Debates of June 7th, 2001

Parliament Of Canada Act

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

No, it was an opt in. The hon. member says that it was an opt out but that is not correct, I am sorry to say. If members review their records they will see that it was an opt in. All members were deemed to have opted out and had to sign up to be opted in. I am quite sure of that.

A second opting in bill was passed shortly before the last election to allow members to buy back a second time. That was an opt in. Again, each member had the choice of doing it. That was the second one and there are a number of others.

In conclusion, Bill C-28 implements the report of the independent Lumley Commission.

I congratulate the hon. Ed Lumley, the hon. Jake Epp, and Dr. Huguette Labelle on their work.

It is easy for all of us to claim that we are opposed to this bill. I am asking all members to think about what is right for themselves, for their family and for the work they are called upon to perform as parliamentarians in the highest court in the land, the Parliament of Canada.

Again, I ask them to support this bill. It is a good bill. It is well drafted and it deserves the support of us all, not just for ourselves, but for the institution in which we sit as parliamentarians.

I hope that the leader of the opposition and all members of the House will decide later today to support the bill or at least to opt back in when the opportunity arises.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I rise reluctantly to participate in the debate today on Bill C-28, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the Salaries Act. I say reluctantly because I believe there are many other things that we should be dealing with today and in the days left in this session that are more important to Canadians than this issue.

Ostensibly the bill is meant to implement the recommendations that were made by the Lumley commission, which was an independent commission led by former cabinet minister Ed Lumley and charged with setting MPs salaries, benefits and pensions. Very few will actually dispute the need to review the salaries of MPs. I do not dispute that. We do not dispute that.

We were actually in a bizarre situation where MPs got a basic salary of $68,000, plus a tax free expense allowance of something around $40,000, plus additional living allowances, with the result that when asked the basic question of how much an MP made the answer was not a simple one.

There is pretty much unanimous consent out there that people should be able to know how much politicians make. That is basic. If we are to be truly accountable to our electorate, part of that accountability involves being transparent where taxpayers dollars are being spent.

Transparency is not something for which the present Liberal government is known. The very idea that the salaries of MPs should be transparent and comparable with private sector standards is actually one which is deeply held by most Canadians and by most members of the Canadian Alliance. It should come as no surprise that the first line of article 70 of the Canadian Alliance declaration of policy reads:

Parliamentary compensation will be recommended by an independent commission according to private sector standards.

It is something we believe in and that our grassroots members across the country have endorsed. On the face of it Bill C-28 is straight out of Canadian Alliance policy. The Lumley commission was an independent commission. Its recommendations certainly go in the direction of basing parliamentary compensation on private sector standards.

The bill uses the salary of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada as its reference point and that the salaries of MPs should be a percentage of that. We could argue about whether or not that amount is appropriate. Indeed it was actually argued by the government House leader on Wednesday that it was appropriate the Prime Minister make the same salary as the chief justice.

That may or may not be a point agreed upon by all Canadians, but the fact is that it was out there and a reference point was sought. The only possible concern is that the chief justice's salary is determined by the judicial compensation commission whose recommendations must be passed by parliament. In a somewhat oblique fashion the Liberals have ensured, if they wanted to, a stealthy way of continuing to give MPs regular increases. This is the spend portion of the tax and spend policies which constitute the ongoing Liberal assault on the beleaguered Canadian taxpayer.

The Lumley commission did a great service in getting rid of the tax free expense allowances as we had recommended. This was appropriate. Just as people cannot understand why the federal Liberals do not feel that the cost of a mechanic's tools should be partially deductible if needed for his or her employment, and that is something we endorse as the Canadian Alliance, most taxpayers could not understand how our food, clothing, drycleaning and taxis would come out of a taxpayer funded non-taxable expense allowance. By making this amount taxable the Lumley commission has ended the secrecy and put politicians on a similar footing with other Canadians. We endorse that.

The commission also recognized the need to make the MP pension plan comparable with public and private sector norms, especially given that salaries are being raised to private sector levels. It suggested that the MP pension should be equal to 2.5% of an MP salary multiplied by the number of years served. It should be noted that this is actually higher than the 2% rate per year of service which public servants actually get from a plan that is administered through the Treasury Board.

Sadly, even the independent commission's recommended above average rate was not enough for the federal Liberals who jacked that rate up to 3%. Now we give them half a point out of ten for lowering it, but it is still not where it would be if and when the Canadian Alliance government has the opportunity to do that after the next election.

While it seems that our pay has been recommended by an independent commission, the reality is that the Liberals have actually used the Lumley commission's recommendation to jack up and justify their own pay raises. They have exceeded the pension amounts and retained the ability to continue to give themselves pay increases by linking their salaries to the base amount, the salary of the chief justice, and then actually being the ones who have the ability to control that. Like most things the Liberals do, it is too clever by half.

I will be voting against the bill for the principal reason that I do not think I should set my own salary. It is as simple as that.

The second sentence of article 70 of the Canadian Alliance declaration of policy specifically states “The decision of parliament will be implemented after a subsequent election”. That is a point of principle of our own policy declaration.

