Debates of Nov. 22nd, 1994

Interest Rates

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, the position that I argued in opposition was that the government of the day should not place all the burden on the Bank of Canada but that it should take fiscal action itself to get the economy going and that it should put Canadians back to work. That is exactly what we are doing in government.

Taxation

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

The Auditor General reports that corporations owe $3 billion in unpaid taxes to Revenue Canada from 1993. He also states: "Clearly, reducing deficits through more effective tax collection is preferable to raising taxes. Taxes receivable are an important national asset and leaving them uncollected has a serious impact on the deficit".

Will the minister stop threatening students with increased costs of education and working people with cuts to UI and start paying more attention to collecting the $3 billion owed to Revenue Canada by these corporations?

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I repeat the reply I made to a question earlier. We are coming off a particularly nasty recession. There are companies and individuals who have had a tough time of it. It would be possible for us to drive some of them into bankruptcy without necessarily collecting any more money. That would be most inappropriate for Revenue Canada to do. We will collect the revenues that are owed to us, except for a small proportion of bankrupt or companies in receivership. We cannot collect the amount that is in dispute which the taxpayer persuades us is not appropriate for it to be collected in the first place.

We will collect that money because our record on collection is very good; far less than one per cent of moneys owed to Revenue Canada is not collected.

Seniors

[John Harvard, Liberal, Winnipeg—St. James, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health has just returned from Winnipeg where she met with her provincial and territorial colleagues responsible for seniors. I would appreciate knowing the outcome of that meeting.

What is the government doing to ensure that the needs of the seniors are met in the face of shrinking budgets and increasing demand on social programs?

[Diane Marleau, Liberal, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, we had some extremely productive meetings. We agreed to consider all of the concerns of our seniors, to reorient our programs to those most in need and most at risk. That fits in very well with what I have been doing as Minister of Health, that is ensuring that our seniors get the help they need by using those dollars that are available very effectively to address the most serious needs of our seniors.

Ways And Means

[Doug Peters, Liberal, Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1) I wish to table a notice of ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax Act and the income tax application rules.

I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of the motion.

The House resumed consideration of the motion

Supply

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue my remarks with regard to the opposition motion for today, 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 with the Income Tax Act.

This morning throughout the hours of debate there were a number of points made by hon. members in the House. I think it is very important to review a few of those points.

I think the most important aspect is the fact that during the election campaign the Prime Minister promised the Canadian people that he would reform MP pensions. He made two specific promises, the first being to end the so-called double dipping which is a case where former members of Parliament would receive appointments to government and receive not only a pension but also the compensation for that appointment to some government position. The Prime Minister has committed to eliminate double dipping.

The second was with regard to the age qualification, the age at which members of Parliament could qualify to start collecting pension benefits they were entitled to.

Yesterday the Prime Minister rose in this House and reaffirmed his commitment to make those changes and specifically said that those changes would be tabled in this House within the next few weeks.

I think the Prime Minister's commitment to this reform of our pension plan was very clearly demonstrated this morning when the he rose in the House to announce that his recommendation to Her Majesty the Queen that the Hon. Romeo LeBlanc be appointed as Canada's 25th Governor General had been accepted. In the House the Prime Minister and the other leaders of the other parties rose to compliment the Prime Minister on his selection and nomination of the Hon. Romeo LeBlanc who,

incidentally, is the first Governor General from New Brunswick, Atlantic Canada.

I thought it was very aptly put by the Prime Minister when in addition to announcing that appointment he concurrently announced that the new Governor General would be accepting his compensation as Governor General but that the Governor General nominated will forego or return his pension as a member of Parliament back to the government. That speaks a great deal for the leadership that the Prime Minister is showing on the aspect of MP pension reform.

Throughout the debate this morning a number of members raised interesting points and interesting issues. I receive with interest the comments of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra who, through all of the rhetoric going on today, actually sat back and recalled, remembered and reflected upon members of Parliament who served in this Chamber prior to pension plans being formalized and being made for members of Parliament.

I think it behoves all members of Parliament not to forget those members of Parliament who served back in the 1940s and the 1950s, many of whom are still active and around, who do not have those same kind of benefits. I believe there would be some interest within this House to express some support for some sort of initiative to ensure that former members of Parliament who so honourably served in this Chamber would also be given some consideration in terms of pension reform.

I think most members of Parliament will have received an awful lot of input from their constituencies about MP reforms. It is referred to often as a gold plated pension plan and that it costs a great deal of money.

