Gaston Leroux

[Members Of Parliament Office Inventories, November 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this motion and to give the viewpoint of the Official Opposition on the motion of the member for North Island-Powell River.

I want to say right away that we do support this motion. We support it because it involves taxpayers' money and also the proper management of the equipment made available to elected members.

The motion presented by the member for North Island-Powell River refers to sound management, to transfer when an election is held and recovery if any furniture, supplies and equipment for which the member is responsible while in office and which belong to the House disappear. Remember that if it belongs to the House, it belongs to all taxpayers.

This motion reminds us of how difficult it is to draw up a permanent list of property for an institution such as the House of Commons where the political staff changes very regularly, every four or five years.

Although an inventory for all office equipment belonging to the House has existed since 1977, according to information obtained from Materiel Management, more than 90 of the 205 new members elected last fall reported significant discrepancies between the inventory report of what they should have received and what they actually received. It is disturbing that 90 of the 205 newcomers do not have the equipment exactly as it is listed on the inventory. We are entitled to ask questions and the member for North Island-Powell River, who tabled the motion, is right to raise the issue.

As early as April, several Canadian newspapers reported that equipment like video systems, televisions, faxes and furniture had disappeared from the House since the last election in October 1993. For example, La Presse for April 13 reported that Commons staff were trying to find television sets, VCRs, computers, cellular telephones, faxes and furniture belonging to the government, on the basis of information obtained directly from Materiel Management. We know that this includes equipment which is not easy to put in one's coat pocket.

Nevertheless, we must not conclude too hastily that theft or fraud is involved, as some people might be inclined to do. According to our information, it is very difficult to prove that former members really intended to steal. As proof, almost all the missing items were recovered, the member will be glad to know, by the staff of Materiel Management and the non-recovered items were charged to the members who were responsible for them.

There are many difficulties in drawing up a reliable inventory of House property and they have nothing to do with the honesty of members. For one, Materiel Management is not always informed promptly of changes to members' inventory during their term and also it is often difficult to transfer property from the riding office of a defeated member to the new member's office, given the rivalry between them.

Also, some items from the riding office, including laptop computers, cellular telephones and video systems, are left in the defeated member's Ottawa office, no doubt in the belief that the newly elected member will occupy the same premises on the Hill, which is not necessarily the case.

The honour system of assigning responsibility for inventory to members has its advantages but also disadvantages, let us admit. The Bloc Quebecois is fully aware of the importance of protecting all property, both in members' riding offices and in their Ottawa offices, since it belongs to the House of Commons and is paid for with taxpayers' money.

With this in mind, we can only support Private Member's Motion 290, which suggests strengthening-do you agree?-the measures for auditing equipment inventories. I do not hear the member say that he agrees. Is something wrong? I was saying that the member's motion suggests strengthening the measures for auditing equipment inventories, furniture and so on, and the responsibilities of every member for this property-and it is important because we manage the taxpayers' money-in order to protect public property. We agree.

Nevertheless, several of the measures suggested in the motion already exist, we must admit. For several years, a physical audit of all the premises occupied by members of Parliament in Ottawa has been done annually.

And an electronic inventory, which uses bar codes, makes it easier to control and protect this property. Until quite recently, always according to Materiel Management, there was a major problem, which has now been identified. It was the issue of furnishings in riding offices.

We have to realize exactly where the problem is, and it seems it is particularly serious in riding offices. In fact, because of a lack of staff, Materiel Management was unable to check its inventories of furnishings in riding offices. I support the hon. member's motion, and I can inform government members that the problem has been identified. The problem was in the ridings, and there was not enough staff to keep track.

Now that there is more staff, there is a more effective relationship based on trust and co-operation between Materiel Management and the riding offices. This is a definite improvement, and we appreciate the efforts of those concerned.

A materiel policy is about to be put in place. It was in fact discussed on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The policy is almost ready to be implemented, and we are talking about the beginning of the next session. We hope it will be put in place by the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which discussed and approved the implementation of this policy.

This policy on furnishings basically contains the main elements of the hon. member's motion, Motion 290, which asks us to be efficient, effective and responsible managers, because the furnishings and equipment we have are, in the final instance, provided by the taxpayers.

[Questions On The Order Paper, November 28th, 1994]

How many public interventions have been made by current federal cabinet ministers in connection with the Meech Lake accord and the Charlottetown agreement, how many have there been in favour of the Meech Lake accord, how many were against and who gave them, how many have there been in favour of the Charlottetown agreement, how many were against and who gave them?

[Auditor General's Report, November 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence cannot skirt the issue by throwing the blame on previous governments.

Does the minister not realize that it would be possible to cut $1.6 billion in his department's budget, as suggested by the Official Opposition, without impeding operations, just by eliminating squandering and unnecessary spending, given the new international order?

