Debates of May 9th, 1995

Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, members of Parliament in the House of Commons should be concentrating on helping Canadians like this child whose parents are in need rather then engaging in an acrimonious debate that as far as I can see from my colleagues opposite is basically an attempt to gain publicity.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the issue we are trying to discuss today is important to Canadians. As was mentioned earlier by one of my colleagues, it is one of the top three or four items listed on correspondence I receive from my constituents about abuses of taxpayers trust, abuses of taxpayers hard earned tax dollars. They want to see the issue discussed and MP pensions properly fixed.

It is extremely disappointing that on the government side there is no one speaking out in favour of the legislation, talking about how proud they are of the legislation, talking about the details of the legislation and hoping to convince Canadians that the legislative idea has any merit whatsoever.

If they were proud of the legislation, if they would go on the public record and be counted, I could perhaps believe that they actually meant what they were talking about. I do not see that.

Reformer after Reformer gets up and speaks. On the government side there are a few words about not talking about it. Other than that they just want to plough ahead. If they made these comments at a public town hall meeting in my riding supporting the MP pension plan, it would be better to have a car running and parked behind the stage. By the time they finished the speech the tomatoes would start flying and they would be on the run. This nonsense from the government side would never sell in Fraser Valley East.

There are many symbols we are proud of in Canada. We are proud of our hockey teams. We are proud of our flag. We had reference to the 30th anniversary of our flag recently. We are even kind of proud of our winters in the great Canadian north. We are proud of our peacekeepers. We like the Calgary Stampede. These are positive symbols that Canadians like to rally around.

However, the MP pension plan is also a symbol. It symbolizes waste. It symbolizes why Canadian taxpayers do not trust the politicians they put in charge of the public purse. It is symbolic. It symbolizes political arrogance that has been inbred after years and years of trying to pull the wool over their eyes. They think the symbolism of public distrust is somehow okay. It is not okay. Canadians in my riding have no stomach for half baked change. I will not call it reform. It is an abuse to call it reform.

I sent out a questionnaire in my riding and I would like to give some of the results in case members wonder how much support there is for the MP pension plan. Most Canadians feel an MP pension plan is all right. Eighty-five per cent of the people said that there should be an MP pension plan. They do not have a problem with that. That does not surprise me. Canadians are generous and understand there should be a reasonable pension plan.

However, listen to the kind of pension plan they consider reasonable. In my riding the constituents said that the member should be at least 58 years old and have worked at least 15 years and that the pension should not be indexed. That is the minimum requirement they expect of members of Parliament.

What does the half baked change call for? Members still get a fully indexed pension after six years of service. They can still get 75 per cent of their best earning years. It is still a gold plated, feed at the trough pension plan. If I voted in favour of it I would be ashamed to go home.

There are no speakers on the other side but I cannot believe the verbal nonsense they utter. I would love to be invited to any Liberal riding in Canada to debate the issue. I will make the trek from this place or my place back home to their ridings to debate the MP pension plan on the public stage. They would be ashamed to issue the same type of guttural nonsense we hear from that side in a public forum.

Here there is no public to throw tomatoes at them. Here they are not answering directly to the voters. That is why they are not saying anything. They are not on the public record. They are just letting it slide by. They hope we will be quiet so that they can slip it through like other pieces of nonsense the Liberals have brought forward.

There are things other than this wasteful MP pension plan that are starting to become symbolic of liberalism. One is the idea that they can jump across a huge chasm in two short leaps. It is what they did on the budget. They recognized there was a problem. They realized that we had to balance the budget. What did they do? Instead of taking the aggressive moves necessary to get us across the chasm, to give us a game plan to span that chasm, they said they would jump halfway across and as soon as they started to come down they would try to figure out how to make the next jump to get the rest of the way. It is symbolic of liberalism. It is a half baked, half hearted attempt.

The MP pension plan is probably the most visible and most disgusting item. They make a small change, hoping that people will consider it to be a real change. They may even pawn it off as a reform, which of course it is not, and hope they can cross the chasm of MP pension reform in two jumps. They cannot cross a chasm in two jumps. They either mean it or they do not. When they start to make the jump they had better have in mind whether or not they mean it.

Time and again I have said there is nothing wrong with an MP pension plan. People just want a reasonable plan. They want an MP pension plan matching dollar for dollar, one to one, just like hundreds of thousands of other pension plans where the employer matches one to one. It should not be three or four to one. It should not be a special deal for members of Parliament. It should be the same deal as everyone else gets.

