Debates of May 9th, 1995

Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin.

[Philip Mayfield, Reform, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the roots of this Chamber stem back to its namesake in London, Britain's own House of Commons. Those words "House of Commons" refer to the purpose of this institution; to represent the commons or the commoners within government.

We carry on that tradition today by representing grassroots Canadians from all walks of life. Or do we? It is a question each of us should ask before engaging in this debate over MPs' pensions. Are we representing the same Canadians who elected us to this Chamber?

Two years ago Canadians clearly demanded change. After the 1993 election the once Progressive Conservatives were pushed to the backbenches of Canadian history and these Chambers greeted two new parties. The party that I am proud to be a member of, the Reform Party of Canada, promised to think, work and act differently. We started by putting our policies on paper. First in the blue book and then economizing by putting

this on the blue sheet long before the Liberals came out with their own red ink book.

We promised to truly fulfil our role as representatives of the people, going against our own party's official positions if necessary to represent our local electorate. In contrast, Canadians have seen how the Liberals handle MPs who strive to represent their own constituents. They are tossed from committees and bombarded with veiled threats from their leader. May I add, the Canadians I have spoken to have been appalled by these actions. They do not want to be ruled by Parliament. They want to be heard by Parliament.

Reform has also promised to fight for real change in such areas as government waste, deficits and debt and the MPs pensions. Over the past year I have stood in the House on three separate occasions demanding change in the MP pension plan. Or as I have come to call it, the MP pension scam. When one compares the private sector pension plans with the MPs pension scam as I have, it is obvious change is needed.

Under current tax laws, contributions to a pension plan cannot exceed 20 per cent of a salary, that is for the average Canadian. According to the accounting company KPMG Chartered Accountants, most private sector corporations spend the equivalent of between 13 per cent and 18 per cent of their payroll on pension plans. Some are far below these levels.

For example, one of Canada's largest telecommunications companies is at a mere 10 per cent of their payroll. Yet government after government has allowed MPs and Senators to skate around these rules, exempting themselves to a level equal to 63 per cent of the payroll equivalent. This means that if the plan was fully subsidized by MP pay cheques, over two-thirds of our income would go into supporting the MP pension plan. Even under the new proposals, pensions would be at 57 per cent of payroll, well over half. This kind of extravagance only leads to contempt among grassroots Canadians.

Many of my constituents have spoken out against this sort of waste. The language has not been positive. It is has been downright unparliamentary. Let me take a moment to quote from a few letters and comments I have received.

One constituent writes: "The government has been asking we taxpayers to tighten our belt as we struggle to live on less as they take in more taxes. It is time for them to set the example in restraint. Don't just talk about it, do it". Is spending seven million tax dollars a year on the new pension scam restraint? Is it responsible spending in the eyes of average Canadians? Think about it.

Another quote: "I think I can speak for most Canadians. We are sick of government waste, especially government pensions and benefits. It is a total extravagance on the government's part. I am 29 years old, my husband is 33, we have three small children. My husband works 12 hours a day, six days a week. We are sick and tired of the amount of income tax he pays".

An hon. member recently spoke at length on how MPs work: "Twenty-four hours a day, sometimes seven days a week". Therefore, MPs deserve this kind of pension. How can we justify taking tax dollars for this sort of luxury pension when many of our fellow Canadians are barely getting by with no security for their future.

There are many more letters I could quote from. In one of my 1994 householders, over one in four respondents spontaneously singled out on their own the MP pension plan when asked where cuts could be made to put our country's financial house in order. That was one in four without prompting.

This plan has become a lightning rod for all that is wrong with government and drastic change is needed. Sadly, the change demanded is one thing the Liberals have left out of the bill.

What surprises me most about this new plan is how little has changed between it and the old plan. I received a question and answer pamphlet from the President of the Treasury Board, as did evey member of this House, and I was shocked at some of the responses to the questions asked. Let me quote some. "Will members still need six years of service to qualify for a pension?" The answer: "Yes. No changes are being made in this regard". "Will the maximum pension still be 75 per cent of a member's best years' sessional indemnity?" The answer: "Yes, but now it will take members of the House of Commons longer to earn their maximum pension". "Will the new pensionable age affect retired members?" Answer: "No." In all, it was lots of talk but not much walk.

There is one change, however, the one time opting out clause. By putting this clause in, members now have a choice: either accept an outrageous unacceptable pension or none at all. In my view, this is a blatantly political move designed to make the government look like it is acting when in reality not much has changed. In fact, after the next election every new MP will have to take the new and improved so-called MP pension scam whether they like it or not.

The Reform caucus, myself included, view these proposals as completely unacceptable, and if they remain as they are it is the intention of the Reform Party of Canada to opt out.