One of the things that really does not come up with regard to the discussion of the pension plan is how that relates to the overall compensation of members. I have to declare right off the bat that I am very supportive of comprehensive pension reform. I think it is the right thing to do and I hope that the reform will take place in conjunction with an overall reassessment of the compensation of members of Parliament.

I believe that Canadians would want to ensure that all members of Parliament receive a fair and reasonable compensation for the work that they do comparable to that which they could earn within the private sector. I think those principles should be sought and pursued by the government.

Most Canadians are not very familiar with the lifestyle of an MP and as most members know when you become an elected member the first thing you have to do is wind up your previous affairs. It is virtually impossible to maintain other income earning activity and still be a member of Parliament. I can speak from some experience as a chartered accountant. I know that it took some time for me to make arrangements to have my clients transferred to others so that they would receive the service they needed.

However, the fact remains that right now my chartered accounting practice as it existed no longer exists. In the next election, should I not be re-elected, I will be unemployed just as anybody else might be unemployed and will have to start again. That is a sacrifice that members do make. I hope that hon. members will continue to remind Canadians that all members of Parliament have left investments that they have had in other careers to come and serve in this place.

The other aspect of the pension discussion is what members of Parliament do here. I am sure that most members of Parliament work four or five days a week in Ottawa, some nine months a year away from their families. That investment and that contribution to Canada is very significant. I know this should be taken into account very carefully when the government considers compensation to members.

On top of that Canadians should also be aware that when members of Parliament go home when this House is recessed that does not mean that all of a sudden members of Parliament are somehow on vacation. Every member of Parliament has at least one office in their constituency, their riding. They have staff there to service the needs of their constituents. Their job in the riding is just as busy and important as it is in Ottawa. I am sure every member of Parliament has experienced the same thing where we find that we are working 80 hours a week to make a contribution to the betterment of Canada and to the concerns of our constituents.

When we make changes to compensation plans a fair and reasonable rule should be that every member of Parliament or every candidate for elected office should know what the compensation package is so that they can make an informed decision. To make changes over and beyond what was promised to be made, for instance the changes in the pension plan, is asking a lot for members of Parliament to take at this time without some reasonable expectation that there would be equity and fairness for all.

This whole question of when changes should be made really should come up in the debate. I would be interested if the Reform Party would care to comment on the general principle that when changes are going to be made to compensation of elected officials such as members of Parliament those changes should be fully debated, discussed, tabled and decided upon before an election but not to be effective until after an election.

With those comments, I am pleased to have participated in the debate. Again, I want to thank the Prime Minister for following through with his election promises to amend and reform MP pension plans.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this member, when our member for North Vancouver was making some comments a couple of weeks ago, said that it was the gong show, that he could ring the gong.

I can imagine that there are a number of Canadians who are watching the parliamentary channel today who just listened to this wonderful verbose bunch of hot air and they want a gong. How in the world can this member say that there should be some reasonable expectation on the part of members of Parliament with respect to this particular issue when we have all known that this has been a major issue? How does that compare with the people of Canada who have lost their jobs, who are having roll backs in their pay cheques and who are facing hardship, for members of this assembly to be sitting around saying: "Well, you know, I really wasn't expecting this. Boy, I don't know"?

I have a lot of sympathy, and I mean this in all seriousness, for the former members in terms of the reform of the pension plan as was suggested by the member for Vancouver Quadra in the same way that I have sympathy for Bobby Orr and other people who are members of the NHL Players Association when they apparently were ripped off in that situation.

What about the old age security recipients?

What about the people who put away their dollars in good faith that the Liberals were going to bring in some kind of a sound policy over the last 25 years so that their retirement pension plans would not have been eaten up by inflation and so that their entire pension plans would not have been under attack by the policies of this government?

Those being my comments I ask the member: Considering that this issue is the number one issue on the hit parade of all Canadians, the number one reason why Canadians do not feel comfortable with politicians, why they think that we consider ourselves to be in a different class or a different league, which I do not and I do not imagine any other member does, why does he think his Prime Minister has delayed and delayed and delayed to bring forward this very simply reform?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in reply to the member's points, first, he commented with regard to the aspect of reasonable expectation on behalf of those who seek elected office.

When I sought elected office I knew very well that the Prime Minister or the then leader of the Liberal Party had made a commitment if elected to reform MP pensions. I was expecting that and I fully took that into consideration. The reasonable expectation that I am talking about has to do with the constant suggestion on behalf of the Reform members that all members of Parliament should now take salary cuts, we should just not have a pension plan, and so on.

