Debates of May 9th, 1995

Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I declare the motion negatived.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was unavoidably detained. If I had been here I would have supported my colleague's motion.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate this morning.

What a difference a year makes. A little over a year ago Reform Party MPs said they were to take 15 per cent pay cuts. Then they pretended they wanted a reduction in MPs benefits. Now Reform Party MPs are asking for a pay raise. Would you believe it? Yes.

[Some hon. members]

Shame.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Duplicity, thy name is Reform. That is what we have this morning. We have some MPs who should be recalled from the opposition side of the House.

[Some hon. members]

Recall.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Most members of Parliament, if not all, are worth every cent of their pay cheques. In principle members are underpaid. The hon. member for Ottawa Centre put it very eloquently. The Prime Minister has said it before. We all agree it is true but that is not the point at the present time. In particular one political party in the House, is saying two things at once.

[An hon. member]

Which one?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I have to admit it is the Reform Party.

By coincidence this is the same party that wanted to be frugal. When it came to Ottawa the first thing it asked for was larger office space. This is the same party that came to Ottawa and rejected a limousine and had one delivered by the back entrance.

Shall I remind the House about the suitable venture of the leader of that party? Let us not talk about free contributions to people's RRSPs and other such ventures to enhance the salary package of those who were claiming that MPs were overpaid.

No, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that today's debate has nothing to do with MPs' salaries and benefits. The debate held today in this House is about honesty and openness. That is the real issue being debated in this House.

As we can see, some members of a political formation across the way are now getting it in the neck with regard to openness, honesty and sincerity in this House.

We have been debating this bill for several hours already.

Last week Reform Party MPs proposed meaningless amendments to the bill because they did not want it to go to committee. Why did they not want it to go to committee? Because they did not really want a pay decrease. They wanted a pay increase. Now we know why they did not want the bill to go to committee. They produced dilatory motions to stop the bill from going to committee.

This morning they tried their best again to stop the bill from going to committee. It will not happen again. I move:

That the question be now put.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am almost embarrassed to rise after the speech of the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.

His comments clearly indicate the kinds of problems we have. Reform Party members, I will remind members, took pay cuts over the last year. Other members of Parliament did not do that. Members of the Reform Party have committed to opt out of the MP pension plan. We anticipate that very few other members of Parliament will do that. There will be a few honourable people on the other side.

Perhaps one of the reasons Reform Party members are willing to do these things is that unlike the previous speaker and many others on the other side, Reform Party members had no trouble before they were here and will have no trouble after they are here finding other employment and making a decent living.

In any case, let me address the bill before us today, Bill C-85, an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, which is of course the MP pension. These amendments have been a long time in coming. For 18 months this government has been promising changes. Finally we see the marginal changes that we see now.

The Reform Party has long called for changes to the overly generous pensions for MPs. Last November 22, I and many of my colleagues spoke in support of the motion of the hon. member for Beaver River, asking the government to replace the current members of Parliament retirement allowance with a plan reflecting the current norms for private sector pensions. This was rejected by both the Liberals and the separatists. Clearly, the Liberals' new proposal, the freedom 55 plan, does not accomplish this.

Before I speak to some of the specifics of this bill in the few minutes I have, I would like to make it clear that I personally would support a fair pension plan. My wife and I just purchased our first home and we are planning for our future, but I could not go home and look my wife or my constituents in the eye if I opted into a plan like the one offered in Bill C-85. Instead, I will put my own money into an RRSP, just like millions of other Canadians, and hopefully the government will not see fit to cut those again, as it has in the past.

Let us take a look at how this plan evolved from the plan introduced by Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent in 1952 to the monstrosity that is proposed today. According to Mr. St. Laurent, the original plan was "to be actuarially sound and a matter that would operate without any further charge on the public funds than the matching of contribution to be made by all members of Parliament".

Mr. St. Laurent indicated that the plan was never really intended at the time to be a pension per se. According to Mr. St. Laurent, it was to provide for members in their later years and to reward them for their public service.

