House of Commons Hansard #41 of the 38th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was salaries.
David Kilgour Liberal Edmonton—Beaumont, AB
Mr. Speaker, the process led to a percentage. In the present circumstances of inflation and the private sector agreements and people looking at us for leadership, what would my colleague think would be a process that would lead to something Canadians would respect, rather than thinking that we or the judges are simply ripping the taxpayers off?
John Reynolds Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC
Mr. Speaker, we have a bill before us. I will not answer a hypothetical question.
The member has raised a hypothetical question. We have a bill. The bill says the private sector wage settlement process is 1.5%. My party is accepting that.
Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House leader of the Conservative Party a question. Given that the government is launching into a process guided mainly by the Prime Minister's inability to properly take on his responsibilities, does the leader not find that it would have been better for parliamentarians to refuse any increase in pay?
It does not seem to me that salary increases are a priority right now. We should have refused any increase in pay, sat down with the government and figured out what was wrong with the mechanism currently in place so that the appropriate corrections could have been made.
Why accept a salary increase now and rush to implement a new system without having the time to study all of its consequences, when there is absolutely no reason for rushing? We do not need an increase in pay. We should have carefully examined and reviewed the current legislation in serious terms and not from the standpoint of political opportunism.
John Reynolds Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the point of view expressed by the Bloc's House leader. I am very pleased that this bill will be going to committee. It is going to give members an opportune chance to speak at this level and put their opinions forth. I certainly respect his opinion on this issue. I would rather be debating anything in this House, and I mentioned the issue of student loans and getting doctors through immigration. There are a lot of things we should be doing in this House. We should not debating the amount of money for ourselves.
Sooner or later, we have to solve this problem because the government has created another problem by not believing or listening to what it did in the last Parliament, which is not unusual for the government. The bill will have a chance to go to committee where we can discuss those issues.
Maybe we will get some unanimity in committee that we should receive zero as long as the judges receive zero. We made a commitment in this Parliament, at one point, that the chief justice of the Supreme Court would get the same salary as our Prime Minister and the rest would be scaled down from there. I believe it is going to stay that way.
I look forward to getting this to committee where we can discuss those issues brought up by my colleague from the Bloc.
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's comments on how this House has been able to work effectively together and in some cases very much so; however, DFO has not been responsive to the travesty on our west coast with respect to salmon stocks.
I wonder if he could comment on, as effective as this House is, the apparent vacuum of power in leadership that is happening on the government side. The indecisiveness that we are seeing on a number of files, not just this one, and making a consistent decision and then falling away from it so quickly.
I wonder if he could comment on the leadership or the lack of leadership that has been displayed.
John Reynolds Conservative West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC
Mr. Speaker, I could say to my hon. colleague from the NDP that part of the reason that we have that problem is the fact that the Prime Minister has probably been outside of Canada more than he has been in Canada since this House reconvened. There cannot be a government when the leader is not around while parliament is sitting.
If I remember, the Prime Minister said one day when he was a little angry at the Leader of the Opposition, “I'd rather be anywhere than in this place with you guys”. That sort of gets across. I do not doubt that for a minute when he had the member for Mississauga—Erindale who caused him nothing but grief until she had to resign, and he has a Minister of Citizenship and Immigration causing the same problems today, and who knows who will be next.
I believe that the Prime Minister, for his new year's resolution, should promise to be in the House of Commons every day next year so we can get down to real business and solve the problems that a number of us have talked about here today.
Jim Prentice Conservative Calgary North Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of Bill C-30. In doing so, I support our House leader and the comments which he has just made. He has been good enough to share his time with me and I thank him. I also speak in support of the position of the leader of our party who has spoken adamantly against this 10% salary increase.
I have listened very carefully to the government House leader, as he spoke in relation to Bill C-30. It would seem to me that we are in agreement as to what needs to be done. I would add that it seems as though the government has been forced on this issue by the other parties in the House of Commons and by editorial comment in the media of this country to eventually adopt this position.
As a new member of Parliament I struggled to understand this issue. I examined some of the previous commissions which have studied this issue in the context of our parliamentary history in the last 25 years. I speak of the Hales commission of 1979, the Lapointe Commission of 1994, and the Blais commission of 1998.
These commissions all seem to eventually seize upon five principles by which the remuneration of MPs should be judged. I would like to reference these in my opening comments.
First, it is important, since Parliament is such a valuable institution in this country, that we elect and retain competent and qualified people, and that good pay is essential to do that.
Second, MPs should not be expected to cover the expenses which they incur as a result of their lives as an MP out of their own pocket.
Third, and this is very important, MPs should not become wealthy or profit excessively as a result of their public service, nor should they see pay increases when other Canadians are suffering from financial hardship or not experiencing similar pay increases.
Fourth, MPs should not vote for their own pay increases since this constitutes a conflict of interest.
Finally, regardless of any determination of what constitutes fair compensation for the value of the work that they do, MP remuneration must be consistent with public expectations. Public expectations may in fact require MPs to be paid less than an amount which is properly what they should receive.
Public service is a choice. No one is forced to seek elected office and all of us in the House have done so willingly.
I will now turn to the legislation and judge it against those principles. Although the legislation is reasonably complicated, Canadians need to understand that this is essentially how it works.
