On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I wonder if you could verify your rotation list. We just had two speakers split their time on this side and I did see the parliamentary secretary who wanted to speak.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 64% of the vote.
Supply November 22nd, 1994
On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I wonder if you could verify your rotation list. We just had two speakers split their time on this side and I did see the parliamentary secretary who wanted to speak.
Supply November 22nd, 1994
That is not what the red book says.
Supply November 22nd, 1994
Madam Speaker, I cannot read the Prime Minister's mind but it is evidently clear that within
the government caucus there is more support for preservation of the MP pension plan than for respective certain private and voluntary contracts.
In the case of the cancellation of the helicopters the government has fulfilled its contractual obligations. Of course in the case of the cancellation of the Pearson airport, the government is actually trying to block the right of those people involved in that contract to even seek some kind of compensation through a court process. That seems particularly ridiculous when in the case of the MP pensions it is fairly clear from my office's study that if retrospective changes were to be taken to court there would be very little likelihood that MPs would be successful in achieving these gross privileges they had voted themselves in the past.
I cannot entirely explain the government's motivation, but I would repeat once again for the hon. member and for other members across the way that it would be in the interests of all parliamentarians if the government would vote for the motion and proceed on a plan that gave realistic and defensible benefits to members of Parliament.
Supply November 22nd, 1994
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question.
The member for Vancouver Quadra will understand that today we are not discussing a formal amendment or legislation but merely a motion that we bring the MP pension arrangement into line with private sector standards.
In terms of my own address I was talking specifically about broader Reform Party policy which has suggested that changes to the MP pension plan should apply retrospectively as well as prospectively. Once again I would defend that very clearly on a number of grounds. The most important is that this was not a voluntary transaction and not a transaction with any defensible commercial basis. Any privileges that have been gained through this legislation well above and beyond what could be expected from MPs' own contributions should not be protected in law, not for past members nor for future members.
Supply November 22nd, 1994
Madam Speaker, I am rather surprised that there are so few questions while there were so many while the hon. member was speaking.
In any case, I am rising to discuss the MP pension plan and just to summarize the obscenity of this plan as the hon. member for Beaver River pointed out. There is a benefit rate of 5 per cent, two and a half times the average in the private sector. There is virtual full indexation, 78 per cent of private plans have no automatic indexation whatsoever. Age of retirement based on years of service, could be at any age, could be as young as 24. Ninety-one per cent of all private sector pensions have a retirement age of 65. Contributions are well in excess of anything allowed under the Income Tax Act and there is the ability to have another federal job while collecting the pension.
All of these things are opposed by the Reform Party and have been opposed for some years now. Our blue book makes clear that we would change virtually all aspects of this plan including the fact that present beneficiaries of the plan should share in part of the costs of those changes.
Let us recognize that under the present plan we have accumulated a liability of $220 million that is growing rapidly and this liability can barely be touched unless some of these changes are applied to present beneficiaries and to those who are presently qualified. Some will reply that this is unfair on a number of grounds and I want to address those changes to really understand the nature of that kind of argument.
First of all, the statement that this would be retroactive is not true. Retroactive changes are changes to law at a prior time and no one is suggesting that. We are suggesting that there would be retrospective changes which legally speaking are changes that would only affect the future consequences or only affect the future expectations of law from a prior time which is common to virtually all legislation.
It has also been suggested that these are contractual obligations that are somehow sacrosanct. There is no contractual obligation here. Let us be absolutely clear about that. The MP pension plan is a legislative privilege. Section 42 of the Federal Interpretation Act makes it clear that Parliament has the authority to revoke, restrict or modify any privilege or advantage by repealing or amending the statute that granted that privilege.
The MP pensions were not entered into on a voluntary or commercial basis. There were not even two parties in this case. This is a case of politicians voting something for themselves, something that there was absolutely no reasonable expectation that their contributions would give them.
It has been suggested that it would somehow be inherently unfair to make MPs change their pension plan. In response to that I believe fully and our party believes fully that contributions should be protected. To the extent that MPs have contributed the value of those contributions should be protected. Let us also be clear that contributions to the plan account for less than 20 per cent of the benefit. There is absolutely no fairness in providing such a windfall benefit at the expense of taxpayers.
In terms of charter arguments there would be absolutely no evidence, notwithstanding the pleadings of the Deputy Prime Minister, that members of Parliament or politicians in general constitute a disadvantaged group in our society.