I must say that if this House and the Canadian people want to attract good people to this Chamber to make sure that the views of Canadians and the laws of our country are good laws, we are going to have to make sure that there is a fair and reasonable compensation. That is all I ask, that there is a reasonable expectation that it will be fair and reasonable and not somehow adjusted in major way after the fact.

That is why I raise the point that perhaps changes should be proposed before an election to be in effect after an election so that absolutely everyone knows what the story is going to be during their term.

Finally, with regard to the member's comments about old age security, I think it is patently unfair to somehow start raising that there are other social programs. We are talking about members' pensions. The motion says that it should be the same as pensions that exist in the "norms for private sector pensions".

I wonder if the Reform Party really means that. One aspect is that in normal private sector pensions, as a charter accountant I know there are portability provisions whereby the accrued benefits that one had during the period that one was there one gets to take them and transfer them into another plan. As the member well knows that is not the case with the current plan for MP pensions.

I would just say that there are some differences. Whatever it is, whatever it turns out to be, I am very confident that it will be fair and equitable to members of Parliament and to all Canadians.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Winnipeg—St. James, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address this notion held by some that pensions are not required around here.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

We have never said that.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Winnipeg—St. James, MB]

I have heard it said.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Not today.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I would just like to remind colleagues so that we can all have the benefit of the debate to please direct their interventions through the Chair.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Winnipeg—St. James, MB]

They are very sensitive, Mr. Speaker.

In any event, I think most people would agree, even Reformers, that in this place, the House of Commons, membership should be open to all Canadians. Membership here should not rely on personal wealth. That being the case I think it is incumbent upon us to pursue policies to ensure that not only rich people are able to come to this House as members of Parliament.

Consider this for a moment. Someone from a political party goes to a school superintendent, a school principal, a lawyer, a doctor or a chartered accountant and says: "Why don't you consider serving in public life for five, ten or fifteen years?" The person says: "Yes, I would be interested. I know there is a risk in politics. What have you got to offer me"? He is told: "Oh, nothing. Absolutely nothing". Then the person says: "You know, I do have a career. If I leave this place for 5, 10 or 15 years I will have no career to return to. Would you consider that?" "Oh, no. There is nothing there." "I also have a pension plan. I have a family. I am 45 years of age. I have been in the pension plan for 15 or 20 years. If I leave this place and come back 10 or 15 years from now I will have no pension plan. Would you consider that?" "Oh, no."

The person from the political party says: "If you come into public life you take the risk completely. Not only will you have nothing to return to and nothing to soften the landing when you return to public life, but you will have to win at least two or three party nominations and you will have to win general elections".

In other words this possible candidate for public office is being offered nothing by the employer. "I am supposed to take all the risk, give up my career, give up my pension plan, give up my family so that I can serve in public life." The person from the political party says: "Yes, that is pretty well it".

I would think that in most cases the person being pursued as a candidate would say: "Well, public life is great, but it is simply too much for me. I cannot afford it". The fact of the matter is that even with the pensions we have now, most Canadians do not consider public life. Most of them are in mid-life and they simply cannot afford to leave their private careers. The risk is too great even if they are eligible for a pension plan six years after entering public life.

I want to ask the previous speaker if he has considered that.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has made some very valid points. The important point is, and I think he would agree, that people entering any career should have reasonable knowledge, reasonable expectation of what the compensation should be and it should not be effective retroactively to their detriment.

A final comment. I failed to raise this in my comments, but I do agree very much with the member with regard to his comment on the family. All members of Parliament make a very, very significant sacrifice in being away from their families four or five days a week, nine months of the year. That is the important contribution they make so that they can serve and make sure we live in what the Prime Minister says often in this House, the best country in the world.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I wonder if you could indicate to the Chair if in fact the practice of splitting the time is still ongoing.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be speaking for 10 minutes if the Chair allows.

It gives me great pleasure to speak here today on the MP pension plan. Before I begin I would like to make a remark.

For reasons that elude us on this side, I cannot in my wildest dreams imagine that when we are speaking here how when the simple information and constructive solutions we are putting forth cross the line in this House it gets so distorted so that the responses from the other side come back being unintelligible.

In any event, we in this party are not saying that we do not want pensions. All we are saying is that we would like to bring them into line with the rest of the public. Of all the things the public finds distasteful and unfair about this government, this House and these members, it has to be the gold-plated MP pension plan we have.

