Mac Harb

[Income Tax Act, June 8th, 2001]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-378, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, the Public Service Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act (dependent beneficiaries).

Mr. Speaker, the bill seeks to eliminate the expression “illegitimate child” where it appears in all federal legislation.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[National Conference On Guaranteed Annual Income Act, June 8th, 2001]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-377, an act respecting the National Conference on Guaranteed Annual Income.

Mr. Speaker, this enactment provides that a designated minister shall convene a conference for the purpose of making recommendations on creating and implementing a national program to guarantee a minimum annual income to each Canadian.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[National Literacy Standards Act, June 8th, 2001]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-376, an act to establish national literacy standards across Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the enactment of the bill is to require a minister to consult with provincial and territorial governments, education and literacy experts, industry, labour, the media and literacy students to report on illiteracy and national literacy goals and standards, and to propose a policy by which the goals and standards might be achieved.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Italian Relay Team, June 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, last Monday the Italian Relay Team for Peace, Friendship and Solidarity arrived in Ottawa as part of its relay run across Canada. The team, which consists of 24 athletes and 16 support staff, began its run in Vancouver on May 22 and ended on June 5 in Montreal.

Other runs have taken place in Piacenza, Italy; Moscow; Los Angeles; New York; and most recently in Sydney, Australia in 1999.

Here in Ottawa the team was welcomed by the Association Emilia Romagna which represents Italian Canadians from Parma, Piacenza, Bologna and Modena.

From all of Canada to the Italian relay team I wish them Tanti aguri .

June 10 through June 17 marks the celebration of Italian Week. On behalf of all of the communities I want to say congratulations on this great celebration and invite everyone to go to Preston Street and enjoy the Italian hospitality.

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it was $150,000, my colleague has stated. He said he would support it.

The government has proposed a package of $131,000 absolutely taxable, whereby it has removed this whole notion of the tax free allowance, has removed the notion of members of parliament voting on their own salaries, has changed the pension from 4% to 3% and has maintained 55 years in terms of the ability of a member of parliament to receive his or her compensation. To that extent, this is a fair package. I call on my colleagues to put all partisanship aside and support the legislation so it can go through.

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 7th, 2001]

Yes, it is in the bill. My colleague is saying it is not in the bill. It has been in the bill and that part of the legislation has not changed. That part of the legislation is still the same as when it was amended back in 1994-95. A member of parliament cannot collect a pension until that member reaches the age of 55.

Now the question to ask my colleagues on the opposition side is whether or not they think it is fair for a member of the House to serve for 15 years, for example, and not be able to collect 40% of his or her pension if that member is 55 or 56 years of age. I am sure they would agree that is a fair thing to do.

Also, the component of this debate that has been missing is the whole tax free element for members of parliament. This whole notion has been eliminated altogether. Therefore, finally, members of parliament would be taxed like other members of the community. We would pay taxes based on the total amount we earn as a Speaker or as a member of the opposition or a member of the government. We would have the transparency that our constituents, the taxpayers, want us to provide them with. We would say this is how much we earn and this is the amount of tax we pay.

That leaves me with one issue. That is the issue of the amount. Frankly, I think of my colleagues, especially the ones who come from the west or those who come from far east, who travel in some cases for 14 hours and languish at airports collecting dust for three or four hours. If they miss a plane, they might end up waiting there for an extra six or seven hours and miss all of their constituency meetings, or if they have a family engagement, that will go down the tube. I want any one of them to stand up and tell me whether or not it is fair to say that we should have a compensation package that is fair and equitable in order to allow that member of parliament to be compensated fairly. What is fair?

I want to agree with my colleague who spoke a little earlier. Yes, there are members of parliament who work their hearts out, day in and day out, who attend every single committee meeting, who speak on issues, who participate in communities, who work very hard and put in 70 to 75 hours per week. There are others who probably do not work more than five or six or ten or twelve hours a week. In an ideal world, one might wonder whether those two groups should be receiving the same amount of pay. I do not know. At the end of the day their constituents will decide whether or not they want to re-elect a member of parliament who is not working on their behalf in the House of Commons.

I think it would be highly unfair for the government to propose legislation whereby there would be four or five different classes of members of parliament, where those who put in 80 hours would receive $131,000 and those who work 20 hours would receive less and so on. We cannot do that. The issue here is not whether one member of parliament is working as hard as another one. Frankly, some of our colleagues probably do not deserve a raise, do not deserve to be paid at all and do not even deserve to be in the House of Commons, period. However, who are we to pass that judgment in a democracy when at the end of the day it is the people who decide who their elected representative is?

I would say in all fairness that what the government has proposed before the House of Commons is a fair and equitable package. There have been a number of commissions that on a regular basis have proposed to the House of Commons a package that would reform the system.

There is a gentleman who was once on the opposition side. His name is Jim Silye. You probably recall him, Mr. Speaker. He is now in Alberta. I think he was the whip of the Reform Party. He said at the time he was here that if the government were to bring in a package that would eliminate the tax free allowance and would propose $140,000 or $150,000 his party would support it.

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 7th, 2001]

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.

[William Sampson, June 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today concerning the case of William Sampson, a Canadian detained in Saudi Arabia on suspicion of being involved in two separate bombings, causing the death and injury of innocent people.

Saudi officials have provided their co-operation and assistance in ensuring that Canadian embassy officials are given unhindered access to Mr. Sampson, including a complete medical examination by a Canadian designated medical professional. Contrary to media reports, this individual was not tortured or physically abused. I should also add that Saudi officials have made arrangements for Mr. Sampson's father to visit his son in prison.

Canada and Saudi Arabia have enjoyed excellent relations for a long time, and I am confident that Mr. Sampson will continue to receive due process in the course of this investigation.

Saudi Ambassador to Canada, Dr. Mohammed R. Al-Hussaini said “I urge all parties to handle this case with the sensitivity it deserves”. To do otherwise is not wise and unproductive.

[Committees Of The House, June 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

Pursuant to the standing orders the committee asks the subcommittee to consider the issue of Canadian economic relations with Europe.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the report.

[National Environmental Standards Act, June 4th, 2001]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-372, an act to provide for the harmonization of environmental standards throughout Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this enactment is to establish a process of consultation with the provinces to establish uniformity in the environmental standards applied in Canada and in every province.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)