We have never said that.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2008, with 60% of the vote.
Supply November 22nd, 1994
We have never said that.
Supply November 22nd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, this member, when our member for North Vancouver was making some comments a couple of weeks ago, said that it was the gong show, that he could ring the gong.
I can imagine that there are a number of Canadians who are watching the parliamentary channel today who just listened to this wonderful verbose bunch of hot air and they want a gong. How in the world can this member say that there should be some reasonable expectation on the part of members of Parliament with respect to this particular issue when we have all known that this has been a major issue? How does that compare with the people of Canada who have lost their jobs, who are having roll backs in their pay cheques and who are facing hardship, for members of this assembly to be sitting around saying: "Well, you know, I really wasn't expecting this. Boy, I don't know"?
I have a lot of sympathy, and I mean this in all seriousness, for the former members in terms of the reform of the pension plan as was suggested by the member for Vancouver Quadra in the same way that I have sympathy for Bobby Orr and other people who are members of the NHL Players Association when they apparently were ripped off in that situation.
What about the old age security recipients?
What about the people who put away their dollars in good faith that the Liberals were going to bring in some kind of a sound policy over the last 25 years so that their retirement pension plans would not have been eaten up by inflation and so that their entire pension plans would not have been under attack by the policies of this government?
Those being my comments I ask the member: Considering that this issue is the number one issue on the hit parade of all Canadians, the number one reason why Canadians do not feel comfortable with politicians, why they think that we consider ourselves to be in a different class or a different league, which I do not and I do not imagine any other member does, why does he think his Prime Minister has delayed and delayed and delayed to bring forward this very simply reform?
Supply November 22nd, 1994
Madam Speaker, I am familiar with the member's riding of Vancouver Quadra. It is a riding not dissimilar to that of my seatmate and is in a fairly high income bracket with very professional people. I am sure the hon. member has probably been apprised of the fact on the part of his constituents that the whole issue of compensation for the member of Parliament probably is not an issue.
We could look at other ridings, for example the far eastern portion of Kootenay East where the coal miners have been put out of work. In the many situations where thousands of people are just barely getting by there is probably going to be a difference of opinion on the part of the constituents.
Notwithstanding that, the chair of the committee on social reform is one of the people who will be qualifying, as is the Minister of Finance. The University of British Columbia is in the hon. member's constituency. The human resources development department is saying in all likelihood that tuition fees are going to double.
In view of that, would the member not agree it would have been a very wise and prudent move on the part of the Prime Minister and the government to have made this move before these people were telling the students that their fees were going to rise from $2,000 to $4,000 and that by the way, there was an advertisement saying that the committee chair was going to qualify for a pension that in his lifetime has the potential of paying $1.4 million? Would the member not agree it would have been very prudent, expeditious and wise of his front bench to have made this move in a far more hasty manner?
Supply November 22nd, 1994
Madam Speaker, it has been a rather interesting day. I have sat through most of the debate and to be very candid, just about every point that needs to be raised, has been raised. I was particularly interested in the minister's comments.
The minister has just finished saying that he understands Canadians, that the Reform Party in trying to bring pressure on the government is premature. I do not know if it has anything to do with the fact that even within his own party there is a democratic process that is filled, where people work through their nomination process to become candidates and then on through the actual election process, and whether having been an appointed candidate he rather lost touch with Canadians during the process. There is a real lack of understanding on the part of the government of the level of frustration. I reflect back to a debate we had in the House of Commons in March. That was the time when the Liberals were having their convention. We had brought the debate to the floor about the Young Offenders Act.
According to all of the comments by the members opposite, the only constituencies that had any concern about the Young Offenders Act were the constituencies represented by the Reform Party. That is what we were told all day long. "Oh, you are just being extremist, you don't know what is going on".
I found it rather instructive. Over that weekend, when looking for something to put me to sleep I turned on the Liberal convention on television. Before I dozed off I happened to notice that most of the people who had come to the Liberal convention were saying that the biggest problem they had in their constituencies was the Young Offenders Act. Lo and behold, Madam Speaker, you will never guess what was the next bill that the justice minister brought in. It was weak and ineffective, but none the less it was movement on the Young Offenders Act.
Where did he get the idea from? Somebody said from the red book. Why is it that it took the Reform Party to draw to the attention of the members opposite the fact that the people in our constituencies, and I submit in their constituencies as well, were upset in a very major way over that act? It is still totally deficient.
It comes as absolutely no surprise to me that members opposite are equally out of touch over the issue of MPs' pensions.
The member opposite asks why don't I read the red book. I talked about needing things to put people to sleep. That is an excellent idea. The red book, in my humble judgment, is a catch all of just about everything written in so much bafflegab that you can actually make it appear as though what the finance minister is doing and must be done, and that is to get the deficit and the debt under control, was actually part of their platform.
Every single Liberal member whom I have asked: "Did you in the election in 1993 stand up and say that the deficit must be brought under control? We must take a look at all aspects of the economy". The answers all were: "Well, it's in the red book".