At that time members contributed 6 per cent of what was an annual $4,000 salary in return for an allowance equal to only 4.5 per cent of their indemnity if they retired after serving more than two Parliaments.

In 1963 the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act was amended to require members to contribute 6 per cent of their $12,000 indemnity per annum. Rather than the flat percentage allowance, benefits were increased to 2.5 per cent of the member's annual indemnity up to a maximum of 75 per cent.

In 1965 additional provisions were made for a retirement allowance plan to allow senators to participate at a 3 per cent benefit accrual rate. Members will recall that at that time the term for senators was changed from life to age 75, so for the first time there was provision for retirement in the Senate.

It was really in 1981 that the changes to the benefit rate for MPs began to make this plan the obscene one we have today.

This was when the benefit accrual rate was increased to 5 per cent and the generous inflation protection, the full inflation protection we now have, was implemented.

We can see from the report on the administration of the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act for 1983 that while it varied from year to year, the plan kept up the appearance of a one-to-one member-to-government contribution ratio from 1952 all the way to 1992. However, as we know, this was an illusion due to accounting practices, and it vanished in 1991-92 with the $158 million top-up that was needed to the plan. This actuarial adjustment credit was needed to comply with legislative changes in Bill C-55 at the time requiring that adequate contributions be credited to meet the costs of pension obligations as they accrue.

With this top up, the cost of the plan to taxpayers in the form of interest on the plan was also increased. Many people do not know that the government does in fact pay a generous rate of interest on this account, which is of course a cost to the taxpayers but which is not included in the total cost the government admits is involved in this plan.

With the top up in 1992, the unrecognized cost was $3.4 million. It has gradually escalated to $20.4 million in 1992-93 and then to $23 million in 1993-94. It is also interesting to note that the rate at which the government pays interest into the MP pension plan, about 10 per cent, while not an unreasonable rate, is considerably higher than the 4 per cent it will pay when it returns contributions to members who choose to opt out or who do not meet the six-year vesting period.

Bill C-55 also caused the division of the members' pension plan into two parts to achieve compliance with changes to the Income Tax Act regarding the rules for registered pension plans. Now we have one portion that conforms with rules for registration and the other a "retirement compensation arrangement" that does not. This portion has much higher associated costs for the plan because of the refundable tax paid on it. Bill C-85 does not correct this.

Clearly the 1952 idea of providing politicians with a financial buffer to compensate them for periods of employment uncertainty is contrary to the reality our constituents now face. In the 1990s the concept of job security has all but disappeared, not just for Canadians in the broad workforce but even for Canadians in the most traditionally secure areas of the public sector.

Similarly unacceptable is the argument that MPs are underpaid and thus must get bigger retirement benefits. If the government feels MPs are underpaid, then the government should address that issue in a transparent manner, not through the backward route of an overly generous pension plan. The Reform Party's position on this is clear: there should be no increase in MP salaries or office budgets until this country's budget is balanced.

As many private sector employers and some of the provincial legislatures have obviously realized, this type of plan, a defined benefit plan, is very costly to employers and the costs are difficult to accurately predict. There is no real relationship between how much a member contributes to the plan and the benefits a member receives.

Several provincial governments have recently taken drastic measures to scale back or to eliminate traditional pension benefits for politicians. Prince Edward Island rolled back pension benefits and then wound up the plan completely. Similarly, the Alberta government lowered the benefits for some of the recipients already collecting their pensions and then ended the plan for future MLAs.

It is interesting to note that the benefit accrual rate for Alberta MLAs prior to this roll back was 4 per cent, the rate now being proposed by the government. A study had found that the net value of one year's worth of pension accrual for an MLA was $28,733 under that plan, compared to an equivalent $9,034 in the private sector. For the federal plan we are presently under and under which many members of the House will still collect benefits, this number was $42,741 a year.

The Manitoba legislature will implement reforms far in excess of those proposed by this government following the next election. Their pension plan arrangement will be replaced by an RRSP savings plan arrangement where taxpayers only have to match each member's contribution.

