Debates of June 13th, 2000

Parliament Of Canada Act

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Chairman, first I want to congratulate the hon. House leader of the New Democratic Party for the excellent speech he gave last night in the House. It was certainly the hon. member at his best. He is a fine orator, and we all know it. I am sure that he meant very much that which he said.

Again I am trying to respect the way in which I have done this work, not only over the last number of months but over the last number of years, and I am afraid I will have to say to my colleague that I will not say publicly which clause of the bill was requested by whom. I said I would not do that yesterday and I will not do it now.

In terms of the fast tracking, we are at the end of the session. There are bills which we deal with more rapidly than otherwise would be the case by consent among the House leaders. This is certainly one of them. There is no doubt about that.

Perhaps we should take a moment to reflect on what all of this does. This does not create a new law. This does not even create a new benefit. This does not add benefits. It only does two things. One, it corrects an historical wrong in terms of the severance component. In other words, some people have a particular benefit while others do not. However, nowhere does it raise the benefits.

Secondly, it permits people who are eligible otherwise to be part of a group in terms of pension contributions to be part of the group that they should have been part of from the very beginning. It actually makes it such that everyone starts contributing from the day the bill receives royal assent. I for one believe that if there is a group package, whether it is group life insurance or whatever, everyone should pay the premiums.

I have said that all along. I have said that when some members of parliament were disagreeing with me. Today, of course, I will say it when people are agreeing with me. The proposition is the same. If it was the right thing to do then, I have to say that it is the right thing to do now.

I am being asked about how people should have voted on this. I am not going to reflect upon a vote of the House that has already been held. Perhaps, in a little while, when we have the third reading of the bill, we could show some solidarity, if that is the appropriate word.

Although not everyone wants the bill, since nothing is unanimous in this world, at the very least we could show that there is a form of consensus that we all know exists by having this bill carried on third reading without a recorded division. Perhaps that would be the correct thing to do. It would help to re-establish the balance that the hon. member is seeking.

Obviously we cannot undo anything that has been done before, but that might be a good way to restore that balance.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Chairman, could I ask how much time is left?

[The Chairman]

Two minutes.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Perhaps I will leave some of my remarks to third reading.

This bill is somewhat different from most. Most bills come through the departmental system. They go through the department, the minister and the departmental consultation process. There is quite a process in the development of a bill.

This one, as the House leader has already mentioned, has come through a somewhat different process. Cabinet still has to approve a bill that goes to the House, but the process to get this bill to this stage is somewhat different than would normally be the case.

Could the hon. member tell me whether there was any consideration given in the drafting of this bill to the recommendations of the Blais commission report, which was the last independent commission report that we had before the House during the last parliament? Was that part of the consideration in the drafting of this bill?

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

Mr. Chairman, in fact, the regular system of consultation did operate. I am a minister and, obviously, other ministers had to be involved. This bill has an implication for the treasury board. It has an implication for other departments of government. The usual consultations certainly were held, which is only normal.

The hon. member also asked whether consideration was given to the Blais commission report. Yes, in fact, that was done.

For instance, in my remarks last night I quoted the Blais commission report at page 40, and I would like to do so again.

The report stated:

Departing members are entitled to a relatively financially secure transition from Parliament to the work force or to retirement, as the case might be.

There is another recommendation in the Blais commission report which states that the members of parliament retirement plan, the pension plan in other words, may appear on the surface to be generous, but it is not all that generous. It is one which is, in the grand scheme of things, reasonable.

The report states at page 139:

The pension plan for Members of Parliament, while appearing generous, is not necessarily out of line with public and private sector plans that recognize the impact of the mid-career hire aspect of the career path of their senior employees.

[The Chairman]

Pursuant to order made on Monday, June 12, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings. Shall the title carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

(Title agreed to)

(Bill reported)

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to order made on Monday, June 12, a motion for concurrence in Bill C-37 is deemed moved, seconded and carried on division.

(Motion agreed to)

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased to participate in the third reading stage of the bill. My comments will be very brief.

I thank all hon. members for their contribution to the debate. I also say to hon. members that whether or not they avail themselves of the privilege of buying back previous contributions is their decision. I hope they all do so. Whether they do or do not is their business. On an individual basis that information is quite appropriately confidential.

More important, as the House leader of the New Democratic Party said quite eloquently yesterday, we have put a page behind us with regard to issues of MP pensions, salaries and so on.

Recent reports have indicated quite clearly that members of parliament are not overly paid. Anyone who was ever a high school teacher, high school principal, director of education and so on, would obviously know that salaries of MPs are not out of line compared with those professions. Many other professions are paid even better. We all know that is the case.

