Debates of June 16th, 1995

The House resumed from June 9 consideration 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; and of Motions Nos. 1 to 7.

Members Of Parliament Retiringallowances Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

Hon. members, the last time the House considered Bill C-85, the hon. member for Longueuil had four minutes left. Since he is not in the House today, the hon. member for Yellowhead has the floor.

[Cliff Breitkreuz, Reform, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, before I comment directly on Bill C-85 I remind the House it has been almost two years since the government took over office and Canada's deficit. The problem still remains unresolved.

During the last 24 hours the deficit has increased by $100 million and in the last hour the deficit has increased by $4 million. Since I began speaking the deficit has increased by about $40,000. When I an through with my remarks on the MP pension bill the deficit will have incredibly increased by about $700,000. Our country's debt stands at over $550 billion and the government has added about $100 billion to the debt over the last couple of years.

Into this kind of deficit disaster, this spending brinkmanship, the government introduced the outrageous, incredibly rich gold plated MP pension bill which government members are reluctant to debate in the House and which they certainly will not debate outside the House or across the country.

Government members should hang their heads in shame. Every member who votes for this bill, this elitist double standard bill, should be embarrassed. When MPs who support the bill go back to their ridings, how can they look their constituents straight in the eye and tell them they deserve a pension at least twice as rich as those of their constituents? For the 74 Liberal members of Parliament presently here, the trough heavies, how can they look their constituents in the eye and tell them they deserve a pension at least four times are rich as those of their constituents?

Politicians in Ottawa have created two sets of rules, one for the ruling elite and one for regular folks. A case in point recently of a double standard is the mileage allowance increase for MPs, about 12 per cent higher than is allowed in the private sector. Politicians set themselves apart, above regular folks.

I am talking about a double standard, which is really an euphemism for hypocrisy. The ultimate hypocrisy takes shape in the MP pension plan. It was an issue during the 1993 election campaign and it will grow to a major issue in the next election.

My constituents in the Yellowhead know what the federal government is doing about the gold plated pension plan and they do not like it one bit.

Sadly, the Liberal government lacks the intestinal fortitude to do the right thing and bring MP pension into line with pension plans available in the private sector. It is a double standard. Whether the Liberals want to accept it or not, we are all regular folks, just like the people who voted for us. Dignity and respect are in order for Canadians, not double standards or double talk.

There are many things hypocritical about Bill C-85, the pension bill. It allows benefits to accrue at double the rate legally allowed in the private sector under the Income Tax Act. Senior Liberal MPs, 74 of them with more than six years of service, will retain their gold plated pension and start collecting immediately on retirement regardless of age.

Seventy-four Liberal MPs even under the provisions of the bill will still receive a pension four times richer than most other Canadians'. Freshman MPs who opt into this new plan will still be part of a pension plan twice as generous as that available for most Canadians, and they can start collecting pensions at age 55. This group of MPs will also be able to collect 75 per cent of their salary after serving 19 years in office. Most Canadians have to

work 35 years to collect a pension worth 70 per cent of their final income.

It is this kind of better than thou attitude Canadians are tired of. Average folks are being asked to tighten their belts, to pay more in the form of all kinds of taxes. MPs have created an insulated world for themselves which shields them from the financial burden regular Canadians are asked to carry.

Perhaps one of the most hypocritical elements of the MP pension plan is it allows former parliamentarians who are wealthy to continue to collect an MP pension. Seniors citizens can only dream of such a system for them. These folks have to abide by the rules set by law. Any senior 65 years of age or over who has an income exceeding $53,215 must pay 15 per cent of the excess net income up to the full amount of old age security collected. In other words, seniors who cross a certain income threshold have their old age security benefits clawed back and most people would say it is fair and reasonable.

Those members who have six or more years experience can begin to collect their MP pension immediately on leaving office regardless of age. Freshmen MPs can begin collecting their MP pensions at age 55. To top it all off, former parliamentarians who are well off are not subject to any pension clawback. For some unknown reason they are put on a pedestal and are somehow deserving of every cent because they served their country.

What about the seniors who have their OAS pensions clawed back? Many of them are veterans. Most seniors helped build this country. Surely they can claim they have contributed to their country and are deserving of every cent as well. Again it is a double standard, one the public should not and will not tolerate.