Even here in Ontario the provincial Liberals in their "son of red book" promised that if they are elected they will scrap the Ontario legislative pension plan and replace it with a group RRSP, exactly what the Reform Party proposes. We saw it in 1993 and we are seeing now in Ontario how different Liberals are when they are running for election as compared to when they are actually sitting in a Parliament.

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to address Bill C-85, amendments to the MPs' pension plan. At the same time, I share a bit of shame in the House, having heard the atrocious remarks of the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.

I address the citizens of Canada. I hope, ladies and gentlemen of the public, you read Hansard of today to listen to what the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell had to say. In that you will hear a perversion of the facts, where that member deliberately went after the Reform Party to twist things around and indicate that what we were talking about here was aug-

mentation of MPs' salaries rather than the pension plan, which is the thing we are directly addressing.

One should not get emotional. This should be a place where one addresses logic and reason and brings facts out into the open. I find that really the remarks of that member typify what is wrong with the political process in Canada.

We are talking about a pension plan. We believe sincerely that the pension plan given to MPs is simply far too generous. We are speaking on behalf of the Canadian public in that regard. They say it is too generous, it is gold plated, we should cut it back. What the government is doing to respond to the public is simply not good enough, and that is our point.

In any event, the government has finally found the courage to tackle the problem, if insufficiently. I am saddened that the Liberal fat pack has refused to abandon its place at the public trough, which has resulted in what is really a very poor excuse for MP pension reform. There is insufficient reform in that bill.

In their 1991 book, The Great Reckoning , authors James Dale Davidson and Lord William Rees-Mogg wrote: ``In the past, those societies that have treated persons differently, based upon what they are, rather than what they do, have faltered economically, and opportunity has been foreclosed for almost everyone''. This quotation is appropriate to our debate here today, for with the MP pension plan we have a group of 295 men and women who are being treated differently simply because they are members of Parliament. How are they treated differently? Under this revised pension sham, MPs can collect a pension at the age of 55. In the private sector, most people have to wait until they are 65.

Even with lowering the annual accrual rate to 4 per cent, it means that this plan proposed by the government is twice as rich as that of the plan of the average Canadian worker. The MP plan is fully indexed against inflation, which is something that is virtually unheard of in the private sector.

Why does the Liberal government and its gang of present and future trough feeders feel that they have a right to be treated so much better than the average Canadian? While it may be true that this bill will fulfil the red book promise to reform the plan, it is a hollow and purely symbolic reform.

For example, the red book speaks of eliminating double dipping, the practice of collecting an MP pension while earning a government paycheque, usually for a patronage appointment. The government says that their proposal will eliminate double dipping. But if we look closely at the bill we see it simply defers the practice. Pension benefits continue to grow but are deferred for as long as the patronage position lasts.

Once again we see that these amendments are nothing but smoke and mirrors. The Canadian public is incensed at the current obscenely generous gold plated pension plan for MPs. It is equally outraged by these amendments which merely downgrade the gold plated plan to a silver plated one.

The fact that politicians have a bad reputation in Canada is largely due to this type of largesse. The government had the opportunity to address the massive public concern but refused to do so. It blew it. Like most other things the Liberal government has done, it reacted in a half hearted foot dragging way. It has proven once again that if the public wants real reform they had better send in some real Reformers.

As a real Reformer, I oppose this plan. However, I am not here to simply criticize. As a Reformer, I also have an alternative. Last year I asked my constituents about MP pension reform. I asked how long an MP should have to serve before getting a pension and at what age. We asked this question widely in my constituency.

Based on the responses I received I presented my constituents with a proposal to revamp the plan. Support for this proposal was ten to one in favour. Since that time I have been working on the plan on behalf of the people of Nanaimo-Cowichan and I am proud to say that the process is now complete. Yesterday the collective voice of my constituents was heard on this issue in the House when I introduced my private member's bill.