I remember in the 1993 campaign when it became fashionable for some people to say “Vote for me and I will reduce my salary”, and so on. I resisted that and I took the following position. I was asked if I would take a pay cut and I said “No. If you do not think I am worth the salary there are five other people on the platform with me. Pick the one who is. Do not debase the currency”. My majority went up in that election campaign so it is not an issue that necessarily brings a higher level of support. I do not believe that it does, if that is a concern of some people.

What is more important is what is right, and what is right is to have not a compensation package that makes members of parliament rich but one which is sufficient to attract a high level of candidates to participate in public life.

The report of the Blais commission told us that on average a Canadian parliamentarian earned less than 40% of the salary of a member of the U.S. Congress. Of course, we are not here to become rich, far from it. But one should not claim that our compensation and benefit package is generous. It may be adequate, but it is certainly not generous, and I would not claim it is.

I just would like to say that, in my opinion, what parliamentarians earn is far from excessive. Benefits provided under this bill are not excessive either. They are reasonable, no more no less, and I strongly recommend them to the House.

I hope all parliamentarians will vote in support of the bill at third reading. Finally, as the bill will be sent to the other house after the debate in a few minutes, I hope members in the other place will be able to pass it without delay. This is my hope.

I thank my colleagues from all political parties for their support for what a believe is an excellent bill, not only for us as individuals, but also, and more importantly I believe, for this institution we so dearly love, the parliament of our country.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to third reading of this bill. As I mentioned last night, I still have the feeling of unease as anyone does when talking about one's own salary and trying to justify one's self-worth.

As the House leader has already mentioned, at times we have to get up on our hind legs and do such a thing. Tonight is one of those moments when we must talk about something that is very personal. Different members of parliament finds themselves with different financial needs in different stages of their lives and careers. That is to be acknowledged.

I wish to address two or three points. There is not much doubt the House leader of the NDP was referring to me when he said he did not feel I should vote against the bill when I did this afternoon. He was offended by that. I should like to speak briefly on the principle I was trying to follow.

I have been absolutely consistent when speaking in the House, in what I have written in papers, and what I have said in scrums outside the House. I have admitted that the issue being addressed by the NDP House leader is in large part a problem of our own making. I have said that before. I will say it again.

I understand that by making the MP pension plan as big an issue as we did back in 1993 we are held to a different standard than everyone else in this place. I understand that. I understand we have taken some political heat. There has been a good discussion down at the far end of this place about that this evening. However I still maintain that by holding our ground, especially in 1993, important changes were made to the old pension plan.

People started to consider what is fair to the taxpayers of Canada as part of the equation. That was an important change. It was a change that would not have happened unless people forcibly made remuneration and the pension issues in the 1993 election. That is just a fact. I do not apologize for it. It had to be done. It was done with a lot of passion, and some changes were made.

The fact that changes were made opens the door. The fact that we are on our third different pension bill since I have been elected to parliament means that change will be possible down the road. This deal is not set in concrete. It will be reviewed again after the next parliament. There is a statutory requirement to review it. The government has a requirement to appoint an independent commission as it did last time. Parts of such commission reports deal with public perception and the public expectations in terms of pensions for MPs. I hope the recommendations, whatever they are, will be adopted by the House. It takes the kind of debate we are having tonight out of the parliamentary area.

As I have said in scrums, as I have said here and as I would say anywhere, it is too difficult for members of parliament to say to everybody that this is what they will pay themselves out of taxpayers' pockets. If as MPs we say that we are worth $70,000 per year, someone might say we are greedy, self-righteous or hypocritical. Whatever members might say they cannot fight. They cannot win the debate. The debate is always slanted by the audience that wants to hear the message.

There is a better way to do it in the future, and I am hopeful it can be done that way. We have seen three changes in less than seven years. The last change is not so much about the content but about the way we handle it. I still believe there is a better way to do it. We would not be having this debate tonight had the Blais commission report been adopted in its entirety. That would have been a much better outcome, but that was not to happen and we have to deal with it. We have to play the cards that are dealt to us.

I reiterate that the policy of this party has always been that members of parliament deserve a pension. It was the Reform Party's policy previous to the Canadian Alliance. The Canadian Alliance policy is that members of parliament should get a pension plan. That has never been in dispute.

One good thing about the bill is that the debate in the future will no longer be whether MPs get a pension. We have turned a page. There will still be a debate on what kind of pension MPs should get, which is the proper debate. The public will engage in it. The National Citizens' Coalition is sure to give us a pound or two in the next while. Others will get into it. That is fine because a debate on what kind of pension is appropriate. That is fine enough question and a fine enough debate.