In fact, the recent commission that was sent to study MP pension plans, when comparing them to other countries said that our plans were the least stringent in terms of commencement and one of the highest in terms of allowance.

Let us take a look at some other first world countries and make some comparisons between our pension plans and theirs. In France and the United Kingdom the minimum age of service is 55 years, not six years like we have. Australia, 12 years of service or age 60. The United States of America age 62. The maximum allowance in our country is 75 per cent of our terminal salary which is just near the top of all the countries I have discussed. We have about the best that one can possibly imagine.

How lucrative is this plan in real terms? Let us look at the last election. An MP serving eight years who left office at the age of 37 will receive $28,350 a year initially and $87,000 a year at age 60 for a total buyout of $2.7 million.

An MP serving 13 years who retired at age 50 will receive $39,700 a year initially for a total buyout of $1.9 million. His initial payments will increase with the indexing. Therefore the last payment will be $64,692 a year. Not bad. Nowhere will members find that in the private sector. Nowhere in the private sector does such a lucrative plan exist. In fact in the last election 73 eligible defeated MPs will collectively receive over $100 million in buyouts at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Who's paying the bill?

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Shame.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Exactly. In these days of fiscal restraint, this is completely unconscionable. The pension plan scheme that we have now is called the defined benefit scheme where the benefits are paid according to a specific equation.

It is reasonable to do this kind of scheme in firms where there is long tenure, long contributions and high retirement ages. Does this look like what we have here in this Parliament? No. In fact, it is the exact opposite of what we find here in this House.

MPs retire relatively young after short tenures with minimal payments into the system. Thus one can see that this type of system bears a lot of risk for the employer. In this case who is the employer but the Canadian taxpayer. We are burdening the Canadian taxpayer with a risk that the private sector would not take for itself.

The taxpayers in this country are taxed too much and cannot afford to be taxed any more. They have no obligation nor should they have to pay these lucrative pension plans that we currently enjoy in this House today. Currently MPs contribute 11 per cent of their basic salaries to the plan. The taxpayer picks up the rest. How much is this?

If one looks at the entire plan, the MPs actually contribute from 20 per cent of the total amount that they are going to get paid out while the taxpayer pays 80 per cent. Furthermore these plans as members know are fully indexed to inflation.

We in the Reform Party as usual would like to make some constructive suggestions to help bring these MP pensions in line with the rest of the public, this in the name of fairness, in the name of togetherness and in the name of collegiality to eliminate the us versus them mentality that the public perceives of us, to engage in fiscal responsibility and to do our part in a small but constructive way to bring the deficit down to zero and to start attacking the debt.

To make the sacrifices that we are demanding of the Canadian public I have some constructive suggestions. First, let us convert these MP pension plans into a money purchase system that many private companies are doing. This is a shared contribution system where the MPs and the government put money into the system and into individual RRSPs. It is a joint contribution plan.

Second, we must stop indexing the pension plans. Private plans do not do this so why should we? These measures will help eliminate the excessive topping up that the Canadian taxpayer must make in order to fulfil the obligations under the current payment scheme.

Also, by putting it into private individual RRSPs, we are adding an element of personal responsibility into the system for the MPs themselves. Third, by doing this one is ultimately going to decrease the amount of retirement payments through OAS and CPP that we would have to incur in the future thereby adding further savings.

I am going to take a little bit of licence here and bring in the social service payments to the retired for a moment because it is an interesting thing to do when we look into the future of a need that is going to require these social programs for the retired individual, in particular to enable those retired individuals who are not well off to have a social program that is going to provide for their needs in the future. When we look into the future our current social program schemes will not be able to provide payments to all retired individuals. Why? Let us look at some things. OAS pays out around $14 billion per year. CP pays out $10 billion a year and the guaranteed income supplement is around $4.5 billion a year.

Furthermore the CPP current liability, the unpaid liability, is $500 billion, a fact that the Canadian taxpayer does not realize. This amount of money has to be paid and an amount of money that is not factored into any current debt projections we are currently hearing. By the year 2030 there will be two working people for every retired individual. This is an unsustainable situation and cannot last.

In the near future it will be a necessity for individuals to take it upon themselves to provide for their own retirement needs because the government is not going to be able to do it for them. They will, I hope, be able to provide for the needs of those who are retired and those people who need it most. This is an example of prioritizing the spending that we are trying to convince the government to do.