In comparing the government's farcical attempt at pension reform with that proposed by my constituents in Nanaimo-Cowichan we see many glaring discrepancies. For instance, under the Liberal plan taxpayers contribute $3.50 for every dollar put in by the MP. Under the Nanaimo-Cowichan plan, taxpayers contribute nothing since they are already paying the MP's salary. Under the Liberal plan the pension fund is managed by the government, which has a worse fiscal record in management than Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker. Under my constituents' proposal the pension fund will be administered by the private sector.

Under the Liberal plan, taxpayers are on the hook to eligible MPs for life. Under our plan MPs would receive a one time lump sum payment consisting of the money which they contributed plus the interest accumulated, which could be considerable.

Under the Liberal proposal the Liberal fat pack maintains its front row reservation at the public trough while newer MPs will be moved back to the second row, thus creating a two tiered pension plan. Under the Nanaimo-Cowichan plan all MPs are treated equally, as no one is entitled to belly up to the trough.

In comparison with the so-called reform package put forward by the Liberal government there is only a one-time opportunity to opt out of the plan. That means that all future MPs will be forced to swill from the public trough, like it or not. Our proposal allows MPs to opt out of the plan at their discretion.

Liberals, like the hon. Deputy Prime Minister and her fat pack colleagues, say they have worked hard for their gold plated pensions and deserve what they have coming. I trust that the voters are wise enough to see through the smoke and mirrors to discover the hypocrisy and deceit behind the bill so that the Liberal fat packers get what is coming to them.

A true democracy must be based on quality citizens who come forward to serve their country out of a genuine desire to make our society a better place in which to live, not out of a desire to better one's own standard of living.

I do not believe that politics should be a lifelong profession. It should be a momentary detour in one's career path. Unfortunately, the bill to which we are addressing ourselves today promotes the former and does nothing to restore Canadians' faith in their politicians. The citizens of Canada will judge the government of today on this bill.

I urge all members of the House to abandon this frivolous bill, although I know I am not going to get much reaction from across the way. I urge members to take a long, hard look at the proposal put forward on behalf of the constituents of Nanaimo-Cowichan in the bill I introduced yesterday.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this bill today.

When I listened to the words the government whip had about the Reform Party and this pension plan, it makes me ashamed to be sitting in the House listening to that kind of poor rhetoric from the Liberal government. People in my riding of Fraser Valley West living in Langley, Aldergrove and Abbotsford must be shaking their heads today wondering what is happening in that place where they are supposed to be running this country.

What is happening in this place is a major disappointment. When I was elected I thought I could come to the House and try to change this government and get it off things like this fat pension plan. I thought just maybe we could try the concept of a triple-E Senate where senators would be elected, effective and would have equal representation. I thought we could deal with things like balancing the budget. I thought we could look at trying to reduce the number of frivolous grants that are given out year after year after year. I thought I could effect a change in patronage and ethics and get the government to change.

However, everything I have just mentioned is still happening is still supported by this government, even though it knows it is wrong. The Liberals sat on this side of the House in the last session of Parliament and belittled the Conservatives for it and here the Liberals are still at it.

The Liberals made a promise in a document called the Liberal red book. The Liberal red book actually came out during the election. It was not a long term plan they had. It was an election tool. The promise was to make some changes in this pension plan.

I will go through these changes. Essentially that was a facade. The government has told the Canadian people it is changing things but it is not doing it. They are weak changes. They are not real reforms to the pension plan. It is just a facade to make the folks out there think that something is really happening here. What is really happening out there is that people are overtaxed, frustrated and fed up. It is no wonder from listening to this kind of rhetoric on pension plans.

I could call these Liberals hypocritical for saying one thing and doing another, but I will not. I could call them trough slurping pension planners for making an absolutely abysmal excuse in trying to change a pension plan, but I will not. I could call them overindulging politicians for taking more than what they are worth, but I will not. What I will call these Liberals and this government are plain bad managers.

Organizations in Canada that work in developing pension plans for their employees work within the Income Tax Act, as I have done in developing a pension plan for my employees. I give what is fair and reasonable, usually a dollar for a dollar. That is not what is happening here. Here government members are telling Canadians that they are going to reduce some benefits and save Canadians money while at the same time they milk the system for all it is worth. I think that is disgusting.

