Debates of May 12th, 1995

Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

That is the same point.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased for the opportunity to speak on this important bill that has consumed the House for quite some time. It has actually consumed debate in the country for several years prior to the lead up to the past election.

When I campaigned and even prior to my campaign in the election of 1993 this was a very important issue in my riding of Peace River. It caught people's attention because they think there is a double standard with politicians doing one thing and then asking the Canadian public to do another. Politicians were writing the rules for their own pension plan which is overly generous. It was up to six times more generous than any private or public sector plan. I heard it many times.

I did not hear any debate about MPs' salaries, but at every meeting I went to in the riding I heard about the issue of the MPs pension plan and how it was overly generous. It is a matter the Canadian people want us to clear up. It is not good enough to bring in a revised plan that is twice or three times more generous than the Canadian average. They want a plan that is on an equivalent basis.

Members opposite who are shaking their heads will find, if they ram the plan through, that they face the consequences when they go to the electorate the next time around.

Our alternative has been to say that we need a pension plan that is fair, honest and open with Canadians, but if we cannot achieve it at this point we will opt out. That is what Reform members have done.

I have received a lot of feedback in my riding about the matter. People have said: "At least you are honest with us and are saying that you will not jump into a plan that is two and one-half or three times more generous than any other pension plan in the country".

When we discuss the issue and as we talk back and forth across this place members on the other side consider the salary and the MPs pension plan to be one package. That is a big mistake. It has led to the idea that we can have career politicians in Canada. People have said they want a pension plan that does not encourage career politicians. That is another point people in the Peace River riding told me about. They want people to run for office who have done something with their lives before coming to the Chamber so that they can bring some real life experiences to the job. They do not want people elected at 22 years of age who plan to be here for their entire lives.

My understanding is the President of the Treasury Board brought forward a pretty good plan to his Liberal caucus in December. It was a lot more reflective of the current mood in the country and the current average. What happened to it? Who led the charge against it? It was the rat pack of 1984 and 1988. The rat pack has become the fat cat pack. They are the ones who could not accept the revised pension plan. Some members sitting over there will know what I am talking about because they led the charge against it. The President of the Treasury Board had to withdraw. I understand he was almost dismembered in caucus by the Liberal Party. What did he do? He could do nothing except bring forward a plan that was somewhat lower than the pension plan they had previously but was still not good enough.

We see members opposite arguing day in and day out that we have to accept the plan or our option in the Reform Party is to opt out. We will take that challenge and we have taken it. It is not that we can afford to do it any more than anyone else, but we have to identify with the Canadian people. We have to set an example. We have to lead by example in the Chamber and that is exactly what we are doing.

My understanding is that one Liberal member has also done it. I think we will see a few more once they get some feedback. If this issue were allowed to go until the summer recess some other Liberal members would come back to the House and say: "I am going to opt out of the plan as well".

I take this opportunity to deal with another issue. The gist of what is going on across the floor right now is what I want to talk about. The member for Calgary Centre rose in the House to talk about the issue. At least he was honest. He told the Canadian public that we had to put the matter into perspective, that if we factored in MPs salary, expense allowance which is tax free and housing allowance, in terms of actual dollars before taxes they would total about $120,000. If we threw in a reasonable pension plan it would be up to $150,000. That is what he was saying. He was trying to put the matter into perspective. He was trying to tell Canadians exactly what politicians are getting right now. I welcomed his addition to the debate.

What happened? The people on the other side of the House totally misrepresented that. All we expect from over there is honesty and openness with the Canadian public. That is exactly what the member for Calgary Centre said. He said: "If you were honest you would say this is the value of the pension plan and the salary at the moment". That is the kind of debate we need.

He threw out the challenge to put it to the Canadian public to decide what the MPs salary should be. I think they would find that it should be higher. If they do not, I am prepared to live with the results. When we set our own salary and our own pension we start to get into trouble. It does not show leadership by example. We had better throw it out to a panel that will cross the country, hold hearings and talk to ordinary Canadians before we talk

about raising any MPs salary. The member for Calgary Centre is just giving the reality of today, what is actually in place.