The mistake, if there was one made or at least the impression that was left at one time, was that some MPs do not deserve a pension. That double standard was wrong. If people think I am coughing up crow feathers, or whatever it is I have to do, I just say the debate should have never been about whether some MPs should receive any pension at all. All MPs should receive a pension. We have said that. It has been our policy.

There was an honest attempt and effective pressure was brought on the government to change the pension plan. Part of that effectiveness unfortunately was that some members of parliament received no pension. It was part of a pressure tactic, part of of an effort to bring in changes and to bring in the recommendations of the Blais commission. That tactic was taken to pressure the government. It was somewhat effective, but the mistake in the end result was that some MPs were told they would receive nothing for the rest of their lives, whatever that might be. That was contrary to party policy. It always was and it still is.

The party policy of the former Reform Party was that we should have a pension in line with the private sector. The party policy for the Canadian Alliance is similar. I can get more specific and say that we should live with the results of an independent commission that reports to parliament. We would take its recommendations as binding. If the commission says we should get rid of the tax free allowance, gross it all up and base our pension on a totally taxable amount, we will salute the flag and we will do it. If it says we should have to work so many years before receiving a pension, if it says we will get a pension at such and such an age, or whatever it thinks appropriate is based on an independent commission, I will thank it kindly, shake hands, and we will pass it. That is the way to do it. Then there is no more debate as to how we handled ourselves or whether we scored or whatever. All MPs would receive a pension plan as they should, but it would be reasonable because an independent commission brought it down.

There was a lot of talk last night about the fast tracking of the bill. A couple of points need to be said. It is true the entire House gave consent to bringing the bill in without 48 hours notice. As I said to the media earlier today, if we had as much time to debate all bills in the House of Commons as we will have to debate this one we would be thrilled. Every member who wants to speak is allowed to speak to this bill. If we had as much time as that on the Nisga'a agreement, if we had as much time as that on the Clarity Act, if we had as much time as that on dozens of different pieces of legislation, as a House leader I would be thrilled to death.

There is no restriction on this debate. We brought it in 48 hours early, but as our caucus and members over there know as many members as want can get up on their hind legs today to talk about whatever they want to talk about. They are free to do it. What a wonderful way to do it.

I am much more proud of the way we are handling this bill as a parliament than the changes we made last time, when we brought it in and passed it in a day just two years ago. When I went home I had more complaints about how we handled the passage of the bill than the contents of it.

Here it is a wide open debate. Yes, it was brought in without 48 hours notice, but what an improvement it is for all of us to stand up, and I will have to do it too, to go to the media, to go home and when they ask, “What did you say about the bill? Did you speak about it?” I will say, “Absolutely. I am on the record and you can read it in Hansard because no one was denied the right to speak”. Not only that, but no one is denied the right to vote. This is the way legislation should be passed. We have a vote.

This brings me to my final point which is the vote itself. The House leader for the NDP is offended because I voted against this bill. I tell him as I told the media earlier, and as I will tell my constituents, I am voting against the bill because the bill is not consistent with our party policy. I am going to vote against it because I am going to be consistent with that. That being said, and I will say it here and I will say it back home, I am voting against it but my heart is not in it. That is the truth.

I am voting against it not because I think there are some shenanigans going on, not because I think that the government House leader has been sneaky or underhanded or anything else. And anyone who says that just has not worked with the government House leader. This is kind of shocking for me to say this, but those who say that the government House leader has not been honourable should be ashamed of themselves. I do not mind saying that. I think it makes cheap political points and I find that offensive.

All the time we allow bills to come to this place. We fast-track them so to speak. People should know how this works. It is no secret. There are negotiations. The House leaders get together and say, “How many speakers to you think you are going to have on this bill?” I will say, “I think we have about three or four speakers”. The government House leader will say, “Okay, I have two or three. It looks like we are going to have three or four hours of debate. If we do that we are going to be pressed for time. Would you cut back to just two speakers so we can get the bill into committee?” I will say, “Okay, I can see the wisdom of that, but I am going to vote against it”.

We are not supporting the bill. It is just part of how we handle it. I have opposed bills because they originated in the Senate, not for the contents of the bill but because I find it offensive that the Senate originates bills which I think should properly originate here.

I have already said that I am voting against this legislation. I have done and I will again if it is a standing vote and if we have a vote on third reading, not because I think something sneaky, underhanded or dirty has happened but because I think there is a better way to do it.

