House of Commons Hansard #224 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was pensions.

Topics

PagesOral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

Colleagues, for a year now you have heard me refer to these people as my pages but in truth they are our pages. On behalf of all of the members of the House of Commons to you, our 42 pages, I thank you for helping us perform our duties here this year.

Perhaps the pages will be members of Parliament one day but, in the mean time, they will have made our life easier in this House. Their devotion and their diligence is, of course, a reflection of the rest of Canada's youth. Even as they leave us, I am sure they will take with them the fine memory of their invaluable experience working in the House of Commons.

As their terms come to an end I know all members of the House who have had dealings with our pages, our pages to whom we pay the highest compliments in all of our conversations, behind the curtains, in the lobbies and here in the House, treat them as if they were one of us; indeed they are.

My pages, our pages, thank you for being with us for one year. You have done a great service to us and to Canada.

PagesOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

June 22nd, 1995 / 3:05 p.m.

The Speaker

I will hear a question of privilege from the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam. Is this arising from question period today?

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Reform

Daphne Jennings Reform Mission—Coquitlam, BC

Mr. Speaker, yes it is. During question period today the minister of human resources misrepresented facts to the House of Commons.

It is true the member for Mission-Coquitlam did attend the launch of the literacy and crime prevention program "Between the Lines". That is one I have been working on for six months.

However, after congratulating the government on what I felt was a very good idea, as there is a definite connection between literacy and crime prevention, we received the books which had not been opened by any of us before. As soon as we received the books and read them I released a press release. I would like to table it for the House in which I question the offensive language in that book.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

The Speaker

The hon. member has made her point. I would let is sit as that. It is not a point of privilege.

The hon. member has asked if she can table a copy of her communiqué. May she present it?

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

The Speaker

The answer is no.

Business Of The HouseOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to put this question in the House today. Would the House Leader tell us what is on the upcoming legislative agenda?

Business Of The HouseOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Windsor West Ontario

Liberal

Herb Gray LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government I join with the Chair in words of thanks and appreciation to the pages. We appreciate their efforts for us. We wish them well in their future endeavours.

We really appreciate the efforts of our pages.

We will continue today with the business outlined in the projected order of business. During the day, as the hours go on, we will consult with our hon. friends opposite on the details of business for today and tomorrow.

On Monday, September 18, the day the rules say the House would ordinarily meet again, we will likely commence with items already at advanced legislative stages before we deal with second readings or references to committee before second reading.

I take this opportunity to thank you, Mr. Speaker, and all members of the House for the courtesy and co-operation that have been demonstrated more than may appear from time to time in the House in terms of achieving the business of the country and to wish all a very good summer.

Business Of The HouseOral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

Lac-Saint-Jean Québec

Bloc

Lucien Bouchard BlocLeader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my voice to that of the House Leader in thanking the Chair, first, for its excellent mediation and chairing of the sometimes turbulent and very intense debate on vital issues. It succeeded in maintaining the dignity, calm and democratic principles that must prevail in a legislative assembly. My sincere thanks to our elected Speaker and to you, Mr. Speaker, to all those who work with you and to those who work

with the Clerk of the House. I want to thank you for having preserved this institution, which must endure.

I would also like to thank the pages and ask them not to always go by what they have seen here, should they choose a political career, but to keep the best of it. As we well know, there is good and not so good. They should forget the not so good and remember the best.

Business Of The HouseOral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

Reform

Elwin Hermanson Reform Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK

Mr. Speaker, somehow I have an idea we may not be spending too much time here before our summer break, perhaps not tomorrow at least.

I also extend my thanks to the pages. Their decorum and support of the members have certainly been appreciated by all members of the House, definitely by my colleagues in the Reform Party. We wish them an excellent summer and a wonderful future.

I thank those who have sat in the chair, yourself, Mr. Speaker, and your colleagues. I thank the clerks who sit around the table who have helped us and all staff on the Hill for their support. I wish all members a good summer, a bit of a break, and I know they will be continuing their responsibilities even though they leave here.

Certainly we have not accomplished all we thought we would to this point in the 35th Parliament. However, we have made some progress and for that we are thankful. I give my assurance we will come back on September 18 or whenever the government House leader calls the House back to pursue our responsibility as Canada's unofficial opposition.

Business Of The HouseOral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

NDP

Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the NDP caucus I join in congratulating the pages, giving our thanks to them and to all servants of the House including you, Mr. Speaker, and others who have occupied the chair over the course of this Parliament and wish everyone a good summer.

Electoral Boundaries CommissionsRoutine Proceedings

3:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

It is my duty, pursuant to section 21 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, chapter E-3, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1985, to lay upon the table certified copies of the 1994 reports of electoral boundaries commissions for all the provinces and the Northwest Territories.

Accordingly, these reports stand referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

The House resumed 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 third time and passed.

Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Mr. Speaker, I believe mine is the last speech or close to the last speech we will be having on this issue prior to the vote later this afternoon. We will be on the MPs pension plan, the reduction in the pension plan as announced by the Liberal Party in the red book during the last election campaign. As a matter of fact, the bill on which we will be voting in about half an hour will reduce the MP pension plan benefits to an even greater degree than that which was promised in the red book.

