Werner Schmidt

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustmentact, 1995, June 15th, 1995]

I quote clause 19(5) of the bill:

For the purposes of paragraph 2(b), "community of interest" includes such factors as the economy, existing or traditional boundaries of electoral districts, the urban or rural characteristics of a territory, the boundaries of municipalities and Indian reserves, natural boundaries and access to means of communication and transport.

That is a good phrase. That is a good section. That means the interests of the people should be paramount.

However, there are other provisions in the bill which make us wonder whether they really mean that. When it gets into the business of consulting with people there seems almost to be a blockage. The boundaries commissions which are asked to do the redrawing of the boundaries are required to hold at least one hearing per province.

That is an insult to the large provinces like Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia. One hearing will actually determine the boundaries of the municipalities, look at the economic interests, look at the differences between rural and urban ridings? Somebody in downtown Vancouver will say what the characteristics are of Vermilion in Alberta, in Kamloops or in Prince George? It is ludicrous.

There have to be some real directions given to the commissions which will mean they will actually consult with the people.

There are some interesting technicalities in the bill. In section 21(6) there is the provision as to how one goes about making a presentation to the commission. This is for ordinary people, people who apparently do not understand anything about boundaries, people who do not know how they will be affected. That is an insult of the first order.

There is a greater insult in here which says a commission shall, before completing a report, hold at least one hearing in the province for which the commission is established for representation by interested persons. Notice of that commission hearing must be given 60 days before the actual hearing is to take place and the application to appear before the commission must be in writing. The application must be not more than 57 days before the hearing. Let us examine that. The notice must be given 60 days before the hearing and the person may make application up to 57 days before that date.

Let us look at another section to see what happens. Section 22(6) states:

No representation by an interested person shall be heard by a commission at a hearing held under this section unless notice in writing is received by the commission not later than seven days before the hearing is held,

Which section will apply? In one instance it can be three days before the hearing but in the other it cannot happen unless it has been at least seven days. That is an inconsistency.

We have a person who wants to make a representation and he reads one of those sections of the bill. He has to read more than one section to find out how he goes about actually notifying the commission that he wants to make a presentation.

Another principle of democracy has been violated. There were amendments to the bill presented by the Senate. The Senate is not an elected body. It is an appointed body by none other than the Prime Minister. The Senate in this case has stopped the legislation. It has made some amendments to legislation which was created by people who were elected to represent the people. This is wrong in principle. It is a violation of what I have learned democracy should be. Our tradition and our Constitution says the Senate has this kind of power. Does that make it right? Does that make it just? I submit it does not.

The Reform Party wants to reform the democratic system. One of those reformations is to have an elected Senate, to make sure those persons in the second Chamber do represent the people.

There is a very valuable service and function for the second Chamber to perform in this House, to provide sober second thought which it did in this case. It did make some amendments that were very useful and that we can support. That is good and shows the upper house can be an important part of the democratic process but it ought to be elected, just like the House of Commons. I certainly hope it will be.

The upper house ought to balance the representation that exists in this House. It ought to make sure the very highly and densely populated centres of the country are balanced against those not as well populated and therefore the interests of both parties can be served in a balanced fashion. A major reformation needs to take place here.

People have said they want smaller government and also less intrusion in their lives. A bill will be coming before the House very shortly, Bill C-88. It provides in section 9 for the cabinet to suspend, modify or extend the application of a federal law or provincial law. The House and provincial legislators have the right to make laws. It is their responsibility. The people have elected them to do that.

Within a bill coming before the House that power on certain issues will be taken away from the House, and deposited with the cabinet. That is a miscarriage of misrepresentation, a miscarriage of responsibility, a miscarriage of anything that I believe and understand about a democratic system.

On the matter of fiscal responsibility, a point was made here recently about tradition. It seems that practice has developed a certain kind of tradition in the House over a number of years. We have had an increase in the number of MPs in the House and parallel with it has been an increase in the debt of the country.