Often in this place we vote against legislation not because we think it is heinous, not because we think it is dastardly, underhanded, sneaky or anything like that; we see what the government is trying to do but we think there is a better way to do it. I will vote against the bill because I think there is a better way. I explained it last night thoroughly. I will vote against it not because I want to smear anyone. I have not said a word against anyone here and I am not going to. It is not because I am trying to paint someone into a corner or take advantage of someone. I am doing it because there is a better way. That is the way it works. We do that consistently in this place, not because we think different bills are awful, but because there is a better way.

When there is a better way we have an obligation as an opposition party to stand up, explain that better way and then vote against the legislation. That is what I think. We do this routinely. I am thinking even of bills that we will support. We will bring in report stage amendments even though we know they are not going to pass, but we think they will improve the bill. We will bring in the amendments but we will not hold up the bill or stop it or make somebody down the road pay the price. However, in our opinion, there is a better way.

It is our obligation to put that better way on the table for everyone to see. They can say yes or no. They can say they do not like it or they think it is good, bad or indifferent. As the official opposition, it is our obligation not just to rubber stamp it, but to say there is an alternative and this is what we would like to do. It does not mean we do not think there is some other benefit in the bill. It means that our obligation is to be consistent with our party line, with what we proposed and campaigned on and propose those better ways in the House.

After what I have said I hope people can understand. I will vote against the bill not because I think MPs do not deserve a pension because they do. I will vote against it because it is inconsistent with our party policy. Our party policy is not that MPs get no pension. That has never been the deal. That is not going to be the deal. As long as I have anything to do with it, it will not be the deal. MPs deserve a pension.

The debate is what kind of pension they deserve and who should give it to them. I wish, I hope and I believe one day that is the way it will be done. It will take the pressure off all members of parliament. The debate and the rancour about this subject will be put behind us once and for all. We will all be able to go home and say that we got the pension that somebody allocated to us, not because we asked for it or snuck it through or negotiated it or anything else. We got it because it was an independent group of people who gave all of us a fitting remuneration and retirement package.

I look forward to that day. It is not likely to happen before the next parliament, but when we go through the statutory review I hope all members of parliament will consider what I have said tonight. There is a better way to handle this difficult issue for all members of parliament.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Madam Speaker, like other members of parliament, I am not anxious to jump into this, but there is an element to all of this debate that we have to keep in mind and put into a certain context. It is very easy to say that we want to ensure fairness, that this bill is aimed at changing some anomalies that exist and that there are some technical adjustments that need to be made to ensure fairness. We have pointed them out ad nauseam as to the purpose of the bill.

Let us not kid ourselves for a minute. This bill is tailored to allow members of one particular party to opt back into a pension plan that they denounced. I take very much to heart the comments that have been made by the previous speaker. I believe him to be very sincere in what he has indicated. I do not do this with any great relish, but it is a matter of that was then and this is now. Those words were easy to say at one time and now they are a little bitter when they have to be swallowed.

I want to point out something that the hon. member for Fraser Valley said on this issue not that many years ago in debates in the House of Commons. On May 9, 1995 he said, “All Reform Party members are going to opt out of the pension plan because we stand on principle and do not swim in gravy. We are going to opt out”.

His leader that same day in the course of the debate said, “It is the intention of Reform MPs to opt out of the pension plan. We call upon every member of the House to do likewise. Opt out or get out will be the cry in the constituencies. It is the cry which must be respected if fairness and leadership by example and integrity are to be restored to parliament on any budget it endorses”.

That was obviously a bunch of malarkey. Now by virtue of this bill, as my colleague from New Brunswick Southwest has indicated, the reform members of the House are now swallowing themselves whole. They are completely capitulating on their earlier stances.

It was not so much what they said here that really hurts, that really makes it hard for some members like the member who was here in 1993 and was defeated. It is not just those members and the debate that is taking place here, but it is members that are not here who did not return and do not have the ability to collect a pension. They stated quite clearly where they stood and still stand, but now there has been a reversal of fortunes.

There has been a change in the mindset because individuals, in fairness, came here having said one thing and realized that things were a little different. The pension was not so sweet after all. It was not so easy to get on a plane and come to Ottawa and leave family and friends and a previous occupation behind. It was not such a great deal after all.

What this comes down to is having said one thing and now turning completely around. They have made a complete reversal of fortunes in their favour and have opted back in by virtue of this bill. That is what this bill allows them to do.