[Auditor General's Report, November 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. The Auditor General reported that $700 million could have been saved on information technologies at National Defence, had the development of such systems been more carefully planned.

How can the minister explain that, once again, his department comes first overall in squandering, in spite of the fact that the Auditor General had drawn attention to this problem many times already in the past?

[Supply, November 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on the subject of fairness, we must be careful not to take away acquired rights. There are acquired rights. If it is felt that people have too many acquired rights and as a result of some administrative or other process they were given too much, if something was given which upon analysis and consideration is unacceptable, I think that amends must be made.

I will qualify that by saying that we must be careful, on the issue of fairness, to really state the question responsibly, so as not to penalize people who have already obtained certain advantages as a result of some regulation or law, perhaps entirely in good faith. Withdrawing these benefits would be somewhat like going back on one's word. I think that is the opposite of what we want to achieve.

What we want to do is to get things straight and put them in perspective. Above all, we want to be able to answer people who tell us that the double dipping which goes on in the present system is wrong. An MP is in Parliament for six years and regardless of age has a pension that he can take away with him. It is the same for the Senate. It is the same with the other House. Someone is appointed senator and has a salary until age 75, no questions asked, etc.

There is a question of fairness for the future. We must get things straight and not necessarily attack others.

[Supply, November 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I really understood the question, except that the word "independence" seeems to have led to some misunderstanding. The member heard "independence" and is confused. I do not know. Financial independence is good for anyone. We are not talking about independence for Quebec; we are talking about financial independence for anyone who holds a position. Of course, it is clear that whatever pension rights the Bloc Quebecois has obtained for elected members, it will maintain them in a sovereign Quebec. A sovereign Quebec would give its elected officials the same conditions.

I would like to give a very simple, direct answer on the issue of financial independence. A person should be paid for the work he or she does on the basis of the expenses incurred in doing it. It is also a matter of equity so that elected officials are not placed in situations where they always have to seek compensation from people or organizations providing some service or other because the elected officials do not have the financial independence they need to do their job.

That is why we wanted to include some expenses required in their work as part of the budget members of Parliament have, so that they do not have to have any Tom, Dick or Harry pay their restaurant bills every time, or their hotel accommodation, travel, air fare and so on. We are talking about financial independence so that members can act responsibly and completely free of bribery by others. It is very simple.

[Supply, November 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on this opposition day to speak to the opposition motion, which provides:

That this House urge the government to replace the current Members of Parliament Retirement Allowance plan with a pension plan that reflects the current norms for private sector pensions, with a maximum contribution in accordance with the Income Tax Act.

I will try to contribute to the debate by offering some food for thought, because I think that the issue of pensions raises considerable concern among Canadians, who ask us many questions on this subject. They ask us these questions because of their perception of members' pensions and benefits.

First of all, the Official Opposition is clearly opposed to the motion as it stands, and I will tell you why. Adjusting pensions in accordance with private-sector standards does not tell us anything about the type of adjustment and the type of private sector.

We wonder if our pensions should reflect the plans established for senior officials and company executives or the already very inadequate pensions collected by some workers in different sectors. The motion does not tell us which way to go. We must do more thinking on the issue and set the conditions in which this reform must take place, before going ahead with such a vaguely worded motion.

It is true that people's perception of members' pensions and benefits is often shaped by the media, which call attention to the significant benefits enjoyed by members of Parliament.

In this regard, we think that the Reform Party's debate on members' pensions should revolve around two extremely important issues.

First of all, the Official Opposition wants to avoid all kinds of double dipping, for example when someone retires after working for the government and then takes another government job, thus accumulating other pensions. I think that, on this, we clearly agree with the other parties that the practice of accumulating multiple pensions must be eliminated.

Our second point is extremely important. Our constituents often bring up the age issue. The matter of pensions must be dealt with fairly and equitably. In this regard, I think that we agree with everyone that the age issue must be reviewed.

May I remind you that one of the Reform Party's election promises was to cut what the party itself calls the three Ps, namely the pay, pensions and privileges of members. That political formation estimates that a significant cut in members' pensions would save around $1.5 million over five years. The approach used is important because members' functions, duties and responsibilities must be considered. I think that dealing

with the issue of members' pensions by cutting government spending is entirely beside the point.

According to Jean Dion, an editorial writer in Le Devoir , cutting members' benefits would, of course, save money. After the election, it was estimated that pensions payable to defeated members totalled $109 million over a period of twenty years or one-quarter of one per cent of the deficit for the financial year 1992-93 alone.

A review of allowances, benefits or pensions payable to parliamentarians should not, in our opinion, be seen as a way to put government finances on a sound footing, as a way to fight the federal deficit or to achieve that great common ideal of fair distribution of wealth in our democracy. We should be realistic and consider the context.

