Jim Hart

[Members Of Parliament Retiringallowances Act, June 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in respect to the pension plan itself and the Liberal commitments, I would like to make a few comments regarding the new pension scheme.

Under the current pension scheme members of Parliament pay approximately 11 per cent into their plan and under the new scheme they will pay 7 per cent. The witnesses who came before the committee were quite clear: they reported it should be 26 per cent. We should actually be putting in approximately $19,000 to make it actuarially sound.

[Members Of Parliament Retiringallowances Act, June 22nd, 1995]

Of course I meant you, Mr. Speaker.

[Members Of Parliament Retiringallowances Act, June 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question.

I knew what I was getting into when I ran for election for the good people of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt. If I do not win in the next election, that will not be a decision made by you but by the good people of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt.

[Members Of Parliament Retiringallowances Act, June 22nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the constituents of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to speak to Bill C-85, the government's bill to amend the pension plan for members of Parliament.

The Reform Party of Canada in response to pre-election demands of Canadians promised to make changes to the MP pension plan one of our highest priorities. We promised radical change to the plan.

The Liberals have waited a very long time. They are merely tinkering with this plan.

In my recent householder I conducted a poll of my constituents. Seventy-seven per cent of the respondents believed that members of Parliament should have a pension plan. Eighty-nine per cent said that the current MPs pension plan should be reformed so it cannot be collected until age 60. They also said that the rates and contribution levels should conform with private sector plans.

I would like to make this point very clear: I am opting out of the new plan, and it makes me very angry that this has to be done. Bill C-85 does not go far enough. It does not reflect what Canadians wanted. It is poor legislation.

In the 1990s job security has virtually disappeared across all sectors of the economy. MPs should not have a pension plan that tries to make up for periods of time when an MP becomes unemployed. The Liberals either do not understand that or they simply do not care.

The Reform Party was elected on a platform of fiscal responsibility. We will continue to pursue the Liberals in order to force them to respond to the desire of Canadians for leadership by example.

Bill C-85 does not propose a fiscally responsible pension plan. The opting out clause the government has provided can only be interpreted as an admission of a flaw in the new pension plan the Liberals have proposed. If the government had provided a pension plan that would allow members to contribute to their own registered retirement savings plan or a private sector company type of plan with a contribution system of one to one, everyone from all sides of the House would have supported that plan. All Canadians would have supported such a plan.

The Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act requires members of Parliament to contribute 11 per cent of their earnings. Seven per cent of the contributions go to the MP retirement compensation arrangement. Four per cent of contributions go to the retirement allowances account.

The opting out clause proposed by the Liberals is a facade. It is a no win situation for individual members of Parliament. If a member chooses to opt out he or she can roll over their entitlement, which is the 4 per cent, which is the contribution to the retirement allowances act, into a personal pension plan, an RRSP. That seems fair enough. However, the 7 per cent contribution to the retirement compensation arrangement must be taken by the member in a one time payout, a cheque, plus 4 per cent compounded interest. That one time payout is treated as taxable income in the year in which it is received by the member. Any accountant in the country would shudder at this punitive measure.

The Liberals are punishing members of Parliament for opting out of the plan. They can do this because the previous plan was one of mandatory participation, which is normal in any company pension plan. Under the previous plan members were unable to pay into their own RRSPs. Therefore, the opting out becomes a double whammy: number one, the 7 per cent is added to the member's annual income and is taxable in the year it is received; number two, the members lose the amount of time they spent in the old plan in terms of not being able to make up the lost contributions to their RRSPs.

As I said before, Bill C-85 is poor legislation. Again I will state very clearly that I am opting out of the plan. However, I am angry at the ramifications of opting out. The opting out clause is inequitable and unfair. There is no reason why it has to be this way.

Let me make it very simple for the Liberals across the way. Number one, make the MP pension plan reflect private sector standards. Number two, make the MP pension plan available to MPs upon their reaching the age of 60. Number three, if it is too difficult for the government to change the pension plan, simply scrap it. Let members contribute to their own registered retirement savings plans.

