House of Commons Hansard #194 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was mps.

Topics

Infrastructure ProgramOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

York Centre Ontario

Liberal

Art Eggleton LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Infrastructure

Mr. Speaker, the program was progressing quite well until the minister of municipal affairs of Ontario put out a letter which consisted of scaremongering in the information it put in front of many municipalities.

As a result of that I have today released a statement jointly with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario which indicates quite clearly that municipalities in Ontario can and should proceed with their projects.

The bottom line in the statement is this. No one should be holding back on tenders or contracts because they are unsure the federal government will live up to its commitments under the infrastructure works program. If a project has been approved, they can be absolutely sure the Government of Canada will meet all of its obligations and pay its share on time.

Quebec City BridgeOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Bloc

Philippe Paré Bloc Louis-Hébert, QC

Mr. Speaker, in a letter to me that included references to the Quebec City bridge, the Minister of Transport wrote, and I quote: "At a time when restructuring has made it necessary for CN to cut personnel, the company could hardly be expected to spend substantial sums of money out of mere aesthetic considerations".

How can the Minister of Transport claim that the maintenance of a major structure that is part of the railway network is merely a matter of aesthetics, when rust is eating away at the structure, which is bound to shorten its life expectancy?

Quebec City BridgeOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Acadie—Bathurst New Brunswick

Liberal

Douglas Young LiberalMinister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, to answer the hon. member's question, we would not want to give the impression that the bridge is not safe. All these structures are checked regularly to ensure they are in proper shape to do the job for which they were built.

I know there is a problem with the bridge, especially the way it looks, and we intend to ensure that, as far as safety is concerned, there is no problem. However, I would not want to give the impression that for some reason, because of our concern about CN's finances or for some other reason, the bridge is not absolutely safe.

Health CareOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Reform

Grant Hill Reform Macleod, AB

Mr. Speaker, along with the Reform Party, all provinces are now asking that Ottawa define core health services. This is imperative. The provinces want to know where the government stands on health care.

Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us if the government will open up the Canada Health Act to define core essential services?

Health CareOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Hamilton East Ontario

Liberal

Sheila Copps LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, no.

InfrastructureOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Elsie Wayne Progressive Conservative Saint John, NB

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Three weeks ago the Minister of Transport stated that he was not prepared to put a cent into the port of Belledune as far as a grant was concerned any more than he would put grant money into the port of Saint John or anywhere else.

This week we have discovered that a $5.8 million grant was transferred from the federal government to the port of Belledune.

How can the minister justify giving a $5.8 million grant to the port of Belledune when a loan of $20 million has already been authorized to develop the port of Belledune and it has received almost $6 million from the provincial government as well?

Would the Minister of Transport please tell us how he can justify this when it is against his policy as stated by him three weeks ago?

InfrastructureOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Acadie—Bathurst New Brunswick

Liberal

Douglas Young LiberalMinister of Transport

Mr. Speaker, what I stated and what I will continue to maintain is that Transport Canada is not in the subsidies business.

What I want to explain to the hon. member is we have responsibilities for ports across the country. The Standing Committee on Transport has come forward with some recommendations which we will study very carefully.

We will continue to make sure ports like Saint John, Halifax, Vancouver and others have the facilities required to be able to conduct their business.

With respect to the situation at Belledune, it is a wonderful precedent that the Government of New Brunswick, the Government of Canada, Ports Canada and local municipalities are all contributing to the enhancement of the facilities at that port.

While we are making a loan of $20 million through Ports Canada to the port of Belledune, I want to reassure the hon. member that although the authorities at Belledune believe they can repay the loan I will take into account the request from Saint John to not have to repay the loan for $20 million we have already made to it.

Presence In GalleryOral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of the hon. Wayne Matthew, Minister for Emergency Services and Minister for Correctional Services from Australia.

I would also like to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Mr. Spyros Yatras, member of Parliament from Greece.

Presence In GalleryOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear.

Presence In GalleryOral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

This brings to a conclusion question period. I have two points of order.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Kingston and the Islands Ontario

Liberal

Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order today arising out of question period. I do so with some reluctance. This practice has continued now for some time and I want to draw to the House's attention and also to Your Honour the rules in respect of question period which do apply and which I think are relevant when the opposition considers questions it wishes to ask in the House.

This afternoon, Sir, you ruled a question or two out of order and I want to draw to your attention the provisions in citation 409 in Beauchesne:

In 1975, the Speaker expressed in general principles in order to clarify the regulations and restrict the negative qualifications which traditionally have guided the Question Period.