Let us think about what the Liberals are developing. They want to establish a future minimum age of 55. I checked the records and the majority of parliamentarians in the House are already 55 years old. What kind of smoke are they putting out here? They want to eliminate double dipping. That is nice. They are saying that when they give the patronage jobs to their friends, they will not give them the $130,000 or $180,000 plus a pension. They will hold the pension back.

What the government does not really say about this is that the pension members earn while they are MPs is still accumulating compound interest. When they get out of the patronage job, the double dipping job they are talking about, they get the MPs pension updated and indexed. They also get all the returns from the patronage position. Talk about being at the trough.

The Liberals have talked about lowering the rate at which the benefits accrue. They currently accrue at 5 per cent. It is 5 per cent of $64,000 for every year of service. They said: "We are going to do something here. We will bring it down to 4 per cent". What Liberal members are not saying is that 4 per cent is still double the rate of private sector pension plans, registered plans under the Income Tax Act. They also do not say that there are special provisions in the Income Tax Act to make way for that.

If we want to reform a pension plan or anything else in the House, we had better start a real reform, not the half baked idea of telling people one thing and doing another. Hypocrites.

They have lowered the rate at which individual members contribute to the plan from 11 per cent to 9 per cent. Very good. Members here will get a 2 per cent return, more cash in their hands. Congratulations. At the same time that is being done, what really happens is the contributions they are giving are really going to cost more to the taxpayer.

Reform Party members will opt out. Now what are they to do? In this pension plan they need all the contributions to make it viable. If we opt out of it they will be short of cash. They have taken 2 per cent of the cash coming in from members so who are they to hit? That is right folks, the Canadian taxpayer. That is who is to pay for it.

They have given us an opportunity to opt out. I am opting out of this plan. I have a family to look after as well and I do not have a job to go to at the end of my parliamentary career. That is just fine with me. That is just fine with my wife and family. We will go back to our riding and we will hold our heads a little higher.

For those people who forced at least some change, the Liberal government is saying: "We will make it very difficult for you when you opt out. You can never get back in". That is fine. I can live with that. "We will give you a 4 per cent return". Well, that is good too.

They are not saying that there is absolutely no hope for anybody opting out of the plan to make a move to get back in. People are entitled to change their minds, but the government has to be very careful about what it is doing. This is not an act to punish. If people want to opt out, let them opt out. The government has a bad management style that will not be forgotten.

Finally let me say that the RRSP limits this year were supposed to be $14,500 for the average Canadian citizen but the government kept it at $13,500. Folks out there get a little less and folks across here get a little more. Is that a great example you set?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. Before the hon. member for Fraser Valley West concludes his remarks in the brief period of time left, I recognize there are strongly held views on the issue. It is vigorous debate, but I urge you and remind you that all interventions must be done through the Chair or the Speaker and not directly across the floor.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is an emotional debate and deservedly so. Many people believe that the this pension plan is gold plated and is too large. I am convinced that some Liberal members probably feel the same way but cannot make change because their party says: "This is the way it is to be".

That is unfortunate but I sincerely hope the next time we go to the polls people remember what happened in the House this year on this issue and in this debate.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in the last 24 hours I have learned much about why many politicians can talk so much and say so little. I have learned much about why many politicians say so little in failing in their attempt to be all things to all people.

I have also learned why many politicians prefer to say nothing at all, for if a politician says nothing there are no words that can be used against him or her to deflect from the substance of debate.

Yesterday in the House, instead of answering a reasonable question from my Reform colleague from Kootenay East, the President of the Treasury Board decided that the only response required was to refer to comments I made in the House on May 4.

Suddenly the debate is no longer about pensions but about the comments of a member of the House who raised the compensation issue. The issue was raised in my capacity as an individual and not as a matter of Reform Party policy and was so qualified. The issue was raised by other members of the House from other parties during the course of the debate. It was an issue that all speakers recognize was separate from the main issue of debate, that being the pension of parliamentarians.

