Jay Hill

[James Bay And Northern Quebec Agreement, May 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it came to light earlier this week that the Minister of Justice did not consult with the James Bay Cree, as is prescribed in the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. As the Minister of Indian Affairs knows, they must be consulted on any legislation that will affect traditional hunting rights.

I ask the Minister of Indian Affairs, did his colleague violate the constitutional rights of the James Bay Cree, yes or no?

[Supply, May 11th, 1995]

It is just coincidence.

[Supply, May 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate her comments. They allow me to address something I have been very concerned about all along, as have all of my Reform colleagues.

What she says is quite accurate. When we came here we wanted to institute a new sense of decorum in the House. We tried quite valiantly for a number of months. I explained this to my constituents at home on open line shows and in public meetings. This is the only place in Canada where it is part of an individual's job to sit here and take the nonsense we take every day, all year round when the House is sitting. I have turned out to be one of the worst when it comes to heckling. I am not proud of that but it is a self-defence mechanism. We sit here day after day and we take that from across the way.

When I was raised back home one of two things would happen. If we were insulted the way we have been insulted in the House we would either get up and smack someone or we would get up and leave. Unfortunately as an elected MP trying to represent the people of my riding I have to remain in the House. That is why decorum has deteriorated in the House. I am not proud of it but we are getting down to the same level as her colleagues.

She mentioned how passionately they argue in caucus. That is exactly what the Conservative incumbent used to say to us time after time. The GST is a classic example. Eighty per cent of the people were opposed to it and he would say: "I defend your rights. I passionately defend what the people want me to say in caucus but when it comes to the House I am muzzled and I cannot get up and say the things you want me to say". The Reform Party will be different. When the people of Prince George-Peace River want me to say something in this House, by golly I will say it.

[Supply, May 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to address the following Reform opposition day motion:

That this House condemn the government for its failure to keep its red book promise to make the government more open and permitting members of Parliament to be more accountable to their constituents.

I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Fraser Valley West.

I will not spend much of my 10 minutes replying or trying to rebut the nonsense we just heard from the hon. government whip. However I should like to reply to a point that was not adequately addressed by him. He called the blue book of the Reform Party a cheap imitation of the red book. Then he stood in his place and said that the first date he could recall the red book being formulated was 1992. The blue book was originally formulated in 1987 and published in 1988 for the election. He should stand to retract the statement as an outright breach of trust.

In my limited time I would like to discuss why I became involved in politics because it has a bearing on the subject of accountability of MPs to their constituents that we are discussing today.

The majority of western Canadians and the majority of the constituents of the riding of Prince George-Peace River that I am proud and pleased to represent predominantly supported the Progressive Conservative Party for years. I was one of its supporters although I never belonged to the party. I voted for the Conservatives hoping to see an end to the reign of terror thrust on Canada by Pierre Elliott Trudeau. The incumbent at that time was Mr. Oberle. He was very well supported. At one time he was known as landslide Oberle. That is the level of support and loyalty the Progressive Conservatives and Mr. Oberle had in the riding of Prince George-Peace River.

Gradually, after the Conservative sweep of 1984, the people of my riding and of much of Canada, certainly western Canada, began to feel a sense of betrayal. The first Mulroney government was plagued by scandal, almost from the time it took the reins of power in 1984 in the most massive mandate a governing party has ever had in the country.

I could go on and on about the scandals but I will just refer to a few: the Oerlikon land flip, the tainted tuna or what was described in the press as Tunagate, the Sinclair Stevens affair, and the infamous CF-18 decision when the reigning Conservatives took the contract for the maintenance of the CF-18 fighter aircraft away from Bristol Aerospace in Winnipeg that should have had the successful bid and awarded it to Canadair in Montreal. That created a sense of betrayal certainly all across western Canada.

That was the flashpoint, the trigger point, when I became so disenchanted and disillusioned with the political system and with the Conservatives that I said something had to be done to change the system.

I became involved in the fledgling Reform Party. When I first heard about it, it was not even a party. It was just a reform association, a group of Canadians from across western Canada who had decided that enough was enough.

I was attracted by its policies on those dreaded double d words: the deficit and the debt. It believed in the government living within its means and justice reforms, that criminals should be held responsible for their actions and real punishment was needed to provide deterrents for criminal activities. A cornerstone of the Reform Party was the democratic reforms we advocate. We have advocated them all along as was shown today in our blue book.

Because of the sense of betrayal we realized the fault did not really lie with individual politicians but with the system of government in Canada. We advocated a number of democratic reforms, referenda and citizens initiatives. The Charlottetown accord is a shining example of what can happen when the people become involved in the democratic process.

It is interesting to note that the Liberal Party did not get the message from the Charlottetown accord. The Reform Party was the only federal political party to come out against it.

Everyone said we were crazy, we had committed political suicide. We saw that as people became more informed they started to see the flaws in the accord and ultimately the polls reversed themselves and it was defeated in the referendum.

