Debates of May 4th, 1995

Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to say a few words on this government bill which Quebecers and Canadians have been waiting for. At the same time, the public perception of the pension plan is sometimes erroneous. Naturally, the most visible irritants often make the whole pension system look like it gives greater benefits to parliamentarians than to those in similar fields of activity.

I think that this bill introduced by the government constitutes a fine effort and a step forward. Changes were needed. While we have questions about certain provisions, such as those regarding spouses' pensions and double dipping, that is, being paid a retirement allowance and a salary at the same time, we regard this bill as a step forward in that it remedies the two main irritants for the public, particularly the one concerning minimum pensionable age.

Let us start by stating a basic fact: every working person is entitled to a pension. Everyone wants to make sure they enjoy some degree of financial security after having reached fifty or sixty years of age. Most companies, corporations and others, have set up retirement income security systems in conjunction with their employees. Non unionized workers or people working for large companies have built themselves retirement funds with RRSPs, thanks to the privileges governments grant to those who make the effort of investing in RRSPs to build retirement funds.

So, the principle of receiving pension benefits must not be challenged, and the government did not do so in its bill. We recognize that we are entitled to benefits, however, they must be comparable to those provided not only in other walks of life, in both the private and the public sector, but also in what I would call the political sector, in other governments, in other countries and in Canada, at the provincial level for instance.

Our pension program must provide no more or less to members of Parliament, but must be a reflection of the economic reality of Quebec and Canada. In that sense, as I said earlier, the

bill before us today remedies two major irritants in our plan, one being retirement age. We must realize, however, that this concern about retirement age is new, and stems from the realization that it is possible for individuals as young as 40 or 43 years old to retire.

Traditionally, politicians were much older and, generally speaking, remained in office much longer.

Consequently, when the Members of Parliament Retiring Act was originally passed, the legislator did not think about setting a minimum age to be eligible for a pension, since most retiring MPs were already over 55, or had only served one term and were not eligible for a pension. The problem simply did not exist.

Elections nowadays are often characterized by a major turnaround, which results in large numbers of MPs losing their seats. For example, in 1984, the Conservatives won 211 seats, which means that several Liberal members left the House of Commons at a much younger age than the average for the previous 15 years, when we had minority governments that would change every two or three years. Indeed, throughout that period, a Liberal minority government was almost always in office, which means that the same members of the various parties were re-elected repeatedly.

Western provinces were always represented by large numbers of Conservatives and New Democrats, while the number of Liberal members from Quebec remained fairly stable, along with a contingent from Ontario and also some from eastern Canada. Consequently, even though minority governments were in office, the members remained essentially the same over a 15 year period. By the time they left office, most of these members had reached the age of 55, 58 or 60. Consequently, the issue of early retirement was not raised by the public or the House, since it only concerned a very small minority.

As I said earlier, because of the Conservative waves of 1984 and 1988, and because of a new phenomenon in 1993, namely the creation of a new party, the Bloc Quebecois, which replaced the Liberals in Quebec, as well as another one, the Reform Party, which ousted the New Democrats in western Canada as well as many old Conservative members who used to get re-elected all the time, for example in Alberta, there is now a fairly large number of MPs leaving office who are entitled to pensions. The example most often heard is that of former minister Perrin Beatty who, at 43 or 45, is entitled to a pension as a former minister, even though he is at an age where he can still make a living by using his skills and knowledge. That example is given as being representative of the situation of most MPs, but it is not.

We should take a close look at the findings of the last three reports. Each time a federal election is held, the MPs' pay plan and pension plan are reviewed, along with an assessment of their work as members or chairpersons of committees, and any other additional duties which they may have as whip, House leader, etc.

If we take the report prepared by the Balcer-McIsaac commission in 1980, it says there was no need to tinker with MPs pensions since there were no cases of younger members who ended up with pensions.

If we look at the report produced by the Hon. Gerry St. Germain and the Hon. Francis Fox, it says that after considering every aspect of the question, the commissioners felt that present retirement allowances were adequate. Here again, age was not an issue. The last report, produced by a committee chaired by the Hon. Charles Lapointe, which included two commissioners, Mrs. Pigott and Mr. Frank, made the first reference to age provisions, because there was reason to do so. The report suggested a minimum age of 55 but did not elaborate on its significance.

If we look at a table, we can see the percentage of individuals who receive a pension at a specific age. For instance, we see that under 40, three-tenths of one per cent of members have a pension. Under 45, one-tenth of one per cent. Altogether, 434 in the entire history of Canada. There are not thousands, as people seem to think. Only one-tenth of one per cent. Under 50, we see 5 per cent. Under 55, 7 per cent. This means that those who are already receiving pension allowances and are 55 and over represent 77 per cent of all pensioners. Over 60, 77 per cent. Add to that those over 55, which is 8 per cent, which means 85 per cent of those receiving a pension today are over 55.

Contrary to the public's perception that parliamentarians get their pensions at a tender age, those under 50 account for less than 5 per cent and those under 45 for only one-tenth of 1 per cent of the total number.

As we set our criteria, bearing in mind our democratic principles and the current state of our finances, we should also consider certain documents, in this latest report, which refer to a study of the allowances of members of Parliament, conducted by the commissioners mentioned earlier.

Let us first look at the picture in terms of salaries. The public often thinks that members' salaries are overinflated. However, if we compare Canada with other countries in the world, such as Australia, France, Germany, New Zealand, Japan, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States, we find Canada ranks seventh of the nine countries in salary terms. Six countries in this list therefore pay better salaries, including Japan, for example, which pays $196,000 a year for 43 sitting days. In Canada, the figure is $64,000 for 148 sitting days; in Germany, it is $102,000 for 66 days; and, in Australia, it is $65,000 for 53

days. That is surprising. In Sweden, the salary is only $36,000, and, in the United States, it is $169,000 for 144 days.

Therefore, if we place Canada among the nine countries I have just listed, we realize that it is seventh in terms of salaries paid to members. In other words, it is well behind a number of countries including France, Germany, Japan, the United States and Australia. Also, in terms of pay per day, Canada is sixth among the nine on the basis of the number of sitting days.

That is to say that the salaries of members of Parliament in Canada are far from the most generous in the world. Secondly, if we compare the salary of federal members of Parliament with their provincial counterparts, we find, as with Quebec, for example, that they are the same, give or take a few thousand dollars.

This fact must be taken into account in establishing a pension plan. Another fact that must be taken into consideration is that the people who sit here have to give up their businesses or other duties-this has been my own experience. In teaching, for example, I was earning $46,000 a year. In 1984, when I was elected, I earned $52,000 or $54,000 a year-not a huge difference really. But I had to give up the businesses I owned and hire additional staff in order to be able to do my work properly. You know when you are elected as a member of Parliament that the job is temporary.

