Debates of June 6th, 2001

Parliament Of Canada Act

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

moved:

That Bill C-28, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 20 on page 2 with the following:

“is equal to 45.8 per cent of the remuneration”.

Mr. Chairman, it is certainly a rare occasion for me to find myself in agreement with the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt. This day will go down in infamy.

Our party has an amendment which is similar, not numerically similar but in the same ballpark, and it would have the effect of reducing the raise from 20% to 10%. We do this because we feel that this is the kind of raise that could be justified given certain indicators.

We do not understand the rationale for a 20% increase. We think a lot of Canadians feel likewise. We understand the rationale in a technical sense because the government has paid the Prime Minister a certain amount equal to the chief justice, then it has worked its way down in terms of percentages and arrived at a certain number, and that number is a 20% increase over what members are now making. We understand how it got there, but we share the feeling of a lot of Canadians that a 20% raise is incomprehensible to them when they know what kind of percentage increases they are being offered at the bargaining table. It is for this reason we signal our intention that we would be much happier with a 10% raise, and feel much more comfortable with it than a 20% raise.

In doing this we are acting in a way that is somewhat contradictory in a sense, but I think we are acting in that contradictory way because a lot of us have said we need to have this taken out of our hands and have someone else make the recommendation. We have a commission before us and all of us here have moved amendments to change the recommendations that have been made by this independent body, so we are all a bit guilty of this.

The government has not brought in a bill that is identical to what Mr. Lumley and the hon. member for Elk Island recommended. There are Alliance amendments, Conservative amendments and NDP amendments. All of us want to tinker with this independent recommendation, each in our own way. For me it just points out the reason why the part of the bill that takes it out of our hands forever is a good part of the bill, because we are setting up a mechanism now with which we will not be able to tinker in the future.

The fact of the matter is that it does not matter how independent a report it is and how well written it is, when it gets to the floor of the House we will all have our opinions on what should be changed in it. Therefore, it becomes politicized no matter how hard we try not to politicize it.

I say this by way of wanting to put on the record one more time the fact that we support the way in which the bill finally does what the NDP has been asking for for many years, and on the basis of which sometimes in the past we have voted against salary increases because we have said that this does not remove it from us, and it means that we would have to go through this again. Finally, this time we have a process by which we will not have to go through this again.

I would warn members that if the independent commission that settles judges salaries and if judges salaries start to go through the roof, there will be politics again, because we always have the possibility of changing the mechanism. In other words, we never completely evade responsibility for this. However, I think we go some way toward creating a situation in which we will not have to have this kind of tension again. Hopefully we will not have the kind of silliness that the member for Portage—Lisgar refers to. I and my party agree with him and others who have criticized the government for bringing in this opting in clause.

I just wanted to put on the record that all of us are tinkering with the commission report. We are very good at pointing out when the government does it or when somebody else does it. However, the Conservatives have disagreed with the provision to pay chairs and they have brought in amendments on that score. The Alliance has other concerns about the report. We are all guilty of tinkering with the report.

We have the ability to change the report. The government has the ability to change it by virtue of using its majority. We all have the ability to change it by agreeing with each other. I would urge members to consider the wisdom of having a 10% increase as opposed to a 20% increase.

(Progress reported)

Adjournment Proceedings

[The Deputy Speaker]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, Fisheries; the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River, Immigration; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, Employment Insurance.

The House resumed consideration in committee of the whole of Bill C-28, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the Salaries Act, Mr. Kilger in the chair.

Parliament Of Canada Act

[Betty Hinton, Canadian Alliance, Kamloops, Thompson And Highland Valleys, BC]

Mr. Chairman, I listened very carefully today and I read the report thoroughly. There are parts of that report that I can agree with wholeheartedly. I agree completely with the abolition of the tax free portion of it. I agree with the independent body making the decision.

What I am have severe trouble with, and what was just confirmed by the House leader, is that if we choose to opt out because this is unpalatable to us, then we remain out forever more. That is ridiculous and is an unfair position to put anyone in.

I take exception to some of the things that were quoted today as well because they were inaccurate. One thing I take exception to is the fact that I can stand here and say in all honesty that I had no idea that this was coming forward. I have not been an MP for six years prior, and I did not know there had not been a raise in the last six years. It is reasonable to assume that if there has not been one in the last six years, it would come forward this year.

We also have the problem that by law it would be reviewed within the first six months of parliament. This does not come as a huge surprise to people who have been here before, but it does come as a huge surprise to myself.

I would also like to point out that some of the arguments which have been made regarding reducing it are valid arguments. I would accept a reduction. I have no difficulty with that at all. However, I do like to deal in realities and some of the things reported in the report stated that the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association, a unionized group, paid $100,084 for the president, and that the director of Canadian affairs of the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association received $161,000 a year. Therefore, in terms of putting us on level with working people, these are working people.

I would like to see today a resolution to this that is fair, and I do not see that forthcoming. If we are going to leave people in a position where they have to make a choice between accepting this forever more, in the hope that they are going to serve for 10 or 15 more years, or opting out is a very unfair way of doing things. I really resent the way the legislation is being put forward.

