House of Commons Hansard #73 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was agreed.

Topics

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

June 6th, 2001 / 3:30 p.m.

The Chairman

I am now ready to proceed with the consideration by the committee of the whole of Bill C-28.

The Chair has received 56 motions in amendment: 10 from the hon. member for Ottawa West—Nepean, 9 from the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, 28 from the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt, 1 from the hon. member for Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, 1 from the hon. member for Elk Island, 2 from the hon. member for South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, 1 from the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona and 4 from the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.

All motions in amendment have been examined as to their procedural admissibility and the Chair finds them to be in order, with the exception of one from the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt and the one from the hon. member for Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan.

In the case of the amendment of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt, it is incorrect as to form. In the case of the amendment of the hon. member for Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, it is importing the provisions of another act into the bill which is beyond its scope.

Copies of all the receivable amendments are available at the table for interested members.

I want to take a few minutes to explain how the committee of the whole will be proceeding this afternoon.

Pursuant to the order made by the House on Monday, June 4, the committee will spend no more than one hour on consideration of clause 1. Then, the committee will proceed to subsequent clauses, which shall be subject to debate and amendment.

At exactly 5.15 p.m. I will interrupt debate to put all questions necessary to dispose of committee stage. This includes disposing of questions on all clauses and any amendments moved. I wish to alert all members that the bells are not rung in committee of the whole to warn members that the questions are being put.

All amendments received by the Chair will be put to the committee for a decision at the appropriate place in the bill, whether or not they have been debated. Members must be present to signify that they wish to have their amendments moved. If a division is requested, it is carried out as a standing vote and the names of members voting yea and nay are not recorded.

I would add, particularly today and particularly with this debate, in the spirit of co-operation and given our time limitations, that members could hold their remarks within a framework of approximately 10 minutes to give as many members as possible an opportunity to participate in the debate.

I am reminded that copies of the amendments will be ready in approximately five minutes.

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Jim Pankiw Canadian Alliance Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK

Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Could you please advise me as to which of my amendments you are ruling out of order?

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

The Chairman

The hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt has requested from the Chair the following information as to which of his amendments were not in order. It would be the one referenced 12819, the reason being that it did not refer to any specific clause.

(On clause 1)

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Jim Pankiw Canadian Alliance Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK

moved:

That Bill C-28, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 8 to 15 on page 1 with the following:

“54.1(1) Subject to subsection (2), the remuneration reference amount is equal to the amount of the annual salary, as of April 1, 2001, of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

(2) The remuneration reference amount shall be increased each year beginning on April 1, 2002, by the aggregate average percentage in the wage increases earned by the members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada.”

That Bill C-28, in Clause 1, amended by adding after line 15 on page 2 the following:

“(a) to members of Senate equal to 44”

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

moved:

That Bill C-28, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 8 on page 1 with the following:

“54.1(1) Commencing in the 38th Parliament”

Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I move with respect to the first clause of Bill C-28 ties into subsection 54.1(1) with respect to the commencement date of the remuneration reference amount.

The amendment would essentially post-date or stale-date the commencement of the bill and the effect it would have on members of parliament and members of the Senate and the rate of pay they would receive. The amendment would state specifically:

“54.1(1) commencing in the 38th parliament”.

It would take effect after the next election. Therefore members of parliament would not be put into the spectacularly unpopular position of conflict of interest by voting for themselves. In essence we would be setting the rate of pay for future parliaments.

It is a very straightforward amendment. It deals specifically with the starting date for the new rate of pay. It is consistent with the position taken by the Progressive Conservative Party in the campaign. It was in fact found in our platform document. I suggest the amendment would be much more palatable to Canadians in the sense that we would not be voting on our own rate of pay but setting the rate of pay for future parliamentarians.

It is consistent with the rest of the bill. It would also continue to be in sync with the remaining provisions of the bill which would take it out of the hands of future members of parliament and tie them into the Judges Act. Therefore I suggest the amendment should receive the support of all members.

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

3:35 p.m.

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario

Liberal

Don Boudria LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have had to speak to the bill in committee of the whole. I take the opportunity to comment on what is no doubt a very symbolic amendment by the hon. member, my vis-à-vis in the Conservative Party, the House leader of the Conservative Party.

I am sure the amendment he is offering to the committee of the whole is well intentioned, but I profoundly disagree with it for a number of reasons.

First, it is not at all part of the recommendations of the Lumley report. The Lumley commission and the commissions we have established following every election have never operated that way. We have had recommendations in the past about dealing with the state of parliament as it exists. Comparisons made in the Lumley report with the private sector, the public sector, the inflation rate and everything else, and I am looking at table 3.1 on page 12 of the report, refer to conditions as they are now. The scales are adjusted to the level we have at present and no other level. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to consider an amendment of this kind.