On that occasion the Speaker said:

A brief question seeking information about an important matter of some urgency which falls within the administrative responsibility of the government or of the specific minister to whom it is addressed, is in order.

It goes on under number (12):

Questions should not anticipate a debate scheduled for the day but should be reserved for the debate.

That view was reinforced by a ruling by the Speaker in 1986 and which is quoted in citation 410 of the sixth edition of Beauchesne:

In 1986 the Speaker put forth further views in light of more recent conditions and precedents. It was observed that-

I need not repeat the entire citation but I turn to paragraph (14) thereof:

Questions should not anticipate an order of the day although this does not apply to the budget process.

I know hon. members opposite would like me to dispense with reading these important practices of the House. They have been rigorously enforced for many years. I know Your Honour in seeking to enforce them today was acting in the very best traditions of the House.

I can only urge Your Honour to continue to do so with vigour and ensure practices outlined in 1975 and 1986 are adhered to by the opposition.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Reform

Elwin Hermanson Reform Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK

Mr. Speaker, I am very disconcerted by the words of the hon. parliamentary secretary for the government House leader.

There are two points that I would like to make. First, I have observed in the House in past debates, one example being a question on Bill C-76 about deliberations in committee, abrogating the rules, that the hon. member was not concerned with that matter whatsoever.

Members on the government side have challenged the results of votes in the House. That is against the rules and that has not been challenged. More important, the hon. member for Beaver River in her question did not deal specifically with the bill under debate today but rather the agenda of the government which was brought forward in discussion papers and in the bill being debated today. She did not speak specifically to the bill. She did not mention the bill. She talked about something the government has been putting forward for debate for some weeks or even months.

I do not understand why some in the House can specifically speak of bills by name which are under debate in committee or in the House with no challenge when the hon. member for Beaver River spoke in a general way about the agenda of the government and was not permitted to complete her question.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the two points raised by the hon. House leader across the way. First, the citation in question in Beauchesne specifically excludes the budget. Therefore the allegation that this should have been applied to the motion to discuss the main budget bill does not at all have anything to do with the issue now before the House.

Second, the issue in question is further complicated by the fact the hon. member who asked this question earlier today specifically about the content, the main subject, dare I say, of the bill now before the House being debated this day in contravention of the citation has also proposed a motion today in the House to amend the bill now before the House. She was debating her own motion at the time we are speaking of which further strengthens the point raised by the hon. parliamentary secretary.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

The Speaker

I do not want a debate back and forth. When hon. members are on their feet and want to speak on a point of order, as much as possible their arguments should be contained in the time they are on their feet.

I will allow the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster to make a brief statement.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Reform

Elwin Hermanson Reform Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do want to respond to what the government whip mentioned.

We were not talking about a debate on the budget, we were talking about a specific bill, the Budget Implementation Act, which is a bill like all others, which was specifically mentioned in the House and was not challenged by the government side or by the Chair. It was much more specific than what the hon. member for Beaver River said in her question.

I believe the hon. member for Beaver River acted properly according to the rules and I ask hon. members on the opposite side to recognize that.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

The Speaker

Colleagues, you have left decisions to the Chair to be made in the course of question period and in the course of debate. I am well aware of the quotations cited by both sides from Beauchesne. As much as possible, in the course of question period I have tried to give as much latitude as I can to members asking questions and to members giving answers.

If you are to challenge your Speaker every time I make a ruling in the House, I make the ruling with the very best of intentions, that the rules be followed. If you wish to pursue this conversation with me, I invite you to come into my chambers. For today from my point of view from what I heard, I permitted the first question from the member because although I thought it was borderline it was general enough to be asked. In my view the second question was out of order. I ruled it as such.

If every time I make a decision on our behalf as to make the House function we will be coming into these points of order, we will be using a great deal of time.

On the other hand, I recognize we have legitimate points of order, perhaps every day. I am always willing to listen. I beg you to give your Speaker enough latitude to conduct question period as it should be.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

Reform

Elwin Hermanson Reform Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order under Standing Order 37.

Today we raised a serious question about the sexual abuse of children on a reserve in Quebec. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to agree contempt was shown to Parliament by not only the parliamentary secretary who made light of the question but the government side members who laughed in derision on this very serious issue regarding the sexual abuse of children.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

The Speaker

In response to a question an hon. member spoke in another language. There is no rule I know of that says we cannot speak in other than either of the two languages.

It makes it more difficult for us to understand but what I heard from the hon. member was that he would take the question under advisement.

