House of Commons Hansard #112 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was gst.
Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
Order, please. I asked the hon. member to withdraw the direct implication of the word hypocrite as directed to a specific member. In my judgment, to refer to the action of a specific situation as hypocritical is parliamentary.
Greg Thompson Progressive Conservative Charlotte, NB
Mr. Speaker, Canadian Alliance members are holding the House hostage, if you will, on this very issue, because many of them now realize that they have to go back out to get elected.
Their party is going through a huge transition at this time. They do not know who their new leader will be. Whether the new leader will be from Ontario, which they will detest if that happens, whether he will be the recycled leader from Alberta or possibly a new leader from Alberta, there is a lot of uncertainty in that party. It creates a lot of anxiety and now they are trying to build that very safety net they took away about 10 years ago.
Charlie Penson Reform Peace River, AB
Mr. Speaker, I may have to take back some of the words I said earlier. There is a lot of venom coming from that corner of the House of Commons today.
Because the member for New Brunswick Southwest may not have any kind of relationship with his House leader, he may not know what was going on, but his House leader certainly did. The fact that he may not have shared it with his members says quite a bit about that party.
Dealing with the specific issue he raised about whether we wanted pension plans for our members of parliament in terms of the Canadian Alliance, I reject categorically what the member has said. A couple of our members have read from our 1991 blue book. We have always taken the position that we want a pension plan for our members, but the pension plan has to be a reasonable plan. I think that is in Hansard a number of times. For the member to suggest otherwise is a total fabrication that misrepresents what was read into the record from Hansard just a few moments ago when he was sitting in the House. I cannot understand how he could possibly have missed it.
It seems to me that there is a lot of politics being played in that corner and we want to move on.
I do not know how I will vote on this issue. I think I might vote against it, but we are being prejudged by members down at the other end who are already telling us how we are going to vote, which is, in my view, pretty hypocritical.
Gurmant Grewal Reform Surrey Central, BC
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my constituents of Surrey Central and my colleagues I would like to participate in the debate on Bill C-37, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act.
Before I begin I would like to share a short story with the House. Yesterday it was raining cats and dogs at about 5 p.m. before I got on my flight to Ottawa. About 10,000 members of the Fijian community held a rally in sympathy and for the protection of the rights of their friends and relatives who are victims of violence and persecution in Fiji, where an attempted coup has taken place. They presented me with this yellow ribbon and made me promise that I would wear it in the House today. I am keeping my promise to honour the efforts of those 10,000 people in Surrey and Delta from the Fijian community by wearing this ribbon today.
Now to Bill C-37. A number of passionate speeches have been given in the House, particularly by the House leader and the whip of the official opposition, as well as many members of the official opposition. Passionate speeches and very valuable comments have been made by members of other parties, particularly by the House leader of the NDP. All of these members command high respect in my mind, irrespective of the political parties to which they belong.
However, while I was listening to the debate I noticed that a few members used this occasion to throw around political rhetoric. They were probably the left-over members of the Progressive Conservative Party who were taking this opportunity to show their resentment because they are dissatisfied with the direction in which their party is going, so they tried to use this opportunity to throw around political rhetoric.
The debate about pensions and retirement allowances is a very emotional issue.
There are four different tiers of pension in the House. One is the class of '97, to which I belong and, therefore, I stood to speak on behalf of my colleagues. Another tier is the class of '93. Another tier is those members of parliament who were defeated and then came back to the House. There are different tiers of pensions in the House. Should they not be equitable? Those tiers should not exist.
There should be only one type of pension for all members of parliament because all members of parliament are expected to do the same job and to have the same duties. All members are supposed to represent their constituents. All members are supposed to work hard and make themselves available to their constituents. They are supposed to try to help them as much as they can. They are supposed to show leadership, skill, courage and determination. Therefore, I believe that all members of the House need to have the same type of pension.
We should look at the different factors, which vary from individual to individual in the House. Every member has different responsibilities as far as family is concerned. Some members are rich and others are poor. Members of parliament serve this great nation, but they are members of a political party and they are branded as such.
