Debates of May 9th, 1995

Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I expect the Reformers to keep interrupting. Of course they would because they do not like to deal with the shortcomings of their position and the hypocrisy surrounding it.

Reformers promised to come to the House and do politics differently. They have not done that. I am saddened by it.

[An hon. member]

Talk about the pension.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

This deals with the hypocrisy of the Reform Party position, if the member must know. Doing politics differently certainly has not been their long suit, except to take us down a few notches in the public perception. Is it working? I suggest it is not.

It is not working because the Canadian public sees through it. The Canadian public sees through that opportunism. When the leader of the third party talks about a code of conduct and talks against expense allowances and turns around and collects $31,000, then the hypocrisy is clearly pointed out.

In terms of being up front and straightforward with the electorate, we had a campaign. The reforms were spelled out during the campaign. This government has gone further than it said it would in its red book. I can best characterize members of the Reform Party in the House as chicken littles running around saying the sky is falling.

Reformers would do the same thing with some of the major issues facing this country, which can cause our economy a great deal of damage. Instead of dealing with the issues that are of great importance and impact on the daily lives of Canadians, Reformers choose to sidetrack. The Reform Party, instead of doing sincerely what is best for Canadians and the House, has reduced itself to rhetoric, from reasoned argument to basic, simplistic political games. It is not working. Hypocrisy day after day becomes very obvious and it shows.

[Hugh Hanrahan, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the previous speaker, I will confine my remarks to the bill before us. His comments show the obvious lack of confidence in his own party's bill.

It gives me great pleasure to address Bill C-85 which deals with the issue of MPs pensions. This issue is of great concern to myself, the Reform Party and to all Canadians. This plan was indefensible even in the good times when Ottawa's vaults were overflowing and the public was feeling generous toward its politicians. However, in bad times such as we are now experiencing, when many Canadians are suffering and the government is hard pressed to fund basic programs, the MP pension plan amounts to little more than the great Canadian ripoff.

When I say I know Canadians truly do want the MP pension plan reformed, I am speaking for those individuals who live in my constituency of Edmonton-Strathcona. I asked my constituents for some feedback on this issue in my first householder. The results were overwhelmingly in favour of pension reform. I cannot help but believe if the Liberals were to ask their constituents the same question, they would find the same result.

Constituents were asked at what age should an outgoing MP be able to collect a pension. Seventy-five per cent of my

constituents felt an outgoing MP should not be able to collect until after his or her 60th birthday.

The second question asked regarding MP pensions was how many years should an MP serve before being eligible for a pension. The results again are staggering in favour of pension reform. One hundred per cent of respondents said the number of years should be no less than eight. Eighty-one per cent felt the minimum number of years of service should be no less than 16.

Answers to these questions are a far cry from the present situation in place today and also a far cry from the pension reforms the government has introduced. It is important to illustrate a few facts about MP pension plans, as they will clearly illustrate why the constituents of Edmonton-Strathcona and Canadians as a whole feel there is great need for the present pension plan to be reformed.

First, pensions are payable immediately upon retirement and only after six years of service no matter at what age the MP retires or is not re-elected. Second, payments continue even if the ex-MP holds another permanent job, which would be defined as double dipping.

Third, pensions begin at $23,390 per year and increase 5 per cent per year of service to a maximum of 75 per cent average salary. Fourth, inflation indexing kicks in after age 60 but is retroactive to retirement day.

Fifth, MPs pay 11 per cent of their base salary into the pension fund. The government matches this amount and covers shortfalls, an unfunded liability which cost Canadian taxpayers nearly $160 million last year.

By no means is this list inclusive. There are, however, a few items of concern to me. I have stated in the House repeatedly that Reformers have come to Ottawa to make a difference. I ran for Parliament to serve my constituents. I did not run for a pension.

The Liberals state in their red ink book: "A Liberal government will reform the pension plan of members of Parliament and put an end to double dipping". Bill C-85 is a poor attempt at addressing the issue of pension reform.

We have been sitting in the House for over 18 months and we are discussing still the pension issue. Obviously it was not as important a commitment to the Liberals. It is also interesting to note the current Prime Minister challenged the former Prime Minister to recall Parliament if she were was truly serious about pension reform. This was just before the last election. I quote the present Prime Minister: "Reforms would pass in a day". It has been over 500 days since he became Prime Minister and still no reforms have been passed. I find it ironic the only member of the House whose benefits are not reduced by this bill is the Prime Minister.