To deal with this unfairness I will be introducing a private member's bill this fall which is the basis for an Amendment No. 39 to Bill C-85. Both require all former parliamentarians whether senators or MPs to have their pensions clawed back exactly the same way many seniors have their OAS benefits clawed back. This clawback would take effect immediately once the parliamentarian begins to collect his pension regardless of age. It would apply when a former member attains employment which pays him in excess of $53,215, the exact same threshold level which applies to seniors eligible to collect OAS.

I will be the first to admit such a clawback will not save the country billions of dollars. It will save the taxpayers money in the long run. That is something every member in the House should be interested in. It will help to alleviate the widespread cynicism federal politicians encounter. It will help to restore perhaps a little confidence. This is most important. It will send a signal to the long suffering taxpayers that cuts must start with those who legislate.

Why should former Tory Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, who is independently wealthy, pocket $33,500 of taxpayers' dollars every year? That is his MP pension benefit and not one dime of it is clawed back. To add insult to Canadian taxpayers, Mulroney stands to collect an additional $50,000 per year in priministerial pension when he turns 65 in the year 2003. This is the man who brought the country to its knees. As the MP pension plan is laid out now none of that can be clawed back and after a member turns 60 it is all indexed.

Then there is millionaire Liberal Pierre Trudeau. With inflation protection he collects well over $100,000 per year from Canadian taxpayers. Here as well not one thin dime is clawed back.

We cannot forget some of our colleagues presently in the House. They will be the heavy troughers when they leave this place. The Deputy Prime Minister staunchly defends the obscene MP pension plan. It is no wonder, she would stand to collect about $34,000 per year if she retired today. That is almost $3 million by the time she reaches age 75. If on her retirement she gains meaningful employment or contracts from the ex-heritage minister certainly she should be susceptible to an MP pension clawback.

Then there is the leader of the Tory party. It appears we cannot get the rich blue blood out of the Tories. He has been extremely quiet about the ludicrous MP pension plan. I suspect it is because he stands to collect about $45,000 per year on retirement, with a total of $4.5 million, mostly taxpayers' money, until he reaches age 75. It is no wonder the Tory leader is silent about the MP pension plan.

Surely everyone would agree that on retirement the leader of the Tory party, the independents really, should be subject to an MP pension clawback if he earns over $53,000 per year in the private sector.

It is unfair to ask seniors in a certain wage category to give a portion of their pensions if former parliamentarians who fall under the same wage category do not have to give back a portion of their incredibly rich pensions.

I sincerely hope all members of this House will give careful consideration to amendment No. 39 under Bill C-85, which calls for an MP pension clawback to well off former parliamentarians. There cannot be two sets of government imposed rules, one for seniors collecting pensions and one for MPs collecting pensions. It is undemocratic, unfair, and just not right.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to speak today on Bill C-85, commonly known as the MP pension plan.

I first have to express my extreme disappointment with this government for using time allocation on a bill such as this. The obvious question we have to ask is why the government did it.

Why did it impose limits on debate on a bill such as this? What is the hurry? We have two years, under normal conditions, before an election is called. Why does the government have to ram this through before the end of this Parliament?

I submit that the Liberals want to get to the bank before the end of the day to cash in and make their big deposit to take advantage of what they just awarded themselves.

What did they award themselves? They awarded themselves an obscene pension plan. In the red book the Liberals outlined that they were going to be reforming this MP pension plan to bring it into line with what the average is in Canada. That simply has not happened here.

I also want to examine the role of the official opposition of Canada in this particular bill. Why would a party whose main goal is to leave this country by separating from Canada want an MP pension plan? They must have some idea that maybe this is going to fail and they are going to be here for a lot longer than they originally expected. As a matter of principle, should this party not say that they are going to use this opportunity to opt out? They want to opt out of Canada but they want to stay within the MP pension plan. Talk about double standards.

We have double standards from the Liberals on the MP pension plan, but I would say there is a complicity here with the Bloc. They also co-operated in the vote on time allocation on this bill. I am really disappointed with Her Majesty's official opposition, or loyal opposition I should say, which is what the word actually is.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Using the term loosely.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Yes. My colleague just reminded me that I am using that term loosely.

