Mr. Speaker, this was such a good speech I almost felt like not asking a question. Almost. But I was really urged to do so when some of the member's own colleagues seemed to disagree as to how excellent his speech was. They seemed to urge their colleague to sit down rather prematurely. I would not have
suggested that because of the immense respect I have for the member across the way.
I heard him say a few things in his speech which I believe to be-how should I say it-factually incorrect. One of them is with regard to the MPs' pension plan. In his remarks-and I disagree with him as to the figure-he said the taxpayer subsidizes $7 to $1 for what the MP contributes to the system. I think that is a bunch of nonsense.
Going beyond that, and I do not know how he concocted the reasoning but perhaps he could explain it to us. He alluded to the fact that the benefits of that were non-taxable and that the $7 to $1 which he says the government puts in should be taxed. Perhaps there are more creative accountants who do the bookkeeping for people who are members of the Reform Party when they receive benefits from pensions, but I do not receive any MP pension and heaven knows whether I ever will. However I intend to pay my taxes. I am sure that Liberal colleagues who have come and gone and who are now receiving pensions do pay taxes on those benefits. Those benefits are in fact taxable. I challenge the member to indicate to us why he feels they are not taxable. For what reason is he attempting to convince Canadians that what is factually incorrect is a reality. That is how I put it to be kind.
I also want to challenge him on another issue. The member talked about the fact that he wants a guaranteed annual income. We heard that. I agree with that proposition. He said we should have a guaranteed annual income and he also said moments later that we should end universality of pensions. Recognizing that universality only applies to the basic pension it is a form of guaranteed annual income for people who are beyond a certain age.
I do not understand how the hon. member across the way could advocate both of these things together. I do not think it is reasonable to suggest we should end universality and replace it with a system that he qualified as a guaranteed annual income. How does that make sense at all? How is it essentially different from that which exists right now for people who get nothing more than the minimum amount? Perhaps he could explain that for the benefit of all members.