Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak on the motion before us. I am delighted because this is an important issue, an issue which the government has pledged to resolve.
The motion talks about replacing the existing MPs' pension plan with a pension plan that reflects the commitments made in the document entitled "Creating Opportunity, the Liberal Plan for Canada".
I am glad the motion recognizes the significant contribution that the red book is making to the debate on MPs' pensions. The red book has helped to focus public attention on the changes required such as double dipping and, one step further, the need of a minimum age requirement.
It is on double dipping that I wish to speak today. As we know, double dipping means simultaneously drawing a salary from the federal government and a pension as a former member of Parliament. It is a practice that many of us have problems with.
Let me remind hon. members of the red book statement on double dipping. We said that a Liberal government will reform the pension plan of members of Parliament to end this double dipping. MPs should not be able to leave office and receive a pension from the federal government if they accept a new, full-time, paying job from the federal government. Nothing could be clearer than that.
This commitment has been repeated by the government since the last election. We will end double dipping. Former MPs will no longer be able to receive a pension and a salary from the federal government at the same time.
Before I go further let me say that I do not wish to cast any aspersions on former members of Parliament who were entitled under the existing act to receive both a pension and a federal salary. There are many former MPs who have served this country well and who continue to do good work in other federal positions. It is clear that the drawing of a pension and a salary at the same time from the public purse is unacceptable though. It is time that these rules are changed.
In the mid-1970s pensions were viewed increasingly as an earned right. Some people viewed pensions as deferred compensation. In their view reducing or suspending pensions on gaining another job was similar to retroactively cutting a pensioner's salary.
In 1975 the government decided that the fairest approach would be to allow federal pensioners to draw pensions and salary unless they again came under the same pension plan. Today this government believes that double dipping must go.
The act which this opposition motion attempts to address is of course the Members of Parliament Retirement Allowances Act. However, the optimum word is retiring. The act was not intended to supplement working former parliamentarians but to provide a retiring allowance for them.
Many Canadians are expressing dissatisfaction with their politicians' pensions and double dipping is contributing to this negative image. We must continue changing the attitudes Canadians have toward their members of Parliament. Turning it around will require time and firm decisions. One of those decisions must be to end this double dipping.
Personally I am not sure that pension changes will single-handedly turn around this perception but I am convinced that removing the right to double dip will help.
I recognize that double dipping is a term that can be applied in different ways. There are several types of double dipping: governor in council appointments where the salary is met by statute; governor in council appointments where the salary scale is discretionary; appointments to the public service under the Public Service Employment Act; serving as a member of the RCMP or the Canadian forces; or by acting as an independent contractor to the federal government. Therefore, dealing with the double dipping question is more complicated than it appears on the surface.
Some members opposite speak of the need for urgency to end double dipping. There is somewhat of an urgency but not as much as some members would like to think as of today. Members will not quit tomorrow to get their pensions. Many of them work hard and serve their constituents. They continue to do so and will continue to do so.
There are some members opposite who do not feel the urgency. One is already collecting a federal public service pension and another is collecting a provincial pension as well as their federal salaries. These members have said they earned their pensions and will not give them up. Could not the Governor General make the same argument?
One of the aims of this government since its election has been the responsible reform of the MPs pension plan. I am sure that hon. members opposite share with us the desire to see that the job of pension reform is done well and not in a haphazard manner. We will not cut the pension plan in order to appease certain interest groups. We must be thorough and fair in what we do.
The political representatives in this Chamber serve Canadians well, as I said earlier, but there is a widespread perception that politicians want to feather their nests. That view is wrong. Yet it will remain as long as we fail to deal with the irritants such as this double dipping.
Politics is a noble calling, referred to earlier by the member opposite, and reflects members' wishes to serve the people of Canada and give something of themselves to their communities.
I reject the claim that most politicians are in politics for the money. No one comes to this place for the sake of money. It does not pay. Many members of Parliament were doing better financially in other careers before they entered politics. They were making contributions to their pension plans and RRSPs which reflected their financial positions.
We must ensure that entering Canadian politics is not a financial drain and that no one is unduly penalized. This place must be accessible to all, not only the rich. It must reflect all aspects of Canadian society. The sacrifices are not only monetary. All members can attest to the time away from their families. One member opposite said: "Of any criticism I ever made of a politician I am now biting my tongue, having lived the life for a year. It is quite demanding."
Although the sacrifices are real they are not an excuse for double dipping. The pension and the salary come from the same taxpayer who has a single pocket. That is why I consider the government's commitment to end double dipping as a very positive signal to the country. It is a sign that this government is listening to Canadians and acting on what it believes in. It gives me hope that Canadian political life will gain in stature in the eyes of the people.
Again, Mr. Speaker, it pleases me that this motion was put forward today. I am pleased that the movers of this motion saw the importance of the red book position, particularly the statement on double dipping. I look forward to their support when the government introduces legislation in the near future.