Bob Ringma

[Veterans Review And Appeal Board Act, May 12th, 1995]

No, I am not.

[Veterans Review And Appeal Board Act, May 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, is this on debate?

[Somalia Commission, May 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the information commissioner also says that the access act is a law of Parliament and you cannot just opt out of it because you find it inconvenient.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister assure the House, because we are sincerely worried about this, that requests will not be denied just because it is a matter of inconvenience or the commission says so?

[Somalia Commission, May 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the information commissioner says that the Somalia commission does not have the power to bypass the Access to Information Act or the Privacy Act and the government cannot bend the rules to meet commission concerns. Further, the Minister of National Defence in his recent news release says that all information requests will be processed according to the two acts.

Given that national defence is notorious for its lack of respect for processing access requests, can the Deputy Prime Minister please explain what this policy will mean to all of us?

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to address Bill C-85, amendments to the MPs' pension plan. At the same time, I share a bit of shame in the House, having heard the atrocious remarks of the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.

I address the citizens of Canada. I hope, ladies and gentlemen of the public, you read Hansard of today to listen to what the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell had to say. In that you will hear a perversion of the facts, where that member deliberately went after the Reform Party to twist things around and indicate that what we were talking about here was aug-

mentation of MPs' salaries rather than the pension plan, which is the thing we are directly addressing.

One should not get emotional. This should be a place where one addresses logic and reason and brings facts out into the open. I find that really the remarks of that member typify what is wrong with the political process in Canada.

We are talking about a pension plan. We believe sincerely that the pension plan given to MPs is simply far too generous. We are speaking on behalf of the Canadian public in that regard. They say it is too generous, it is gold plated, we should cut it back. What the government is doing to respond to the public is simply not good enough, and that is our point.

In any event, the government has finally found the courage to tackle the problem, if insufficiently. I am saddened that the Liberal fat pack has refused to abandon its place at the public trough, which has resulted in what is really a very poor excuse for MP pension reform. There is insufficient reform in that bill.

In their 1991 book, The Great Reckoning , authors James Dale Davidson and Lord William Rees-Mogg wrote: ``In the past, those societies that have treated persons differently, based upon what they are, rather than what they do, have faltered economically, and opportunity has been foreclosed for almost everyone''. This quotation is appropriate to our debate here today, for with the MP pension plan we have a group of 295 men and women who are being treated differently simply because they are members of Parliament. How are they treated differently? Under this revised pension sham, MPs can collect a pension at the age of 55. In the private sector, most people have to wait until they are 65.

Even with lowering the annual accrual rate to 4 per cent, it means that this plan proposed by the government is twice as rich as that of the plan of the average Canadian worker. The MP plan is fully indexed against inflation, which is something that is virtually unheard of in the private sector.

Why does the Liberal government and its gang of present and future trough feeders feel that they have a right to be treated so much better than the average Canadian? While it may be true that this bill will fulfil the red book promise to reform the plan, it is a hollow and purely symbolic reform.

For example, the red book speaks of eliminating double dipping, the practice of collecting an MP pension while earning a government paycheque, usually for a patronage appointment. The government says that their proposal will eliminate double dipping. But if we look closely at the bill we see it simply defers the practice. Pension benefits continue to grow but are deferred for as long as the patronage position lasts.

Once again we see that these amendments are nothing but smoke and mirrors. The Canadian public is incensed at the current obscenely generous gold plated pension plan for MPs. It is equally outraged by these amendments which merely downgrade the gold plated plan to a silver plated one.

The fact that politicians have a bad reputation in Canada is largely due to this type of largesse. The government had the opportunity to address the massive public concern but refused to do so. It blew it. Like most other things the Liberal government has done, it reacted in a half hearted foot dragging way. It has proven once again that if the public wants real reform they had better send in some real Reformers.

As a real Reformer, I oppose this plan. However, I am not here to simply criticize. As a Reformer, I also have an alternative. Last year I asked my constituents about MP pension reform. I asked how long an MP should have to serve before getting a pension and at what age. We asked this question widely in my constituency.