We always believed that we should run any salary increase by the voters first. We should not get elected and then vote ourselves a huge salary increase. We are not talking about the legitimacy of the current salary, but about the principle. Voters should know before the election what salary we will be getting throughout our mandate. This is why the Canadian Alliance proposed amendments whereby this increase would take effect only after the next election.

It just makes sense. On the CBC news last night there was an interview with a fellow at a racetrack who just could not figure out how MPs could vote themselves a pay increase. He said that the increase should be for the next guy. That encapsulates the spirit of our policy. Like most Canadians, the person being interviewed did not think MPs should set their own salaries.

I will be voting against the bill and encouraging others to do the same. If we defeat the bill, the Liberals could bring back an amended bill that would contain many of the same positive recommendations of the Lumley commission and would add a clause stating that the increase would only take effect after the next election. They would also ensure that the base amount would not be linked to any salary that parliament may control.

I appeal to the federal Liberal MPs to defeat the bill. It would send a message to taxpayers across the country that they and not us are the ones who should set our salaries. I would encourage our federal Liberal MPs to agree with us on this. It is Canadian tax dollars and they should be the ones determining what is fair compensation.

The bill has some other nasty features. Section 54.1 makes the increase retroactive to January 1. In my view that is totally unconscionable. There is no way on earth we should be voting ourselves a windfall, especially when taxes are so high for the rest of our citizens. That is absolutely unacceptable in my view. The government gave no hint during the last election that it would be doing such a thing.

The other objectionable clause in the bill is the one which requires an MP to opt in to benefit from the pay increase. This is one of the most troubling concepts that we have seen in any type of legislation. It puts MPs in a situation whereby two MPs from the same party or from across the floor who do the same job, or maybe work harder, as some would suggest opposition members do, but I will not necessarily claim that, would earn two different salaries. That is in direct violation of the spirit of equality in our charter of rights and freedoms and is 100% opposed to the spirit of the October 19, 1999 federal court decision on pay equity. It is totally inappropriate for that particular clause to be there.

It also requires an MP to opt in in order to make his or her salary transparent to taxpayers. We believe that should be happening but that we should not have to opt in to do that. It should be part of the legislation that we are getting rid of the tax free expense allowance, which some people find so troubling.

Finally, the bill says that the opt in or opt out clause, whichever we want to call it, is irrevocable. This is astonishing. If MPs opt out in order to defray their increases until after the next election, to follow our own policy, it would mean that as long as they continue to be elected they would forever be operating at a different level of compensation than other MPs.

It is absolutely unconscionable that such a clause should be in the bill. It is probably unconstitutional. It is definitely against the spirit of equality and surely against democracy itself.

It is interesting to note that at the Quebec summit in April the government was calling on a democracy clause to be inserted into the text for the free trade area of the Americas. The government was of the view that the emerging democracies of the world would learn from us. We can be honoured to say that many times they do look to us.

I recently met with President Fox of Mexico. I can say that the type of democracy being proposed by the federal Liberal government in this bill is not something I believe that Mr. Fox's government would follow. I suspect he will be looking for another role model and that is unfortunate.

There is also a suggestion being made that if members vote against the bill it would be inappropriate for them to live with the effects of the bill. I find that a specious argument. I would make note of the fact that many times MPs on either side of the House vote against legislation which then becomes law and they then have to live with it whether they like it or not.

The government proposed certain tax measures only hours before the last election. We opposed those particular measures because we did not think they were good tax measures. We are living with the tax decreases that were passed on and nobody is suggesting that is inappropriate.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I hesitate to interrupt the Leader of the Official Opposition but I want to remind the House that under the special order of debate on this particular bill members have 10 minutes. The Chair will undertake the responsibility of giving the Leader of the Official Opposition a few more minutes to complete his remarks. As I say, I hesitated to interrupt but in fairness to other hon. members who wish to participate I wanted him to be aware of that.

[Stockwell Day, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your indulgence. I will wrap up at this point.

The suggestion that people who oppose the legislation should not have to or should not be expected to live within it is inappropriate. It is a great and sad irony that those who oppose this type of legislation in order to protect taxpayers are sometimes pointed at as being the villains of this type of legislation.

I would also say that it is certainly a matter of principle in our caucus that whatever an individual MP decides to do following the bill, whether he or she votes for it or against it, takes or does not take some of it, be it Liberal, Alliance or whatever, there will be no personal recriminations from one MP to another as far as we are concerned. Those will be private matters.

I will close by saying that Bill C-28 should be opposed and denounced. We call on the government to table new legislation that respects the recommendations of the Lumley commission, the prohibition against politicians setting their own salaries and the fundamental principle in a democracy that if two people do the same job for the same employer they should get the same money.

I have an amendment to Bill C-28. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following therefor:

“Bill C-28, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the Salaries Act be not now read a third time, but be referred back to Committee of the Whole for the purposes of reconsidering clause 29 to study its impact on the prime minister's pension taking into account the recommendation from the Lumley Commission that the changes to members' compensation `not result in any material impact, either positive or negative, to the benefits that parliamentarians receive from the pension plan'.”

