Hugh Hanrahan

[Supply, November 22nd, 1994]

As I was saying, this is an issue that is of great concern to me, to the Reform Party and to all Canadians.

This pension plan is indefensible even in good times when Ottawa vaults were overflowing and the public was feeling wonderfully generous toward its politicians. In bad times such as we experiencing now when many Canadians are suffering and the government is hard pressed to fund basic programs the MP pension plan amounts to little more than highway robbery.

When I say I know that Canadians truly do want the MP pension plan reformed, I am speaking from results of my constituency survey which I conducted in my riding of Edmonton-Strathcona in the spring of '94. The responses were overwhelmingly in favour of pension reform. When the constituents were asked the question at what age should an outgoing MP be able to collect a pension, 97 per cent of all respondents said that an outgoing or retiring MP should not be able to collect their pension until age 55.

Even more convincing is the fact that 75 per cent of my constituents think that an outgoing MP should not be able to collect his or her pension until after his or her 60th birthday.

A second question that was asked regarding MP pensions was after how many years should an MP serve before being eligible for a pension. The results again were staggering in favour of pension reform. A hundred per cent of respondents said that a minimum number of years should be no less than eight. Eighty-one per cent felt that the minimum number of years of service should be no less than 16. The answers to these questions are a far cry from the present situation which is in place today.

It is important to illustrate a few facts about MP pension plans, as it will clearly illustrate why pension reform is needed. First, pensions are payable immediately upon retirement after only six years of service no matter at what age an MP retires or is not re-elected.

Second, payments continue even if the ex-MP holds another government job which we refer to as double dipping. Third, pensions begin at $23,390 per year and increase 5 per cent per year of service to a maximum of 75 per cent of average salary. Fourth, inflation indexing kicks in after age 60 and finally, MPs pay 11 per cent of their base salary into the pension fund, the government matches this amount and covers shortfalls, an unfunded liability which cost the Canadian taxpayer nearly $160 million in 1992.

By no means is this list inclusive. These are, however, the few items that are of grave concern to me. I have stated in this House repeatedly that Reformers have come to Ottawa to make a difference and I think we have.

We also feel that one way to do this is to ensure constructive criticism and offer an alternative to the status quo of the government. I can honestly say that I am offering the Liberals an alternative to the status quo simply because they are doing absolutely nothing in terms of legislation reform regarding the issue of MP pensions or for that matter any issue.

This Liberal government seems stuck in the perennial rut of talk, talk, talk and discussion paper after discussion paper. The Liberals state in their red ink book: "A Liberal government will reform the pension plans of members of Parliament and put an end to double dipping". After 392 days in government I can see that this was truly an important commitment of the Liberals as we have seen absolutely no legislation and little or no talk about MP pension reform.

Obviously the current Prime Minister has forgotten about his challenge to the former Prime Minister in which he challenged her to recall Parliament if she were truly serious about pension reform: "reforms would pass in one day". The only time the Liberals speak on pension reforms is when they are responding to our questions. Even then all they do is respond with rhetoric and Liberal double talk.

I was right in saying the other day that Liberals are no different than their Conservative predecessors. They may even end up like them after the next election. In the meantime they are all talk and no action.

We on this side of the House know that this government is stalling on the issue of pension reform. Perhaps it is because the Liberals are concerned about having to take another Reform policy such as they have done in the past on issues such as the Young Offenders Act, parole reform, criminal justice reform, debt and deficit reform and let us not forget immigration. All this stalling is doing nothing but costing the taxpayer more and more every day.

We all know yesterday was, as the National Citizen's Coalition called it, national trough day as another group of 52 MPs of all political stripes became eligible for this outlandish and extravagant pension plan which could collectively amount to approximately $53 million if all of these MPs quit today and lived to the age of 75.

While the average citizen in Canada must work 35 years to accumulate a pension, the average MP must work six years. The gold plated MP pension plan should be renamed from pension plan to cash for life rip off of the Canadian taxpayer. This plan is perhaps one of the federal government's most offensive examples of government waste.

What strikes to the core of the issue is the fact that we as parliamentarians have to set an example for all Canadians and stalling on issues such as pension reform is no way to lead by example.

Because of time constraints I realize I cannot mention everyone who is presently sitting as an MP who is eligible for a pension. I believe that I have not only a duty but an obligation to point out a few of the more offensive potential payouts of certain members of this House.