I know they do not like to hear this, but the unravelling of Reform principle is what we are seeing here. There is a thinly veiled attempt at reinventing themselves and what they said. There was a name change but all the while they kept the same policy, the same membership and the same leadership. A futile redundant exercise. A cynical attempt at re-branding. That is what this is all part of in the big scheme of things.

It is easy to find integrity after the fact. It is easy to opt into the pension plan, the same plan that the Reform Party railed against. They screamed like banshees and suggested that somehow it was completely malicious and untenable that members of parliament would accept some remuneration after the fact for the hard work they do. That was an issue that was not put forward by any other party. This was an invention, a tool, a spear that was used to impale other members of the House. Now it is impaling them. They are going to have to go back to their constituents and explain how they can do this, how they can swallow their principle now and take the pension, vote against it perhaps.

This pension plan will now be mandatory. Make no mistake about it. All 301 members of the House of Commons are in. When this pension plan passes, they are all in. Nobody is out. We have an added bonus and it is a stroke of genius. I am not questioning the government House leader's intention, it is a beautiful thing. It is the ability to buy back retroactively all of that pensionable time. Fair enough. Why not?

Nobody is suggesting that members of one party work any harder than members of another. Those members are entitled to pensions and we do not dispute that for a minute, but they should not tell people they will not take the pension and then take it. They should not try to hide behind some guise, as was seen in the last attempt to bring in a severance package that would set up two separate types of plans. There is the evil pension plan that members of parliament get and then there is the fine severance package that will be a lump sum that will go to Reform members. That is okay. A big lump sum payment is fine, but a pension is bad.

This reminds me of George Orwell's classic novel Animal Farm which we all studied in grade 9 or 10 in high school. I know, Madam Speaker, that you are a scholar and you will recall this story. We all recall the premise of what was going to take place in that famous novel.

The pigs were appalled at the farmer and the lavish life that he lived and the terrible conditions the animals were toiling in. In Animal Farm the animals gathered in the barnyard and talked about rebellion and what they were going to do to change things. They spoke in wild terms of equity and fairness and what they would not do if they had the reins of power. The animals continued to gather and whip each other into a frenzy.

Finally the rebellion came. Does this sound familiar? The animals gathered up their strength and courage and pumped each other up. They said they would do things differently if they ever had the chance. They chastised the farmer for his comfortable life. Remember the rallying cry, “four legs good, two legs bad”. When the rebellion was over the pigs moved into the house. They started walking on their hind legs and they took the comforts that the farmer used to enjoy and which they had previously opposed. Does this sound familiar?

In our current circumstances: reformers good, other MPs bad. That is what we have been hearing for 10 years. For 10 years we have been hearing “No pensions, no car, no clothing allowance, no Stornoway. That would never happen”. The list goes on.

The reform leader is standing in the House on hind legs. The barnyard buddies are also here. The moral of the story is that it is very easy to say one thing but when one is saddled with the actual reality of what is taking place it is a different story altogether.

That is what we have heard. We heard one story when that party wanted to achieve office, but now that it is in office it is a different story. The story does not apply anymore. The conditions are not the same. However, that will be for the Canadian people to decide. Opting into the pension plan, the same pension plan that everyone here is entitled to and reformers are entitled to as well, is not what a lot of them said they would do. Some of them did address the issue in an upfront way. What it comes down to is truth or consequences.

What happened to bring about the change? What was the crisis of conscience? What was the shallow pool of principle that caused things to turn around? It was simply the reality that some people may have to leave here and go home. They have families to support and, as my colleague said, they may have children or spouses who have made great sacrifices. Those are fundamental things that cannot be denied. They are fundamental things that every member of the House has to confront, yet that was put to one side when it was politically advantageous to pillar other members of the House of Commons on this issue. I would suggest that it was done with reckless abandon and malice aforethought.

It was easy to criticize something when reformers did not really know much about it. They came to the House, after having created this atmosphere of fear and loathing—and it has taken almost 10 years to go that full circle—and completely swallowed themselves from head to tail. What we have seen is a reptilian transformation, a shedding of the skin. Now it is okay to have a pension.

It is very easy to get up, speak emotionally, tell us that it is fine and that we wish things were different, but I am just one small voice. There are many members of parliament who feel very offended by what has taken place, particularly members who are not here and who were defeated, and perhaps very much on this one issue. It was made an issue. It was not something that was a creation of anyone other than themselves, which is what makes it so difficult and so distasteful. This is a bed that was made completely by the reform party, no one else.

It is very easy to criticize and vilify one's opponent, but at the end of the day, when it has come full circle, in the sharp light of day and the cameras are on, and we are being asked to explain ourselves, that is where it gets a little more dicey. That is where the reform party finds itself now.

