Debates of May 4th, 1995

Committees Of The House

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-85, an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and to provide for the continuation of a certain provision, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and on the amendment.

Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-85 on the pension plan, which has been brought before us. This is the Liberal government's attitude toward reform and, according to the last speaker, this was equitable.

The previous speaker talked about the fact that because our salaries are so low we need this exorbitant, gold plated pension plan that is an obscenity in the fiscal arrangements of Canada. Even though the member was arguing about the fairness of this, she admitted that 50 per cent of members do not collect. That just totally destroys the argument right there.

If we are concerned about inequity in the salaries or compensation arrangements, that we are entitled to more, then surely we get a larger salary, not a larger pension. The pension is not the compensation for the work we do in this House. It is to keep us going in the years when we are unable to work because we are so old and decrepit. That is the theory of pensions. We find that while private and government sectors consider 60 or 65 to be the normal age before you are too old and decrepit to go to work, for parliamentarians it is 55, because we work so hard and make such a great sacrifice for our country. If I look around this room I do not think I will find one person who was dragged in here kicking and screaming in order to make a sacrifice for the country. They are here because they have chosen to be here.

Before they came here they knew what the salary arrangements were and they knew what the pension plan was. That is why they said: "Now I am here, I want to hang on to what I have. We know the Canadian public is mightily upset by what we have, therefore we will make a bit of a change and hope the masses quiet down so we can ride off into the sunset at age 55 with an indexed pension plan which will keep us going from the day we retire in our anonymity and enjoy the sun in our retirement at the expense of other Canadians".

This has been a debate today unfortunately about mistruths, half truths, innuendoes, blatant twisting of facts. The previous speaker talked about the benefits we pay under Bill C-85 being perfectly within the limits of the Income Tax Act. Of course they are. The only problem is every other Canadian has to work 30 or

35 years before they accumulate the same benefits we under this new bill will acquire in 19 years. Before that we acquired it in 15 years.

The previous speaker also said the contributions we make fall within the limits of the Income Tax Act. They do but let us take a look at the Income Tax Act. Members of Parliament have two pension plans. Let every Canadian know we have two pension plans.

The first meets the definitions of the Income Tax Act which say the maximum benefit we can get is 2 per cent per year. We make a contribution to a pension plan that falls within normal, allowable limits.

Then we make the contribution to the top up, the Retirement Compensations Allowances Act. Nobody else can have a top up because there is a penalty. An employer who has a pension above the bottom one has to pay a 50 per cent tax to the federal government. The federal government cannot pay a tax to itself, therefore it can have the top up pension plan with absolute and total impugnity.

That is why we have built the rules and the House has made the rules to accommodate members of Parliament who have been able to bend them for their own benefit. Nobody else can even think about having a pension plan as gold plated as ours, even though it may be legal, because there is a 50 per cent tax applied.

I mentioned we have mistruths, half truths and innuendoes. I could use worse words but you may want to intervene, Mr. Speaker, so I will leave it at that. I am sure everybody knows.

Let me quote a release dated April 20, 1995 from the Treasury Board secretariat, quoting the President of the Treasury Board in relation to Bill C-85: "The bill goes even further than the red book commitment and will reduce government spending on MPs' pensions by 33 per cent". That amounts to $3.3 million of the $10 million the plan currently costs the government.

Let us take a look at cost. Cost is perhaps the central issue in this whole argument. House of Commons estimates, 1995-96, table 5, under "Members of the House of Commons-salaries and allowances of officers, members of the House of Commons under the Parliament of Canada Act and contributions to members of Parliament retiring allowances account and the members of Parliament retirement compensation arrangements account" are $56,352,000.

I go back to the release from the Treasury Board that this amounts to $3.3 million the $10 million the plan currently costs the government. There was a little discrepancy there I thought. There is $56 million in the estimates and $10 million released by the Treasury Board.

I checked it out. I went back to the public accounts 1994, table 7.9: "Members of Parliament retiring allowances account". Contributions by members are $944,000. Contributions by the government are $2 million. The top up is contributions by members, $1.5 million; contributions by the government, $10.3 million.