I want to outline my concerns of what I think the public has to say on this issue, especially the public in my riding. The main issue in the last election campaign in my riding was MP pensions. It was not MPs' salaries. There were a number of other issues, but one of the main issues and one that was brought forward at every public meeting I attended was the MP pension plan. People asked: "Why would the MPs award themselves a pension plan four or five times more generous than the average pension plan in Canada? Is this not a double standard?" I had to agree that it was a double standard in my view.

The question came up several times: "Why do they have the power to award themselves their own pension? Should it not be put out to an independent commission and the power be left with the Canadian public?" I had to agree with that as well.

The public understands very clearly that there is a double standard here, a public standard they are not prepared to accept. I do not think this can be sold to the Canadian public. Even this revised plan is twice as generous as any public sector plan. How can that be sold to the Canadian public at a time when we are facing cutbacks? We are trying to inspire people in Canada to do with less to make our country competitive again to get it back on the rails and here we are in this very House of Commons, where we need to show leadership, going in the opposite direction. It is a very bad tactical move on behalf of this government. It cannot be sold to the Canadian public.

I want to take a moment to examine some of the clauses in Bill C-85. We still have a plan that is put forward here. They have changed the eligibility. MPs do not have to serve two terms or six years. Now it is going to be that MPs will be eligible to start collecting at age 55.

Pension plans through Canada pension and old age security start at 65. There is quite a bit of talk they may have to be rolled back to maybe 66 or 67, as they cannot be sustained. Here we have another double standard. At 55 years of age an MP can start collecting a pension. It is going in the opposite direction from where the public is going. As I said before, it is still twice as generous as any other plan out there.

Why is the opt out provision only available to current members? That seems like a little sleight of hand, a little smoke and mirrors. Yes, it is just for us, and I am happy to take it, because I simply could not live with my conscience and I could not sell it in my constituency. I would suggest that there are a lot of members on the other side who are going to find out in two years that they cannot sell it in their constituency either. I am happy to opt out.

Our party surprised the President of the Treasury Board when he made his big announcement and tried to put us in a very difficult position by either taking this overly generous plan or using the opt out provision where we get nothing. At least the members on my side of the House and my party said that if that is what the government is offering, we simply will not take it. We are opting out of this plan. We look after ourselves. We do not want anything, rather than put up with something that is obscene.

If there is going to be an opt out provision, and I think that is a good way to go, why is it not extended from here on in to future members? The door is being closed very quickly. It is a window of opportunity for us, but it is certainly not a window of opportunity for any future members. There again it is out of the old bag of dirty tricks.

What is the real issue here? The real issue is salary. I have heard it from numerous members on the other side of the House or from the Liberal benches. When we started talking about this MP pension plan, they said that is part of their pay, that they are not getting paid very well and that is how they compensate. It is a very poor method. If we want to talk salary in this House, let us be upfront and open with the Canadian public and talk salary. I have enough faith in the Canadian people that they will do what

is right in terms of salary. I heard that during the last election campaign.

What we have is a group over on the other side that are not prepared to be open and forthright with Canadians, so they bring around through the back door what they are not prepared to do through the front door. They bring in an MP pension plan that supplements their salary. We have seen other provisions where they have special privileges, and those privileges are not going to be accepted by the Canadian public.

If it is really an issue of salary, let us get to that debate at some point and set an independent commission that can travel across the country and ask Canadians to tell us what an MP should be paid. I am prepared to live with the recommendations they make. Some people suggest they would say we should just pay the MP a dollar a year. That is nonsense. I have faith in the common sense of the common people. They have enough sense to elect members to this House and they expect those members to operate on the same premise they have to operate on. If they have to tighten their belts, they expect members of Parliament to tighten their belts.

We are getting a lot of chatter from the other side. I think it is one of the career politicians we have generated in this House. That is the danger we have when we have these kinds of MP pension plans: we get career politicians, exactly the opposite of what the Canadian public wants.