As to any other reaction, the Chair has 294 reactions to virtually every question and answer given. I do not find a question of contempt of Parliament in this issue. I thought it was in the normal course of give and take and that is why I did not intervene.

I do not find contempt of Parliament in this circumstance.

Business Of The HouseOral Question Period

May 4th, 1995 / 3:10 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC

Mr. Speaker, my question is of course directed to the Leader of the Government. Could he perhaps inform the House about the business of the House for the coming days?

Business Of The HouseOral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

Windsor West Ontario

Liberal

Herb Gray LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with second reading of Bill C-85 on MP pensions.

When this is completed we will return to third reading of Bill C-43 on lobbyists, followed by report stage and third reading of Bill C-67 respecting veterans, second reading of Bill C-70 concerning income tax, and report stage and third reading of Bill C-54 regarding old age security, the Canada pension plan and related matters.

Friday we will resume at the point where we left off today. On Monday the House will not sit until two o'clock in the afternoon to enable members to attend services commemorating the end of the European part of the second world war.

In the afternoon after question period and on the following days we will resume business where the House left off Friday. This will be followed by second reading of Bill C-88 regarding internal trade, Bill C-87 regarding chemical weapons, Bill C-86 regarding the Dairy Commission and Bill C-82 regarding the Mint.

The Minister of Transport intends to introduce a bill tomorrow concerning the CNR. It is the intention of the government to propose that the bill be referred to committee before second reading, using one of the new procedures adopted by the House last year.

It is my hope we can deal with that motion early next week. I would also like to find the time to deal with report stage of Bill C-41 regarding sentencing. Finally, next Thursday shall be an allotted day.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-85, an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and to provide for the continuation of a certain provision, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.

Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

The hon. member for Peterborough has approximately 17 minutes remaining.

Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON

Mr. Speaker, before the break for question period I was speaking to Bill C-85 which is designed to reform the pensions of senators and members of the House of Commons. I was making the point that I was pleased by the fact the double dipping provision was so strong in the proposed legislation.

Previously I mentioned other aspects of the bill which I am sure will be addressed by other members. I should like to spend the time remaining to me dealing with double dipping. I begin by placing on the record a definition of the term double dipping, which has become so widespread in recent months.

When I speak of double dipping I refer to the practice whereby a former member of the House of Commons or a senator simultaneously draws a pension under the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and is paid in respect of employment or an appointment or a contract for services by the Government of Canada.

In the changes in Bill C-85 the government is carrying through on the promise made in the red book to end the practice of double dipping. Canadians have made it very clear that they find the practice unacceptable. In response to this criticism the government announced early in its mandate that amendments would be made to the pension arrangements for MPs to put a stop to double dipping.

Before we look at the actual proposals in Bill C-85 I should like to say a few more words about the public's concern about former members appointed by the federal government to jobs that some might characterize as being in the gift of the government. These so-called appointments are within the control of every government. The government has recognized that the public views the appointment of a former MP in receipt of a pension to a position of this nature with a good deal of concern.

In this context members present today may wish to take note of the fact that in the case of a number of recent appointments made by the government, appointees who are also former members of Parliament have either taken salary cuts in their new jobs or have made a gift of their pensions to the crown. In the practical day to day sense the double dipping terms of the new legislation have already been put into practice by the government.

The government takes the concerns of Canadians so seriously on the issue that it is putting an end to double dipping even though some view pension entitlements as an earned or accrued right. Viewed as an earned entitlement, some pension experts believe that subsequent employment should have no effect on an individual's pension.

However the government accepts the public's concern regarding the issue and realizes that pensions for former members are and must be viewed in a different light. As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, I believe the symbolism of what members of Parliament do is very important.

It would be instructive to begin our examination of the double dipping proposals in Bill C-85 by looking at what type of re-employment will be subject to the new rules. The proposals in the bill are very inclusive. If a former MP entitled to a pension becomes employed in any capacity by the federal crown or by a crown or departmental corporation, the former member is required to report that he or she has obtained the employment. In addition, the report that is made must also reveal how much remuneration will be paid in respect of the employment.

Perhaps at this point I should say a few words about the reporting system, the system of monitoring whether a former member becomes re-employed in the federal sector. The same system applies to a former member who is appointed to a position or obtains a federal contract. It is built upon self-reporting. It is the responsibility of the former member appointed or employed to report that it has occurred and how much remuneration is attached to the job. The government has no desire to see a huge bureaucracy built up in an attempt to monitor the activities of former MPs.