The previous speaker said we contribute and the government contributes. If there is a shortfall the government contributes more. How much is more? I went to the 1993 public accounts, table 7.9: "1991-92 actuarial liability adjustment" under the members of Parliament retiring allowances account, $158 million; for one year $158 million extra actuarial liability adjustment. In the year 1991-92 that is what the Government of Canada paid to top up the unfunded liability of the members of Parliament pension plan, right here in the 1993 public accounts.

I am quoting from the government document. During that year members contributions-this is just the ordinary one, this is not the top up-were $945,000. Contributions by the government were $2 million. A bit of smoke and mirrors crept in here. After we threw in $158 million the fund goes up and to make sure the pot is relatively sweet we are paying 10 per cent interest on that. The interest the government paid jumped from the previous year of $3.4 million up to $20 million of interest the government threw in on top of its own contribution. It is still liable if it is underfunded to pay the extra.

Those are direct quotes from the Public Accounts of Canada.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

That is not a direct quote.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

It is a direct quote. One hundred and fifty-eight million is what it cost Canadians extra; extra for the ordinary pension plan. I have not even talked about the top up provision. That is from the Public Accounts of Canada.

That is why Canadians are absolutely outraged. We talked today about the member for Beaver River who believes she walked away from a pension plan in which she would receive benefits in the neighbourhood of $1.25 million. I said to her: "Does that make you an ex-millionaire or a could have been millionaire?" We talked about that a little bit. We did realize that for everybody who opts into this pension plan they are want to be millionaires.

That, at the taxpayer's expense, is totally and absolutely unjustifiable. There is that ad on TV: Retire at age 55, freedom day on the beach in Bermuda; shorts, the sun is up. He is there with his wife. The ad says: "This could be you, too". Of course it is you over there.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Again I remind the House and all participating in this debate that all interventions will be made-I will remind you as often as I need to with the greatest of patience that I can find-through the Chair.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. It was within context. I hope you appreciate that.

The ad I was talking about says: "You could be there". I was not referring to you, Mr. Speaker. I was talking to the government side.

The point I am trying to make is here we have written the perfect plan paid for by the taxpayers of Canada, not by one's own resources: age 55, on the beach in Bermuda, lapping it up, a drink in your hand and everybody else is back home working.

That is a crying shame. One of the other things I was thinking about was in the New Brunswick Telegraph Journal on May 3. There is an article about the indebtedness of Atlantic Canada as if Atlantic Canada were a country.

It says the indebtedness of Atlantic Canada would be somewhere between Uganda and Nigeria, in the most severely indebted countries: "The ratio of net public debt to GDP ranges from 121.8 per cent in Newfoundland to 93.1 per cent in New Brunswick". Here we are in Atlantic Canada drowning in debt.

The federal government and the provincial governments have a responsibility to manage our resources for the benefit of all Canadians. Here we are lapping it up for ourselves at the same time as we are allowing the country to dig itself into a hole $550 billion deep with no sign whatsoever that the government can even get out of it.

It is making the hole even bigger and yet its members continue to say: "It is a sacrifice for us here in the Parliament of Canada. We need this gold plated pension plan". Everybody else has to struggle for their jobs, struggle for their paycheques, pay taxes through the nose so that we can, with a gold plated, freedom 55 pension plan, be on the beach in Bermuda courtesy of the Canadian taxpayer. I do not think that is good enough.

I have an article about Liberal broken promises which says the Liberals promised not to increase the tax burden of Canadians. That is in the red book. We find in the last budget taxes are going up 1.5 cents on a litre of gasoline. Corporate taxes are up. Surtaxes are up. Everything is up.

The poor taxpayer is finding we are grabbing more and more money out of his pocket while he is concerned about his job. He is concerned about his mortgage as interest rates go through the roof. He is concerned about the education of his kids. He is concerned about what his kids will do, whether they will get a decent job while we take more and more taxes out of his pocket so we can make this great sacrifice and go and sit on the beach in Bermuda with freedom 55.

The Liberals promised to base federal appointments solely on competence rather than patronage. We heard the President of the Treasury Board today tell us about how he would put an end to double dipping.