For example, my qualifications are in the field of business administration and marketing management. When I look for a job after my political career is over, I have already planned it. It might be the case that very few businesses would want to hire me because I have a political brand on me, as do other members of parliament. It is not easy to find a job.
It is important that members have some sort of compensation. The Canadian Alliance members, formerly the Reform Party of Canada members, have never said, to the best of my knowledge, that they did not want a pension. Even the blue book policy has been read a couple of times in the House. What these members are against is the gold plated pension. They do not want an overly generous pension plan for members of parliament which is not in conjunction with the terms and conditions of private sector pension plans.
It is not that they did not want the pension; they wanted to reform the pension. All the people who are talking about pensions need to appreciate that these members tried to reform the pension while they were in opposition. They asked the government to reform the pension plan. Instead of appreciating this, the issue now becomes that they are opting into the pension.
In my view, the issue is not whether or not they are opting into the pension; the issue is that they tried their best to reform the gold plated pension and the credit goes to the Official Opposition of Canada, the Canadian Alliance, which has been effective in toning down the gold plated pension. Now this pension plan is much more reformed than it was many years ago.
The member for Peace River has already mentioned that the contribution used to be six to one. Then it was four to one, and now it is a different type of pension.
These are the same members of parliament who not only sacrificed the amount of the pension they were supposed to get, but who also sacrificed the other medical and insurance benefits associated with the pension. I do not see any appreciation from members opposite or anywhere else saying that these members sacrificed their own benefits.
Another big factor is the quality of members of parliament. Members of parliament in performing their responsibilities try to do their best. They work hard, but they should be compensated for the amount of input they put into their work.
The point I want to make is that it is the sacrifice of members which should be appreciated. They tried their best. They put their money at stake. They put their livelihood for their retirement at stake to reform the gold plated pension, which should be recognized.
Members on the government benches have picked this time to introduce this bill, when we are about to break for summer. They want to drive a wedge between members. They did not give enough time for members to digest this plan, to think about it, to discuss it and then to vote on it. The Liberals just introduced the bill and we are to debate it late into the night.
For members who sacrificed their pension or who opted out of the pension in the past, it was a very difficult choice. They can support this bill, they can oppose it or they can abstain. Since the gold plated pension has been changed quite a bit I would encourage my colleagues to support the bill so that we can bury this issue once and for all and then focus on the more important issues which are confronting our nation.
Greg Thompson Progressive Conservative Charlotte, NB
Mr. Speaker, I am wondering how the party formerly known as the Reform Party can square itself on this issue.
One of its members is getting a bit vexed, and I guess I would too if I campaigned on the idea of eliminating a pension plan and all of a sudden I wanted to jump into the so-called trough which they talked about, which the interim leader of the party has referred to in the past. I could quote from speech after speech which she made on the issue.
Greg Thompson Progressive Conservative Charlotte, NB
Mr. Speaker, the member will have a chance to get on his hind legs and speak. He has already spoken to this issue. I am speaking in the sense that members of the former Reform Party, now known as the CA, have completely swallowed themselves whole on this issue. It is very symbolic. It is something like Preston's flip-flop on taking the keys to the limousine in 1993.
Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
I know the time is getting late and I am sure it was a slip of the tongue, but we do not refer even by first name to current members of the House.
Greg Thompson Progressive Conservative Charlotte, NB
Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I should refer to the member by the riding he represents and not by his first name. I was speaking of the former leader of the Reform Party, now the member who represents the riding of Calgary Southwest, who is vying for the leadership of the CA. I guess we know who we are talking about.
How can they swallow themselves whole on an issue like this, which was such an integral part of their campaign strategy in 1993? Many members of parliament were defeated on the very issue of pensions. Basically, the Reformers in 1993 were saying not to vote for this person or that person because it would mean that when the person went back to Ottawa he or she would get a pension. They were against pensions.
That is what the Reformers were saying. Now they are saying that they want pensions, that they like them. The reason they want them is because they are now in a vice. Many of them are up for re-election with a very slim possibility of winning, so they want that golden handshake. They want that safety net. They are willing to swallow themselves whole. That is exactly what they are doing on this issue.
Gurmant Grewal Reform Surrey Central, BC
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-37 is not about leadership. It is not about the Canadian Alliance. It is not about partisanship. The bill is about a gold plated pension. It was the member of this party who showed courage and leadership in the House so that the gold plated pension could be reformed.
