Mr. Speaker, when Europeans first came to Canada everyone had such a short life expectancy and society as a whole was so poor that people basically worked hard from childhood until they died. Some third world nations are still like that, but the industrialized world has made enough advances in public health and medicine that diseases which used to claim huge numbers of people have been either controlled or eliminated in developed countries.
We generally expect to live long and healthy lives. For example, as of 1992 the Canadian life expectancy for women was 81.2 years while some say that we overworked men nevertheless manage to survive for an expected span of 74.9 years.
In addition to improved health, there are other major achievements of developed countries. We generate sufficient wealth so that both our children and our seniors no longer need to be involved in the direct production of wealth. We provide free public education for our young people at least to the age of 16.
We pride ourselves on the fact that child labour is a thing of the past in our modern industrialized world.
At the other end of life, industrialized nations also provide a special time when the wealth of society allows the elderly to be free from the need to produce more wealth. For Canadians age 65 and older, advances in medicine and improved nutrition have also made it possible for them to enjoy improved health and independence.
I had the opportunity last week to drop in at the beautiful lakeside community of Sorrento in my riding of Okanagan-Shuswap. The 220 members of their old age pensioners branch had raised enough money with no government grants of any kind to build a 30 by 60 foot addition to their original meeting place so that they could have room to enjoy such things as carpet bowling, snooker and darts. They also did the majority of the physical work themselves, erecting the walls and rafters.
Some of these seniors I am speaking of are in their 80s. I was impressed not only with their energy but the enthusiasm they showed and the sincere concern they had for Canada. The seniors told me they are also concerned about whether Canada can continue to provide pensions on which they all depend because of excessive government spending, such as the gold plated MP pension plans.
Of course some of these seniors have been thrifty and fortunate enough to own their own homes which keeps their monthly expenses down. Some seniors receive cheques from company pension plans or interest payments from their life savings, but many live on nationally funded pensions.
Low income seniors, especially elderly widows, tell me they have great worries about adequate housing, health care, home care after hospitalization, and public transportation. Nevertheless overall this is a generation of people who lived through the great depression. They know how to make do as they say, meaning that they can get by on very little without complaining.
For example, the monthly maximum payment this quarter for single seniors receiving old age security and the government's income supplement is $850 a month. For married seniors both of whom are over age 65, the monthly maximum payment this quarter from the federal pension and income supplement combined is $689 a month each. In other words, senior couples are living on less than $1,400 per month or $16,542 per year from which they must also pay taxes.
Nationally, StatsCan set the low income cut off at a point where more than 54.7 per cent of income is required to pay for food, shelter and clothing. In rural areas, for 1993 the low income cut off for families of two was $14,238. For small towns, the level was $16,329. Therefore it is only in rural parts of Canada that seniors living on OAS and GIS escape poverty. The majority of Canadians live in cities. The low income cut off for a family of two shoots up to $20,603 in cities like Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal. Remember, married seniors get $4,000 less than that.
I want to contrast the pensions of those average Canadian seniors with members of Parliament, who have been in the remarkable position of being able to pass the very law that determines how much pension they will receive. How would reasonable MPs decide on their pensions? Would they look at what is done in other countries? For example, in the United Kingdom parliamentarians contribute 6 per cent of their salaries and are eligible for pension after 55 when age plus years of service equal 80. The United States congressmen contribute 1.3 per cent and can qualify at age 50 with 20 years service. Obviously Canadian MPs ignored those standards, both for the present pensions and their so-called reforms.
Bill C-85 at long last proposes to reform MPs' pensions so that they cannot qualify until age 55. It also ends double dipping. For both these improvements I congratulate the government. However, these were merely two small baby steps toward badly needed major strides that should have been performed in reforming MPs' pensions in this country.
Our goal should be nothing other than a pension plan similar to those allowed to everyday Canadian seniors. For them the Income Tax Act continues to set a 6 per cent limit on pension contributions. However, under Bill C-85 MPs' pension contributions will only drop from the present 11 per cent to 9 per cent. It is still 50 per cent higher than allowed for the private sector and it is still costing taxpayers millions of dollars.
Another point I wish to raise concerns the opting out possibility. The entire pension plan should be significantly reformed so that no MP in good conscience would see any need to opt out. Without those complete down to earth reforms to the MPs' pension plan, every newly elected member of Parliament must have the option to turn down the pension plan, which through Bill C-85 has merely gone from being solid gold to being gold-plated. In my opinion, even after passage of Bill C-85 MPs' pensions will remain a national disgrace.
When the Liberals were elected the Canadian people accepted them as they would at a wedding. They looked at them as either the bride or the groom. They gave them the ring to run this country. Unfortunately, since then, through acts such as this piddling around with the MPs' pension plan, I am afraid the Liberal government has given the Canadian public the finger.
We do not have to delve too deeply to see what it is costing the Canadian public today to keep what these MPs seem to say is
their right. Does any member of Parliament think that the only reason he came to this place was in order to get a pension and his only way of being paid back is through that pension? I would like to know what their commitment to Canada is. I find it hard to accept that there is anyone in this House who would use that.
I hear nothing from the other side with regard to this debate. I have yet to hear anyone on the other side stand up to address this. I find this strange. Are they afraid the Canadian public would not listen to what they say, or if it did listen it would want to turf them out? I think it is probably the latter. Hopefully I am wrong. I would sincerely like to see a member from the other side rise and speak to this issue. The Canadian public would also like to hear them speak to this issue. We have had only smoke and mirrors from the other side with respect to this. Perhaps it is time they clear the smoke away and tell us exactly what they have done to reform the MPs' pension plan and what the cost will now be to the Canadian taxpayers, who perceive the MPs as living off them like parasites.
It is sad to say that in this country we have fallen that badly. The obligation should be for someone from the government side to stand up and support their own pension scheme. If they would go out and talk to seniors and see how much they have contributed to the country, with no guarantees, they would be really surprised. Maybe we should be a little ashamed of what we have allowed to happen in this country.