It is sad to see so few members on the government and Bloc sides honouring these same principles. This is not an issue of the pocketbook; this is an issue of the heart. This pension issue

points to how we perceive Canada. Is this a country where we express our ideals of hope and prosperity, how our country will be now and for our children and grandchildren, or do we just grab as much for ourselves as we can while the opportunity is here?

None of us in the House of Commons came to Ottawa for the benefits or for the pay. We came to serve our fellow constituents and bring about the kinds of changes needed.

As long as we draw a paycheque from the Commons or travel on an MP's allowance, we are living off the backs of the taxpayers of Canada. Let me repeat that: we are living off the backs of the taxpayers of Canada.

Canadians are not saying that MPs do not deserve a salary or that we do not deserve a pension. All they ask is that the salaries we earn and the pensions we collect be in line with what is in the private sector, what they might reasonably expect for themselves. This is a call the Liberals have ignored, to their shame.

[Len Hopkins, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words about the quality of people who come to this place and the quality of people they represent.

How can the public respect MPs when MPs do not respect each other? If there is anything that has come up in this debate in the House, it is the haranguing across this floor about MPs and their qualities, as if they are a bunch of petty thieves.

There have been a lot of good people come into this House. Let me tell members that those who are speaking today with great purity are not necessarily in that category.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Len Hopkins, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

The Reform Party remarks in the House are downgrading public life.

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

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I hope I did not hear what I thought I heard. I thought I heard the hon. member make some remark about thieves and then try to apply it to members on this side of the House who had spoken. If that is the case, I would ask that the member retract those comments. They are absolutely insane and untrue.

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

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I think the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster ought to be careful after some of the comments we have heard from some of his colleagues this morning about pigs to the trough and so on.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. I will take the time to review the blues, to look at the wording and the context of the wording. If necessary, I will come back to the House.

I have been listening and will continue to listen attentively to this debate, which is a very vigorous debate. There is a great deal of emotion and some strong views.

[Len Hopkins, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for that and I thank the parliamentary secretary also for his remarks. If the hon. member who raised the question had been listening as carefully as you had been, he would not have had any need to get up to his feet. What I said was that they were talking about MPs in this House as if they were petty thieves. I never applied it to anyone.

I am only repeating your own words. If you are ashamed of them-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. Given the nature and the strong views of the debate, I continue to intervene for members on both sides of the House to please direct all comments through the Chair.

[Len Hopkins, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, you are absolutely correct.

The hon. member for Calgary Centre made reference to the chief government whip and called him by name, of course out of order, and also made reference to the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada and talked about the money they would be making. How do you know how much money they would be making on their pensions, Mr. Speaker? When it comes down to this, I will guarantee you that the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada are going to be in this House long after the member who uttered that statement is gone and forgotten, and they will still be serving Canada.

The hon. member was using projected figures, just like the citizens' coalition uses projected figures. It is using inflation rates, and it does not know what the inflation rates will be in the years to come. The same old story that we have heard for years is coming out here

Where is the decency in all these things? Where is the decency from across the way? You do not come to this place, Mr. Speaker, just to get a pension. You come to this place because you want to serve your country. This whole issue is being used as political opportunism.

I got a letter the other day asking me to tell these people in the Reform Party to get on with the major problems of the country instead of always downgrading the public life of this country. They do not know what they are here for.

Most members who come here are very sincere. Hon. members, as I said, do not go into politics to get a pension. If I wanted to get a pension I would have stayed out of politics. The profession I was in would have paid far more than I will get here. I came into this Parliament because I felt I had something to offer. I still think I have something to offer.

If there is anything I can do to settle this big quarrel about downgrading public life in Canada, I think it is here that we should show the public that there is something more to politics in this country than hammering one another, being vindictive to one another. We should practise some decency on the floor of this House with each other. People come here to do something useful.

It reminds me of the biblical story about the two people who go into the temple to pray. One stands there as a sinner and he says "Forgive me, Lord, for the way I have sinned". Then over here you have the publican who was beating his chest and saying "Thank God I am not like one of those". That is the mentality and that is the attitude we are hearing from the Reform Party today, saying "Thank God we are not like one of those".

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

You have it the wrong way around. You do not even have your scriptures right.

[Len Hopkins, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

I have here a good example of the decency. This shouting is part of the new conduct they brought to the House of Commons. They are sitting over there today screaming and shouting at me. Obviously some of these words are getting through to them. When they came to Parliament they were going to bring decency to this House of Commons.

I hope the microphones are sensitive enough to tell the Canadian people how these Reform Party members are shouting and screaming and disrupting the proceedings of the House. That is their new contribution to the decency of this House of Commons.

