Debates of Feb. 24th, 1995

Program For Older Worker Adjustment

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I have not yet been made aware of this matter by my colleagues. I would ask to take this question under consideration, if I may.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister was surely aware of this matter when she was a minister in Quebec.

Given that the government of Quebec has pushed for a number of years for changes to the rules of the program, given the strong consensus in Quebec on this matter and given that the minister is now directly responsible for this program, is she prepared to make a commitment today, in this House? Will she undertake to table within a few days amendments to the program, in keeping with the recommendations of the Government of Quebec, which it has been making since 1991, as she should know?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I will of course seriously examine this question as I will deal with all matters of concern to the provinces. Quebec, like other provinces, I imagine, must be very concerned by this question of older workers. I can tell the members of this House that, yes, I will examine this question closely and I will get back to the House on this issue.

Pensions Of Members

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government's weak-kneed attempt at MP pension reform is a slap in the face to every taxpayer in the country.

Despite the government's rhetoric this is still a gold plated pension plan for senior politicians. For example, under the old plan the Deputy Prime Minister would receive a base pension of $48,300 a year and collect $3.3 million by age 75 if she retired in 1997. Under the new plan the Deputy Prime Minister will receive a base pension of $48,300 and still receive $2.7 million by age 75 if she retired in 1997.

I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. How can the government ask taxpayers to tighten their belts in the budget on Monday night when senior ministers continue to feast at the MP pension trough?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, we are reducing the cost of pensions to taxpayers by some 33 per cent. We are cutting over and above the commitments we made in the election campaign.

We said that we would end double dipping, and we have ended that. We said that we would put in a minimum age, and we have put in a minimum age of 55. On top of that we have also reduced the benefit level to save taxpayers 33 per cent of the cost of that pension plan or some $3.3 million annually.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the public will hardly be impressed by a 33 per cent reduction in a plan that is four to five times richer than any other plan in the country.

The fact is that the minister had to abandon real MP pension reform under pressure from senior colleagues who wanted to preserve most of the excessive features of the old plan. We now have a two-tier MP pension plan. One for the fat pack and one for the rest: trough regular and trough light.

Will the minister eliminate this two-tier system in favour of a plan that applies equally to all members of the House?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, the entire preamble to the question is wrong. In fact the question is wrong too because there is not a two-tier system. It is a single tier system; it is a single plan.

Furthermore it is not four to five times richer. That is absolute nonsense. Second, there was no pressure with respect to senior

colleagues. There were attempts to find a plan that would serve the needs of members of Parliament but at the same time reduce the cost to the taxpayer and to take a leadership role with respect to the forthcoming budget.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the only commendable feature of the revamped scheme is that it will allow MPs who put principles ahead of pork to opt out. My colleagues and I are opting out of this obscene plan. I trust we will be joined by the Minister of Finance, by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, by the Minister of Human Resources Development and by the Deputy Prime Minister.

Who will be the first to follow the Reform Party's lead and renounce their gold plated MP pension plan? Will the minister answer the question now by rising to his or her feet?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, not too many members of the House end up getting a pension plan because the average years of service are less than the vesting years of six. I can tell the House that in the case of third party members none of them would make it to the six-year vesting period anyway.

They like to talk about the private sector, but in the private sector individuals do not get an opportunity to opt in or opt out. They are told that this is the plan and because of the actuarial integrity of the plan people are required to be a part of it. The Prime Minister has indicated to members of the third party that they will have the opportunity to opt out, and indeed they can.

When it comes to the overall compensation package for members of the House, we are lowering that compensation package. We are taking a leadership position by cutting the pension by 33 per cent.

Labour Relations

[Bernard St-Laurent, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. The workers at Ogilvie Mills Limited, in Montreal, have been on strike for close to nine months now. In the meantime, the employer has been using scabs, with complete impunity.

Considering that she was elected in Quebec, where the use of scabs has been illegal for almost 17 years now, will the minister pledge to table antiscab legislation and, if so, when?

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I am following very closely the situation at Ogilvie Mills Limited and the plight of its workers. I do hope that these workers will reach an agreement with the employer.

As regards the use of scabs, my predecessor said in this House that the government was examining the issue. We are looking at the Canada Labour Code as a whole, to see how it could be improved, and that includes the issue of replacement workers. We are consulting with both corporate employers and workers' representatives to discuss the issue.

Consequently, the issue is currently being examined and we hope to come up with a satisfactory solution.

[Bernard St-Laurent, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's predecessor spent almost 15 months examining the issue and the problem still remains unsolved.