The wrecking ball approach is simple: come in, destroy institutions, strike everything down and criticize. However, when harnessed with the reins of power, as we know this party never will be, it is different.

That is what the Liberal government has had to do. It is nothing new for the Liberal government. The reform party has been very critical of the current government but even this exercise cannot hold a candle to swallowing itself whole: the GST, free trade, privatization, helicopter programs. This government has not even begun to hold a candle to that record except the red book promises and the red faces that now exist in conjunction with that. I suppose there is some comparison with the green book and the envy and greed that might be associated with what is taking place now.

This debate, unfortunately, does take a bit of a nasty turn because it is personal for members of parliament, having suffered the slings and arrows of what was deemed to be outrageous fortune by the reform party, which now it wants to delve into it. We no longer see the plastic pink pigs being stuck in the front lawn of the House of Commons. Of course, that was part of the new dignity that was coming to this place, just like the mariachi band in front of the Senate, a class act. Those things certainly raised the profile and the feeling of dignity that members of parliament have for this place. Double that up with the Canadian flags being tossed on the floor and the old jalopy with the Canadian flags painted on it circling the parliamentary precinct, it certainly raised the profile of parliament. A new dignity.

[An hon. member]

What about taking off their jackets to fight?

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Yes, they were challenging members of the House of Commons to fight. That was reminiscent of a new way of doing things, of saying one thing and doing another.

In simple terms, there has been a reality check that has taken place. I hope Canadians are paying attention because I think we sometimes fool ourselves. We think Canadians are watching this place with a close eye. I would suggest it is becoming more and more of a jaded eye because of this type of, dare I say, hypocrisy. The Greek god, Hippocrates, would be looking down on us right now with a very wry smile.

When we arrive in this place we learn in very short order that this is an onerous task and a heavy responsibility. We have to choose our words carefully and we have to be prepared to stand by them. I think the next election is going to be very much about truth and about restoring some semblance of faith and belief that Canadians might have in their elected officials again. This exercise is certainly not going to help that task.

When it is all over, when it is all said and done, if we are prepared to say something to get elected, we had better be prepared to follow through with it. We had better be prepared to stand by those words. The inflamed passions that we see here today are only the beginning of what may be a very rigorous campaign that is potentially going to take place this fall. The spears being used to lampoon one another here may be repeated out on the hustings.

Canadians deserve to know where we stand. They deserve to be able to check up after the fact to see if we have followed through on it. I sincerely hope that members of parliament, particularly members of the reform party, can go back and look their constituents in the eye and say that, yes, they have followed through with their promise in this regard because they chose to make it an issue. They did make it an issue. There is no doubt about that. Pages and pages of Hansard have chronicled the commentary that has taken place in the House.

This bill is about fairness and, in principle, all Progressive Conservative members of the House of Commons support what this bill attempts to achieve, which is a fair and equitable system that brings parity in for all members of this place. What we do not accept is that this pension plan was used as a club with a nail in it to beat other members of parliament. We oppose the fact that the reform party is now very quick to embrace this same pension plan and gather it in.

However, that was then and this is now. What we have seen is that there are no more references to gold-plated pensions. That seems to have dissipated. The rancour has somehow died. The righteousness has disappeared somewhat. Well, lo and behold, all the reformers are accepting what they once rejected, embracing what they once despised, counting and caressing what they once so vehemently opposed.

Similarly, they cast aside this previous commitment to their constituents. In simple terms, that was then and this is now.

On that principle, although I accept the magnanimous remarks of the reform party House leader, it is a bit of bitter medicine to have to swallow. He has talked about changes. I think we can all agree that we want to see any sort of change that will be inclusive and recognize the value and worth of members of parliament in their efforts, their daily tasks, what they do for their constituents, what they do here and what they do on the national scene. We diminish that when we embark on this type of partisan exercise.

I will not deny that were are engaged in a partisan exercise. It is necessary to point to the record on how quickly we sometimes forget what was said. That has been much of the case in Canadian politics and with the government. It will have its record to defend. It will have to explain to Canadians what happened to all that money in the HRDC department. It will have to explain why the Prime Minister was so quick to talk about tearing up the free trade agreement and then expand it when elected. It will have to explain why the Prime Minister said very clearly that he would axe the tax and get rid of the GST and it is still here. If we go to the store we see that we are still paying the GST. It was expanded and harmonized in the maritimes.