The hon. member for North Vancouver wrote a letter to The Hill Times a while ago, saying ``What planet has Hopkins been living on?'' I know what planet I have been living on. I know where the hon. member for North Vancouver came from, and I also have a good idea of where he is going in the life hereafter.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Len Hopkins, Liberal, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

I have them going again.

One of my constituents sent me a day's pay and I felt obligated to match that when I gave it to the Minister of Finance for Canada. I thanked my constituent for that, but the hon. member for North Vancouver wrote a letter saying "What planet has Hopkins been living on?" As I said, I know what planet I am living on, and I appreciate it very much.

He said that he has donated 10 per cent of his salary toward the deficit. Imagine that. Does he think this is something brand new? In come the Reformers and they are going to donate 10 per cent of their salary. I can say without any lack of confidence that I have given 10 per cent of my salary since day one to various organizations, to good organizations, for the good of people who are in need. But I am not the publican in the temple who goes out on the street corner to say "I did this, and thank God I am not like one of those". I do it in my own quiet way and I do it in a dignified way.

I say to Reform members that if they came here to add some decency to Parliament, they might change their attitudes a bit and get away from this. They are not the only ones who ever thought of doing anything for mankind. My goodness, Mr. Speaker, I know that you do a lot for your constituents.

The quality of people who come into the House of Commons is very high. Those people are here to do something useful and they want to do something useful. However, when a debate such as this is held and the Reform members come into the House saying that they are going to set a new tone for Parliament, they are not; they are setting a worse tone for Parliament. Beyond that, they are giving the people of Canada no reason whatsoever to believe that there is decency in the House. They are giving the people of Canada no confidence that the Parliament of Canada is working as it should, on their behalf.

Let us get on with the real issues of the nation and let us practise a little decency on the floor of the House. Only by doing that will people realize that there is some decorum in this place. The Reform Party has brought anything but decorum to the House of Commons.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a difficult act to follow.

One thought that occurred to me is that perhaps the hon. member should consult with the minister of Indian affairs, who has an inside track to a bishop. He often quotes letters from the bishop. Maybe the hon. member could get clarification on some of the scriptures.

It is with some remorse that I stand to debate this issue today. That is because I represent the point of view of ordinary Canadians who are fed up with the type of thing that has been happening with the MPs' pension plan for the last number of years. I regret this, because I have a lot of respect for members of the House. I believe that all of us, when we decided to run for election, did so with high motivation and because we wanted to serve our country.

I have never been involved politically before. I was an ordinary Canadian who dutifully voted, but I had never belonged to a political party and I had never participated in an election process. It was all new to me. One of the reasons I joined the Reform Party, and there were many of them, was because of the fact that it was promising integrity in government. It was promising integrity, openness, and accountability.

That appealed to me. When I joined I sent a donation never contemplating I would ever run for this office; that came later. I was attracted to the party because it believes governments should live within their means just like all other businesses and all other Canadians. Reformers said back in 1988 in a brochure that they believe MPs should be representing their constituents,

not to be told here how to vote but to represent and to reflect the wishes and aspirations of those who elected them.

I was also attracted because they indicated a member of Parliament should represent and promote the well-being of the country and the constituents, not his or her own well-being. When I came here and found the pension plan available to members of Parliament-

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There were a large number of Reformers who listened to what the hon. member on the other side of the House had to say. Now when a Reformer is speaking we only see three Liberals in the House. There are only three members who will listen to this speech-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Before I take up the matter of quorum I want to remind colleagues that conventions are that reference to the absence of members from either side of the House is something we refrain from.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I see a quorum. The hon. member for Elk Island.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your encouraging the people to hear my words because I do speak them sincerely and hope they fall on sympathetic and understanding ears.

When I came here I was very sad to see the MP pension plan, knowing also the public perception of it as being excessive. There were many different terms used to describe it. The words obscene and excessive are often used. Being a mathematician I did some work on the MP pension plan from a mathematical, actuarial point of view. It was with great regret.

I am a family man with a wife and children. I am getting old; not very old, I am still young and energetic in thought. I am approaching that age when I need to think seriously of my pension. My wife was always a full time mom and so we have always lived on my income. The pension plan I had where I worked before accrued at the rate of 2 per cent per year. In terms of a possible pension benefit that means when I reach the age of 65 my deferred pension from my previous institute will give me 54 per cent of my best years in that place, which means I will get a pension of approximately $30,000 per year.

So there is no question as to whether I am double dipping, I am not now receiving a pension. I will be receiving it as a deferred pension when I reach age 65. Those are the rules. Had I not come here I would have reached my full pensionable age at 61 and I would have had 70 per cent by then.

