Peter Adams

[Ontario Election, May 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the people of Ontario have suffered throughout the nineties. They bore the full brunt of the recession and their troubles were compounded by an inexperienced, inept, high spending provincial government.

Do members know that the NDP government in Ontario continued to try to spend its way out of the recession two years longer than any other government? It doubled the provincial debt so that Ontarians now pay 20 cents of every tax dollar for interest. Now the NDP is trying to blame the federal government for its problems. We maintained the level of provincial transfers for our first two years in office. We have given all provincial governments ample notice about changes we intend to make.

Ontario needs a new government, a government which is caring and competent. Ontario cannot afford to try another inexperienced party. We cannot afford to stay with the NDP. We must have a Liberal government in Ontario after the upcoming election.

[Petitions, May 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions from citizens and residents of Peterborough. All the petitions concern the cuts in global education and I will summarize each one.

In the first, the petitioners say: We are concerned that our children learn how to live as responsible global citizens. We know we consume too much of the world's resources and we want to learn how to change.

In the second one, the petitioners say: We believe in democracy and want to be actively involved in community discussions on Canadian foreign policy and global issues. We believe that global education is an investment to counter the social, economic, and environmental deficit facing the developing and developed world.

In the third petition, the petitioners say: We know non-governmental agencies are the best delivery system for global education and for overseas development assistance. We commend the work of the Kawartha World Issues Centre based in Peterborough and four surrounding counties as effectively linking global issues to local action for justice across many sectors of the community.

Therefore, in the three petitions, the petitioners request that Parliament reinstate public participation as a goal of Canadian foreign policy and request that Parliament reinstate global education through non-governmental organizations based in Canada.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I do have sympathy with the remark regarding this House sometimes moving at glacial speed. I know it does. I think that all members have been frustrated from time to time. One of the reasons for that is the system of enormous checks and balances that are placed on us.

I would point out to the member, and perhaps we can discuss this afterward, that it is my hope that this legislation moves through at the rate of a glacier surge. If the member does not know what surging glaciers are, there are about 200 glaciers in the world that are moving at a speed that for glaciers is quite catastrophic. It is my hope that this legislation will move at least at that speed.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 4th, 1995]

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.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 4th, 1995]

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 Act, May 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-85 dealing with MPs pensions.

I am particularly pleased because it was the very first topic I addressed after I was elected, and the first time that I was in caucus. I am a strong supporter of reform of MPs pensions. I am a strong supporter of the red book commitments to that reform. I am also a strong believer in the fact that what MPs do is extremely important in a symbolic sense. It is very important that we lead by example.

I want to speak principally today to the particularly stringent double dipping components of this legislation. They are much more stringent than I had envisaged when I first read the red book.

Before I do that I would like to say that to me, one of the most critical things in giving some order to the MPs pension plan was to establish an age of retirement. It seems to me that no pension plan can be fully financially viable unless it has a fixed age of retirement. We cannot calculate, for example, how many MPs might retire at 25 or 30 or something like that. Therefore, it is critical for the financial viability of this plan that there be a reasonable retirement age.

I personally favour 65 as the retirement age. That is the normal retirement age for the Canada pension plan. I realize that in many occupations there are earlier retirement ages, and I realize that under some circumstances a person can draw CPP benefits before the age of 65. I feel that 65 is the most appropriate age for this plan.

The establishment of 55 as a fixed age of retirement, as a fixed age at which a member of Parliament can draw this pension, is a huge step forward in giving the plan financial viability. I am very pleased that has been done.

I also support the slower rates of accrual of the pension. The accrual results in a 20 per cent saving. It is important that the cost of this plan to the taxpayer be reduced.

During the debate on double dipping it was pointed out that strong pension plans are a normal feature of employment in government service, whether that government service be at the local level, the provincial level or the federal level. It was often pointed out for example, that the military has a very strong pension plan which is designed to enable its members to retire early.

It appears that re-employment of public service employees by the government after they have taken an early retirement is quite common. During the debate on double dipping it was pointed out that people in the public service everywhere have the opportunity of going back to work in the area from which they retired if there is a suitable vacancy. I do not want to open the entire question now, but I must say that I have some sympathy with that.

[Canada Remembers, May 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I was proud when the Secretary of State for Veterans Affairs visited Peterborough riding. He visited the RCAF Association, the Navy Club, Empress Gardens and a number of other locations. He met with ex-servicemen and women from legions throughout the city and county of Peterborough and with members of the Dutch Canadian community.

This visit was part of ongoing activities in connection with the Canada Remembers year during which we take time to remember the sacrifices and achievements of the last year of World War II 50 years ago.

It is fortunate that this important anniversary is being recognized this year. We need to remember Canada now as never before. We should all take time to think about this great country, about our history and our future, about our land and about our people.

I thank the Peterborough Canada Remembers committee and I urge the secretary of state to continue his vigorous efforts to encourage us all to be proud of Canada.

[Petitions, April 26th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I rise with another petition in the Leonard Peltier case. This petition is from 150 people in the Peterborough area and other parts of Ontario.

The petitioners say that the paperwork surrounding Mr. Leonard Peltier's extradition from Canada to the United States was falsified by the U.S. authorities. Key witness Myrtle Poor Bear who signed the falsified affidavits now publicly admits that she lied on the paperwork as well as at the trial. The U.S. courts refuse to put her on the stand, labelling her as mentally incompetent.

The petitioners point out that since that time various information has surfaced which indicates that Leonard Peltier is innocent but still remains in prison after 18 years.

Under the U.S. freedom of information laws it was found that the FBI had withheld certain evidence that would have been helpful in Mr. Peltier's case.

Therefore, the petitioners request that Parliament lobby and advocate on behalf of Mr. Leonard Peltier to obtain a prison transfer to Canada.

[Lead, April 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, lead is a poison that can cause animals and humans to die. It certainly makes them sick.

In Canada we are moving steadily to eliminate lead from gasoline, paints and our drinking water systems. The U.S. is proceeding in this direction even faster than us.

I urge that we now move to eliminate the use of lead shot for hunting and lead sinkers for fishing. Non-toxic steel and bismuth shot is easily available. The U.S. has already banned lead shot for wild fowling. The only lead poisoned wildfowl seen down there are ours, birds that have flown from Canada.

This is a change which will not affect hunters and anglers and one which will simply make our environment more healthy.

Mr. Speaker, let us just do it.

[Petitions, April 3rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I have two petitions concerning the extradition of Leonard Peltier.

The first petition notes that at the time of Leonard Peltier's extradition from Canada to the United States, the information provided to the Canadian government regarding Mr. Peltier's case was fabricated by the U.S. authorities. Since that time, new information has emerged which indicates that Leonard Peltier was framed for a crime he did not commit and for which he has spent the last 18 years in prison. Key evidence was suppressed, as found out under the freedom of information act. Perjury was rampant throughout the trial and the key witness, Myrtle Poor Bear, recanted her evidence publicly.

Therefore, the petitioners request that Parliament lobby the U.S. government for Mr. Peltier's return to Canada.

Madam Speaker, the second petition is similar to the first.

It asserts that Leonard Peltier is innocent but still remains in prison after 18 years. Under the U.S. freedom of information laws it was found that the FBI had withheld certain evidence which would have been helpful to Mr. Peltier's case. At Mr. Peltier's first appeal in 1986 the court concluded that his defence at the trial had been hampered by misconduct and perjury.

Therefore, the petitioners request that Parliament lobby and advocate on behalf of Mr. Peltier to obtain a prison transfer to Canada.