On the issue of pensions, of course pensions and salaries are linked because they are part of the total compensation plan. It would be irresponsible to separate them. I think we should follow certain guidelines when we look at the treatment of members' pensions. We should consider making them commensurate with the responsibility a member has. I think there is a context we must consider. We should be able to take this debate a little further. To all the people who are watching us, to all those who sent us to Parliament to manage the government's affairs, we should be able to explain the responsibilities of a member as such, because once we are elected, the first thing a member has to do is to take on the responsibilities and activities that go with his position.

So we should take a good look at the issue of level of responsibility, because it is a factor throughout our society in every area of activity. A society functions and develops because people in a variety of sectors and organizations, both private and public, are responsible and take on certain responsibilities. We should look at members in the same way, as people who perform tasks with a high level of responsibility.

Account should also be taken of what attracts people to the job of member of Parliament. There is no doubt that most of the people elected to this House are people who want to have a responsibility in how the government is run, who want to make a contribution to society, to help it evolve, to see progress made.

We are talking about members from many different backgrounds, men and women, with a variety of skills and training, who are able to seek office and come here to pool their talents and knowledge with other members. In this context, there must also exist a certain number of conditions that will attract people of quality to political life.

Another factor to be considered is our individual financial independence, our own resources to draw on in carrying out our work, with the expenses that entails, and our independence from outside contributions. We must therefore remember that those elected to office must be able to operate in a context of financial independence.

The question cannot be examined without looking at the fundamental framework. Earlier, I listened to my colleagues as they raised a number of concerns that I share. I would like, on behalf of the official opposition, to reiterate a number of these points that we feel are essential to the debate on whether to reform the pension plan of members of Parliament.

First of all, I think that we are all well aware of the precariousness of the positions we hold. I often say to my colleagues and co-workers that we must never forget that we are just passing through, and some do so more quickly than others. Our mandate is for a very specific length of time.

We must, during this mandate, keep the promises and commitments made to the voters. We must deliver the goods in the sense of doing what has to be done within the allotted time frame, bearing in mind that our time here must be time spent doing good work, which means working energetically and steadfastly. We are here for three, four or five years, but we must put in quality time here. We feel that this reflection I am sharing with this House on behalf of the Official Opposition is a fundamental one.

Second, retirement age. Obviously, as we consider the various options, we can see that several different plans are in place in our society. In some professions, retirement age has already been set at 50 or 55 years of age. We know for example, that in the police force, civil service or Armed Forces, you become pensionable at 50. It is important to point out that serious thought should be given to the age issue, on the basis of current developments and what is currently offered in our society in terms of quality.

Members of Parliament, as it turns out, often launch their parliamentary career at a time in their lives when they are at their best in terms of energy. Age data show that indeed a great many of our elected representatives are at the peak of their form, at the peak of their capacity, which does not detract from the skill and quality of younger members or those with a longer experience. But we can see that this is an important time of our lives when we devote to Parliament energies that could effectively been put to use in a career in some other field, like the one we left to come here, one we are dedicated to and may return to when we are done here. But at this important time when we devote ourselves to public management, to the development and

advancement of our society, we do so with all our energies, in the prime of our life.

So, this is food for thought at this important time when members of Parliament devote time and energy to the state and to social development.

I would add that a political career often interrupts a person's significant contributions to existing pension plans. That is why we must provide members with benefits that are at least as good as those they left behind. It is a matter of fairness. We are not saying that members must be paid handsomely and receive endless benefits. Members must not come here feeling that they will hit the jackpot in four or six years with a good pension whatever their age, that they will be happy to take people's money. That is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about important elements in members' lives.

Before coming here, all members of this House already had their own careers in the private sector or in business, industry, professional services, education, health, etc. They had their own lives but they decided to get involved in politics, the vast majority of them, I am sure, to make a contribution to and benefit society through a political party by participating in the legislative and public administration process. Their previous lives, careers and pension contributions cannot be dismissed out of hand. They should in fairness be taken into consideration.

For all the reasons I just listed, the Official Opposition urges all members to continue to work on pension reform without overlooking any of these elements. In conclusion, I reiterate that we are opposed to this motion as long as the alignment of pensions on private sector plans does not take into account all the elements I referred to earlier involving members' responsibilities, precarious position and previous entitlements. Pensions cannot simply be aligned on the private sector as if by magic; a comprehensive review and clear reference points are needed.

Of course, the Official Opposition rejects this motion but urges everyone to continue working on pension reform, keeping in mind the two important factors we recognize. First, the age at which members can collect pensions. We do not feel that pensions are a privilege to which we are entitled at any age in defiance of societal norms. That is something we recognize. Second, the issue of multiple pensions. We find it unacceptable that someone can retire from a job and receive a pension, then turn around and get rehired. We are against this practice. In our opinion, these two elements should be an important part of pension reform. To achieve a truly comprehensive pension reform that is fair to all elected officials, be they men or women, we need a very clear guide to the fairness criteria leading to a real reform.

