Nick Discepola

[Supply, November 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I said that in my speech. Part of it was in French and the hon. member may not have had her listening device on but I said two things in my speech. The first thing is that I agree there are two separate issues here. One is a question of severance pay when a member is defeated.

The general fallacy here is that when we serve six years, we seem to be able to collect a pension of a million dollars or so. I defy the members opposite to do their records and search. The average tenure of a member of Parliament is probably fewer than six years. I would say it is somewhere between five and six years. That is the average tenure of a parliamentarian. It is because of that job insecurity factor that I spoke about.

I come from a municipal background. Even councillors and mayors have a severance package built in. The law in Quebec now is a formal law that allows for a certain amount of severance package over a certain number of years.

The question of severance is one thing. I agree with the member that we should provide for it in the new legislation to allow people to reintegrate into the workforce. My own personal case is that I had to sacrifice the computer business that I built at the age of 29. I do not think that computer business will survive without me. I hope it will.

The other question is the question of pensions. I disagree with the member totally that the amount of the pension is over generous. If we bring the age up to 55 like I am proposing, that will solve a lot of the problems that the member is speaking of.

The average pension of a member of Parliament at age 55 will be about $18,000 or $19,000. The hon. member may feel that $18,000 is not justifiable in her case. I know that I worked very hard in my case. I have made a lot of sacrifices and my citizens are telling me: "Nick, reform the pension, yes because it is outrageous the way it is now but make it equitable". I think $18,000 at age 55 is not unreasonable and not inequitable.

[Supply, November 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support the motion put today, which would allow the government to keep the promises it made with respect to pensions for members of Parliament. These promises were published in the document entitled Creating Opportunity , otherwise known as The Liberal Plan for Canada , the famous red book.

As the members know, this document contains two specific commitments regarding the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act.

Not only did the government undertake to end double dipping, but also to review the question of the minimum age at which members may begin to draw their pension.

As the member for Peterborough has just spoken about double dipping, I would like to look at the second issue, the one concerning age.

The Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act currently does not require a member to have reached a specific age before becoming eligible to receive a pension. Once a member has six years pensionable service to his or her credit he or she can draw the benefit immediately upon leaving office regardless of their age at that time.

The philosophy behind this feature was that an MP's pension should provide some immediate income which will assist the member in making the transition from public life to private life. As all members of Parliament know, our tenure in this House is by no means guaranteed. Job security is not just a feature of public life. Our careers as parliamentarians are frequently up for renewal and can be abruptly brought to an end. As well it is not always certain that on leaving office we will quickly or easily find alternative employment.

The availability of immediate income on leaving office can be a particularly important factor for members who have young families who must consider the need for another source of income when no longer receiving a seasonal indemnity but have not yet found new employment.

This does not mean that I think that the existing provisions should remain as they are. I do, however, think that in the absence of appropriate transitional measures to help members of Parliament who leave office meet their financial needs, some members may suffer a loss, especially those who leave office when they are still relatively young.

Under the existing plan, a member who is defeated after six years of service does not receive a lump sum separation allowance. Such an allowance is paid only if the member is not entitled to a pension on leaving office.

Many private companies offer employees whose career is unexpectedly interrupted an amount of money to compensate for their involuntary departure, even though the employee may also be entitled to a pension. This provides the laid-off employee with some income while he is looking for a new job and starting over in a new career.

If the payment of pensions under the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act is deferred so that pensions do not become payable until a certain age is reached it may well be necessary to introduce improved separation benefits to ensure that MPs' immediate financial needs are properly met much like the severance pay offered in the private sector.

The question is what would be an appropriate minimum pensionable age for members of Parliament. Some would argue that age 65 should be the pensionable age because this is the most usual age for Canadians to begin drawing a pension. Then again others might feel 60 is appropriate as this is also a common retirement age, especially in the public sector.

I feel that age 55 is justifiable since finding alternative employment at or after this age is not an easy matter.

We should also ask ourselves whether there should be a minimum age for eligibility for a reduced pension, say 50 years, and whether members should be allowed to draw a pension before this minimum age in cases of disability.

Should we base our approach on the pension plans offered by other Canadian employers in order to settle on an appropriate pensionable age for members of Parliament, or should we be looking at what is done in other Canadian legislative assemblies?