I have found in travelling in my riding and other parts of the country that the way most Canadian people would like to see their MP come forward to the role of MP in this House is to succeed at something else they have tried first. Whether it is a farmer, as I am, a businessman, whatever, they should have some type of successful career first and bring those experiences to this House. Unfortunately, with that carrot dangling, we have had a lot of the other type who have tried to make this a career which is a dangerous thing in itself.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Just because you memorize the Standing Orders, it is not necessarily a job.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I submit it is a dangerous thing to try to be a career politician. That particular type of member will do whatever is necessary to stay here and vote exactly the right way so that at some point down the road they will become a parliamentary secretary perhaps, and maybe even a cabinet minister. I think the government is really misdirected in that approach.

I think the Canadian public wants to see a fair pension plan. I know it does not rate up there with the pension plans of university professors, but we did make a choice to come here; we did make a choice to run. I made a conscious choice that I was going to try to do something about reforming this MP pension plan.

In the face of what we see today in this poor legislation, I have decided to contribute by opting out. I invite the members on the other side to do the same thing, until a reasonable pension plan can come into force in this House with a one for one contribution that is on a level with business and the public sector. Then I think we will have acceptance from the Canadian public, and that is the only time it should happen.

Who will be the judges in the end? I submit it is not going to be the people in the House today. We can debate this for a long time. The ultimate judges are going to be the Canadian people in the next election. This is going to be an issue which is why I say this government is misdirected. I hope it will reconsider, but obviously it will not. It is trying to ram it through with time allocation. We will have to wait for the will of the Canadian people on the MP pension plan. I think we are going to see it expressed very loudly in 1997 or before.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in the dying moments of the debate on Bill C-85.

I would consider this MP pension plan a political barometer. In the bill we have before us this government has an opportunity to establish its credibility, its sincerity. The message conveyed by the changes to be made to this pension plan is actually more important than the money involved. The message to the Canadian voters is: "Are you listening? Do you understand the problem? And will you lead by example in doing something about this gold plated pension plan?" Bill C-85 misses those marks by a country mile. It does not even come close.

First we will talk about listening, listening to the Canadian voters, listening to the people who are paying our salaries. It was mentioned earlier that no single issue had a higher profile when I was campaigning. It continues to enjoy a high profile at my town hall meetings and as I speak around the province of Ontario. It is a flash point with the voters in Ontario and certainly right across Canada.

This gold plated pension plan sends a message to the Canadian voters that we in this place do not understand what is going on in the real world. If the government has missed the message regarding Bill C-85, then what did it hear? Was there anything its members heard when they were campaigning and supposedly listening to the Canadian people?

I suggest that Bill C-85 reinforces the fact that the government was tuned out; it was not listening but only paying lip service to the voters and giving them the changes they have been looking for. We have the problems of ever-increasing taxes and

lower levels of service. That is the situation the Canadian people want to have addressed. We have high levels of unemployed and underemployed people. I know many of us hear about the young people who find jobs they are overqualified for but they are taking whatever they can get because of the desperate situation they are in.

Our people are concerned about unsafe streets and unsafe communities and they are worried about the deficit and the debt and our children's and grandchildren's future. They want a government that will do something to bring that overspending under control. This revision of the gold plated pension plan would indeed be leading by example in showing they understand the problem and they are prepared to deal with it.

The other message is the voters wanted to have a voice in Ottawa. I think with 205 new members in the House we had a great opportunity to respond to some fresh thinking, a new vision.

Let us examine the old ways. They have not been working, and that is obvious when we look at the level of debt. It is obvious when we look at the state of our country as far as being united.

I read the report of the Citizen's Forum on Canada's Future, better known as the Spicer commission. The commission went across Canada. It performed open soul surgery on 26 million Canadians to find out what the mood of the Canadian people was. The commission spoke to 400,000 Canadians, plus about another 300,000 elementary and secondary school children. Those are impressive numbers.

Chapter 9 of the Spicer commission report deals with responsible leadership in participatory democracy. That was one of the strongest messages the commission received when travelling across Canada. The message was Canadians have lost faith in the political process and in their political leaders. The report was issued in June 1991 and that mood was there in 1993 when we knocked on the doors seeking election to this place. At door after door the response I received was that I was another politician telling the people what they want to hear at the door, and then I would go to Ottawa and do exactly what I was told.