In clause 55.1 of the bill, the salary of members of the House of Commons is set at $141,200 plus an annual amount that will be added to that in each year thereafter.
Canadians need to understand the way in which that will work is set forth in clause 67.1 of the bill which defines an index. Essentially, parliamentarians will now receive the same salary which they have received in the previous year plus an increase which is calculated with respect to the cost of living. The actual formula is indexed to the bargaining units of 500 or more employees in the private sector. MP salary increases will be commensurate with other Canadians.
In terms of whether MPs are to receive a pay increase at this time or not, it is worth noting, as the government House leader has pointed out, that the effect of this formula applied today, parliamentarians will receive a salary increase of only $200 in the coming year. That is a very important point to make in this debate.
With respect to the principles of which I have spoken, that MPs should not become wealthy or profit excessively, it is the position of our party and has been the position of our party that the 10% salary increase which was to be proposed by the commission, and which I gather was leaked publicly, was outrageous and unnecessary. It was excessive. Our party has not supported it. Our leader has not supported it. I do not support it.
We have been opposed to the 10% salary increase from the very outset. I am proud to say that it is our leader who was the very first person to say so publicly. I would note in that respect that a salary of $141,000 effectively places members of Parliament in the top 2% of Canadians in terms of what they earn. That should be sufficient. We do not need salary increases beyond that.
In recognizing the public policy discussion that has led to this conclusion, not only did our party reach this conclusion but respected commentators such as the Calgary Herald in this country on March 3, 2004, spoke eloquently about this in an editorial. It pointed out that the approach which the government had been following, the commission approach, was not working and that any approach which would result in a 10% salary increase was clearly flawed. I recognize the leadership that many people in this country have taken, including the Calgary Herald , in speaking on this issue.
To that I would add that the second principle of relevance in this is the delinkage from the salaries of judges. As has been said earlier today, I understand that the whole issue of the Judges Act and the salary increases to which judges are entitled will be brought before the House in a separate debate at a separate time.
As the our House leader has said, there will be very close scrutiny at that time of the proposed increases for judges because they are being paid very well in our society at this point in time. Further increases along the lines of what has been indicated, 11% over 4 years plus cost of living increases on top of that in addition to the salaries they receive, are not warranted at this time. This is not good policy. It is our hope that the House will not proceed in that direction at that time.
The approach which is contained in this legislation has in fact been applied with success elsewhere in Canada. I speak in terms of my own province of Alberta. In Alberta, since 1999, the annual pay raises for members of the legislative assembly have been tied to percentage increases, or for that matter decreases, in the average weekly earnings for Albertans in the prior year depending on Statistics Canada information. That pay hike amounted to a modest increase in 2002 of 2.81%; in 2003, 2.25%; and in 2004, 1.36%.
This has resulted in a system in Alberta where members of the legislative assembly have been able to secure wage and salary increases which are fair and commensurate with inflation and cost of living increases, but which are not excessive along the lines of the 10% which was being proposed by the commission in this Parliament at some time earlier this year. This is a system which can work. It is a system which has worked elsewhere in this country, and it is a system which we support.
This brings me to the third principle of which I spoke, namely, conflict of interest and the process by which MP salaries are set. MPs should not be voting for their own salary increases or decreases, for that matter. It is a demeaning process. It is demeaning to the House and to the fine men and women who serve here with the best of intentions. I do not believe anyone comes to the House of Commons for the money. To have MPs voting on their own compensation year after year is not a wise process and does not advance democracy in this country.
One of the real benefits of what is being proposed in this legislation is the indexing. We will take care of that and it will not be necessary to have this debate on an annual basis. For these reasons, I support Bill C-30. I am against the 10% pay increase which otherwise would have fallen.
Dominic LeBlanc LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member for Calgary Centre-North who obviously put together a coherent presentation. He drew parallels which I thought were interesting and appropriate with provincial legislatures. I appreciate his stated intention to support this bill, at least to send it to committee.
One thing I hope the member for Calgary Centre-North might enlighten us on is his comment that he had some significant hesitation with respect to the increases proposed for federally appointed judges. I was hoping to ask the same question of his colleague, the opposition House leader who had made similar comments.
As the government House leader indicated, the government will introduce at some point legislation to put into effect the quadrennial commission report, which reviewed the issue of judicial remuneration.
The member for Calgary Centre-North has significant experience in law. I am concerned that if Parliament begins to refuse or change recommendations from the quadrennial commission with respect to judicial remuneration, we could get into a complicated constitutional problem in terms of the independence of the judiciary. We may find ourselves with judges going to court seeking to put into effect a quadrennial commission report with respect to their own remuneration against, and it is a hypothetical circumstance, what Parliament might want to do.
How might square the issue of judicial independence from the possibility of Parliament refusing the quadrennial commission report which the government has supported?
Jim Prentice Conservative Calgary North Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my learned friend for his compliment about the coherency of my presentation. I appreciate that.
The question which he asks is a difficult one. The government House leader has spoken about this and about the government House leader's position with respect to judge's salaries. I have followed suit with similar comments.
The hon. member is correct, I did practise law in this country for some 22 years, and I hold the judiciary in our country in the highest of regard. I have also read the Prince Edward Island reference case, as it is called, which deals with this issue and the entire question of judicial independence in the setting of judicial salaries.
