Debates of Nov. 22nd, 1994

Supply

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Open your ears, Deborah.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Order. The member has a question for the minister.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

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.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member's figures are presupposing what is going to be in the bill we bring forward. I do not think he can presuppose that. He does not have to worry about the money that he wanted to take off and invest. If he does not opt into the plan, then he can be comforted by the fact that it is going directly to the bottom line. He will not get it. It will go directly to the bottom line to help reduce the deficit of the country.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

And pay other MPs.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

That is the option you have. If you do not want to look after your retirement, as most Canadians do, if you want to be reckless, you can do that. But we are going to give you the option to do it.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

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.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to address the subject of MPs pensions today but my perspective has changed over the last year and I want to describe the change for members.

Just one year ago I campaigned long and hard against the gold-plated pension plans that members receive, which was easy to do since I was not at that time eligible to receive one. Today I stand in a far different position.

For a year now, I have experienced the trials of living far from home and family, the extra expenses of being a member of Parliament and the very demanding schedule that an MP must follow. In short, my whole heart and soul has been required of me this past year.

Members would be right to ask if my perspective has been altered by this reality. Under the current system, if I remain here in the House for five more years, I will be eligible to receive a pension. I am not alone. Over 200 new members will be eligible for an incredibly generous pension after just six years.

Most of these new members campaigned to change the pension plan, a task we could accomplish today if our resolve for change is not softened in one short year. While my perspective has changed over the last year, I have certainly not lost my desire for reform. I still believe that our pension plan needs change. Change at the top is essential to provide an example for the rest of the nation. I want to make a few proposals today that would bring our pensions out of fantasyland and into the real world.

I would also point out to all members that it is a mark of integrity to desire change even if it hurts so I am happy to see that Reformers at least are still speaking out on this issue, even though it could cost them a significant part of their future income. This is a mark of integrity and the electorate will remember it.

Allow me to set the stage for a moment so that we can all be clear about what the pension plan offers to members of Parliament. I would like to quote from a major international study on parliamentarian's compensation called the Sobeco report which was tabled in February of this year.

This is what a retiring member of Parliament receives: "The pension plan provides the payment of a retiring allowance to any person who is an MP for a period of at least six years. This lifetime pension commences as soon as a member ceases to hold office regardless of age".

It goes on to read: "The amount of retiring allowance for a member is equal to 30 per cent of the average sessional allowance after six years as a member and increases by 5 percentage points for each additional year to a maximum of 75 per cent after 15 years".

This means that a lowly backbencher or an opposition member like myself could walk away, after being re-elected just once, with a pension of about $20,000 a year for life. For a few members of Parliament who are very young, this benefit would indeed be of great value. Cabinet ministers who have a higher salary of course fare much better. In 1993 the average pension paid to cabinet ministers was almost $49,000 annually. Former Liberal Prime Minister John Turner is receiving $85,000 per year for life.

The study also notes that the pension is indexed after age 60. It goes on to say that members pay only 20 per cent of the value of the plan while federal civil servants contribute 40 per cent to their plan and private sector executives about 35 per cent. The pension plan is more generous than those in the private sector and even in the broader public sector.

I mentioned that the Ernst and Young study was an international study. How do our pensions compare with those in other countries? Our system is exceedingly generous. Only Australia and Belgium top our pensions. In fact our pensions are triple the pensions that politicians in the United Kingdom, Sweden and, yes, even the good old United States of America receive. Not only that, but no country allows the payment of a pension as early as Canada does. In fact the payment of a pension before the age of 52 is possible only in Sweden and Australia. In the U.K. you have to be at least 60. In the United States a politician must work for 25 years before getting a pension.

Finally, how do we compare with the provinces? Only the two most generous provinces, Ontario and British Columbia, offer comparable pensions but there is a major difference in the cost to the taxpayer. That is that provincial members are not eligible for a pension until they are at least 55 years of age in Ontario and 60 in B.C. Can you imagine the difference in cost to the taxpayer between receiving a pension from age 30 and receiving it from age 60? The cost differential is of course enormous.