Canadians will not tolerate political injustices. The evidence lies with the now defunct Conservative Party. We on this side of the House know the government has delayed on the issue of pension reform. Perhaps it is because the Liberals are concerned about having to adapt to another of the Reform Party's policies such as they have done in the past on issues such as the Young Offenders Act, parole reform, criminal justice reform, debt and deficit reduction, and let us not forget immigration.

All this is doing nothing but costing the taxpayer more and more money each day. As we know, the National Citizens Coalition set aside a day this year and called it national trough day in which another group of 52 MPs of all political stripes became eligible for this outlandish of extravagant pension plan. These new members of the trough club could collectively receive $53 million if all of these 52 MPs quit today and lived to the age of 75, while at the same time the average Canadian citizen must work 35 years to accumulate a pension which is not nearly as gold plated as this.

This gold plated MP pension plan should be renamed from pension plan to cash for life rip off of the Canadian taxpayer. This plan is perhaps one of the federal government's most offensive examples of waste. What strikes to the core of the issue is we as parliamentarians have to set an example for all Canadians and delaying issues such as pension reform is no way to lead by example.

I can stand in the House and state unequivocally that the Reform Party is different. We want to see changes in the pension plan; not just superficial changes, substantial changes.

These changes would include a pension plan brought in line with pension plans offered in the private sector, an end to full indexation, postponing eligibility until at least age 60, ensuring the MP pension plan is adequately funded by MPs for the benefits they will receive so there will be no shortfalls, allow MPs the option to opt out of the pension program and allow the flexibility to invest in a private pension plan such as an RRSP with a maximum contribution in accordance with the Income Tax Act.

Let us now look specifically at what the Liberals have introduced. They have decreased the contribution and benefit rates, but only marginally. They have raised the minimum age to 55 for benefit eligibility. I refer to a survey of my riding in which 81 per cent of constituents feel the minimum age should be 60. The Liberals claim to have ended double dipping and yet benefits will continue to grow under the generous inflation indexing provisions. They offer an opting out clause but it is a one time deal, as coverage will be compulsory for members of future Parliaments. The benefits will continue to be fully

indexed to inflation from the date they retire. This has not changed and that is no big surprise to me or to the Reform Party.

We must stop this insanity. We must make real changes and real reforms to the MP pension plan now.

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Halton—Peel, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will tell the Reform Party a little story.

In 1975 I was elected to the Ontario legislature and served for ten years. Because I was self-employed, when I retired I assumed it would be a very simple process to pick up the pieces where I had left off and re-enter the career I had left. However, I discovered it took four years to regenerate the income level I had prior to my retirement from public life. I suggest to members of the Reform Party that unless they are farmers the transition back to private life will not be nearly as simple as it seems. I say that with all sincerity. I say that to defend the pension plan and the pension reform.

Why do we have a pension plan at all? We could accept the $150,000 a year the member for Calgary Centre is proposing. I am sure the people of Canada are not ready to embrace that concept. I suppose if all members of the House wanted to accept that salary and do away with the pension plan entirely I have no complaints. We can do it that way.

The pension plan was set up to ease the return to private life, and also the severance package members get at the end of their service. It was done to recognize we are here generally during the highest earning years of our life. The longer we are here and the older we get, the more difficult it is to resume the practice we had before.

We could take this right to the extreme. We could return to the old ways when members did not get paid at all, no pension. The requirement was that one had to be independently wealthy to serve or one had to have a patron. I am not sure the people of Canada are ready for patronage of that kind again. That is the way it was.

The idea of a pension plan was to allow people of modest means to participate in the life of the country. It was no longer then the sole preserve of the elite.

Right now there are approximately 600 former members of the House. Approximately 400 never qualified for any kind of pension whatsoever. They did not serve long enough to qualify. The pension is being delivered to approximately 200 former members of the House.

The Reform Party criticized the plan on one hand and on the other hand some of its representatives, at least one for use, said do the same thing another way, in spades, $150,000 a year. It is interesting but we cannot walk both sides of the street on this issue.