[Access To Information, November 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Official Opposition, I have the pleasure to speak on this motion from the member for Red Deer:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Parliament and Crown Agencies should be subject to scrutiny under the Access to Information Act.

I must say to the member for Red Deer that in his speech, he of course mentioned that his objectives were similar to those of the Bloc and the Official Opposition. Yes, this is in line with our objectives of openness and clarity in the management of public affairs and it is also in line with the taxpayers' right to know, as it is called in a democracy.

Remember that the Access to Information Act was passed in 1982 and implemented the following year. This law gives a right to access federal government documents. Under it, government institutions must make their documents available. However, there are exceptions to access to information. For various reasons that I want to deal with in this speech today, several Crown corporations like farm product marketing boards, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, government bodies like the House of Commons, the Senate, the Library of Parliament, office holders who report directly to Parliament such as the Chief Returning Officer, the Commissioner of Official Languages and the Auditor General are not subject to the Access to Information Act.

The Bloc Quebecois deeply believes that in a democratic system, public affairs must be conducted as openly as possible. Nevertheless, the everyday reality of running the affairs of state shows us that any system of access to information must balance various divergent interests.

On the one hand, the government must be accountable to the voters for what it does, as is the case in all western democracies, so that these voters can evaluate the government for its achievements, integrity and honesty. On the other hand, we agree that in reality some affairs of state must remain confidential.

This confidentiality was recognized in the exceptions listed in the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act. These laws protect information whose confidentiality is crucial to the security and integrity of territory under state jurisdiction.

These laws also protect private interests related to personal and commercial information. A Crown corporation like the CBC should, in our opinion, be subject to the Access to Information Act, but there should be some exemptions because otherwise competitors could benefit, thus threatening this corporation's commercial balance.

Atomic Energy of Canada is another glaring example. How could this agency be subject to scrutiny under the Access to Information Act, when the Canadian government stubbornly promotes the development of such a dangerous and polluting energy source? For the current government, certainly not. But it should be possible in the name of quality of life and the environment.

As we can see, the problem underlying any system aimed at opening up public administration goes far beyond the motion tabled by the hon. member for Red Deer. It is not enough to say, as stated in the motion, that the Parliament and Crown Agencies should be subject to scrutiny under the Access to Information Act. As we have seen, the issue is twofold: how to improve the right to know while strengthening privacy measures.

On the other hand, arguing that the Canadian Parliament should not be subject to the Access to Information Act, as this institution is a symbol of democracy in the Canadian federal system, would be questionable.

Committed as it is to the principles of democracy and to promoting increased transparency in the present system, the Bloc Quebecois just has to support the report tabled in March 1987 in which the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs recommended that the Access to Information Act apply to all federal institutions, including administrative tribunals, the Senate and the House of Commons. The Bloc lays particular emphasis on the need for much transparency, in the other place in particular, because, as I am on record as saying in this House, the public must be allowed to scrutinize the wild imaginings of a body that is undemocratic because non-elected.

Incidentally, one wonders about the need for an organization like the Board of Internal Economy of the House of Commons -and this is another important example- to be subject to public scrutiny under the Access to Information Act, since such a provision promotes in no way better democratic process or greater transparency in this institution.

To conclude, the Bloc Quebecois agrees with the essence of Motion 304 and is in favour of the Access to Information Act applying to every government institution funded from the public purse. The main goal, as far as we are concerned, is to promote accessibility and transparency throughout the Canadian federal administration, and given the political climate that has set in within the federation since the 1970s, when the Liberal Party of Canada was in power, we emphasize the need to establish as a mater of urgency this openness, this transparency that the

Liberals themselves praise so much in quoting from their red book all the time.

So, let us act and implement a real access to information legislation, a meaningful legislation that reflects a justice and truth-conscious democracy.

[Standing Committee On Industry, November 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am still referring to the point of order. I think that the members are trying to raise an issue by claiming that my speech was not relevant. Yet, they know perfectly well that my speech was directly related to the development of small businesses and to

access to financing, that it suggested a much wider and structured approach, and that it was right on target.

It may hurt them, but my comments were really relevant and related to the issue being discussed here today.

[Standing Committee On Industry, November 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, clearly this government has to understand that, given the exceptional and enormous work undertaken by Quebec regions to promote their economic development through framework agreements, through RCM's and through regional development councils, it is absolutely essential that Quebec be the only one responsible for its development. The federal government must negotiate with Quebec and transfer to it the whole responsibility of that sector, as well as the necessary funds which are, in all fairness, owed to that province for regional development purposes.