Art Eggleton

[Supply, November 22nd, 1994]

That is the option you have. If you do not want to look after your retirement, as most Canadians do, if you want to be reckless, you can do that. But we are going to give you the option to do it.

[Supply, November 22nd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, the member's figures are presupposing what is going to be in the bill we bring forward. I do not think he can presuppose that. He does not have to worry about the money that he wanted to take off and invest. If he does not opt into the plan, then he can be comforted by the fact that it is going directly to the bottom line. He will not get it. It will go directly to the bottom line to help reduce the deficit of the country.

[Supply, November 22nd, 1994]

The plan is actuarially sound, if she is concerned about the 6:1 ratio. It is also worth pointing out that the contribution rate is very high by members, an 11 per cent contribution. A lot of money is put in by each individual member.

The hon. member should not confuse vesting with benefit payout. We will be dealing with the question of minimum age for benefit payout. Vesting is a qualifying period of time. It is actually a higher qualifying period of time than what most Canadians have in their pension plans. I do not see why it should be of concern to members of the third party at all. They have really picked on the wrong thing.

They have done this prematurely. They have picked on the vesting period because they do not seem to understand that it does not relate to benefit payout. They do not seem to understand that the government is going to live up to its red book commitments, but it is.

[Supply, November 22nd, 1994]

No, no. I did not say that at all. I do not know how many times I have to say that we are trying to respond to the concerns of Canadians about a pension being paid in the 40s. We are going to respond to that in our reforms. The member does not seem to want to understand that.

[Supply, November 22nd, 1994]

She knows it is March 13. She is obviously very interested in the date.

Let me also deal with her favourite possibility and that is to be able to opt out so she cannot reach her day. I wonder if she is really going to decide not to allow March 13 to happen. She can opt out. The Prime Minister has said that we will provide a provision that you can opt out or maybe it will be opting in. It will be one or the other. It will work out the same way. You might actually have to opt in. You may actually have to sign a piece of paper saying that you want to be into the plan. However, you have that opportunity. If you feel that you want to save the Canadian taxpayer that money then it is up to you to do that.

I would not cast aspersions on other members of this House who decide to opt into the plan simply because they are understanding that they put a lot of years into the public service. They have the obligation, as any Canadian feels they have, to protect themselves and their families in their retirement years. I would fully expect that most members of this House would want to continue to be protected and be a part of such a plan.

Revisions to the plan to make it a better plan, to reform it, to make it something more reasonable as Canadians are expecting us to do and as we are promising to do, will all be part and parcel of it.

[Supply, November 22nd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am afraid that the hon. member for Beaver River just does not understand vesting because she talks about if the government had brought in legislation before yesterday then somehow yesterday would have meant nothing. That is not true at all.

The vesting period is not to be confused with benefit payout. We could bring in a minimum age with respect to benefit payout and it does not hinge on what the vesting period is. That is all yesterday was related to.

The member is in a rhetorical fantasy about what yesterday was. It really does not relate to the question of benefit payouts and the age they are paid at.

This government knows full well that Canadians are concerned about people collecting a pension when they are in their 40s, that they are collecting a pension far earlier than any other Canadian and we are going to deal with that issue. What happened yesterday is of absolutely no consequence in dealing with that issue.

We intend to continue to allow these people to qualify. Why would we do anything else? The hon. member has her qualifying day coming up sometime before long.

[Supply, November 22nd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, the government is committed to the reforms that were outlined in the red book with respect to pensions.

The member for Beaver River, a member of the Reform Party, the third party, is very premature and is wasting her time in presenting today's motion. It has been clearly said previously by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and myself that a presentation will be made to the House before the end of this year with respect to the government's plans regarding the matter of pensions.

One of the hon. member's colleagues mentioned that the Prime Minister had said in the days when he was in opposition that he could bring in the pension reforms in one day. He did not necessarily say it was going to be day one and it does not need to be day one of this Parliament. It does not need to be done with the kind of urgency the hon. member for Beaver River suggests it should be.

As has been stated time and time again in today's debate nobody is retiring between now and the end of this Parliament. Indeed, there are a lot of things on the government plate that relate to reforms in many areas that relate to the whole budget process. Those matters have a great deal more urgency than this matter.

Notwithstanding that, I understand how Canadians feel about the pensions and the need for reform. We have said that within just a little over one year of having taken office we will bring in a reform of MP pensions that is based on the red book commitments.