That is why we should be entitled to a pension for the period of time that we put our businesses or other careers on hold, for, had we not made this choice, we would have continued to accumulate retirement income for until we hit the age of 55, 57 or 60.

It is only fair that our salaries be comparable to what MPs receive in other countries and that our pensions compare to those that public officials and MPs from other provinces and other countries receive.

Having said this, there were some rough spots, but this bill smooths them out. For example, it would change the minimum age, although this would affect only five per cent of MPs currently collecting a pension. I base my statements regarding pensions on the report of the Commission to Review Allowances of Members of Parliament, chaired by the hon. Charles Lapointe, called Democratic Ideals and Financial Realities: Paying Representatives in the Twenty-First Century . The report says that, in 1984, 131 MPs were defeated or chose not to run again.

Of that number, 56 per cent did not qualify for a pension; 44 per cent did. In 1988, 46 per cent of the 115 MPs who were defeated or chose not to run again qualified for a pension. In 1993, 67 per cent of the MPs who were defeated or chose not to run were not eligible for a pension. Therefore, out of the 445 MPs who left office in the last three elections, 58 per cent or 260 did not qualify for a pension. However, we must look at this system from all angles: some 185 received pensions.

Now, let us look at the amounts involved for all MPs. The popular belief is that all members can count on the allowance of a minister or Prime Minister upon retiring, when the fact is that there are only a few ministers and one Prime Minister. The rest of us ordinary members of Parliament, commonly referred to as backbenchers in both official languages, get a much more modest allowance based on our years of service.

For example, 12 per cent of members receive less than $10,000 per year in allowances; 17 per cent get less than $20,000; and 27 per cent, less than $30,000. In total, 75 per cent of former members receive under $40,000. These are interesting figures.

If you add up those receiving less than $30,000 in allowances, that is to say 27, plus 17, plus 12, you realize that 56 per cent of former members receive a pension of less than $30,000.

It is also the same with the age factor. As I said earlier, only three tenths of one per cent members who receive allowances start doing so under the age of 40, like Mrs. Carole Jacques, a former Conservative member, Mr. Champagne, the former Conservative member for Champlain, and a few Liberal members as well.

This needed to be changed and the correction was made. In addition, although allowances are not as generous as they seem to be when you take a good look at them, the government not only removed two irritants having to do with retirement age and double dipping-the fact of holding a wage-earning position while in receipt of a pension-, but also reduced by 20 per cent its contribution to the pension fund. In addition, members have to hold office longer to get the 75 per cent maximum. A member elected this year would have to sit in this place for 20 years instead of 15 to qualify for the maximum retirement allowance. This is something that we will have to take into account when voting on this bill.

This bill settles the matters of age, double dipping and contribution rates. These rates, which might have appeared generous but were comparable, will be reduced because of the economic situation. I would also like to look at what is being done in other countries, for example with regard to contributions.

Let us say right off the bat that Canada's contribution rate of 11 per cent ranked among the top rates in the world. By reducing this rate to 9 per cent, we bring it in line with rates in other countries. Let me remind you that the Australian rate is 11.5 per cent and that many other countries have rates of around 9 per cent. We are therefore normalizing the situation and making it more equitable for members of the House of Commons.

Let us now compare the situation in Canada with that in the provinces, because the provinces also have pension plans. For example, in Newfoundland, which is a small province, all one needs to qualify for pension rates of up to 75 per cent is to have run in two elections and to have five years of service. Members need six years of service at the federal level, compared to five years in Newfoundland. As for the minimum age, the member's age plus the number of years of service must equal 60. This means that a 55-year old member of the Newfoundland legislature with five years of service would be entitled to a pension. A 50-year old member with 10 years of service would qualify for a pension in Newfoundland but not at the federal level.

That is an interesting comparison. Given the small size and population of Prince Edward Island, which has as many people as my riding but 32 members in its provincial legislature, four members of Parliament, and a house for the Lieutenant Governor, one can understand why there is no pension for the 32 members of the provincial legislature. The minimum pensionable age for members of the Nova Scotia legislature is 50, but it will be 55 for members of Parliament. To qualify for a pension, all a member needs is to have run in two elections and to have five years of service.

Let us look at New Brunswick. There is no minimum age. Members only need 10 sessions under their belts.

[An hon. member]

That, too, should be changed.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

It may have to be changed but, for the time being, this bill is a step forward. I hope that the other provinces will also take this step. A different reality may force us to take other measures. The situation facing pensioners today has changed from what it was 15 years ago. Adjustments are being made.

Take Quebec, where the rule is age plus years of service, with a minimum age of 50. The same principle is applied in Ontario: age plus years of service, with a minimum age of 55. Our situation is similar to that of the provinces, which often offer more generous plans. Manitoba abolished its plan but replaced it with a collective RRSP which will be able to offer more or less the same terms. I believe the hon. member for Hull-Aylmer, just next door, did a comparative study on the subject which showed that after 12 years, a collective RRSP was more attractive than our own system.

In Saskatchewan, the minimum age is again 55. In British Columbia, the minimum age is 55 and the rule is age plus a number of years of service. The minimum age is 55 in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, and to be eligible for a pension, members must sit a minimum of seven years in British Columbia, six in the Yukon and six in the Northwest Territories. In other words, our system is very similar to those in the rest of the provinces and, in some cases, is less attractive. It is also very similar to what is offered in other western countries, and I am referring to so-called modern countries, countries with a decent per capita income.

I must admit that the bill also takes into account the current situation and what the taxpayer can afford. Contributions will be cut by 20 per cent. There will be a cut of $3.5 million out of a total $10 million, which means a correction of 33 per cent. However, certain irritants remain in the bill, and I will probably suggest a number of amendments when the bill goes to committee after second reading.

I wonder, for instance, about the decision to reject double dipping. Everyone seems to agree that when you take a former minister-again, the example of Perrin Beatty-and you appoint him president of the CBC, he should not get both his salary from the CBC and his $40,000 to $45,000 pension as a former minister. I think that is pretty obvious, and I want to commend Mr. Beatty for voluntarily giving up his pension before accepting his position at CBC.

I also want to commend Mr. Broadbent who, when his term was renewed not long ago, also gave up his pension for another five years although he was under no obligation to do so, thus complying with the government's intentions and public opinion.