I think it will depend very much on the legislation which the government brings forward on this matter. Today, I agree that the de-linkage of judges' salaries and parliamentary salaries is a very good thing. It is a step forward. Clearly, the government will have to be careful about the judicial authorities on point.
I would point out, based on the judicial compensation and benefits commission work which has been done today, that judges are being paid extraordinarily well compared to members of the legal profession who are in private practice. This is something upon which I think most members of the legal profession would agree. We do not wish to trench upon a constitutional issue in dealing with judges' salaries, but judges should be compensated fairly but not excessively.
David Kilgour Liberal Edmonton—Beaumont, AB
Mr. Speaker, would the member for Calgary Centre-North perhaps recall that the provincial judges in Alberta went to court over this very issue? Does he think there are any lessons that we might draw for the federal judges from the experience of the provincial judges in our province?
Jim Prentice Conservative Calgary North Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, the provincial judges in Alberta did proceed to court. Although, I think the eventual decision of the courts in that case was subsumed within the P.E.I. reference decision of the appellate court eventually and then eventually of the Supreme Court of Canada.
The only comment I would make on a lesson learned is, as my hon. friend has said, we have to be careful about the constitutional relationship of the distribution of powers and the balance of powers between this hon. House and the judiciary. The Supreme Court decision sets out the way in which to deal with that and the way to achieve an independent setting of the salaries of judges in the country. However, it does not mandate or require that excessive salary increases be approved or that we adopt a system which results in increases which are a departure from what other Canadians are receiving.
Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC
Mr. Speaker, let me tell you a little about the past. In all parliaments, whether the federal Parliament here or the Parliament in Quebec City, where I was for a while, or other parliaments in other countries, setting the salaries of members of Parliament is always an extremely difficult and thankless task for one simple reason. Members of Parliament are generally well paid and even very well paid, and the citizens who pay our salaries will always find some reason for saying that salaries are too high—and sometimes they are right.
It is really a thankless job that we have, and this is why, in the last Parliament, after some long sessions, the Liberal government decided to suggest a method of setting members' salaries that was completely beyond the control of Parliament. The judges' category is a category that parliaments have used to give themselves independent methods of setting salaries. Judges' salaries are set on the basis of recommendations based on studies done by a committee of experts that studies the economic situation and labour markets in general and makes a proposal.
Principles of independence are all very well, but returning every year or two to Parliament to ask the members to determine whether they should have a 1%, 2%, 3% or 5% salary increase puts the onus on the very people who daily see people in their ridings facing terrible problems, losing their jobs, plants closing, and people victimized by the cuts to the employment insurance plan decreed by the government.
It is an inhuman task. There has never been unanimity on this, except in the former Parliament when all the parties agreed that Parliament's independent mechanism for judges could also set our salaries.
We were happy to work with the government, several of whose members are still on the benches opposite, and several members of the current cabinet were in cabinet at that time. They took the decision then and made some recommendations. They did the work that they had to do. They assumed their responsibilities. They got our support, and the system worked.
But what has happened that we find ourselves here now, in this House, forced to go through this debate again when we thought that we were forever finished with it? This is what happened. The committee that determines judges' salaries did its work. It made recommendations. These recommendations leaked out and in the newspaper the headline, which lost the focus on judges, read, “MPs give themselves 10% salary increase.”
No MP in this House, certainly not on this side of the House, anyway, was informed of this percentage. No one had any idea that the committee had made such a wild recommendation. We were just as speechless, surprised and even indignant as the general public, to see such a high percentage. Still, we took the responsibility. We said to ourselves, “The committee did its work badly.”
In such circumstances, when one is responsible and reasonable, when one is not a demagogue and not trying to score political points with such difficult and delicate matters, one must simply say the committee did its work badly. If the percentage is too high, the government has the option and even the duty to receive the recommendation and determine whether it is correct or too high. It can make changes to the recommendation.
What did the government do? What did the Prime Minister do? Expectations were that the Prime Minister would announce, like a reasonable man, “Look, the recommendation you have seen in the papers is clearly exaggerated. The government will shoulder its responsibilities. We will have a critical look at this percentage, reduce it, bring it into more reasonable proportion, or we may ask the committee members to use different parameters. If they have used the wrong parameters, perhaps they can work with the ones that Treasury Board could provide, which are used to determine salary figures for public servants based on private industry, increases in wealth, on this and that, to finally arrive at some increase in salary.”
But no, that is not what the Prime Minister did. The Prime Minister ran to the nearest microphone to say that he would not accept his salary increase. He meant it when he said it. He dissociated himself from all the other partners in this House, and that is worse. He said that he, personally, would not accept his salary.
Everyone started laughing. The Prime Minister has tens of millions of dollars. There are a few members in this House, unfortunately I am not one of them, who could fulfill their duties here on a voluntary basis and continue to give money here and there without any problem. Good for them. However, when one fulfills the duties of a prime minister, one does not have the right to use himself as a standard and try to look better than the others. He said he would not collect his salary.
When everyone started laughing, the Prime Minister came back to the microphone and said that this did not make sense, that he was going to change it and cut the members' salary increase. Everyone was in agreement with the Prime Minister. However, what we expected from a responsible Prime Minister was that he would tell us that the committee would have to go back to the drawing board and make an acceptable increase proposal to us, for the judges and for us members of Parliament.