That kind of tradition must be broken. Other people have said we are a lean and mean government. I suggest they understand what most of those words mean. Lean, no; mean, yes but not fiscally.

What does it mean to have a balanced budget? I came here to find out how we got into this deep debt. I want for the benefit of everybody in the House to recognize the reason we are in debt is we spend more than we take in. That is why we have a debt. Let us not have any doubt that if we are to get our fiscal house in order we have to get to the point of cutting and controlling our spending.

To increase the number of representatives in the House will not reduce our costs. It will increase them. We can talk about the physical things, the everyday things like salaries, personnel, office space and so on but we need to look at MP pensions. This is in the craw of virtually every Canadian.

We need to illustrate exactly what happens with the C twins, Charest and Copps, the member for Sherbrooke and the Deputy Prime Minister. Between these two alone-

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustmentact, 1995, June 15th, 1995]

We only need one member on that side of the House, the Prime Minister. All they do over there is listen to what the Prime Minister says. He tells them what they will do, when they will do it, how they will do it and sometimes he explains why they should do it: "Because I said so". That is not democracy. On that basis we could reduce the size of the House rather dramatically.

One other point has to be recognized. If the government is going to start listening to the people and if it is going to demonstrate what is said in the bill, that it is actually going to consult with the people, I ask the government with whom will it consult?

I want to read from the bill that is currently before us. It talks about a community of interest.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustmentact, 1995, June 15th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-69 is a very significant piece of legislation. It is an honour for me to follow the member for Simcoe Centre. I am enjoying the kind of debate that has been generated around this particular topic.

I wish to look at this bill from three points of view. I want to look at it from the point of view of democracy, the point of view of fiscal responsibility and the point of view of leadership.

Let me first speak on the first point with regard to democracy. The whole democratic system in Canada is represented through the election of representatives on the basis of the particular party they represent. It makes the representation a rather difficult one because there are three things we have to look at when we are that kind of a representative. We have the mandate that our party has given us. It represents the policies and principles which that party has developed in its election platform and its approach to government.

The Reform Party has a tripod that supports the representation that we as Reformers will give to the House and to the people of our constituencies. First, we will reform the democratic system in Canada as it exists today. The first requirement is to represent the people according to their wishes and represent them to this House, not this House to the people.

The second principle is that Reformers will manage the affairs of the country in a fiscally responsible manner. We will have a balanced budget. We will not spend money that we do not have. We will treat the money that is given to us by the taxpayers as money kept in trust. It ought to be treated at least as well as any personal money we would spend. In some cases we should treat it more significantly and with greater respect than if it is our own.

The third principle of the mandate the Reform Party has given us is that we want our streets to be safe. We want the property and lives of individuals to be secure. Men, women and children should be able to walk down the streets with impugnity, not in fear of being attacked. To that end, we want to reform the criminal justice system.

That is the first duty of a Reform representative. It is the mandate. We told the people that we would represent them, be fiscally responsible and reform the justice system.

A second part in the representation is this. The people have trusted us to represent the Reform Party because of certain talents, abilities and their confidence in us. They expect us to exercise our best judgment concerning the problems and issues that will face this country at any given time. We will act in the best interests of the people we represent as we understand them and not in our personal interests. That is significant.

There is a third area in which we want to represent the people. It is on certain moral issues such as capital punishment. We would conduct a referendum in which we want them to cast their ballot on an issue, yes or no.

There are three very distinct aspects to the business of representation and Reformers want to be true to all three of them. It does not make the task easy. It makes it a very responsible one, an accountable one where we can stand before the people and say: "This is what we stand for. This is the judgment we will apply and we want you to have a voice on the issues that affect you directly and significantly on a day to day basis". In a democratic system it is the first thing we will do.

It also means we listen to the people. The people told us one thing about the size of the government. They told us it is too big. It is too big in numbers of representatives and too big in the way it intrudes into the lives of the people, whether in business, families, our communities. No matter where it is, government is all pervasive. The people told us they wanted less government.

