VOLUME 133 NUMBER 128 1st SESSION 35th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Tuesday, November 22, 1994 Speaker: The Honourable Gilbert Parent HOUSE OF COMMONS Tuesday, November 22, 1994 The House met at 10 a.m. [English] _______________ PETITIONS RIGHTS OF GRANDPARENTS Prayers Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission—Coquitlam, Ref.): Mad- _______________ am Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour [English] this morning of presenting petitions on behalf of my constitu- ents for the right of grandparents to gain access to their POINTS OF ORDER grandchildren through an amendment to the Divorce Act. GUN CONTROL OFFICIAL OPPOSITION Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, Ref.): Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Madam Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, constituents of Speaker, I know one does not normally comment on the presence my riding of Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt are adding to or absence of someone in the House, but we have just convened the growing number of people who are concerned about the Parliament without any presence of the official opposition. I am intrusion of government into the rights of ordinary, law–abiding not referring to a member. This may have happened before but I citizens. wonder if it is appropriate. This intrusion is in the form of adding to the already stringent The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sure the hon. gun control legislation in Canada. Canadians are clearly saying member recalls that we do not refer to the presence or the that we have a crime problem, not a gun problem. absence of anyone in the House. The petitioners are calling on Parliament to oppose further Mr. Lee: Madam Speaker, if I might on the point of order, I legislation for firearms acquisition and possession, and to want to state clearly that I am not referring to the presence or provide strict guidelines and mandatory sentencing for the use absence of a member. I am referring to the apparent complete or possession of a firearm in the commission of a violent crime. absence of the official opposition from the proceedings of the House today. I agree with and support the petitioners and urge the govern- ment to reconsider its position. The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Any 20 members com- pose a quorum in the House and we have that. I would like to * * * proceed with tabling of documents. QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER _____________________________________________ Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I would ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS ask, Madam Speaker, that all questions be allowed to stand. Mr. Scott (Skeena): Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of [Translation] order. GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS On May 3 of this year I put Question No. 47 on the Order Paper. It asked for information relating to the travel and enter- Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of tainment expenses of deputy ministers in the years 1991, 1992 the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam and 1993. A part of the question was tabled sometime last week Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I am pleased to table, by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Lead- in both official languages, the government’s response to peti- er. Since an Order for Return was issued, I am asking when we tions. can expect to have the report for 1991 and 1992? 8077 COMMONS DEBATES November 22, 1994 Supply (1010) 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 Mr. Milliken: Madam Speaker, I know the hon. member is with the Income Tax Act. apparently dissatisfied with the very lengthy response he re- ceived to his important question. She said: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that we finally It was tabled as an Order for Return of the House and it get a chance to debate this matter in the House. Yesterday trough applied only to the third year of the three for which he asked. day arrived and we see the important need for changes to the Naturally the government is anxious to provide all the informa- members of Parliament pension plan. tion it can to the hon. member. I express my concern that the answer was apparently incomplete when we received only the It is unfortunate that the government did not live up to its red one year. book promise and make the changes before trough day yester- day. That certainly would have sent the signal loudly and clearly I was informed that the cost of rooting out the other years is to the Canadian public. very substantial and that unless the hon. member is quite insistent on getting the answer that it would not be forthcoming The Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act is a very because it would cost so much to get it. modest statute introduced in 1952. In the last dozen years or so it has become really divisive. It is destructive. It is an unfair and Might I suggest that if the hon. member is serious in wanting detested piece of legislation in the eyes of most Canadians. this additional information, I have no objection to getting it for him at some cost. I am quite prepared to request that it be provided. I draw the attention of the House to a report that was just brought in by a commission to review allowances of members of I would suggest that since the question has been made an Parliament. This plan was started in 1952, which is interesting Order for Return and the return has been tabled, it would be because that is the year I arrived on the scene as well. We might appropriate for him to put the question on the Order Paper again, take notice that the prime minister of the day, Louis St. Laurent, at least in relation to the two years for which he has not received said they wanted to make sure what was happening in those days an adequate response. I would then instruct officials to get the in terms of the public service made it impossible for somebody necessary information to the hon. member. who was serving as a member of Parliament to provide ade- quately for his later years. The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is this on the same point of order? This is not debate. I appreciate that pensions are good things. A pension scheme is not wrong at all. But this particular MP pension is a ‘‘scheme a Mr. Scott (Skeena): Madam Speaker, yes it is. It is not on dream’’ when you think about what has gone on in the last debate. several years to make sure MPs look after themselves. We need I appreciate there may be some cost associated with the to come up with a plan that is fair and is going to sell itself to the government tabling the information in the House. However it is Canadian taxpayers who are funding the pension plan. important for the Canadian people and for accountability that we do see the information. I would ask the government to pursue the (1015) information with the appropriate officials in the government. I do not consider myself nor do I consider my friends across The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Shall the remaining the aisle, who have just qualified for trough day yesterday to get questions stand? an MP pension, later years. March 13 is my date coming up, and Some hon. members: Agreed. I make full awareness to the people of that. I mentioned it in Question Period the other day. If the government does choose to _____________________________________________ put in MP pension reform I find it very strange that it would do it to its own members to make sure that they were in safe as of November 21. I have a feeling that it is going to make changes before March 13 so that I may be set up as the fall guy. I do not GOVERNMENT ORDERS mind being set up as the fall guy if there are going to be substantive changes to the pension plan. We want to see that. [English] I am being assured by my friend across the aisle that they will SUPPLY look after that or they will look after me. Nothing makes me more nervous than having Liberals say that they are going to ALLOTTED DAY—MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT RETIREMENT ALLOWANCE look after me. I will look forward to any remarks in the future from the member for Kingston and the Islands when he dis- Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.) moved: cusses this plan I am sure later. 8078 November 22, 1994 COMMONS DEBATES Supply I might also mention that my friend from Kingston and the them are full time. I suspect anyone in public life serves full Islands will qualify if he lives to age 75 and all goes well for him time regardless of the number of hours they put in a week. and he will stand to gain $1,061,976. That is not a bad pay out at all. Let us look at the United States. People who serve in Congress in the United States have to put in a 1.3 per cent contribution You can see that this is a rather touchy subject across the aisle, level. They qualify at minimum age and serve age 62 or age 50 Madam Speaker, and you are on the list as well of benefiting.