The hon. member proposed that we not vote an amendment to the compensation package that applies now. He said it would somehow not be appropriate. I believe the words conflict of interest were used. He said such an offering would be somehow better if it applied to a future parliament.

I profoundly disagree. I have always stood up for the rights and privileges of members of the House. I did so when it was somewhat more popular than it is now. I also did so when it was far less popular. I remember some pension issues several years ago when the fashionable thing was to say how much of a pay cut we should all take. I refused to participate in anything of that nature.

I have taken the position that if I am not worth the salary, my constituents will surely replace me with someone who is. That is why I disagree with the proposition. Debasing the currency is in no way helpful for any of us in the House or indeed for the high office we all hold.

The hon. member is not proposing to reduce the salary, so I will not overstate what he said. However on the business of applying it to a future parliament, that would make someone else accountable four years from now for the decision we make today. That is not correct either.

Members are free to agree or disagree with that proposition but it is one I believe in very firmly. I will make my decisions today. I will stand out there in front of the microphones or whomever and defend the decisions I have made. I will defend them before my constituents this weekend and so on because they are the decisions I made. I will not say that I made the decisions now and whoever is here four years from now can judge them. That would not be right. As a matter of principle it is wrong. I recognize that other people might feel differently about it but I do not. That is the right way of doing it.

Finally, if we create that kind of condition what will occur four years from now? There will be a huge debate as to whether the previously voted increase should be knocked down by whoever may start a form of surenchère about the issue again.

That is no way to legislate. We do not legislate anything else that way and we should not legislate this matter that way. We should legislate it in a proper and responsible way. We are doing what the Lumley commission asked us to do. We are offering, by way of this clause, to put it in place.

The government therefore cannot support the amendment put forward by the hon. House leader of the Conservative Party. As I said, I am sure it is well-intentioned and properly put and so on. However I fundamentally disagree that it should be done and I cannot support the amendment for all the reasons I have just enunciated.

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Jason Kenney Canadian Alliance Calgary Southeast, AB

Mr. Chairman, I would like to rise in support of the amendment put forward by the House leader for the Progressive Conservative Party. I am at a bit of a disadvantage because we have not yet received the amendments and I understood that in fact my House leader would be putting forward a similar or identical amendment to delay the effect of the bill until after the next election, into the next parliament.

Let me just respond briefly to the hon. government House leader. First he suggests that to delay the effect of this bill until after the next election would be inconsistent with the recommendations of the independent Lumley commission. How disingenuous, coming from the very same government House leader who has ignored the recommendation in that report for the beginning point of April of this year for the effect of this legislation and has dialled this back so that it is retroactively covered as of January. Talking about an unprecedented way of doing legislation, to begin to impose pay increases retroactive to six months before the bill is even considered is highly unconventional.

I want to point to a very ancient rule of this place and, I think, of our mother parliament, which is that we as members ought to absent ourselves from voting on matters in which we have a direct pecuniary interest. I refer the Chair to Standing Order 21 which states:

No Member is entitled to vote upon any question in which he or she has a direct pecuniary interest, and the vote of any Member so interested will be disallowed.

This rule has been in place since Confederation. The government House leader will no doubt argue that it is trumped by the precedent whereby parliament does in fact, through the appropriation power, approve its own pay. However it does not have to be this way. We do not have to continue to put ourselves in this conflict of interest.

I refer the government House leader to the fact that several years ago the congress of the United States, finding itself in precisely the same sort of conflict of interest, managed to elicit sufficient support to pass a constitutional amendment requiring that any potential pay increases in the U.S. congress would not come into effect until following an election. Why? Precisely because it would take the congresspersons, and in our case parliamentarians, out of this untenable conflict of interest and would allow the voters, upon whom we impose taxes to pay for these salaries, to determine whether or not they are appropriate.

This amendment reflects the policy of my party. It ought not to be a partisan issue, though, and all members should see this as a elegant way in which we can extricate ourselves from this untenable conflict of interest in which we find ourselves in every parliament.

I have one last point. The government House leader says that this would become an issue in the next election or after the election. The point is this: I do not think a single member of the House campaigned on a 20% pay increase. I do not think a single member raised, in a piece of election literature or an election speech or a visit to a constituent, the notion that one of the priority pieces of the business of the House would be an increase in compensation for members of parliament. This was not considered by the public when they gave the House a mandate. If we delay this pay increase as this amendment would seek to do it would allow Canadians, the people who pay the bills, to make a final determination.

I believe that as sensible people Canadians will make the right decision. They will look at the independent commission and say that most of those recommendations are sensible. We can trust Canadians to make the right decision in an election and the next parliament to respect that decision.

I speak in favour of this amendment.

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC

Mr. Speaker, my party is against such an amendment, but supports the bill and the government initiative for a number of reasons.