Instead, he took the microphone and said that 10% would be much too costly to Canadians. We agree. We do not want a 10% or 11% salary increase, but we do not want either to undo a whole process, just because the Prime Minister does not have the courage to do his job and to do it correctly. But that is another story.
I was one of those who helped devise that process. During my career, I had many opportunities to work on the salary of parliamentarians, both in Quebec City and here in Ottawa. We defined some principles. Let me begin with the first one. We felt that the public could not possibly disagree with the following principle, namely that the Prime Minister of Canada should have a salary equivalent—$1 more, I think—to that of the chief justice of the Supreme Court, whom he appoints. The latter has much greater job security than the Prime Minister of Canada does, particularly this one. Indeed, his job is constantly on the line. He might not last very long here. So we felt that the Prime Minister should earn the same salary as the chief justice of the Supreme Court.
Is there anyone here who thinks this does not make sense? Yet, today the government just betrayed that principle.
Second principle. It is said that a minister does not work as hard as a Prime Minister, has fewer responsibilities and should earn three-quarters of the Prime Minister's salary. This only makes good sense and seems perfectly acceptable. No one would do a double take over this.
The Prime Minister earns the same salary as the chief justice, ministers earn 75% of the Prime Minister's salary and members earn 50% of the Prime Minister's salary. Seems reasonable. I do not think anyone listening to us would be shocked by this. We have established defined amounts.
If the Prime Minister had the courage to respect this, we would not be here today. How do you judge a man who acts on political opportunism? He wants to look good to the public, he wants people to like him, he wants to give the impression that he is fair and modest, and that he cares about people.
The Prime Minister had numerous opportunities to show he cared about people, whether in the area of employment insurance, health care, the fiscal imbalance or seniors. The Prime Minister had many opportunities to demonstrate his humanity. But no, he has decided to take his turn at members' salaries, the one subject, unfortunately, that lends itself most readily to demagogy.
Still, we would follow the Prime Minister in this respect if the government said today that it had decided to clean house and implement a separate system for judges and parliamentarians. We would look at this, and maybe we could work with it. In fact, this is what we are proposing. We want to look at new mechanisms or a mechanism with new parameters.
The same Prime Minister who said, when the results were released, that this was far too high for Canadians, changed his tune in cabinet and gave government approval—again requiring a bill—with respect to judges.
So, I would like to know how Canadians, who do not have the means to give MPs 10% more, a fact that we corroborate, suddenly are able to do this when it is for judges. I need an explanation of how a Prime Minister, who has looked into the situation of his fellow citizens, can reach the conclusion that they cannot afford to give 300 MPs a 10% raise, but they can do it for hundreds and hundreds of judges. I just do not get it.
This is irresponsible. The public needs to know that their Prime Minister makes decisions on a day by day basis. There is no other reason the Prime Minister could use to justify his government drafting a bill that, on the one hand, cuts the pay increase for MPs while, on the other, hand making the decision to give this kind of increase to judges, who are not exactly in dire straits.
The consequences of such an approach are scandalous. Are people aware that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who up to now has earned as much as the Prime Minister of Canada, and furthermore is appointed by the Prime Minister, and has job security, will now earn $26,000 more per year than the Prime Minister? It is unbelievable. People listening who do not earn even $15,000 per year must understand that this government has decided to give a $26,000 annual increase to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The government is acting shamelessly.
The position of the Bloc Québécois is quite simple. We cannot agree to, nor do we want any salary increase for parliamentarians. Even the increase proposed by government seems, at this point, inappropriate.
We do want, however, the Prime Minister to deal with this matter in the following way. A parliamentary committee must be created that will set slightly more serious parameters for the judges compensation review committee. There is no need to deal with compensation for members and judges separately. The only thing we need to do is ask the committee to reconsider the issue using new parameters. The ridiculous recommendations that are often announced year after year are creating a huge gap between judges and the rest of Canadian society in terms of wealth.
We have seen it, the minister talked about 1.3%, 1.5% and 1.7% per year. Do members know that judges, in addition to the 11%, get a cost of living adjustment? In four years, this represents a 15% or 16% increase in salary. Who, in Canada, gets a 15% or 16% salary increase in a four-year period? Few people do. Almost no one gets that.
How can the government justify such a thing?
We are disappointed and deeply offended by the attitude of the Prime Minister, who, for political expediency, and because of his inability to assume his responsibilities as Prime Minister, has attempted to wreck an entire system without even asking himself if that system was not the best one. The Prime Minister did not hesitate to trample, to destroy the arguments in respect of a system that the previous government, of which several ministers were members, had put in place and implemented to finally resolve this issue.
The Prime Minister does not respect anything, except perhaps this sort of paranoia about the popularity he wishes he had. Moreover, he does not understand that he will not make headway with demagogic behaviour like this. If he wants to be popular with the public, they should set aside the issue of salaries for MPs and tackle unemployment. We have to examine the employment insurance program before the recess.
We have to deal with the million of children living in poverty in this country, who need help and whom the government should help. But no, we are not dealing with poor children, or the unemployed, or the elderly, to whom the government owes billions of dollars. Instead, we are dealing with the salaries of MPs. That is indecent. While this matter could easily have been dealt with in committee, had the government so decided, the government, is increasing the salaries of judges and, to a lesser extent, that of MPs, but not dealing with anything else. If the Prime Minister wants to be popular, he is going to have to learn to set real priorities.