I accept the announcement made in the red book. As the critic for government operations in my days in opposition, I contributed to writing some of these portions of the red book as well as many others that pertained to government ethics, lobbyists, contracting procedures, MP benefits and so on. Today the Liberal Party is delivering on yet another promise in the red book.

Some members across the way particularly in the Reform Party say it does not matter that is what we promised. It does not matter that it goes further. What matters to them is that we change what we are doing to suit them and they are not expected to be here for more than one term. That is essentially the crux of their argument. They are saying that MPs do not need pensions. That is their view.

Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Reform

Leon Benoit Reform Vegreville, AB

We never said that.

Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

The hon. member should have participated in the debate to a greater extent. There are quotes in many places where members said they did not need these pensions. I have to disagree with members who made those statements.

We have had a rather sorry spectacle. The Reform Party asked the Prime Minister point blank whether he would exempt them from that plan. The Prime Minister said yes. Then we produced the bill that did just that. The first question Reform members asked in the committee on procedure and House affairs was whether it was not unfair that the plan was designed in such a way to permit people to opt out, which is just what they asked for.

Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Reform

Jay Hill Reform Prince George—Peace River, BC

That is a crock.

Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Perhaps the hon. member personally disagreed with the member for Beaver River when she asked that question in committee. He has a right to disagree with her. I want him to know that the member for Beaver River made that statement. All members of the committee know it and the statement is recorded in the committee transcript. I am sorry if the member disagrees with that proposition. He will have to take it up with the member for Beaver River but I invite him to be cautious when he does so because she can certainly rough him up.

That being said, I will turn to the principle of the bill. Essentially the bill has three components. First, it establishes a minimum age of 55 for receiving a pension on future contributions from the date of proclamation of this bill.

The second component is to officially end double dipping. Mr. Speaker, you and I know perfectly well that since this government has come into office, rule or no rule, we have ended double dipping for any new appointment where a person had previously been eligible for an MP pension. That was done and I congratulate the Prime Minister for that.

The third component is to reduce the accrual rate, which goes beyond the commitment made in the red book but was a good idea. It was done by the President of the Treasury Board in the bill before us today.

Canadians and members have various views of the role of an MP. I heard one member say in debate a couple of weeks ago that the House of Commons should be for people who "have made it". This statement was made by the member for Peace River when he was participating in debate. In other words, people who have accumulated a certain fame, wealth and otherwise have some sort of right to this place superior to that right which the rest of us hold.

I do not agree. Had that been the case, although the number of women in this House is insufficient, it would be far less than what it is today. Although the number of people who come from a disadvantaged milieu is probably lower than what it should be, it would be even less than what it is today if only people who have made it, to use the words of the hon. member for Peace River which are in the Hansard of this House, were the only ones who had a claim to be here.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about members who come from a more disadvantaged milieu than others. I think that I am entitled to an opinion, coming from such a background myself, as you, Mr. Speaker, and all my colleagues well know.

I have been in this institution for a long while. I began my working life here, not as the assistant to the prime minister, not as the assistant to a minister or to the Leader of the Opposition or to the Speaker of the House, but as a bus boy in the parliamentary restaurant.

At the time, I had not even finished secondary school, which I went on to do later. I went back to school to earn credits, and although I wish I had more education, I did get four years, after starting here as an employee on the bottom rung.

When I ran for election to this place, I had not made it. I do not apologize for that. Constituents elected everyone in this House for all the good reasons they choose to elect members of Parliament. If this House is to be a microcosm of this great country, then people from all backgrounds and milieus have a right to be candidates, not just those who have made it.

Let us go back a little in the history of parliamentary institutions. Some members across the way denigrate the fact that in their view we are a little too close to the traditions of this great place. I do not apologize for that.

I have become in my own way an amateur historian. Our parliamentary institutions date back prior to the Norman invasion of Britain to the witans in the period prior to that. They have evolved all the way in Britain from the invasion and the Magna Carta, the bill of rights and all those other documents, the declaration of rights and so on and in our own country through our Constitution and the precedents in the British House.

I remind the House that in 1829 Daniel Patrick O'Connell was elected to the British House of Commons. His sin, what was wrong with the man, was that he was a Catholic. It was legal and had been for only a few years prior to that for Catholics to vote in Britain but they did not have the right to sit in Parliament. Notwithstanding that, in 1829 the people of Ireland found someone who could do it, who was rich enough, wealthy enough and a Catholic. There were very few of them. He was able to run as a candidate. He defeated a popular cabinet minister to become an MP.

However he was not allowed to sit. He was made to run again in 1830 in order to be reconfirmed. Daniel Patrick O'Connell then took his seat in the U.K. House of Commons but nobody else could do the same. Why? Because there was no salary for members of Parliament. Only the rich, those who had made it, could become members of Parliament and the Catholics and other disadvantaged people could not.

Salaries of members of Parliament should not be such that we get rich. We do not in this House. We should never go back to an era where only people who have made it have a right to claim

that they can sit in this House. All Canadians have the right to be represented.