We had a terrible example of that very thing on Wednesday in this place. Government members were being told not to vote. They were in the House but were not to register, not express opinion. It was unbelievable. That is democracy. That is elected officials doing their job, representing the people who sent them here to Ottawa. Whether they were to vote yea or nay, to be denied that opportunity was unbelievable. I was shocked as I am sure Canadians from coast to coast were shocked at what took place. I see the government is laughing at that comment. That is the arrogance it displays for the voters. It could care less.

Pension reform was a critical message the government missed in getting to the Canadian people that it understands and wants to give the Canadian people a voice in Ottawa. We hear that the pension plan is all part of compensation, part of our pay package. It is the old trick of mixing apples with oranges; salaries and pension, gun control, law-abiding and criminals. We seem to have difficulty with the government in getting focused on what the real problem is.

All Canadians want and all we should expect is a fair salary and a fair pension. This idea of trying to justify a gold plated pension plan because we have a lead salary does not wash. We have to deal with one issue at a time, making sure everything we are paid is above board and visible to all Canadians. If it is fair there will not be any problem with that. The Canadian people will accept it. That is not what is happening in this bill.

The Ontario election was another strong message. MPP pensions were a big part of the common sense revolution platform. The common sense revolution identified that voters were fed up with pension plans far more generous than what is available in the private sector. The Tories responded to that and are eliminating their gold plated pension plan and introducing RRSPs, similar to what is available to Canadians from coast to coast.

It is a flash point with the voters. Ontario responded to it. Prince Edward Island has responded to it. Alberta has responded to it and Manitoba has responded it. I cannot believe this message still has not been understood in Ottawa.

Unbelievably this week few members in the House on the government side stood up and represented the people who sent them here, their constituents, the people who voted them into office.

I was so dismayed when I read the Prime Minister praised those members who hewed the party line and scorned those members who stood up and represented the people who sent them to this place; an unbelievable display for the democratic process to scorn those members who stood up and did what they were voted into office to do. Whether you agree with what they did or not, they had every right to do that. Instead of that they were criticized, threatened, taken off committees. They will not have their papers signed next time: "Buck your voters but do not buck me or you are gone".

We already know what happened. Three members were booted off their committees for doing what they were voted into office to do. We know what the message is. It was loud and clear right from the beginning and all Canadians were appalled at what happened here.

We should not have been surprised because we are dealing with a government and a Prime Minister who appointed 14 candidates. Do members know why those 14 candidates were appointed? I quote the Prime Minister when he was in my riding: "You cannot always trust the Canadian voter to appoint the best candidate". That says it all. That mistrust is still here and it was displayed this week.

A cabinet minister had a dollars for contracts dinner. It flies in the face of restoring integrity, honesty and open government and nothing is done to that minister. People who represent their ridings are scorned. A minister is accepting dollars for contracts, and that is all right. It is unbelievable the double standard that exists here. Canadians are watching what is happening here and they are appalled. There is a price to be paid and it is coming.

I wonder who the government is listening to. It is obviously not listening to the voters, to the polls. The polls are all showing this gold plated pension plan has to be changed. I do not think I have read anywhere in the media where there is any support for this plan.

Let me quote from these polls because I think they are very indicative. A poll done by Environics showed 86 per cent of Canadians, 86 per cent of Liberals, say the plan is too generous; 93 per cent of Canadians and 93 per cent of Liberals say fundamental MP pension reform must happen before social programs are touched; 88 per cent of Canadians and 85 per cent of Liberals say make the plan equal to the private plans; 93 per cent of Canadians and 91 per cent of Liberals say the MP plan should have the same limit on growth as the private sector plans; 91 per cent of Canadians and 89 per cent of Liberals say collection should start at 65.

Very clearly Liberals who were part of this poll were almost the same as Canadians from coast to coast. The government is not listening. I cannot recall an editorial supporting Bill C-85. The beauty was the Toronto Star and we all know where the Toronto Star is. It is quoted quite often. An editorial of February 13 with the headline Pension puffery'' statedOur politicians get some of the best pensions in the world. They only have to work six years to qualify and the generous payments adjusted for inflation can last a lifetime. That is why Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's impassioned defence of underpaid MPs in the House of Commons last week offends-in both substance and timing''.