However, we may have a situation where a member who has a political career in Ottawa is penalized when he obtains another position, compared to a former member of one of the provincial legislatures. Senator Prud'homme, for instance. He sat in the House of Commons, he wanted to sit in the Senate and they have to subtract his pension from his salary. Mr. Gauthier sat in the House of Commons. He is now sitting in the Senate, and his member's pension is subtracted from his salary.

However, Mrs. Bacon, a former member of the Quebec legislature who has a minister's pension, receives both her senator's salary and her minister's pension of $40,000 or $45,000.

Take the case of Senator Simard. Since I do not want to play favourites, I will take a Conservative senator as an example. The last two are Conservatives, but Mr. Prud'homme is a former Liberal. Senator Simard has been in the Senate for 10 years or so and receives a pension of about $40,000 as a former minister of New Brunswick. He does not have to subtract it from his salary.

Of course, since we are in a federal jurisdiction our legislation can only cover the federal level. I am delving into, as will the committee, the issues of concern to us. That is why I am not tabling the amendment on whether the following recommendation would be legal: that, when the Prime Minister calls someone in the future to offer him or her a seat in the Senate, the Prime Minister stipulate "I am offering you the seat on condition that you fax me a letter giving your commitment not to collect your pension as a former provincial MP, so that you are at par with the federal MPs". Then, if ever the person is appointed

to the Senate, that person's entitlements would not be any more or less than those of the other senators.

Therefore, that is another underlying problem. I was also wondering about municipal careers. When you appoint someone like Jean Drapeau, the former mayor of Montreal, to the federal public service, he receives a generous pension from Montrealers. The Mayor of Vancouver, with his experience dealing with Asian countries, would also be a potential candidate for the federal public service. He would not have to subtract his municipal pension from his salary. Of course, we are talking about different jurisdictions, but I am pondering the issue anyway.

I am giving the government and the minister the leisure to reflect on this issue and, meanwhile, I will submit it to the committee. It seems to me that this is hypocritical. On the other hand, we must also take into consideration the fact that someone drawing a good pension from Eatons, for example, after working there all of his career, who is appointed to the Senate subsequently would not have a problem. But if his career had been with the provincial government, he would.

It must also be said that the double dipping we are trying to abolish, to which we all agree in principle, penalizes people who, after a career in the federal public service, may entertain appointments as ambassadors or members of a task force on political party funding, for example. This was the case with the Lortie Commission to which former MPs were appointed and with the commission on pension reform. This duty to subtract pensions, this impediment, would make it easier to recruit people with parliamentary experience among former provincial MPs instead of federal MPs.

I do not know how the bill could be amended, I have no proposals or amendments to make, but I do think there is food for thought here.

I would also point out that, in our consideration of this bill, we should remember that members' salaries have been frozen for three or four, if not five, years and will remain frozen until 1997. I will give you an example. I earn $64,000. Eleven years ago, when I started here, I earned $54,000. I have therefore had increases of less than $1,000 a year, or less than $20 a week since I began sitting in the House of Commons. In the years salaries were not frozen, all we got was the cost of living adjustment. When I talk of salary increases, I am including the cost of living adjustment.

Real efforts have been made in terms of salaries. Twice while I have been a member, my salary has been reduced by $1,000 in budget speeches. MPs' salaries are similar to those of MLAs. Earlier, I compared our pension benefits with those of MLAs. I could also have compared salaries. I did so with other countries.

We have seen that the situation of members of Parliament, members of legislative assemblies and western parliamentarians is comparable. Pensions, with the amendments that will be made today, will be comparable, with ours being even sometimes less compared to pension plans in the provinces or in other countries.

This bill is a realistic step forward. It resolves certain issues discrediting the role of members of Parliament. It used to be that we received our pensions at any age and that they were very substantial. It will no longer be the case. These issues, now resolved, used to discredit members of Parliament and often sent those who might be contemplating a career in this noble place running in the opposite direction. The credibility and public image of politicians with fat pensions tended to discourage people from going into politics.

I think that correcting these two irritants can help bring our pay and pension benefits in line with those in the public sector and with politicians' pay and pension benefits in other countries and in the provinces.

In closing, may I remind you that one way for the government to make further cuts may be to question the need for two Houses of Parliament. The other place, since that is how we must refer to it, costs $50 to $60 million. Instead of saving $3 million by adjusting pensions, you would save 20 times as much by eliminating a house which, between us, is totally useless.

[An hon. member]

The Senate.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

We are not supposed to utter the word "Senate" here in this House. We must say "the other place". My colleague referred to it by name but he is not supposed to. We know whom or what we are talking about. We have great respect for the people there, but we no longer see the need for the institution itself. We tend to think of it as a leftover from colonial days, as a big dormitory.

Incidentally, a great lady, Mrs. Chaput-Rolland, now retired, referred to the other place as a big dormitory in a book that she wrote. She even talked about "the hon. sleepyheads". I think that she went much too far. However, in this era of budget cuts and pension review, we should think about the need to maintain this refuge for the Prime Minister's political cronies.

Nova Scotia, Quebec and the other provinces with senates abolished them. I feel the time has come to think about this and save taxpayers $50 to $60 million. We should also think about the need to maintain a house for the Lieutenant Governor in each of the provinces. Our Lieutenant Governor does not sleep in Prince Edward Island or in Quebec City very often. Most of the

time, he sleeps in a hotel and not in the house reserved for him. We should perhaps think about all these houses we have to maintain and turn them into profitable museums.

Perhaps we should also reconsider the relevance, especially for a government proclaiming from the rooftops its Canadianity and its pride in the Canadian flag, of maintaining at the top of the parliamentary hierarchy a representative of the Queen, a lieutenant-governor. That is another position that could be abolished. We could look into that too. There is $10 million attached to this position. That is how much we could save today.

To conclude, I wonder also about another possible way we could save money. We have just adopted a bill on electoral boundaries increasing the number of members of Parliament from 295 to 301. This is a big problem. If we compare this place to the legislatures of other countries, we can see that there is something wrong with the Canadian system. Let us see how we shape up against our neighbours, the United States.

For a total population of 27 million, we have 295 MPs. With a population of 270 million, ten times ours, the Americans should have ten times more representatives than we do, or 2,950. Yet, there are only 495 representatives in the American Congress. I think we are the odd ones. Why not take the lead of France, England or the United States and bring the size of the House of Commons down, proportionally to population, to say a hundred or so members?

Considering what each member costs-we are talking about at least half a million dollars a year-in electricity, stationery, clerical support, this would mean savings of 200 times $500,000, or $100 million.

We should consider this if we really want to get back some of the credibility we lost in the eyes of the public and see our work in this place regain prestige.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to participate in this debate today.