If I was assured that opting out of this pay raise would allow me to opt out of other legislation, I could name them on my fingers in five seconds. My constituency would opt out of the gun legislation, the things that are sitting in front of us today about cruelty to animals and employment equity. I come from a ranching area and branding is an everyday part of life there, as is castration for animals. If I have the option, by opting out of this and I am allowed to opt out of other legislation, I will do so today.

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

Mr. Chairman, a few members have spoken, so perhaps I could respond to some of the concerns that they have raised.

The hon. member from Manitoba who spoke some while ago, talked extensively of this business of equal pay for equal work. It goes a lot further than that. It also goes to equal pay for work of equal value. My colleagues on this side of the House believe in both those propositions, not just the first.

However, opting not to take a benefit personally does not constitute unequal treatment under the law. Everyone knows that. Opting to give one's personal funds to a charity does not mean that someone becomes disadvantaged under the law, because one has voluntarily given up that money. The hon. member asked “When did I ever become a charity?” That is an excellent question.

For example, if one opted then to give money back to the public treasury, which certainly one has the opportunity of doing, does not mean that person has suffered mistreatment by the government as a result of that.

That is not an appropriate proposition. The member is really mixing up propositions. Accepting or not accepting a benefit does not constitute inequity.

I refer to the fact that the bill is structured in essentially the same way as the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, the amendments thereto, which were designed after the 1993 election at the request of members of the House. Not to put too fine a point on it, the members who made that request were not sitting on this side of the House. It was structured in the same way. There was an opting in provision where everyone was deemed to have been opted out and one had to opt in in order to be part of the pension. It is exactly the same principle.

Second, on the Public Service Superannuation Act, the hon. member said it is not the same because one would get the benefit another way. No, it is not so. A person would get their own contributions another way but not the employer's contributions. The employer's contributions are provided by virtue of adhering to the package. One does not get all the benefits another way by not participating in that. Of course I also gave other examples, such as the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act and so on. I am sure there are several others as well.

The hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys said that there had been no salary increase over the last six years. That is not what I said, with respect. I said that the salary increase for members of parliament over the last 11 years had been a total of 6%. That is where the number six came in, not that there had been no increase over the last six years.

How did the salary get to be this way? Perhaps we should take a minute and discuss that so members will understand why the salary structure got off kilter the way it did. I do not think there is any doubt that it did, otherwise members would not see a situation like we have now, where I as a minister am not only paid much less than my own deputy minister but an assistant deputy minister has now caught up with a minister. It has become that off kilter over the years. I am talking about public servants and not about people in the private sector, to use the example raised by the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt.

It got that way because of two reasons. First, there were two freezes, one of them around 1985 or so and the second one in the late eighties. That combination meant that the salary was frozen for something like six out of eight years.

Second, when the legislation was designed in the late seventies there was a rather curious clause in it, which said that every year there would be a cost of living adjustment minus 1%. Therefore, in years where there was no government imposed freeze, members got an increase in the cost of living minus 1%.

Members had the combination of those two factors acting one in tandem with the other, which caused what we have now. For example, if the inflation rate was 10%, a member got back 9% and recovered 90% of the inflation. When there was an inflation rate of 2% and there was a recovery of 1%, members lost 50% of the inflation.

All of these things have occurred progressively. Many of them occurred even before I came here. Heaven knows I have been here a long time, but some of them even predate my arrival, namely, the structure and how members got to the cost of living formula that we have there. That is how it got so off kilter over so many years and I do not think anyone would deny that it is.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to make a few remarks in committee of the whole on Bill C-28 concerning the salaries of the members of the House of Commons. This bill will allow elected members to decide whether or not to receive the salary increase.

No member of this House should be able to say he is against this bill and then laugh all the way to the bank to cash his paycheque once the government party, with the support of the Bloc, has passed Bill C-28.

Members will remember that during the 35th parliament, Reform members boasted that they would not be joining the members pension plan because they thought it was way too generous. At the time, all the members who were under the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition rejected the pension plan for members.

After the 36th parliament, and now in the 37th parliament, Alliance members have all adhered to the members' pension plan, one after the other. The bill before us basically says “If you agree, you sign the form and you will get it”.

The problem with the Canadian Alliance Party is that its caucus remains very divided. Half of its members want the raise, but because of the party line or because of a directive from the party, caucus members are stuck with the instructions that were issued.

This is evidenced by the fact that yesterday, at second reading, the Alliance members who left the caucus—and are now sitting along the curtains—voted in favour of Bill C-28, because they are not bound by a decision made by the leadership of the caucus.

Again, I tell Canadian Alliance members “Be honest, be transparent. If you vote against the raise, I hope that later you will not sign the form and cash your cheque at the bank”.

[Scott Reid, Canadian Alliance, Lanark—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Chairman, my congratulations to you for your remarkable ability to remember everyone when we are sitting in different seats.

I want to return to what the government House leader was saying earlier. He expressed concern about the fact that he now earns less than his assistant deputy minister. Obviously Canadians' hearts will bleed at the thought that the minister would be earning less than one of the highest paid civil servants in the country.