I am a strong supporter of pension plans for members of Parliament for the reasons I have outlined. Whether the package is too rich is a matter of debate. We decided it should be modified somewhat. We also decided it was essential to preserve it. Sooner or later all of us here will not be here any more. All of us will face a new reality as we go on to resume our lives or go on to new lives.

All the populist rhetoric in the world does not allow us to escape from that reality. I know it has been very popular to zero in on MP perks, as they are called. I have not found any yet but I am still looking. It annoys me to no end. The reality is if pensions are done away with the next generation of members will make a decision based on whether there is security at the end of its tenure. If there is limitation on the availability of standing for election the quality of governing will decline remarkably.

It was done for a reason. We have taken a lot of brickbats because the pension plan exists. I think that is due to a general lack of understanding of the reality. There is even a lack of understanding that the pension plan as we have it is contributory, that we actually contribute a portion of our own salaries to the plan.

I support the bill we are debating today. I support the changes being made. However, I think we should all very seriously consider the realities of life and not just the populism that we think everyone wants to hear.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I intend to speak primarily on one aspect of the bill the opting out section. However, I cannot begin until I make a comment on the speech of the hon. member who just spoke.

He made it sound as though we would be destitute without the pension and that the Reform Party proposes that there should be no pension. We have no problem with the concept of a pension, only that it should be a pension that is reasonable and fair, given the marketplace and given the economic conditions in which Canada and Canadian taxpayers find themselves.

The hon. member for St. Boniface rose in the House and, shedding great crocodile tears, informed us of the hardship of 60 per cent of the MPs who are retired and who have to somehow make do on less than $29,900 a year. My heart really goes out to them. That is a real hardship, I am sure, given that we are asking Canadian taxpayers who make less than that in total income, who are trying to raise their families and pay mortgages, pay taxes so that we can then-

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My comments are being interpreted completely inaccurately. I did not say that those people were destitute. I pointed out that we were being misled into thinking that high pensions-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. I must report to the House and the member that is not a point of order. Certainly it might be a matter of debate before the House.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will clarify that he did not suggest they were destitute, but he did seem to shed some tears for their situation. Many of those people who are somehow scraping by on less than $29,900 a year are in their fifties, in their forties, and some are even in their thirties. Perhaps they have found themselves a job and they are able to support themselves.

Another comment, which involves the specific point that I wish to address, which is opting out, was made at the start of this whole debate by the chief government whip. The chief government whip used the word hypocrisy. I am really surprised to hear him use that word, given the hypocrisy on the government side over the whole issue of opting out. The opting out is the biggest hypocrisy this government has ever dumped on the floor of the House. If the Liberals were serious about opting out, they would have offered any conditions that could have been offered that did not cost the taxpayers money.

Opting out means a refund of contributions. This is what they are offering. The majority of that refund cannot simply be transferred to an RRSP. Contributions paid by MPs are specifically earmarked for retirement. During the period of contribution MPs are cut off from an RRSP contribution due to the fact that they are participating in a registered plan. The total amount MPs pay into the government plan is less than the amount they would have been allowed to contribute through an RRSP if they were not blocked from doing so.

If the Liberal Party were really interested in saving the taxpayers money, it would make opting out a more attractive alternative. Why is it not doing this? If opting out were handled seriously instead of punitively, the Liberals may find that many of their own members would be opting out, and this would embarrass the government. They cannot have that. What is more, they would run into a situation where suddenly, with so many people opting out, they would have a problem justifying continuing the old plan for those few members who remain and may be forced to give up the lucrative pension for those who are looking forward to this high income for life.

What could they have done? What is the alternative? One alternative is to create a matching RRSP contribution, pure and simple: 50 per cent from the MP and 50 per cent from the government. The advantage to this is that it is $1 to $1 instead of the old $6 to $1, which has only been dropped by half a point in the new proposal. Now they have mixed some accounting magic and say that given the number of people who drop off, we will not count them and we will not count some other things. So they came up with some lower numbers. No matter how they play with it, it is still considerably higher than $1 to $1. That $1 to $1 does not have the potential of any kind of accounting magic whatsoever. It is a real and genuine $1 to $1.

The other advantage of this is the cost to the taxpayer stops when the service to the taxpayer stops. This would be a pure and simple matching during the tenure of the MP, stopping as soon as they no longer served as an MP.

