Deborah Grey

[Government Of Canada, November 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, when I was here at the beginning of the last Parliament, the Tories were high in the polls too. This first year is over.

When the president of CN was asked about possibly ending a few of his lavish perks, he responded: "Are you saying that as a result of downsizing all of us in the executive ranks should reduce our compensation by 10, 15 or 20 per cent?" You bet, that is exactly what we are saying and we proposed that this morning to the finance committee.

When will this government start to lead by example and not lead by the nose?

[Government Of Canada, November 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this government promised Canadians that it would do things differently but after only one year I cannot really tell the difference between it and the Mulroney government.

The president of CN has received a $300,000 interest free loan to live in style in Westmount courtesy of the Canadian taxpayer. The National Capital Commission, which has already rifled the public purse for its chairman's social club dues, is spending $2 million on office renovations, and Liberals across the country are lining up for patronage appointments.

My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. When will these lavish expenditures stop and when will this government realize that it is not its money that it is spending?

[Supply, November 22nd, 1994]

She sure did.

[Supply, November 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments. I want to make a couple of comments regarding his speech and ask him a question or two.

He said he would certainly support any government legislation which would raise the age of anything with a minimum of six years service to age 55. Our party I suspect would support that in the House of Commons if and only if the member's employer-employee contributions would be changed from six to one to one to one. For every dollar we contribute out of our salary the government would match that.

As it is now, and the hon. member should know, the government is putting in about $6 for every $1 that we are putting in. That is unsaleable from sea to sea to sea in this country. I suspect that when he goes home it is not a lot different from my situation or from anyone else here when they hear how people feel.

He talked also about the re-entry to private life in the private sector. There is no one in this Chamber who would disagree that it may be difficult to get back in and work back into the clientele you had before or whatever your professional job was. My trough day will be March 13. I hope we have made substantive changes before then. It is unfortunate that we missed 52 other members. I am willing to say let us make substantive changes to the program before my trough day on March 13.

If I were to re-enter private life then I would get a pension straight through from age 42 on. There is something dreadfully wrong about that. My question to this member is, why can we not have some sort of a severance package for people who are re-entering their private lives? If we are going back into the workforce let us have some sort of severance package that the government would offer. That is fine. But why not defer pensions until a later age? Why should I and other members get a pension straight through from the day after an election? Bang, it

takes place the very next day. Why should I, for instance, be allowed to get a pension the next day?

Why not some sort of generous severance package that will help members reintegrate into life and then the pension is deferred?

I have heard any number of members, including the member for Mississauga South, today talking about this being a family issue now and how painful it is for each of us to go back to private life and get another job. Fair enough. Why not just a severance package that would see us into that entry phase and not a pension that is going to click in the next day and go on for ever and ever, amen?

[Supply, November 22nd, 1994]

Who's paying the bill?

[Supply, November 22nd, 1994]

Then Mary should not qualify in her 40s.

[Supply, November 22nd, 1994]

You are still getting it in the 40s.

[Supply, November 22nd, 1994]

March 13.

[Supply, November 22nd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, we are certainly prepared to look at any legislation that the government does bring forward and if it is worthwhile and supportable we certainly will support it.

The Prime Minister has talked about opting out and this minister just mentioned it a few moments ago. He would give the opportunity for some people to opt out if they wish.

I beg the minister to explain to me how that could be ultimately fair in terms of making substantive changes to a pension program. In other words, some may opt out but the rest will continue to pork out. Is that what I understand? Those people who are still in an overbloated pension system because they have qualified now would just continue to pork out while some people would opt out. I hardly think that is a major reform of the MP system.

The minister also said that these MPs who qualified yesterday will not retire tomorrow. Of course not. We are not assuming that these people are going to retire tomorrow. That is not part of this argument. It is superfluous to it.

He said there was nothing magical about yesterday. There was something magical about yesterday and it is that if this government had acted on what the Prime Minister talked about last August when in opposition, if these changes had been brought about before yesterday, the six-year magic marker of qualification or vesting date, then for example my friend from Halifax who is in her 40s would not qualify for an MP pension until her 50s, which is what the red book says.

It talks about deferring the age. It talks about bringing it more in line, ending double dipping, putting it off to a later retirement age.

Someone in their 40s would now qualify. That is magic to me, that is lotto for life, just as simple as pie yesterday that these people qualify. If the government is even thinking of moving this further to a retirement age I do not understand how he can say that there was absolutely nothing magical about yesterday. They are eligible now for pension. We are not saying they are going to go out and collect it right away either. That will be after the next election date, whether they choose to resign or whether the taxpayers in their ridings choose for them to resign. It will be one way or the other.

It is also really important to note that when that day the minister talked about earlier does arrive they will be eligible to collect a pension also. When a government contributes $6 to $1, as my friend from Halifax said earlier, it does not take a mathematical whiz to figure out that this is the most generous kick in for employer-employee benefits. It is almost $6 to every $1 that we contribute. There is no way that is actuarially sound. We can have that proven time and time again.

The minister says they only became eligible for pension yesterday, there was nothing magical about it whatsoever. If they brought it in before those 52 MPs qualified for it yesterday afternoon they simply would not be eligible today. If the government is going to make substantive changes to this MP plan it should make sure that it would affect the people who qualified yesterday.

What part of eligible does this minister not understand?

[Supply, November 22nd, 1994]

I am too, but I can figure out 6:1.