Debates of Nov. 22nd, 1995

Supply

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I posed the question. He is a busy man. Maybe he is going out to fix up our victims rights. Maybe he is going to do something about the bill.

Getting back to the point I was making about the two prisons where Bernardo and Homolka are held, a tunnel connects the two. According to the charter of rights and freedoms, he is going to be able to have conjugal visits with members on the female prison side. This is not punishment.

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Lisgar—Marquette, MB]

It's ludicrous.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

It is ludicrous, I agree with the member from Manitoba.

I guess I need another preamble for my question. I believe that we should make violent criminals-that was my comment and now to the question for the-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

We are laughing and joking, but it is not really funny.

This man has been the justice minister for two years. All he wants to do is register firearms at a cost of $400 million and impose a bunch of ludicrous infringements on private property and carrying on like that, rather than doing what really is important which is toughening up the criminal justice system, making our streets safer and actually punishing people who commit crimes.

It is wonderful to talk about the causes of it. It is wonderful to look at how we can help these people to not commit these crimes. Those are solutions that are of a much longer term. In the short term the punishment should fit the crime and parole should not be given to violent offenders.

Why not make violent criminals serve their full sentence without possibility of parole? Why not get tougher with the criminals, show that the justice system is tough, then look at the rights of the victims and give them the satisfaction that at least the government of this land is looking after their rights and not just the criminals rights.

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, may I first of all make it clear that I intended no disrespect to the hon. member when I left the Chamber for a few moments. I am sure he knows that and I trust that the Speaker knows it as well.

In response to the point raised by the hon. member, I take it that what he is advocating is a balance in the approach. We must take steps to strengthen the criminal justice system. We must also be sensitive to the rights and the interests of the victim. I believe that is what we have reflected in the steps we have taken as a government.

We have introduced, for example, in Bill C-68 mandatory minimum penitentiary terms-the longest in the Criminal Code-for those who use guns in crime. That is a very significant punitive element in the criminal law. I know that it has the support of the members of the third party.

At the same time in Bill C-41, for example, we have recognized the role and the rights of the victim in the strengthened restitution provisions. We have changed the section 745 procedure so that they are guaranteed a role in such applications. In Bill C-42 we have made it unnecessary for them to go to court, for example, when-

[The Deputy Speaker]

It being 5.30 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 81, the proceedings on the motion have expired.

Parliament Of Canada Act

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

moved that Bill C-314, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (other pension income), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to say a few words at second reading of my private member's bill, Bill C-314. I made a few comments when I introduced it but for members in the House today I want to remind them that this bill is an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (other pension income). The bill requires all pension or retiring allowance payments received by a member of Parliament which are paid from public funds to be deducted from the member of Parliament's sessional allowance payments.

The following occupations fall under the definition of a public or retiring allowance paid from the public purse: a member of the legislative assembly of a province or a provincial parliament; a member of the public service of Canada or a province; a judge of any court in Canada; a member of the Canadian forces; a peace officer; an employee or officer of a crown corporation of the crown in right of Canada or of a province; an employee or officer of a board, bureau, commission, council, institute or agency of the crown in right of Canada, the crown in right of a province or a municipality; an employee or officer of a publicly funded school, school board, college, university or hospital; an employee or officer of an organization that the board by law orders to be an equivalent organization, crown corporation, agency of the crown, or college, university or hospital.

The bill is a reverse double dipping bill. There are two definitions of double dipping. The first is members of Parliament with

pensions taking government jobs while still drawing their parliamentary pension. This definition has been primarily dealt with in Bill C-85. The President of the Treasury Board introduced the bill and it was passed. It was part of the pension adjustment bill.

The second definition of double dipping, which this bill addresses, is MPs elected while collecting a public pension. They are receiving in essence a pension from a position which I made reference to plus receiving their member of Parliament allowance.

For example, there is a former MLA in this assembly who receives a pension of approximately $61,000 annually. He was elected to the House and receives a full salary as a member of Parliament as well. Therefore he is earning something in the order of $165,000 for serving the public. This bill would take the $61,000 pension and subtract it from the $64,400 which is due to a member of Parliament, thereby only paying this person to continue to serve the public at the federal level his $61,000 pension and $3,400.