There is no fairness also in suggesting that all of the reduction in pension benefits should fall upon those who are serving now or who may serve in the future. There is no fairness in my view in suggesting that future or present MPs, once the rules are changed, should be treated differently than past MPs. That kind of objection goes more broadly to a philosophy that states that only younger people should pay the costs of the present financial situation in the country, an implication that I reject entirely.
What are the implications of the kind of argument against these changes and these retrospective changes? What these people are really saying is that we can change virtually any plan in this country but not the MP pension plan. The previous government changed old age security to provide a clawback. This Liberal government has not seen fit to change that. Previous governments changed their obligations on equalization payments to the provinces. They changed their obligations and payments in health, in post-secondary education, none of which this government has reversed. This government has also made it clear that it is contemplating changes to RSPs, so far as to even
contemplate confiscation in some cases of certain portions of private savings.
Yet the argument would go that MP pension plans are somehow sacrosanct. This is a completely untenable position. It is another example of the House of Commons suggesting that it should protect itself above all else. Just as we see today where the procedure and House affairs committee is suggesting that we should protect the size of the House of Commons from reduction, we should not share in the general downsizing of government here, we are seeing a similar argument with the MP pension plan.
The Prime Minister early in this Parliament promised or said that MPs should be able to opt out of the plan. As the member for Beaver River pointed out, we are now paying 11 per cent of our gross salary which only covers less than 20 per cent of the plan to pay for the extravagant pensions of those who are already receiving it. This is something we as Reformers object to. Of course we would like to see a fair plan but we are prepared to arrange for our own private savings.
The question is: Why is the Prime Minister delaying? I believe it was August 3, 1993 that the present Prime Minister called on Kim Campbell to recall the House of Commons and make changes to the MP pension plan and he wanted it done in one day. He said it could be done in one day. Now 400 days later nothing has been done and nothing in particular has been done on his promise to allow MPs to opt out of the plan.
Why is he so reluctant? The reason is very simple. The Prime Minister knows he made a mistake in suggesting that MPs could opt out of the plan. He knows full well that if any MP in this House opted out of such an obscene and indefensible arrangement the political pressure on other MPs would virtually force every other member of Parliament within one term to drop out of the plan if they were considering seeking re-election. The Prime Minister knows that.
I urge government members not to be so critical and to read the motion. The motion is quite reasonable. In principle it is not unlike what the government itself suggested during the election. I would suggest that government members consider this very carefully. Forget the fact that some of them have big dollar signs in their eyes now and in their dreams. Just remember that the motion is quite reasonable, vote for it and indicate to the Canadian people that all parties are prepared to make a change to this unjustifiable arrangement.
Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act November 21st, 1994
Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister's salary were tied to the financial performance of the Government of Canada, he would be overpaid by about half a billion dollars a year.
In recent years both the Alberta and Prince Edward Island governments have made significant reforms to their pensions, reforms that affected past members already benefiting from the excesses they had voted themselves.
Will the Prime Minister commit in principle to applying any reform to MP pensions to past MPs as well as to sitting MPs?
Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act November 21st, 1994
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister mentions correcting the age problem. It has been suggested that the government may raise the age of eligibility for the MP pension to 55. On this basis alone, the MP pension would still be more generous than 99.9 per cent of all private sector plans.
Will the Prime Minister admit that such tinkering is totally inadequate to deal with the problem?
Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act November 21st, 1994
Mr. Speaker, today is the biggest day on the government's parliamentary calendar trough day, when over 50 MPs qualify for lifetime gold plated pensions, well over 80 per cent paid for by the taxpayers of Canada.
For over one year the Prime Minister has promised to allow MPs to opt out of these obscene pensions and to make private arrangements on the same basis as other Canadians.
Does the Prime Minister agree that MPs pensions should be brought in line with private sector standards or not?
National Defence November 17th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister indicated there are two ongoing police investigations in addition to one suspended investigation. Yet two months ago the department's public information officers indicated there were no ongoing investigations into the Somali affair.
Why are these investigations occurring 18 months after the fact? Why is this kind of information not made public until it is raised in the House or appears in the media? Why will the minister not provide right away an open inquiry for information on this to be presented to the public?
National Defence November 17th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, on April 29, 1993 the present Minister of Human Resources Development in praising soldiers who came forward with public evidence of wrongdoing in Somalia said, and I am quoting from Hansard : ``They have taken a very courageous stand because they saw something they thought was wrong. They deserve an open inquiry''. I understand the Minister of National Defence is moving toward that position.
Will the minister not agree that the actions of Major Armstrong and others who may possess information and may be reluctant to give it to the present system are fully justified when they know that system has not acted upon information and when that system asks for the destruction of the very evidence they possess?