Another reform advocated was recall whereby constituents could actually hold their elected officials accountable. We fixed election dates so the reigning party could not play with the election date according to the polls and the support it was getting.

On a true triple E Senate which we have never given up on and never will give up on, we want to see a true, elected, efficient and equal Senate rather than the patronage heaven it has become under the reigning old parties.

Above all else, what attracted me to the Reform Party was its stand on MP accountability. MPs should truly represent the wishes of the majority of their constituents, not once in a while when it happens to coincide with their party's position or perhaps their own deeply held views, but all the time, where the majority of opinion of constituents is readily evident and can be determined.

I ran in the 1988 election and I never had any desire to become a politician. There are still some days when I debate with myself the decision of becoming a politician. I decided to run for Reform because I realized something had to happen to change the way government operated.

I was attacked back then by the old line parties. At that time the Conservative incumbent in open candidate forums said: "Mr. Hill said he would run government by polling. MPs would simply become polling machines".

It is interesting to note that on Bill C-68 that is exactly what the Liberals are doing after the old line parties have accused us and criticized us for wanting MP accountability. They are ruling by polls.

I contend and I have always maintained those polls are erroneous if the majority of Canadians became better informed about the gun issue and how difficult it already is to own a firearm in Canada.

As some of my colleagues have already said, I cannot believe the arrogance starting to show through with the government. That is one of the big reasons Mulroney was turfed out and why the Conservatives were reduced to only two seats in the House.

One of the worst possible examples-it is seared into my mind, that is how upset I was when I watched it on television one night-was when Mulroney kicked two of his caucus colleagues out of caucus because they dared to vote their constituents' wishes on the GST.

One of those members currently sitting, interestingly enough, is the Liberal member from Edmonton-Southeast; you, Mr. Speaker. I commend your stand that day and I am sure your constituents do and that is why you were re-elected. You represented the people. That is the type of leadership we want to see in the House from all MPs from all parties.

I will read some red book promises in the short time I have left, from the section "Governing with Integrity". It says: "The most important asset of government is the confidence it enjoys of the citizens to whom it is accountable. This erosion of confidence seems to have many causes. Some have to do with the behaviour of certain elected politicians, others with an arrogant style of political leadership. In the House of Commons a Liberal government will give MPs a greater role in drafting legislation through House of Commons committees. More free votes will be allowed in the House of Commons".

Yet we see on Bill C-68, as has been revealed today already, a total disregard for the right of MPs to currently accurately represent their people when the three Liberal members from Kent, Timiskaming-French River and Huron-Bruce were removed from committees.

Rumours always abound on Parliament Hill. We have heard rumours the Liberal Party and the whip will adopt three strikes and you are out. If a member votes three times against their party, they are out of there.

That is a very real threat for members from old parties. We have seen where the leaders will not sign their nomination papers. The threat is they will lose their job and that is deplorable.

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am in receipt of a letter sent to the minister of Indian affairs on March 21 by members of the Yellow Quill band in Saskatchewan. In it there are serious allegations regarding the misuse of band assets, capital project funding and housing moneys. As of February 14 the band was running a $2 million deficit. Band members have called upon the minister to uphold his fiduciary obligation and make their chief and council account for all spending.

The minister has had this letter for a month and a half and his officials have known about this problem for much longer. What has the minister done about it?

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 9th, 1995]

Let them eat cake.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the government has demonstrated once again it lacks the will to get the job done. It cannot balance the budget. It does not understand Canadians want concrete and not imaginary changes to the justice system and it has failed to introduce real MP pension reform. Canadians are tired of making sacrifices, tightening their belts and watching the government squander their tax dollars.

We saw what happened after the government failed to bring in a tough budget. Moody's downgraded our credit rating when it became clear the government is not committed to eliminating the deficit. Likewise, these cosmetic changes to the MP pension plan prove the government is not serious about MP pension reform either.

Canadians have seen the government waste countless dollars on study after study, review after review, with no tangible results. Bill C-85 is yet another charade with few substantive reductions to the extravagant MP pension plan. The government knows that due to its lack of hard fiscal policies there will be difficult days ahead. It knows if it does not tackle the debt Canadians will have fewer social safety nets left at the end of the day. Does it care? Obviously not. It is padding its own retirement coffers while it ignores a looming financial crisis. How serious is it about getting Canadians back to work and turning the economy around if it is going to such great lengths to protect an exorbitant MP pension plan?

With the ever increasing debt, will the Canada pension plan survive? With rising debt service payments, will the government cut deeper into RRSP savings plans? At the same time as it sets ridiculously low targets for tackling the deficit it makes taxpayers pay ridiculously high amounts into MP pensions.

Young people saving money now may not have enough put away to live above the poverty line when they retire. Yet MPs will receive fully indexed pensions at age 60, indexed from the moment they retire from public office.