The hon. member who asked the question should think twice. He should worship the leader of the Canadian Alliance who showed courage and who stood in the House against the old line political parties which have been governing the country for more than 132 years. They never thought of reforming the gold plated pension. For 132 years their members have been receiving those pensions.
It was up to the Canadian Alliance members to stand in the House. They wanted a positive change. They wanted to bring about a change in favour of the Canadian taxpayers. He should worship those members. Moreover, the hon. member should talk to his own House leader about the pension.
Howard Hilstrom Reform Selkirk—Interlake, MB
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here tonight to talk about the retirement allowance pension plan that is being amended for members of parliament.
Prior to 1993 the political parties of the day set up a pension plan that was not in keeping with what Canadians wanted their members of parliament to be rewarded. As a result, in 1993 the Reform Party members came to this place and began the march for change and a more sensible compensation plan for members of parliament. Tonight we find ourselves continuing on that march to a reasonable, sensible and fair pension plan for members of parliament.
In my riding no one has a big problem with our pay scale. In fact, some people say it should be more. People realize the amount of our tax free allowance that we have to spend. That is not the issue. When they look at the pension plan, they say it is an issue.
The bill before us tonight does not go to where the Canadian public's position is on pensions for members of parliament. I fail to see at this time why the Liberal government, which has a majority in this place, could not have negotiated with the leaders of the other parties and brought in a bill that would have satisfied everyone, especially the Canadian public who pay the bills.
Tonight we have seen the federal Progressive Conservative Party members in the House attack, not the Liberals for the way they brought in this bill, but the Canadian Alliance. I would like to quote a statesman in our country, who happens to be a provincial premier, to bring into perspective the fact that we, as opposition members, as conservative thinking and conservative voting members, should be working together with regard to the bills and the amendments that Liberals bring in on various bills.
Here is what was said. I will read it into the record so that it is clear to all Canadians watching this debate tonight that the enemy is not on the opposition side. The enemy, in political terms, is on the government side which has mismanaged our economy, mismanaged the spending of billions of dollars and has mismanaged the compensation issue in the House for members of parliament causing untold harm to many members.
The following is a quote by Mr. Klein, the Premier of Alberta:
It seems sort of odd...especially when he's talking about the Alliance splitting the conservative right. The Alliance is really a consolidation of the conservative right. Many PC members left the federal PC party because of a lack of fiscal accountability. It seems to me Brian Mulroney lost a lot of his popularity because of his fiscal responsibility...The Alliance is a unification mechanism to bring Conservatives who were fiscal conservatives to the table.
The Tory collapse in 1993 was “a manifestation of Brian Mulroney and his policies,” Mr. Klein added.
We see conservative thinking people across Canada coming together in the Canadian Alliance that we are building at this time. That is the fear on the government side. That is why we, as Canadian Alliance members, are working together to bring in a pension plan that Canadians will accept, a reasonable, sensible pension plan that we can all vote for at a future time when we in the Canadian Alliance are the government of this country.
John Herron Progressive Conservative Fundy Royal, NB
Mr. Speaker, I have just a couple of questions because I have always been intrigued about how this would make out.
I want to compliment the member for his remarks because his level of rancour was in proportion to the debate.
I have two concerns. Given the problem we have with the speed by which the bill has been brought forth, perhaps there are ways to ask the House, since we are masters of our own domain, whether the bill could be hoisted, debated over the course of the summer and then brought forward in the fall in order to have a proper debate in committee with witnesses. Would the hon. member support that initiative?
Does the member think that this issue would be eligible for recall if a significant number of signatures could be obtained?
Howard Hilstrom Reform Selkirk—Interlake, MB
Mr. Speaker, the member's last question does not require an answer because there is no recall legislation in place in the House.
Realistically, had the government not wanted to essentially take care of its own members for the most part in this legislation, it could have, in good faith, come over to our House leader and the House leaders of the other parties and talked about a plan with which Canadians themselves could be happy and satisfied that they were paying a reasonable amount of compensation for us through our pension plans.
