Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-85 on the pension plan, which has been brought before us. This is the Liberal government's attitude toward reform and, according to the last speaker, this was equitable.
The previous speaker talked about the fact that because our salaries are so low we need this exorbitant, gold plated pension plan that is an obscenity in the fiscal arrangements of Canada. Even though the member was arguing about the fairness of this, she admitted that 50 per cent of members do not collect. That just totally destroys the argument right there.
If we are concerned about inequity in the salaries or compensation arrangements, that we are entitled to more, then surely we get a larger salary, not a larger pension. The pension is not the compensation for the work we do in this House. It is to keep us going in the years when we are unable to work because we are so old and decrepit. That is the theory of pensions. We find that while private and government sectors consider 60 or 65 to be the normal age before you are too old and decrepit to go to work, for parliamentarians it is 55, because we work so hard and make such a great sacrifice for our country. If I look around this room I do not think I will find one person who was dragged in here kicking and screaming in order to make a sacrifice for the country. They are here because they have chosen to be here.
Before they came here they knew what the salary arrangements were and they knew what the pension plan was. That is why they said: "Now I am here, I want to hang on to what I have. We know the Canadian public is mightily upset by what we have, therefore we will make a bit of a change and hope the masses quiet down so we can ride off into the sunset at age 55 with an indexed pension plan which will keep us going from the day we retire in our anonymity and enjoy the sun in our retirement at the expense of other Canadians".
This has been a debate today unfortunately about mistruths, half truths, innuendoes, blatant twisting of facts. The previous speaker talked about the benefits we pay under Bill C-85 being perfectly within the limits of the Income Tax Act. Of course they are. The only problem is every other Canadian has to work 30 or
35 years before they accumulate the same benefits we under this new bill will acquire in 19 years. Before that we acquired it in 15 years.
The previous speaker also said the contributions we make fall within the limits of the Income Tax Act. They do but let us take a look at the Income Tax Act. Members of Parliament have two pension plans. Let every Canadian know we have two pension plans.
The first meets the definitions of the Income Tax Act which say the maximum benefit we can get is 2 per cent per year. We make a contribution to a pension plan that falls within normal, allowable limits.
Then we make the contribution to the top up, the Retirement Compensations Allowances Act. Nobody else can have a top up because there is a penalty. An employer who has a pension above the bottom one has to pay a 50 per cent tax to the federal government. The federal government cannot pay a tax to itself, therefore it can have the top up pension plan with absolute and total impugnity.
That is why we have built the rules and the House has made the rules to accommodate members of Parliament who have been able to bend them for their own benefit. Nobody else can even think about having a pension plan as gold plated as ours, even though it may be legal, because there is a 50 per cent tax applied.
I mentioned we have mistruths, half truths and innuendoes. I could use worse words but you may want to intervene, Mr. Speaker, so I will leave it at that. I am sure everybody knows.
Let me quote a release dated April 20, 1995 from the Treasury Board secretariat, quoting the President of the Treasury Board in relation to Bill C-85: "The bill goes even further than the red book commitment and will reduce government spending on MPs' pensions by 33 per cent". That amounts to $3.3 million of the $10 million the plan currently costs the government.
Let us take a look at cost. Cost is perhaps the central issue in this whole argument. House of Commons estimates, 1995-96, table 5, under "Members of the House of Commons-salaries and allowances of officers, members of the House of Commons under the Parliament of Canada Act and contributions to members of Parliament retiring allowances account and the members of Parliament retirement compensation arrangements account" are $56,352,000.
I go back to the release from the Treasury Board that this amounts to $3.3 million the $10 million the plan currently costs the government. There was a little discrepancy there I thought. There is $56 million in the estimates and $10 million released by the Treasury Board.
I checked it out. I went back to the public accounts 1994, table 7.9: "Members of Parliament retiring allowances account". Contributions by members are $944,000. Contributions by the government are $2 million. The top up is contributions by members, $1.5 million; contributions by the government, $10.3 million.
The previous speaker said we contribute and the government contributes. If there is a shortfall the government contributes more. How much is more? I went to the 1993 public accounts, table 7.9: "1991-92 actuarial liability adjustment" under the members of Parliament retiring allowances account, $158 million; for one year $158 million extra actuarial liability adjustment. In the year 1991-92 that is what the Government of Canada paid to top up the unfunded liability of the members of Parliament pension plan, right here in the 1993 public accounts.
I am quoting from the government document. During that year members contributions-this is just the ordinary one, this is not the top up-were $945,000. Contributions by the government were $2 million. A bit of smoke and mirrors crept in here. After we threw in $158 million the fund goes up and to make sure the pot is relatively sweet we are paying 10 per cent interest on that. The interest the government paid jumped from the previous year of $3.4 million up to $20 million of interest the government threw in on top of its own contribution. It is still liable if it is underfunded to pay the extra.
Those are direct quotes from the Public Accounts of Canada.