The very minimum the government would offer if they were serious about the opting out would be an amendment to the Income Tax Act that simply allows the pension contribution made by MPs who were opting out to be transferred into an RRSP. This is money that was put aside for the specific purpose of retirement. This would not involve any matching amounts, but would ensure that money MPs have put aside for that purpose continued to be held for retirement purposes.

Then there is the matter of the future opting out. There is none. If this were a serious thing that we should be considering, MPs at any time could either decide if they wanted to get into whatever the pension plan was at the time of their election, or if they found it as distasteful in the future as Reformers find it now then they would have the ability to opt out as well. This is not being offered. Once again, the Liberals are afraid that if too many people start opting out they may be forced to do so as well.

The first speaker today, the chief government whip, started with the word hypocrisy. That is the word I will end with. It is hypocrisy on the part of the government to offer a facade that is really not in the interests of taxpayers. It is only in the interests of those high income Liberal MPs.

[Daphne Jennings, Reform, Mission—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak on Bill C-85 because when I ran for election in the 1993 campaign the MPs' pension plan was a major concern to my constituents in Mission-Coquitlam.

As a Canadian I was angry about the lucrative plan, which is an insult to the Canadian taxpayer. I promised when campaigning that I would do everything I could to try to change the MP pension plan. Today I hope there is someone in government who is listening, someone who cares.

I know many Liberals are concerned about the plan. I am sure there are others in the House besides Reformers who find the existing plan repulsive and have difficulty accepting the plan as it is.

I hope the government will take a long, hard look at the bill and reconsider its approach to rush the bill through Parliament, recognizing that the better process would be to allow more study on the bill and a lengthy debate.

Perhaps one major concern here is that members of Parliament make the decisions regarding their own remuneration. It is way past the time when MPs should set their own wages. The public has no input. By sending 52 Reform MPs to Ottawa, our constituents, many in the west, were saying among other things that they were sick of the obscene pension plan and wanted it changed.

Sometimes when politicians come to Ottawa they forget the very people they are supposed to represent, the Canadian taxpayers. I really wonder how many of the Liberal members of Parliament visit regularly with their constituents.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Daphne Jennings, Reform, Mission—Coquitlam, BC]

I am sure they do. I am hearing from the opposite side that they do. What do they discuss? Surely Canadians in the Maritimes, Quebec, Ontario and the rest of Canada are not happy with the MP pension plan. I find it very hard to believe that only Reform constituents are concerned about this terrible injustice. How did this pension plan get so far out of control?

Bill C-85 suggests some changes to the existing MP pension plan, but are they really constructive changes? The purpose of Bill C-85 regarding contribution and benefit rates decreases the accrual rate from 5 per cent to 4 per cent. I understand the recommendation was 2 per cent. This is still double the rate of most private pension plans. It also lowers the rate at which individual members contribute to the plan from 11 per cent to 9 per cent. If Reform MPs opt out, as they plan to do, how will this plan be supported?

Bill C-85 proposes a very generous age for retirement, 55 years of age. I started a new career at 55. I am sure that with the hardships in today's society many other Canadians are having to look for new routes to follow as well. I believe 60 or 65 would be more appropriate to discuss as a future MP retirement age with a pension.

Bill C-85 eliminates double dipping, although we see benefits will continue to grow under generous inflation indexing provisions. I am concerned about the opting in clause, which requires that MPs who wish to be included in the plan indicate this within 60 days of the bill receiving royal assent, but further that those MPs can never get back into the plan.

Reformers are committed to reform, and reform means to change things that need to be changed. If Reformers stick with determination and commitment to work to change the way government legislation reads at this time and if they should be successful in finally bringing about a decent pension plan that is comparable to the private sector plans, then why would Reformers or anyone else disgusted with the present government abuse of taxpayers' dollars who had previously opted out of this plan not be entitled to receive a more decent pension plan?

I am not against pension plans. It is my firm belief that everyone who works is entitled to a decent pension plan, one that in this case should reflect that government is living within its means. Members of Parliament should receive pensions that are comparable to those that ordinary Canadians receive in the private sector and that meet all requirements for registration under the Income Tax Act. This bill clearly does not accomplish this. Reform has called for the government to bring their pensions down to private sector levels. Clearly they have failed to do this.