I want to point out that it is not a unique situation. We find junior officers in the Canadian military who earn less than chief warrant officers, based on the fact that the non-commissioned officer has some form of superior expertise.

I would like to ask the government House leader some questions which relate to opting out. First, am I to understand that the extra stipends paid to MPs who serve in some post or capacity other than as members of parliament, for example as chair or vice chair of a committee or as a party leader or a House leader, can opt out of one of those or are they mandatory without an opting out clause?

The second question relates to opting out permanently. I gather it would mean that in the next election should someone on this side opt out, the voters would know that the Liberal candidate opposing him or her, for example, would be paid more following the election than that incumbent MP, and that in future elections that difference would grow over time.

Does the inflation rate clause mentioned in his previous comments apply in perpetuity as well for those who opt out? Can we assume that over time the differential will grow and grow?

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

Mr. Chairman, I believe that enthusiasm is growing in the Chamber. The hon. member asked a few interesting questions. I will forget about the editorial comment at the beginning.

This is a very important clause and it is important for the House to have the information. The bill is structured in such a way that if members do not opt in, they do not opt in to anything. They are opted out of extra emolument for the chair, vice chair, extra pay for anything, grossing up the increased part of salary and so on and so forth. If one opts out, one opts out of everything.

The hon. member asked if all of the provisions of the existing package continue. The answer is yes. For instance, if the cost of living increase was 2% next year and an hon. member did not participate in the program, the hon. member would get 2% less 1% or a 1% increase.

The hon. member is right in saying that the disparity could grow. Of course that really depends on the size of the inflation rate. The irony is that if the inflation rate is higher proportionately the member would lose less than if the inflation rate is lower.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I believe it is very important for members to make informed decisions. In view of the fact that after the vote is called I will not be able to rise on a point of order, I would like to ask that when the votes are called on the amendments there be a brief statement of what the amendment actually does. Otherwise I believe members will be voting from a base of ignorance.

[The Chairman]

With respect to my colleague from Elk Island, we are under an order of the House. Unless the House chooses to do otherwise, I will not be complying with his wishes.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Chairman, I see my friends across the way think that ignorance is bliss and that those who have been very attentive in the debate have suddenly arrived. That is nice to see.

I have a couple of questions for the government House leader. First, did the minister himself not publicly say just a few days ago that he was opposed to inserting an opting out provision in the bill? Now he is here defending it. I wonder what changed his thinking in this respect.

Second, with respect to the apparent perpetuity of such a decision, how would that work in the next parliament if there is to be another compensation commission and legislation is passed at that time? Or would there be changes that track judicial salaries? Would they apply to people who opt out at this point? Or again is that in perpetuity?

Colleagues opposite are saying to read the bill. The bill has been on the table for about two days and we have a couple of hours in committee, which is not a normal opportunity to read the bill and get expert external advice.

The bill is silent on this matter and this is committee of the whole where we have an opportunity to ask substantive questions.

I would also like to ask the government House leader about the accrual rate for the pension plan. My understanding was that chairman Lumley verbally suggested that the benefit accrual rate be 2.5% in order for the value of the pensions to be neutral given the increase in the pensionable salary. Could the minister confirm that? If that indeed was the intention of the commission, why does the bill propose a benefit accrual rate of 3%?

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

Mr. Chairman, I will try to respond rather rapidly. I will start with the last point on the accrual rate.

The accrual rate is reduced from 4% to 3%. Furthermore, the number of years necessary in order to arrive at the maximum contribution is increased from 19 to 25. What we have proposed is certainly no more generous than what officials are generally offered in the private sector. What we are offering here is a condition. In the present House of Commons there is a grand total of 5 members who have 25 years of service, so the chance that someone would actually get a maximum pension is 5 over 301 under the proposal we have made here. This does not make for an overly generous pension scheme.

Second, given that the amount is taken on the larger structure, in order to get a pension MPs will in fact now have to contribute $2,900 more per year in premiums from here on in. In terms of government dollars spent for pension dollars out, this reduces the output proportionately considerably, because it is going more and more in that direction with the private sector.

[The Chairman]

It being 5.15 p.m., pursuant to order made on Monday, June 4, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and to put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the committee of the whole stage of the bill.

Shall Amendment No. PC-1 in the name of the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Since voting on this stuff is such a charade, I suggest that all motions to amend that have a G in front of them simply be deemed passed and all others defeated and then it is done.

[The Chairman]

Respectfully, that is not a point of order.

Is it agreed that I deem Amendment No. PC-1 negatived on division?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Chairman]

Then we will have a division.

(Yeas, 52; Nays, 194)

[The Chairman]

I declare the amendment lost.

We will now proceed to the amendment of the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt, identified as Amendment No. CA-2.

Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Chairman]

The committee will now proceed to the taking of the vote.

(Yeas, 5; Nays, 65)

[The Chairman]

I declare the amendment lost.

The next question is on Amendment No. CA-2.1. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the amendment?