The other day we found out that the mileage members of Parliament can claim on their cars is higher than anyone else in the private sector can claim or higher than any other government employee can claim. Members of Parliament have a special mileage rate.

I do not mind submitting expenses. By all means it is legitimate. I put in my expense form for my mileage, crossed out the new rate and put down the old rate. Until Canadian people can charge that much I am not going to accept it. However it came back stating that I could not do that, that I had to accept the new rate.

What are they thinking about? Why would we have one set of rules for parliamentarians and another set of rules for ordinary Canadians? That duplicity, that double standard, has lowered Canadians' trust in politicians.

It is not what we are saying in the Reform Party. We are merely illustrating, highlighting or echoing the concerns of people in our constituencies. We are merely pointing them out. We are just taking the highlighting pen and showing Canadians what the Liberals are doing in case they are interested, and they are. That is all we are doing. We are not writing this garbage legislation. We did not come up with this kind of half hearted proposal. We have come up with an alternative.

The member for Beaver River stands to say that she will opt out of the program. It is going to cost her $1.5 million. If I wore a hat, my hat would be off. I respect someone who stands on principles instead of diving into a sea of gravy and keeping afloat. I respect the principles she espouses.

I issue one more challenge. I will argue the issue with the Liberals anywhere they want. I will not be taken up on it. I guess it is a cheap thing to promise. In any event I promise I will do it if they would like to debate it.

I also issue a challenge to the Bloc. All Reform Party members are going to opt out of the pension plan because we stand on principle and do not swim in gravy. We are going to opt out. The Bloc members want to opt out of Canada. My next challenge is that I would expect every one of the 53 Bloc members of Parliament to opt out of the MP pension plan because they do not want to be part of Canada anyway. That is the second challenge.

First, I will debate anyone over on the other side who wants to debate. It is not going to happen but I sure would love to do it. Second is an announcement that all MPs from the Reform Party will opt out because we stand on principle. Last, I expect every member of the Bloc Quebecois to opt out. I would love to see it written in the papers. I would like it to happen as soon as possible to see if there are any principles over there or whether it is another chance to grab the gravy train.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not believe there is a quorum.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. A quorum is present.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to say a few words about this bill. I would like to start by making some comments.

I am really disappointed that colleagues from the Reform Party, knowing full well that my colleagues are having lunch, would stoop to silly procedural wrangling to embarrass us. On a percentage basis they are much less represented than we are.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

There are only three out of fifty-three here.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

I see. I am surprised as well that the Reform Party did not spend any time talking about what the government had promised and what the government had done. The government had promised in the red book during the election campaign, and it has honoured the promise, to raise the age of eligibility. It promised to remove double dipping and it did so. It went beyond that. What else did it do? It reduced government contributions by 33.3 per cent. That is what it did.

It did even more. The accrual rate has been reduced by 20 per cent. We have to work 20 per cent longer to get the same amount of money. It went beyond even that. It said that it would be possible for those who do not want the pension plan not to have it. I was really quite surprised that my colleagues from the Reform Party failed to mention this. I know why they did not mention it. They do not want to be fair. They do not want to deal with the facts. They want to exaggerate. They want to attempt to excite the passions of people and make them believe they have the answer. They do not have the answer. They do not even look at the facts.

Let me mention something else I have done in order to assist my Reform colleagues. There is a document entitled "Commission to Review Allowances of Members of Parliament". My colleagues from the Reform Party like to suggest that everyone is young, they will retire young and everyone will take home a large pension.

If everyone were to retire right now there would be fewer than 13 per cent of the people eligible for retirement. This means there are fewer than 13 per cent who are less than 54 years of age.

[An hon. member]

That's wrong.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

One of my colleagues in the Reform Party says I am wrong. He should take it up with the commission to review allowances of members of Parliament. My colleagues in the Reform Party always think we are wrong when we deal with the facts from a neutral third party. The commission is not a political party trying to take cheap political shots because it has no issues or trying to create an issue and going down the tubes. This is a neutral third party that is dealing with the facts.

It is rather interesting to look at the number of retirees during the last decade. Roughly half received retirement allowances. The other half did not receive any pension at all. In the Parliaments of 1984, 1988 and 1993, that is exactly what happened. Do the Reformers mention that? Do they mention that roughly half receive no pensions? Of course not.

