Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-47 and to explain the Bloc Quebecois' position on this legislation.
My comments will deal with five issues related to the bill, which, as pointed out in the summary, primarily seeks to increase the salaries and allowances payable to parliamentarians, to permit members of the House of Commons to be again subject to the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, and to provide for the payment of a supplementary severance allowance to members of the House of Commons to whom the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act does not apply.
The Bloc Quebecois is opposed to this bill. First, we oppose the 2% salary increase. Let me be clear. The Bloc feels that the increase is justified. There is no doubt in our minds that members of Parliament deserve this 2% raise. Considering the quality of their work, not to mention the number of hours worked, we are absolutely convinced that the increase can be justified.
There is also no doubt in our minds that this raise would help attract quality candidates to this place. Therefore, why do we oppose this 2% increase? There are three basic reasons.
First of all, we were aware of the pay situation before we came here. We knew what the salary was, what the allowances were, what expenditures would be reimbursed, and so on.
We accepted those conditions because we were coming here in a very specific context. We knew we were not here for very long. Thus we do not feel all that much concerned about changes to the working conditions of MPs because, as you know, we hope to no longer be MPs because we will have our sovereign Quebec. We do, however, plan to be here for as long as the people of Quebec wants us to be here defending them, and as long as sovereignty has not been achieved.
The main thing that forces us to refuse and oppose the 2% pay increase, however, is the situation in Quebec. Quebec is experiencing a great many budget cuts at this time. There are many restrictions of all kinds, and the premier of Quebec has called upon everyone to make sacrifices in order to attain zero deficit. He has even asked government employees to accept a 6% salary cut. We therefore feel that we must show solidarity with the people of Quebec and we cannot support this call for a salary increase.
As for the severance allowance, that is an amendment that slipped past us during the 35th parliament. The bill will correct this.
Thanks to the reforms made to the MPs pension plan in the last parliament, we have in a way created a new category of member, those who would be eligible for pension when no longer MPs, who have six or more years of service, but the bill we passed in 1994 calls for them not to collect pensions until age 55. That was an important change made to the act in 1994.
As all of us are aware, moreover, MPs are not entitled to employment insurance. Let us consider the example of a former MP, a 40 year-old father of three, who is eligible for pension at age 55. He has no other job. So he will receive a six months' severance package. I think it is perfectly legitimate, in most cases, for employers to agree with their employees who are leaving their jobs and give them conditions like this one, that is, severance pay to enable the member to find another job and to try to earn a living, since he still has a number of good years ahead of him.
A major change in this bill is the right to rejoin the pension fund. Of course we agree that our colleagues may do so. The surprising part is that anyone was allowed to leave it at all.
As I have seen throughout my career, whenever a pension is provided for a group of workers, no one can join or leave the pension fund whenever it suits them.
We came here. We knew the conditions. We knew there was a group pension fund. I think the first mistake we made was to allow people to leave the pension plan. That was a mistake, in my opinion.
It is usual for everyone to have the same pension plan and for all MPs to be on the same footing in terms of the plan. I consider that basic justice.
Since in the future it will no longer be possible to leave the plan, we are making an excellent decision today in order to avoid having undue political pressure force people to leave the pension fund.
The bill provides a special severance allowance for those not contributing to the pension plan and not taking advantage of the 90 days they have to decide whether or not to rejoin the pension plan.
Once again, in this country we are very democratic. We do not force our colleagues who opted out of the pension fund in 1994 to opt back in; we give them 90 days to think about it.
Those who decide not to contribute to our pension plan—but it is very clear that this will be their last chance—will receive, at age 55, an amount more or less equivalent to the portion of the premium paid by the government to the MPs' pension fund.
As everyone knows, members pay half and the government pays the other half. The portion not paid by the government, if the member is not contributing to the pension fund, will be paid to him or her as a premium at age 55. There are provisions for death or other exceptions, of course but, in principle, payment is made when the member turns 55. What will be the amount of this premium? It will be the equivalent of one month's salary for every year worked, up to a maximum of 12 years.
The fifth point I wish to make, and the second reason for our opposition to this bill, involves the Senate. This bill also contains provisions applying to the Senate. The Bloc Quebecois' opposition to the part of the bill dealing with the Senate is not intended in any way as a comment on the nature or the quality of the work done by those who sit in the Senate.
Our opposition is based not on this but on the logic peculiar to our political party. We do not want a Senate. We want to see it abolished. It would therefore be difficult to endorse any measure that would improve working conditions for a group of individuals that one sees no need for. Once again, this is not a judgment of the work they do in the other chamber.
That sums up briefly what we think are the main features of interest in the bill, as well as the two reasons we will be voting against it, those being the 2% salary increase and the provisions for the other chamber.