Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to be able to speak to Bill C-85, an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and to provide for the continuation of a certain provision. Bill C-85, which will amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, has been touted by the Prime Minister as a great pension reform package that members of Parliament deserve because they are so underpaid.
If anything raises the ire of Canadians, it is the scandalously generous pension provisions given to members of Parliament. Even more disturbing is the attempt to conceal from the public just how rich the pension plan remains even after the proposed changes.
The government reports in the public accounts, part II, how much MPs spend on office expenditures, travel and their salaries. It is very interesting to note they refuse to tell the public how much the members of Parliament pension scheme costs.
A former Liberal member introduced a private member's bill which would allow the auditor general to report more frequently so that waste and mistakes would be more readily exposed. This process would open the operations of government to closer scrutiny by Parliament on behalf of the people. What happened? The government said: "No way. We do not want closer scrutiny. We do not want the public to know what is really happening with their money". Then it gave the hon. member a pat on the back and sent him to the other place.
Regrettably, the cost of the members of Parliament pension is not readily available to anyone.
Even though this new law will reduce the accrual rate for benefits by 1 per cent, that is from 5 per cent to 4 per cent, it still remains double the rate found in registered plans in the private sector. There will be provisions for full inflation compensation whereas 78.3 per cent of private sector pensions have no automatic adjustment for inflation.
Furthermore, the members of Parliament pension account earns a generous 10 per cent interest so the costs attributed to the plan are effectively lowered. Yet MPs who choose to accept the one-time offer to opt out of the plan will be paid only 4 per cent on their contributions.
It is there but little is said about the higher rate of pensions for MPs leaving office with more than six years service. Even if this
group were to opt out of the plan, they will be paid their pension for the period prior to October 1993 under the conditions of the old pension plan.
Further bringing the new plan into question, MPs elected in the next Parliament will be required to participate in the pension plan. There will be no future open ended choice to say no to the gravy train. Why is the option to choose not to participate in the plan closed off at this time?
Fifty-two Reform members of Parliament have forced this issue of pension reform, but the government's presented reforms are really an insult to Canadians. Until the government changes the retirement compensation account, the account the government and previous governments have used to pay benefits greater than those allowed under a registered pension plan provided for by the Income Tax Act, Reformers and some other principal members of Parliament refuse to be part of the charade and deception. We are not willing to ask Canadians to pay for this pension windfall.
Right now, after only 10 years, members of Parliament can receive a pension worth half their salary. Anyone else would have to work and contribute to their pension plan for at least 25 years to achieve this and for most, without inflation protection.
Also under the new plan taxpayers still pay $3.60 for every $1 the member of Parliament pays into his or her retirement pension. As a comparison, federal public servants are matched dollar for dollar, a ratio often seen in the private sector as well.
The report by Sobeco, Ernst and Young suggested that pension benefits be limited to retirees who are at least 60 years of age, but the Prime Minister said members of Parliament have earned this pension even after only six years. Granted, for members who came into this House after October 1993, the new law would set eligibility at a minimum age of 55 for benefits accrued after this bill becomes law. Five more years to age 60 was too long to wait. The outside packaging looks okay, but if we open it up the box is empty.
Reformers do not need to hire consultants to tell them that the members of Parliament pension should be reined in, just listen to the ordinary working people of all ages and income ranges. They have told government what they think, yet the government seems unwilling to listen to Canadian citizens. It studied the issue and studied the issue, all the while taunting us with a carrot, promising real change.
We know the amendments are a done deal. The Liberals have the numbers in government to do what they want, but the one thing they can be sure of is that this issue will not go away. It will still be an election issue next time around so they will still have to answer to the voters.
A number of hon. government members have pointed their fingers this way and made allegations that some Reform members are double dipping. We on this side of the House have made it clear that we object to double dipping. We recognize that Bill C-85 attempts to remove double dipping practices and we commend the government for its move in this aspect.
Former members of Parliament who were given political appointments to work at another federal job should not draw pay for that job while continuing to draw their MP pensions. Private sector workers must earn their pensions by working 25 or more years before they are able to collect benefits. Again I point out some members of Parliament need only have served six years to collect these generous packages.
Individuals in the private sector who have earned and are collecting pensions can and do take other employment while continuing to collect their pensions. After all, they have had to win the job they occupy; it is not given to them as a patronage payoff. In this aspect, I had to win this job by convincing the voters of my constituency that I was their best choice to represent them here in Parliament.
Liberals are quick to point out that some Reform members, myself included, collect military pensions while at the same time earning salaries as members of Parliament. I collect an annuity for more than 36 years service in the Royal Canadian Air Force and the Canadian Armed Forces. I paid into that superannuation account with matching government contributions for 35 of those 36 years. Benefits accrued at 2 per cent per year, which is the normal rate for pension plans in the private sector.
The annuity I draw comes from a superannuation fund paid into by former and present members of the RCAF and Canadian Armed Forces over many years. That fund currently stands at just under $30 billion so the notion that my annuity is a gift out of the taxpayer's pocket is simply untrue. My annuity has been fully paid for and hon. members should be aware of that. Some of my colleagues also earn pensions and for many years made contributions to their pension plans.
What some government members are trying to do is compare apples and oranges. These pensions are a far cry from the generous pensions doled out to former members of Parliament who receive appointments to serve on various government boards or commissions.
Canada is among the world's most generous countries when it comes to members of Parliament pensions. There is no other country in the world which pays parliamentarians a pension after serving only six years in office, with no minimum age to retire.
In December 1993 the leader of the Reform Party wrote to the Prime Minister saying:
Reform MPs sincerely believe that the credibility of Parliament in dealing with the financial crisis facing the federal government will be increased if every parliamentary caucus reviews the MPs' pension, pay and perks package and agrees to significant reductions.
By doing so, the 35th Parliament can increase its moral authority to appeal to other Canadians to make the sacrifices necessary to permit a balancing of the federal budget.
In Bill C-85 government has fallen sorely short of achieving appropriate and necessary member of Parliament pension reforms. Surely it should reconsider.