Mr. Speaker, I remind Canadians watching the debate today that we are discussing the acceptability of the proposed pension for members of Parliament. As they are probably aware, the Liberal government introduced some changes to the former pension system. The changes have been set out in great detail in a number of speeches today and I am not proposing to repeat them.
The issue is very simple. Is the proposed plan fair and reasonable? Is what is being proposed as a pension for members of Parliament fair and reasonable? The answer is very clear. No, it is not fair and reasonable. There are a number of reasons for this.
My colleague from Saanich-Gulf Islands and a number of other colleagues have set out the reasons yet again. It is very clear that what is proposed is not fair and reasonable. There are three areas in which the plan is not fair and reasonable.
It is incredibly rich. It allows a level of pension that is illegal for any other Canadian. If any other institution or organization proposed to give its employees this kind of a pension it would be prosecuted. It is flatly illegal. Somehow the richness for members of Parliament is okay. The lawmakers can have different rules. It simply flies in the face of what is right and what is just.
It is an inequitable system. No other Canadians in the country could ever expect to have this kind of a pension plan, yet to a very large degree those self same Canadians will have to pay for the pension plan that is being proposed.
A constituent phoned my office yesterday and said that he had worked for a major oil company for 30 years. He said his pension was not any better alongside an MP who has worked only six years. He wondered how that could be, and he had to pay for it.
It is clearly inequitable for lawmakers to have a pension and benefits that are unavailable to any other Canadian. These benefits are fully indexed. There are virtually no other pension plans available anywhere in the country that are tied to the level of inflation. Yet lawmakers feel they are entitled to that. This is not a fair and reasonable plan.
The sad thing about this is that the people who have to pay the shot for this plan have no say in how the plan is structured. In any other plan, most or at least half of the benefits are paid for by the person receiving them. In this particular plan the people receiving the benefits pay one-fifth or one-sixth of the benefits they will eventually receive. The people who have to pay the lion's share in this plan have no voice in the negotiations whatsoever, except what we might choose to give them.
My friends in the Bloc would say it is very bad labour relations when one party simply sets down the benefits they expect to take and the other side has to pay them. That is clearly inequitable and unreasonable.
In spite of the fact that this plan is not fair and reasonable, the Liberals go through a song and dance saying that yes it is. We should examine those arguments because as Canadians we need to judge whether or not this is a good and fair piece of legislation. Reformers are saying loudly that it is not. I have given some of the reasons and my colleagues have given more.
Let us see what the Liberals are saying. The first thing they say is: "At least we did something". For those who might be watching these debates and who are students of political science, they might see this as a very interesting and excellent example of spin doctoring, of how a clearly untenable and indefensible proposal by a government is put forward as being equitable and defensible.
First the Liberals say: "At least we did something. We made some cutbacks. We made some changes. We brought in reform". I might add this was thanks to Reform members who have kept raising this issue over and over in the House. I dare say the Liberals would have been quite happy to forget it if we had not pushed them to the mat and said: "You must do something about this MP pension plan. Canadians simply will not stand for it to be left as it is".
The second thing they say is: "We never promised to do anything more than this. We have done everything we said we would do". I suggest the real issue is whether it was the right thing to do. Is that not what we are here for, to do the right thing? Or are we here to do the least thing possible so we can say we did something? I think Canadians should judge.
Then there was a very interesting argument brought up by the President of the Treasury Board. He said that they were doing this because they care about their families and the people who are saying this is not a good plan should really think about whether they really care about their families. All Canadians care very much about their families, particularly the Canadians who are going to have to pay the shot for this pension plan that will benefit the families of a very few. It is the families of Canadians
and Canadians themselves and fairness for all that we should thinking about, not just ourselves and our families.
I find it rather remarkable that somehow a plan that is unfair, greedy and beyond what any other Canadian family could ever hope for is excused and justified on the basis that we care about our families. I do not think so.
Then the argument is brought up that almost half of the MPs do not qualify for a pension anyway. So? We are talking about the people who do qualify for a pension. Is the pension for those who do qualify fair and reasonable? The answer is no.
Then the President of the Treasury Board brought up studies that propose MPs should earn more. The President of the Treasury Board said that we do not dare do that; we do not dare follow the recommendations of those studies. What he actually said was interesting if one follows political speak.
He said that it is not functionally possible at this time. Then he suggests it is okay to stay unreasonable on the pension side because we cannot do anything about the other recommendations. I do not think that two wrongs make a right in the minds of Canadians. Reform is against increasing either the salary or letting the pension stay unreasonable, particularly in light of the fact that the country is not living within its means.
The next argument is interesting, which is the great sacrifice MPs make to serve the public good. Being an MP I can say there is some sacrifice involved, although I do not notice any shortage of people willing and able to make that sacrifice. There are literally millions of Canadians who make sacrifices to serve the public good.
This week in the House we rose in a standing ovation to acknowledge and show appreciation for the Canadians who made the ultimate sacrifice. They went overseas and had the roar of guns in their ears. They suffered the separation from their loved ones, fear for their lives, danger and injury for an unlimited period of time. They made a sacrifice.
What about the people in the private sector who go all over the world to pursue trade opportunities on behalf of their companies, suffering from jet lag and all of the deprivations of travel? What about the millions of Canadians who sacrifice in both their personal and professional lives to give care and guidance to their children?
Sacrifice is a part of life. For MPs in the House to say we are making a sacrifice and therefore we should be given special consideration is ludicrous. It will not wash with Canadians.
It might be interesting for members of the House to know about a survey I have been doing in my riding. I asked whether they supported MPs receiving the benefits outlined in the information I gave them. Eighty-seven per cent answered no. Question: Do you agree with your MP's decision to opt out of the MP pension plan and provide for her own retirement through a personal RRSP governed by the same guidelines as all other Canadians? Answer yes: 88.7 per cent. Question: Do you think MP pension benefits should be reduced retroactively to reflect Canada's current fiscal situation? Answer yes: 87 per cent.
It is very clear that Canadians are fed up with politicians who say one thing and do another, who decry any suggestion of a two tier health care system. They bleed from every pore at the mere suggestion, but a two tier pension system that benefits them is just fine.
It is time we showed some leadership in the House and put our money where our mouth is. Reformers are prepared to do that. I challenge government members to show that we want to do what is right and fair for the country and we want to be on an equal playing field with the citizens of this country. We are prepared to do that in the matter of the pension plan.