[The Deputy Speaker]

The amendment tabled by the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition is in order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to see if there is consent for the following order.

I would ask all hon. members to perhaps pay particular attention to ensure that it reflects their views: That at 3 p.m. on Tuesday, June 12, the member for Markham shall propose a motion, deemed to seconded by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and leaders of the other parties, the motion of which he gave notice this day with regard to honorary citizenship for Nelson Mandela, provided that after speeches of no more than five minutes by the mover, and one representative from each party, the question thereon shall be put without further debate or amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there consent for the government House leader to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have just a few comments on this because our position has already been made clear at second reading and at committee of the whole with respect to our opposition to the bill on the basis that we believe the 20% raise to be too high.

That is why we moved an amendment which would have had the effect of reducing the raise from 20% to 10%. It would still be generous when we consider what many other Canadians would be glad to receive in the way of a pay raise, but nevertheless something that we might have been able to justify given certain economic indicators.

The amendment was defeated yesterday, so we will proceed to vote against Bill C-28 at third reading. Then we will proceed as a caucus to all opt in to the legislation because we do not believe we should either be punished or accept punishment for being honest about our feelings on the pay package, and the fact that the raise is too high, especially when we consider there are elements of the bill which we support in terms of increasing transparency, and also in terms of creating a mechanism whereby members of parliament would not have to set their own salaries again.

I listened with care to what the Leader of the Opposition said. Perhaps I could just use my time to respond to some of the things he and the Alliance Party have said in the last few days.

I have had experience with the Alliance Party, and before that the Reform Party, when it comes to these matters. It is very good at allowing certain things to happen and even in the past negotiating certain agreements. Then after having negotiated those agreements, pretending to be against them.

It happened in the last parliament when I was privy to negotiations among the official opposition House leader and other House leaders with respect to the legislation that made it possible for many Reform members to opt back in to the pension legislation. Having negotiated that, I was very surprised to find out that when the bill came to the floor of the House of Commons the very people I had negotiated this with were denouncing it and voting against it. That is bargaining in bad faith. If people are going to negotiate something, they should at least have the guts to vote for it.

This is not a similar situation in the sense that it was not negotiated, but I have heard the Alliance members say in recent days that this is being fast tracked through parliament and they did not want to see this happen now. I would submit that there is also a certain intellectual political disingenuousness involved here too.

I have defended this process because I have said that this process is much better than any other process we have ever had with respect to implementing improvements or changes in our compensation package. Therefore, I do not go around slamming the government for this particular process. The Alliance has been doing this. The fact remains that this happened pursuant to a House order which the Alliance Party had the 25 members to stop it. This would not be happening if 25 members out of an Alliance caucus of 66 or whatever it was had been in the House to stop it.

I would ask the Alliance Party to give us a break and stop pretending that this is somehow happening against its will. This happened because there were not 25 members of the House of Commons standing. The Alliance is one of the parties that had the numbers to stop it. Having not stopped it, spare us the theatrics of complaining that this is happening in the way it is.

With respect to opting out and opting in, the Leader of the Opposition said that this is a terrible thing. We know where it has its origins. It has its origins in the former Reform Party demanding that it be allowed to opt out of the pension plan.

[Dick Harris, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

They are the bad guys though.

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

Fair enough. I am just saying this is a fact. I do not blame the Leader of the Official Opposition because he was not here. The fact is his party has a lot of responsibility to bear for the fact that this kind of thing is even part of the political discourse in this place. This is what was asked for at a certain point. People must be careful of what they ask for because they might get it. The Liberals took the Reform Party up on it and provided an opportunity for people to opt out of the pension plan. That is where this whole opting in and opting out business came about.

The Leader of the Official Opposition complained about the irrevocability of the opting in clause or the fact that if a person does not opt in, that person can never opt in. This also has its origins in the Reform Party. What this is designed to prevent is the very thing we had to go through a year or so ago when we had Reform Party members, both privately and publicly, trying to crawl back into the pension plan.

What happens is people change their minds and then we have to have this very undignified process of having members doing something that they said they would never do. I submit this also has its origins in the politics of the Reform Party and now the Alliance.

Some of the things that the Leader of the Official Opposition said probably would have been better left unsaid for the party's sake. I could not let the opportunity go by without giving what I think is a more faithful rendering of what has happened over the last few years with respect to this issue.

Then the Leader of the Official Opposition said individual members should not be judged on the basis of what they do or do not do, that it is up to them. He also said he would not want to be participating in any kind of group that judged other members of parliament with respect to the decisions that they make.

[Dick Harris, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

They are the government. They are the bad guys.

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

They are the government, but they are not the people who went around putting my name and other peoples' names in pamphlets judging us for being part of a pension plan that we did not even have the opportunity to opt out of or opt into or anything else.

