House of Commons photoWon her last election, in 1993, with 60% of the vote.
Crtc November 25th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
When the CRTC issued its decision after the restructure hearings it decided not to allow the American company Direct TV into Canada. The industry minister and the heritage minister have met with Power Corp and have jointly decided to disregard the CRTC decision.
Given the confusion and speculation surrounding this decision, is the minister prepared to explain the cabinet decision to override the CRTC?
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation November 25th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, newspapers can be a useful cross-reference. Let us consider three stories carried by the Globe and Mail on November 16, 1994. All three related to spending abuses, all three connected by real estate and all three about the CBC.
In one story Keith Spicer, president of the CRTC, asked for the CBC to be given breathing space from the continuous rounds of budget cuts. Then the editorials ran a letter from the CBC's vice-president of finance as he attempted to defend the expenses of the CBC's broadcasting centre.
It is amazing how creative accounting can actually justify a yearly rental cost of almost $50 million which will balloon to over $200 million in the next 10 years, all of it taxpayers' money.
The third story revolved around the changes to CBC "Midday". Will we indeed see that program co-hosted out of Vancouver? At what cost? What will happen to the current cosy and expensive "Midday" studio at the broadcast centre in Toronto? More redundancy, more excuses, more expenditure abuse.
Hats off to my handy reference guide. It made my day.
Race Relations Foundation November 23rd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I would really like an answer to my question today, but I will continue with my supplementary question.
The government appears bound and determined to spend more tax dollars on multiculturalism. During debate on the issue in 1990 the president of Canadian municipalities stated that social harmony cannot be created by posters, proclamations or literary contests or even by co-operation between business and government or by directed government action.
The real challenge is in the hearts and minds of each of us as individuals. When will the Prime Minister recognize the truth of that statement, terminate the Race Relations Foundation and save Canadian taxpayers $24 million?
Race Relations Foundation November 23rd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The Canadian Race Relations Foundation will cost taxpayers $24 million. Of this, $3 million will go to pay the salaries of the 30 governor in council appointments.
When in opposition, the Liberal member from Scarborough-Agincourt challenged these appointments. He criticized their partisan nature by suggesting that the government would appoint only those people who support it and that the government would probably place as president of the foundation somebody who has raised funds for the government.
Given that the Prime Minister has recently made more patronage appointments, how can he guarantee that he will not fill the 30-odd appointments for this board with more Liberal hacks and bagmen?
Supply November 22nd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the exact number but as far as I know most do not.
I am going to take the next few minutes to make a further response to the hon. member's intervention because I do have something I would like to share with him and with others in this House.
I was reading in the Globe and Mail yesterday a small article called ``Nuspeak'' from The Economist . It was a series of definitions that have come forward in the last several years. One word I had never heard before was disentitlementarianism which is a belief that entitlement programs should be dis-
mantled. I look on this gold-plated MP pension plan as one of those entitlement provisions that over time the House of Commons has given to their members.
I guess I would have to call myself a disentitlementarian because I will continue in this regard as far as a pension is concerned.
The constituents in my riding are furious. They continue to be furious about MP pension plans. In the townhall meeting I had last week it did not matter what the topic, it always came back to MP pensions. You could see the red start to rise above their collars. As I said before, voters, the electorate, will remember what has been said today. We have to address that and ignore their concerns at our peril.
Supply November 22nd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I shall continue.
Because the issue of MP pensions enrages more Canadians than any other issue in contemporary politics today, and we can certainly see the sensitivity of my Liberal colleagues in the House today, today's motion goes to the heart of what matters in Canada. Believe me, voters will be looking on this day's debate in three and a half years time and they will be looking at what was said and who said it.
This goes to the core of leadership in government. It demonstrates to Canadians that before the politicians ask them to make any more financial sacrifices we will lead by example. This motion demonstrates our sincerity on this side of the House to lead by example, to cut government spending and to inject new levels of integrity into this House. We do this by securing reform of the MP pension plan.
It is ironic to suggest that reforming the MP pension plan is a sacrifice for members of Parliament. All we are doing is taking our existing, outdated, lavish, unfair and expensive pension plan and correlating it with the private sector provisions for employees. This is no sacrifice.
It is an expectation from our electorate that we reform this outrageous pension plan. More than anything else Canadians resent that they are asked over and over again to tighten their belts, that they must pay higher taxes, that their hard earned pay cheques are taxed back to the government. Let us not forget about the eight million Canadians who have no pensions at all.
Canadians are at a point where they no longer believe their politicians are worthy of their support. I know I can speak to the constituents of my riding of Calgary Southeast. In town hall after town hall on the issues of the day that come up number one is MP pensions: "When are you going to get rid of that terrible plan?"