Reformers are average people, with families and mortgages. They would love to belong to a reasonable pension plan. These so-called reductions to the Liberals' pension plan barely make a dent in the cost to taxpayers. According to Treasury Board officials, most of the savings we will see are actually due to actuarial factors, not the government's changes.

Taxpayers are still paying over three and a half times as much as the individual members are for their pensions, with $3.50 from the government for every $1 for the Liberal contributor. The taxpayer's contribution is still too much. The only thing I like about the Liberals' pension scheme is that all MPs have a chance to opt out; in other words, to make a statement. They can tell the government to leave this money where it belongs: in the taxpayers' pockets. That is what all of the Reform MPs are doing.

Members in the House are in a very privileged position. As I have said before, not only do we make laws and budgets that affect all Canadians, we also set our own remuneration, our own salaries, our own pensions and our own perks. This is a responsibility not many people have, and one that must be protected from abuse. Herein lies the problem.

Perhaps the most disturbing part of all this is the government's attempt to hide just how generous their plan really is. They tell us in the public accounts how much each member spends maintaining their office or travelling and how much their salary is, but they will not tell us the cost of their pension. This information must be made readily available now and in the future. How else can the public judge the fairness of this scheme?

In an effort to skirt the issue of MPs' pensions in the next election, new MPs elected to the 36th Parliament will not be allowed to opt out. The Liberals do not seem to realize that until substantive reforms are made to this plan, likely by a Reform government, it will continue to be an election issue. The government professes to have brought down a tough budget. I do not think it was tough enough, certainly not in this area.

We cannot keep spending money we do not have. The interest payments are killing our jobs and our economy. Watching the government cut the benefits other Canadians get and raise taxes on necessities like gasoline and utilities, so far it appears the only thing the budget has been tough on are taxpayers' wallets. It is time to admit we cannot afford to pay millions of dollars in retirement benefits to politicians

I remind all members how privileged a position we hold. It is a position of trust. Not only do we make decisions that affect all Canadians, we also establish our own remuneration. Not many people have this power and responsibility. We must guard against its abuse.

The best protection against abuse would be the introduction of citizen based powers like initiative, referendum and recall. In the absence of these measures it is a pretty clear indication this power is being misused when 52 members feel they must opt out of the government's pension plan on principle.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the government has demonstrated once again it lacks the will to get the job done. It cannot balance the budget. It does not understand Canadians want concrete and not imaginary changes to the justice system and it has failed to introduce real MP pension reform. Canadians are tired of making sacrifices, tightening their belts and watching the government squander their tax dollars.

We saw what happened after the government failed to bring in a tough budget. Moody's downgraded our credit rating when it became clear the government is not committed to eliminating the deficit. Likewise, these cosmetic changes to the MP pension plan prove the government is not serious about MP pension reform either.

Canadians have seen the government waste countless dollars on study after study, review after review, with no tangible results. Bill C-85 is yet another charade with few substantive reductions to the extravagant MP pension plan. The government knows that due to its lack of hard fiscal policies there will be difficult days ahead. It knows if it does not tackle the debt Canadians will have fewer social safety nets left at the end of the day. Does it care? Obviously not. It is padding its own retirement coffers while it ignores a looming financial crisis. How serious is it about getting Canadians back to work and turning the economy around if it is going to such great lengths to protect an exorbitant MP pension plan?

With the ever increasing debt, will the Canada pension plan survive? With rising debt service payments, will the government cut deeper into RRSP savings plans? At the same time as it sets ridiculously low targets for tackling the deficit it makes taxpayers pay ridiculously high amounts into MP pensions.

Young people saving money now may not have enough put away to live above the poverty line when they retire. Yet MPs will receive fully indexed pensions at age 60, indexed from the moment they retire from public office.

The government has its priorities screwed up. MPs are here to serve Canadians. Canadians are not here to serve the interests of MPs. They will not stand for these double standards much longer. Canadians will still pay $3.60 for every dollar an MP puts into this plan. Why can the government not bring it into line with private schemes? Why can it not face reality and realize even MPs must tighten their belts?