In closing, I would like my colleagues in the opposition to ask themselves: if we agree today to an increase in MPs' salaries are we not acting in complicity with the government? Are we not agreeing to this bad strategy of the Prime Minister by letting him have his way and saying, “You have more reasonable figures. Let us look no further. Let us change the system”?
In my opinion, all opposition members should stick together and tell the Prime Minister that we do not appreciate his way of doing things; that we refuse to destroy a system that can work and that is based on reasonable parameters, provided we give directions to those who work within it. There is no need to rebuild the whole system; we simply have to be reasonable and assume our responsibilities. However, whenever something comes up, the Prime Minister starts acting like a ship at sea that is going in all directions because of the wind. Back home, we refer to this as a ship with a lot of sail, but no rudder. It is disturbing to have a Prime Minister who has a lot of sail, but no rudder. This is what we have before us.
Therefore, I am asking my fellow opposition members to say no to this bill. Let us force the government to put this issue back into the hands of hon. members through a parliamentary committee. Let us ask them to look at the process. Let us ask the committee to set adequate parameters to give reasonable salary increases to members, judges, public servants and all the citizens who deal with the government and whose salaries are paid by the government. This is what we should do. This is what we are asking, and this is why we will oppose this bill. We will oppose it and we urge the government to assume its responsibilities by adopting the system that we are proposing, because it is much more effective, logical, sensible, and respectful of the public, and it is not based on a demagogic approach.
Parliament of Canada ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)
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 Verchères—Les-Patriotes, Intergovernmental Affairs; the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, Fisheries and Oceans; and the hon. member for Simcoe—Grey, Citizenship and Immigration.
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Madam Speaker, I aspire to one day have such a capability of presenting ideas and notions in the House as the hon. member now has.
I am going to speak in English so my question is really clear.
The member made a comment about the Prime Minister acting as ship without a rudder. I would suggest that perhaps it is a ship that is not paying taxes. It may be one of the reasons why he feels at this time that it was so opportune for him to be able to dismiss any pay increase, a notion that for many of the people in my riding of Skeena—Bulkley Valley would be absolutely obscene, but I suppose when one is a multi-millionaire several times over in the avoidance of taxes one is able to make such suggestions and is able to hold to it.
Now that we have reopened this can of worms, as it were, and are now preparing to look at another way of compensating members of Parliament due to this lack of leadership, I am wondering if we could consider this. The House is meant to represent and defend many of the issues the member raised in terms of poverty among children, student loans and student debt loads. I am wondering if we would not consider tying our salaries to an index related to those issues.
If Parliament is functioning and doing well on something like health care or child poverty, then we should be compensated equally as well if we are doing our job. Many in the private sector have looked to such a system in order to compensate their managers and upper managers; when the company does well, they too do well. In this House, regardless of what poor legislation gets passed year after year, the salaries continue to rise, while for people in Canada the wage gap continues to grow and people become poorer.
Would there not be another index available to us, one that ties the members in the House to the quality of life experienced by Canadians, particularly lower and middle income Canadians? We can measure our society by how we treat these people. I am wondering if the House might eventually consider such original and diverse thinking as this.
Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC
Madam Speaker, the hon. member's question perfectly illustrates the challenge of resolving this issue.
At the beginning of my speech, I said that members' salaries had been discussed in both parliaments in which I have sat, and, in each, at least on two occasions, if not more.
All sorts of suggestions were made. Some claimed, I think quite rightly, that members' salaries should be tied to collective wealth. Others claimed that members should accept the lowest index based on a certain number of similar categories. Still others claimed that pay increases should be comparable to those given to government officials. Every possible suggestion was made.
Our own personal values can guide us in choosing one method over another. As to the hon. member's concerns, one thing is certain. We were all taken by surprise to see a potential salary increase of 10%. We are not irresponsible.
So what should members' salaries be based on? The mechanism proposed by the government leader is not a bad idea. To some degree, it could be considered fair in relation to society. I do not know. It is a difficult issue to resolve.
This is why the sensitive issue of the salary of parliamentarians should be taken out of our hands. The process must be based on something else. It should not be up to us to decide how much we will pay ourselves, or what criteria will apply. In fact, this is why we had all agreed, that is the New Democratic Party, the Bloc Québécois, the Conservative Party of Canada and the Liberals on a process whereby a committee would make an independent review of the judges' salary. This is what was proposed to us by the other side.
What I find most despicable is that while the government was proposing that approach, which we found to be fair, this whole thing came up with the Prime Minister and the leak in the media. The Deputy Prime Minister was going around, telling everyone not to compare the salaries of members with those of judges, because the work was not the same. What do we compare an MP to? to a church warden? To a city councillor? To who? To an American senator? We cannot compare members of Parliament to other groups, because they do a different and unique type of work.
It seems to me that the person who makes the legislation is, in a way, rather close to the person who interprets the legislation and the person who defends it. We are part of a legislative system. The Deputy Prime Minister told us that it was outrageous, that we had nothing in common with judges. Today, we are being asked to give ourselves a salary increase as if we were plumbers, plant workers, nurses or electricians. Perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister finds the work done by these groups more closely related to the duties of a member of Parliament.