If MPs were to receive their pensions according to the ways I have mentioned in a sustainable fashion in the individual RRSPs, government social handouts would decrease, particularly government handouts would decrease to those individuals of which we would be a part. Therefore we could anticipate considerable savings from these programs.

There is no way to balance this budget without making cuts to the social program situation as our party has discussed before. The government should take us as an example of a group of individuals where we can revamp our retirement program in order to become self-sufficient and in order for the individuals here not to become a millstone around the taxpayers' neck.

Last, I would put up the retirement age for MPs. As I explained initially retirement age for most members of Parliament in other first world countries is much higher than what we have here. I would ask the Prime Minister to raise that to age 55 or 60.

I have heard before that government members make various arguments that the lifetime of an MP is short and their certainty of employment is not high. Many members of the public also engage in jobs where the future is very uncertain. It is no

different for them than for us. They do not receive any lucrative pension packages and neither should we.

Government members also argue, as has been discussed today in the House, that many members take large pay cuts, have given up lucrative careers and that we will not get good people coming to government unless we have these lucrative pension schemes.

I believe that good people will always come to the top and that money should not be the motivating factor to get into this job. If people are prepared to give up their professions in the name of public service then one is more assured that they will be honest in their intentions to serve the House and to serve the country.

Much has been said on pensions. The Prime Minister has promised that he will allow us to opt out and revamp the pension scheme. I challenge him to rise to the occasion and do this in the name of fiscal responsibility and also in the name of respect of the Canadian public.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to share with members a little bit of history. This is not an issue which is new on the public agenda. For example in Saskatchewan in 1977 the then government of Allan Blakeney, who was a New Democratic Party premier, foresaw the problems of unfunded liability with respect to pensions for the civil service and also with respect to elected members of the legislature.

Before I get into that historical perspective, for a couple of minutes I want to say that I believe fundamentally that serving your country and serving the public is an honourable profession, whether you are an elected member of a legislature, of Parliament, or an employee of one of the provincial, municipal, or federal governments.

People want their elected representatives to be accountable, to have a pride in serving their country and to be compensated in a very satisfactory way so that we are responsible to those who pay our salary as opposed to having large incomes from secret sources or sources other than the taxpayers. If that is the case we become accountable to those who do pay our salaries.

The point I want to make in my intervention this afternoon is that I believe serving your country is extremely important and our compensation should be adequate. I believe that a pension system is part of a compensation package, it is deferred income. I also believe, however, that the pension system we have now is unfunded in terms of its liability for taxpayers, it is very costly, and I believe it has to be changed.

I do not just say this. I have undertaken some initiative to see some change. On September 21 I introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-270, which is the money purchase plan bill.

It calls for the Government of Canada to change the MPs' pension system from the defined benefit to the defined contribution plan of a money purchase. It would be fair. It would be effective. It would reduce the taxpayers' subsidy of pensions from $7 to our $1, to a more fair $1 for $1. We contribute a dollar, the employer contributes a dollar and it goes into an RRSP-like account, earns interest, and at the time of our selection to take the money we become eligible to purchase a joint spousal life annuity which then reduces the amount of pension that we have, depending on the age of our spouse if the spouse is younger than us.

This is something that is very important to me. To get back to my history comment, in Saskatchewan this type of plan was introduced-the defined contribution plan or money purchase plan-in 1979 for elected members of the Saskatchewan legislature. It has proven cost effective. It is the only pension plan for elected officials in the country that is endorsed by the Saskatchewan Taxpayers Association, by the Canadian Taxpayers Association, by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. It is even endorsed by the National Citizens Coalition, to which some people may not be attracted but at least it is endorsed in the sense of it being fair, equitable for both taxpayers and members.

I maintain that this is an opportunity for the House of Commons. When the Prime Minister introduces his bill, we should look at my private member's bill, Bill C-270. It is modelled after the Saskatchewan plan which has been in effect for 15, almost 16, years. It would be a very effective approach to addressing some of the concerns of taxpayers.

I want to ask the member from the Reform Party whether he has seen the bill that I have tabled and whether his party would endorse such a plan which has been endorsed by many of the same associations which support his party.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, no I have not seen the bill that the hon. member has mentioned. I would be very interested in seeing it and my party also, particularly in view of the comments my hon. friend made which basically echoed what we have been saying in this party before we were even elected.