My colleagues in the Reform Party also like to pretend everyone walks out with a huge pension. Do members know that over 60 per cent of the 445 people receiving pensions today receive a pension that is less than $29,999 a year? They will not deal with that. They would rather deal with catcalls and emotions. They do not want to deal with the facts.

Let me share some other interesting statistics and look at our current plan in comparison with other provincial and territorial plans. They have a minimum age requirement. For example, in Nova Scotia the minimum age is 50. In Ontario it is age and years of service which equals 55. In Saskatchewan the minimum age is 55. In New Brunswick it is age and years of service which equals 60. In Quebec the minimum age is 55. My colleagues all know this but Reformers do not want to deal with facts. In Newfoundland, the minimum service requirement is two elections in five years, Nova Scotia is two elections in five years, Ontario is five years, Saskatchewan is one year only and Quebec is six years. Is this not interesting?

Let us look at the maximum pensionable level. In Newfoundland it is 75 per cent, Nova Scotia is 75 per cent and Ontario is 75 per cent of as high as a 36-month average. There is more.

Let us look at the post-retirement adjustment. Does the House know that the post-retirement adjustment in New Brunswick is indexed to the rise of the CPI?

I could share more with members but my colleagues do not want to deal with facts. They would rather deal with rhetoric, emotion and passion and try to pretend that they would do what is right. However, when they were given the opportunity to do what is right with the salary cuts only a handful took them. When they tried to pretend they were never going to be travelling on executive class, of course that did not happen.

I have gone beyond the provincial and territorial. I am going to go to the international level. We have looked at Canada.

The contribution rate here is 11 per cent. As for the minimum age and service requirement, Canadian MPs must have at least six years of service; the maximum pensionable level is 75 per cent of salary with full indexation to the cost of living.

In Australia, the contribution rate is 11.5 per cent, while the maximum pensionable level is 75 per cent of salary-the same as in Canada.

In the United Kingdom, the two Houses have a contribution rate of 6 per cent; pensions amount to 67 per cent of final salary but are fully indexed to the cost of living.

In Belgium, the contribution rate is 7.5 per cent, and the minimum age and service requirement is 55 years, or 52 years plus 8 years of service. The maximum pension is 75 per cent of final salary.

In France, the contribution rate is 7.85 per cent, the minimum age and service requirement is 55 years, and the maximum pensionable level is 84.375 per cent of final salary, indexed to the national salary growth rate. And I could go on and on.

I have proven my point. I have shown clearly that the government has gone beyond its two promises to raise the age of eligibility, which it has done, and remove double dipping, which it has done. It has gone beyond 33.3 per cent less contributions from the taxpayers to the pension plan and 20 per cent less take home by MPs. Besides, for those who do not want that, they need not take it. The government has gone beyond what it has promised.

In the provincial and territorial scene, the benefits are as good or better in a lot of areas. It is the same thing in the international scene. The benefits are as good or better in a number of other countries.

The Reform rhetoric is not based on fact. It is absolute nonsense for them to suggest that. They are plummeting in the polls and have lost their credibility so they are trying to create an issue. That is what they are trying to do.

When the leader of the Reform Party went to the press conference he referred to the current pension plan as trough and to the changes as trough light. I wonder what we need to do with respect to the Reform Party's latest suggestion that MPs' salaries ought to be increased to $150,000 a year. At a 2 per cent accrual rate per year that would give us in excess of what we have on pensions as well. Are we supposed to call this trough premium plus?

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak today on Bill C-85, an attempt to reform the MP pension plan. Before I do I would like to address a couple of comments of the member for St. Boniface who attempted to make such an eloquent defence of the indefensible.

This really has not been much of a debate. Very few have come to defend this so-called reform of the MP pension plan, although he did make a feeble effort. He talks about being fair. I wonder who we are attempting to be fair to here. I suggest it is about time we were fair to the taxpayers who have been paying the bill for all of these years for this gold plated pension plan.

He also talks about what the provincial governments are doing in their pension plans. He forgot to mention the promise of Liberal Party in Ontario to scrap its pension plan and put in

something that is more in line with the private sector, as has already happened in Alberta and will happen in P.E.I. Those provincial governments have got the message that these gold plated pension plans have to go. The federal government has not got the message yet.

It is obvious from this bill that the members of the government still do not understand that what we are talking about here is integrity, credibility, and getting a handle on the deficit and debt by showing leadership by example.