Listeners will not be surprised to find out that just a month before this study was tabled the government commissioned a completely new study called "Democratic Ideals and Financial Realities" that looked at all the same things. This is because of a statutory requirement that the compensation of MPs must be reviewed at the beginning of each Parliament which is a wasteful law that should be abolished as far as I am concerned.

However, I would note that the commission's report arrives at virtually the same conclusions. I do not know how much that report cost but it is the same.

There are really only a couple of principles that should guide us on potential pensions for members of Parliament. First, the pension should not offer to members benefits that are unavailable to other Canadians. For example, it must have a maximum contribution level equal to that of other Canadians. Pensions should pay benefits at retirement age, not when a member is 45 or even 35 years old, but 55 to 65 like others. The MP pension plan should be the same for all members.

I hear that the finance minister may soon allow members to opt out of the plan. I still believe this is wrong. Some members will opt out but the rest will be allowed to remain with the current plan which means that after a long communication strategy in trying to sell what they are doing and much bragging about change and options and all the rest, most of the MPs, especially across the way, will remain at the trough and taxpayers will be even more sceptical of their members of Parliament. As usual, the more things change around here the more they will stay the same.

Double dipping must be eliminated. By that I mean that a retired member must only receive one benefit at one time from the federal crown.

Pensions must be actuarially sound where the money going into the plan equals the money being paid out of it. I would remind members that the unfunded liability of our pension plan at the end of 1991 was $12.2 million and that was after the government topped up the fund with 158 million taxpayer dollars earlier in that same year.

The second broad principle is that our pension plan must show how members are willing to lead by example when it comes to government belt tightening. It is no surprise that when Premier Klein started to cut back on government expenditures, a move promised but not yet delivered by this government, the first thing he did was to abolish-he did not scale it back, study it,

consider it or talk about it-the MLAs pension plan. Only then did he move on to work on other government programs.

A good leader only asks of others what he himself is prepared to do. Government members would do well to heed this management principle. The words of comfort to university students and UI recipients facing cutbacks will ring hollow indeed if members choose not to lead by example.

A wise saying applies here. It goes like this: "Your actions speak so loudly I cannot hear your words". Let us put the empty rhetoric aside and start a massive overhaul of our pension scheme starting today.

Finally, we come to the solution. What do we offer MPs who give their considerable time and effort to serve their country? We want to be fair and equitable. I think we need a pension plan that is comparable to private sector pensions, but which ones I suppose you could ask. There are all sorts of pensions in the private sector. I think we need pensions comparable to those that are available to private sector executives, for example.

Private sector executives get where they are because they display talent, ability and commitment. They are rewarded according to their performance rather than their seniority. They make major companies work and prosper in this country and they compete with the best in the world.

We want to be able to attract this kind of talent, this kind of person to run for Parliament. We need top flight, private sector individuals to make our country run. Not only do people sacrifice careers and time, privacy and family and other things to become elected officials, they also take a drastic cut in the salary portion when they enter Parliament.

Since the salary range for members is already lower than the salary range for private executives, there are few other things that Parliament can offer them in the way of compensation. There are fringe benefits, I suppose, such as a certain amount of notoriety or prestige. Thankfully, this costs nothing to the taxpayer and it is at best a double-edged sword since it also means a corresponding loss of privacy.

Another benefit is the personal satisfaction derived from having direct influence on government policy. Yet another compensation might be the pension they would receive. I think MP pensions need to be as generous as possible while remaining within the industry standard for those types of people.

It would be fair for government to match the contributions of members like other civil servants rather than paying two and a half times what MPs currently contribute. I remind the House that the public service pension fund is in fact overfunded through employee contributions by a large margin. There should be no special deals, no long term obligations that would cost the taxpayer exorbitant amounts of money, just a fair deal that would allow MPs, like everyone else, to plan their future with a minimum of government involvement.

Canadians have a right to demand an end to the current plan. It is an issue that crosses party lines. Let us not grant ourselves special privileges. Let us lead by example and use this opportunity to restructure the current plan. By doing this I believe we can take a step toward restoring the confidence of the Canadian people in the integrity, the equality and the leadership of all members of Parliament.

[Jesse Flis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member for his party's views on double dipping when it comes between levels of government. I know his party's position is against double dipping as is ours within the same level of government.