This bill would stop double dipping because Canadians are fed up to the teeth with our gold plated pension plan in one pocket and a government salary in another pocket and maybe two pension plans after that is all done in another pocket. We can get out there and enjoy life after the great sacrifice we make while they have to pay after they try to educate their kids and pay their mortgage.

When he defined double dipping he said if you get money out of the general revenue fund of the Government of Canada, that is double dipping and therefore your pension is going to be reduced dollar for dollar.

Patronage appointments are things like being appointed to the board of Air Canada or to other boards of crown corporations. I was reading On the Take about the days when to be appointed to the board of Air Canada was a coveted patronage position, because, next to the Senate, which had all of the privileges granted by this House, the Air Canada board allowed people free Air Canada passes wherever Air Canada flew.

Appointments have been made by the government to crown corporations and not a nickel of the payments made to those people come out of the general revenues of the Government of Canada. Therefore double dipping will continue under this proposed Bill C-85 just as much and just as unjustifiably as it was before. And they tell us they have reformed the system. Reformed? Not one bit.

It goes on and on. They tell Canadians that they are going to get this place organized, that they are going to ensure that they will make a great sacrifice and that this country will get back on some kind of economic sound footing. Unfortunately, the only people who will get themselves on a sound footing are the people who get themselves elected to this House to make that supreme sacrifice of getting the gold plated pension plan so that they can get their freedom 55 and sit on the beach in Bermuda and enjoy it all while the poor Canadians have to work to pay the taxes and the debt and look after the kids.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did want to have an opportunity to ask the hon. member a question and perhaps make a comment in advance of doing that.

He is quite right that MPs do make sacrifices. One of the sacrifices I have had to make is to give up one of my favourite pastimes of reading fiction. Fortunately, sitting in the House today has been some compensation for that.

Let us talk about the figure of $156 million that he bandied about. Let us understand what that is. That is an accrual figure. For those members who understand a balance sheet, it would be like counting depreciation as a cash layout. It is not any such thing. It is a liability that would suggest that if every member of Parliament lived to their actuarial age and if every member of Parliament qualified for a pension, that would be the lifetime expense of the pension. First, 50 per cent of MPs never receive it, so that figure is nothing but an accrual figure that is used by actuaries who are dealing with a pension plan. It is not a true government expense.

Let us get down to what the true government expense is. Right now, under the present regime, it is between $10 million and $11 million. That will drop by 33 per cent.

Let us put into context what this great party across the way is battling and why it is so worried about economic concerns. This represents six one-thousandths of one per cent of the total government expenditure. The party that has come here to control expenditures, the party that has come here because Canadians have told them that we are spending too much, has all of this outrage to deal with six one-thousandths of one per cent of government expenditure.

Let us put it in a better light. If a member was earning $40,000 a year and decided they needed to cut back on their expenditures, the amount the MP's pension would represent in equivalent terms of that $40,000 is $2.40. That is all they would be dealing with, and that is all we are dealing with in the cost.

So I think that when the member describes these expenditures he should do it accurately and in the appropriate context.

I have one other point. He talks about the fact that double dipping is going to continue. I point out there are four members of his party who are double dipping using the definition he just used. I ask the hon. member: Are those four members going to stop their double dipping? Will they stop drawing their pensions from the public purse while they sit in this House and draw the MP pension? Or are they going to continue with double dipping? It will be interesting to hear the answer.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, you will recall that in my speech I did say this was a debate of mistruth, half truths, twisting the truth and so on.

To answer the member's question, in the Public Accounts of Canada, 1991-92, on page 7.9, and in the 1993 public accounts, volume one, it does say quite specifically "an actuarial liability adjustment of $158 million", which he tried to tell us was just one of those fictitious accounting entries that mean nothing to Canadians. The only point is that the following year this fictitious accounting adjustment that means nothing attracted about $17 million worth of interest the taxpayer had to dig into his pocket to find. In 1991-92 the interest paid on the retirement allowances account was $3.44 million, and that jumped because the value of the fund went up because they put in $158 million of taxpayers' money. That interest jumped from $3.4 million to $20,493,768. That is accurate. I am quoting from the public accounts.

