Jim Abbott

[Supply, May 11th, 1995]

What a great idea.

[Supply, May 11th, 1995]

He just enforces it.

[Supply, May 11th, 1995]

Hypo-grits is right.

Talking about free votes, every time he spoke about free votes he would talk about free votes in the context of private members' bills. What about government voting?

I noticed when voting on Bill C-68 that there were three members who stood up to be counted. However, there were 45 members in the hon. member's caucus who did not have the intestinal fortitude to come to the House to stand and be counted for their constituents. When those three members stood to be counted, they were turfed from their committees. How in the world as the party whip can he possibly say that he is for free votes when he is prepared to turf these people from their committees?

What about Bill C-41? Is he going to allow free votes on Bill C-41?

[Supply, May 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a joy and a delight to listen to the sophistry of that particular member. He is a piece of work.

I cannot comprehend a person who has come to the House and of all things has spoken specifically against the actions of the former Tory government under Standing Order 78, and then stood to say: "Oh, my, was that not terrible?" If we had said why do we not do away with Standing Order 78 when he was in opposition, he would have stood and applauded and said: "Do away with it". This is really a piece of work.

[Supply, May 11th, 1995]

Government business.

[Supply, May 11th, 1995]

When?

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

I will explain it further to the people.

The Reform Party found a procedural way around it and the whip really went rather ballistic on Thursday night. It was something to see.

We are exposing the bill to the Canadian people. I for one would vote for millions of dollars of travel so that the parliamentary committee could take this bill around Canada and expose it to Canadians. The government would then be able to see what the people of Canada really think of this legislation.

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

That could be. Maybe they are ashamed of it.

Let us look at the events of last Thursday. We came to the House to debate. Again, there are up sides and down sides. There is good and there is bad. That is what debate is all about.

We rose to speak in the debate. One or two Liberals ended up speaking rather sheepishly about it. Near the end of the day they pulled a bit of a prank. They decided we would be able to debate this all night long if we wanted to. They knew full well that what they were doing-the people of Canada must understand this-was getting the bill into and out of the House so fast it would make a lightning bolt look slow. They wanted to slide the bill through so quickly that there was no way that anybody would see the blur going by.

It makes me think of the little mouse that I had under the seat of my car one time. I could hear a little rustle when I was driving along at night. When I stopped I would still hear the rustling going on. I turned on the light and could see a little brown blur. Then it would disappear.

That is what the Liberals were trying to do with this legislation, get it out of the light of the parliamentary channel, the light of this process so that Canadians would not realize that once again the Liberals had done it to them.

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

That could be. We are opting out and they are not. Maybe that says something.

There has been a lot of talk about what is fair for an ordinary Canadian to be able to come to the House of Commons. I think of myself as a relatively ordinary Canadian with a mortgage and a couple of used cars. I live off the salary I achieve through my work in the House of Commons. I am not independently wealthy. By opting out, the government has seen to it that I and the rest of the Reform Party members who are to opt out in good conscience will be personally severely disadvantaged financially.

It is punitive. All we are asking in very simple terms is a defined contribution on the part of the employer, namely the people of Canada, a matching of $1 for $1. Instead of that, the government is saying: "Either you come in and share the booty, get in on this $3.50 contribution for every $1 that you put in and become a millionaire at the expense of Canadian taxpayers or you are out without anything. You get no matching funds. You get no matching contribution".

I find it exceptionally ironic that members opposite will frequently speak up and say that we are taking some kind of advantage, that we are trying to take some kind of political gain. This is not a case of political gain. This has to do with a commitment to the Canadian people on the part of Reform politicians that we would listen to them in the same way that the Liberal leader in the province of British Columbia and the Liberal leader in the province of Ontario have clearly listened to the people of their provinces.

Justice must be done in this case. Justice is the exposure of this obscene plan that the Liberals are trying to perpetrate on the people of Canada. Let us take a quick look at how they managed to bring the legislation into the House.

