Debates of June 22nd, 1995

Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

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

Mr. Speaker, we all know that this bill will have the effect of reducing members' benefits. It is true that there used to be no minimum pensionable age.

It is true that some former members are receiving benefits although they had not reached pensionable age when they left. It is also true that others, while having contributed to this plan much longer than they would have in a regular plan, are still not receiving any benefits. I gave the example of the hon. member for Windsor West who would probably be eligible for a bonus if he left now. Those are facts, but not the kind of facts that some Reform Party members raise on a regular basis in this House.

Members' benefits are reduced through the institution of a minimum pensionable age and also for members who took a federal position upon retiring from politics. In their case, double dipping would be prohibited; they would not be allowed to receive money from both sources at once. Third, pension accrual rates will also be reduced because of the decrease in contribution rates and ensuing decrease in benefits at retirement.

I realize that the time is up. To conclude, because this is probably the last chance I have to do so before the summer recess, I wish to thank, in my capacity as government whip, the Chair, our staff, the table officers, the pages and especially my two colleagues the opposition whips, the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie and the hon. member for Calgary West.

In spite of our differences, we have worked very closely. I could even say that I look forward to the fall when I can work again with my colleagues, the whips of the other parties, in this House.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell talk about how he had only given a fair share to the pension plan and he expected to get a fair amount back.

I wonder if he could respond to a question. We had a financial expert come to our caucus to talk about what we should do since we were opting out of the plan. His first piece of advice to the Reform Party as a professional financial adviser was: "Don't opt out of this pension, it is the best pension plan in Canada".

Would that change the member's mind about his comments that this is a very fair pension plan?

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

I never said it was a very bare pension plan. I used the amount that I have have contributed versus the payout and put before the House the difference between the two. If the hon. member wants to qualify that or anything else as being bare, they are his words and not mine.

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make a few short comments on this bill, since the debate is coming to an end.

All the more so since, as a Bloc Quebecois candidate during the general election leading up to the 35th Parliament, I did not come here with the idea that I would accumulate any pension. Nevertheless, this issue concerns us all.

If Canadians have shown some interest in the matter, it is probably after finding out that some young parliamentarians could, after two terms, start collecting very generous pensions.

Given the longer life expectancy, some of these pensions could total 3 to 3.5 million dollars.

This is what really concerns people. I did not hear my constituents say that the pensions were too generous. What concerns them is the fact that a member of Parliament can start collecting his or her pension as soon as he or she leaves office. During the election campaign, I pledged to fight in this House to ensure that MPs pensions would only be collected at a normal age, that is the age where the majority of Canadians working in the private or public sector, can legitimately retire.

The bill before us deals specifically with this issue, which is an issue on which we pledged to take a stand. The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell clearly showed that, for the last 43 years, the MPs retirement plan has not only been self-financing, but has accumulated a profit. It is not a costly plan for the state. Indeed, it is a plan which is self-financing and which even generates profits.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I am quite aware that there are some strongly held views on both sides of this debate, notwithstanding the person who has the floor.

If others want to continue the debate elsewhere, that is fine. However I hope we can conclude this debate in the parliamentary fashion we have conducted business in this Chamber on the vast majority of occasions.

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for bringing this House to order with your usual blend of firmness and tact. As I was saying, the main concern of the constituents I have the privilege to represent was the pensionable age. That is settled in this bill. What we usually refer to as double dipping has also been abolished, at least in the case of federal institutions, and that is a good thing.

I must say I agree with those who feel that with an annual salary of $64,400, parliamentarians are certainly not overpaid. Although we represent as many as 100,000 to 150,000 people, we meet daily with people in various sectors who earn twice or three times our salary. Not that I expect to be paid that much. Besides, our salaries are now frozen. The last Parliament decided to put a freeze on members' salaries. We have no desire to broach a subject that as we saw in the course of this debate, tends to elicit the most outrageous verbal attacks.

The remuneration of parliamentarians will probably remain a contentious issue. It may be advisable to provide for an independent review mechanism. Of course, parliamentarians who think they are being paid too much for what they do can always send part of their salary back to the crown. But ultimately, it will be up to our constituents to decide whether the members they elected to the 35th Parliament gave value for money. Theirs is the ultimate verdict.

Members who were elected and want to make a career in politics have to go before the voters in every election and prove they did the job they were paid to do as parliamentarians. Voters may also ask: Did I get my money's worth? Did my MP really deserve to be paid $64,400? Their judgment may be negative or positive. So there are several criteria we can refer to. We ourselves might feel guilty about getting a salary of $64,400. Or we might not feel guilty, but our constituents may show us the door.

That said, I think there has been a great song and dance with this debate and with others about certain parliamentary benefits and our having it soft on our arrival in Ottawa. I would not say we have it soft. I would say, rather, that we did not come here for the salary. We came, obviously, to serve our fellow citizens as best we could, and they will evaluate our performance one day or another. We are accountable to them alone.

I take this opportunity to point out, Mr. Speaker, and you are no doubt aware of this yourself, that our work as members of Parliament is made so much easier by the clerks, by the pages and by all those, who, often anonymously, almost invisibly, make our work or our life less difficult, given that we arrive at dawn and leave late in the evening for a few hours' rest.

People are always working to put things back in order for our return, without our even noticing. The journals are printed and Hansard is there when it is ready. If we need something, pages are ready to find the documentation we need, the people at the Parliamentary Library find us what we need to do our job and our legislative advisers prepare our amendments.