I am saying this was real money the Canadian taxpayers had to come up with. That is the shame of the whole affair. Remember I quoted the President of the Treasury Board when he said that this new plan would reduce the costs by 33 per cent. That amounts to $3.3 million of the $10 million the plan currently costs the government.

I recall the questioner saying this $158 million was some kind of fictitious accounting adjustment to bring things all the way through to cover off pensions that would not be paid. This is an actuarial liability adjustment. The plan needed that.

I never talked about the retirement compensation arrangements account, which will likely need a significant top-up as well. If the member cares to read the public accounts, he can study how his government spends its way through $165 billion.

They talk about balancing the budget, yet spending stays constant. They hope to squeeze more taxes out of Canadians in order to balance the budget. If they think that is the way to go, let them go back and ask their constituents if that is what they want, if they want the government as they balance the budget to take them by the neck and give them a rattle and a shake until the money falls out so that we can pay these pensions and balance the budget. I do not think so.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

I will ask my question again, because there were two questions. I got a part answer in one and no answer in the other. I will start with the one I did not seem to get an answer to.

There are four members of your party who are double dipping by the definition you used.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I would caution members to please put all interventions through the Chair.

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are four members of the third party who, using the definition of the last speaker, would be considered to be double dipping using the term the way we use it here. I had asked for an explanation as to whether those members will stop that practice that he finds so abhorrent. That would be the question.

Now the second question. We talked about that famous line, and those of you who know how to read a balance sheet know that an accrual figure is not a cash expense. I ask the hon.

member to say what is the cash expense to the government for the past fiscal year. That is debatable.

What I really want though is the answer to that question about those four members of the third party who are doing the double dipping, as he describes it.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to come up with figures just on the spur of the moment. When we are trying to find our way through $165 billion worth of spending it is difficult sometimes to find exactly where the numbers are. On spending cash, writing cheques, let me see if I can find it.

From the 1993 public accounts we made payments and other charges, annual allowances-and this is out of the ordinary pension plan-of $9.8 million. Out of the other one we paid out $13 million or $14 million. This totals about $23 million, and we as members only contributed 10 per cent of that, about $2.3 million.

To answer his other question, their definition of double dipping is to be paid out of the general revenues of Canada. As far as I am aware, no member of the Reform Party is getting paid out of the general revenues of Canada or is enjoying a patronage appointment by the federal government. Therefore the innuendos he applies to the Reform Party are totally false.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I intend to split my time with the next speaker. I would like to indicate that. It is a pleasure to participate in this debate.

I move:

That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary time of daily adjournment for the purpose of considering the second reading stage of Bill C-85, an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and to provide for the continuation of a certain provision.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Will those members who object to the motion please rise in their places?

Fewer than 15 members having risen, pursuant to Standing Order 26 the motion is adopted.

(Motion agreed to.)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Just to set matters straight, having been given an indication previously, before the parliamentary secretary moved the motion he gave an indication to the Chair and the House that he was splitting his time. I would interpret that to mean that the member for Durham will have ten minutes for his speech and there will be five minutes for questions and comments. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Durham.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point order, if extended hours have been requested, to what extent will the hours be extended?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

As I understand it, there are no limitations under the motion that was moved and agreed to.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Durham.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak in the debate on Bill C-85. I do not think any piece of legislation has enraged people in the country more than the concept of MP pensions.

I remember back to my days in private professional practice when we said we should not drive a car our clients could not afford. I think in some ways that is how people regard MP pensions.

The system being revised here today is possibly better than most private pension plans. Possibly one problem we have in the whole issue of debate is we have not properly focused on the whole concept of remuneration of members of Parliament, and MP pensions are one factor.

Unfortunately things often get confused in Ottawa when we look at various aspects of remuneration, even in the public service. The public service has something like 1,400 separate agreements that cover remuneration for public employees.

The point I am trying to make is when we look at pensions we cannot strictly look at the concept of pensions and compare them with private industry. We have to look at the whole concept of remuneration of members of Parliament.