As I was travelling in my riding I heard over and over again that MP's have put themselves in a class above the Canadian people. I believe there is a lot of cynicism out there about politics right now. I ran into that myself. One person said: "Charlie, I wish I would have met you before you went into politics because I think I would have liked you". It is a little slam against the profession. What he was saying was that the job as an MP is falling into disrepute.

Why is that happening? One of the reasons is that we have double standards. We have a standard for MPs and we have a standard for ordinary Canadians. That is not good enough. It is something that has to be changed.

Because of the misunderstanding and misrepresentation on the other side of the House of the member for Calgary Centre on the issue when he was honest and open with discussion in the Chamber, I move:

That the member for Calgary Centre be now heard.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In order for such a motion to be made by the hon. member who just spoke, two members who are entitled to speak have to rise and then a motion such as he just made could be moved. Therefore, the motion is out of order.

The member for Peace River still has the floor if he wishes.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of whether the public will still like us on election day in 1997. That is the challenge I am throwing out to members opposite: bring in a realistic pension plan and I think the Canadian public will have some faith in the whole process, but if we continue to set our standards higher than those of ordinary Canadians they will have no faith.

We have heard the debate in the House that takes place on old age security and Canada pension. We know those two programs are under heavy pressure and it may not be possible to sustain them. There has even been talk about moving the age limit back to 67 for people to receive old age security. That suggestion was made because we are in such serious financial difficulty in the country that the interest on the debt is consuming more and more of these very, very important programs.

That is the kind of pressure the public is going to face: a Canada pension plan that may not be sustainable, old age security that may not be sustainable. At the same time, in what direction are MPs going? We are going with a gold plated pension plan-not as much as before, but significantly higher than the public and private sector.

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Lisgar—Marquette, MB]

Something our grandchildren will pay for.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

The member for Lisgar-Marquette just reminded me that we will not be paying for it, not our generation. It is easy to bring in a plan somebody else has to pay for. In fact, that is what will happen with deficit financing.

There is a $550 billion federal debt in the country, rising at the rate of $115 million a day. Who is going to pay for this in the future? It will not be the members who are sitting in the Chamber, not our generation. It will be our children and grandchildren. What kind of a deed are we perpetrating on our future generations in this country?

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Lisgar—Marquette, MB]

Let them sign a petition that their grandchildren are willing to pay for it.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Let us examine the pension plan for a moment. It is certainly a step in the right direction. We know that. But there is still an age limit of 55 for qualification. Who else in the public and private sector can do that? Nobody I know. It is still two and a half times more generous than any other public or private sector pension plan. It is important for us to deal with the issue fairly.

In conclusion, because of the misunderstanding, I move that the member for Calgary Centre be now heard.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The motion is out of order.

I believe the member for Edmonton Southwest has already spoken to the matter.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe I spoke on the amendment. I have not yet spoken on the main motion.

[The Deputy Speaker]

This has been quite a morning. The member has already spoken, I am told, on the main motion. The member for Edmonton Southwest has spoken on the motion now before the House, that we move to the question.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

The recorded division stands deferred until Monday, May 15, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

Veterans Review And Appeal Board Act

[Fernand Robichaud, Liberal, for Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

moved that Bill C-67, an act to establish the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, to amend the Pension Act, to make consequential amendments to other acts and to repeal the Veterans Appeal Board Act, be read the third time and passed.

[Bill Rompkey, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, those of us who witnessed the recent celebrations of V-E Day cannot help but be reminded once again of the importance of the second world war and indeed the other wars in which Canada has participated. That war was a defining moment for this country.

It was a time when young Canadians from all across the country sacrificed themselves. Some went for various reasons. Some went because of valour. Some went because of patriotism. Some went out of a sense of duty. Some went for adventure. For whatever reason, they went. They went for their country and to defend and protect an important cause.

The second world war was a defining moment for us as a country. It helped to partially establish what we are as a country, what we stand for, what we believe in, what we are prepared to defend. It was also a defining moment for individuals, all of those young Canadians who went overseas. In the second world war it was not just young Canadians but young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, because the province that I represent was not part of this country between 1939 and 1945. So there were young Canadians and young Newfoundlanders and young Labradorians who went over, serving in different forces but all for the same cause. Not only did it define our country, but it defined them as individuals. It gave them an experience that those of us who did not participate in that war can never appreciate.