The government has its priorities screwed up. MPs are here to serve Canadians. Canadians are not here to serve the interests of MPs. They will not stand for these double standards much longer. Canadians will still pay $3.60 for every dollar an MP puts into this plan. Why can the government not bring it into line with private schemes? Why can it not face reality and realize even MPs must tighten their belts?

Time and again as we have questioned the Prime Minister about excessive MP pensions we have seen him avoid the real issues. Time and again we have seen him deflect the discussion about retirement plans and begin to talk about MP salaries. These are two distinct issues and he knows it. We are discussing pensions today, not salaries. I am perfectly willing to discuss salaries. Do not confuse an extravagant retirement plan with the argument that MPs are underpaid while they hold office.

If the Prime Minister wants to discuss salaries, fine. First he can set the wage at what it should be and take away the special allowances. Get rid of the tax free allowance and provide an equivalent in taxable income. Get rid of the $6,000 travel allowance we use to maintain a second residence in Ottawa and make sure our income will cover the additional costs we must incur. Do not avoid an honest debate on the validity and sustainability of the proposed pension plan by throwing up smoke and mirrors about the unrelated issue of salaries.

The truth is the government knows this plan is too generous and knows the public will not support it if it is debated on its own merit.

There is a one time opt out clause. Only members of this 35th Parliament will ever be able to opt out of the plan. There is a significant financial disincentive for the class of `88 to opt out because all of the money it has accrued in the pension plan since 1988 will be returned to its members in one lump sum this tax year. Only one-third of it can be rolled into RRSPs or private retirement plans and the rest will be taxed this year if they choose to opt out.

While we are on the subject of how insubstantial the changes to the MP retirement plan are, I ask the government why it did not consider a mechanism for making some of these changes retroactive. Why has the government not included a clause which would allow us to buy out the multi-million dollar pension packages some of the sitting MPs will be looking at

when they lose their seats in the next election? They will still be in their forties but entitled to fully indexed pensions.

Is this an admission that spending too long in this place leaves one incapable of doing anything else? I notice Reformers are opting out and confident of supporting themselves, so perhaps this inability to find gainful employment has something to do with being tied to traditional parties, reliant on traditional perks and privileges.

The government does not want MP pensions to come up as an election issue next time around, but I have news for the government. Until the MP pension plan is brought into line with private pension plans it will be an issue at every election. As more Canadians realize that despite their best efforts they will not have enough to retire on, they will look at retired MPs supported by public funds and grow increasingly bitter.

Yes, we work long hours in this job. Yes, we frequently work seven days a week. Yes, we must make sacrifices and spend time away from our families to do our jobs properly, but so do a lot of other Canadians. They get paid for the time they put in. They do not expect an unrealistic, unsustainable retirement plan as a result of their hard work.

As a grain farmer I have grown up expecting I will have to take responsibility for my own retirement. Farmers know there will be good crop years and there will be droughts. We have to plan ahead to make sure we can get through the bad years. That also means putting money aside for old age.

Farmers, like all small business people, do not have a company pension to rely on. Small business is the economic backbone of the country and the driving force behind new employment opportunities, and yet most small businesses cannot afford pension plans for their employees and everyone must save for their own retirement.

It would be nice if all Canadians had a pension plan as lavish as that of MPs, but let us be realistic. Why should taxpayers support someone so generously just because they held public office for six or more years?

I never believed other Canadians should be responsible for supporting me after age 60 or 65 and I certainly have not changed my views since I was elected. MPs are no different than other Canadians. We just have a different job. Yes, it carries a lot of responsibility but we chose to go into politics.

If the government cannot bring the MP pension plan into line with private pension plans it is holding MPs up as more deserving than other hard working Canadians. I do not believe that is the case and that is why I will be opting out.

I did not get into politics for the retirement plan. I came here to help change things for the better. Maybe that is idealistic of me but at least I will be true to my principles. When I look across the floor to my hon. colleagues, the vast majority of whom will accept this plan, I cannot help but wonder how they can look some of their constituents in the eye.

In my riding office I receive calls from seniors concerned about missing income security cheques. I receive calls from people on unemployment looking for work. I receive calls from people on disability pensions. These Canadians have a tough time making ends meet, even if their cheques are a few days late. That is how close to the line they are. Yet the government is asking taxpayers to toss almost four times as much as we do into our personal retirement funds.

How can my Liberal colleagues across the way opt into this generous pension plan and then turn to help their constituents with no shred of shame? I know I could not.

If the government had the best interests of Canadians at heart it would bring the MP pension plan into line with private pension schemes and demonstrate a real commitment to fiscal responsibility to ensure all Canadians will be able to retire in comfort.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 9th, 1995]

Talk about hypocrisy, look in the mirror.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 9th, 1995]

What did you do with yours?

[Petitions, May 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am today presenting a petition on behalf of my constituents of Prince George-Peace River asking Parliament to recognize the Reform Party of Canada as the official opposition during the remainder of the 35th Parliament. They feel the rights and interests of all Canadian citizens cannot be adequately protected and defended by the Bloc Quebecois.