Today we have thanked the pages and the clerks. I would like to take the opportunity to thank as well those who, often behind the scene, work so efficiently that our often heavy workload seems a little less so.

That being said, when it comes time to vote shortly, having obtained the guarantees we sought and insisted on in the last general election, I will be pleased to vote in favour of the bill currently before the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been a very interesting experience listening to the speeches this afternoon. The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell talked about how he got his education. We got a history lesson from him and we learned a lot about hyperbole. I never realized that by hon. members not receiving their pensions democracy would collapse.

I am amazed by the argument that the Reform Party is objecting to the Liberal plan simply because it does not like it. I would like to back up our comments with a number of letters from our constituents.

For example, let me quote from a letter from Mrs. Marjorie Hernstedt of Williams Lake, who wrote:

Chrétien promised to reform the outrageous pension plan. I am a pensioner and this past July, the government couldn't afford to give us our two-dollar raise. I live on the pensioners' pension and Canada pension with very careful budgeting. The whole outlook is grossly unfair and I urge you, Mr. Mayfield, to demand Parliament bring MPs' pensions into line with what is available in the private sector.

How can any of us justify a pension like the one in Bill C-85 when there are people like Mrs. Hernstedt who are barely making ends meet on their own pensions?

Is it not ironic while MPs are getting their pensions that Mrs. Hernstedt and others like her are being told that the government cannot afford a $2 raise in pension benefits. The irony is just sickening.

Also Mr. Don Ford of Quesnel feels that politicians have to be willing to make sacrifices and play a part in cutting government expenditures. He said:

The pensions of members of Parliament should be based on their contributions as a percentage of their salary, to the point of their retirement at age 65, a percentage in line with the average Canadian middle income worker, and that they be eligible to start receiving the earned pension after reaching the age of 65 years, and not when they are defeated in an election.

We are not simply speaking on our own behalf; we are representing our constituents. Mr. Ford touched on a theme heard over and over again in the House: the MP pension plan has to be brought into line with what is seen in the private sector.

I should also like to mention what some of the media people are saying. Barbara Yaffe of the Vancouver Sun had the following to say about the MP pension plan:

British Columbians are not amused. The corpulent cats who remain in the plan in future will get nearly four tax dollars for every one dollar they put in, while the MPs with guts and principles get zip. Those who opt out deserve real credit. The weasels who stay in deserve our enmity.

Those are very strong words: corpulent cats and weasels. These are the kinds of words that come from Canadians when asked what they think of politicians who opt into the pension plan.

An article by Bob Cox of Canadian Press stated the following:

A proposed leaner pension plan for MPs is still four to seven times more generous than what other Canadians can earn, says an expert on politicians' pensions.

Though an improvement on the even richer existing plan, the Liberal proposal would still be worth $60,000 before taxes-close to an MP's $64,000 salary-The Canadian Taxpayers Federation agreed, putting 242 smiling, pink pigs on the vast Parliament Hill lawn to represent MPs who have indicated they would stay in the new pension plan.

Canadians, not just Reform MPs, do not trust their members of Parliament to handle their own compensation. It is conflict of interest. It is like appointing a mouse to guard the cheese. The time has come to really reform the system.

One proposal that has received strong interest in Cariboo-Chilcotin was to appoint a volunteer committee to examine the pension plan of 10 companies at random on the Toronto Stock Exchange. Their pension plans would be averaged and the result would be the basis for the new MP pension plan. The plan would be reviewed occasionally and altered as needed, preferably by some neutral person like the auditor general. Others have put forward similar ideas.

If we as politicians are to regain the trust of Canadian people, we have to start right at the beginning with the MP pension plan. The best way to handle the issue is to have the electorate decide the compensation with the politicians out of the room. Anything less than this is an abuse of power on our part. It is conflict of interest and a betrayal of the trust Canadians place in their members of Parliament.

In conclusion, at a time when the Canadian pension plan is on the verge of bankruptcy, when over one million Canadians are out of work and many more are barely making ends meet, we are being asked to approve a pension that would turn average MPs into the comfortably well off in only six years.

As a member of Parliament I cannot support the package, especially when there are so many Canadians without any pension at all. Therefore I will be voting against Bill C-85 at third reading and I will be opting out of the pension plan if it passes.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Pursuant to order made Thursday, June 8, 1995, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 78 it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, we are approaching the end of the year and we have certain traditions and conventions in the House.

Earlier in the session I mentioned a few times the use of props in the House. I call on all hon. members to respect the traditions of the House. If any hon. members are even considering using what I would call props, especially when a vote is being taken, I would ask you please to reconsider so that it will preserve the decorum of the House.

I ask that with all respect, knowing full well that all hon. members have very strong opinions. Once again in the name of the House, I would ask you to refrain from using any props. I make that appeal to all hon. members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[The Speaker]

As I mentioned before the vote, I would appeal to all hon. members to please not wear or use props.

I appeal to the hon. member for Calgary Southwest to consider taking off the prop which is on his lapel before the vote continues.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if I could ask you, on what basis do you regard this as a prop?

[The Speaker]

I regard it as a prop and I would respectfully ask the hon. member for Calgary Southwest if he would consider taking it off.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to remove this prop. I would only ask that members showed the same concern for ethics with respect to the issue that is shown-

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

I thank the hon. member for Calgary Southwest for what I consider to be his very generous action. I ask all hon. members if they would please follow the lead of the hon. member for Calgary Southwest. I would appreciate it very much.

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed.)