Does the minister realize that Ogilvie Mills workers cannot wait for a new incumbent to start the whole process from scratch? The minister must settle the issue quickly, in the days to come. We are asking for a deadline, for a date.

[Lucienne Robillard, Liberal, Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, let us be realistic and not ask that the issue be settled in the next few days. As the hon. member said, this is a complex situation which has an impact on the Canada Labour Code. The situation at Ogilvie Mills affects workers, but such problems exist everywhere in Canada. We have to look at the impact on businesses and employers. It is indeed a complex situation and, as with any complex issue, we must take the necessary time to find a good solution to the problem.

Members Of Parliament Pensions

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.

A few moments ago he disputed the fact that the MP pension plan is far more generous than a private sector plan. Will he confirm that his plan has the following elements: a 4 per cent benefit rate that is double the rate of a very good private sector plan; full inflation protection that is unheard of in the private sector; age of receipt at 55 with full benefit that is also unheard of in the private sector; and on top of that, by lowering the MPs' own contribution rate from 11 per cent to 9 per cent, he slipped in an increase in take home pay for MPs?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, talking about take home pay, there is no increase in salary. However, the folks in the third party would be taking home an awful lot more because they plan to opt out.

We need to look at this matter in the context of a total compensation package. The consultant who was hired by the previous government and reported on the question of compensation said that in fact compensation for members of Parliament is lower than that in the private sector.

If we take it in that context and on top of that take into consideration that we are lowering the pension, members of Parliament are taking a compensation cut. The member's leader was four to five times and now he has gone down to two times. In the private sector it is very common to have additional supplementary plans over and above what is provided for under the Income Tax Act.

In terms of the inflation index, members of Parliament pay 1 per cent of their salary per year for that inflation index which does not even kick in until age 60.

The plan is not how that party is trying to characterize it. Let us again bear in mind that we are reducing the compensation package. We are reducing the size of the plan by 33 per cent.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Reformers will be taking a cut in their disposable income because Reformers and those Liberals who follow our lead will be taking care of their own retirement instead of having it paid for by the Government of Canada.

My supplementary question is for the same minister. How can the minister ask Canadians to make sacrifices when the Liberal government gets a handsome pension at least three times more generous than private sector pensions? How can he justify this?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, Reform members cannot seem to get their numbers right. They go from four to five to two to three. They cannot get them right because they do not have them right to start with.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

What is the number?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

The number that does work here and which is true is that this plan is being cut by 33 per cent. That provides leadership in terms of the cuts in budgets that have to be made to get to our deficit target of 3 per cent of GDP.

Firearms Registration Legislation

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice stated Monday that he was certain that the legislation regarding the firearms registration would be enforced Canada-wide, even on aboriginal territory.

Will the minister give us concrete evidence that the government has reached an agreement with aboriginal groups and that his claims are backed up by substance, so that we can take him seriously when he states that the new gun controls will be enforced not only elsewhere in Canada, but also on aboriginal territories?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the government does not need to enter into special contracts with native groups or individuals. There is one law for this country, and this applies for the gun control legislation.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister of Justice be so optimistic when we all know very well that even census takers for Statistics Canada are unable to get the job done on aboriginal territories?

How would the minister have us believe that registering firearms and their owners will be easier than registering citizens, which is not being done at present?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I do confess to being an optimist by nature, something which I have discovered is an asset in this line of work.

I can assure the hon. member the government is entirely confident that the firearms legislation, once enacted, will not only be effective but will be complied with throughout the country.

Immigration

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would love to keep on the pension questions but I have a question for the minister of immigration arising from an issue in his own department.

Daljit Powar assaulted his wife for years. He defrauded the UI system. Since 1985 he has had two aggravated assaults, one while he was out on bail. He was ordered deported in 1986. He appealed and won. He broke the conditions. He has drug charges. There have been more beatings, once to his child. Finally, there was another deportation order in 1989. Out he went and that is good.

Now that we have finally kicked this fellow out of the country, why has the refugee board made a decision overriding the immigration deportation order and is now allowing him back into Canada?

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned before, it is difficult for parliamentarians to speak about the facts in an ongoing case.

We are speaking about a case that is before a quasi-judicial independent tribunal. We do not discuss matters when they are before judicial courts. I am not sure we should be getting into the intricate details while the case is ongoing.

Suffice it to say, I am equally concerned about a number of cases that cause a certain degree of frustration and consternation for Canadians. That is one of the principal reasons this government has moved quickly to try to address the systematic features that could certainly be righted and could eliminate more abuse. This is one of the reasons we have Bill C-44.

Why do Reform members relish talking about individual cases and at the same time refuse legislation to improve the system which would minimize the very cases they bring forward in this House of Commons day after day?