Another aspect is exactly what does the public expect and what kind of qualities and qualifications do members of Parliament need to come to this place? For most people it is not a matter of money. I believe that is true of all my colleagues in the House. In my case I really did not even know how much members of Parliament got paid until I came here. When the first paycheque showed up in my bank account it quickly enlightened me to the fact I was being employed for less than half of what I made in the private sector.

The government commissioned an independent study to review the whole matter of MP pensions and also remuneration of members of Parliament. The study came back basically saying reduce MP pensions to reflect the norms of the private sector. At the same time it talked about changing the entire way we are remunerated in terms of salary.

The reason our salaries are so strange goes back over a long period in our history and there are some aspects that have been picked up over time that probably belong to the past. I suppose it is much like laws on the books in Parliament. We often take a great deal of time to update and modernize them.

That is what is happening with this whole issue. The government clearly has gone far beyond its commitments. I will read from the red book because there seem to be points members opposite have missed entirely. It says Parliament will end double dipping. That is what this legislation does. It also talks about reviewing. I point out and underline it says "review the question of the minimum age at which pensions will begin to be paid". We are doing more than reviewing them. We are changing them, moving them to the age of 55.

We have actually surpassed the red book commitments because we also have talked about the accrual rate at which we can receive pensions. Currently the accrual rate is 5 per cent which means we get a 75 per cent pension after 15 years of service. By reducing from 5 per cent to 4 per cent we have increased the number of years we have to be in the plan to get a 75 per cent pension from 15 to 19.

We actually have a reduction in the total remuneration of members of Parliament. It is a wage roll back. Not only have our salaries been frozen for a number of years but now the government, through this initiative, has actually reduced our salaries, our remuneration, which includes pensions as a part of that.

Clearly this goes way beyond our commitments to the public. We have ended double dipping. The first $5,000 of other income a former member can have from an appointment or whatever is excluded.

Any moneys over that, he will have to basically claw back off his pension. If somebody were to get a $50,000 appointment and were collecting a $12,000 pension, he would not get any pension at all.

There is a very interesting study by Mr. Jeffery. This is very interesting, very allusive for some of the members of the Reform Party who are so quick to possibly give up their options in this plan.

These are members of the former Parliament. I have little clips here. It is very allusive as to how members' remuneration is affected after their life in Parliament. We all think we will be here forever.

The reality is, as many of my colleagues have mentioned, less than 50 per cent of members will ever collect a pension. Here is a quote from a former member: "My advice to those who are neither on leave from a tenured position nor wealthy would be not to seek office until sufficient means to live independently beyond leaving office". These are people who have paid the price: "Life after defeat was quite different. I feel that my time in politics has drastically curtailed my credibility when seeking employment. So much for service to one's country".

Another quotation: "My experience as a member of Parliament was a major hindrance to finding employment". This is from a cabinet minister: "Cabinet experience was no great help, not compared with the loss of income opportunities over 17 years".

Another quote: "My oldest son is about to enter university. I had hoped my retirement allowance would be available to fund his education if necessary. It has been required to keep up the mortgage".

If I had to retire after 22 years in the House on my gold plated pension, the euphemism often given by the Reform Party of $46,000 without additional income from a job, I would be in tough shape.

The record is very clear about what we are talking about. What we are talking about is the remuneration of people who have given up their careers or whatever to come into this great House.

In some ways I see MP pension as a form of danger pay. These are things that do not really make the Toronto Sun or for that matter the National Citizens' Coalition.

We talked about the fact that less than 50 per cent of members collected. Another interesting statistic is that of the ones who do collect, the 50 per cent who do collect, less than 30 per cent receive pensions in excess of $50,000.

Why is that? It is because they are unable to attain the six-year vestiture period. My Reform colleagues constantly argue why this is not comparative to the private sector. If the private sector were involved the vestiture period would be two years.

I wonder why some of our Reform colleagues are opting out of this plan. There is another interesting aspect. Right now MPs are required to contribute 11 per cent of their pay into this plan. The new plan will be 9 per cent.