This is ridiculous. These arguments are only meant to serve the interests of those who use them. What we are saying is that there is no ideal indexation. There is no solution. It will always be a painful debate. It is a painful debate right now. This is why we are not asking for any raise of the members' salaries.
We think that this is far from being an urgent matter. We could very well take a fresh second look at the issue, as regards both members of Parliament and judges. We could consider suggestions, such as the one made by the hon. member, or other ones that may be made here today. This would be much more responsible than the approach used by a government that is panicking and trying to save face for the Prime Minister and justify the commitments that he made in an unacceptable fashion. This is what is happening here and this is what we object to.
Jim Prentice Conservative Calgary North Centre, AB
Madam Speaker, I have a question for my hon. friend, who is a very experienced member. He is a respected member and also a good speaker.
He was right when he spoke of the Prime Minister. What is the government's motivation for introducing this bill? What does he think it is?
Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
He asked me what motivated the government. Its motivation was, in fact, very simple. I touched on it at the end of my remarks. On the government side, there is a need to cover this excessive reaction of the Prime Minister, which was not based on rationality, was neither proper nor respectful of ongoing processes, showed no respect for the people and was solely designed to make him look good in the newspapers the next morning.
That is what is going on. The government is covering the inappropriate, hasty and unjustified decisions of a Prime Minister who has not yet understood that the person who holds that position has to be able to weather the storm, think things over and, then, propose appropriate solutions, not be all over the place in an attempt to please the public.
Libby Davies NDP Vancouver East, BC
Madam Speaker, usually when I get up to speak in the House, I say that I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak. Thinking about this particular bill, realistically and honestly, I do not feel like I am pleased to have this opportunity. I am doing it because I am the House leader for the NDP and I am doing it to reflect the position of our caucus. Quite honestly, I am fed up with this issue as are many people. Here we are again in 2004 debating compensation for members of Parliament.
I listened very carefully to what the government House leader had to say. At one point in his remarks he said it was very logical to take this step, that is, Bill C-30. I began to think about that in terms of the logic of what is taking place here today in debating Bill C-30.
I suppose one could argue that it is logical from the government's point of view once the Prime Minister had made his political statements that he was going to undo what Parliament had previously done. From the government's point of view, one could argue that it has some logic. However, in the greater scale of things, it is unfortunate that we are yet again debating what seems to be a perennial issue on the compensation of members of Parliament.
One of my colleagues asked the government House leader why the government wants to have this particular index. The government House leader said the index was based on average wage settlements in the private sector and was a reasonable thing. Why is this index acceptable now, but in 2001 another measure was somehow acceptable? This question was brought up by my colleagues in the Bloc, and is the question we need to ask.
I feel that yet again this issue has become politicized. All members on all sides of the House would agree that we want, what we have been striving for, is a system of deliberation and implementation of pay increases for members of Parliament that is independent, rational, defendable and realistic.
I happen to believe, and I think most members of the House believe, that we get paid very well. I, like other members, work very hard at what I do. I consider it to be an enormous privilege to be a member of Parliament. I consider it to be an enormous privilege to be one of 308 members of Parliament representing the diversity of our ridings across this country. We get paid well for that. We all work hard. All members share in that sort of commonality and solidarity about what this place is about.
I do not want to be here debating our pay increase yet again for politically motivated reasons. Bill C-28, the former bill dealing with pay increases for members of Parliament, was passed in this place on June 7, 2001. I looked at the record and in actual fact the member for LaSalle--Émard voted in favour of third reading of that bill.
House leaders have spoken of the process they went through at that time to establish a sense of independence and rationality when dealing with compensation. I was not a part of that. Our former House leader, the member for Elmwood--Transcona, now the dean of the House, was very much a part of that.
He has put forward the principles of establishing an independent process, and criteria and benchmarks for determining our compensation. We believed that happened in 2001. Presumably the member for LaSalle--Émard believed it also as did other government members because they voted for that bill. All of that has been undone. Here we are today with another version and another index.
I could argue, like other members have, that this index, which is based on Human Resources Development Canada and the average wage index in the private sector, is a reasonable thing. What really gets people's backs up and why we are reacting as we are to the bill today is because of the history that has brought us to this point. The question is still out there and it makes me feel unsettled. How many more times will we have to go through this?
Now we have a new bill, Bill C-30. Now we have another index. Now we are to believe that it will be an independent thing and never more will members of Parliament have to deal with this issue. What assurance and confidence is there that it will happen now that this has been undone again?
That bothers me and I know it bothers other members in our caucus. I have to agree with members from the Bloc Québécois and our member who spoke previously. There is a double standard.
We take all this time debating MP compensation when what we really need to be doing is focusing our time, resources and priorities on why the average wages of Canadians have fallen so far behind. One reason the index is so low is that people are not getting the pay increases that they need and deserve. Most people are working longer hours and more overtime but they have less take home pay now than they did a decade ago.
I invite members to come to my community in east Vancouver to see what it means for working families who are struggling to make ends meet and where both parents are working, sometimes at several jobs, and paying exorbitant child care costs. They are paying 40% or 50% of their income for housing costs. That is the debate we should be grappling with in the House.