Where is the government's sense of responsibility? Where is their sense of morality in this proposed scheme? Where is their leadership? Where is the red book commitment?

Bill C-85 is a broken promise made to Canadians during an election campaign by the Liberals. This plan has not been changed in the way ordinary Canadians would have changed it. The government is putting this legislation on a fast track. The Liberals have placed a time limit on debate on this matter. But this issue is not going away.

It does not matter that the Liberals tried to sweep this one under the rug along with their sexual orientation bill and their gun registry bill. In their haste to dispose of the MP pension plan they have shown Canadians how careless they are with respect to this matter.

The Liberals will try to forget what they have done, but in their nightmares in the next election campaign they will be seeing their constituents vividly in technicolour holding up an MP pension placard and shouting "You broke your promise".

Ordinary Canadians are astounded that they supported the Liberals in the last election. The Liberals have not even come close in delivering on a promise of integrity and restoring confidence in the government.

When I look back to the image of the Conservative Party as pigs at a trough and remember the trouncing that party took at the ballot box, I have no sympathy for the Liberals. They are behaving in the same way as their predecessors. The Tories had two consecutive majority governments reduced to two seats in this Parliament because they would not respect the desires of ordinary Canadians. This Liberal government has not learned the lessons of the Canadian electorate taught by the Tories. This government has the gall to pass pathetic legislation by limiting debate. I can hardly wait for the next election.

The House of Commons, by its name, by its very nature, and by the history that has created this Chamber and our parliamentary system, is supposed to be an arena for the common person to voice his or her concerns before the state. All of us in this place are commoners. The Liberals do not understand that we are representatives of the people and at the same time we are one with the people.

The policies and programs coming from this place should be in line with the common will of the people. Bill C-85 continues to provide members of this Chamber with million dollar pension plans. There is nothing common about such a policy. The Liberals are continuing to ensure that this House of Commons remains a manor of millionaires.

Mr. Speaker, I do not support this legislation. I thank you for your time today.

[Members Of Parliament Retiringallowances Act, June 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, a very wise man once said that when you are in a hole and you want to get out, the first thing you should do is to stop digging. It is interesting to hear members opposite speak today and try to validate the change to the MP gold plated pension plan when in actual fact what they should probably do is to just stop digging. Some members and Canadians have deemed this to be an unjust and unfair form of remuneration, when in actual fact it should be a pure pension plan. We should separate salary and pension.

I would like to ask the member a question regarding the actuarially sound propositions in the pension plans, the old and the new proposition being put forward for consideration of the House.

The Liberals have done some things. They have reduced the rate at which the benefits accumulate from 5 per cent to 4 per cent. They have also reduced the amount members actually pay into the pension plan from 11 per cent to 9 per cent.

In looking at the plan we should try to figure out if it is actuarially sound. I think all members of the House and all Canadians would agree that something we at least owe the public of Canada is to make sure the program is actuarially sound. Witnesses stated before the committee that to make it actuarially sound we should be paying in close to 30 per cent. I believe the figure was between 26 per cent and 30 per cent.

How can the member square this with his constituents when what we are doing with this plan is making the taxpayer pick up the difference? We should be paying approximately 26 per cent to make it actuarially sound.

[Petitions, June 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker the third petition, bearing 71 signatures, is in regard to the bovine growth hormone that is injected into dairy cows.

The petitioners request the Government of Canada to protect our health and food supply by disallowing the unnecessary genetic manipulation of dairy cows through the injection of bovine growth hormones.

[Petitions, June 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition also deals with the criminal justice system. Outraged citizens are concerned with sexual assaults on women.

The petitioners call on Parliament to amend section 271 of the Criminal Code to include a minimum sentence of five years where a person pleads guilty to or is found guilty of level one sexual assault.

[Petitions, June 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and a privilege to rise on behalf of my constituents of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to present petitions. I have three petitions to present today.