I should like to make one more digression. When I refer to crown corporations and departmental corporations it might be useful for members of the public if I gave an example of each, just to give some idea of the breadth of the new prohibition on double dipping.

Canada Post is an example of a crown corporation and the Atomic Energy Control Board is an example of a departmental corporation. These are the crown corporations that will be covered by the bill. As I said, the same reporting requirement applies to any appointment of a former MP in the federal public sector, that is any appointment under the auspices of the federal crown including crown corporations and departmental corporations. An appointment to judicial office would be included, as would be an appointment to diplomatic office.

Any appointment that may be made by the governor in council is included. Any appointment to any board, tribunal, agency or commission in the public sector is regarded as an appointment to which the double dipping provisions of Bill C-85 will apply.

Finally, it should be noted that any contract for services entered into by a former MP with the federal crown is also covered by the amendments in Bill C-85. The former MP will be required to report that the contract has been entered into and how much remuneration will be paid in respect of the services to be rendered under the contract.

I should also add a further point with regard to the issue of contracts to illustrate how far reaching the pension reforms are. The bill goes one step further than just mandating that a contract between a former MP and the federal crown, broadly defined, must be reported. The bill also includes a provision that seeks to prevent a former MP from establishing a corporation, association, partnership or other entity which then concludes a contract for services with the government for the purposes of avoiding the application of the new double dipping prohibition.

To that end, where a former MP controls a corporation, association or like entity and the entity enters into a contract with the federal crown, Bill C-85 deems that contract to have been entered into by the former MP. As well, the remuneration the former MP must report is deemed, in the words of Bill C-85, "to equal the amount of the salary, fees and other compensation paid to the former member for or in respect of the services provided by the former member under that contract".

Moving on to the subject of remuneration received in respect of employment, appointment or contract, it must be said that the net under the legislation is cast very wide. All remuneration that comes in whole or in part out of the consolidated revenue fund is caught by the proposals of Bill C-85.

In addition, any remuneration paid out of moneys appropriated by Parliament is also included as remuneration that must be reported if it is paid to a former MP entitled to a pension under the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act because the former member has obtained employment, an appointment or a contract with the federal crown.

While the aim of the bill is to cast a wide net in an effort to put an end to double dipping, it is not the government's intention to eliminate the practice in a way that will be unfair to former members in receipt of a pension who obtained employment, were appointed to a position, or entered into a contract for services prior to the coming into force of the amendments.

Perhaps I should mention that the amendments will come into force only when Bill C-85 is approved by both Houses of Parliament and given royal assent.

Another issue of fairness is raised by the amendments. I am referring to the trigger that will activate the double dipping prohibition as proposed in Bill C-85. Previous private members' bills that dealt with the issue of double dipping would have caused former members to lose entitlement to their pensions if they were in receipt of any remuneration from the federal crown.

This would mean that the entire pension would be suspended or abated if a former member earned as little as a dollar a day as a result of employment or appointment. One day's per diem from a part time position would have had this draconian effect.

The government felt that would be very unfair. Therefore the amendments proposed in Bill C-85 have set a ceiling of $5,000. If a former member earns remuneration of less than $5,000 a year, there will be no reduction in his or her pension. If more than $5,000 is earned the pension will be abated dollar for dollar.

The proposal put forth in Bill C-85 is reasonable and allows a former member to earn $5,000 before the double dipping provision is triggered. This will allow a former member to take a very short term appointment or a part time position and suffer no pension loss.

Bill C-85 provides regulations to be made to facilitate the pension reduction. In particular, there will be provision for the recovery of pension overpayments since it is quite likely that where reductions must be made in a former member's pension the actual reduction may not be made at the exact point when the former member commenced to receive remuneration from employment, an appointment or a contract.

I repeat that the government believes the proposals in Bill C-85, which will put an end to double dipping, are fair and effective. They are not retroactive because it would not be fair to change the rules of the game halfway through the game.

The proposals also allow a former member to receive a small amount of remuneration without pension penalty. I think members present will agree that the government has cast a wide net in its efforts to put to an end double dipping. It has been responsive to the concerns of members of the public who made it very clear that they do not approve of the practice.

Immediately following the election I followed pension reform very carefully. I am glad the government has now moved to meet its red book commitments. The double dipping component of the legislation, which I have just described, actually goes beyond what I envisaged was the commitment in the red book. I am delighted to see that.