However, it was convenient. It is always easy to tell people what they want to hear. There is a public appetite for it, just like this issue with the pensions. People wanted to hear that and the reformers fed it. They fanned those flames to their benefit. Now it is only fair and just that this has come back, and that it has come back, in what some would describe as a very nefarious way, in the last dying days of parliament.

I know that members of my own caucus take issue with the way in which this was brought about. I am certainly not proud of the way this has arrived before us. I, as the House leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, have been a part of it.

However, that is why, at the end of this debate, we will be saying that we cannot support this legislation. We cannot support the way this has been brought about, not because we are against fairness or any form of pension that recognizes work, labour and input, but because we are against hypocrisy. We are against saying one thing because it is politically advantageous and then doing another.

I know that members of the reform party do not want to hear that. It is not consistent with what they have done. There have been all sorts of examples of this as well. It is played out here in the House of Commons on a partisan level every day. However this is one occasion where there is nothing that can be said that will exonerate members of that party. There is nothing that will to replace those words in the minds of constituents who voted for reform members after hearing that they were not going to be a part of the pension plan. Guess what? They are in, they are a part of it and those promises are long gone, just like the promises on the other side of the House that we heard before the previous election.

[An hon. member]

They'll be long gone.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Yes, there will be other members who will be long gone, too, if Canadians choose to dwell on this issue.

Should members of parliament therefore receive a pension? Yes, they should. Should we look at making further changes in the future? Perhaps we should look at something that is more consistent with the private sector. However, we have to look at the whole picture. We know that members of parliament are not remunerated on the same level as those working in the private sector, for example, in certain positions.

If we are going to look at this issue we should do it in a holistic way, not holus-bolus and not to the benefit of one party and to the detriment of another.

I will conclude my remarks by saying that I hope there is sufficient attention being paid to what is playing out before us here, this morality play that was so convenient in years past that has now come home to roost. I hope all members of parliament, including members of the reform party, will reflect on their conscience and review their words. Maybe they will not be so quick to shoot from the hip the next time.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, here we go again. I thought all this had been put behind us back in 1998 but this pension issue is kind of like a smelly dead animal. The dog buried it in 1995 and then he dug it up in 1998 and then he buried it again. Now he has dug it up again within the last few days. Maybe, just maybe, some day the public will be sufficiently offended by the smell of this dead animal that they will react against the Liberal Party and make it pay a price for its Machiavellian games.

This bill, this action on the part of the government, has had the effect of reinforcing the very unfortunate public perception that politics is a dishonourable profession and that MPs as a group are self-serving and venal.

As an institution, why on earth would we do this to ourselves? Why do we want to send out that message? More properly, I would say, what motivated the government to do this?

The most charitable interpretation is that it was simple mischief. It wanted to start the type of debate that we have heard going on in this House for the last 20 minutes, which went on last night and which will probably continue on interminably and forever. I would have to say that unfortunately there is a more probable cause than simple mischief, which is simple venality on the part of some of government members.

The member for Edmonton West, for example, with her defeat imminent, has to be protected, along with many of her colleagues who want to have the best of both worlds. They want to have their pension at 55, but they would like to have severance pay as well. It is a new twist on double-dipping. However, even if mischief were not the prime consideration, it did give the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough the opportunity to make a campaign speech tonight.

Did he attack the government for its perfidy? Of course not. He raised this silly fiction that somehow the government is doing this to help the official opposition.

I have been around this place for seven years and I have yet to see the government do anything to help the official opposition. That is not the way the game is played. The hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough should know that. It would be extraordinarily naive to think that we could move the government. We cannot even move it on the really big, important stuff. How on earth could we move it on something like this?

Anyway, the member supported his good friends on the government side, irrationally attacked the official opposition on a great variety of issues, and no doubt will have his reward in heaven or will be rewarded by his good buddies across the aisle. It must be really tough to belong to a dying political party and be reduced to licking the hands of government members.

This pension scheme was wrong in 1995 and it is still wrong. It gives members of this House an indecent advantage over ordinary citizens. It is as simple as that. People who sit in parliament should in no way receive a greater public benefit than that to which ordinary citizens are entitled. This is quite fundamental in my view to the way democracy is supposed to work.

People who rationalize and say that we work hard and we really deserve this pension forget that a lot of them would not have had a pension of any kind if they had not been elected to parliament. Now that they are here, they say it is a good idea.

I am not saying that a pension per se would be wrong. I never have said that. However, the pension that we are talking about today is wrong, wrong, wrong. It is an indecent assault on the taxpayers of Canada. I do not know of a single member of parliament who was dragged kicking and screaming into the House of Commons and forced to work for menial wages. Then, to take a pension at the end of that work perhaps would not fit with his views of what is right and what is wrong. We are all volunteers.

