Mr. Speaker, as I said the government is in agreement with the need to revise the pension plan. It is still the government's intention to revise the pension plan.
I would say to the member for Elk Island that he and I got the same number of stars in the advertisement that appeared in the Globe and Mail the other day.
I personally believe although I am not an accountant that one of the most serious flaws in the present system is that it is impossible to calculate what the payout will be. Any plan of this
type, any insurance policy has to be based on some mathematical calculation.
One of the reasons for that, and I think the member for Elk Island is aware of this, is the fact that there is no set retirement date. Without a set retirement date it is impossible to say, to calculate, to estimate how long people will collect their pension. This I find disgraceful. It is disgraceful that someone could draw a pension at 25, and we cannot calculate the fact that they will be drawing it for 60 years. That is one point.
My second point is that it is not true that if you are in your pension plan for 27 years you get the same as in this one at six years. In your plan at 27 years your premiums and your employers' premiums, if you are employed, are vested after a certain period of time and you do retain those funds. Then when you reach retirement age if you were not in it for 27 years you would draw the benefits of those vested funds.
I think in this case the period of time which we might debate is simply that, a vesting period. The members who lose an election after six years leave if they are not of retirement age. At retirement age they collect a pension which is based on the vested portion of their pension contributions.