The motion today which states that the House replace the current members of Parliament retirement allowance plan with a pension plan that reflects the current norms for private sector pensions with a maximum contribution in accordance with the Income Tax Act should be supported by all members of the House.
I urge members to put their self-interest behind them and to recognize this proposal is a sound one. Two legislatures have already made cuts to their MLA pension plans. Alberta and Prince Edward Island have made those cuts. These provinces have taken the lead on this issue and it is time that federal politicians followed suit.
Let me share with the House what is happening in my home province of Alberta regarding pension reform. In the spring of 1993 Premier Klein announced that there would be no pension plan for members of the legislative assembly after the next election.
In May 1993 a bill was passed in the legislature to amend Alberta MLA pensions. The members' pension was to be scrapped after the next provincial election. For MLAs who were retiring before the next election their benefits were reduced from 4 per cent to 3 per cent. Members of the legislative assembly's pensions would be suspended if they worked more than a limited period of time for any employer covered by the public service management pension plan, thus eliminating double dipping.
This is a concrete example for change and of a promise that was kept. It is also an example of a decision taken by a government listening to what Canadians are saying.
Let me quote from a letter about pension reform. It was written by a constituent of mine and it is addressed to the Prime Minister and the finance minister:
Dear Gentlemen,
You gentlemen have suggested Canadians must decide on (1) reduced spending or (2) increased taxes.
Well, this redneck from Alberta gives a resounding voice for reduced spending-reduced spending and no for tax increases in any form.
A good place to start is by example and reduce those obscene pensions enjoyed by MPs (including former MPs as well) to that which is normal for Canadians in the private sector. This would be real leadership. You will find that such action will be received as a demonstration of responsible stewardship and will motivate an atmosphere to undertake a similar we mean business review of all government expenditures by our peers and the senior civil servants for the same purpose.
You will also find that such action and extension thereof will be required to earn the respect of Canadians. It is time for action, not more talk.
The Trudeau regime was undoubtedly the originator of spend beyond your means philosophy. Since then there has been little comfort whether it be Liberal or Conservative governments.
Let us get with it and turn this country around. We just cannot afford non-productive overspending. Think of how proud you would be if you were a real winner.
Yours truly, Ed Ringrose from Calgary Southeast.
Yesterday was trough day. Fifty-two more members of Parliament qualified for gold-plated pensions worth $53 million. We call these gold-plated because they give unlimited protection against inflation. They are payable after only six years in office. We have heard this over and over again and it is fair evidence that this needs to be changed. They are payable immediately after retirement regardless of age. One of my hon. colleagues just mentioned someone who was 24 years old and who perhaps in six years would be eligible for one of these gold-plated pensions.
They accumulate one and a half times faster than the legal maximum in the private sector and are funded about 85 per cent by taxpayer contributions.
I have done my part to reform our pensions. I stated during the election campaign that I would reject outright any MP pension and I have done that. I take far greater comfort in taking care of my own retirement, thank you very much, than a pension plan. Many of my colleagues have done the same.
I urge the House to realize that we need to reform the pension plan. In particular, I challenge the 52 MPs who just became eligible yesterday for a pension to take out of the program only what they put in plus a reasonable interest that they would have received had they invested it for themselves. I challenge them to show leadership by rejecting these gold-plated pensions.
My message today has been straightforward and it reflects the expectations and the emotions of Canadians everywhere. I have spoken often about integrity in government. Canadians have lost faith in their politicians. The last 25 years of profligate spending is clear evidence of the need for reform and leadership in government. We all need to demonstrate a willingness to change.
Canadians want politicians to keep their word, who will bring integrity back to government and who will do everything to give government back to them.
Supply November 22nd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I am going to clarify this right now. This is a quote from an article by William Walker and those are the very words that are printed here that are attributed to the then Liberal candidate, Mr. Jean Chrétien. It is in this article from the Toronto Star .
I certainly would never presume to have associated that term with our Prime Minister today. I strenuously object to any suggestion that I would do so.
Supply November 22nd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I was quoting from an article by William Walker of the Toronto Star .
Supply November 22nd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to this motion.
Before I begin to refer to the body of my text, I have to comment on the waxing eloquence of my hon. colleagues from the Liberal Party regarding the red book. I would very much like to point out to my colleagues that on August 12, 1993 the Prime Minister of today challenged Kim Campbell, then Prime Minister, about pension reform.
On August 11 he challenged Kim Campbell to recall Parliament and said: "We would pass it in one day", meaning pension reform. He was feisty in his request because he added that his party had been proposing these reforms for months:
"It is 1984 all over again", Chrétien charged. "They said `here is a fresh face'. They promised a new dimension of objectivity and representation. Now it is the same speech, the same lies and the same promises".
So much for the red book.
Supply November 22nd, 1994
Shame.