Could it be that the Reformers are not very good savers? What they want to do is spend. In other words, by taking the 9 per cent of these pension contributions they will give themselves more disposable income. Could it be they are not very good financial advisers, not very good at managing their own affairs? They want to spend for today rather than save for tomorrow.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the issue of MP pensions today. We are debating Bill C-85, which should be entitled an act to make minimal changes to the gold plated MP pension scheme.

I have heard Liberal members speaking about their MP pension plan and they do not want to give it up. They sound like spoiled children, whining about how difficult life would be if

they did not have their MP pension plan. I hear the sound of violins out of tune on the other side. It is really pitiful that we have to listen to this screeching, wailing and complaining. Canadians deserve better than what they are getting from their Liberal representatives today.

My colleagues and I in the Reform Party are proud that our constant pressure on the issue has finally led to some government action. It did not want to do anything. Unfortunately the government has failed to propose any meaningful changes and as a result the bill falls well short of what the public expects and what Reformers can accept.

What the government fails to understand is that all of us in the Chamber work for and are paid by the public. We must ensure the compensation package for members of Parliament, including the pension portion, is in line with public sector standards and what Canadians want to pay us. We must respect taxpayer money as if it were our own. I would like to repeat that because I do not think the Liberals understand. They do not think about the concept that we must respect taxpayer money as if it were our own.

We would not spend money foolishly. We would not spend it so extravagantly, especially if we were running a country $550 billion in debt. I do not know why the Liberals cannot understand taxpayer money is very important. It is precious. They worked hard for that money. Why should they see it so extravagantly thrown to the wind?

I know the Prime Minister and many others on the government side have waxed poetic about all the hard work MPs do. It is true that the majority of MPs do work very hard. What the government forgets is most Canadians across the country work very hard also. I do not think any Canadian gets the kind of pension plan MPs receive. None of them receives such a lavish, extravagant remuneration after their retirement or defeat.

Canadians are aware of the long, hard hours members put in and I do not think they actually begrudge the salary of a member of Parliament. After all, there are many professions in Canada where the pay is higher than that of a member of Parliament. Senior teachers, for example, can earn in excess of $65,000 in some jurisdictions, and sometimes school board officials receive upward of $100,000. What angers Canadians are the pensions of MPs. There is no private sector precedent for such a lucrative plan.

It is important to recognize the opinions of Canadians matter when it comes to issues of members' pay and pension. The government has forgotten that it is the Canadian public that it is here to represent. It is the Canadian public that it works for. It is the Canadians who pay all the bills. It is a strange arrangement where the employees design their own pension plan and brag about it even though it outrages Canadians, the people who actually pay the bills. The views of the taxpaying public on this issue should be heard and respected.

The government is only going through the motions of pension reform. It reminds me of lip syncing the old country and western song, "If you've got the money, honey, I've got the time". Government members have years and years of a retirement life with $30,000, $70,000 a year, totalling in some cases several million dollars. Perrin Beatty, recently appointed as the president of the CBC, has an MP pension which will total over $5 million by the time he reaches 75. The MP pension plan attracts selfish opportunists to political life.

I heard a member of the NDP saying members have to be paid properly if we are to attract good quality representatives to the House. I do not believe that. I believe the motives of the members of this place must be higher than fixing their sights on the remuneration and the pension plan they receive. It is a bit revealing when we hear members discuss these issues as to their motives for seeking election and why they are here.

Bill C-85 is a cynical attempt at a public relations job rather than a significant policy change. The Liberals are trying to give the appearance that they are taking action on the issue of gold plated MPs pensions but in fact are not.

The government is making what it sees as the minimum necessary changes in its opinion to the pension plan. It is the least it could do, and certainly it does the very least.

The Liberals have decreased the annual accrual rate of benefits from 5 per cent per year to 4 per cent. The provision makes a minor change in the rate at which pension benefits increase, but it does not change the maximum pension amount members can receive. It slightly increases the time it takes to reach the maximum. There is no substantive change here. There is a slight accounting change that has been dressed up to give the public the impression of reform. It is not the real thing.