As far as I am concerned, the Alliance Party and the Reform Party before it have built up a lot of really bad karma when it comes to this kind of issue. Any discomfort that it might feel, either individually or collectively, over this kind of issue is very well deserved, because it is the party that made a political career out of criticizing other members of parliament who never had the range of choices of opting in and opting out that it had to deal with. I must say that it has dealt with it very badly indeed, both as a group and individually.

I just wanted to put a few of those things on the record because sometimes what is said in the present has very little connection with what has happened in the past.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could say that I am pleased to take part in this debate. It is one of the dark days for parliament, as we prepare for the summer recess. Members of parliament are in a very uncomfortable position of being presented with an option of enhancing their own rate of pay rather than dealing with issues that we all know in our heart of hearts are much higher on Canadians' list of priorities.

I would like to speak a moment about the bill itself and the issues that present themselves. This has come about after a great deal of consternation over many years about the compensation package. Without getting into the actual merits of the pension and the rate of pay, when one looks at what the bill tries to accomplish, we understand that much of what will be accomplished is the removal of this uncomfortable situation for future parliaments, the removal of the unjust ability that members of parliament have currently in the legislation to increase and ameliorate their own rates of pay.

The bill would take future pay raises out of our hands at least directly and tie them into the Judges Act. That is really cold comfort to many Canadians right now who are struggling with difficult economic situations or who are currently engaged in strikes and labour disputes within their own fields. That is really something that does not seem to appease those individuals. Yet I would suggest that it will be for the betterment of parliament that this spectacle of standing up and voting ourselves a raise will be removed.

There are other elements that the bill attempts to address. It attempts to bring rates of pay more in line with professions of equal status or equal value in the country. The increase that is being brought in arguably could be merited and could be justified if it was perhaps going to be brought in over a period of time. That is the 5% or 4% of 6%, whatever the determined amount, would be phased in over a period of time.

Perhaps more appropriately and more palatable would be to increase it in the future, which is what the Progressive Conservative Party tried to do in an amendment that was moved yesterday. It said in effect that this raise would only occur and would only take effect after the commencement of the 38th parliament, after the next election. That would, at the very least, give Canadians the opportunity to know upfront what members of parliament intended to do in terms of voting themselves a raise before they cast their vote. That is what would be accomplished if that were to occur.

Like many members of parliament, I stand here today not proud. There is no joy among many members as we prepare for the vote this evening. We have added to this discomfort this new opt in provision which was not included in the Lumley report.

I suggest that what the Prime Minister intends to do is to further embarrass parliamentarians and essentially send the message that if we dare oppose or dare say anything publicly against the pay schedule, we will be punished because the media will be watching, our constituents will be watching, and if we dare opt in later, we will be labelled hypocrites. We will wear that crown of thorns.

This trap, this hole in ice which has been left for members to fall through if they have the audacity to stand up and oppose what the Prime Minister has put before us has grave implications because as has been mentioned, this is permanent. Of course things can change quite radically around here. It seems the law of the land can be stripped away with legislation. We know that, yet this legislation is laid before us with this gaping hole, this bear trap, ready to clamp down on us if we say anything in opposition.

It is the timing, and perhaps the rate of pay, more than anything else that offends Canadians. I have heard this from my constituents and from steelworkers in Trenton who are about to be laid off. I have heard it from workers in the health profession who are labouring under extremely difficult situations. I have heard it from factory workers and fishermen whose industry has collapsed right out from under them.

It will take a most telling human toll on members of parliament when the House recesses and we go back to our constituencies, look them in the eye at summer events and justify our own existence. The real debate we will embark on this summer is justifying our own existence and somehow proving that we are worth it to Canadians. We will have to prove to our constituents that they were right in electing us and that this pay is merited and justified, not only the salary we used to receive but the new salary.

Inevitably there is a sense of uncomfortable shame welling up in all of us as we prepare for the vote tonight. At the very least there has been an opportunity for some discourse and that discourse may lead to some backlash, but at least it is open and transparent in the sense we are being forced to justify our decisions.

I will very likely be taking this pay raise. I do not think I should be prevented from standing here and criticizing the timing, the mechanism or the way in which the bill was brought in or be in a position of playing the role of a martyr. That famous word of an unparliamentary nature, hypocrisy, which we cannot utter in this Chamber, is what will rain down on us.

In order to fan the flames of that sentiment, the Prime Minister stuck in a cute little clause that is meant to intimidate. It is meant as hush money for members of the opposition and perhaps members of the backbench more particularly.

The backlash inevitably will come and deservedly so. If we as a parliament collectively cannot get our priorities right, if we cannot somehow in a more appropriate way align the priorities of the country, whether they be legislative priorities or priorities of debate, we deserve the backlash. We deserve the heat and it will come.

There is ample opportunity to bring in legislation in the form of Bill C-15 which would protect children from stalkers on the Internet and would improve the sentencing schedules for police who are victims of attempts by someone to disarm them. Many other very important pieces of legislation on the order paper will languish away. Some may disappear. Some may be dropped from the order paper depending on how things unfold when we return in the fall.