There are marked differences between the pension plan provisions of the various provincial legislative assemblies. New Brunswick has no minimum pensionable age. MLAs in Saskatchewan, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories cannot draw their pensions until age 55; in Nova Scotia, the minimum age is 50.

A number of provinces use a formula to establish pensionable age. In Newfoundland, the age and the number of years of service must add up to 60. In Ontario, a member may begin to draw a pension when his age and years of service add up to 55.

The province of Quebec provides for a pension to begin when a member of the National Assembly reaches the service and age of 65. The member must be at least 50 years old before receiving a pension.

I am confident that I speak for the vast majority of my fellow colleagues in the House when I state that none of us were motivated to run for public office by mere financial rewards. I am sure that I can confidently say that we all knew what we were getting into despite the many hardships our families must undergo, despite the extra expenses such as clothing, lodging, transportation and others.

We are debating today pension reform. Those who feel underpaid as an MP and those who feel they should be paid what the private sector pays are correct, but that makes for an entirely separate debate. My concern is that if we undervalue the work, dedication and sacrifices made by an MP and their families, we stand to discourage Canadians from wanting to offer their services for public office.

Two questions come to mind immediately. Will people in their forties and late thirties be motivated knowing that they may face the prospects of re-employment near the end of their career? Will we not instead be encouraging only older individuals or rather wealthy individuals to run for public office? Canada would best be served in my opinion by having young and old, small and large business people, young and older lawyers, accountants and professionals. The successful as well as the less successful must all be motivated to seek public office, not just the wealthy.

As the hon. members can see, the government should consider the various choices it has and take into account a number of factors in reviewing the Members of Parliament Retirement Allowance Act. The government knows full well that the Canadian taxpayers are against former members of the House of Commons being allowed to receive generous unreduced pensions years before normal retirement age.

We also know that this matter of public concern can be dealt with in a number of different ways. This government remains committed to winning back public confidence and keeping its promise with respect to the reform of MPs pension.

In closing, I fully support the reform of MPs pensions. As well I support the removal of double dipping and I fully support increasing the minimum age to 55 at which an MP may obtain their pension.

[Social Security Program, November 21st, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I listened with enthusiasm to the report by the member. I would like to participate in the debate by sharing what my hon. colleague already knows, that I get a little bit upset when I hear day after day, when the government advances any type of reform, we are doing it on the backs of the least fortunate. To use this as an occasion to exploit those more unfortunate for opportunistic reasons I find is self-serving.

My colleague and I both sit on the finance committee and we listen intently to the debate that is going on about the deficit. We both know that if we were to attack or remove outright the subsidies to small businesses, as business has told us, if we were to tax lottery and gambling winnings, and simply do as members of the Bloc Quebecois have said: "Cut government spending and defence spending" by 25 per cent, I put it to the House that the $3 billion the finance minister needs this year and the $6 billion the finance minister needs next year, the $9 billion could come from these.

How can members of the opposition continually stand in the House and say that we want to reform social security on the backs of the unemployed, students and the least fortunate? As the member knows, the status quo is not acceptable, not only in Quebec, it is not acceptable anywhere in Canada.

Does he not agree with me that the present programs are outdated, no longer respond to the needs and aspirations of Canadians and Quebecers alike?

[Social Security Program, November 21st, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's comments.

I want to state categorically that the question of status quo is not only unique to Quebec, as I found from travelling with the pre-budget consultation hearings on the finance committee. It is a preoccupation throughout Canada from one coast to the other.

I would like to bring to the attention of my hon. colleague two valid ideas that surfaced from a workshop in my riding this week on the reform of human resources. One was that small business people who are unemployed and try to start up a business find that they cannot collect unemployment insurance. The suggestion was brought forward that perhaps a person who is on unemployment insurance should be allowed to collect their benefits at the same time as starting up a business.

The other question I would like the hon. member to comment on is this. He mentioned the need for assistance for women in business. Another suggestion from our workshop was that the older group, the 55 year plus, have a wealth of experience and cannot find jobs. They would be willing to work 5 to 15 hours a week to help the women that he mentioned and youth who want to start up small businesses. Could he put in his idea the concept of allowing older people to give the benefit of their experience to the young and the women to start up their businesses? Could he not consider these two ideas in his proposal also?