This is all quite regrettable. It is important to at least reference the issue of our basic compensation since the studies dealing with our pensions do not address them in isolation but rather in the context of the other moneys and benefits we receive.

The issue of our compensation was raised by the President of the Treasury Board when he introduced legislation and stated that they could not wait for the day when we could deal with salary increases as suggested in the Sobeco, Ernst and Young study. They could not afford them then. While the total compensation approach outlined in the study is worthy of further discussion it is not functionally possible at this time, as reported in Hansard of May 4.

The position of the President of the Treasury Board is entirely consistent with Reform Party policy. The Liberals campaigned

in 1993 on a general promise of changes to the MP pension plan without specifics being provided.

We campaigned in 1993 with specifics provided on how we would change MP pension. As well we provided specifics on why the compensation of MPs must continue to be frozen. We said explicitly that until a balanced budget was achieved the salaries and expenses of government MPs and their offices would be frozen. Our position has not changed.

I was not the only member raising compensation issues in the House during the course of debate on pensions. The Liberal member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe was quite explicit. In Hansard of May 4 he stated:

We cannot give ourselves a raise when we are telling everyone else to hold the line.

Referring to the Ernst Young report he stated:

However the report recommended an increase in pay for members of Parliament. I would be more than happy, if that happened, to see the pensions done away with and work within an RRSP program.

This was a Liberal member speaking and another Reform suggestion. Another Liberal copies Reform award might be due to the hon. member. He expressed sentiments not unlike those expressed by Reform members for many years. I agree with him as I agree with the President of the Treasury Board that the issue of MPs salaries is a matter to be addressed at some later time. In this respect we have all perhaps clouded the issue of the merits or demerits of the current pension plan proposals by raising salary issues at the same time.

To the extent that I have clouded issues by raising such issues I must express regret. However, I believe it regrettable the President of the Treasury Board would use my comments to avoid addressing issues of substance in the pension debate, one of the most important debates in the current Parliament.

To paraphrase a recent hit by the reunited "Eagles", a band with which the hon. Liberal House leader is certainly familiar if not the President of the Treasury Board, I respectfully ask the President of the Treasury Board to get over it, to quit playing his petty partisan politics, to get on with the debate of MP pensions, and to let us get on to the substance of the issues with respect to our pension plan.

The Liberals think they have us. They think we will not talk about it any more because of what I suggested in debate in the House over a week ago. We will not run away from the issue. We will address it.

For the Liberals who are present and listening to the debate, the Canadian public is totally fed up with self-serving MPs giving themselves a fat cat, gold plated, three tier trough regular for the old folks, the old veterans; trough light for the class of 1988 and onward and the ones from 1993; and trough stout for cabinet ministers who can contribute anything they want down the road. A pension plan like that for life is ridiculous.

Why will the President of the Treasury Board not introduce some ideas about a matching contribution plan, a one for one? For every dollar wonderful deserving MPs put into a pension plan the government matches by a dollar. Why does the government not do that? It cannot do that because it has to be better. The Liberals think they are a better class of citizen now they are elected, that they deserve three and a half times, and that they deserved a six to one plan before that.

There is no question the President of the Treasury Board is touting a proposal on the basis of sophistry just like the Minister of Finance, using clever but misleading arguments to lead to a false and wrong conclusion. The Canadian public is fed up with the lack of courage the Liberal government is showing and the lack of integrity when it promised integrity in the red book. How does it show integrity for the Liberals to talk about a proposal of another member and call it a salary increase when all we are talking about is looking at the pension plan which is too generous.