If we are to justify both in the Chamber in front of the cameras and in the foyer why this is happening, we should also be prepared to examine why it is that we are not prepared to stay a little longer if we have to, to sit a little later if we have to, to bring in legislation like Bill C-15. That would perhaps in some small way, in some tiny, minute way, indicate that we are thinking about more important issues than the one that has brought shame on the House in the last days of parliament before the summer recess.

Members of my party will be voting freely on the bill. No party discipline will rain down on anyone who votes their conscience or the wishes of their constituents. We will be voting freely. Clearly there is an indication that there will be a split among many parties on how to handle it, as there should be. This is something that will, if nothing else, cause some reflection on the worth of our work and the emphasis that we place on certain elements of that work whether it be legislative or constituency work.

After all members of parliament have voted and go home I encourage them to reflect upon the overall picture of what we are trying to accomplish. Maybe we will be able to band together in some small way and make different decisions in the future as to what are the priorities of the House and what the priorities should be.

Business Of The House

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek unanimous consent of the House to present a motion. There have been some consultations but given that a copy of this motion is not with every House leader, I would read it and ask them to understand it very quickly.

I seek unanimous consent for the following motion to be adopted without debate:

That at 3 p.m. on Tuesday, June 12, 2001, the member for Markham shall propose, seconded by the Deputy Prime Minister, the member for Medicine Hat, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, the member for Winnipeg—Transcona and the member for Calgary Centre, the motion concerning honorary citizenship for Nelson Mandela, notice of which was given earlier this day, provided that, after speeches of no more than five minutes by the mover and up to two members for each party, the question without amendment thereon shall be put without further debate and any division requested thereon shall be deferred to the conclusion of government orders that day.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons have unanimous consent of the House to present the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-28, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and the Salaries Act, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

Parliament Of Canada Act

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-28 at third reading because some things have to be put in perspective so that those who are listening can fully understand the problem this bill poses for parliamentarians, but also the need to behave in a courageous and appropriate manner under the circumstances.

First, it is not a coincidence that we are reviewing this bill now. It is not because we suddenly decided that it would be a good idea to proceed a week or two before the end of the session. Rather, it is because the act provides that after an election an independent committee of experts must be commissioned to review the issue of members' salaries. The committee has six months to do its job and table its report.

A few minutes ago a journalist asked me why we were doing it now and not waiting for the fall? I told him that whenever a report on members' salaries is tabled, the newspapers and media get hold of it and begin writing the most incredible headlines before any member has had an opportunity to express his or her opinion.

This generates confusion among the public and, without a single parliamentarian having said anything on the issue, people begin to think that members of parliament voted themselves a salary increase of x thousand dollars. We have a perfect example of that today with the Prime Minister's pension.

Being familiar with how pensions are calculated, I know personally that, on retirement—we all know that it will be in two years—the Prime Minister will not have a $175,000 pension because he would have to have paid premiums for five years on his maximum salary to be entitled to that amount.

I am sure that hundreds and thousands of people are convinced that what they read this morning on the front page of a major newspaper is the truth but it is not.

Each time such a report is tabled, reporters seek out all members of the House to ask their opinion “Do you think it is enough? Do you think it is too much? Will you accept the raise or not? Will you recommend that all members of your party vote the same way or will you have a free vote on this issue?” It is awful. It is always awful for parliamentarians to talk about compensation because it is truly unfair that we are forced to determine the level of compensation we think we deserve, or at least this is how people see it.

I do not know one person who is listening to us who is not outraged by the fact that I have to vote on my own salary. The people who are watching us are probably thinking “If I were voting my own pay increase, I would get a very nice one”.

That is not how things work. One has to understand that members—although obviously the government will be making the decision—have to vote for or against the implementation of an impartial report prepared by non-members of parliament who know about our duties and have expertise in that field. The commission was made of highly competent people who are above reproach and who have the ability to take a detached look at these issues.

The government has decided to follow up on this report, and I agree. Our party believes that the report validates the pay increases recommended in a report prepared four years ago. For all practical purposes, these two reports are the same, except for the pay increase, due probably to the four year delay.

What it means is that every time serious experts have looked at this issue objectively, they have always come up with almost the same suggestions. I truly believe that our pay level is reasonable. I do not know of anyone in my riding of Roberval who thinks it is not normal for the Prime Minister to earn at least as much as the chief justice of the supreme court.

We are not talking here about the income of the president of a bank like the National Bank, the smallest of our big banks, who earns millions of dollars a year. We are not talking $2 million here, but a salary of $200,000 for a man who has infinitely more responsibilities than the president of the National Bank or the Royal Bank. A salary of $250,000 or $260,000 for the Prime Minister is barely more than deputy ministers make in certain departments. Do the people of Canada want to see their Prime Minister earning half what a deputy minister does? It makes no sense.

Even if the way the Prime Minister is doing his job does not suit us completely, his salary ought to be comparable to that earned by the heads of major companies. When it comes down to it, does he not have greater responsibilities than anyone else?