First, this amendment was brought forward because of a potential conflict of interest. My colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party and the member for the Canadian Alliance have supported this proposal.

I think a mistake is being made here, because this bill is the logical follow-up to the process that got underway when the act respecting the compensation of the elected members of this House was passed.

Lawmakers decided that, after each parliament, an objective committee of experts would review the whole issue of compensation. Each time there is an election, this is done. Too often, lawmakers, lacking courage and unable to explain to their fellow citizens how things really are, have put aside reports that had been paid for, reports that established, based on objective parameters, what the decent salary of a parliamentarian, of a minister and of the prime minister should be.

This is about following up on a report based on a high quality study that was done by people who are totally above reproach with regard to the conflict of interest issue, knowledgeable people who can be objective, people who have such wisdom that we in parliament should agree that their recommendations have to be implemented.

Therefore, there is certainly no conflict of interest in doing what the law says and following a process that was established by previous parliaments. I take absolutely no shame in taking part in the proper application of an act. Clause 1 states that the prime minister's salary should be equal to that of the chief justice of the supreme court. I tested the idea in the riding of Roberval, Quebec, which is not a rich riding. I met dozens of people, some of whom upbraided me, saying “You MPs will be voting yourselves a raise; you are going to have huge salaries”. I checked, and then I asked each of them “Are you opposed to the Prime Minister of Canada earning the same as the chief justice of the supreme court? After all, the Prime Minister is the one who appoints the chief justice and, in my view, the responsibilities of the Prime Minister are greater and have more of an impact on the citizens of this country”.

They all told me “Well, no, we thought that the Prime Minister earned more than the chief justice”. All citizens know in their heart of hearts that there is one basic principle: if politicians had not been cowardly in the past, if politicians had had the courage to treat themselves as they treat the public, if politicians had had the courage to respect certain principles, the Prime Minister of Canada would never have earned less than the chief justice.

Similarly, ministers should earn more than their deputies. When I asked people in the riding of Roberval “Do you think it is right that a minister, who is responsible for a department, who has no job security, who is accountable day in and day out for his department, should earn less than his employees who are deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers?”, everyone answered that this made no sense.

There is a place for common sense in legislation, and I think that this bill adopts principles to which we cannot object. The only reason for refusing to have anything to do with such a bill is lack of courage.

I will tell the House something: I do not think that anyone here is interested in going down in history over a question of salary. But everybody would like to leave this parliament with his or her head held high, saying “When the time came to make decisions, even the most politically difficult ones—by which I mean the ones that concern us personally—I had the courage to make them, and I made them with my head held high. I confronted public opinion and I cannot be faulted in any way”.

Hon. members will recall a lot of demagoguery in the recent past around salaries, benefits and pension plans. We all know what the outcome was at the polls. I am convinced that the people of Roberval will respect me and my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, because we had the courage to speak up and uphold the principles in which we believe.

We support the government, and we will be opposing the amendment, and all amendments, coming from certain opposition parties. We are not trying to score political points with MPs' salaries. It is too important an issue, and if our predecessors had shown more courage, we would not be where we are today.

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

NDP

Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB

Mr. Chairman, I have just a brief comment on this.

We do not support this amendment. We feel that the time to deal with this is now. I think we have an obligation to reflect on what the actual consequences of passing this amendment would be. They would be that we would have a debate for the next three and a half years about this salary package. I do not think that would be particularly healthy for the political process.

I think that this kind of thing was done just before an election and I think that is what this kind of measure was at one point intended for. It would make more sense to do it just before an election so that we would not have a three and a half year period in which all of the vicissitudes of politics could enter into the debate. I think it would be ill advised if it passed at this point.

Second, I would just like to say for the hon. member who said this would give constituents a chance to pass judgment that it would not really. They would just get a chance to pass judgment on who would get the new salary. They would not get a chance to pass judgment on whether or not that salary would be paid, so it is a bit of an illusion to suggest that somehow voters would get to render a decision on whether or not the salary package would be accepted. All they would be able to decide is who would receive the salary, not whether or not that was what would be paid.

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Randy White Canadian Alliance Langley—Abbotsford, BC

Mr. Chairman, I have several points of clarification.

I too support the amendment to make this effective after the next election, but more important, I have some questions on what the government House leader suggested are adjustments to salary and so on and so forth.

There is the provision that basically every member of parliament would have to opt in to this. Would the government House leader or staff mind providing us with what the actual salary would be if members did not opt in? Would it be $69,100 or $109,500? That is the first question. Second, what would be the percentage of pension based on that? Would it be 4% or 3% on whichever dollar value? Third, would the non-taxable benefit still exist? I suppose you could answer that by saying whether or not it was $69,000 or $109,500. Last, I understand that the original recommended effective date of this was April 2001.

That is all I need. In other words, if members do not opt in, what is their status and where will they go from there?

