Mr. Speaker, it had been up to now a non-partisan response that addresses concern expressed by all parties. This bill is an example of parliament coming together to act on what is a sensitive issue.
Here are some of the key provisions of the bill. It is straightforward. It simply implements the committee's report which was adopted by the House.
There are two key elements to the bill. First, an increase of 2% to the salaries of MPs and senators will come into effect on January 1, 1998 and will be payable annually on January 1 for the duration of this parliament.
This increase would apply to the sessional allowance and to all other allowances. It would replace the cost of living adjustment, which would have been approximately 1% this year. In other words, this amount is not in addition to it, but replaces it.
A 2% increase is modest and it is also reasonable in the context of increases in the private sector, parliamentarians in other countries and the public service. I would like to speak to that in committee of the whole if some members intend to raise it later.
Private sector wage settlements were 2.2% in February 1998 and recent public service settlements have averaged over 2%. MPs have not had a remuneration increase other than a partial cost of living adjustment since 1980, and since 1991 nothing at all.
In 1980 the sessional indemnity of a member of the House was 120% of the average salary of a high school principal. In 1996 it was 75% of the salary of a high school principal. I see some former educators who are members of the House and I am sure they know all about it.
In 1997 a Canadian MP ranked 9th in a survey of remuneration, below Japan, the United States, France, Germany, the U.K., Australia, Norway, New Zealand and several other countries. The Blais commission report noted that a Canadian parliamentarian's salary in October 1997 was 37% that of a U.S. congressman. If we include the tax free provision it is in the order of 58%. Everyone knows that American legislators get a whole number of things in addition.
The second element of this bill provides that members who chose to not participate in the pension plan in the last parliament may join within the next 90 days.
For those members who choose not to opt back in there would be a supplementary severance allowance and I believe that this is fair.
Members of the House who retire at 55 years of age or over and who are not entitled to a pension would receive an additional one month of remuneration for every year of service up to a maximum of 12 months.
Members who are under 55 and retire would receive the supplementary severance when they turn 55, just like MPs who participate in the pension would receive it at age 55. I also believe that this is fair. This provision is also very similar to the severance package that exists in the Ontario Legislature.
The bill also provides for a small increase allowance for the Speaker of the other place and the Speaker pro tempore in the other place. This was recommendation by the Blais commission report.
We should not always be guided solely by what the media have to say. However, you will permit me to read a few quotes. La Presse said “The average income of MPs is an income many professions, middle managers in the private sector, senior public officials and unionized employees in certain specialized jobs would find ridiculous”.
I will read other quotes.
From the Toronto Star : “It is the right time for a modest increase in parliamentary salaries. A 2% a year increase over four years is reasonable”.
Finally, from La Presse again, and I quote “In the interest of democracy, MPs' salaries must be increased”.
Last July the Blais commission was appointed. It made its report which was tabled last January and which was referred to a committee. The committee reported on June 3. The House voted on the report earlier and now the bill is before us. I commend it to all members.