The member for Winnipeg South Centre, initial benefit of over $59,000 annually, will have a total potential payout of over $2 million. The member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, initial benefit of $33,000 annually, will have a total potential payout of $2.1 million. The member for Hamilton East, initial benefit of almost $35,000 annually, will have a total potential payout of over $2.5 million. The member for Lac-Saint-Jean, initial benefit of over $26,000 annually, will have a total potential payout of almost $1 million.

Perhaps I have left the greatest sanctimonious display to that of the NDP, a party that claims to speak for the common man and social equality, while the total payout for the member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing will be approximately $1.2 million. The member for Winnipeg Transcona will have $3.4 million.

We could go on and on. Just when voters think that they have the final word it turns out that politicians had the last laugh.

Highlights of the 1993 election will illustrate the point. One hundred and thirty-four of the two hundred MPs who were defeated or resigned before the election had complied with the minimum six years of service necessary to qualify for a pension. We must stop this insanity today. We must reform the MP pension plan now.

[Supply, November 22nd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to address this House on the issue of MP pensions. This is an issue that is of great concern to me.

[Education, November 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in total amazement that on Wednesday afternoon the Minister of Human Resources Development challenged the student protesters to sit down and present their ideas.

In my riding of Edmonton-Strathcona four different university groups requested to speak before the human resources committee and were originally turned down. These groups found out late yesterday that they would be appearing before the committee and would be receiving only 15 minutes each to present their arguments. I wonder how much time has been allocated to each of the 165 organizations whose noses are still in the public trough as they received almost $4 million in intervening funding.

It seems clear to me that the Liberals are following the previous government's actions of talking to whom they wish and then having the audacity to call it public consultations. Canadians are not stupid. If the Liberals continue this shameful display they too will be able to hold their caucus meetings in a telephone booth just like the Tories.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, November 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to discuss the second reading of Bill C-53, an act to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage, which should be renamed the department of government waste and overlap. Hon. members across from me consider this bill nothing more than routine housekeeping yet to us in the Reform Party it is much much more.

Canadians want change. The Liberals are finally beginning to understand this and I commend them for it.

The Reform Party has been advocating decreases in immigration levels since the early 1990s and now the Liberals have adopted this idea. The Reform Party has been screaming loudly about the inadequacies in the criminal justice system and now the Liberals are reviewing the criminal justice system. The Reform Party has been pleading for serious amendments to the Young Offenders Act and the Liberals are also reviewing this issue.

The Reform Party has been talking about the critical levels of our debt and deficit. Our debt now stands at $538,181,397,919.00. Just like magic, the Liberals are beginning to think there is a problem in this area as well.

Although we are not the government, we can still be extremely effective and proud to know that our policy directives are beginning to be implemented by this government. I must congratulate government members on their insight.

I mention these few examples of where the government has been listening to us on the Reform side of the House. I hope this trend will continue in the future. I hope this will continue regarding Bill C-53.

As I alluded to earlier, Bill C-53 should be defeated in this House and sent back to cabinet for a complete overhaul. This overhaul should deal specifically with the notion of overlap and duplication such as: overlap between the Department of Industry and heritage; overlap between the Department of the Environment and heritage; and we are now seeing the possibility of overlap between the Department of Justice and heritage. The list goes on.

We as a government are spending over $40 billion annually or approximately $110 million every day. We do not have a revenue problem in Canada but rather we have a spending problem. Last week when I was back in my riding of Edmonton-Strathcona holding town hall meetings on social reform, many people commented on how much money this government continues to waste on needless or extremely low priority programs. The main programs that were mentioned time after time were official languages and multiculturalism.

First I want to say unequivocally that we are not anti-French nor anti-Quebec in the Reform Party. However, we do feel that a tremendous amount of resources is being wasted in areas in which the numbers do not warrant service in both languages. We do believe in implementing the policy of territorial bilingualism which would see maintaining official languages in key federal institutions such as Parliament, the Supreme Court and other federal services where the demand is sufficient to warrant cost effective minority language services.

Second, we have multiculturalism. It is here that I will focus my attention today. It seems clear to me that anyone who is critical of Canada's multicultural program is immediately labelled a racist. That is far too easy a way to avoid an issue. How can anyone debate an issue that from the onset has been reduced from an intellectual discussion to name calling? It is for this reason that I stand before my colleagues and challenge them to discuss the issue not on an emotional but rather on a rational intellectual level.

Proponents of the multicultural program have also begun to view honest criticism as attacks, and critics as enemies. Multiculturalism is a vision that proceeds from differences, from that which separates, and disregards that which unites.