The same goes for the ministers as well. No one that I know of in my riding of Roberval does not think ministers need to earn what their deputy ministers earn, or close to it, at least the equivalent of an assistant deputy minister. We should have given them more. Because politicians are always extremely reasonable in applying these principles, we say that we should consider that a minister ought to earn the same as a deputy minister. This is one of the rare areas in which a boss, with no job security, ends up earning a little less than the employee who reports to him. We accept this, so MPs' salaries were set accordingly. That is the outcome of the committee's work.

There is one point to which I would like to return. Debate leads to reflection. We have supported the government in all of the bill, essentially. However one clause is of particular concern to me. I met some informed individuals who provided viewpoints on the debate. I think intelligent people sometimes are the only ones to see things from a different angle. I think the provision on opting in that is in the bill, although it may be initially attractive to the troublemakers who would like to play tricks with the bill on salaries, should not be included.

Today, it was in fact pointed out to me—I was impressed by the argument—that I agree with the principle, in a strike vote at a company, that if 70% vote in favour and 30% vote against, they do not say to the 30% “You will return to work because you oppose the strike”. They say “The majority has decided and this system will apply”.

This is sort of the same thing. In an attempt to trick certain individuals, to prevent their rhetoric on the bill, I think the government went a bit too far with this clause.

I do not know whether the government House leader should not follow along on the route I have taken, which is, to think about the question and decide, in the end, that some colleagues can legitimately fight a bill. Either they find the increase excessive or they find the pension fund inappropriate.

They have the right to express their point of view but they should not be personally penalized for that. I consider a member of the House of Commons must be able to do his job without the threat that he will be denied certain benefits, which members deserve, I have no doubt, all and amply. It is a fair salary, as I said earlier.

In this regard, we supported the government, but I would like to encourage it today—there is still time—to think about the opting in clause. This may not be the discovery of the century. I think we would all be much happier to do our job were there no threat, no spirit of revenge in the bill.

This is the only change I would make to the position we have held since the start. We continue to support the bill but we would like to have the “opting in” clause—now before it is too late—taken out and withdrawn. I do not think it is a good idea.

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

Mr. Speaker, on June 27, 1788, the Virginia ratifying convention proposed a series of amendments to the draft federal constitution then before that body. It was understood by all participants in the debate over whether to ratify the proposed new constitution of the United States that if Virginia did not sign on, the new constitution would be stillborn.

The Virginia delegates made it clear that their ratification was conditional upon the adoption of the larger portion of the 20 proposed changes to the body of the constitution they had set forth. These amendments dealt with freedom of speech, the independence of the judiciary, freedom of religion, the right to own property, and other key rights.

One of the amendments, which is relevant to today's debate read as follows. It resolved:

That the laws ascertaining the compensation to Senators and Representatives for their services be postponed in their operation, until after the election of Representatives immediately succeeding the passing thereof—

This proposed amendment was the intellectual origin and the genesis of the primary principle underlying my decision to vote against the legislation before us.

The list of proposed amendments was taken to the first session of the United States' congress by one of Virginia's greatest sons, James Madison. From it and similar lists forwarded by the ratifying conventions of the other states, Madison and his colleagues cobbled together a series of 12 amendments which, on September 25, 1789, were duly enacted by a two-thirds majority of each of the two houses of congress and sent to the states for ratification.

At this point the wording had been somewhat altered to read thus:

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Unlike all but one of the other amendments approved that day, the amendment on congressional pay was not immediately adopted by a three-fourths majority of the 13 states. Perhaps this was because legislators in those days were modest in their salary demands and there was no need to place controls on their ability to set their own levels of compensation.

Times change. The willingness of elected representatives to compensate themselves generously grew to the point that by the 1980s a Texas legislative aide, Gregory Watson, felt compelled to take up the cause. He built a cross-country coalition that convinced the legislatures of 32 states to complete the ratification process. With the simultaneous ratification on May 7, 1992, of the Michigan and New Jersey state legislatures, Madison's proposal became the 27th amendment to the United States' constitution.

I have engaged in this long historical digression to make as pointed a contrast as possible between the right way of reforming parliamentary compensation and the mess that presents itself to us today.

Following the 2000 election, a commission, headed by former cabinet minister Ed Lumley, prepared a series of recommendations on MP salaries and compensation. Its report was made public last week. Some of its proposals strike me as excellent, particularly those which would moderate the accrual rate for the MP pension plan and which call for openness in reporting MPs' incomes.

I had not known until last week that my total compensation package under the existing byzantine structure of salary and tax free allowances added up to $109,000 per year.

Other aspects of the Lumley report, such as the proposal to tie MPs' salaries to those of judges, strikes me as less satisfactory. A linkage to private sector compensation would in my mind have been preferable.

However, the Lumley report is not the problem. It is an impartial public servant's attempt to come to a reasonable solution to the question of MP compensation. What has been distressing beyond all measure has been the government's reaction to the report.

In the past week we have seen the government fiddle with the accrual rate of the MP pension plan. According to Walter Robinson of the National Taxpayers Association, it has done so to goose up the size of payouts by as much as 42%, make the pay retroactive to a point far in advance of the date suggested by Mr. Lumley, and insert an odious and offensive opt out clause to allow it to tar any member who votes against the bill with the spurious charge of hypocrisy.

