Mr. Speaker, the hon. member just referred to the bill on the members' pension fund and mentioned several countries, including the United States. The question we must ask ourselves is this: Are the 205 new members in this House, who have no vested rights in the old plan for MPs, not showing good will by wanting to have a new pension plan for members?
The Canadian government could show Canadians good will in managing public funds by showing its good will, and this is an excellent way to do it, by making us elected members do our fair share by cutting some of our pensions, which are paid for from taxpayers' money. Today the government tends to cut social programs, which affects the most disadvantaged people.
I think that as parliamentarians, with the salary we are paid, of course we work long hours and have many responsibilities, but we are paid for the hours we put in and we must realize what it involves when we decide to run for office.
I think that when we talk about cutting the fat, the operations of this House and its members, this is an excellent way to show good will and show Canadians that we are ready to do our fair share.
When comparing ourselves with the United States, we must consider the ability to pay. Can the United States afford to pay into a pension fund for their elected officials? With the debt we have in Canada, which forces us to make cuts in all programs, it would be rather outrageous if members' pensions were not affected.
I want to ask the hon. member a question. Would he agree that the government should show once and for all that it is ready to make an effort by cutting the pensions of elected members or at least eliminating double dipping? We have a 24-year-old member. It would be a little ridiculous for him to have a pension for life after six years, at age 30. Would you agree with me that members' pensions should be cut to prove to Canadians that we are ready to do our fair share as members of Parliament?