The President of the Treasury Board said during his opening remarks that the pension debate has been discussed here for 10 years. For the same 10 years it has been cussed in the rest of Canada. The voters have been upset with it and have been growing more upset. I can assure all members of the government that Bill C-85 will not end the discussion or the cussing. It will continue because the bill does not address the problems. I can assure the House this will be an issue in the next federal election because we will be there to make sure it is.

When we had some limited debate, Liberal comments were that the amount of money is small when it is taken in the context of the total debt.

[An hon. member]

Shame.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Shame. I would like to see that statement made to a group of taxpayers. "Why worry about our gold plated pension plan? It is only a little bit of money in the whole scheme of things. Surely you do not begrudge us a little bit of extra debt".

They talk about what members of Parliament do after they get booted out of office. Some of them are unemployable. Based on the job they do here I think they should be unemployable. Canadian taxpayers should not be funding a lavish lifestyle for MPs. I want to hear MPs tell that to the thousands of Canadians who are unemployed or under employed because they have lost a job through no fault of their own. They were not booted out by the voters. I have difficulty finding any great sympathy for MPs.

Then I hear some talking about the great sacrifice they have made to serve the Canadian people. No one held a gun to their heads and made them run for office. We sought the nomination. We went out and campaigned. Now we hear the rhetoric about the great sacrifice they made on behalf of the Canadian people. The only members of Parliament who might even have a hint of credibility in that area are those who were nominated. The nominated candidates of the government may have some justification for remarks like that but certainly none of the elected members would.

The red ink book promised reform and all we have in the bill is window dressing. I recall the comments of the former leader of the opposition, who is now the Prime Minister, during the election campaign. He challenged the government: "Recall the House. We will deal with the pension plan right away". It was a burning issue with the Canadian people. How times change. Once elected to office, it is no longer a burning issue. Eighteen months later we get around to dealing with the pension plan but it all window dressing. It is a minor tune-up when a major tune-up is required.

The money and perks are not the incentive for members of Parliament to run for office. Anyone who is here because of the money and the perks is here for the wrong reasons. I suggest there are not many members of Parliament on either side of the House who are here for that reason.

Canadians would agree there must be a pension but it must be a fair pension. The Canadian people are fair. They want the pension to be adequate and they want fairness to be part of it.

With the gold plated pension plan members are staying in office because they see the gravy train and they want to get aboard. That is the wrong incentive for people here. As a matter of fact, it suggests that perhaps we should be looking at the possibility of term limitations to remove the carrot.

As the Liberals have a habit of doing, we are mixing apples and oranges. They have demonstrated a penchant for it in the gun control bill. They are mixing the criminals with the law abiding. What are we doing with this bill? We are mixing pensions with salaries. They are two different issues and should be dealt with separately. There is absolutely no basis to combine them. We are here talking about pensions and we keep hearing about the salaries of hockey players. That has nothing to do with the debate today.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Ask Silye what he thought about it; $150,000 salary, that is what he is talking about.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are fair, but that fairness is being abused in the bill. All they are asking for is fairness. They are prepared to give it, but they are not getting it back now.

What are Canadians saying about this? No issue has a higher profile. Two years ago during my campaign it came up at every all candidates meeting, at every door I knocked on. It certainly continues to be brought up at every town hall meeting I go to. They ask: "When are you going to do something about that gold plated pension plan?" That is what Canadians want to know and they are asking it from coast to coast.

Let me quote from a survey by Environics. Eighty-six per cent of Canadians say that the MPs pension plan is too generous. Ninety-three per cent believe the federal government should

fundamentally reform the plan before cutting government spending, including spending on social programs.

Eighty-eight per cent support bringing the plan into line with private sector pension plans. Ninety-three per cent believe that the value of the MPs pension plan should have the same limit on growth as the private sector plans. Ninety-one per cent believe that MPs should only begin to collect their pensions at age 65. Sixty-five per cent say that MPs pensions should not be indexed to inflation.

The government had a great opportunity in this bill to restore some integrity to this place and it missed it by a country mile. It is most unfortunate. Politics have changed in Canada for the better. Canadians are no longer going to be dictated to from the top down.

The old guard who has been here for a number of years has not received that message. I was hoping that the 205 new members, many of whom are from Ontario, would have understood that the Canadian people are not going to take this lying down any more. They will stand up and be heard.