A couple of Fridays ago there was the Progressive Conservative wake in Hull. Knowing that some people would be turning up at that thing, the Liberals chose that day to introduce their legislation. It was a Friday afternoon. If the Liberals really thought this legislation was worthwhile and would be accepted by the Canadian people, why would they try to get it into the House in the quietest possible manner when there might possibly be a diversion across the river?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to note that virtually the only people speaking to the issue are the people from the Reform Party. It is particularly interesting to note because a debate implies there are two sides: the good side and the bad side or the up side and the down side. In this case it is interesting that virtually none of the Liberal members of Parliament are prepared to stand in an attempt to defend this pension plan.

It is also instructive to take a look at what else is happening in the country in legislatures. I think of the B.C. Liberal leader. I will quickly read a news release that was put out under his name on April 22:

B.C. Liberal Leader Gordon Campbell announced today that pensions for Members of the Legislature will be eliminated under a B.C. Liberal government.

Campbell said it's time to put an end to the special pension and tax privileges that have traditionally been given to MLAs in British Columbia. "Elected officials should be treated no differently than any other British Columbian when it comes to receiving pension benefits from taxpayers. The MLA pension is not appropriate for a job that is based on an elected term of five years".

"Most people believe MLAs deserve fair and appropriate compensation. To ensure that happens an independent commission should be established", said Campbell. "There should be a single standard for all people of this province with MLAs paying the same taxes and having the same choices as other British Columbians".

Under the current system an MLA can receive a monthly pension if the member has served for seven years or more or has served in more than two Legislative Assemblies. "We don't want to penalize people for running for public office but we also do not believe there should be special perks".

This is interesting because Mr. Campbell is a Liberal. I have always felt that a Liberal is a Liberal is a Liberal. He spoke of the old style Liberal politicians that seem to inhabit this place.

Campbell said that old style politicians set up systems that have isolated them from the realities that British Columbians face on a daily basis. "That's why B.C. Liberals say no special pensions and no special tax benefits for MLAs".

I wonder what happens when members like the member for Vancouver Quadra or the member for Vancouver Centre or the member for Victoria, a cabinet minister, manage to get across the mountains from British Columbia. Is there a change in the water in Ottawa? Is there a change in the smog in Ottawa? What is it that makes the difference for members who come from Vancouver and Victoria, British Columbia? What happens when they arrive in Ottawa that suddenly they seem to be in absolute total contradiction to the leader of the B.C. Liberal Party or the Leader of the Opposition.

It is not just British Columbians who seem to have this gross failure of understanding, some kind of a short circuit somewhere. It would seem as though the Ontario Liberals, currently seeking a mandate for their members of the provincial Parliament, have seen the light. For some reason it seems to completely elude the comprehension of the people who bear the Liberal stripe and come to the House.

There is a major difference between the federal and Ontario Liberal proposals. The difference is a defined contribution plan versus a defined benefit plan. These people are calling for a defined benefit plan so that the Canadian taxpayer will be on the hook and continue to pay and pay and pay for members no matter what happens. That is a defined benefit plan.

The Ontario Liberals are calling for a defined contribution plan, which is precisely what the federal Reform Party is asking for. We are simply saying that we should be going to a growing industry standard, which is matching dollar for dollar. In a defined benefit plan, if the employer and employee contributions plus plan investment performance do not match the promise made by the employer, the employer has an unfunded pension liability.

That leads me to members who were in the House in a previous Parliament. Some of them are currently in the House. Politicians were telling Canadians that there was no problem, that their porky pension plan was taken care of. Lo and behold, a few years ago Canadians were suddenly told: "Oops, we made a small $110 million mistake. Isn't that too bad? We will make sure we are properly funded. We will just take $110 million for ourselves from general revenues".

Although that was supposed to have resolved the situation, the following year they had to take another number in the tens of millions of dollars from the poor, hard working, overburdened, much shackled taxpayer. This is absolutely unconscionable.

I ask again as I did at the start of my address why it is, if federal Liberals are right and we are wrong, that we have virtually zero participation by Liberal members of the House in

the issue. Why is it that we have put up tens and tens of speakers out of our 52, whereas they have only put up a handful on the issue?