Based on the responses I received I presented my constituents with a proposal to revamp the plan. Support for this proposal was ten to one in favour. Since that time I have been working on the plan on behalf of the people of Nanaimo-Cowichan and I am proud to say that the process is now complete. Yesterday the collective voice of my constituents was heard on this issue in the House when I introduced my private member's bill.

In comparing the government's farcical attempt at pension reform with that proposed by my constituents in Nanaimo-Cowichan we see many glaring discrepancies. For instance, under the Liberal plan taxpayers contribute $3.50 for every dollar put in by the MP. Under the Nanaimo-Cowichan plan, taxpayers contribute nothing since they are already paying the MP's salary. Under the Liberal plan the pension fund is managed by the government, which has a worse fiscal record in management than Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker. Under my constituents' proposal the pension fund will be administered by the private sector.

Under the Liberal plan, taxpayers are on the hook to eligible MPs for life. Under our plan MPs would receive a one time lump sum payment consisting of the money which they contributed plus the interest accumulated, which could be considerable.

Under the Liberal proposal the Liberal fat pack maintains its front row reservation at the public trough while newer MPs will be moved back to the second row, thus creating a two tiered pension plan. Under the Nanaimo-Cowichan plan all MPs are treated equally, as no one is entitled to belly up to the trough.

In comparison with the so-called reform package put forward by the Liberal government there is only a one-time opportunity to opt out of the plan. That means that all future MPs will be forced to swill from the public trough, like it or not. Our proposal allows MPs to opt out of the plan at their discretion.

Liberals, like the hon. Deputy Prime Minister and her fat pack colleagues, say they have worked hard for their gold plated pensions and deserve what they have coming. I trust that the voters are wise enough to see through the smoke and mirrors to discover the hypocrisy and deceit behind the bill so that the Liberal fat packers get what is coming to them.

A true democracy must be based on quality citizens who come forward to serve their country out of a genuine desire to make our society a better place in which to live, not out of a desire to better one's own standard of living.

I do not believe that politics should be a lifelong profession. It should be a momentary detour in one's career path. Unfortunately, the bill to which we are addressing ourselves today promotes the former and does nothing to restore Canadians' faith in their politicians. The citizens of Canada will judge the government of today on this bill.

I urge all members of the House to abandon this frivolous bill, although I know I am not going to get much reaction from across the way. I urge members to take a long, hard look at the proposal put forward on behalf of the constituents of Nanaimo-Cowichan in the bill I introduced yesterday.

[Veterans Review And Appeal Board Act, May 8th, 1995]

moved:

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-67, in Clause 73, be amended by replacing line 9, on page 26, with following:

"do so on application if the person making the application alleges that an error was made with respect to any finding of fact or the interpretation of any law or if new evidence is"

Motion No. 11 is an important amendment to section 82 of the bill. During the clause by clause study in committee, an amendment was made to section 32 of the bill because it was agreed by all that veterans had lost a right and that the amendment to section 32 restored that right.

Section 32 originally denied veterans the right to have the appeal panel review a decision based on the applicant's claim that there had been an error with respect to a finding of fact or interpretation of law.

Veterans could only apply based on new evidence. After being amended in committee, veterans can now apply for a review based not only on new evidence but based on a claim that an error had been made with respect to a finding of fact or interpretation of law.

Section 82 of the bill is exactly the same as section 32 except instead of referring to the appeal panel it is refers to the minister. Considering the unanimous consent the amendment to section 32 received in committee, there is no reason for this bill to restrict veterans to applying to the minister for a review based on new evidence only.

Veterans should have the right to apply to the minister for a review based on the claim by the veteran that there had been an error with respect to any finding of fact or interpretation of law. I call on all members to support this important motion.