I would like to say by way of introduction that the most pathetic thing I have heard today is not a government trying to defend this plan, which is still far too rich for the Canadian taxpayers' blood, still far too generous, but more pathetic than that is what I have heard from a Bloc member who is fully endorsing this plan, who says that it goes a long way and that it corrects certain irritants.

This is a group of people who want to opt into this pension plan when at the same time they are sitting here trying to opt out of the country. That is disgusting. They cannot defend that. It is indefensible in this Chamber. It is indefensible in any one of the ridings this member would choose to travel to across the country. "Corrects certain irritants"-let me assure you, Madam Speaker, that the only irritant-

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

I think that, if you had paid closer attention, you would have realized that my right to sit in this place is being questioned. I was elected democratically like every other member of Parliament.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

And democratically elected he was. Let us ask him to carry on in his democratically elected position sitting in the Parliament of Canada.

I talked about correcting certain irritants. The only irritant is with the Canadian public, who are paying the bills for this pension plan. I suspect this will not correct any irritant for them.

We have been trying to do some research during the last couple of days since this bill was brought in last Friday and introduced to the House for debate today. As I look at the figures, the numbers simply do not add up.

I am going to mention this opt-out clause now and then I will mention it several times again. I am going to keep mentioning it across this country every chance I get to speak. There is an opportunity for the class of '88 and anyone who was elected after them, such as myself and my colleagues, to opt out or not to opt in. We will look at some of the optics of that later. My friend from St. Boniface, for instance, and all the rest of them who were elected in 1988 have the option to opt out. I will be referring to that later and issuing some challenges to them.

Bill C-85, an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and to provide for the continuation of a certain provision for a pension for members of Parliament, is being debated. It certainly has been a long time coming. It was a promise in the red book, and I am pleased to see that the government is doing something about it. The Liberals are fulfilling their promise for age 55 and no double dipping allowed, but they do not go far enough to correct the irritant of the people who are paying for this pension plan. Of course that is the taxpayer.

I suspect there has been quite a battle in the government caucus about when they would bring this in. It was made clear to me by Treasury Board within the last couple of weeks when the minister's press secretary assured my office that we would have an opt-out clause for me, Deborah Grey, Beaver River, because I was obviously so concerned about this.

It looks as though they have gone perhaps one step further on that and allowed the whole class of '88 to opt out. I applaud that, and I will have my pen out to write down all those colleagues of mine who are going to opt out.

We have called for pension plan changes for a long time. The minister, in his remarks earlier, said that we had an opportunity to discuss this plan in the House of Commons earlier, as if that were some kind of noble gesture from the minister. In fact that was on November 22, when I, the member for Beaver River, introduced the motion on our opposition day to talk about the MP pension plan. So it was hardly some great initiative on the government side.

In fact I would love to quote reams out of Hansard of that day. People stood in their places, a lot of them from the class of '88 because that was the day after their trough day, when they qualified for the pension and their benefits had become vested. They stood in their places and said: We do not make all that much money''. Compared to the private sector, no. Sobeco Ernst & Young proved that in their report.We have families and we have homes''. Of course we do, and we have to take that into consideration.

It goes on: "I just bought a house and I have a mortgage, so I need a pension; I had to lose my job from before; I sacrificed a lot for public life". On and on the tirades went. Yet when I look at the things they had to say and when I look at how the Canadian public viewed that debate that day and then I stand and hear something like this today, it makes me pretty sad. It makes me pretty mad also, because this is unjustifiable. This plan is indefensible and we simply are not able to condone it.

We called for changes that would move the retirement age to regular retirement age, age 60 perhaps. It is not that we are against a pension. We have never made that assertion. We have never made the comment across the country that we are against pension plans for members of Parliament. It is not in our blue sheet of Reform policies anywhere. One would not find that Reform MPs are saying we do not want any pension. What we are saying is that we want a fair pension, brought more in line with the private sector, moved to regular retirement age. Let us make sure that we are not getting some sort of special treatment.

I talked yesterday on the lobbyists act about two-tier systems for lobbyists. I talked about the two-tier health system that exists in this country for Canadians from coast to coast as well as for regular public servants on the Hill compared to MPs on the Hill. There are two tiers on a lot of things.

I do not think that anyone in this House today can justify that we think we deserve a two-tier pension system. It simply will not fly in the public. I go around and speak to various people and I am sure government members do too. They hear from the same Canadians I do. They travel around and hear from people and take heat on this.

I suspect that is one reason why the Treasury Board assistant said to me the other day and again today that the minister is trying to get this through by the summer recess so that it is all done, tucked away, and hopefully everyone will just forget about it and keep quiet.

The last government hoped that a lot of people would forget about a lot of things and keep quiet also. It simply does not happen. They did not forget about it. And we will never forget what happened to them in the last election. Perhaps it is a sign of things to come.

We want a fair pension plan. But we are calling for a pension plan similar to that of any other person in the country who buys into a private pension plan. That is, the employer will contribute one dollar and the employee will contribute one dollar, dollar for dollar. When I was with the Alberta Teachers Association I put in x number of dollars a month, and the ATA put in x dollars a month to match it.

We have seen the numbers. They range from $6 or $7 to $1, and now we are being told by Treasury Board that it is down to $3.60 to $1. Whatever it is, it is still obscenely rich. There is not another person in the country, except this insular group sitting in the green chamber and the folks on the other side of course, who are going to be able to say: "I gave up my life for public service. This was my sacrifice to the country." Well, if it is going to be a sacrifice to the country to serve in this place, then let us make it a sacrifice, so that we are not spending some obscene pension and living on it for the rest of our lives, and we will not feel guilty about the dollars we collect that other people have paid.

I hear from both sides of the House today, from the government and the official opposition, that it is okay because we have made some incredible sacrifice. I do not consider this to be a sacrifice.

I miss being at home, and I can hardly stand to leave my husband every week, but when I think about the opportunity we have to serve in the Parliament of Canada, it is remarkable. Surely we cannot whine and cry and go home to St. Boniface, Halifax, or Sherbrooke or wherever and say: "This was my sacrifice for the country, so I am going to collect a heap of cash. Sorry about that, folks, but this is what I did for you and the country, now this is what you are going to do for me". It will not fly. It is indefensible and unacceptable. So why not a fair pension plan? I do not know.

It would seem to me that the provision for virtually full protection against inflation is totally unchanged. Surely that is something that could be brought in. We do not see that in the legislation.

Many people do not know that at age 60 the present plan will be indexed to inflation back to whenever it was the person stood for a pension. I qualify right now at age 42. I would get

everything back indexed for inflation at age 60. That also is indefensible. Members across can try to convince me and the people who are paying the bills that it is defensible. I do not think we would see that anywhere, that any constituents across the country who will be putting an X somewhere at the next election are going to say it is justified. It is simply not going to work.