It is a lot like the noise the finance minister made about real cuts to overall spending in his budget. Total spending this year will be higher than the total spending last year. Despite this fact the Liberals have their spin doctors and media people spinning a tale of real spending reductions when there has been a spending increase. Canadians know who the real reformers are and they are not on the government benches. The legislation proves it.

I can hear the Minister of Health saying that instead of a very, very generous pension plan it is a very generous pension plan.

It is difficult to find a positive side. The positive side is by far the smaller side on a multi-sided sphere. On the positive side the government has established a minimum age for eligibility although it is set pretty low. I wonder how many private pension plans set a normal retirement at age 55. The normal retirement age is 65.

The old age pension begins to be paid at age 65. If people in the private sector take early retirement they receive lower and lower benefits for each additional year they draw from the plan. This is done with private sector pensions because it is believed they should be actuarially sound. This concept seems to be foreign to a government that thinks it does not matter if the numbers add up at the end of the day, that it is somebody else's money and that it will do with it as it pleases.

The government does not have the foggiest notion of the consequences of lavish spending that has sunk us over $550 billion in debt. It says that we should look after ourselves. It is the selfish baby boomer MPs who say: "Too bad for the rest of you. Good luck to future generations. We don't care if we bankrupt you. It is your tough luck".

The 55 years of age provision is better than what we had before. If I suddenly won the 649 and became a multimillionaire I could walk away from this place, if I were an irresponsible person. I assure the House that I am not. Had I won the election in 1988 when I first ran I would have been here for six years and would have been able to receive the gold plated pension at age 42. The 55 figure is a little better but certainly not what Canadians are asking for.

Again the Liberals have done the very least. They have made minimal changes. The government does not realize, or perhaps it does not care, that if the benefits are too high and retirement age is too low it will have to dip into public money to make up the difference. The Liberals seem to have trouble differentiating between public money and their own. It is no wonder the country is in debt up to its eyeballs. Again the government is going with the minimum necessary to give the impression of change. It does not realize that the public sees through this type of masquerade.

The elimination of double dipping that used to occur through members taking another federal job or patronage appointment is a positive move. I am pleased that in the face of public opinion and constant pressure from Reform benches the government is beginning to move on the issue.

There are many examples of people in patronage appointed positions who are collecting the MP pension. I will name a few. Ed Broadbent has apparently taken a slight reduction in his salary just so he could keep on receiving the MP pension plan. He was not going to be reappointed to his position unless he knuckled under. He would have gladly taken that pension had his term not expired and had he not needed to be reappointed.

I mentioned Perrin Beatty a little earlier. We also know that Mr. David Berger was named an ambassador. He still gets his MP pension. They had to do some wheeling and dealing to make it politically acceptable. He had to state that he would take a lesser salary than he would normally take to compensate for the pension.

It points out to the House that there is a chance for behind the scenes manoeuvring in the setting of salaries. Certainly it is not the type of scenario we want to allow retired members of Parliament to find themselves in. They are very vulnerable to corruption and wheeling and dealing behind the public's back with regard to their salary and total pension benefits.

In some cases the recipients of a cushy patronage plum will announce their new salary is being reduced by the amount of their MP pension. How can the taxpaying public know the high salary these people are paid would not have been different if the appointee did not have a fat pension? The whole system has the potential for abuse. It is all smoke and mirrors with the Liberals. Why do they not simply get into step with the rest of the country and come clean about the details of the appointments and positions?

The pension scheme remains out of line with what other Canadians have available to them. What they would approve for us brings up a very important issue, the issue of making the plan voluntary or having an opting out or opting in provision.

Bill C-85 includes an opting out or opting in provision, however we want to look at it, that is designed solely for the purpose of trying to get some crass political advantage for the government. It does not allow long time members of the House the option of completely leaving the plan. Only members elected within the last six years prior to the 1993 election have the option of refusing to participate in this taxpayer rip-off. That includes those elected for the first time in 1993 and in 1988. My hon. colleague from Beaver River was elected in a byelection in 1989. Incredibly the government wants to make it mandatory for all future members.

