makes for an interesting Friday morning. I ask your indulgence to suspend for five minutes, after which I will return and give a ruling on the matter.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 10.26 a.m.)

The House resumed at 10.34 a.m.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order. This is certainly an enlivened Friday morning for all of us.

The rule is designed to prevent people from starting further debate on the issue. I am satisfied, having looked into it, that the member was entitled to rise on a point of order, which he did, but he is not entitled under our practices at present to rise to make another speech on the matter.

I would have to rule, based on our present practices, that members may not have another go at the debate under this branch of the rule.

Accordingly, I would say the hon. member has made his point of order and the Chair has not accepted that he is entitled to rise to make another speech on the matter.

The hon. whip to the Reform Party is not entitled to rise to reargue the point, as he knows. If he rising on a different matter, he is entitled to do so.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, is it possible to request whether or not you have factored in that I was misunderstood?