The number one objective of my Reform colleagues in the House and I is to kill the Cadillac pension plan. The government is not interested in it. The Liberals think they deserve more. They think they desperately have to save Sheila, the Deputy Prime Minister, so that she could get if she were to leave next month $2.7 million. They have to protect Mr. Boudria, the man who worked-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. I am quite prepared to understand that in the enthusiasm of debate one member's name might slip but when another is used it becomes a little suspicious. I caution members to refer to one another by riding or by ministerial portfolio.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I said our objective is to kill the MP pension plan because it is too generous, too extravagant.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

It is illegal.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

It is illegal in the private sector as well. The Liberals want to protect $2.7 million for the Deputy Prime Minister and $2.2 million for the chief government whip. These are the millionaires, including the Minister for Human Resources Development. The minister of public works will get $3 million; the minister of immigration, $3 million; and the member for Broadview-Greenwood, $1 million. He has a good proposal for tax reform but the government is more interested in its self-serving MP pension plan than it is in tax reform. It will not even give him the time of day.

We are against the pension plan for a simple reason. It raises a double standard. Why do we as MPs now deserve more and better than what is out there in the private sector? Would the President of the Treasury Board tell me that? If the Canadian public wants MPs to have a pension plan, why not one that is the same as the private sector dollar for dollar? Why can MPs contribute 9 per cent while in the private sector it is 5 per cent? Why not 5 per cent and 5 per cent? Why a full pension at age 55 when in the private sector 65 years of age qualifies and if the pension is taken before that age the person receives less?

It is just common sense and it will not apply to the House. The Liberals will not accept it. All I can say is that I do not understand the mentality of the 100-plus Liberal rookies who are here. Veteran politicians are laughing all the way to the bank because they received their six to one. It was backdated to 1988 to make sure the member for Beaver River had the option to opt out. We have the option to opt out. In 1997, if there is an election, the new Reformers who come here will not have the option to opt out. That is hypocritical. That is something the Canadian public will not forget. I am frustrated to no end. When these people were in opposition they indicated that the Conservative government lacked integrity and lacked morals.

I am really starting to wonder if the government is interested in the best interests of the Canadian public. It has an opportunity like the Reform Party to opt out of the Cadillac pension plan. The rookies have an opportunity to stuff it in the faces of the veterans and say: "No, you are not going to catch us". If they do not opt out, I am very confident the Canadian public will vote them out. I think that is what will happen.

In summary, these people were elected to restore integrity as promised in the red book. By trying to rush debate on the issue through the House without allowing time for proper debate and without allowing the hon. member for Calgary West to speak first today, they are trying to deny an opportunity to allow us to detail fully what they are trying to foist and hoist upon the Canadian taxpayer.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address this bizarre piece of legislation, Bill C-85. I want to paint a bit of a picture for people.

If someone told an ordinary Canadian citizen that he had a great business proposition, that for every dollar put into an investment he would get back $3.50, he would say that it was amazing and great. He would want to do it. Not only that. It would be guaranteed by the Government of Canada. We are not talking about 10 per cent, 8 per cent or 5 per cent on a Canada savings bond. We are talking about a 350 per cent return on investment.

The only problem is that it is not available to the average Canadian citizen. It is only available to members of Parliament. It is disgusting. It is the height of hypocrisy. My hon. friend from Macleod said: "They were not hypocrites but hypo-grits when they proposed this".

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

I thought it was a very good line. I give accolades to the member for Macleod.

Apart from the puns, Bill C-85 has a very serious side. That is what concerns me. Bill C-85 is way out of step on several counts. I want to talk about those for a moment and the faulty premise on which this bill is built.

Two years ago when I was knocking on doors in my constituency, in Brooks, Taber and Medicine Hat-and Medicine Hat in particular because it is a retirement town-one of the topics which people talked about was that they were sick and tired of the MP pension plan.

They did not say: "We are sick of the aspect which says that taxpayers kick in $6 and MPs kick in one". They said: "We are sick of the double standard". They did not say that they wanted 3.5 times instead of 6 times what MPs kick in. They said: "We expect a pension plan like anybody else's, where if the employee puts in a dollar maybe the employer will contribute a dollar, but nothing richer than that".

I took that to heart. Members of the Reform Party took it to heart. However, the government has completely ignored it. It has come up with another form of padding its members' pockets at the expense of taxpayers. It is crazy. This bill is completely out to lunch when it comes to respecting the wishes of the taxpayers. We are here to serve the taxpayers, not to serve ourselves.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is sitting over there scrambling to defend his trip to the trough. He is completely out of step with what Canadians are saying.