The first petition was initiated in the memory of Mindy Tran, an eight-year old who was abducted and tragically murdered in her home town of Kelowna, British Columbia. The 248 signatories request that Parliament impose maximum existing legislation, deny eligibility for parole, bring in new legislation and hold a binding national referendum on the issue of capital punishment as a deterrent to these social predators victimizing our children.

[Thomas Szajko And Jason Shultz, June 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the constituents of Okanagan--

Similkameen-Merritt because last spring two of my constituents, Thomas Szajko and Jason Shultz, put their lives on the line to rescue six people from an intense house fire.

Both these men entered the inferno without regard to their own lives. They managed to awaken five residents of the house and rescue them. They re-entered to seek out the last victim who was crying for assistance. Without their bravery and determination, the final resident would not have survived.

On Friday, June 23 these two heroes will be awarded the medal of bravery, presented by the Governor General of Canada for acts of bravery in hazardous circumstances. Few would dare to do what they have done. I take this moment to pay tribute to these two heroes. They show the true spirit of humanity and compassion for others.

Not only is the town of Oliver proud of these two men but all of my constituents, indeed the country, should be proud of their remarkable achievement.

I encourage all members of the House to acknowledge the fearless actions of these two great Canadians.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustmentact, 1995, June 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-69 respecting changes to electoral boundaries.

The arrogance and the lack of integrity that have been displayed by the government, particularly over the last couple of weeks, are absolutely astounding to me, the Reform Party and all Canadians. In true Grit fashion the Liberals have had the nerve to campaign on a theme of restoring integrity to government. Yet the government's arrogance is increasing while its integrity is decreasing. The government's lack of competence is appearing in more and more areas.

The defence minister, the heritage minister, the health minister and the minister of Indian affairs are seriously mishandling their portfolios. The human resource development minister has caused a complete collapse in the social reforms promised in the red book.

Speaking of promises in the red book, let us for just one moment take a look at some of the promises in the red book that the Liberals talked so much about during the election campaign. Did they not promise to base key federal appointments solely on the competence of the person rather than on patronage? That promise is routinely broken on a weekly basis.

Was it not the Liberal government that said in the red book that it promised not to alter federal-provincial transfers without the full co-operation of the provinces? That was broken by the introduction of the Canadian social transfer in the recent budget.

Was it not one of the cabinet ministers, the Deputy Prime Minister as a matter of fact, who said that she would resign if the GST was not replaced within one year? Shamelessly that promise was broken on October 25, 1994.

There were more promises. There are sheets and sheets, literally miles and miles of promises the Liberal government has broken over a short period of time. In a mere 19 months it has broken promises to the Canadian people.

The arrogance of the Liberals is clear in their coercive treatment of individual MPs, forcing them to vote against the wishes of their constituents. Can we imagine? The Prime Minister even congratulated those members for toeing the party line. For goodness' sake, if we were not elected to this place to represent our constituents, what were we elected for?

More examples are the Liberal's sexual orientation bill, the gun registry bill, and the disappointing changes to the MPs gold plated pension plan. They have all been torpedoed through the House. The use of time allocation and closure effectively limiting debate in the House is as prevalent as it was in the government before.

The Liberals should be absolutely ashamed of what they have done to parliamentary democracy. They are not governing with integrity. We have seen conflicts of interest, unethical behaviour, broken promises, arrogance and incompetence. The confidence of the people in the government is decreasing as the integrity of the government decreases.

Let us take Bill C-69 as an example. This piece of legislation has cost the taxpayer some $6 million so far. That is the amount of money needlessly spent on previous federal electoral boundaries commission proposals. These were scrapped by the government in Bill C-18 because a number of Liberal members disliked the new maps. Now the whole process is being redone in their favour under the guise of Bill C-69.

To obscure the real intent of Bill C-18, this government put forward a motion which initiated this bill. It asked the procedures and House affairs committee to examine methods of capping or reducing the size of the House of Commons, to improve the process by which the boundary commissioners are selected, to consider how boundary commissioners conduct their work and examine the involvement of the public.