I will take the House through a bit of the history of double dipping in Canada. Prior to 1976 pensions of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, members of Parliament, the military and public servants were regulated by Parliament and the regulations were quite uneven. A former member of the military could not keep their pension if elected to Parliament, yet a civil servant could. It was also not possible for a former member of Parliament to join the public service and collect their pension. The rules did not allow for a level playing field. Certain occupations were eligible to collect pensions while working in another occupation, while others were not.

This was updated in 1976 but instead of preventing all public pensioners from drawing a salary and a public pension, the process was opened up to allow them to collect both. In hindsight this was a costly, unfair and unacceptable practice, as it is now, in light of our fiscal situation and in light of a significant increase in unemployment, in particular with young Canadians.

The purpose of a pension is to provide income to an individual in recognition of years of service. In essence it is a deferred income or a deferred benefit earned while working to be paid when one retires. It is meant to sustain retirees in a satisfactory manner during retirement. A public pension is provided by the taxpayers so that the retiree has a source of income.

The proposal I am putting forward through Bill C-314 is seen in other jurisdictions. For example, it is a policy with many school boards to deduct salaried earnings from retirees who go back to the classroom to teach so they are not double dipping, receiving a pension from the school board as well as receiving a full time salary-doing two things; double dipping in terms of getting double revenue for doing one job and also taking the job away from somebody who needs it much more than the person who is receiving a substantial pension.

This policy was established because school boards could not justify to the taxpayer that a teacher should be able to earn a salary from teaching when they claim to be retired from the very profession in which they are working.

The bill would save the House of Commons literally millions of dollars annually because the payroll would be reduced. As well, there are currently at least 60 members of Parliament who could be affected by the bill. The numbers are approximate, we do not know for sure. A number of Liberals, Bloc members and Reform members are currently receiving pensions from previous public service and collecting a full salary as members of Parliament. They fall into the categories of MLAs, MPPs, municipal politicians, teachers, military officers, peace officers and various and sundry civil servants.

Some are receiving generous pensions and others will be eligible soon for benefits while still serving as a member of Parliament. The bill reflects the fact that these individuals are continuing in their role of serving the public and should not be paid twice. They should not be considered retired from public life and then pursue a career as a member of Parliament and be paid twice to serve that very same public.

Many members of Parliament in most veins agree that serving Canada is an honour and a privilege. We should not abuse that privilege. All we do by receiving a public pension while being a member of Parliament receiving a full salary is add to the cynicism of the public by abusing the goodwill of the Canadian taxpayer.

Bill C-314 recognizes that despite the level of government there is only one taxpayer paying the salaries of MPs, retired municipal politicians and retired civil servants. If a retired person becomes a member of Parliament, that person should no longer be considered retired.

The government does not allow persons who are collecting unemployment insurance benefits to collect welfare benefits at the same time. We have this in other jurisdictions such as school boards and unemployment insurance. UI does not allow persons to collect unemployment insurance while holding a job either. If a person does this they are considered to be cheating the system. Why are members of Parliament exempt from this form of double dipping? In essence those of us who are receiving pensions could be considered cheaters on the taxpayers.

We cannot expect Canadians to tighten their belts with massive cutbacks to government programs while we receive a public pension and a public salary at the same time. Contributions members of Parliament would make in terms of savings could go toward a special fund.

For example, consider a member who makes $61,000 in pension income. That $61,000 could go to this fund which could be used on

an annual basis to be paid directly on the deficit. This could provide very significant leadership to Canadians in the sense that the members who receive these pensions with this deduction from their MPs salary could use this fund annually toward reducing the deficit while telling Canadians we are making some very difficult choices and that we also believe as members of Parliament we are to make some difficult choices ourselves which will address the deficit issue.

We also see an opportunity to save money for taxpayers. However, we have seen governments in the past, and particularly this Liberal government, make some significant cuts to transfer payments in the health, education and social service areas. It is not really saving money. It says it is saving money by cutting back $7 billion this year with respect to health, education and social services costs but all it is really doing is transferring this to other levels of government, the provincial governments and the municipalities across the country. The taxpayer has to make up the difference of the $7 billion.

We are also seeing a government making cutbacks to unemployment insurance. In Saskatchewan's circumstance we have seen the unemployment insurance program cutback so dramatically in the last two years that over 15,000 people have been taken off UI as a result of the new cutbacks by the Liberal government. They are now being put on the Saskatchewan assistance plan case load, which costs an extra $63 million a year.