The bill flies in the face of that observation. The bill says more MPs, there should be 301 MPs, not 295. The hon. member across the way suggests this is a sermon. This is the most accurate position in terms of democracy. If the member does not understand that, he had better learn to listen to the difference between fact and simple statements.

That is the problem the Liberals have. They make all kinds of statements but where is the action on those statements?

[Members Of Parliament Retiringallowances Act, June 8th, 1995]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, phone calls should be done that way as well.

The present proposal introduced a two tiered pension system, those who were elected before 1993 and those who were elected in the 1993 election. Two kinds of pension plans are operating. That is an unfairness in itself. Why should one group of MPs be treated differently from those who are coming up?

I want to illustrate exactly how obscene the benefits of this plan are. Here is a list of the top 10 takers under the new plan as proposed by Bill C-85 so everyone recognizes what we are talking about here. The figures are estimated on nine years as ministers and living to age 75. These are the people who qualify under those categories, assuming also a 5 per cent inflation rate per year.

The hon. member for Sherbrooke will collect $4.5 million. It so happens that this individual is also the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. The member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte will get $3.9 million. He happens also to be the minister of fisheries. The member for Cape Breton-East Richmond will get $3.6 million. The member for Burnaby-Kingsway will get $3.5 million. The member for Winnipeg Transcona will get $3.3 million. The member for York West, who happens to be the minister of immigration, will get $3.1 million. The member for York South-Weston will get $2.7 million. The member for Hamilton East, the Deputy Prime Minister, will get $2.5 million. The member for Papineau-Saint Michel will get $2.6 million and the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell will get $2.1 million.

Where is any other Canadian with a normal income and the usual kinds of productivity going to get that kind of pension? I submit to the House that the witnesses who appeared before the committee stated that it is not going to happen.

The President of the Treasury Board said that this is a significant change and reduction, which is a lot of bafflegab and clever but very misleading words. It is hypocrisy under the guise of an election promise.

I could not help, as I was preparing some of my notes, to think about a nursery rhyme that I learned. It goes something like this. It fits this hypocrisy beautifully. It says: "Little Jack Horner sat in the corner, eating his pudding and pie, he stuck in his thumb, pulled out a plum and said what a good boy am I". I could not help but think about the Liberals sitting in their places, looking and revising their pension plan. They stick in their hand and they pull out a gold plum and say what a good Liberal am I.

That is not all. In the final analysis it is the victory of greed and self-interest over common sense and responsible leadership. That is the saddest part of it all. Where is the leadership? Where is the example for our young people? Where is the example of responsible expenditure of public funds?

We are supposed to be the guardians and to treat taxpayers' money as funds kept in trust on their behalf and to expend them in their best interest. However, what do some MPs do? They say: "Please cut back and be responsible, but not us as MPs. We are just fine and should be given a little more. Our pensions should be cut a little but not too much. We have to make a lot of money after all we gave up".

I do not think there is a single MP in the House who did not calculate very carefully what the cost to come here would be. Some looked at the pension plan and said: "Wait a minute. That is a freebie. That would be great for me to have". That has

become the issue and is not a measure of productivity. It happens after years of productivity here.

There is a serious lack of leadership. We need to get our leadership back into focus. We must become examples to young people and to other citizens.

Let us examine some of the great and wonderful benefits. I return to the point I made earlier about the President of the Treasury Board saying that we have been forced into it. He said that we should look after the interests of our families for the future.

If anybody in the House is looking after family members, it is some of our people. I look at one of my colleagues who has a young family at home. If there is anyone here whom I know personally who cares about his family, it is this man. He is saying: "I am opting out of the pension plan". The issue is that we have calculated the cost. We know the cost and have said that we want to pay the cost as all other Canadian citizens have to pay a cost to retire.