[Youth Service Program, November 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on October 26, the Bloc member for Lévis insinuated that the Minister of Human Resources Development was trying to go against the Quebec government in the matter of youth service, and I quote:

Does the minister not admit that his attitude in the youth service matter clearly shows that he is trying to muzzle the Quebec government?

According to the Quebec newspaper Le Soleil , because of the enthusiasm created by the first two parts of Youth Service Canada some 52 schools and community agencies proposed projects.

But we also learn that two weeks ago the assistant deputy minister of education, Mr. Jacques Lanoue, wrote Mr. Michel Walsh, director of adult education at the Portneuf school board, one of the 52 organizations wishing to benefit from the Youth Service program, to ask him not to sign any agreement with Ottawa. This request by the Quebec deputy minister is disquieting because it will prevent young Quebecers from getting an important part of the budget of $15 million.

[St. Lawrence River, November 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, more than two thirds of the population of Quebec live along the St. Lawrence River and, for this reason alone, more should be known about this river. That is why we have undertaken in the St. Lawrence Action Plan, Vision 2000, to develop information tools on the St. Lawrence River intended for the general public.

I am pleased to announce that three new pages of the St. Lawrence environmental atlas have been published, describing the river's shores, environment and inhabitants in an easy to understand presentation.

These atlas pages deal particularly with the St. Lawrence at the heart of the inhabited area (population and shore occupation), its many and varied habitats (saline and freshwater ecosystems) as well as the shapes and dynamics of the St. Lawrence shores from soft embankments to scarped shorelines. These pages were presented at the 29th congress of the science teachers' association of Quebec, held from October 13 to 15 in Montreal.

[Liberal Party, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in this House to mark the first anniversary of the Liberal government. The year has been filled with many important achievements.

There is not enough time to list all the initiatives of this government, particularly in Quebec. More than 20,000 jobs were created, thanks to the national infrastructure program. The Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Co-operation in North America was also set up in Montreal. The issue of cigarette smuggling and the future of the military college in Saint-Jean were settled in a matter of months. Those are just a few of this government's achievements.

I especially want to congratulate our Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Jean Chrétien. Thanks to his leadership and integrity, Canadians are regaining confidence. I also wish to thank my family for its patience and support. Hon. members are all aware of the sacrifices made by their spouses and children so that they can have the honour of serving this great country of ours.

[Intergovernmental Affairs, October 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am astonished to hear that the Quebec premier refused to join the Canadian economic mission to Asia, which is composed of business leaders and premiers.

Mr. Parizeau claims that he is needed in Quebec. Come on. Has he already forgotten that he pledged to represent all Quebecers whatever their option?

As a team player, we have seen better. Quebec ranked 32nd among exporters, supplying only 18 per cent of all Canadian exports, and Mr. Parizeau would rather be alone on the ice. Rather than joining Team Canada and trying harder not to throw away Quebec's chances, he insists on passing the puck to others. Is this the new government? Mr. Parizeau should know that, to succeed, it is better to rely on top players than on substitutes.

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act, October 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, in the registration of contingency fees, since May of this year Public Works and Government Services Canada has put in place that every single person who bids for contracts in the public service sector, of which there are almost 175,000 to the tune of $10 billion, must state clearly that they have not hired lobbyists to influence any contract.

Sometimes I am also shocked because since the Bloc Quebecois came on the scene, it has been criticizing us federalists on this side of the House and saying that we waste money and that there is so much duplication throughout the federal system. This bill is intended to eliminate duplication and make the service more productive, that is make it provide service to the Canadian public. We will save money with this system.

I find it appalling at times that they criticize. When we do take the initiative in this government to group together three or four levels of service under one roof to provide that service so vitally needed, not only for the business community but for our taxpayers who ultimately pay the final bill, the hon. member on that side of the House has the audacity to criticize us for doing it.

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act, October 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the purpose of this bill is to bring together four organizations in order to reduce costs for the government and to provide taxpayers with better service at lower cost, so this bill is worth presenting.

I hear that there is no openness, but the open bidding service exists and all members of this House have been invited to use it. This computer system provides access to the information at any hour of the day or night. It does not cost much and even your constituents and business men and women can subscribe to it. It gives you information on the kinds of contracts available, their value, who bid in the past, how many contracts have been awarded in the past few years and also the value of the contracts that were awarded. If that is not open, I do not know what it is.