Is it not curious that we find the New Democratic Party and the Reform Party and all of the other groups such close allies on this particular point, whereas the government for so long has basically put us off? I hope that the Prime Minister will listen to the comments just made by my hon. friend and to other comments that have been made here by my friends in this party. I hope that the Prime Minister will take them into consideration and rapidly bring forward a bill based on the constructive suggestions that have been made here today.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Mr. Speaker, from time to time, including about 15 minutes ago, I have heard apologists for the MPs' gold-plated

pension plan say that we need something like this to attract "good people" to Ottawa.

I doubt very many members would admit that they were motivated to come here in order to rip off their fellow countrymen. I am sure that if the question were placed on an individual basis, the terms most often heard would be civic responsibility or love of country.

Unfortunately, anyone who favours this outrageous dip into the public trough is by definition suspect, and those members opposite who defend the system are dirtying the reputations of all of us by their actions. Everyone in this place is touched by this national scandal, regardless of his or her personal stand on the matter.

A little over a year ago when I made my little pilgrimage across Wellington Street to sign on at pay and services, I also signed a simple, hand written document regarding the pension. It said, in part: "I have no wish to receive nor will I accept any benefits". My contributions to the plan are still being deducted at source because the Prime Minister, in spite of his repeated hollow assurances that opting out will be permitted, has declined to act because he did not want to embarrass or inconvenience the 52 cochons de lait who made their way to the trough yesterday.

Why did I and about a dozen others, of whom I am aware, make that particular form of protest? I certainly did not do it because I do not like money. I am not a hair-shirted masochist and I am definitely not well-to-do. I did it because my mother taught me not to steal.

I submit that an elected body in control of its own finances which concocts a scheme through which its members can collect six or seven taxpayer dollars for every dollar that they contribute is involved in something for which an ordinary Bay Street promoter would be sent to prison.

The suggestion that to attract quality MPs they must be bribed with a golden parachute is patronizing and insulting. Some of our greatest parliamentarians, besides working virtually ex gratia, had to return to their day jobs when they retired or were defeated. They knew what to expect when they ran for office. They did not sit back and say: "Oh dear me, no, I could never run for office. I need security".

People with visions of sugar plums dancing in their heads would be precisely the sort of people we would not want in this place. Can anyone imagine John Diefenbaker or Stanley Knowles, when contemplating their first run for office saying: "What's in it for me?"

The non-pension generations forged a nation. They guided Canada through depressions and two world wars and then like other citizens they relied partly on personal savings and partly on the professions, trades or businesses to which they returned. Does anyone seriously contend that they were inferior to the current crop of legislators, that they were less worthy than members of the Bloc who will receive pensions for trying to destroy the country?

At this point I must confess I am going to get a little off track from some of my colleagues. I support this motion because the adoption would lead to major improvements in the pension scheme. However, if I had my druthers there would be no MP pension scheme at all. Since RRSPs became available, people willing to save diligently have been able to build up modest retirement nest eggs.

In my own case, because I am forced to contribute my $1 in $6 to this goody bag, I have to stop adding to my RRSP. Surely MPs with annual salaries and benefits equivalent to about $100,000 in the real world should have enough wit to be able to manage an honest retirement package. I should be allowed to do so.

We are entrusted with running a country, or at least that is the theory around here. Are we so dependent and ineffectual that we cannot provide for our own old age without participating in a scam?

In conclusion, in addition to putting a lid on the trough, existing pensions should be retroactively adjusted in the interest of fairness. I do not suggest that anyone be forced to make restitution on money already received, but anyone already drawing a pension should be cut off until he or she reaches age 65. At 65, the monthly payments should be adjusted to reflect a fair return on actual contributions and nothing more.

In this country retroactive legislation to relieve governments of contractual obligations is nothing new. The only novelty in my proposal is that it would be aimed at politicians instead of the public. Saskatchewan did retroactive financial legislation with the GRIP. Alberta did it in order to tear up royalty agreements. This 35th Parliament has already done it once and would have done it twice if the sleepy folks in the other place had not woken up and intervened.

Remember I am not, I repeat not suggesting that MP pensioners be deprived of a fair return on investment. I am suggesting that they be prohibited from further looting the public treasury.

The person I replaced here was an ineffective and rarely heard backbencher. He served nine years in this place. He is 53 years old and is currently raking in $27,000 a year to augment his income as a practising lawyer. If he lives to age 75 he will have collected over a million dollars. During the 1993 election campaign he made it clear that he would take every nickel that was on the table. That might be one of the reasons he came within 100 votes of losing his deposit. People opposite who are so intent on getting their snouts filled should perhaps bear that

little anecdote in mind when they hear the Prime Minister shouting: "Soo-oo-ey".