I commend my colleagues who have decided to opt out of this overly generous plan and who are prepared to put their reputations, their leadership and their imagination on the line. There is another vision for Canada, a vision of responsibility, a vision of leading the country into a moral position that says we will treat taxpayers' money as a public trust with the same jealously and with the same concern as we have for our own.

[Members Of Parliament Retiringallowances Act, June 8th, 1995]

Good, make the call. I hope you do. The other point we need to recognize is-

[Members Of Parliament Retiringallowances Act, June 8th, 1995]

That is absolutely a misstatement of the truth. Mr. Speaker, I want you and everybody else to know it was a very conscious and deliberate decision on my part. If any forcing took place it was the minister who would not change the present pension plan so that we could opt into it with reasonable assurance that it was fair and equitable with regard to the taxpayers of Canada.

If any forcing took place it was the lack of decision making on the part of government members. It did not introduce the kind of amendments that ought to have been introduced into the pension plan so it would be fair and so it would be generous in the same way that other pension plans are generous for all other citizens.

If any forcing is taking place that is where it is taking place. With respect to my decision I do not feel any compulsion whatsoever from my party or anyone else, but simply my allegiance to my constituents. My constituents have told me loudly and clearly that I do not deserve a pension any larger than the one that is normal and acceptable for all Canadians, and they are prepared to pay for that.

The other aspect is that the proposed changes are not retroactive.

[Members Of Parliament Retiringallowances Act, June 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I engage in debate on Bill C-85 and the motions to amend certain clauses of that bill.

The time has come for everyone to recognize that the current pension plan, which is the privilege of MPs of the House, is obscenely generous. Even if the changes proposed in Bill C-85 were implemented, they would still be obscenely generous.

I want to make reference to the Prime Minister's statement suggesting that perhaps MPs do not think they should be paid that much. An MP does not take a vow of poverty. Canadian citizens want their MPs to earn decent incomes. They want them to have decent pensions. They want to reward them for the work that they do. However, it should not be disproportionate to the benefits and salaries they receive.

Therefore, some fairness and equity has to be placed into this whole business. As MPs we recognize our worth. Canadians recognize our worth, but we do not believe that we should become some kind of elite component of society that receives benefits that are over and above those given to other members of society.

The right balance must be struck between a reasonable, personal income and a public rip off. The current plan is a public rip off as is the way it is conceived to be in Bill C-85.

This spring a number of changes were proposed. However, one change that I want to draw particular attention to is the chance to opt out of the pension plan.

Mr. Speaker, I would like you and all the rest of the members of the House to know that I have chosen to opt out of the plan. I take very strong exception to the statement that the President of the Treasury Board made when he said: "Reform members are all being forced to opt out".

[Supply, June 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to ask a question. It is absolutely amazing that the hon. member does not understand how it happened. It is really very simple how it happened. If the government spends more than it takes in it will end up in a deficit situation. If the government keeps doing that every year, time and time again, the answer is that the debt gets larger and larger.

The member then makes the comment that perhaps since all the other nations are in that situation Canada would be in that situation too. This reminds me a little bit of a farmer who says: "Just because my neighbour drove his tractor into the ditch I should too". That does not make any kind of sense at all.

I suggest to the hon. member that the way this happened was that governments spent more than they took in. When are we going to be independent and responsible to the taxpayers?

[Supply, June 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, a lot was said here about cost recovery. We are all sympathetic to this. I refer to two services being provided, the business development centres across Canada and the case counselling services with the Federal Business Development Bank.

Is the hon. member suggesting that with the parliamentary appropriation given to the Federal Business Development Bank to finance that aspect of its operation, which is not under the cost recovery of the mandate of that bank, the case counselling services will go on a cost recovery basis to the people who use that counselling.

Will the people who benefit from or use the business development centres be charged for the computer time or the information available?

[Petitions, June 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the fourth petition is not from my constituents exclusively. The majority of the petitioners are from other parts of Canada.