We know where the Toronto Star is relative to the government. Even its paper is not supporting it. If it is not listening to the voters, not listening to the polls and not paying attention to the Toronto Star , to whom is it listening? Who is driving this agenda? I cannot believe this. There is something missing here.

[The Speaker]

The hon. member's time has expired. The hon. government whip on a point of order.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find unanimous consent that the vote to occur on private members' hour in the name of the hon. member for Red Deer on Monday, for second reading of Bill C-309, if a recorded division is requested on that item, be deferred until 11.30 p.m., at which time we will be taking other votes in the House and we would do that vote at the same time.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I want to participate in this debate because we need to straighten the record on some remarks made.

We said in our red book, "Creating Opportunity", the Liberal plan for Canada, that the pension regime of members of Parliament has been the focus of considerable controversy. We said we wanted to ensure reform took place. We also said we would use an independent review and that a Liberal government would reform the pension plan of members of Parliament to end double dipping, MPs should not be able to leave office and receive a pension from the federal government if they accept a new full time paying job from the federal government, and we would review the question of the minimum age at which MP pensions will begin to be paid.

The commitment of the government and the Liberal caucus to reform pensions has been unwavering. We have brought this to the House. These were promises we made and these are promises we have kept. As promised, the Liberal plan will do what we said it was to do, eliminate the practice of double dipping, introduce a new minimum age requirement for receipt of the pension, 55, reduce the government's contribution to the pension plan by one-third, saving taxpayers $3.3 million in the first year.

Those reforms are significant. Reforms members across the way should keep in mind. Pension benefits earned by all MPs will be reduced by 20 per cent. All MPs earning pension benefits will be affected by the accrual rate of benefit reduction.

Several statements made in the House are erroneous and the discussion has gone beyond the pension plan to a whole series of issues which do not have specific significance to this debate.

The Prime Minister stated over and over after the review that we knew in comparison to other occupations, MPs are not paid for the job they do, the work they commit to and the assignments they take on. The Prime Minister also pointed to the comparison between what we do as members of Parliament and other people who are public office holders.

In looking at the topic of integrity the Liberal Party has nothing to worry about and we should not be taking lessons from the Reform Party. It is often hypocrisy to listen to the mouthings on the way procedures are laid out in Bill C-85 and what we are attempting to do in this pension reform. It is also important for the opposition to note the changes we have made and to stand with the government in support of these changes.

The bill went further than the red book commitment to reduce government spending on MPs' pensions. It has gone to 33 per cent. I do not hear any talk across the way about that reduction and that saving to the Canadian public. I do not hear discussion across the way about the lowering of the age. I do not hear any discussion across the way about significant measures that are savings to the Canadian public.

I do not hear discussion across the way about the fact that we have done away with double dipping. I do not hear any discussion across the way that speaks to some very positive elements. I do not hear discussion across the way that would take us back to the earlier pension plan of the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s or the changes that the government is making in order to meet our present fiscal needs and to ensure that our pensions are in line with other public pensions and other private plans.

It is one thing to stand in the House and constantly berate the government and make grand statements of political and ideological positions. It is important for members to know what they are doing, what the government is attempting to do for the taxpayer to ensure we save tax dollars.

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

We are keeping our promise.

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

We are definitely keeping our promise because we said we would do this.

What are the existing provisions and what are the provisions we are proposing? It is important for the party across to see where we are presently and where we hope to be with the bill. We are calling for their support because we feel that lowering the minimum age, taking out double dipping, ensuring the accrual rate, will make the pension plan a far better one than it is presently.

We also spoke to the option of coverage. The members across the way have that option available to them and at the same time they are asking for a review of the remuneration on a yearly basis. They are talking about a time period in which they can opt out and they are not really taking the opportunity to use the 60-day period.

Members of the House of Commons will now pay 9 per cent of their salaries per year toward their pension plan, rather than the current rate of 11 per cent. This reduction reflects the reduction in the pension accrual rate.

This is a good bill, a good way in which to proceed, to ensure we meet the needs of the public, to ensure we save taxpayer dollars, to ensure we reform the plan as we said in the red book. We call on all members to support the motions and to ensure the bill gets through the House.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I am sorry to rise again, but apparently there has been a change on the Order Paper. The bill to which I referred when I sought unanimous consent earlier is in fact a different one. The principle is identical.

