Peter MacKay

[Committees Of The House, June 7th, 2001]

Cancel the pay raise.

[Committees Of The House, June 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging to hear the hon. member for Saint John try to clarify some of the misperceptions and the misnomers about what happened.

This contract was cancelled in 1993 for blatant political reasons, and it has been perpetuated. The real crime in all of this, to use the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona's words, is the further delay, the further politics which are going on with deliberate attempts to not buy the same helicopters, and having to display some hubris or eat their own words. We have an attempt to split the contract to somehow try to avoid buying the same helicopters.

The hon. member opposite spoke of the Cormorant. That was the stripped down version of the EH-101. The Prime Minister can talk with great distinction about the costs that are being saved. What about the cost in human lives? What about the cost of those airmen and airwomen who are flying them? What about the costs of those who are at jeopardy at sea or in some emergency situation and these current helicopters are unable to aid them the way they are supposed to?

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 6th, 2001]

moved:

That Bill C-28, in Clause 29, be amended by deleting lines 37 to 43 on page 25.

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 6th, 2001]

moved:

That Bill C-28, in Clause 4, be amended by deleting lines 17 to 24 on page 3.

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 6th, 2001]

moved:

That Bill C-28, in Clause 4, be amended by deleting lines 9 to 16 on page 3.

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 6th, 2001]

moved:

That Bill C-28, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 8 on page 1 with the following:

“54.1(1) Commencing in the 38th Parliament”

Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I move with respect to the first clause of Bill C-28 ties into subsection 54.1(1) with respect to the commencement date of the remuneration reference amount.

The amendment would essentially post-date or stale-date the commencement of the bill and the effect it would have on members of parliament and members of the Senate and the rate of pay they would receive. The amendment would state specifically:

“54.1(1) commencing in the 38th parliament”.

It would take effect after the next election. Therefore members of parliament would not be put into the spectacularly unpopular position of conflict of interest by voting for themselves. In essence we would be setting the rate of pay for future parliaments.

It is a very straightforward amendment. It deals specifically with the starting date for the new rate of pay. It is consistent with the position taken by the Progressive Conservative Party in the campaign. It was in fact found in our platform document. I suggest the amendment would be much more palatable to Canadians in the sense that we would not be voting on our own rate of pay but setting the rate of pay for future parliamentarians.

It is consistent with the rest of the bill. It would also continue to be in sync with the remaining provisions of the bill which would take it out of the hands of future members of parliament and tie them into the Judges Act. Therefore I suggest the amendment should receive the support of all members.

[Parliament Of Canada Act, June 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, that is the sort of vitriolic, nonsensical, ethyl alcohol fuel type of rhetoric we have become accustomed to.

The member can speak about the right hon. member's personal appearance, but he has ample jowls himself that we have just seen shaking and swinging in the breeze over there as he tried to attack the integrity of a former prime minister. Canadians can judge for themselves who has credibility and who does not.

Turning back to the issue at hand, the timing of the legislation is such that Canadians are left to wonder why we would do this in the dying days of parliament. Why are we embarking on aid to MPs and not aid to farmers or individuals in the health care or justice systems? Why are we doing this now?

That is what is so distasteful and reprehensible to Canadians. This is hush money for the backbench and blood money for the opposition. This is about telling members of the House of Commons that if they do not jump in line and play ball with the Prime Minister they will pay a price. They will take a personal penalty. It will affect their financial well-being.

Putting that clause in the bill clearly drives a wedge. It is there to single out individuals and put them into the books of Canadians who are looking for someone to champion a cause and yet make them pay a penalty for standing and saying that they did not ask for this and that they do not see it as a priority or as the direction in which the House should be going.

There are very good recommendations in the report. The Lumley report clearly outlines that this is not an issue we should need to deal with in future parliaments. It says that we should tie it into the Judges Act. It talks about compensation being reasonable and tied into another sector. It talks about the necessity of collapsing the tax free allowance that has in essence tried to hide the salaries of members of parliament.