Let us look at what the consultants said about this MPs compensation package. On eligibility Ernst & Young said that it should be age 60 and not age 55 as it is in this bill. On pension accumulation, they recommended 2 per cent. What do we have here? We have double that. We have 4 per cent. On indexing they said only to inflation in excess of 3 per cent. What does this bill give us? Full indexing.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

What did they say about salaries?

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

The member opposite is missing again. He is talking about salaries. We are talking about pensions. There is a blockage over there. We have great difficulty getting through but believe you me, we are going to keep on trying. There may be some hope down the road. It is pensions and not salaries we are dealing with.

Seventy-eight per cent of the plans in the private sector do not have indexing. Why do we have it? Why are we so special?

About the contribution rate, Ernst & Young said it should be reduced from 11 per cent to 5 per cent. Bill C-85 instead of going down to 5 per cent gives us 9 per cent.

There is one good part about this bill. That is the opting in clause. I am proud to say I will not be opting in and I am also proud to say my Reform colleagues will not be opting in. We are out of it and I am proud to stand in the House and say this.

It will be a major issue in the 1997 election or whenever the next federal election is. These members' replacements, and they will be replaced, will not appreciate that they were not given the opportunity to opt out. They will waste no time in changing the plan. I can assure members of that and we will be here to help them do exactly that.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I recall vividly after the election when we first came to this House in January 1994. A party which came from the west promised to do politics differently. Its members promised to take the moral high ground, if you will. They wanted to make this Chamber work more effectively. Sadly, after all this time, we know that is not the case. I want to talk about that. It is important that Canadians who are watching understand the hypocrisy in the House coming from the west and that they have a chance to reflect on it.

The debate on pensions was introduced as an opposition day motion on November 22. At that time, Reform Party whip wanted members of Parliament to be paid $12,000 a month. On top of that he wanted members of Parliament to have a 5 per cent pension contribution matched by the government.

I noticed that since the debate has started once again, it is no longer $12,000 a month that the whip of the Reform Party wants members of Parliament to have. Now it is $150,000 a year which is more than $12,000 a month. It is amazing. If we leave it for another six months, he will be asking for $200,000. I have answered a number of letters about that issue. I have pointed out the hypocrisy of that position.

When I talk about some of the hypocrisies, let me focus on some of the things that have been said by Reform Party members. They said that they oppose any assistance to political parties from public funds, including any refund of candidate or party electoral expenses. Guess what the reality is. They have taken the refund for 50 per cent of eligible campaign expenses estimated to be between $2 million and $3 million.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

What did you do with yours?

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

They are doing politics differently, like they promised they would. Just listen to them howling in the back.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Talk about hypocrisy, look in the mirror.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

In their blue sheet the Reform Party states it supports the re-examination of MPs' and senators' expense allowances, free services, staff privileges and limousines. The leader of the Reform Party has a $31,000 annual expense account paid for by the Reform Party which is supported by the taxpayers of this country.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to speak over the howls coming from the would-be preachers down to the left.

Let us talk about double dipping. The champion double dipper sits on the Reform side. Does any Reform Party member stand up to denounce it? Does any Reform Party member stand up and say: "No, this is wrong. We will not do it because there is only one taxpayer's pocket"? They do not.

He served in the provincial legislature and gets a $60,000 a year pension and he sits in the House and collects a member of Parliament's salary. Surely even Reform Party members can understand the hypocrisy of their position.

The fact is we had a red book and we made promises in the red book. Have we lived up to those promises? My answer is yes. Not only did we live up to them, we have gone beyond them. We even had some grudging commendation on that from members of the Reform Party, including the Reform Party whip.

Let me say for myself and my colleagues in the House, and we have to say this often, Liberal members of Parliament do not believe that a member of Parliament should be paid $150,000 a year, unlike the suggestions by the Reform Party whip.

The hypocrisy goes beyond just the pension issue. It goes back to the early days of this House when members of the Reform Party stood up and said they wanted to do politics differently. Having watched the House before, they are not doing politics differently. They are taking politics to a new low. Talk about political opportunism. They would misrepresent the workings of this House for pure, selfish, political gain.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know it is difficult to keep the relevance rule going, but I think instead of the hon. member talking about the Reform Party we should be discussing Bill C-85. I would like the member to describe for us the wonderful aspects of Bill C-85 and how it solves the problems.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I believe the member for Elk Island is correct. The rule with regard to relevancy is one that is at the best of times very difficult for the Chair. However, certainly his presentation I think was a matter of debate more than a point of order.