Time and again as we have questioned the Prime Minister about excessive MP pensions we have seen him avoid the real issues. Time and again we have seen him deflect the discussion about retirement plans and begin to talk about MP salaries. These are two distinct issues and he knows it. We are discussing pensions today, not salaries. I am perfectly willing to discuss salaries. Do not confuse an extravagant retirement plan with the argument that MPs are underpaid while they hold office.

If the Prime Minister wants to discuss salaries, fine. First he can set the wage at what it should be and take away the special allowances. Get rid of the tax free allowance and provide an equivalent in taxable income. Get rid of the $6,000 travel allowance we use to maintain a second residence in Ottawa and make sure our income will cover the additional costs we must incur. Do not avoid an honest debate on the validity and sustainability of the proposed pension plan by throwing up smoke and mirrors about the unrelated issue of salaries.

The truth is the government knows this plan is too generous and knows the public will not support it if it is debated on its own merit.

There is a one time opt out clause. Only members of this 35th Parliament will ever be able to opt out of the plan. There is a significant financial disincentive for the class of `88 to opt out because all of the money it has accrued in the pension plan since 1988 will be returned to its members in one lump sum this tax year. Only one-third of it can be rolled into RRSPs or private retirement plans and the rest will be taxed this year if they choose to opt out.

While we are on the subject of how insubstantial the changes to the MP retirement plan are, I ask the government why it did not consider a mechanism for making some of these changes retroactive. Why has the government not included a clause which would allow us to buy out the multi-million dollar pension packages some of the sitting MPs will be looking at

when they lose their seats in the next election? They will still be in their forties but entitled to fully indexed pensions.

Is this an admission that spending too long in this place leaves one incapable of doing anything else? I notice Reformers are opting out and confident of supporting themselves, so perhaps this inability to find gainful employment has something to do with being tied to traditional parties, reliant on traditional perks and privileges.

The government does not want MP pensions to come up as an election issue next time around, but I have news for the government. Until the MP pension plan is brought into line with private pension plans it will be an issue at every election. As more Canadians realize that despite their best efforts they will not have enough to retire on, they will look at retired MPs supported by public funds and grow increasingly bitter.

Yes, we work long hours in this job. Yes, we frequently work seven days a week. Yes, we must make sacrifices and spend time away from our families to do our jobs properly, but so do a lot of other Canadians. They get paid for the time they put in. They do not expect an unrealistic, unsustainable retirement plan as a result of their hard work.

As a grain farmer I have grown up expecting I will have to take responsibility for my own retirement. Farmers know there will be good crop years and there will be droughts. We have to plan ahead to make sure we can get through the bad years. That also means putting money aside for old age.

Farmers, like all small business people, do not have a company pension to rely on. Small business is the economic backbone of the country and the driving force behind new employment opportunities, and yet most small businesses cannot afford pension plans for their employees and everyone must save for their own retirement.

It would be nice if all Canadians had a pension plan as lavish as that of MPs, but let us be realistic. Why should taxpayers support someone so generously just because they held public office for six or more years?

I never believed other Canadians should be responsible for supporting me after age 60 or 65 and I certainly have not changed my views since I was elected. MPs are no different than other Canadians. We just have a different job. Yes, it carries a lot of responsibility but we chose to go into politics.

If the government cannot bring the MP pension plan into line with private pension plans it is holding MPs up as more deserving than other hard working Canadians. I do not believe that is the case and that is why I will be opting out.

I did not get into politics for the retirement plan. I came here to help change things for the better. Maybe that is idealistic of me but at least I will be true to my principles. When I look across the floor to my hon. colleagues, the vast majority of whom will accept this plan, I cannot help but wonder how they can look some of their constituents in the eye.

In my riding office I receive calls from seniors concerned about missing income security cheques. I receive calls from people on unemployment looking for work. I receive calls from people on disability pensions. These Canadians have a tough time making ends meet, even if their cheques are a few days late. That is how close to the line they are. Yet the government is asking taxpayers to toss almost four times as much as we do into our personal retirement funds.

How can my Liberal colleagues across the way opt into this generous pension plan and then turn to help their constituents with no shred of shame? I know I could not.

If the government had the best interests of Canadians at heart it would bring the MP pension plan into line with private pension schemes and demonstrate a real commitment to fiscal responsibility to ensure all Canadians will be able to retire in comfort.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will approach this issue in a slightly different way than my colleagues have. I thank the members opposite for providing an issue that will guarantee my re-election in Macleod.

