Art Eggleton

[Pensions, May 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Reform Party and his entire party, as we have seen many times in the past when dealing with budgetary issues and pension issues, have a way of extremely exaggerating and taking out of context the figures relevant to compensation.

They sure know how to put forward the Cadillac when it comes to increasing the compensation for members. Over a 50 per cent increase in compensation is what they have suggested while the government is reducing it by some 33 per cent. Over a 130 per cent increase in salaries is what they recommend. That is unconscionable.

The government does not stand for that. The government stands for fiscal restraint.

[Pensions, May 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated many times before, the government promised during the election campaign that it would deal with the issues of double dipping and a minimum age for pension.

We have dealt with the commitments, the obligations we have made. We have gone beyond that because we recognize this is a period of fiscal restraint. It is a period of time we need to get our house in order, to get the deficit and the debt down. We have reduced the contribution, the members of Parliament compensation, by some 33 per cent.

[Members Of Parliament Pensions, May 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the exaggerated and extreme figures the third party manages to drag up.

It is incredible that the member would get up after one of the members of his party, the member for Calgary Centre, the whip of his party, to propose such an outlandish increase in the compensation level for the members of the House. That is not a fiscally responsible position. His party is not taking a fiscally responsible position on the question of MP pensions.

[Members Of Parliament Pensions, May 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the gall of the hon. member to get up after the whip of the Reform Party last week suggested a 50 per cent increase in the compensation level for members of Parliament, a 130 per cent increase in the salary.

The government has taken a responsible position by reducing MP pensions by some 33 per cent of the compensation package and at the same time setting a minimum age and ending double dipping.

[National Defence, May 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, again, the Minister of National Defence is the one who runs his department and is the person who is in the best position to answer that question.

There are some shifts in positions. Some positions may increase in some areas and decrease in other areas. Overall there is a decrease, which is in accordance with the policy of the government with respect to getting its deficit and debt reduction program under control.

[National Defence, May 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as to the specifics, the Minister of Defence is in the best position to answer exactly how his department is being run.

He and every other minister take the remarks of the auditor general very seriously and take the suggestions and try to work better cost efficiencies in all departments.

We are at the same time going through a downsizing in the public service as a result of the reduction in programs and services, again as a result of meeting our deficit reduction targets. Overall, in the Department of National Defence and all other departments there is a reduction in the number of employees by some 45,000.

[Working Language In The Public Service, May 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, a great deal of communication goes on in the French language and there should be more. There should be a comfort level for employees who have that as their mother tongue to be able to use it in correspondence.

We encourage deputy ministers and other officials at the beginning of a meeting, as I have done most recently at the beginning of a couple of meetings, to welcome everyone to use the official language of their choice so that we can give real meaning to the language of work policy.

[Working Language In The Public Service, May 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as the official languages commissioner also pointed out, there has been improvement and yes, more improvement is needed.

The official languages commissioner and Treasury Board have co-authored a brochure that deals with the question of language of work and the rights and responsibilities of public service employees. That is being distributed now.

Second, the commissioner made a number of recommendations on how we can strengthen language of work. We agree with all of those recommendations and will implement them.

Third, we will conduct audits to ensure that they are implemented and that the rights and responsibilities of public service employees in the official language of their choice is in fact respected.

[Infrastructure Program, May 4th, 1995]

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.

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

It pertains to her specifically. Members with less than six years will have their contributions returned. The government will allow these members a one-time only opportunity to withdraw their participation in the pension plan. It is something that is not normally done. We have to provide for our own retirement allowance and that is what the plan is all about.

For those who choose not to participate, the government will return their contributions with interest calculated in the same manner as for any other withdrawal allowance under the statute.

Members cannot later decide to join the pension plan if they serve continuously as a member of the House or if appointed to the Senate without a break in service. Members who after a break in service later re-enter the pension plan will not be permitted the option of buying back service from this Parliament should they exercise their option not to participate during this Parliament.

In terms of another provision of the plan may I finally mention with respect to common law spouses that in clause 4 of the bill they will be recognized for survivor benefit purposes as they are under federal pension plans for public service employees. It will provide common law spouses with necessary protection that other Canadian pension plan members enjoy. As well, the bill provides that a survivor pension can be apportioned between a legal spouse and a common law spouse. Where a member is survived by both a common law and legal spouse the bill provides for the survivor benefit to be apportioned between the two claimants if the common law spouse lived with the member while the pension was being earned.

In conclusion I highlight the net result of the changes. Not only have we as a government lived up to our campaign promises, the ones clearly defined in the red book dealing with a minimum age of 55 and prevention of double dipping for former members who get appointments in the federal service, but we have gone beyond that in the spirit of the need for cutting government spending to get the deficit and debt under control.

We have made changes in Bill C-85 to the pension plan that will save taxpayers significantly; they will cut costs to taxpayers by some 33 per cent. Overall the Government of Canada has lived up to its promises on pension reform.