If this bill capped or better yet reduced the number of members of Parliament in the House of Commons, then the $6 million lost by scrapping the previous commission and its proposals could have been justified. The cost savings could have

been much more than the $6 million already spent on the previous commission's proposals.

Sadly and in true Grit fashion, this government has shown its usual contempt for the taxpayers of this country. The government did not address the most fundamental reason it claimed for reinitiating the whole process. The government failed to reduce the already excessive and growing number of members of Parliament sitting in the House of Commons. This bill has been rendered utterly useless in the face of the $6 million which is removed from the pockets of hard working and tax paying Canadians.

Worse still, contrary to all logic, the government actually intends to increase the number of members in the House of Commons from 295 to 301. This will cost the Canadian taxpayers millions in additional salaries, staff costs and how about travel expenses? Of course, something the Liberals do not like talking about very much is the lavish gold plated MP pension benefits which they will receive. We only have to worry about that if there are any members opposite left here after the taxpayers vote in the next election.

In addition to the extra cost this bill imposes on Canadians by increasing the size of the House of Commons, new commissions will need to be struck to redo what the commission scrapped by this government has already done. Judging by the last commission, this will cost taxpayers at least another $6 million, maybe more.

Many Canadians have questions, as do I. Why has this government shown such contempt for the taxpayers? Why does the government fail to cap or reduce the number of members of Parliament? The answer is obvious. It is very clear. Self-interest of course. The interests of the voters and taxpayers were set aside so that no Liberal members would have to voluntarily give up their seats when the numbers were reduced.

This example of arrogant self-interest will backfire when the taxpayers get the opportunity to vote in the next election. Liberal members need not worry. They will not have to voluntarily give up their seats because they will be booted out of this place by the seats of their pants in the next election.

Liberal arrogance and incompetence reared its ugly head before this bill even made its way to the committee. The government actually intended to include a schedule of special ridings exempt from having their boundaries adjusted by the future electoral boundaries adjustment commission.

This is laughable. It is not funny but it is laughable. What a tool that would have been. Imagine the Liberals manipulating the system by creating safe seats. Even though the schedule was dropped in committee, the arrogant attempt to create safe seats shows that the Liberals are running scared. They know what is going to happen to them in the next election.

Whatever happened to the red book promise to govern with integrity? We all know the Liberal red book's title "Creating Opportunity" and what that stands for. Unfortunately the Liberals left out the subtitle: "for deception, hypocrisy and greed".

During committee and at report stage the Reform Party offered a number of amendments to the government which could have salvaged the bill. The government could have succeeded in making the bill workable and productive. It could have succeeded in making this bill worthwhile for the taxpayers. However, the constructive amendments were rejected by the government.

Bill C-69 then went to the Senate where a number of our concerns were again raised. It was returned to the House from the Senate with a number of constructive amendments. For example, the Senate amendment to reduce the allowable size of deviation from a provincial electoral quota of 25 per cent to 15 per cent is well worth supporting and has been raised a number of times by the Reform Party.

A deviation of 25 per cent is totally unacceptable to Canadians. The creation of ridings which could actually vary by 50 per cent is not only unfair but is undemocratic as well. A 15 per cent deviation would promote the equality of vote for each Canadian while at the same time allowing the boundary commissioners sufficient flexibility when drawing up new boundaries. Despite the constructive amendments offered by the Senate, this piece of legislation will still be lacking.

Bill C-69 fails to address the supposed intent of the motion put to the procedure and House affairs committee which was to reduce or cap the number of ridings in Canada. The House of Commons will needlessly swell to a size taxpayers need not and should not support. At a time when it is urgent to cut the fat and bloat we see everywhere in government, there is absolutely no excuse for putting forth legislation which would make the House grow. This is not in tune with the people of Canada or the finances of the country.

It is appropriate to remind hon. members opposite that Premier elect Mike Harris handily defeated the Liberal Party in part because he promised to reduce the size of the Ontario legislature.

This government could partly make amends to the people of Canada by letting this unnecessary and counterproductive legislation die. If nothing else, it would save the Canadian taxpayer $6 million. I urge all members to vote against Bill C-69.