This is exactly the same thing. We have brought this topic to the floor of the House of Commons for the simple reason that the people of Canada expect better from the politicians they elected. We are here to drive, to push, this monolithic giant of 177 seats and the Prime Minister and the cabinet ministers to finally, after 400 days do what the Prime Minister said he was going to do 400 days ago.
He said it would only take one day to do it. What happened? Why is it so much easier for the Liberal government to blow away $5 billion worth of work on EH-101 helicopters? Why is it so easy for the Liberal cabinet to blow away hundreds of millions of dollars of work on the Pearson airport deal, and yet it cannot do a simple thing like change the MPs' pensions?
The thing I find the most frustrating, and I realize that I have already said it, is this. I agree with the member for Halifax that this job is one of the most exciting, one of the most worthwhile things that anybody in the House could possibly be involved in as far as their work is concerned. I do not disagree with her for one second that virtually every member of the House puts in hours from 7 in the morning until 10, 11 or 12 o'clock at night and keeps on serving the people of Canada. I do not disagree with that for a second.
I agree with the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell that this is an honourable calling. Why will the government not listen to what the ordinary citizen is saying? My colleague from Kootenay West-Revelstoke has pointed out that he worked for 22 and a half years in the pressure cooker of being an air traffic controller. After all that time he qualified for a $17,000 pension. The person he replaced worked his nine years as a member of Parliament and he qualified instantly for a $27,000 pension.
Why is it so difficult for the Liberals to understand the extreme hostility there is toward us as we work hard on behalf of Canadians, as we work hard on behalf of our constituents? Why can they not understand that this is the one barrier that stands between us and our constituents? Why could they not have made the changes? We do not seem to get any answers.
The member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell quoted from the Hill Times in February 1992. We all know being in Ottawa that the Hill Times is a fine paper and puts out all the facts as they should be and is well received every Thursday with all the factual documentation that there is in the paper. However it is a paper that is read only or almost exclusively by people who are involved with the Chamber in one way or another and to quote an editorial in support of obscene pensions is just beyond the pale.
What he should have been reading from are the editorials from the Vancouver Sun , the Globe and Mail , the Calgary Herald , the Ottawa Sun . I can go on and on. This must be changed and it should have been changed 400 days ago.
Supply November 22nd, 1994
And pay other MPs.
Supply November 22nd, 1994
Madam Speaker, the minister says he understands Canadians and that our effort is premature. I wonder if he really understands Canadians. I have done some research for members who choose to opt out. In my situation at age 52, if I choose to opt out at the end of six years and turn over the funds that have been confiscated from my salary by your government and invest them with a life insurance company, I will have an income of $380 a month, versus a member of the Liberals who will have an indexed income of $1,500 a month.
Supply November 22nd, 1994
When?
Supply November 22nd, 1994
Madam Speaker, the difficulty the Liberals are having with this whole concept is the fact that at this moment our nation is under a tremendous amount of stress in terms of how we are going to fund the social programs, how we are going to be able to fund health care and how we are going to be able to fund the entitlements that people in Canada have become used to.
We are not here to necessarily defend all of those entitlements as they presently stand but the point is people in Canada are being told by the Liberals that there are going to be cutbacks.
The members will know that daily the members of this House receive the publication called Quorum . I was just flipping through it and I noticed a headline saying ``New Brunswick welfare changes foretell the human resources minister's thinking on social program reform''.
I wonder if they cannot understand or why they cannot understand that when the finance minister is one of the 52 who was named yesterday, when members of these committees sitting on the Liberal side going around the country saying that there are going to be cutbacks in entitlements, there are going to be increases in university tuitions, but not me. That is the ultimate NIMBY and I do not think the people of Canada are prepared to accept the ultimate NIMBY. I wonder if the member has experienced the same kind of frustration that I have in my constituency of people saying this not in my back yard philosophy is not good enough when members of Parliament are not prepared to stand up and be counted.
Supply November 22nd, 1994
Four hundred days.
Supply November 22nd, 1994
Madam Speaker, I will try to bring a civil tone to this debate. I absolutely agree with the hon. member that it is an honourable calling to serve the people of Canada.
Yesterday I was in a high school in my constituency. As I was in a junior high school telling people about the honourable calling that I had undertaken and trying to get these young people involved in the democratic process, this subject was raised by the students.
I suggest to the hon. member that he should be proud of working his way up the ladder. I suggest to the hon. member that all members work hard for the people of Canada. Why is it then that the government side refuses to make these changes within a responsible, reasonable time when the Prime Minister, then the opposition leader, said in August 1993 that he was going to be making the changes. However he does not do it but he does wipe out contracts worth billions of dollars, making all sorts of changes.
When the member says the NCC is simply conducting malicious attacks against members, I suggest that the NCC is drawing to Canadians' attention the fact that the members have a gold-plated plan that is unacceptable.
I wonder if the member would agree that perhaps his way of handling the problem would be for the legislature to outlaw criticism of the pension plan? Therefore we could get on with life. Is that the way we should do things?