In addition to the unemployment insurance reductions, the Liberal government has transferred responsibility for providing assistance to off reserve status Indians, adding another 10,000 people to the welfare case load of Saskatchewan alone at an estimated cost of $37 million. We have seen $63 million, $37 million, $100 million on those two initiatives under the unemployment insurance benefit scheme alone.

The Liberal government was elected on the platform of providing jobs and of course it has thrown more people out of work and on to welfare rolls in Saskatchewan than ever before, adding to the burden of the Saskatchewan taxpayer.

Bill C-314, which I am proposing, would assist in a very minor way but illustrates the Liberals have no new ways of trying to save money. All they want to do is pass off the expense of running our country to another level of government.

I will say a few words now about double dipping in the Reform Party. If the Reform Party is concerned about double dipping, it would support the bill. The bill creates a level playing field. Members of Parliament would see retirement income deducted from their paycheque during their tenures as members of Parliament.

Members of the Reform Party have stated they would not accept the parliamentary pension before age 60. Yet there are Reform MPs who gladly accept publicly paid pension benefits from the provincial governments they have served in other public sector jobs, be it teaching, municipal governments or other provincial government sectors.

This in my view is hypocrisy on the part of the Reform Party. The Reform Party is insulting the intelligence of Canadian taxpayers. If it is wrong for a former member of Parliament to accept his pension and take a public sector job, then why can a former MLA now in the Reform Party receiving a $61,000 a year pension not do the same thing when he becomes a member of Parliament?

Reform Party members must lead by example and voluntarily deduct their pension incomes from their salaries and give the difference back to the House of Commons or to the deficit.

I have some very profound arguments and a great deal of support for the bill. Barbara Yaffe of British Columbia wrote in the Ottawa Citizen on April 20:

Now that the diabolical double dip has been addressed, the Chrétien government might want to take action on the reverse dip.

Double dipping is to be forbidden under the reforms to the MPs' pension plan announced in February by Treasury Board President Art Eggleton. But the reverse dip was not mentioned in those reforms.

The column was quite laudatory for me and with respect to this bill. She does quote a number of members of Parliament who are serving in the Reform and Liberal parties: the member for Bonavista-Trinity Conception, a retired naval rear admiral; the member for Lethbridge; the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan; the member for Saanich-Gulf Islands, a former armed forces officer, and it goes on and on. I would like to read the whole article but I do not think it would be appropriate at this time. However, the bottom line is there is a great deal of support for the bill.

I am not doing this out of mischievousness. I am doing this because it is a serious issue for Canadians and for Parliament. I am doing it with sincerity. As a former member of the Saskatchewan legislature, I have gone on record before and after the election that if I was serving my country in the House of Commons I would never take a pension for my former service as a member of the Saskatchewan Legislative Assembly. I will stick by that regardless of whether the bill is passed.

I reaffirm my position that as a former member I will not take a public pension, my legislative pension or my pension as a corporate planner with Saskatchewan Telecommunications because I believe it is a privilege to serve my constituents, my province and my country. Regardless of what position I am in, I will take only

the salary due to me and disregard and postpone taking any pensions I am entitled to.

In this regard I am putting the bill forward in a serious manner. I hope that members of the Reform Party and the Liberal Party will join with me in supporting the bill.

There are a few more things I would like to add with respect to some of the impacts on the bill but I note that the Liberal member opposite is anxious to say a few words on it.

I will end by saying there have been some comments in the House today concerning the MPs pension plan. There are members of Parliament who will argue that members should not receive any pension whatsoever. For those who argue for no pensions, one has to question their motives. Is it because they already have a pension, or is it because they are representing interests which will pay them handsomely for doing other things? Or is it simply an attempt to falsely bribe the electorate into believing that if the MPs are not worthy of pensions or MPs should not take pensions they might be more worthy of support by the electorate?

I think those arguments are false. People will support honest, hardworking politicians who are fair, who work to build our country and who raise taxpayers' money fairly and spend it even more fairly and wisely in a very accountable fashion. People will agree that if we are not doing a good job or if we are corrupt or dishonest, we deserve nothing. In fact, nothing is still too much for some in people's minds because of the lack of work they have done or the corruption they have been involved with.

No one disagrees with that but it does not mean because there are some bad apples in a profession that all are bad, or in the case of members of Parliament that none deserve or are entitled to pensions. I do not subscribe to that.

