Mr. Speaker, I said that in my speech. Part of it was in French and the hon. member may not have had her listening device on but I said two things in my speech. The first thing is that I agree there are two separate issues here. One is a question of severance pay when a member is defeated.
The general fallacy here is that when we serve six years, we seem to be able to collect a pension of a million dollars or so. I defy the members opposite to do their records and search. The average tenure of a member of Parliament is probably fewer than six years. I would say it is somewhere between five and six years. That is the average tenure of a parliamentarian. It is because of that job insecurity factor that I spoke about.
I come from a municipal background. Even councillors and mayors have a severance package built in. The law in Quebec now is a formal law that allows for a certain amount of severance package over a certain number of years.
The question of severance is one thing. I agree with the member that we should provide for it in the new legislation to allow people to reintegrate into the workforce. My own personal case is that I had to sacrifice the computer business that I built at the age of 29. I do not think that computer business will survive without me. I hope it will.
The other question is the question of pensions. I disagree with the member totally that the amount of the pension is over generous. If we bring the age up to 55 like I am proposing, that will solve a lot of the problems that the member is speaking of.
The average pension of a member of Parliament at age 55 will be about $18,000 or $19,000. The hon. member may feel that $18,000 is not justifiable in her case. I know that I worked very hard in my case. I have made a lot of sacrifices and my citizens are telling me: "Nick, reform the pension, yes because it is outrageous the way it is now but make it equitable". I think $18,000 at age 55 is not unreasonable and not inequitable.