Each of these actions is an offence but the last one is so bad that I urge every member of the House, regardless of his or her intentions with regard to opting in or opting out, to vote against the entire bill on this basis alone.

The worst part of the government's reaction to the Lumley report has surely been its unseemly haste to ram the legislation through in record time.

So great was the government's haste that time allocation was imposed on the debate in the House. The committee of the whole that met yesterday had only a few hours to discuss the details of the bill. Each of us was permitted to raise questions only once, thereby preventing the kind of two way exchange that might have shed more light on important details of Bill C-28.

So great was the government's haste that its translation of the bill from English to French contained numerous mistakes which had to be corrected by amendments in committee.

So great was the government's haste that at committee stage it failed to group consequential amendments to the bill as is the normal practice.

Finally, the government's haste was so great that many members, myself included, were unable to flip through our sheaves of proposed amendments before the votes had been commenced on them. We therefore voted in complete ignorance or had to abstain from voting so as not to vote inappropriately.

All of this does the government a great discredit.

I will say for the record that there are many members in the House who deserve the increase on which we will be voting this afternoon. There are some for whom the services to their country that they are providing here, that they have provided here and that in many cases they will continue to provide here, far outweigh any level of compensation they will see.

For that reason I would never condemn a fellow member regardless of how he or she chooses to vote, whether he or she chooses to opt into the pension plan, the pay raise or the whole package, but I cannot and will not set aside any kind word for the process by which the raise is being rammed through. It is wrong and I will be voting against it.

I urge every fellow member of the House to do the same, regardless of party affiliation and regardless of his or her intentions with respect to the pay raise.

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

Mr. Speaker, some other members have said that they are sorry to have to rise on the bill. I am happy to do so because I believe I can stand here and represent the sentiment of those who have e-mailed and phoned me about the issue. Their perception of what is going on here is that it is wrong and that we ought to reject it.

I will say at the outset that I do not at all like what the Prime Minister is doing in promoting the bill, a bill which, among other things, would give him a hefty salary increase and a pension increase. That of course is true for everyone here because an increased salary does, over time, increase the pension.

I would draw to your attention Standing Order 23(1). It states:

The offer of any money or other advantage to any Member of this House, for the promoting of any matter whatsoever depending or to be transacted in Parliament, is a high crime and misdemeanour, and tends to the subversion of the Constitution.

That is in our standing orders.

I know we cannot raise it in the House as a charge because the bill is not a secret handing of money, but it is an offer of financial advantage without criticism to members who vote for it.

As far as I am concerned, the Prime Minister used the opt in clause—and it was he who put it in, not the commission—for the sole purpose of getting people to vote the way he wanted them to. That is very evident. He practically said it.

Other Liberal members have said the same thing; that anyone who votes against the legislation and then takes it is a hypocrite. In other words, the Prime Minister is setting up members who, in representing their constituents, vote against the bill. I will be voting against it. He is setting us up as special targets.

You know the terms in hockey. It is a cheap shot, it really is. If it is defensible the Prime Minister does not need to do it. If it is not defensible he should not be doing it. He is saying to anyone who votes against his wonderful bill that they will be special targets.

What annoys me is that every one of the Liberals on that side will be getting the raise. Yes, they will proudly stand and vote for it and will proudly opt in. All the while, the scrutiny of the media and of the public will be directed at those of us who voted against it instead of the guys who are putting it in.

It is a clever strategy on the part of the Liberals. They are not in power year after year, decade after decade, because they are good managers of our economy or our finances. We know that from history. They are not in power because they represent the people who pay the taxes which pay their salaries and pensions. They are in power over and over again because they know how to turn the heat on someone else who does not deserve it.

I am calling their bluff. I am voting against the bill. I do not care what the Prime Minister says. He can try to intimidate me if he wants. I do not care what the media say. I am standing up for what is right. I am voting against the bill because there are a number of offensive aspects to it.

I do not have time to talk about the hasty process. I was going to say a few things about it but my colleague has done that. Suffice to say I am annoyed that the government chose to put the bill through in a three day time line. It introduced the bill in the House on Monday. We had second reading on Tuesday, which was confined to two hours, and report stage on Wednesday, which was also confined to two hours less a delay because of another process that went on in the House. It extended the debate to two hours again today, or maybe two hours and two minutes or whatever.

During report stage I had a very important amendment. I did not even get a chance to explain it to the members opposite at report stage in committee of the whole. We had 36 to 40 clauses in the bill. In report stage we got to clause 3, then the time was up and we voted on everything. My amendment was in clause 4. We did not get to it.

I am trying to represent the members of the public who pay the bills and I did not even get to put in my amendment and tell members why they should vote for it. They would probably not have done so anyway, but as a parliamentarian I should at least have the right to put forward ideas. That is why I was elected. That is the only reason I can justify receiving any pay in this place at all.