I believe if taxpayers treat their members of Parliament satisfactorily in terms of pay and benefits, be they current or deferred or both, that the members of Parliament will be responsible and accountable to those who pay their salaries and benefits. If members of Parliament or any other elected official are not paid satisfactorily, they will receive income from other sources. Perhaps they will be accountable to those other sources more so than those people they are representing in this wonderful institution called the House of Commons.

I do not take for one second the argument that members of Parliament should not take a pension if they deserve it, if they have earned it and if they have served their country well. There is some room to manoeuvre in terms of the possibility of not having served the country in an honourable or honest fashion. Then perhaps some penalties might arise. However, I certainly believe Canadians would agree that if a member has worked and earned his or her pension then the member is entitled to it.

There will always be a debate on how much the pension should be, but the point is that the concept of a pension is realistic. If a member of Parliament receives a pension, the member will work hard in this House of Commons to ensure that all Canadians receive a fair pension.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden as he introduced this private member's bill. While he may have had some very virtuous points, I think his bill is misguided.

It is unfortunate that this bill cannot come to a vote because then we could make a decision on it. However, it is not a votable item so we will have to make do and it will be dropped from the Order Paper after the debate. That is not going to stop me from expressing my views about the hon. member's bill, of which I am sure the hon. member for Mackenzie was a reluctant seconder.

Having said that, it is important to look at what the hon. member has proposed in reality. While it may have a superficial appeal in terms of actual fairness, I suggest it is not exactly what Canadians would want.

Canadians earn pensions in the course of their employment as part of the remuneration for the employment they are engaged in. In other words, if I take a job and am paid a specific salary, attached to the job will be the possibility of a pension.

Let us assume that the job is one that has a pension attached. My salary will be lower than it might otherwise be in order for the employer and I to contribute to a pension plan. We will contribute at varying rates according to the terms of the contract but nevertheless, contributions will be made to a pension plan.

It will be understood that that is deferred compensation. It is money that I am not being paid in the course of my employment to ensure that I receive additional moneys later. I make that agreement when I make a deal with an employer. The hon. member knows that all kinds of persons engaged in employment contracts make those kinds of deals.

He is now saying that where a person is subsequently elected to the House of Commons, at the time that he is entitled to draw a pension from another source, that pension should not be paid to him or her. Or, if it is paid, his or her salary as a member of Parliament is reduced by the dollar amount of the pension.

Let us imagine for a moment that in my previous employment I had been engaged in a place where I earned a pension. I was not,

but suppose I was. Suppose that on my election to the House because I had left my previous employment I was eligible to a pension of $30,000 a year. That would mean my sessional indemnity as a member of Parliament would be reduced from the standard $64,000 to $34,000 because I was receiving this additional pension from my previous employment. They were funds that I had earned in the course of that employment and which were payable to me as a result of that work.

Let us assume that the hon. member for Regina-Lumsden had no pensionable earnings from previous employment. He came to the House and earned his $64,000. What inducement would there be for me to work on a full time basis as a member of Parliament when my salary was less than his? I would be paid $30,000 less by Parliament for doing exactly the same job presumably he was elected to do. Why should I do that? Why should I be paid on a different basis?

We are all paid the same amount as members of Parliament. Some of us work harder than others. We accept that fact, but the House does not make any differentiation between that. We are all paid the same and it is assumed we all do the same work. We all certainly have the same responsibility.

Some of us get a little extra money because we are parliamentary secretaries or cabinet ministers. However as members of Parliament, we all receive the same basic pay. It is not adjusted downward because one of us receives a pension. Yet, the hon. member not only would draw that distinction between MPs, he would then draw it only in respect of those who received pensions from a public sector pension fund.

If mine happened to be from a private employer, I could keep my money and take no reduction. If it came from a public sector employer, I would take a cut in my pay as a member of Parliament. I do not think it is fair and the hon. member on serious reflection would realize it is unfair.

Tempting as it is to go after his friends in the Reform Party, that is not the way to do it. Pensions represent deferred earnings. The sessional indemnity that members of Parliament earn is paid for us to do our job here. After all, we are paid to do the job we were elected to do at the specified rate I have indicated. That rate surely is one that is not overly generous. To suggest that it ought to be reduced because someone gets a pension modest or otherwise from another source is unfair.