One of his colleagues, and I will not mention names, does draw a pension of $61,000 I believe and now is getting a salary of $64,500. This gives him a salary of $125,000 plus a year. What is his party's position and his own position on this kind of cross level of government double dipping?

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I only have to suppose which member the hon. member opposite refers to. Let me talk at least in the broad principles. A couple of things are fairly obvious. If a politician gives 25 years of service to a province or to the Government of Canada or to the Chamber here, that in itself is a considerable difference than the six year minimum that is currently available here in the House.

One thing is the length of time it takes to qualify for such a pension. I think 25 years is significantly different than six years. The other is that there should really only be one pension paid to that individual. I know in the case he is mentioning that has already been made obvious. The member will not be receiving another pension from this level of government since he has already put in 25 years of service in the position of an MLA. I think that is a very honourable and noble thing he has done. It is another leadership by example as he explained it well in his constituency. He has made it obvious that he has refused. He has written across his forms that he will refuse any future parliamentary pension because obviously as the member has pointed out, one pension is certainly enough for any one individual.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Point of order, Madam Speaker. The smart-ass question which we just got-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

That is not a point of order.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, the previous speaker from Fraser Valley East talked about a number of issues on which I want to comment. I also have a question for him.

The hon. member commented briefly on the opting out issue. Canadians should understand that the opting out provision he is talking about has nothing to do with the question that has been raised by this government in its policy or in fact by the proposals the government intends to bring forward.

The opting out was a ploy by the Reform Party simply to get press attention. It had absolutely nothing to do with a legitimate option. The Prime Minister did say if members want to opt out of the pension plan he would allow it. It is not being proposed for members of Parliament.

Second, the member says we should lead by example and that we should have no special privileges. I think that is a fair statement to have made. However, members of Parliament on all sides were elected knowing what the compensation package was and knowing that the Liberal Party had proposed two changes to the current government pension program. The first change was to end double dipping. The second change was to reconsider the age at which members of Parliament would qualify to receive benefits.

Members of Parliament knew that. They ran for public office knowing what the compensation was specified to be.

Now members are saying there should not be special privileges. I wonder if the member would agree that in fact it is not a special privilege but a right of any member of Parliament to know what their compensation is, what they are running for, and what they are going to have to plan for. I wonder if the member of Parliament, the previous speaker, would care to say what exactly he feels members of Parliament should be paid and if in fact, as he suggests, there should be no pension plan or something comparable to what is offered in corporate life.

It is only fair that Canadians understand that there is a compensation requirement.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Madam Speaker, a couple of points were raised, one being that certainly members on the one hand should know what they are running for when they seek candidacy. We ran under one set of rules. We are going to change them. They are in flux so they are going to change.

I do not think there is anything wrong with changing them on the fly, as it were. I think Canadians have been demanding that. Polling will indicate that this is a very poorly received plan as it currently stands.

The other thing is on compensation. I know the members across the way have consistently tried to make some hay out of this but the Reform Party has never felt that the pay package is too generous for members of Parliament. It is the pension plan.

Again and again we say we are talking about the pension plan which is too generous the way it stands and six years is too quick to make that much benefit.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, this has been a valuable and informative debate because the government is committed to reform of the pension plan. It has taken this commitment by members of the government party very seriously and we are in the stage of discussion and dialogue and testing out ideas. It is quite clear that this problem can be resolved before the next general election.

Although hypothetical cases have been cited of members who could resign tomorrow and acquire large pensions, I do not think anybody is contemplating resignation at this stage. We have the time and we have to do this thoroughly.

It is also agreed that salaries and pensions are part of the same package and there is some disposition to think that members are underpaid but may be overgenerously treated in pensions.

That is the sort of balance the government must and will consider. Be assured of the one general consideration today that we act in the sense of doing equity to everybody and that members of Parliament suffer with the general public. Therefore in approaching the reforms we have considerations of this sort well in mind.

Some aspects were discussed during the election campaign. If they were not discussed in government papers they were raised at all-candidates meetings. It is interesting to note the consensus that develops easily enough on these considerations.