Furthermore, in a survey conducted in 1991 Canadians were asked whether they approved or disapproved of government cancellation of multiculturalism funding which would force projects to be self-financed by the multicultural organizations themselves. Over two-thirds of all respondents approved and 45 per cent of them strongly agreed that multiculturalism should be funded by the multicultural organizations themselves rather than the federal government.

Because of time constraints I will only point out one of the measures in this act which is to provide support to individuals, groups or organizations for the purpose of preserving, enhancing and promoting multiculturalism in Canada. It is important to read a passage from a recent book written by Neil Bissoondath, an individual who immigrated to Canada from Trinidad. This book is called Selling Illusions . As Mr. Bissoondath illustrates quite clearly, one of the problems with the objectives of the multiculturalism act is:

-so it is with the ethnic cultures offered at the pavilions of Caravan and other such festivals; all the colourful ethnics bowing and smiling in a mechanical greeting gesture to all the tourists. They look like the real thing, but their smell is synthetic. They have no bite. They are safe. Culture Disneyfied.

This is perhaps even more of a concern than the wastefulness of the $30 million we are presently spending on multiculturalism. In the divisive nature of this policy there is a notion or idea that we are discussing the creation of different laws for Canadians based only on ethnicity or culture. It is for this reason that the concept of multiculturalism through political cowardice and bureaucratic ineptitude and ethnic pressure has distorted federal policy beyond recognition.

For example the Liberals are presently reviewing a cultural defence which would allow someone whose culture or religion provides an escape from prosecution for something someone else of another culture would be prosecuted for. The cultural proposal leaves open the question of whether wife beating, violent discipline of children and polygamy are to be condoned according to culture. This issue raises questions once again: How do you define cultural background? Do you have to be from this culture? Do both your parents have to be from this culture?

Another example would be the Ontario plan which would divert black youths from courts to community service work. Essentially this program would treat black youths differently from everyone else, even though there is no statistical evidence that black youths commit more crimes. The reason that data of crime by blacks in Canada is scant is that police departments do not generally keep race based figures. Why is that? Perhaps it is because our justice system in Canada is blind and should be blind to factors such as race or ethnicity.

What happened to equality before the law? What happened to treating all Canadians the same regardless of race or ethnicity? Both of these examples are classic illustrations of multiculturalism run amok.

What Canada needs is a government to lead by example. So give the people what they want. Scrap among other things the funding for multiculturalism. Send Bill C-53 back and replace it with a bill which has eliminated overlap and duplication as well as government waste.

Multiculturalism works counter to unification. It pulls at the very fabric of this great nation. What we need is equality, not special treatment for different groups and individuals. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with multiculturalism, provided it is funded by the multicultural organizations themselves. However, this is not the case in Canada and the reality is that multiculturalism is nothing more than an abuse of our generosity.

[Petitions, November 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition would like to draw the attention of the House to the issue of sexual orientation.

My constituents are requesting that Parliament not amend the human rights code or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would indicate societal approval of same sex relationships.

[Petitions, November 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to present two petitions on behalf of 185 constituents.

In the first petition I would like to draw the attention of the House to the inadequacies of the Young Offenders Act. The petitioners are requesting that a complete and thorough review of existing legislation take place particularly aimed at changes to sentencing length on repeat offenders.

[Ethics, October 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister then is suggesting that the constituent in fact did ask for a letter. That is very difficult to understand.

Will the Prime Minister initiate a private and independent investigation into this whole affair so we can finally get to the bottom of it?

[Ethics, October 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

On October 27 the Minister of Canadian Heritage stated he was approached by a constituent, and I quote from Hansard , page 7273:

-to write a letter drawing the attention of the CRTC to his application for a radio licence.

The constituent, Mr. Daniilidis, has stated in conversations with Reform Party research staff that he never asked the minister to write a letter on his behalf.

Can the Prime Minister explain this contradiction?

[Crtc, October 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure if my question was answered. It is very hard to find it in that discourse. I would follow with a supplementary.

Was the Minister of Canadian Heritage ever advised by the Prime Minister on the proper procedure for communicating with the CRTC?

[Crtc, October 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we know that the minister of heritage sent a letter to the CRTC that may have influenced the process of an arm's length quasi-judicial body under his jurisdiction. He has admitted this is improper.

Can the minister tell the House how he should properly communicate with the CRTC?