Who will be prejudiced by the hon. member's bill? Let us look at who is likely to end up suffering. It will be those who are over an age where they could draw a pension. Younger members of Parliament will not qualify for a pension in any event. It will almost exclusively be more senior members who will be affected by this. Senior members are here to work as are the younger members. Why should they be paid less as members of this Parliament because they are older and entitled to another pension? I ask the hon. member to reflect on that. I do not think he has in drafting the bill.

There is no reason for the hon. member to assume that all public pensions are heavily subsidized the way the MPs pension has been until the recent changes the government brought in and which I assume is the evil he is driving at. He is suggesting that because public pensions are somehow subsidized by the taxpayer they are a polity different from those that are paid by private employers and therefore a public sector pension should result in the lowering of the MPs salary.

I do not agree because many public sector pensions are not subsidized heavily by the taxpayer. They are paid on the basis of matching contributions by employer and employee, as are private sector pensions. I suggest there is nothing unfair about that.

The ability to draw a pension from one employer, private or public, when working with another stems from the fact that the individual completed a career and has moved on to another. In private work if I have qualified for a pension in my first job and move to a second job and draw the pension, that factor is not taken into account by my second employer in determining salary. That matter will be negotiated between me and the second employer. If I happen to be in an organization where the rate of pay is fixed by some kind of collective agreement, I will be paid at a standard rate with no possible reduction because I happen to be receiving a pension from another source.

Given that, why would the hon. member seek to interfere in that employer-employee relationship particularly those under a collective agreement which he says he and his party support so staunchly?

We all know what happened in Ontario with the recent New Democratic Party government. The New Democrats claimed to be the great friends of labour but by the time they left office after the last provincial election everyone acknowledged they were not the friends of labour. In fact they were probably the greatest enemies the Ontario labour movement had for some time, until the Mike Harris government came in, but that is another matter. We all remember with great fondness the Rae days the former premier imposed in the province of Ontario. The hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette may not be fully conversant with the disaster we suffered in Ontario for the five years ending earlier this year. It seems we have moved from one disaster to another in our province.

I see the chief government whip is advising me that the gun control bill has cleared the Senate, 64 votes to 28. Mr. Speaker, I thought you would want to know. presume that is without any amendments.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

That is right.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

That is very good news.

The other problem with the hon. member's suggestion, as I have indicated, is we would end up with great inequality in the House where two members of Parliament sitting side by side in the House might find themselves earning different amounts because one happened to draw a private pension and one happened to draw a public pension.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

That happens now.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Yes, it happens now because members come here with varying amounts of money. Some are well to do. Some may have a very substantial investment income. They still get paid a salary of $64,000 and change for doing their job as a member of Parliament. Every single member of Parliament gets that.

The ones who are getting paid extra, and I point this out to the hon. member, are the ones who are doing work which is additional to their work as members of Parliament. He may not think that the additional work is significant but the fact is all the ones who are getting paid extra are being paid extra because they do additional work. All the ones who are not doing additional work in this House are receiving the same amount of money.

I want to quote the hon. member for Calgary Centre who justified one of his own members receiving a pension from a provincial legislature by saying: "The member the Liberal MP asked me about is not guilty of double dipping. It is not double dipping. This individual served in the provincial legislature. This individual resigned from the provincial legislature. This individual offered his services to the Canadian public on a federal basis".

The hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette loves it when I quote one of his colleagues.

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Lisgar—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I compliment the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. I finally heard the fact that I can agree with him, that what the member for Lethbridge is doing is not double dipping. We have heard the Liberals so often saying: "The double dipper is sitting right there". Finally they have seen the light. Thank you for that, Mr. Speaker. We are making progress in the House. That is what I like to see.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this bill. I listened to the very eloquent remarks of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

I am sorry I was not here for previous remarks but I was in the other place watching the other place do the right thing. NDP members would have acknowledged it at one point, but more recently they do not acknowledge quite as much that gun control is a good thing.

In any case, the other place passed gun control, as the member for Kingston and the Islands indicated, 64 to 28. That is excellent news. All Canadians, except for a handful of New Democrats and a larger handful of Reformers, would agree. That is a very good thing.