There are certainly elements of the report that we can embrace but the bill goes beyond the pith and substance of the Lumley report. The attempt to somehow deal with it in this parliament is inappropriate. The Progressive Conservative Party is trying to be consistent by suggesting that it would be much more appropriate to vote on a bill that would take effect after the next election. It should also be a bill that we could say with pride would enhance parliament and help future parliamentarians rather than ourselves. Those are the horns of the dilemma on which members of parliament find themselves.

If we want to change the pay schedule let us do it for a future parliament and let us do it in a way that is more palatable not only to members of parliament but, more important, to our constituents.

The amendment put forward is one we should ponder and take time to support. We should recognize the provocative and laughingly arrogant insertion of a clause that says that if one has the audacity to stand and oppose the government and the Prime Minister's own bill one will pay a price. That is what is taking place. It is an attempt to bully not only backbench members of the government but, more important, opposition members who might take umbrage with the suggestion that we should take the money, shut our mouths, go away and be happy about it.

I have great difficulty with that. Members routinely come into the Chamber and, on behalf of their constituents and for all sorts of reasons, decide not to support government legislation and do not pay a personal price for it. This is taking it to a whole new level. This type of tactic is offensive to the democratic principles of parliament. It is intended to distract from the real issue. Canadians know that the real issue is that we are getting money by increasing our salaries. The Prime Minister is in a different category. After his pay raise his salary will be double that of other members of parliament.

We are in an incredibly difficult and tight situation. We are between the proverbial rock and the hard place. We either be quiet, bend down, kiss the Prime Minister's ring, take the money and sign off, or we just go away.

I will take this moment to move a subamendment to the amendment before the House. I move:

That the amendment be amended by inserting after the words “the spirit of pay equity by establishing a two tier” the words “and retroactive”.

Receiving the money is one thing but to actually take money for work already done increases the audacity and the incredible affront to people's sensibility. I therefore move the subamendment subject to it being ruled in order by the Chair.

[Religious Organizations, June 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on the matter of the residential schools, the Deputy Prime Minister continues to place an unconscionable financial burden on churches be engaging in a costly, lengthy process of legal wrangling.

I remind the House that it is the government that put the churches in this position by joining them to these legal actions. The churches are currently spending their limited resources on healing and reconciliation.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Why is his government content to force churches into bankruptcy by prolonging this process?

[Patent Act, June 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I guess the short answer is no. I put my comments on the record. I would be mirroring the political tact of the Minister of Industry if I was to stand up 30 seconds later and completely reverse myself. I am not prepared to do that.

I commend the hon. member for the passion and the position she has staked out for her party and her constituents. I guess it is a matter of debate. I would suggest the record will show that in the long run this is the position Canada should pursue and is one that the Progressive Conservative Party supports.

[Patent Act, June 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his intervention. I know that both personally and in his duties here as a member of parliament and a former health critic, he has followed the issue consistently and has spoken out on the issue on numerous occasions.

His question focuses on why people change their minds but more so on the partisan atmosphere we see here, which sometimes leads members in opposition to act irresponsibly, to go outside the bounds of constructive criticism or even sometimes warranted criticism.

The minister himself has established a record of moral outrage and righteous indignation on issues he now embraces and has publicly said he embraces. In fact he was heard recently outside of Canada directly congratulating the former prime minister, Brian Mulroney, on the introduction of the free trade agreement and suggesting he was wrong in opposing it.

It is refreshing to see an hon. member actually admit he was wrong. It happens so rarely that it is almost refreshing to people's ears to hear someone say “I was wrong. Based on the information I had at the time, I made those comments and I regret making those comments. Perhaps if I had had the benefit of hindsight and judgment I might have made a different comment”.

It happens very rarely, but the Minister of Industry has a long track record of clamouring, making a great deal of partisan noise and then completely reversing himself when poised for and given the mantle of power.

It is a reminder for us in opposition that we have to be careful, thoughtful, learned and sometimes measured in our criticisms of government. It is a reminder for us to make sure that we do a little research and not just sound off every time the government introduces something. There is a responsibility in opposition just as there is in government to make thoughtful interventions, to press the government on issues and to ensure that positions are backed with sound judgment and research. If that were to happen I think the atmosphere and attitudes we need here would certainly be more digestible and acceptable to Canadians.