Art Eggleton

[Pensions Of Members, February 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the entire preamble to the question is wrong. In fact the question is wrong too because there is not a two-tier system. It is a single tier system; it is a single plan.

Furthermore it is not four to five times richer. That is absolute nonsense. Second, there was no pressure with respect to senior

colleagues. There were attempts to find a plan that would serve the needs of members of Parliament but at the same time reduce the cost to the taxpayer and to take a leadership role with respect to the forthcoming budget.

[Pensions Of Members, February 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we are reducing the cost of pensions to taxpayers by some 33 per cent. We are cutting over and above the commitments we made in the election campaign.

We said that we would end double dipping, and we have ended that. We said that we would put in a minimum age, and we have put in a minimum age of 55. On top of that we have also reduced the benefit level to save taxpayers 33 per cent of the cost of that pension plan or some $3.3 million annually.

[Federal Public Service, February 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the proposition that there will be a major confrontation.

I think the employees of the federal government, as indeed all people across the country, understand that the government has to get its fiscal house in order and that we have to cut government spending to do that.

Our employees expect it and we will treat them fairly and reasonably. We have gone through months and months of negotiations with the unions and examined all these propositions. It had wide acceptance from their bargaining agents except for the alliance.

We will continue to work with them in this downsizing effort to ensure that it is carried out in an efficient, effective manner and that we are fair both to the people who are leaving and to the people who will stay and continue to provide good services to the people of Canada.

[Federal Public Service, February 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I do not accept that there will be disruption to the public. I believe we will provide good quality services. We have good professional public servants who will continue to provide those services.

However we have to shrink the size of government. We have to downsize to live within our means. We cannot afford to have all these positions.

When we were discussing with the unions there was a great deal of acceptance of what we put forward. Fifteen of the sixteen unions agreed to the proposition that we put on the table. It was one; it was the alliance that did not agree with it.

I think the proposition is a good one because it treats our employees fairly and reasonably. It says at the same time that if we do not have work for them we obviously cannot pay them.

[Federal Public Service, February 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we have been in discussion and negotiation with the unions for several months. Various propositions including the ones that the Public Service Alliance has now formalized in writing have been considered over that period of time.

Quite simply they are not a way of achieving our goal. In terms of being able to get our deficit down to 3 per cent and the downsizing that is required from that, we need to target the different positions based on the programs and services we would be reducing.

Their proposition would not work in that regard and that is why I was not able to accept it.

[Members Of Parliament Pensions, February 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, mighty soon has arrived. The government has agreed to a package of reforms on MP pension plans and the bill will be introduced by the end of April as an amendment to the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act. Further information on the details will be available for members of the House later this afternoon.

The government will live up to its red book commitments. It will end double dipping for both MPs and members of the other house. It will put a minimum age in place on the basis of the Lapointe commission recommendation of age 55. It will provide for members to have a one-time only opting out-

[Federal Public Service, February 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the one addition to this side of the House is worth all of the ones and more on that side of the House.

With respect to the downsizing we are going to be carefully monitoring the situation at the different levels. If there is any disproportionate amount at any given level, then certainly we will take corrective action. We are focusing on programs and services, not on people. As a consequence, people at all levels will be part of the downsizing.

[Federal Public Service, February 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it gives us no joy to be downsizing the public service. However, as a result of the programs and services that we must cut in order to meet our deficit reduction targets, there are people we will have to ask to leave.

We will give them every opportunity to find other jobs within the public service before they are put on layoff status. Certainly in terms of contracting out, I can assure the hon. member that it and temporary help and other means will be explored as a way of keeping our employees who want to stay before we allow for additional contracting out and other provisions.

We value the public service. We value the kind of service that is provided to Canadians by the people we employ.

[Members Of Parliament Pensions, February 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that my colleague has finally read the red book and understands the commitments of the government.

This whole matter though will be dealt with mighty soon.

[Members Of Parliament Pensions, February 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the government is not backing off anything. We have made it quite clear that we are going to deal with the matter of pension reform. We are going to live up to our obligations that we made in the election campaign.

The Prime Minister said in this House not more than one week ago that it would be done either before the budget or at the time of the budget and it will be done.