The red book commitments are to end double dipping. Those members of Parliament who cease to be members of Parliament would not be able to collect both their pension and another full time salary in government service. Whether they were employed in the government service or receive a governor in council appointment, they would not be able to be in full time occupation receiving a full time salary with the crown at the same time as collecting the pension.

That was amply demonstrated today. The bill is not yet before the House and of course it is not yet in effect. Nevertheless, the Prime Minister announced today that the designate for Governor General is a former member of this House and a member of the other house. He will be forgoing his pension while receiving the salary for being the Governor General of Canada. It is a voluntary compliance and the Governor General designate should be commended very much.

Once the law is brought into effect it will prevent those who do retire from this House or the other place from being able to pick up a salary as well as their pension scheme. That is certainly one of the very clear red book commitments. I again say that the government is committed to bringing in legislation and bringing it in early to end double dipping.

With respect to minimum age, again the red book talked about the concern that some members retire from this House at a very early age and collect a full pension. Some members collect it in their 40s, far earlier than the normal retirement age of Canadians. They collect it as an amount of money that would be supplementary to other remuneration they might receive in their new pursuits. It becomes part of a larger income that they then enjoy.

Canadians generally do not enjoy that kind of pension arrangement. A great many people have expressed their opposition and concern about it to me. This government again is clearly committed to dealing with a minimum age with respect to the pension payout for former members of this House. It is a red book commitment and something we will be dealing with very shortly. I reiterate there will be a statement before this House before the end of the year.

There is another thing which was not in the red book but has been added to this consideration. It responds to something the third party members raised earlier in the term. It is with respect to wanting to opt out of or not be included in the pension arrangements, whatever they may be. They want to have the opportunity not to participate.

Although that has not been an option up until now, the Prime Minister clearly stated before this House that members of Parliament would be given that option. Members of Parliament will have the opportunity to opt in to the pension plan in a timely fashion. If as the hon. member for Beaver River and her colleagues have been saying for some time that they do not want to do so, then they are free to not opt in to the plan. Members of Parliament can make their own decisions individually as to whether or not they want to participate in the plan.

A lot of members of Parliament give up some of their best earning years to serve the public. The pension plan for them is some further protection. It is one I know that will be given serious consideration by each and every member of Parliament.

I am sure even members of the third party will give it individual consideration. After all, they seem to be weakening in their resolve with respect to reducing their own salary. They are beginning to understand that they need that kind of money because of the hours they put in serving their constituents. They have to maintain residences both here and in their constituencies and they understand the cost of living and having to do that. They are weakening in their resolve with respect to this matter.

I suspect we might see some change of heart when it comes right down to having to make that momentous decision of whether you opt in to the plan and participate or whether you are completely out and completely unprotected.

I would not say completely unprotected because there are some colleagues of the hon. member for Beaver River who are in that double dipping category who have had previous experience in other houses and legislatures who collect money in addition to the money they gain from this House.

They know what double dipping is over there. I think they understand how difficult it is to give up remuneration. They will also find that they will have to give very serious consideration for their own protection, the protection of their families in the future with respect to the matter of pensions. Opting in becomes another feature.

There have been some suggestions and there are suggestions in this motion today, although I agree with my colleague, the hon. member for Bellechasse, that it is kind of vague. It is ambiguous and awkward in terms of its wording and it is

premature. They are wasting their time debating this today when the matter is coming before Parliament shortly anyway.

They are suggesting in the motion in their vague way that there should be some other changes to the plan. There was as study commissioned by the previous government by the consulting firm of Sobeco, Ernst & Young with respect to remuneration for members of Parliament. That in turn, when it was completed this spring, was turned over to a commission of this Parliament, the Lapointe commission as it is known. It deliberated on it as well.

Through the hon. Speaker the matter was tabled here in the House in July. That report talked about some other changes in the pension plan, suggesting there be some modifications to the accrual benefit package and a number of other aspects of it. It said quite clearly that members of Parliament were undervalued by many in terms of the work they do and in terms of the remuneration they should appropriately receive.

It did say that while there should be some reduction in the total benefit package for the pension, there should be an increase in the remuneration for members of Parliament and that overall it should wash. It should come out as an even package, up on the salary and somewhat down on some of the other provisions, including the pension benefits.