I recall growing up in St. John's, which had an important role in the second world war because it was a jumping-off point for ships, planes, and personnel. I remember the blackouts and air raid sirens. I remember my father being in the home guard. I remember the soldiers, sailors, and airmen in the streets, in the clubs and in the USO. However, those of us who did not actually participate in the war cannot really appreciate what those young Canadians and Newfoundlanders went through as an experience. Not only was it a defining moment for our country, it was a defining moment for them as individuals. Some of them paid the supreme sacrifice by laying down their lives. We honoured them some time ago, and we honour them again today.

As the Legion continually says in its rituals, "At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them". We must remember them, not only for their sake but for our sake and for the sake of our country as well. If we forget that defining moment for the country and that defining moment for them as individuals, then history is bound to repeat itself. I want to make that point today while those events are fresh in our minds.

I do not want to be lengthy today, because the longer I speak the more we will hold up improvements to the veterans pension plan. What I want to say is that for those individuals who went overseas and lost their lives, we can only remember them, honour them and pay tribute to them, but for those who came back we can do something as a country. We have been doing something as a country but we must continue to do something as a country. These individuals gave up an important part of their lives and some of the best years of their lives. They gave up their younger years, when they could have been doing other things. We must remember them for that. Some of them also gave up abilities they had. Many of them were injured. Many of them were totally disabled. Some of them were partially disabled.

This country has taken the responsibility that we owe them for that, for the sacrifice they made and the contribution they made to us as a country and to the world.

Canada has been paying a pension. This particular piece of legislation will speed up the Canadian pension administration. It will merge the Canadian Pension Commission and the veterans commission into one. It will make a two-stage process and it will free up the lawyers who are available to work on the appeals for the veterans as they apply. It gives Veterans Affairs Canada the authority to make first-level decisions and it merges the Canadian Pension Commission and the Veterans Appeal Board into one appeal body.

We heard on my committee from a great many witnesses. We heard from very few who oppose this legislation. Some had some modifications they wanted made, and that is what the House of Commons process is all about. But by and large, people and veterans support this legislation and believe it will be an improvement in the amount of time. We have been far too lengthy in granting appeals to veterans in the past. We heard that in some cases it takes years for a veteran to get through the initial process and the appeal process. This legislation will speed up the process and make it more efficient.

There is really very little more to say. This is a simple piece of legislation but it is important. I encourage the House to pass it speedily. I believe there is all-party support for this. I urge the House to get on with the job because of what we owe those people who went over to represent us.

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being nearly eleven o'clock, the House shall now proceed to members' statements.

International Development Research Centre

[Jesse Flis, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to congratulate the International Development Research Centre, better known as IDRC, on 25 years of service to Canada and the world since its inception on May 13, 1970.

The purpose of IDRC is to bring together research professionals from Canada and abroad to help solve the problems of developing economies. As a primary example, IDRC-sponsored scientific research has led to the development of disease-resistant and pest-resistant food crops. Consequently, the environmental impact caused by pesticides and fungicides is greatly reduced and developing economies are one step further toward food self-sufficiency.

In short, 25 years' worth of Canadian investment into the IDRC will pay dividends into the next millennium. I cannot think of a better gift to future generations.

Happy birthday, IDRC, and congratulations to past and present staffs serving at national headquarters and the seven regional offices in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

Quebec Forest Industry

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw attention today to National Forest Week.

The forest industry in Quebec will be hit hard by the federal government's withdrawal from the Canada-Quebec forestry development agreement and the eastern Quebec development plan. These two programs come to an end in March 1996 and will not be renewed.

By withdrawing, the federal government will be depriving regions of Quebec of more than $30 million and will create unemployment equivalent to 1,500 jobs in the Lower St. Lawrence region alone.

It is because of its spending power, that is, using the taxes paid by the people of Quebec, that the federal government came to be meddling in this area, which is exclusively the jurisdiction of the provinces. Now that it is broke, the federal government is backing out and leaving the thousands of workers who depended on its involvement high and dry.

It is time for the people of Quebec to give a clear mandate to their government to recover all of the tax money paid to the federal government. This way, Quebec will have the final say on its own policies.