For myself, as I mentioned at the very beginning of my remarks before the break, I do think that thought should be given to the matter of double dipping in the broadest public sector, elected and unelected officials at the local, provincial, and the federal level. I am delighted that in this legislation we members of Parliament in the federal House have moved to set an example in that direction.

Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances ActGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Reform

Jim Abbott Reform Kootenay East, BC

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick comment about the concept of changing the rules of the game.

I was approached by a gentleman in my constituency who would be in his early seventies and who retired from a coal mine also in my constituency. In good faith, he had paid into a pension plan, as had the company. Unfortunately, the company went bankrupt, and due to a number of different issues it turned out that the pension plan ended up being completely underfunded. Now that was not very fair. Here is a gentleman who was enjoying a modest income who suddenly dropped down to about $100 a month in his pension, where he had in good faith during his working life paid into that. It was absolutely and totally outside of his control.

I raise that as a point of interest to the member. Very frequently we have seen politicians who have said this is out of our control, or the people retired previously, so it must be fair, and so on and so forth. Well doggone it, unfortunately, in Canada, as everywhere in the world, there are an awful lot of things that happen that are unfair. So to just dismiss the idea of not looking at those who have retired and not asking if there is some fair and equitable way to put an end to the countless millions of dollars that are being paid out to them and in a fair way to reimburse them and then let them get on with their lives so that Canadian people can get on with their lives, maybe that is something that should be looked at.

I would be interested to know what, in his former life, the member did for a living. Listening to him, I assume that he must have been a professor of very dry subjects or a lawyer or somebody who loves to use 75-cent words all strung out in a long row when talking about the double dipping and all the issues involved in the legislation.

This act that is being brought forward by the government is attempting to cover every single, solitary eventuality. In fact, I believe that what the people in Canada are saying is they do not think politicians should be able to put themselves in some kind of unique category and unique classification.

Would he not agree that the people of Canada would accept, instead of a three to one or a four to one or a five to one payment on their part to what the politicians are going to be putting in, the idea of an industry standard of one for one? If the politician puts in $5 the people of Canada put in $5, instead of the politician putting in $5 and the people of Canada having to cough up $20, which is what this legislation still calls for.

Would he not agree that it would be the simplest thing in the world to wipe out what is presently in existence relative to the pension plans and come back with a program that would say that the politicians may, for every $1 they put in, up to a particular limit, be matched by $1 from the taxpayer? Then we do not need

to worry about double dipping, triple dipping, or any other kind of ice cream dipping. It does not make any difference, because in fact then the person would be in charge of their own destiny and would be out of the pockets of ordinary Canadians.

Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances ActGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Liberal

Peter Adams Liberal Peterborough, ON

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great sympathy to the first part of the member's remarks about the miner he described and the unfairness of that particular case. My response to him on that, while I have great sympathy for that situation, is that quite simply two wrongs do not make a right. Because there has been one unfairness, I think it is important that wherever we can we try to avoid creating further unfairness.

On retroactivity in this case, if we went back to all the former members of this House who are now out in the workplace, we would find some who have returned to the public service. They could be former bureaucrats who have gone back into the bureaucracy; they could be people on appointments; they could be people on contracts; and so on. Some of those people may have moved from western Canada to Ottawa and made complicated family and financial commitments. Therefore, to undo their financial base at this time would be truly unfair. By the way, it would also be a great complication if we were to think of complicated legislation.

As to his question about my profession and the matter of dealing in dry subjects, I was a professor, but not of dry subjects. My field of research was ice, and I worked in the area of hydrology, so the work I did was really quite wet. My research was on ice and I worked on sea ice and lakes in all parts of the north. For example, I worked on the effect of ice on fish. However, I moved away from that type of work to skating on thin ice in this House. I would also say to the hon. member that my remuneration has changed considerably, and considerably for the worse.

Having said all of that, I do not apologize for trying to explain legislation as well as I can to members of this House and to the people of Canada. We all have difficulty reading bills and reading the acts that govern this country. I understand why they have to be written very carefully and in very precise legal language, because of precedents and the way the courts will have to interpret them and so on. I would say to the hon. member in all sincerity that I think one of our duties is to try to explain legislation to the best of our ability, whatever our abilities are, to the people of Canada. That is what I was trying to do in the area of double dipping.

As all members know, we cannot control the future through written legislation. However, as far as is humanly possible this legislation with respect to double dipping is written to try to prevent people from getting around it, which unfortunately all sorts of people appear to do with our legislation.

I do not apologize for trying to explain legislation to the people of Canada to the limits of my ability.