The Prime Minister, wanting to increase the esteem in which his members are held, thinks that can be achieved by giving them more money. No, that can be achieved by allowing us to do our jobs as parliamentarians.

The bill is yet another example of where we are being inhibited from doing our jobs by government members in a hurry to jam through the legislation to give themselves a raise. It is despicable.

I want to talk about my amendment because it is a good one and it is one of the reasons I am voting against the bill. My amendment was not even really considered. In fact I think we should have a new criterion whereby every Liberal who voted against my amendment would be eligible for a pay raise if any Liberal member could stand right now and tell me what my amendment was. Not one of them even knew what it was. I am sure of it. They had little cheat sheets from their whip that said to vote against my amendment, that it was no good.

However it was good and they should have voted for it. The amendment would have eliminated that part of the bill which provides for extra pay for members of committees who serve as chairmen and vice-chairmen. Why am I opposed to that? It is really very simple. I believe that committee work is part and parcel of our jobs as parliamentarians. When I was in the education industry I did a whole lot more than just stand in front of a class. I did a lot of things on my own time for and with my students. I did not get paid every time I lifted my finger for some extra thing that I was expected to do anyway, and there were some things I was not expected to do. When I taught high school I ran a chess club with the kids. I did not get paid for it and I would not have taken it if it had been offered.

My amendment would have taken away that clause so that committee chairmen and vice-chairmen would not have received extra pay. I admit that the chairman of each committee has a little extra work. Occasionally the chairman has to stand in front of the media and do interviews, but that is what the job is. If one is elected to be the chairman of a committee, one is expected to know what is going on in that committee, just like all of us who are members of a committee. When someone sticks a microphone in our faces and asks questions about what we are discussing in committee, any one of us could answer but usually it falls to the chairman, so we could give the chairman $10 an interview. I would go for that.

What is the government proposing? The government is proposing to give a member $9,000 a year to be the chairman of a committee. The chairman has a staff of at least two people, usually closer to four, who do a lot of the work. The chairman is a figurehead and the bill would give him or her $9,000 a year out of taxpayer money. I am opposed to that.

We should also consider the fact that the government wants to give $5,000 a year to vice-chairmen. I find this really offensive. I am one of the members of the finance committee. I think it is fair to say that I attend more finance committee meetings than most of the other members.

A couple of weeks ago we were delayed in our committee for about 10 or 15 minutes, with witnesses waiting. Why? Because the chairman was not there, the first vice-chairman was not there and the second vice-chairman was not there. I told the clerk that I was ready to chair the meeting but she said it had to be one of the elected people. They are elected by some process—and I wish I could have 40 minutes more to speak—that is nothing but an appointment by the Prime Minister.

The bill would give the vice-chairmen $5,000 a year. I would venture to say that the Conservative vice-chairman of our committee has been there about 50% of the time. I think that the Liberal vice-chairman has only been at 2 meetings out of 30 all year. Give them extra pay? No way. Yet my amendment did not get any consideration.

Mr. Speaker, you do not know how I regret that my time is up but I know there are others wishing to speak and I need to sit down.

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the chance to speak briefly on the bill. My colleagues on the opposition side have been talking about the whole notion of the amount of the pay as well as when it might kick in and about whether or not we should be paying a chair or vice-chair of a committee for the work they do aside from their responsibilities as members of parliament.

Frankly, what is lost in this whole debate is the fact that from here on in politicians would not really have the opportunity to set their salaries. It would be done independently. All of this decision making would be taken completely out of the process.

As a result, there would be a system in place that would look at the checks and balances, that would look at the cost of living. We would follow a formula that is not any different from what exists in the marketplace, what exists in government. This is one thing that my colleagues on the opposition side seem to have missed.

The second thing that has been missed in this debate is that for the first time in a long time the amount of the pension that a member of parliament can accumulate over the years of serving in the House of Commons would be reduced. It used to be 5%. It was reduced a couple of parliaments ago to 4%. Now it has gone further down, to 3%. I am sure that if we were to look at the House now there would be five or six members of parliament who would qualify. There would be a new system and a new regime for full pension in the House of Commons. Under the new system it would take 25 years for a member of parliament to be eligible for full pension.

We can cry and shout and jump and dance all we want, but at the end of the day members of parliament do not have the job flexibility of deciding how long they can serve. A member of parliament can be tossed out after four years. As a result, that member of parliament would not be eligible for his or her pension or any part of it. A member of parliament could serve for two or three terms and the percentage of what they receive would not be more than 10% of the $131,000 that is now being proposed before the House of Commons.

In addition to this, something else was missed in this whole debate. In regard to the eligibility of a member of parliament for receiving his or her pension, the age has changed. A lot of people used to say before this that it was a known fact that someone could come into the House of Commons at the age of 24 or 25, serve two terms, quit at 31, collect a pension and move on. That has changed. Under the new regime, not only would a member need to have served for 25 years in the House of Commons as a member elected for seven or eight different parliaments, but the member would also have to be 55. In other words there is no hope for any member of parliament who is under the age of 55 to collect a pension. That also was missed from the debate.