[Bob Speller, Liberal, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I heard the hon. member talking about something going on in the other place. What did he say the Conservatives did over there? I was not quite clear as to what he said.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I appreciate that the hon. member is being light hearted, I believe, but we do have rules of relevance in the House. As you know, the Chair often sits here and squirms and wonders why we do not observe those rules. Normally the Chair waits for a member to get up and say that somebody is speaking totally off the subject. I am sure the hon. chief whip to the government party will make his remarks relevant to the subject very soon.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the bill, but at the same time I am also pleased to inform the House that some Conservative members in the other place voted for the bill, some voted against the bill, some abstained and so on. In other words it is the same thing as usual: several different messages coming from the Tories.

We are back to Bill C-314. I am pleased to be speaking about that. The hon. member from the New Democratic Party is proposing this bill to us today. As my colleague for Kingston and the Islands has indicated, this is not a bill that some of us are willing to support.

The bill would create a number of inconsistencies. Apparently one of the issues is the concern for public funds. It is interesting that some public pensions would be applicable in terms of the reduction from salaries and others would not. For instance, if an MP happened to be older than 65 years of age, the CPP or QPP provisions would not be reduced, even though that is a public pension as well, but other pensions would. OAS would not be covered, veterans pensions and so on, but military pensions would. You can see that there are a number of inconsistencies created in what the hon. member is trying to address.

The government has gone a very long way toward improving the pension plan for members of Parliament. I believe the government has done the right thing. I was pleased to support the government's initiative. I was pleased to defend it. I did not happen to think there was much wrong with the system as it existed even prior to that change, but some people feel, and those in the Reform Party are in that category, that MPs should have less pension and virtually double the salary. This is what the member for Calgary Centre has suggested.

When I was asked by the media what the chances are of doubling MPs' salaries, I said it is about the same as the chances of Brian Mulroney being re-elected. In other words, it is not a very likely proposition, to put it mildly. Most Canadians would not look too favourably on either one of those two situations. Of course that did not happen.

It is wrong as well to somehow portray, either through the bill or others, that MPs are somewhat overpaid. I do not share that view. I am not suffering. I believe I am making a decent salary. In comparison with other people in society, I do not believe that we are overpaid. In my province of Ontario, a high school vice-principal-there must be two dozen of them in my constituency-is paid a salary which is larger than mine. A high school principal makes even more. Then there are the school superintendents, the directors of education and so on. I am only addressing people in the public sector involved in education.

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Lisgar—Marquette, MB]

Do they get a living allowance?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

The hon. member opposite asks about a living allowance. I do not get one. I do not qualify for such an allowance. Perhaps he does not know that. I do not qualify because I do not operate two homes.

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Lisgar—Marquette, MB]

What about mileage?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

People who travel for a living are reimbursed for their mileage expenditures. That is fairly standard. The hon. member opposite knows that.

People in the educational sector, those who travel from school to school, get a travel allowance. The hon. member knows the answers to all these questions. He is just trying to be funny. Heaven forbid that he would not know better than what he is pretending today. If he does not, maybe it is a lost cause.

Those are the comments I want to make with respect to the bill which is presently before the House.

At some point in the future, perhaps not in this Parliament, because I do not see how it could be done, I would like to see the whole issue of compensation for MPs revisited. There have been two reports in this Parliament which both recommended an overall increase in benefits. Of course that will not happen.

We even had a party which pretended that MPs should receive 15 per cent less. Some of them adhered to that principle, others pretended to do it and others did not. We never knew which was which. The scheme was abandoned because it was not appropriate. The public was being fooled.

Some of them said that they were not using their tax free allowance and were giving it back. However, once the MPs' pension was reduced they said that they would keep it to create their own pension scheme.

The Reform Party's preachings in this area are a little less than totally sincere.

It has been a pleasure to speak to this bill which would require all pension or retiring allowance payments paid from public funds to be deducted from the member's sessional allowance.

However, there are certain aspects that are not given sufficient clarification in the hon. member's proposal. First, some public pension plans are not paid from public funds. That is number one.

There are entities in this country that are neither public nor private, in other words, they are sort of in-between. And finally, of course, even if a pension is public, that does not necessarily mean it is subsidized by the government or by the public jurisdiction concerned.

As far as I am concerned, I do not intend to support this bill and I would urge my fellow members to do likewise.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There being no further members rising for debate and the motion not being designated as a votable motion, the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the Order Paper.

Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.

(The House adjourned at 6.11 p.m.)