As I have pointed out before, it is something rarely found in the private sector. We are not going to find private pension plans like this. The husband of one of our members is an expert on mutual funds and RRSPs. He works in the insurance business. He would never stand publicly and say the private sector has the same plan as MPs, fully indexed back to age 42. That will never be seen. We all know it, especially the people who are paying the bills.

[An hon. member]

It is a double standard.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

There are also some people who would say that it is just one way of giving a raise to MPs while avoiding public scrutiny. A study that was done by Sobeco Ernst & Young talks about that. The minister went on at great length about how we are perhaps underpaid and overpensioned. Something has to be done with the whole package deal to bring it into line. This certainly is not going to address that.

Many people would say, and I agree with them, that the increase to MPs' pensions, pay, perks, and everything else should be debated by the public, the media, and in the House. In fact, if we are sitting around as a collective, insulated group of people asking what we are worth: "Charlie, what do you figure, how much are we worth?" We all talk about it and say we are wonderful, it is unanimous, and we are such and such. That is exactly the way it has been done for years in this place: "How much are we worth, folks? Okay, that is what we have."

There is an inside group determining the rules and regulations of MPs' pension plans: Well, we are worth this much pay. What do you think we are worth, folks, for our pension? Do you not think we should be looked after? The whole country knows that we certainly have sacrificed and we are hard done by. So what are we worth for our pension, $6 to $1, or $4 to $1, to use the government's new figures? Is that what we are worth? Yes, it is unanimous again. Are we not wonderful? There we go, we are in the cash. We are in the trough.

Nowhere across the country would one find that.

Let us have an independent, arbitrary commission that will look at this and say that those people are worth x amount of dollars for their salary and x amount of dollars for their pension, and because we are paying the bills, we will determine what they are worth and what their pension plan will be. Let someone on the outside of the group who is an expert in this area determine it, rather than us sitting around in these hallowed halls saying we are worth a whole lot, so there we are, and my friend thought that was a great idea; we are here and the government is looking after us. There is absolutely no logic at all to it.

This bill establishes the minimum age of 55, which is certainly a step in the right direction, I will give them that. At least they did not make it any amount, like it was before. The minimum age is 55 for benefit eligibility, which is still too young. And it only applies to a portion of some members' benefits. Many members of this House will still get pension payments as soon as they leave politics.

For example, my friend from Sherbrooke down the way was elected young and is still young. If he leaves tomorrow he would still cost taxpayers over $40,000 a year. If he lived to the age of 75 he could cost the taxpayers $3.5 million. There is no way one could go to a town hall meeting and justify that.

The Prime Minister certainly is older and has had a long and distinguished career in this House. We realize and recognize that. Under the old plan, he would collect $90,000. Under the new plan, granted he will receive a little less. However, we are looking at a total of $2.1 million. That is a lot of cash.

My friend from Halifax would collect $19,491 under the old plan. If she lived to 75 years old she would collect $1.1 million. I am a little younger than her by about three or four years. The work done by the National Citizens' Coalition on my pension was that if I were to retire now, at age 42, because my benefits were vested on March 13, and if I lived to age 75-and sometimes in this profession one wonders if they will make it that long-I stand to make, gain, profit by $1.8 million. I will not use the word steal, because theft is something we do not approve of, but I think of other people out there paying the bills and being demanded to pay the bills by some select few here who think we are worth more than everybody else.

Because I am opting out of this plan I have been ridiculed and scorned, which I am used to in this House, by somebody who says "Oh, isn't she opportunistic". That was said to me in question period just last week or a couple of weeks ago when I asked the question. They said: "That Reformer from Beaver River is such an opportunist".

Money talks, as Neil Diamond used to sing. If I lived to the age of 75 and was fully indexed way back at age 60, under the old plan I stood to gain $1.8 million, which is pretty close to what my friend across the way would receive, give or take a few hundred thousand dollars, but what is that when we are talking those kinds of dollars?

Under this new plan, which is supposed to be so good and so effective in cutting down so much spending and so much of the taxpayers' dollars-and I hope they are getting angrier by the minute, because they are paying the shot for this-I will receive $1.2 million. Does this seem like a justifiable savings? I would hardly think so. Yes, it will be less. Yes, the government talked about the fact that we would be saving taxpayers 30 per cent of their dollars. But when we look at the size of the pension they are

paying out, it is going from $1.8 million down to $1.27 million. That is what our calculation is.

In this Parliament they are putting in $3.6 to every $1 that we are seeing but we still cannot justify that because of the $1 for $1 employer-employee contribution rate I talked about earlier which every other Canadian would enjoy if they had a private pension plan. I stand to gain $1.2 million. There is no way people across the country will buy this, red book or no red book.

When there was a commitment to save taxpayers money, if we are saving them a little cash from $1.8 million to $1.27 million we could harp on the savings and make it sound absolutely terrific but at the same time we think they are paying way more than they would pay if we had a regular pension plan.

The income tax rules for a registered pension plan state benefits must be reduced by at least 3 per cent per year if collected prior to attaining the age of 60, or alternatively has 30 years of eligibility or attaining age and years of service totalling 80 years. Lots of pension plans across the country have that, as the minister stated, adding age plus years of service.

That point is consistent with the recommendations also made in the Sobeco Ernst & Young report but this rate at which benefits accrue has been lowered from 5 per cent to 4 per cent per year. When we look at that we say that is good. It is going in the right direction. I draw to people's attention who are paying the bills for this that the 20 per cent reduction from 5 per cent down to 4 per cent on the payout will only apply to members whose benefits do not straddle the existing and revised plans.

Most everyone in the House is a straddler. Many of them were elected in 1988 and so they are in the old pension plan but they also straddle the new pension plan. All of us in the House are in the position that we still have one foot in the old and one foot in the new because these changes are being brought about in the 35th Parliament.

For far too many Liberal members in the House the reduction in benefits will be significantly less than 20 per cent due to most of their benefits having been accumulated at the 5 per cent rate. Many of us have been in the House for several years now and so we are looking at the 5 per cent rate. If we are to say that after royal assent it will be down to 4 per cent, we have been paying in for years at that rate and the amount will be far less.

In addition, under either the existing or the revised plans the total contribution of members relative to total benefits received will not change significantly, as I mentioned with myself. A member will contribute approximately 6.7 per cent relative to the total benefits received as they do under the existing plan.