If it is good enough for us to have a chance to opt out or opt in now, why not for the class of 1997 or whenever the government screws up the courage to call an election? Why just the one-time opting in or opting out option? What possible reason could the government have for denying future members of the House the freedom to opt out of this gold plated scheme?

The government obviously views membership in the Camber as some sort of caste system or inherited aristocracy. MPs are not royalty. I am getting worked up. I am very serious about the issue. It really bothers me. Members of royalty are specifically excluded from becoming members of Parliament despite Liberal attempts in this place.

Future members of the House should not be forced to inherit a royal pension. Why should we in the 35th Parliament have the privilege of opting out while it is denied to future members? This may be a question of privilege. The government is attempting to create a two-tier pension scheme: one for members with a

conscience and one for those who want to get as much from the trough as they possibly can.

I was listening to my colleague from Calgary Centre. He gave a very good illustration of the confusion around the pension plan. He said that originally we thought we were to have trough light and trough regular. Now he has found out there are trough regular, trough light and trough stout.

The problem with the bill is that some of us want to abstain altogether. Future MPs will not be allowed that option and that is wrong. The legislation needs to be changed to correct a terrible precedent. The government is attempting to create a two-tier pension scheme: one for members with a conscience and one for those who are out for themselves, those who call themselves number one rather than the Canadian taxpayer who is paying the bill.

There is no reason why all future members should not have the choice of opting out of the pension scheme. It is unacceptable that future Reform members, and there will be many, will have to participate in this outrageous pension plan along with future Liberal members, if there are any.

If the government arranges it so that no members can opt out, I suppose Liberal MPs can continue to show sympathy for overburdened taxpayers who complain about MP pensions without having to make any sacrifices themselves. The only way to solve the problem and clear up the mess is to elect a Reform government and create a modest and a respectable pension plan, one of which we as MPs can be proud. We would not have to hang our heads in shame because we contribute to such a plan and, even worse, collect from such an outrageous plan.

The Liberals know that the way the current severance package works for defeated or retiring members could be affected by exercising the opting out provision of the bill. They knew this yet made no provision for those effects of the legislation. They are trying to place many disincentives for opting out in the way of members wishing to do so. It is nothing more than an attempt to punish members for doing the responsible thing and opting out of a system that is unfair and out of line with the expectations of Canadians.

Canadians are well aware of the ratio of public money to members in the contributions to the plan. They know the current pension plan would contribute $4.1 of taxpayers money for every dollar that members contribute. The minor changes in Bill C-85 move this ratio to $3.6 to $1. That is not much improvement when the number should be $1 to $1. The design of the pension plan is a little less scandalous, a little less immoral, if we follow the provisions of Bill C-85.

Canadians are not happy that they contribute over three and a half times as much as members will to the new scheme. The ratio comes nowhere near the approximate $1 to $1 ratio used in the majority of private pension plans. Canadians are not happy with the souped up benefits for MPs. They want to know what justification exists for this imbalance.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

None.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

The member for Beaver River says there are none and I totally agree with her. The government cannot answer the public because there is no justification for such an inequity.

The government should take into account that the days of traditional employment when someone worked for the same company or even in the same profession for their entire working life are over. I have heard the arguments in the House about being a successful business person or a school teacher who decided to make a sacrifice and run for election, about being elected and it ruining careers, about being unable to go back to their teaching positions or into business. I understand, but the solution is not to create a crazy pension plan like the one the Liberals are supporting. The solution is not only to enable MPs but all members of society in various professions to move their pension from one occupation to the next so that when they reach a legitimate retirement age they have an adequate pension in place.

Let us talk about some common sense solutions to our problem. Let us not sit and whine and complain and say that because I made a voluntary decision to get into politics somehow I need to be coddled, babied and given an ultra lavish pension plan.

Members of Parliament are good examples of people who change their professions. Most members have active careers before they are elected to this place and many return to them. Many times becoming a member of Parliament gives us an advantage when we go back into the workforce. It is not all gloom and doom like the Liberals would have us believe.

Even some of the awful Conservatives who did all those terrible things and got kicked out of this place are gainfully employed right now. They are probably making as much or more money than they made when they were in the House. It certainly is not all gloom and doom.