It is agreed that it is unjust for members of Parliament to receive pensions on retirement from the House while still young, active, healthy and able to engage in other activities. A commencement age at 55, I would have said 60 or 65, whatever the regular national pension scheme finally may be is correct and is equitable. That is certainly within the government's consideration.

The double dipping issue was raised during the election. All of us agree that the flagrant examples, and there have been several of them cited, are ones that arouse genuine public concern. Even if numerically they are not very large they do raise the issue of justice not merely being done but not being seen to be done. Equity must be done to all citizens. If there is one case of a former MP taking a large government job at an inflated salary then people are justifiably saying that is not right.

There are some complications in relation to this. I do not think they are insuperable. I think a member opposite said double dipping reaches only within the area of federal sovereignty. Sovereignty of course is indivisible. I myself would be interested in testing a declaratory judgment whether a ban on double dipping could not reach to pensions of members who have served in provincial houses or possibly at the municipal level. I raise this as a theoretical point, but theoretical questions can and

should be answered when they have practical consequences and if the practical consequences disturb the general public conception of what is right and proper.

I hope in considering revisions of the pension plan we will not merely consider barring former MPs from collecting their MPs pensions while they take on a judicial, civil service, ambassadorial or other post. I hope we will consider whether it should not in equitable terms reach out also to those who have taken pensions from the provincial domain or even from the municipal domain.

As I said sovereignty in classical theory is indivisible. I see no reason why artificial boundaries should be set up. Some might even raise the issue of whether civil servant pensions should not be viewed in the same way and when they are federal civil service pensions the logic becomes very persuasive and convincing.

I have taken note of the comments already made in the debate on the balance between contributions by members of Parliament and contributions by Parliament itself. This is one of the issues the government will be looking at in its revised plans for the pension scheme.

To be frank I have in mind one possible reform that would be crucially affected if there was more nearly a balance between the two contributions and that is the portability of pensions. Those of us who know the American system of government or those of us who have been familiar with universities or other public institutions will know that the principle of portability is very well assured.

People may serve at a distinguished university like the University of Calgary and then move on after a year to another university. It is a quite common practice for a pension right to vest after a year's service. It may not be very much. It may provide only for one good dinner at the Palliser Hotel or somewhere else but the principle is important enough.

It has always struck me as rather artificial that the pension rights vest after six years. That provides an inducement to members to serve a second term where it may be in their own best interests and the best interests of the country might better be served if they contented themselves with one term. Obviously if the pension contributions by one party, by Parliament, are out of line with the member's own contributions that sort of sensible reform as I see it tends to break down, or the logic for it tends to disappear.

On the indexing issue which has been raised, it is very clear that this enters into larger approaches to social security and the Canadian social security network. Obviously what is good for one category of society should be good for all categories.

We either move to a general system of indexing, which may be one way of facing inflation and the generally rising costs of living, or we have to move out of the areas where that exists. These again are well within the ambit of the government's proposals and the government's consideration of reform of the pension system and should be considered in that light.

This issue has been raised in the House and I think it is worth considering: Where and when will reforms begin? Can they be prospective only? Is there such a system as vested rights? Can you not touch what has gone before?

It is true that as a matter of constitutional law what we are dealing with is really only a constitutional privilege. That is to say Parliament has the full competence to apply any reform measures it may devise retroactively as well as prospectively.

If we were considering that, one thing to consider would be the condition of the earlier MPs who came in before the present pension system was devised. I am quite shocked to learn of some of the pension provisions for people serving from the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, and some of them are still around, before the present scheme came in. These are really hardship situations.

Obviously there is a difference between what is constitutionally permissible and what considerations of equity would demand. Any revision by the government should perhaps include a look at these pioneer members of Parliament who retired before the present scheme came into operation.

It would obviously be easier in terms of general conceptions of what is right and proper to deal only with present cases, that is to say members elected in 1993. It may well be that the main thrust of the reform proposals is directed there.

There has been discussion of self-administered pension plans. A good deal depends, Madam Speaker, as you are very well aware, on the competence of those administering the self-administered pension plans, the financial advisers. We do need some more details here. If the opposition parties have suggestions they should submit them in detail into the debate.

Most members of Parliament whatever their other competencies do not have great expertise in this general area. One is reminded of the fact that many members of Parliament are lawyers. Frankly many lawyers have great difficulty in devising a pension plan that is fair to themselves.