We on the Canadian Alliance side of the House certainly believe that members of parliament should have a pension. However it is impossible for me to support this particular legislation because it does not provide the plan that not only the Liberal Party but all parties in the House know should be in place.
Greg Thompson Progressive Conservative Charlotte, NB
Mr. Speaker, I want to point out the hypocritical nature of the position taken by the party formerly known as the reform party and now known as the CA.
I want to quote from the June 14, 1996 Hansard where the member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley said:
Mr. Speaker, the MP for Winnipeg North Centre has just returned after travelling all over the country and talking with Canadians who are concerned about their public pensions. The travelling MP said that restoring faith in the CPP is as important as reforming the plan itself. No kidding.
While hardworking Canadians worry about their pensions, is the Liberal member from Winnipeg North Centre concerned about his? No. Did the member for Winnipeg North Centre care one bit about average Canadians when he refused to back away from the Liberal pension trough? No.
Did the Liberal government care one bit about Canadians when it firmly re-established its pension trough position last year? No. Did the Liberals care one bit that Tobin and Copps, the $7 million pension couple, are out campaigning at the taxpayers' expense today? No.
Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
Once again, I would ask the member for New Brunswick Southwest, who knows this as well as I or anybody else in the House, that we do not refer to sitting members by other than the constituency they represent or their office, period.
Howard Hilstrom Reform Selkirk—Interlake, MB
Mr. Speaker, the member for New Brunswick Southwest was in parliament between the 1988 and 1993 timeframe. I believe there is a question now as to whether or not the members who served during that time are in fact really trying to have their contribution level increased from 4% to 5%. It may be a little self-serving to be debating like this in the House at this time.
Greg Thompson Progressive Conservative Charlotte, NB
Mr. Speaker, the point that we are attempting to make is that the party formerly known as the reform party and now known as CA is attempting to change the rules in the middle of the game. It is attempting to swallow itself whole on this pension issue and it is doing a very good job of it. If we look at the agitated faces of those members we will understand why. They came into the House railing against pensions and now they want the pension act changed. Why? They want it changed to benefit themselves.
When that party went through this exercise a couple of years ago what did it do when some of its members bought back into the pension plan? It put those members in the back row. It actually punished those members because they voted and supported a reform to the pension plan.
The question remains: Why do members get up on their hind legs and rail about us when it is their party that forced this issue to the floor of the House of Commons? They attempted to sneak it through in the dying days of this session with not one single member of parliament knowing what was going on until 6 o'clock tonight. Talk about transparency. They were the ones who did it. Talk about a House leader. Every House leader here is surprised by the reform members' flip-flop on this issue. Here they are standing on their hind legs supporting something they fought against for 10 solid years of their political lives. This is hypocritical—
Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
I have previously said often that the use of unparliamentary words directed to a specific individual is unparliamentary. There are times when the use of a word in the English language may not make people feel good, but it is an English word and it is descriptive.
In my judgment the use of the word hypocritical to describe actions in an abstract form is entirely appropriate, unless someone can figure out another word that would be just as good.
Howard Hilstrom Reform Selkirk—Interlake, MB
Mr. Speaker, certainly there is no reason at this time to use words like that in the House. I certainly concur with your ruling. All of us have had our House leaders, including the federal Progressive Conservatives, in on the discussions and what has been going on. For the member to stand here and take the position he has is clearly unreasonable.
The Canadian Alliance is composed of 57 members that were in the Reform Party. The Canadian public has received a great service from us. Prior to 1993 I recall that taxpayers were contributing something like $6 for every $1 that a member of parliament put into pensions. After the 1993 election Reform Party members came here saying that was not right and that we needed a more reasonable pension plan for members.
They did not get everything they wanted, but they did manage to get it down to about $4 for every $1 as a contribution level and increased the age to 55. Canadians appreciated the effort of those members in 1993 and they appreciated the sacrifice they made by not jumping willy-nilly into the gold-plated pension plan. The Canadian public owes a debt of gratitude to those people. They have rewarded us by voting for us in vast numbers.
We are continuing our fight in regard to making this pension plan an acceptable and reasonable one, and I know voters will reward us again in the next election.
Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
Is the House ready for the question?
Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?