I say let people know we are straddling something here. To me we have an option. I think of former Prime Minister John Turner who said he had no option. There are people across the way today who are still every bit as Liberal as Mr. Turner was and they cannot say what he said. They have an option. Whether it is opting out or opting in we will still discuss the semantics of that. It has been said to us that we have to opt out; in other words, we have to sign within 60 days if we say we do not want to take this pension plan. It has also been mentioned that we will have to opt in; in other words within those 60 days people who will say they will go on the regular MP pension, they will opt in.

I guess the semantics and the logistics of that are if I am to opt out I have to take my little trotters out of the trough and that is an active move for me to step away from the trough and say I do not want it, I cannot justify that back home, I will take my money elsewhere and I will invest it in the best way I can.

The flip side is if it is to opt in, and these are the semantics and the logistics of it, the people of the class of '88 have the option to opt out because the government did not put it in for the older ones. It says it cannot bring in retroactive legislation because it would be unfair. It brought in retroactive legislation, Bill C-22, on the Pearson airport deal and brought in retroactive legislation on the EH-101 helicopters. It amazes me that for some things it says "retroactive, no problem; it is a red book promise and we will do it". On something else that affects the wallet it cannot go retroactively.

In any event, here is the picture. I have to take my trotters out of the trough and step back and say I opt out. The class of '88 will have to get their pens ready and make a conscious decision to step into the trough on all fours. They say: "This is it. It is a sacrifice. This is my public service. Dear knows I have served the constituents of wherever long and hard and, don't you know, this is owed to me? This is my money". There is no way they will ever convince anyone in the country that is their money. It sounds like the ad on an Edmonton radio station that says: "I am talking about your money", as he gives financial advice.

This is not our money. I do not know what it will take to convince the government and Bloc members that this is not our money to free-wheelingly spend. They have to crawl back into that trough, not out. There will be people who will remember that. They will have the vision in their minds of people saying: "Here is my letter. I am opting into the pension plan. I am really sorry but cabinet convinced me to do it. I had no option". We know what happens to people who say they have no option.

People will take the option. If they say someone had the option to opt out but copped out, they will make the decision on the next election.

The members of the 1988 class in Parliament will have to make the decision about whose money this is and what they will do with it. They either opt out or they will cop out, and there will be a price to pay.

They will be sanctimonious. They will say: "Look at the member for Beaver River. There goes Deb again. Does she not go on and on?" I am sure my friend who is sitting in the House today is taking notes and will have a wonderful time with this. However, I would feel far more comfortable going home to a town hall meeting in St. Lina, St. Paul, Bonnyville, Mallaig, Therien or wherever else and saying: "That was your money and I will not spend it", rather than going home to St. Boniface and saying: "That was your money but sorry, I will spend it".

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I ask the hon. member to please try to control the attacking and use normal parliamentary procedure.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I stand to be corrected. We are talking about debate and I am sure that all of us need to be prepared to go into our places at home. If I said anything unparliamentary I ask your forgiveness and ask the Chair to straighten me out on that and chastise me. If I am debating I would like to continue debating.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I have no intention of chastising the hon. member, but from the very beginning I have noticed that certain comments are bordering on what I would not accept as being of the integrity that we have been seeing in the House. I hope we would be a little more careful.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Let me continue by asking how the government gets around its own laws in paying these extravagant benefits. It uses the retirement compensation arrangement. People watching this do not have a clue. They know that hopefully we pay a lot of money in, $600 a month, and we get a lot more money out. If that is attack, I do beg forgiveness again, but those are the numbers and that is the way it is.

The plan created by the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act is what we pay into but it contravenes the Income Tax Act. How do we get to pay more into a pension plan than those who are contributing in the private sector? We do so by writing our own rules and using the retirement compensation arrangement or an RCA account.

As we see in section 4300 of the income tax regulations, RCAs were originally introduced in October 1986 to prevent taxpayers in the highest tax brackets and employees of non-taxable entities from deferring the payment of tax, which happens across the country. Contributions to an RCA are subject to a 50 per cent refundable tax under section 207.5(1), which also applies to any investment income plan; most retirement plans are invested. It is a very expensive way to fund a retirement plan for anybody but the government.

As a report produced for the National Citizens Coalition points out, the use of the RCA means the government is going through the motions to comply on paper with the provisions of its own law. In other words, this looks legitimate under the Income Tax Act because it is all right under the RCA.

Madam Speaker, when I was called opportunistic that hurt me and maybe that bordered on something unparliamentary. I would have loved it if you had jumped up in my defence because I am giving up a lot of cash. As somebody who is opting out I should mention the effect Bill C-85 and the RCA account will have on me because it is substantial.

I trust there will be some opting out from the government benches because the full class of '88 is in the same position I am; all of us on this side of the House with the exception of a few Bloc members who were here before sitting as Tories.

The portion of my contributions that went into the retirement compensation arrangement, the RCA, or 7 per cent of everything I have earned in the last six years I have transferred over. I now will have to pay tax on it. It is one thing to think that I am somebody who is opting out and will just scoop up that money. The government says I can get all the money back that I have contributed but with zero from the government. It would be wonderful to say: "I opt out of the rich stuff, please just give me my contributions plus matching contributions from yourself". That is all we are really asking. Make it fair. Make it in line with the private pension plans. I will only be able to get back my money at 4 per cent interest, which is the money I have put in.

It would be wonderful to roll that over into RRSPs, mutual funds or whatever, but I will have to pay tax on 4 per cent of my income which is in a separate fund. The portion the government puts into a legitimate registered pension plan has been sheltered from taxes.

I do not know if I am making myself clear enough. It has taken me ages to figure this out and so I do not expect somebody watching television to figure it out immediately.

The 11 per cent I am putting in is broken into 7 per cent and 4 per cent, with the 4 per cent sheltered from taxes. The 7 per cent we put into the other fund will be taxable. We will have to pay tax on that now while we are in a higher tax bracket rather than later when we are retired and living at a lower tax bracket. It means we will have to put more in.

If I had the option I would have taken the entire 11 per cent I have been putting in for six years and some months and gone to my financial adviser. I would have said: "Here is this much money per month; please put this into mutual funds and I will accrue the interest. You invest it wisely and I will be able to live

on it". I could have done that. I had the option. Maybe, but no. It was law that I had to this and put it into this plan.

Really I had no option. I wish I had because I would have taken that money, the whole 11 per cent I had been putting in, which is $600 a month, and I would have said: "Please do something with this. Put it into RRSPs; put it into mutual funds and I will collect the interest on that and I will look after my own retirement. This is my money, my salary, not public money. I will let regular sources of investment planning look after my retirement".