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario

Liberal

Don Boudria LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Chairman, I will try to answer the several questions that have been asked. Arguably not all of them were on clause 1, but nonetheless I think they are of considerable interest to members of parliament.

On the issue that some hon. members raise as to what they believe to be an April 1 retroactivity clause in this, it is not in the report. Perhaps the mistake, if I can call it that, has occurred by some misreading that Bill C-12 will come into force retroactive to April 1. Maybe that is where it comes from.

In terms of why the date of January 1 was utilized for this bill, hon. members who were here last time, particularly those who were in House leadership positions and so on, will recall that the last bill took effect the date of the election prior. That is the way it was done before. We could have done exactly the same thing this time. That would have made it retroactive to November 27. It would have given retroactivity of one more month but would have essentially meant adjusting everybody's tax returns for last year. I felt it would be quite a burden, given the small change that it would make. In fact, the tradition would have meant to back it up further, not less than what it is now. That is the reason for that.

Again, I am using the last question first because I did not note and I am only going from memory. How does the bill apply to someone who does not opt in? I will preface my remarks by saying that I hope everyone does opt in, even those who feel obligated for whatever reason to vote against the bill, although I hope there are no one does.

I said that yesterday, I said in media reports and I repeat it again before my colleagues, because I think it is an important consideration. The new bill would not apply for people who did not opt in. In other words, they would remain at where they are now: the old cost of indexation formula, the old salary structure, the old tax free portion, the old accrual rate and everything that exists now.

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB

So two systems.

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Yes, if people do not elect the new system, they will have the old system, as the right hon. member said.

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB

Two classes. Two systems.

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

With respect, Mr. Chairman, I do not think it is appropriate for us to start provoking each other on this. I do not think it is helpful.

First, I hope everyone opts in. If that occurs, there will not be a group of people who will have opted out. The people here are adults and they can do that even though I do not think they should.

The hon. member from Calgary started with the remark that it was disingenuous of me to have made my previous response. I will let colleagues judge on the appropriateness of this. He alleges that the standing orders somehow put us in a conflict of interest if we vote on the bill. The hon. member has now been here for some time and he knows that what he said is not correct. He knows that what the rules reference private bills, the incorporation of companies and so on in which members have private interests.

Speakers have ruled from time immemorial that our voting on estimates, supply and everything else that gives us our salary does not form part of that. We all know that around here. The hon. member I am sure knows that as well.

The hon. member said that we should extricate ourselves from the process. That is exactly what the recommendation of the Lumley Commission wants us to do, and that is exactly what the action of voting for this bill would create.

I could argue with the argument presented by the hon. member to the nth degree to show how inappropriate it was. In fact the mere act of extricating ourselves for another process would constitute a conflict of interest under the rules he has just enunciated. That is why he cannot use that argument. Yes, I am in favour of using objective measures in the future that would make it such that these kinds of votes and debates would become unnecessary. Mr. Lumley spoke extensively about that. However our initiating that process, or our voting on the bill today and all of these measures do not constitute a conflict of interest. That is not correct.

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Randy White Canadian Alliance Langley—Abbotsford, BC

With respect, Mr. Chairman, it is a ridiculous position to put the House of Commons in with two pensions. That is ridiculous.

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Leon Benoit Canadian Alliance Lakeland, AB

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Conservative amendment as well. The government House leader in rejecting the amendment said that he could not possibly support it because it would put off the enactment of the law until after the election. It would do something that had not been done before.

I would like to ask the government House leader whether there has ever in legislation before been an opt in clause?

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

An hon. member

Unprecedented.

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Leon Benoit Canadian Alliance Lakeland, AB

It is unprecedented, Mr. Chairman, and I would like the House leader to respond to that.

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

The Chairman

I wonder if I might ask member for Lakeland to repeat his question please.

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Leon Benoit Canadian Alliance Lakeland, AB

Mr. Chairman, the question is in regard to a comment made by the House leader in explaining why he had to reject the amendment which would put off the implementation of the pay increase until after the next election.

In rejecting it he said it had not been done before and the precedent was not there. I want to ask the government House leader whether the precedent is there for putting in place an opt in clause for legislation? I have never heard of a piece of legislation before which requires an opt in clause.

If it is a common thing, something that has been done, then I want to opt in to our supply day motion which would reduce taxes dramatically. I want in on that one.

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Mr. Chairman, I will gladly answer that. I do not know if the member was here between 1993 and 1997. I think he was elected in 1993. I am surprised he would not recall that there was an opt in provision—

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Jason Kenney Canadian Alliance Calgary Southeast, AB

An opt out?

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

No, opt in, is the exact terminology. All members were deemed to be opted out of the pension plan. Each one of them had to sign to opt back in.

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Brian Pallister Canadian Alliance Portage—Lisgar, MB

Two wrongs do not make a right.