Those are things that stick in one's craw when we are here again debating the salary of members of Parliament. It becomes a big controversial issue in the public about how much money we make and how it is decided, and we all get drawn into it.
For me it was the height of cynical and opportunistic politics in the way the Prime Minister dealt with this issue before we came back in the fall. I think that even members in the Liberal caucus were dismayed and rather shocked at how this was dealt with.
The government House leader was correct when he said that it will be the will of Parliament as to what we do. We are a minority Parliament, and yes, theoretically the opposition parties could get together and agree to vote down the bill, make a decision to do whatever in terms of MP compensation and it would carry. However that is not the point. I think we have to stick to the principle, which is that there has to be an independent process.
I have heard a lot of discussion today on what will happen to the Judges Act when it comes before us. As we know the previous increase that would have come forward was linked to the quadrennial report of a judge's increase. I think the feeling now is that if it is not good enough for the MPs why should it be good enough for the judges. Therefore there have been some remarks here today from the Conservative Party that it will not proceed in that manner.
I have to say that the NDP debated this very carefully in our caucus. As much as we do not want to, as much as we detest the politics that got us to this point today, we are prepared to deal with the bill on its merit in terms of the index that is before us. We will agree that it should go to committee.
However in terms of what takes place with another bill that comes forward on the Judges Act, we will deal with it on its merit. We will look at it at that time. We will decide, in terms of implementing those recommendations that the government has accepted on the quadrennial report, as it applies to an increase for judges. At this moment I think we would be further escalating the cynicism that is taking place and the political nature of what takes place if we said that we will just automatically turn down that increase at this point. We should wait until the bill comes forward and look at it on its own merit and on its own standing. That is what we intend to do in the NDP. That is how we will debate it.
The bill will likely go to committee very shortly and we will support that. We will look at the index that is being proposed and we will probably support it.
I think the way it has been handled smacks of the kind of politics that we have come to expect from the Prime Minister. He does not have the kind of backbone to stick with a decision that has been made. If we are talking about what is fair, then let us get to the essence of it.
Let us talk about what is fair for Canadians, particularly those who are struggling in our society because of government cutbacks, the cutbacks made by the Prime Minister when he was finance minister over the last decade. That should be the real politics of what is going on in this place, not MP compensation.
Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the chance to speak to Bill C-30. The bill would implement the long-standing position of the Conservative Party, which is that members of Parliament should not be determining their own salaries.
The last attempt to create an impartial mechanism for determining MPs' pay led it to be indexed to the salary of the chief justice of the Supreme Court whose salary is determined by the Judicial Compensation and Benefits Commission. However, when the commission recently recommended an 11% pay increase for the chief justice, the controversy was reopened.
Clearly, it would be inappropriate for members of Parliament to accept an increase that is so far beyond what most Canadians receive, especially when we are already making a salary that most Canadians can only dream of.
In fact, many people would question whether judges need and deserve an 11% pay raise either. It would have been nice if this legislation could have been accompanied by measures to reform the way judges get paid as well. It is a different issue in some ways because the job description and hiring and firing process for judges is very different than for MPs. It also comes down to preventing people in positions of authority and trust from lining their own pockets at the expense of overburdened Canadian taxpayers.
An 11% pay raise for a backbench or opposition MP would mean a raise bigger than the total annual salary of some Canadians. In fact, Canadians whose entire annual salary is only two-thirds as much as the raise proposed for members of Parliament, would be paying taxes to fund those raises. That would be simply obscene. Of course partly that is because the Liberal government has refused to enact the Conservative policy of increasing the amount low income Canadians can make before they pay taxes. However an 11% raise is difficult to justify in any circumstances.
Members of Parliament do not need exorbitant compensation. Those of us who work hard, stay honest and do our level best on behalf of our constituents and all Canadians, are certainly not in it for the money. Some MPs have already had highly successful careers in the private sector. My hon. colleague from Newmarket—Aurora is a case in point. Although she has worked hard and performed admirably as international trade critic for the government in waiting, she has not accepted a dime from Canadian taxpayers. Instead, she has chosen to donate her salary to a charitable foundation. I applaud her for that.
The Conservative Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, the hon. Danny Williams, is a formidable leader and advocate of his province and has worked extremely hard on issues that are vital to Atlantic Canada, yet he too has decided to forgo his entire salary. He has taken the fight of ordinary Newfoundlanders to heart. He knows they face incredible financial burdens as a result of the high taxes, oppressive business climate and patronage driven, market distorting, reallocation schemes of the federal government, and has placed the interests of Newfoundlanders far above his own personal interests.
Of course not all of us are in the position to work free of charge, and I would not suggest that anyone should do so, but the examples set by our colleagues I have mentioned prove that the best legislators care more about their constituents than about their own compensation.
Canadians are our bosses and I do not think they believe that we need or deserve double digit raises. In fact many Canadians probably feel that they were hoodwinked when they hired certain candidates to represent them in this place.
Government members were hired because they said they would enact democratic reform, make the equalization system more conducive to economic growth and make the federal government more fiscally responsible. I think most Canadians would say that we as a Parliament have not yet fulfilled these basis elements of our job and we should not expect a raise until we live up to our commitments.
I support the bill because I am hopeful that it will create a reasonable and impartial mechanism for determining compensation for members of the House so we can finally stop debating our own pay and start debating the things that matter to Canadians.