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Like most Canadians have to do.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Exactly the same way every other Canadian has to do it. Instead I was bound to put 11 per cent in there. It will pay me 4 per cent interest. With mutual funds, if I had been investing that $600-odd dollars a month, I could have been getting back probably 9 per cent or 10 per cent. I would have been sheltered from paying taxes on it now. I would be glad to pay taxes on it later; it is the way the regular RRSP plan works in this country. I would have been able to put all of that money in, but instead I was bound by law. Now I have the option. Now I am taking that option, although it does seem a little ridiculous that the government will not even pay $1 to $1 contributions.

Apparently to compensate members for the minuscule reduction in their future benefit accrual rate the government has also lowered the amounts members contribute toward their own pensions. The minister mentioned that. He said that instead of 11 per cent we will now be putting in just 9 per cent.

There has been all kinds of talk about whether or not it raises the salary of an MP. I will not argue about those figures. If I am not putting in eleven and I am putting in nine that gives me more disposable income. There will be more cash on my monthly cheque.

Let us think for a moment about reducing accrual rates from 11 per cent to 9 per cent, what I would have received if I had opted into the pension and what I might have received if I opted out. I want to look after my own money, my own retirement. I do not want to be dependent on the government. When I am older I want to look after myself with RRSPs. I do not even want to be a burden to the government if I am younger and collecting the MP pension plan that is so rich and generous.

If I had been given the option of taking the $600 a month that I have been putting into the MP pension plan and putting it into my own retirement plan, I could have put in $600 a month from 1989 to 1997. Let me use that nine-year period. What would happen if I had put $600 a month into private RRSPs, mutual funds, rather than into the MP pension plan? Age 75 is the average lifespan. Many people have calculated the average age to be 75 and how much they would get by age 75 with inflation at age 60. If the variables correlate to each other on par and I were to collect about 7.5 per cent interest, which is reasonable and fair, I would collect $663,900.

If I put $600 a month in for eight or nine years and let it sit there accruing interest I would get back at age 75 about $664,000. If for some reason I was particularly lucky and obtained a 10 per cent rate I would stand to gain $1.29 million. Under the pension plan that the government is putting in $3 or $4 to $1, I would stand to gain about $1.2 million.

This is hypothetical because I had to put money into the pension plan. I would collect about half what I stand to gain under the new plan if I put the money into RRSPs. It is no fun to collect only half. I do not think any member in the House would ask: "How stupid do I look?" Is it more fun to collect $1.2 million or $660,000? Obviously whatever we get we could live into that income, but the fact remains that the $664,000 I invested, that somebody went out and invested on my behalf, would be my money. At the grand old age of 75 I would be able to collect that money and say: "I did this. I looked after myself. I was not dependent on government and I feel good about that".

I would have a hard time collecting the MP pension plan. I would feel a little guilty spending the money because it was not my money, because I did not earn it myself or look after myself financially.

According to the Treasury Board, members will now contribute $1 for the $3.61 taxpayers contribute. That number was a lot richer in the last Parliament. It seems as though there was a great sweep of this place in 1993 and a lot of the older members left. There are many new members in the House right now. That is the largest reason. We were told by Treasury Board-it is not some figment of my Reform imagination-that it would be $3.61 to every buck we put in. It looks better. It looks more noble. It looks like there is a real saving but it has nothing to do with any nobility on behalf of the government.

It has to do with the fact that generally there are more new members in the House. That is what we were told in the briefing by the department. The government pays a generous rate of interest on this account, which is a cost to taxpayers but which is not included in the total cost of the plan that the government admits to.

My point is that in the public accounts of 1993-94 last year they paid interest on $23 million. That is kind of scary because it goes into government expenditures. At the same time it does not specifically look like it is paying the MP pension. It is just amazing. They are spending $23 million on interest and it is nowhere in the budgetary figures.

Many members on the opposite side of the House have spoken both during their election campaigns and later in the House on the need for changes to the plan. I do not mean to be critical at all. In fact I applaud the member for Lambton-Middlesex who indicated to her constituents during the election campaign that the MPs pension plan should be, and I quote from Hansard , ``more fair to the general public's pension plan''. I applaud her for that. It is terrific.

Similarly the member for Waterloo indicated in the House that during the campaign he supported the minimum age of 60 years. The member for Ontario said that he would opt out of the plan. This is not something we are trying to make our issue. It should be a totally non-partisan issue. We are talking about cash and not politics. It will cost money. Anyone on both sides of the House who has the nerve should be rewarded and applauded for opting out of the program.

Let me conclude my remarks by saying that the signal the bill sends is more important than anything else. It seems unfortunate to me that the signal being sent is that we are reducing the fat a bit, that we are sacrificing an incredible amount for the country but we will still take a lot more cash than anyone who is buying into a private pension plan.

This is unacceptable to us. We applaud the government for bring in the bill. I am sorry to say it is not good enough. It will not withstand the test of fire by the people who are paying the bills for it. Therefore I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor:

That Bill C-85, an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and to provide for the continuation of a certain provision, be not now read a second time but that the order be discharged, the bill withdrawn and the subject matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House this afternoon to make some comments concerning Bill C-85.

Primarily I should like to deal with the issue of fairness in Bill C-85, to talk about some alternatives the New Democratic Party has put forward in the past which we will continue to put forward in the future, and to make a recommendation to the House with respect to the bill.

I have served in the Saskatchewan legislature in the past. I have made speeches in public, in legislatures, in private and in other places about adequate compensation for elected officials. I have always believed, as the majority of Canadians believe, that if we pay adequate compensation to elected officials they are accountable to us. If taxpayers pay the fare for pay and benefits in a satisfactory way, the elected officials will be accountable to the taxpayers who pay the pay and benefits whether they are current or deferred.

I have made this speech in many forums. I have had support from almost 95 per cent of the people who have listened to my comments, in particular those in Saskatchewan. They agree that elected officials should be adequately compensated so that they can do the business of government and provide good, honest government.

Unfortunately for eight years in Canada we have seen the Mulroney government govern in a way that most Canadians rejected unanimously. As a matter of fact they only elected two members of Parliament as a result of the Conservative record. We have seen a government in Saskatchewan under Grant Devine Conservative for nine years, driving the province into bankruptcy and being totally dishonest with the people of Saskatchewan. They are despised by the people of Saskatchewan. The latest event in Saskatchewan is that one-third of the former government's cabinet and caucus is now facing charges before the courts for the type of alleged dishonest actions the taxpayers and the voters perceived them to be following when in government.