Another thing that Canadians mentioned to us is the huge debt. The debt at that time was $480 billion. It has now rocketed up to $550 billion. Surely members have some sympathy for the long-suffering taxpayer when they are considering the remuneration which they give themselves. However, no empathy was shown when the government proposed Bill C-85. It is another trip to the trough. It is a minor improvement over what the previous government gave to its members, but it is so far out of step that it defies logic. It defies description.

Medicine Hat to a large extent is a retirement town. In many cases its people exist on pensions. They find this debate absolutely unbelievable. The government will be talking this fall when the finance ministers convene about how to change the CPP to make it actuarially sound. The OECD says that the

retirement age will have to be pushed to age 79 to make it actuarially sound.

However, the government is proposing that we have pensions which are fully payable at age 55 with contributions from the taxpayer which are three and a half times what MPs have to put in. People find that absolutely unbelievable. I defy members across the way to come to my communities of Medicine Hat, Brooks, Taber, Bow Island, Tilley and all the other communities and justify this outrageous pension plan.

One subject which I wish to address is the whole idea of MPs' remuneration. It is well past the time when MPs should be allowed to set their own remuneration package. This bill does not deal with that. It completely ignores that. MPs and elected officials in other jurisdictions are about the only people in the country who are allowed to set their own wages and remuneration packages.

The president of General Motors or a teacher or a business person who owns a business cannot set his or her own wage. Business people are accountable to customers. They have to pay their suppliers. They can draw a wage based on all of that, but at the end of the day they have to depend on their customers and their employees before they can decide what kind of remuneration package they can have.

According to the government, MPs are above that. Bill C-85 makes no mention of it. It suggests that MPs should have a remuneration package which is based simply on the whims and caprices of the government. It has nothing to do with reality. It is an argument entirely in the abstract. The government has no perspective at all when it talks about the remuneration package or at least the member of Parliament pension plan. It is crazy.

One of the things that MPs are supposed to do is to talk to their constituents on a regular basis so they can find out where their constituents stand on these types of issues. It is a fundamental responsibility of a member of Parliament. However, none of that has been done when it comes to Bill C-85.

Instead, the government has decided to eschew the opinions of the public. It has said it does not want to hear from the public on this. It does not want to find out what the public thinks. What it wants to do is set up its own pension plan that is far richer than anything that is available in the private sector. If Canadians do not like it, that is tough luck because that is what the government will do.

When we knock on doors people are so cynical about politicians they will not listen to the first word we say about serious issues. All they believe we are doing is padding our own nest. I cannot argue against that. How can we argue against what the public is saying when it is absolutely true?

It is a well established tradition in this place and the government has done nothing to improve on it despite all of its promises in the red book. It has failed to restore integrity which is important and critical so people will respect and ultimately have faith in their government. This is a necessary step so that people will willing bring forward ideas for the important debates that need to occur so that the government enjoys the faith of the people. It is a very important aspect that the government has, I guess, intentionally ignored. It has pushed ahead with Bill C-85 and is actually now trying to invoke its own form of closure by not allowing a free and full debate.

The Reform Party has all kinds of concerns with this legislation. I want to touch on a fairly technical but still important part of it. The government has really tried, in my judgment, to deceive people by saying it is going to cut the contribution level down from 11 per cent to 9 per cent.

However, as my hon. friend from Fraser Valley West pointed out, there will not be enough money coming in. Reform MPs are opting out. I want to make it very clear that Reform MPs are opting out of this heinous plan. However, because of that the government is going to end up having to draw on more taxpayer dollars to make this thing fly. That is crazy.

The government has failed to consult with the people. It is padding its own pockets, padding its own nest, looking after itself and refusing to go to the people on an issue that is very important to them. It is an issue of integrity.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is a rather important debate and I do not believe we have a quorum. I only see four Liberals in the House for this important debate. It is rather disappointing.