[Veterans Review And Appeal Board Act, May 8th, 1995]

moved:

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-67, in Clause 48, be amended by replacing line 34, on page 14, with following:

"48. Section 24 of the Act is replaced by the following:

"24. (1) When a pensioner has been sentenced to imprisonment for a term of six months or more, the payment of his pension shall be discontinued and no pension shall be paid to the pensioner for or in respect of the term of that imprisonment, except that the Minister has discretion to direct the payment of the pension or part of it to any person who was being or was entitled to be supported by the pensioner at the time of the arrest of the pensioner or, if in the opinion of the Minister it would be of exceptional benefit or advantage to the pensioner, the Minister may in the Minister's discretion direct the payment of the pension or a part thereof to or for the pensioner.

(2) On the pensioner's release from imprisonment, payment of his pension shall be reconsidered as from the date of release and in accordance with the extent of the disability of the pensioner then shown to exist or, in the case of a pensioner pensioned on account of the death of a member of the forces, in accordance with the rates set out in Schedule II or determined pursuant to sub-section 34(7) or 45(3), whichever rates are applicable.""

Madam Speaker, while researching this bill it came to our attention that section 24 of the Pension Act was being repealed with this bill. Section 24 of the Pension Act states:

24.(1) When a pensioner has been sentenced to imprisonment for a term of six months or more, the payment of his pension shall be discontinued and no pension shall be paid to the pensioner for or in respect of the term of that imprisonment,

Given the cost of incarceration to the public purse, it is only fitting that the government not pay a government funded pension to a prisoner.

Section 24 of the Pension Act must not be removed. This section of the Pension Act is also very reasonable. Consideration is taken of the dependants of the pensioner who rely on the pensioner's disability pension income. It also gives the minister discretion to allow the pensioner to continue to collect the pension if special circumstances exist.

Therefore I call on all members to support Motion No. 10.

[Veterans Review And Appeal Board Act, May 8th, 1995]

moved:

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-67, in Clause 28, be amended by replacing lines 18 to 23, on page 6, with the following:

"28. An appellant may make a written submission to the appeal panel or may appear before it, in person or by representative and at their own expense, to present documentary evidence and written or oral arguments, but the appeal panel shall not accept oral testimony."

Madam Speaker, our intervention on this is very short, sweet and simple. It concerns only clause 28. We do not mean to change the intent or meaning of clause 28. Very simply, we ask that the wording be clarified to ensure that appellants will clearly understand their rights. As it is worded now, it is vague as to rights. The intent of our motion is to clear up the language to ensure that appellants clearly understand their rights.

[Veterans Review And Appeal Board Act, May 8th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I would like to address a few words under group two to Motion No. 3. I hope that is appropriate at this time.

A number of witnesses presenting their reports on Bill C-67 to the Standing Committee on Defence and Veterans Affairs complained about the length of time members could be appointed to the veterans review and appeal board. They felt that ten-year terms with eligibility for an additional ten years is excessive, and I agree.

Appointments with terms like this allow little opportunity for new blood to come into the system. They also allow the

government to stuff the board full of political appointees who will remain long after the government has gone.

Motion No. 3, which is our amendment to clause 5 of Bill C-67, will ensure that there is plenty of turnover, allowing a frequent infusion of new blood to the board. In addition, no government will be allowed to dominate the board long after it has been voted out of power. It calls for ten permanent members to be appointed for three years, ten more for six years, and the remaining nine for nine years. Permanent members will be eligible for reappointment, but no member will be able to sit on the board for more than twelve years. Provision exists for a permanent member to trade their term with another permanent member. Length of term is decided by lot.

I encourage all members to consider seriously this amendment. It would do much to defuse public criticism of political appointees.

[Veterans Review And Appeal Board Act, May 8th, 1995]

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-67, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 18 to 20, on page 2, with the following:

"(2) The terms of the permanent members appointed under section 4 shall be determined by lot, with ten permanent members to be appointed for a term not exceeding three years, an additional ten permanent members to be appointed for a term not exceeding six years and the remaining nine permanent members to be appointed for a term not exceeding nine years.

(3) Notwithstanding sub-section (2) and subject to subsection (4), a permanent member may agree with another permanent member to exchange the terms they were given under subsection (2).

(4) No permanent member shall hold office, whether by reappointment or by an exchange, for more than twelve years."