If this Parliament is going to be the microcosm of this country, as I claim it should be and has a right to be, then all of us have a right to be candidates. Whether that person is a well known lawyer or a professor of law, as I see colleagues across the way, whether that person comes from a different ethnic background, whether that person is a medical doctor, or whether that person is the busboy in the parliamentary restaurant, it is all the same. We have the right to be represented in the Parliament of this country.

In the next few minutes I want to talk about the salaries, benefits and pensions members get. After the Reform Party speeches, how many Canadians would know that since 1952 there has not been one year where the premiums to the pension plan were less than the payout? Every single year the premiums by MPs and the matching contributions were in excess of the payout from the plan.

People imagine a huge deficit in that plan. They do not know that every single year it has had a surplus, not thanks to the Reform Party or their friend they are in bed with, Mr. David Somerville of the National Citizens Coalition. They do not know that. Why do they not know that? Because that does not sell ads in the newspapers. That does not buy ties with little pigs on them for the member for Beaver River and the others who have made a mockery of this institution by doing some of the things they have been doing.

And then these people come to this House complaining about our integrity. They have talked about the new approach to politics. Give me a break. We could comment on the actions of some of these parliamentarians, particularly the Reformers.

Now we hear that MPs are all millionaires when they retire. Hogwash. Since when does someone take pension benefits based on a lifetime, total them up all at once and pretend that everyone is rich? If that were the way, the silly argument could be made by extension that everyone who qualifies for the old age pension is a millionaire. What kind of nonsense is that?

Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances ActGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Brenda Chamberlain Liberal Guelph—Wellington, ON

Rubbish.

Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances ActGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

It is rubbish as the hon. member so eloquently just said.

A study was done by the Library of Parliament on my own pension benefits. I revealed it in committee and I will now do so on the floor of the House of Commons.

I have been a member since 1984 and I have paid premiums every month to the pension plan. Those premiums as of last January, when the study was done by Finn Poschmann of the research branch of the Library of Parliament, were evaluated with accumulated interest at the GIC rate, the rate offered in probably the most, pardon the expression, conservative investment vehicle anyone could use. If we calculated what I have invested in that personally, I have invested $136,988 in all these years.

Imagine what the member for Windsor West has invested after being an MP for 30 years, or the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, the member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke and other veterans of this place. They will never see even a fraction of the interest on the money they have invested in those plans unless they live to be about 150 years old. How many times is that said to the people of Canada?

In any case I have invested almost $137,000. Based on a matching employer-employee contribution that is used in any kind of plan that would mean that right now I would have $274,000 invested. The interest alone on that right now would bring in about $27,000 a year. What would I get if I retired today as an MP? I would get $30,000 a year. What about these millions of dollars they say I would get? The difference is $3,000 a year based on the most conservative investment vehicle we could possibly find.

Imagine how much better off I would be if I had done rather well at investing. That plan is not to make the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell rich or the member for Windsor West rich or any other members who are already here and have served many terms. That is not the idea.

The idea is the following:

In my case, I was able, at a certain point, to leave my job and run for office. Now I have been elected, and nothing is going to change me, because I am here already.

To use the words of the member across, maybe now I have made it. However, that is not the point. The point is that others in all groups in society can run for office. Perhaps a 29-year old sole support mother who has a good job would like to run for office. She can do so and not threaten her family and their future by wanting to serve her country.

None of this is going to change me. I am already here and I have been here for a long time.

Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances ActGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

An hon. member

You won't be here for long.

Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances ActGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

I do not know whether I will be re-elected. That is for the good people to decide. At least I had this great opportunity. One of the reasons why I had that opportunity is because that security was there.

What is wrong with other people wanting to run in 1998 or 2002 and the elections after that if they are able to do so? Not everyone when they get here has previously made it. Not everyone was rich before they came here or had this huge business empire to go back to. Yes, there are some of those and there is nothing wrong with that, but there is another reality out there. Parliament is the place where everyone in Canada has a right to expect that one of them, if they are elected, can afford to sit in this great institution.

The former Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Diefenbaker, once said-perhaps it is be unusual for me to end my remarks by quoting a Conservative Prime Minister but I will anyway-that there was no greater honour for a Canadian than to represent his or her fellow colleagues in the highest court in the land, the Parliament of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, that is an honour that was given to me, to you and to all of us. What I want is for all Canadians to at least be able to aspire some day to represent their fellow constituents in the highest court in the land, the Parliament of Canada.

Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances ActGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Bloc

François Langlois Bloc Bellechasse, QC

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell on his excellent remarks, on sharing his personal experience of parliamentary life, from his early days in a former life to his election to this Parliament, and to the provincial legislature in Queen's Park before that.

I would like to ask the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell what he would reply to the Reform Party's claim that all the bill before us is designed to do is sweeten even more the members' retirement package.

Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances ActGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Bellechasse for his question. While I am at it, perhaps I could take this opportunity to thank him for his work at the procedure and House affairs committee. I think he did a very fine job and I wish to thank him for that.