The self-administered pension plan looks to be an easy way out. However it would have to be some sort of plan that would look to a co-operative unit within Parliament and that would require discussion among the parties.

These are my thoughts on what has been a fascinating debate. It has been a discussion of useful ideas which the government will certainly be taking into account in its announced reforms of the pension plan.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

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?

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the thoughtful question from the hon. member. It is true that I have a very great university within my constituency. I met with the student leaders there. I met with the administration two weeks ago. I have also met with universities outside my constituency. For a number of reasons they have come to me to discuss their concerns.

I do not regard it as a consequence of the social security green book that university fees will go up. In fact, I have given my personal undertaking that I will do my best to see that whatever emerges under the social security green book proposals that consequence would not arise. It is not a necessary and inevitable consequence of the green book at all. Frankly, the remedies are more within the provincial domain and have very little to do with federal policy. That is a separate issue from the larger issue the hon. member raised.

It is true that in my riding the sentiment seems to be to favour larger salaries for members. This has been put to me by people who say they would never run for Parliament because the salaries are too low. Accepting the notion of a pension plan more in line for example with university pension plans in terms of balance of contributions would be acceptable. I see that argument and in fact, I accept it.

[An hon. member]

Should it have been done sooner?

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

I think frankly since the review is going on and since there is no urgency before the elections, it can be done in its proper time. I do assure the hon. member I accept that viewpoint too. I would rather see more balance in the pension and a different approach to the salaries, but there is no correlation between this and university fees. I do not accept as a consequence of the green book that fees will go up.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on the opposition motion concerning the members of Parliament pensions. The member for Vancouver Quadra has raised some very interesting points as usual.

I particularly want to note for all members that the government in its election platform and its statements in the House has said it will end double dipping and the age. Today the Prime Minister did show his commitment to make those changes when he announced the appointment of Canada's next Governor General, the Hon. Romeo LeBlanc. He further went on to say that the Governor General will draw a salary as a Governor General but will return his MP pension to the government as a sign of that leadership. That is outstanding.

[The Speaker]

Order. I understand the hon. member may have a little bit of time remaining when we return to the debate.

Report Of The Auditor General

[The Speaker]

I have the honour to lay upon the table the report of the Auditor General of Canada for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1994.

I remind hon. members that pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(d), this document is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.

National Parole Board

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Victoria—Haliburton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my statement concerns the recent appointment of Mr. Willie Gibbs to the chair of the National Parole Board.

The Auditor General points out in his 1994 report that the method of hiring used shows a need for improvement and this was followed. Mr. Gibbs, a career corrections civil servant, was hired through a two stage selection process and face to face interviews.

This is the first time this type of appointment process has been held for National Parole Board appointments and we applaud it.

Occupational Training

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the fifth anniversary of the Forum pour l'emploi du Québec has been an opportunity to stress the importance of occupational training and the integration of young people in the labour market. That occupational training should be patriated to Quebec has been agreed for some time by all political, economic and social partners. Only the federal government is still turning a deaf ear to these demands.

The Minister of Human Resources Development will have to admit that local initiatives will achieve their objectives once the federal government has given the provinces full responsibility for manpower training.

Why does the minister keep interfering with this sector, when he cannot even get good results with the measures he dictates from Ottawa?

Protection Of Citizens

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the history of this government to protect our Canadian citizens has proven to be dismal.

Kenneth Walker, a Canadian businessman, is currently being hounded on dubious charges by the United States government and our government refuses to assist him.

Victor Ostrovsky, a Canadian author, listened while a zealot being interviewed on a morning news show called for anyone to murder Victor Ostrovsky.

Why is this government allowing death threats toward a Canadian author and a businessman to go unanswered?

When the British author Salmon Rushdie was threatened with death, the British Parliament rose in one voice to condemn the country that promoted violence in the death of the British citizen.

Not only has silence shown the world that our Canada does not care or show concern for its citizens, continuing silence will confirm to radicals, zealots and foreign powers that any Canadian can be intimidated or killed without action from this government.

This government must show some backbone and speak out against threats of any kind against our Canadian citizens.