However, having left my other employment I no longer am able to accrue pension benefits there. I came here and realized immediately I could not with integrity face the electors who elected me and participate in this pension plan.

At the time of our election in the fall of 1993 when I went to do all of the book work and fill in all the forms that we had to do as new employees of the House, I asked if I could opt out of the pension plan. I was told by a very kind person I could not because it was controlled by legislation and until the law was changed I had no choice.

Therefore, against my wishes I was registered into the MPs pension plan. I was being forced to pay into the plan approximately $590 per month. I do not object to paying $590 per month as long as I receive a fair pension on retirement, but there is a real problem with that pension plan because not only do I put in $590 a month but presumably the employers, in our case the taxpayers of Canada almost directly, are matching it.

What is wrong is this pension plan permits me as a member of Parliament to accrue pension benefits at a rate not available to other Canadians. The Income Tax Act does not permit the rate of accrual even if the person is willing to make those payments into a registered pension plan at that rate.

However, and this is critical, in the Income Tax Act self-employed persons have higher limits for RRSPs. If we as members of Parliament were able to get out of the MP pension plan and put our investment into an RRSP like other Canadians with the same rules and limits we would be able to provide for ourselves a pension which would surely be adequate.

I have observed most people who serve in the House do so at mid-age as opposed to an early age. There are some young members here and I commend them for their early entry into the parliamentary process. Most already have RRSPs or other pension plans started. They will not be dependent totally on their earnings from the House of Commons.

It seemed to me very unfortunate the pension plan here was inadequate because I would like to have finished my pensionable years either by staying at my other place of employment or by being able to do a comparable program here so that the two of them tied together would give me a reasonable pension and look after my needs as I enter those years of non-productive work, although for me hopefully that will be many years hence. That was not available. Hence we began to call strongly for the ability to opt out of the plan.

I want to address primarily and specifically that aspect of the plan. I do not know what words to use because I do not want to be unkind. I saw the proposal in Bill C-85 on the retirement allowances act for members of Parliament a one time provision which states that after it is brought into force all members will

have 60 days in which to indicate their willingness to continue in the plan, which is simply a spin on allowing opting out.

I thought this was particularly politically vindictive. There are people on this side the House elected by the electors who have as much respect for them as every Liberal elected to the House. I promise that. Those people are now being told: "You do not have the same rights and benefits as others. We will give you back your money and you will have to pay taxes on it". They are basically saying those of us who want to stand on principle will pay a very high price.

I am not backing down. I am doing this on a matter of principle. Frankly, my Reform colleagues and I are taking a tremendous economic hit on this. We are doing it on principle because it is right. We understand we will receive a little interest. Meanwhile members not opting out are telling the public their service here, as far as the pension portion is concerned, is worth two and half times as much or more.

When we calculate this we find if we were to make even reasonable assumptions on interest rates and inflation it would require an additional deposit of about $2,500 per month per member in order to provide the kind of pension these people are asking for. Clearly it is a vindictive, very malicious attack on those who want to stand on principle. I object strongly.

The rules of the House should apply equally to everyone. The fault of the government is that it divides people by saying some are in this class, some are in that class and some are in another class. Consequently there is an increasing amount of rancour and bitterness which could be avoided if we were fair with each other.

I am sorry my time has expired. I would like to speak for another half hour given permission. Should I ask for unanimous consent?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will keep my remarks short. I echo the concern expressed by my colleague for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke.

What concerns me most about the debate is it is denigrating all of us as members of Parliament. As did the member for Elk Island, I ran to become an MP because I wished to serve my country. I had idealism and a feeling I could contribute. The question of remuneration, be it salary or pensions, was not in my mind.

However, my colleagues opposite may be interested to know I have no pension whatsoever at this time. I would have to get re-elected to qualify for any pension.

I want to place the debate where I think it belongs. A letter was sent to me by a 16-year old from my riding. She comments on the debate and feels obviously MPs are basically cheating the system. They were all at the trough, to use the expression of the member for Medicine Hat, with respect to MPs like me.

I resent that because it is an inflammatory remark and gives the impression we are not qualified members of Parliament, that we are not dedicated to helping fellow Canadians. I will read a paragraph because this is where the debate really belongs. It reads:

I have five other sisters and a brother and my dad has no job. About three years ago he lost it. He worked at the company for 22 years and now my mom babysits an extra five kids to help pay for the groceries. My dad has written thousands of resumes and has done about four different jobs but nothing has really stuck.

The issue raised by that child should be the topic of debate today. This is what we should be talking about, not denigrating politicians, not denigrating members of Parliament. Members of Parliament should all be trying to help-

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Both you and I can see who is not here so I will not mention them but we are again short of a quorum.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

A quorum is present.