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Mr. Speaker, as we have heard a few times this afternoon, here we go again. For those of us who have been here for more than one term, we have had this discussion before, and it has a ring of familiarity. I guess I am reminded of the statement by J.K. Chesteron that if a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly. That is what seems to have happened with this issue.
In 2001 the government brought in Bill C-28. It said that it would solve this situation once and for all. We had a discussion on this issue. The government came forward with legislation that would tie the salaries of MPs to those of the judges, as has been said this afternoon.
I guess the government did not plan at the time that the commission, which reviews the salaries of judges, would come back with a recommendation that those salaries be raised somewhere between 11% and 16%. We heard the minister this afternoon say that it was closer to 16% than 11%. The government did not figured that into the equation.
I appreciated what my Bloc colleague had to say earlier. He said that when the Prime Minister heard the news that had been leaked to the media, he overreacted and said that he would separate himself from anything to do with it. He was one of the people who brought forth the legislation in the first place. We are back again today.
When Bill C-28 came out in 2001, the government was enthusiastic about it. The minister of state and leader of the government in the House at the time, the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, issued a press release. It stated, “This bill implements the recommendations made in the report of the independent Commission...The bill makes parliamentary compensation more transparent”, which is ironic given what we have run into over the last couple of months in trying to deal this issue, “and brings it more into line with compensation for comparable groups.” He concluded by saying, “It is a fair and reasonable approach to parliamentary compensation and I invite all parliamentarians to support it”. It was supported, but it turned out that it was not a fair and reasonable package and approach to this situation. We are back dealing with it again.
In the House the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell said:
--parliamentary compensation would be based from here on in on the compensation of the supreme court chief justice. This is not a new idea. Officers of parliament, such as the information commissioner and the chief electoral officer, already receive the same compensation as a federal court judge, so the precedent is there for officers of the House. What we are proposing here is to do the same for parliamentarians.
He went on say that under Bill C-28 the prime minister would receive the same compensation as the chief justice of the Supreme Court, not $1 more. I do not see him here today to defend the previous bill, which he was once so enthusiastic about.
I would like to ask my colleague a question. We have now switched the system for indexing parliamentarians' wages from tying it to the Supreme Court chief justice to using a different system. Rather than tie it to the chief justice of the Supreme Court, it will be tied to the index of the average percentage increase in base rate wages for the calendar year resulting from major settlements negotiated with bargaining units of 500 or more employees in the private sector of Canada.
Does he feel the government is competent enough that we will not be back again dealing with the issue in light of the fact that those settlements may at some point in the future be too extreme for the government to deal with as well? Is he comfortable with the government's approach now? Does he think this is a fair and reasonable way to do it?
Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am not particularly comfortable with the way the current government is dealing with this issue.
Just a case in point, I was elected to the House only five months ago. When I came to this place, one of the first things that was discussed was whether I should get a 10% raise. I know of no other position that I could have aspired to where within months of getting the job I would automatically get a 10% raise. As I mentioned in my comments, some of the raises proposed in the legislation are obscene. To propose a raise that is more than what some people earn in a year is obscene. I am not particularly comfortable that our wages should be tied.
I am an average Canadian. I would like to think that the people who elected me to the House feel that I am doing a good job and am working hard. If I am satisfying their needs, I should get the same average increase as they would. A fair salary increase for all members would be what the average Canadian receives.
We are very well paid. As I mentioned in my speech, some of our members do not take a salary from the House. They do this because they believe in the cause. I think most members elected to the House are here not for the money but because they feel they can contribute to Canadian society, and that is why I am here.
Ken Epp Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB
Mr. Speaker, the member made a statement a few seconds ago about the fact that members come here because they love the work. I believe that is probably true, but it is also a bit of a dilemma if our salaries do not represent a wage level that permits members of Parliament or people to run for Parliament who have normal expenses and who are not independently wealthy. I happen to be one of those. I was an instructor at a post-secondary institution for many years. It was becoming increasingly difficult to pay all the bills living on a single salary with a family. That is one reason why I became a politician.
When I came here, part of my motivation was to see what I could do to reduce government spending and reduce taxation. Compensation for members of Parliament ought to be very balanced. It should not be so little that only people who are independently wealthy can run. Nor should it be so much that those who have been elected somehow feel they have won a lottery. It ought to be somewhere in the middle.
Perhaps the hon. member could expand a little on his comment because of the things I have stated, namely that I do not believe we want only the elite, the rich, the independently wealthy to work as members of Parliament?
Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
Mr. Speaker, the term he used about our salaries being balanced is a term with which I am very comfortable. What is most appropriate is that we have balanced compensation.
I agree with the hon. member that we should not be underpaid, but by the same token, we do not want to think that running for Parliament is the same as winning a lottery. Therefore, I am not suggesting that any of us should not be compensated. We should be fairly compensated. Our hours of work are extremely long and we should receive adequate compensation to reflect that. However, I do not think a 10% increase per year is appropriate in this case.
We should task the government with resolving this situation once and for all. We should come up with some kind of a formula that is appropriate to all concerned. As the member mentioned, let us quit government waste and maybe we can all be fairly compensated as a result.
Parliament of Canada ActGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)
Is the House ready for the question?