This Parliament has determined there will be no salary increases, not only for members of Parliament, but for the public service, because we are in a time of restraint. We are in a time when getting our fiscal House in order is of the highest priority, a time when we must get the deficit and the debt down. Therefore we cannot afford to give salary increases to anybody in the government system including, having to set an example, the members of this House and the members of the other place.

If there is no increase in the salary then it can well be argued how do we take a decrease in the other parts of the compensation program. We would violate the principle of the Lapointe commission and the Sobeco, Ernst & Young study, which was to maintain the level of compensation but make adjustments internally. Obviously we are not in a position where we can do that. When that day does arrive we can again look at that package of suggestions as to adjustments that might be appropriate.

The final point I want to make is in relation to the vesting period, because much has been made by the third party on the vesting period. Yesterday six years arrived for 52 members of this House with respect to qualifying for their pensions. I want to point out very clearly that vesting does mean that as of now they are being paid out. Vesting means qualification to be paid out, but they are not going to be paid out. They are members of this Parliament. Nobody is planning on resigning or retiring. They will be here for another four years before the hon. member for Beaver River would have to really worry about their collecting that pension.

Yesterday was the qualifying period for them. It is a six-year qualifying period. That is not an unreasonable length of time as a qualifying period for a pension plan. For average Canadians it is frequently less than that. It can sometimes be two years or three years to actually qualify for the pension. When it is paid out is another matter. To qualify in this particular case takes some six years to do. There is nothing magical about yesterday. It was not an occasion that should require this kind of debate today.

There is a qualifying period that has now been met by another 52 members of this House. With respect to the matters of how the pension is paid out and when it is paid out, those are all matters that are still under consideration and are not in any way prejudiced by what happened yesterday. Not one iota has anything changed by what happened yesterday.

That is something you do not seem to understand and you are certainly misunderstanding this. It does not help Canadians when you make this point about the vesting period.

I think it has to be understood quite clearly that six years to qualify for the plan is far different from when you pay it out and the ages you pay it out at. Those are all matters that are going to be dealt with by the government in living up to and completing its obligations under the red book commitments that we have agreed we would do, and do it in a timely fashion, do it long before anybody is going to retire from this House, long before you need to worry about any payouts.

There are more substantive concerns at this point in terms of payouts that relate to getting the deficit and the debt under control, getting the deficit down to 3 per cent of GDP. There is a program review that is going on. There is the social security review. We have gone through a defence review. We have gone through a foreign affairs review. We are reviewing everything. We are reviewing the size and shape of government, the roles and responsibilities that government performs. It is a very major undertaking, so this government does have a lot on its platter.

Notwithstanding that, the government is quite cognizant of the concern of the hon. member for Beaver River that we deal with this at an early stage, and we are dealing with it at an early stage.

This year the sitting of this House has almost a month to go and it is certainly my hope that in that period of time I will be able to rise in the House and advise as to the implementation for the red book commitments, specifically dealing with those items of double dipping and minimum age which we are committed to reforming.

I am hopeful that the hon. member for Beaver River and her colleagues will support the government in its endeavours to do that. I know Canadians want to see reform of MP pensions and we are committed to doing that.

[Supply, November 22nd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, today's motion by the Reform Party is premature. The government is committed to honouring the red book commitments with respect to ending double dipping and with respect to dealing with the question of minimum age. Reform of the pensions is clearly a matter of interest.

[Highway 416, November 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the need for this highway and I also know of the vigorous effort put forward by the member for Leeds-Grenville in this endeavour.

I therefore suggested to the provincial government in the springtime that we fund it under the Canada-Ontario infrastructure works program. It did not respond to that and did not put in an application. In fact the provincial government indicated a reluctance.

In the summertime I suggested a strategic transportation improvement program as another way it might be able to rework some priorities to help fund this. That is a shared program as well. The only response came back just a few weeks ago in terms of the proposition of tolls. If the province of Ontario is going to do this by tolls we are not interested in getting into the funding. I also wonder whether it even meets the province's criteria for what would qualify as a toll road.

I would be quite happy and in fact would like to meet with the new minister of transport in Ontario to further explore the infrastructure works program and the strategic transportation improvement program for funding of this necessary project.

[Members Of Parliament Pensions, November 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we made it clear and the Deputy Prime Minister made it clear earlier this week that we are living up to our red book commitment with respect to MP pensions.

I do not anticipate that the hon. member who asked the question is planning on resigning. We are all here for a full term that will go on substantially more years. There is lots of time to deal with this but we will be dealing with it very soon. We will be living up to that commitment in the red book.