However, I now ask for unanimous consent:

That any recorded division requested on Bill C-295, if such a recorded division is sought, be held on Monday at 11.30 p.m.; rather than the normal time which would be approximately noon.

(Motion agreed to.)

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I stand to speak to Bill C-85, the great pension debate; with a little trepidation. I confess some varied emotions.

I do not think anyone in the House would say this debate necessarily brings out the best in people on both sides of the table. We are talking about something which is visceral and deeply personal. As members know, we are talking about how much money eventually winds up in our pockets. When people's pockets are threatened directly, it tends to bring out very visceral feelings. We have seen evidence of that over recent days.

As colleagues know, as a member of the Reform Party and caucus, I have decided to opt out of the pension plan. Before anybody puts angel wings on me, it is important for people to know that it is not that big a deal for me because if I did not opt out, I could not get elected dog catcher in my constituency. This is a fairly important issue in the ridings.

If I may, I would like to quote from an article in the Edmonton Journal written by Barbara Yaffe, June 3 of this year. She puts it very succinctly and very well:

Because beyond the cosy bounds of Parliament Hill there's quite a bit of pension passion. The consensus is that Bill C-85 stinks. If the bill passes, taxpayers, who might not mind a system of matching contributions, will pay $3.88 for every $1 an MP contributes. (Formerly taxpayers paid $5.75.)

She goes on to say that the most cynical feature of the pension plan, and this is the feature of this bill which I personally find most offensive, is its mean spirited nature. I can understand the Liberal government's motivation in making this mean spirited because it wants to break the Reform ranks and have its

members not opt out of the pension. Then at the next election they would be able to go door to door and say, "Wait a minute. We are not so bad. Look at those sanctimonious Reformers. Some of them stayed in the plan as well."

The fly in the ointment is that all Reformers have opted out or have indicated they will opt out of the pension. It is going to make it very difficult for our Liberal colleagues to be knocking on doors in the next election and explaining why they voted themselves a pension that was disproportionate to those held by anyone else and at the same time were so mean spirited in trying to get us to reverse our position.

That is politics. I can understand that. Most Canadians are fair minded. Most Canadians would be very happy if members of Parliament had matching contributions. It would be so simple to say, just like in the private sector, that members of Parliament will pay this much of the pension and the government, the employer, will pay this much, put it into RRSPs and forget about it.

This pension plan really strikes the note of dissonance between elected politicians and the people. One of the reasons I became involved in politics was to try to restore the bonds of trust between the elected and the electors. I thought that the 35th Parliament with 200 rookies would be a prime mover in this.

The best way to do that is to provide leadership by example. Leadership starts at the top. We cannot have two sets of rules, one set for everybody else and one set for us. It is not just the pension thing. It is in the way we treat our salaries in general.

Canadians do not mind that we be paid reasonably or even that we be paid well. What Canadians do not understand is why we should have tax free allowances, why we should have that bonus. Before I came to the House I ran my own business. I supplied receipts for everything I did. As members of Parliament why do we not provide receipts for everything that we do? Why is it that when government employees take a plane anywhere they get $25 taxis on both ends of the trip without having to provide receipts?

This pension issue really is a flashpoint for Canadians who, as reported by Statistics Canada, have not had an increase in real income for 10 years. Most Canadians feel like they are on a treadmill. No matter how hard they walk and no matter how fast they run, they do not get anywhere.

The reason they do not get anywhere is because of the incredible burden of taxation required by the federal, provincial and municipal governments which have spent so much more than they have earned over recent years. Over 30 per cent of every dollar that comes in goes to pay the debt on money already spent.

It is like buying groceries on a credit card, consuming them and then having to pay the bill. Canadians in general feel like they are on a treadmill and those who were elected in a role of leadership do not lead by example. That breaks the bond of trust between the elected and the electors.

This is a sacred fiduciary duty which we have been given by the people who sent us here. I would ask my colleagues opposite to please reconsider.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Hon. members, it being 10.55 a.m., pursuant to order adopted June 8, 1995, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the report stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.