The Mulroney government drove our country into debt, gave tax breaks to the wealthy, hurt the poor, attacked the middle class and served the country in a very dishonest fashion. It is the same with Grant Devine, premier of Saskatchewan. Taxpayers have the same attitude toward him. People would say that paying those politicians a dollar a year would be too much, and I believe they are right.

Prior to the 1993 federal campaign in Canada and the 1991 provincial campaign in Saskatchewan, we have seen people who are disenchanted and cynical about elected politicians because of corruption, dishonesty and incompetence. New Democrats have always said, and we are supported by Canadians across the country, that if the government is good and honest and provides a fair agenda of legislation, pay and compensation will not be issues. They would wish to pay elected officials in a satisfactory way.

J. S. Woodsworth once said: "What we desire for ourselves we wish for all. Elected officials are elected with integrity, with common objectives, with individual objectives to serve their country". I think J. S. Woodsworth was saying that to get elected to Parliament to serve the country and do to fellow Canadians what we would like to have done to ourselves and is an honourable approach to government. He worked very hard as have the CCF and the New Democratic Party over the years to achieve those objectives.

We see in Bill C-85 one step forward to perhaps addressing the pension issue, the pay and benefits aspect of elected officials. However I am not sure whether it goes far enough. Canadians will judge that as time goes on.

With respect to desiring for ourselves what we wish for all, as J. S. Woodsworth has said and as has been quoted by many thousands of people over the years, we in the House of Commons and in the Government of Canada must show Canadians by example that it is a good government, that we are parliamentarians with honesty and integrity, and that we will introduce and support legislation to benefit Canadians as a whole rather than hurt Canadians. If we do this the attitude toward politicians will be much fairer and less cynical and we will be faced with spending a lot less time debating issues like a pension or salary package.

I also want to make a comment with respect to the Reform member for Beaver River who said that she is taking a reduction in pension and that this is an honourable thing to do.

Public service and serving the public is an honourable thing to do. Firefighters, police officers, provincial, municipal or federally elected officials are honourable professions in this country. It is no different from homemaking, working in retail, working in a steel mill, working as a teacher or in other areas. These professions are very honourable. They in essence serve the good of the country and the public.

If I were wealthy, I would gladly do this job for free. Most parliamentarians in this House would say the same thing.

As a matter of fact in the United States a large number of wealthy people govern the country, but Canadian taxpayers will say: "Who will the wealthy govern the country for? Will they govern the country for those who are on welfare, those who are single parents, those who do not have an education, power or pensions or other sources of income to support them? Who will they support? Will they support their own kind or will they support all Canadians?" In the American example we see very clearly that to be active in politics you have to be a millionaire or a multimillionaire just to run for office, never mind serving your country.

There has to be fair compensation with respect to elected officials. Most of us would serve if we were not paid and were able to have some other income to sustain an adequate lifestyle. As long as members of Parliament set their own benefits, Canadian taxpayers will believe benefits are too generous.

We see in the Reform Party and others in politics, the former Conservative governments, that they play the mugs game. It is not a winning game. It does not matter if we get paid $64,000, or $90,000 or $15,000 a year, it will still be too much in some people's eyes. That is fair. They are entitled to their opinion.

The point I am making is that we have to look at this pension bill in a very broad way. We have to recognize some of the arguments on both sides of the issue whether it is a mugs game: "I am going to bid down the pension; I am going to bid down the salary; vote for me, vote for me," or whether we are going to say: "I am elected as your member of Parliament. I am going to conduct myself in this House on behalf of this country in an honest, hard working way to ensure that my constituents have as much opportunity as possible for input to government and to ensure the decisions we take benefit as many Canadians as possible, not just a few".

Canadians have to be aware that it is a mugs game when we start bidding down benefits, and who is to benefit? The benefactors will be those who are rich and wealthy enough to seek public office. They will represent those who are rich and wealthy who already in most part influence this country through the Conservative Party, the Reform Party and the Liberal government of the day.

Most of the wealthy corporations contribute to those three parties. That is something the ordinary taxpayer has to be more aware of. They have to say that perhaps they should elect to Parliament people who are not wealthy, who do not support the wealthy, who are not on big pensions like many of the Reform members are.

I question the Reform's tactics and motives. In the Reform Party many members are receiving military pensions, teachers' pensions, former MLA pensions. They have all sorts of other private sector incomes and they are saying let us do away with this and let us do away with that.

Meanwhile they are ignoring the real problems of our country: the lack of jobs; the lack of commitment and resources to law and order; the lack of commitment and resources to our social programs. They do not care about people. They are just trying to make a political point and play a mugs game which they may or may not win.

If they win one battle they may be happy with that. The alternative is that people may not be too concerned about how low we go. I think they are more concerned about how hard we work and what kind of positive governance and representation in this House we give them.

The second point I wish to raise concerns the positive steps Bill C-85 has taken. I want it to be known that I am not endorsing the bill. However, I want to say that New Democrats have led the country in pension reform since 1979, unlike Reformers who have only talked about it since the last election.

I refer specifically to Saskatchewan Premier Allan Blakeney. On July 1, 1979 a bill was given royal assent in Saskatchewan to change MLA's pensions from the defined benefit plan, which we are now under in the House of Commons, to a defined contribution plan, which means it is a money purchase plan. It is like an RRSP. The member puts a dollar in and it is supported by the employer matching it with a dollar. Whatever is put in and

earned through various investments is what the member will receive.

The leader of the NDP, the hon. member for the Yukon, went on record in 1991, 1992 and in subsequent years calling for an independent commission to review MPs pay and benefits and in particular the pension plan.

The NDP has been doing this for 16 years. Bill C-85 is a step in the right direction. First, it reduces pension benefits by 20 per cent. Second, it raises the age of eligibility to 55 years from no age before. That is quite positive. Third, it reduces the cost to taxpayers by one-third, which is an honourable objective. It is on the right track and I believe most Canadians would agree that it is a positive step. Further, it eliminates the double dipping issue, which the minister spoke of earlier.

I would suggest that this bill not be endorsed in its entirety, but that it be referred to a standing committee-

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There does not appear to be a quorum in the House.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I do not see a quorum. Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Quorum is present. Resuming debate.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

Madam Speaker, New Democrats have led the country in terms of pension reform provincially and federally. As a matter of fact, in September 1994 I introduced a private members' bill which proposed a money purchase plan for members of Parliament that was based on the Saskatchewan model. There were a fair number of members who considered that plan and thought it worthwhile.

I also introduced private members' Bill C-314 which is calling-

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There does not appear to be a quorum in the House.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

There is no quorum. Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Quorum is present. Resuming debate.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

Madam Speaker, I noticed the Reformers who are calling quorum do not have any members in the House themselves, so I am curious about that.