Mr. Speaker, I am pleased for the opportunity to speak on this important bill that has consumed the House for quite some time. It has actually consumed debate in the country for several years prior to the lead up to the past election.
When I campaigned and even prior to my campaign in the election of 1993 this was a very important issue in my riding of Peace River. It caught people's attention because they think there is a double standard with politicians doing one thing and then asking the Canadian public to do another. Politicians were writing the rules for their own pension plan which is overly generous. It was up to six times more generous than any private or public sector plan. I heard it many times.
I did not hear any debate about MPs' salaries, but at every meeting I went to in the riding I heard about the issue of the MPs pension plan and how it was overly generous. It is a matter the Canadian people want us to clear up. It is not good enough to bring in a revised plan that is twice or three times more generous than the Canadian average. They want a plan that is on an equivalent basis.
Members opposite who are shaking their heads will find, if they ram the plan through, that they face the consequences when they go to the electorate the next time around.
Our alternative has been to say that we need a pension plan that is fair, honest and open with Canadians, but if we cannot achieve it at this point we will opt out. That is what Reform members have done.
I have received a lot of feedback in my riding about the matter. People have said: "At least you are honest with us and are saying that you will not jump into a plan that is two and one-half or three times more generous than any other pension plan in the country".
When we discuss the issue and as we talk back and forth across this place members on the other side consider the salary and the MPs pension plan to be one package. That is a big mistake. It has led to the idea that we can have career politicians in Canada. People have said they want a pension plan that does not encourage career politicians. That is another point people in the Peace River riding told me about. They want people to run for office who have done something with their lives before coming to the Chamber so that they can bring some real life experiences to the job. They do not want people elected at 22 years of age who plan to be here for their entire lives.
My understanding is the President of the Treasury Board brought forward a pretty good plan to his Liberal caucus in December. It was a lot more reflective of the current mood in the country and the current average. What happened to it? Who led the charge against it? It was the rat pack of 1984 and 1988. The rat pack has become the fat cat pack. They are the ones who could not accept the revised pension plan. Some members sitting over there will know what I am talking about because they led the charge against it. The President of the Treasury Board had to withdraw. I understand he was almost dismembered in caucus by the Liberal Party. What did he do? He could do nothing except bring forward a plan that was somewhat lower than the pension plan they had previously but was still not good enough.
We see members opposite arguing day in and day out that we have to accept the plan or our option in the Reform Party is to opt out. We will take that challenge and we have taken it. It is not that we can afford to do it any more than anyone else, but we have to identify with the Canadian people. We have to set an example. We have to lead by example in the Chamber and that is exactly what we are doing.
My understanding is that one Liberal member has also done it. I think we will see a few more once they get some feedback. If this issue were allowed to go until the summer recess some other Liberal members would come back to the House and say: "I am going to opt out of the plan as well".
I take this opportunity to deal with another issue. The gist of what is going on across the floor right now is what I want to talk about. The member for Calgary Centre rose in the House to talk about the issue. At least he was honest. He told the Canadian public that we had to put the matter into perspective, that if we factored in MPs salary, expense allowance which is tax free and housing allowance, in terms of actual dollars before taxes they would total about $120,000. If we threw in a reasonable pension plan it would be up to $150,000. That is what he was saying. He was trying to put the matter into perspective. He was trying to tell Canadians exactly what politicians are getting right now. I welcomed his addition to the debate.
What happened? The people on the other side of the House totally misrepresented that. All we expect from over there is honesty and openness with the Canadian public. That is exactly what the member for Calgary Centre said. He said: "If you were honest you would say this is the value of the pension plan and the salary at the moment". That is the kind of debate we need.
He threw out the challenge to put it to the Canadian public to decide what the MPs salary should be. I think they would find that it should be higher. If they do not, I am prepared to live with the results. When we set our own salary and our own pension we start to get into trouble. It does not show leadership by example. We had better throw it out to a panel that will cross the country, hold hearings and talk to ordinary Canadians before we talk
about raising any MPs salary. The member for Calgary Centre is just giving the reality of today, what is actually in place.
As I was travelling in my riding I heard over and over again that MP's have put themselves in a class above the Canadian people. I believe there is a lot of cynicism out there about politics right now. I ran into that myself. One person said: "Charlie, I wish I would have met you before you went into politics because I think I would have liked you". It is a little slam against the profession. What he was saying was that the job as an MP is falling into disrepute.
Why is that happening? One of the reasons is that we have double standards. We have a standard for MPs and we have a standard for ordinary Canadians. That is not good enough. It is something that has to be changed.
Because of the misunderstanding and misrepresentation on the other side of the House of the member for Calgary Centre on the issue when he was honest and open with discussion in the Chamber, I move:
That the member for Calgary Centre be now heard.