I simply cannot go back to my constituents and say that I have changed my mind and that I will buy my way back into this pension plan because I sure could use the money. My self-respect precludes that. I have to look in the mirror every morning when I shave. We cannot do that if we do not feel good about ourselves.

Five years ago, two years ago and again this week the government could have fixed this plan. It could have made it acceptable to all, but it did not. Originally it could have abided by the recommendations of the Blais commission. It ignored it. It had to have the lollipops inserted into the legislation, and the lollipops have stayed all the way through the various ramifications of the legislation that we have seen over the past few years.

I would like to comment on a comment which was made by the member for Winnipeg—Transcona which suggested that our party was not playing by “the rules” because some of our officers, after having agreed to let the government bring this legislation forward on a fast track, then followed our party policy for heaven's sake and voted against it. How terrible to vote against something to support the policies of one's own party. How dare we do that.

With respect to the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona, I would like to point out that some years ago I had a long and spirited but friendly correspondence with the late Stanley Knowles, one of my political icons. If Stanley Knowles were alive today he would be horrified. He is probably spinning in his grave when he sees his party supporting this perfidious pension scheme. This is a party that has, unfortunately, forgotten its roots.

Well, by God, I have not forgotten mine. I know where I came from. I know who my constituents are. I know who pays the bills around this place. I will not support legislation which unfairly takes money from the pockets of ordinary, decent, taxpaying Canadians in order to create a completely unacceptable and immoral pension scheme for members of parliament.

The hon. government House leader alluded to private pension plans, which he said are just as rich as the one we are discussing here. I wish that he would name one as a specific example. In his statement he talked about a one to one contributory rate, to which I say amen. That has been our policy forever, a one to one contributory rate, but we get $3.61 of taxpayer funding for every dollar which members put into this plan. That is why it is not right. It is both fiscally and morally unacceptable to me and I believe to the great majority of my colleagues.

Let us not kid ourselves. It is easy to rationalize. It is easy to throw out one's chest, as the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough who is going to get his pension has done, and criticize the rest of us. The bottom line is that it is a bad plan. It smells. It is that dead animal dug up for the third time. I hope that this time we bury it and bury it for good, and that the next government of Canada will again revisit this situation, appoint a completely neutral commission, with no ties whatsoever to this place, and say “Gentlemen and ladies, sit down and give us a plan. What is an MP worth? Show us the remuneration. Show us what the pension should be and then we will act on it”. Then we would not have to have these nasty, divisive debates again and again. It is unproductive and I am getting sick of it.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Madam Speaker, in listening to the hon. member of the Reform Party speak about the pension—

[An hon. member]

Alliance. Members of the Canadian Alliance.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

I forgot. Yes, they changed the name. Is it CCRAP? No, it is CA.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

That is really classy, Elsie.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

It was not real classy when you did it either.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the Speaker has mentioned many times that people should use the proper names of the parties. I would specifically say before the member gets started that if she wants to be a class act she should change the way she is heading into this.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Yes, indeed, I must remind the hon. member that the Speaker has ruled that in the House we call the official opposition the Canadian Alliance.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Madam Speaker, if we are talking about a class act, I would say that we would not be debating this issue if members of the official opposition had conducted themselves in a class act fashion in the past. We would not even be discussing this.

I brought forth a private member's bill to change the pension plan. Oh, yes. They are smiling. My private member's bill did change the pension plan. I had asked that no one be entitled to a pension until the age of 60, and the government lowered it to the age of 55. Others can take all the credit they want, but it came through my private member's bill.

When I listen tonight to the comments being made by the official opposition about money being wasted, I have to say that 90% of those who are sitting in the House when they leave will not get a pension until the age of 55, if they have been here for six consecutive years. Some of them will have a long wait. Some members of the official opposition probably have about 25 years to wait before they will get anything.

When we talk about taking all of this money from the taxpayers, that really is not painting the picture that should be painted.

My hon. colleague, who is not in the House right now, who comes from the southern end of the province, mentioned that if I were to go out on a pension it would be $21,000, but it would not. If I were to go out on a pension for the length of time that I have been here, it would be about $17,000, probably a little less than the vice-principals of our schools back home would receive.

That is fine. That is very fine with me. That does not bother me one bit. However, I want to say this. I listened to the quotes that were made, the things that were said about the people here who have given from their hearts and souls to do what is right for Canadians from coast to coast. I heard the things that members said. They called us names.