As I campaigned this was a significant issue. I tried to figure out in my community why this had become so symbolic of what is wrong with government. I tried to figure out why this was a flash point for the public at home for me.

I found that during the campaign when the question was asked of all the members who were running in my area what they thought of the MP pension plan, the incumbent said nothing. The Liberal candidate said: "I will not take the plan". The NDP candidate said: "I will not take the plan". I found myself aligned with those two individuals.

I looked for a different way to say to those potential constituents of mine that I will not take the plan. I wrote in public a letter to my constituents: "I, Grant Hill, the Reform Party candidate for the Macleod riding, do hereby state that I strongly oppose the current MP pension plan. I will not accept this pension if I become eligible for it and I will do everything that I can do to reform the plan and make it fair".

Then I had the people of my constituency witness it. I went around to my public meetings. I am sure members opposite would like me to table this document. I am willing to do that.

[The Speaker]

The hon. member will have the floor when we resume debate. It being 2 p.m., we will now proceed to Statements by Members.

Winnipeg City Council

[Gar Knutson, Liberal, Elgin—Norfolk, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Winnipeg city council for its initiative in keeping 1,500 obsolete police revolvers from finding their way back on to the streets.

The city council was offered $115 per gun as a trade in allowance. However, this forward thinking municipal council chose to melt down these weapons because the manufacturer was to resell them to an American arm's dealer. One can only imagine how many of these would fall into the hands of irresponsible gun owners and how many tragedies would follow.

Because of the actions of this council I am convinced lives have been spared. Those who contribute $115 to Winnipeg's retire a gun scheme to help offset the lost revenue should also be commended.

This is an option that Canadians should be encouraging other municipalities to choose. Congratulations, Winnipeg.

Chechnya

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as a tribute to the people of Russia and the former USSR, who suffered over half of the human casualties of the second world war, the Prime Minister is participating today in Russia's last round of celebrations marking the 50th anniversary of the Nazis' capitulation.

Moscow has stated that it intends to pursue its military offensive in Chechnya as soon as the celebrations are over.

Instead of treating the Russian authorities with complacency, we hope that the Prime Minister will have the courage to publicly state Canada's opposition to this war and to vigorously protest the massacre of Chechens.

We hope that the Prime Minister will use some other means to get his message across than what he used in China, which was to discretely whisper it in the ear of his counterpart.

Treasury Board

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

Mr. Speaker, the deliberations of the government operations committee on contracting out have been hampered because annual contracting activity reports have not been approved for release by Treasury Board.

For two years Treasury Board has held up these reports even though they are required by Treasury Board's own guidelines. Responding to a question in the House, the minister promised these reports by the end of April. Now it is mid-May and the committee is still in the dark with no way of knowing the year to year status of government-wide contracting activities.

What will the report show about contracting out? What does the government have to hide? Where are these reports?

There are enough members of Treasury Board on Parliament Hill right here, right now to hold a short meeting and approve the release for these two documents. I call on the President of the Treasury Board to fulfill his promise by approving the annual contracting activity reports for release today, not as soon as possible, do it now.

Manitoba

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, May 12, 1870 marked the entry of Manitoba into Canadian Confederation which we celebrate this week.

Canada and Manitoba have since this union strengthened each other in politics, culture and social and economic prosperity.

We are known for our 100,000 lakes as much as we are known for the multicultural richness of our people, a microcosm of Canada. I am a proud Canadian; I am a proud Manitoban. It has been my privilege to call it home for the past 27 years. Our four sons have known no other home.

Many Manitobans have excelled in various fields of human endeavour in the history of our nation, including a former governor general and a former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Manitoba prides itself in being a member of the Canadian family. Please join me in wishing my home province a happy 125th birthday. Welcome to Manitoba.

National Nurses Week

[John Murphy, Liberal, Annapolis Valley—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am wearing a pin to honour Canada's 263,000 registered nurses during this, National Nurses Week. This year's

theme, "Your Families' Health-Nurses Make the Difference", will allow us to focus on the valuable contribution nurses make to the overall health of Canadians.

Nurses play a vital role in providing care and support for families while assisting them in making meaningful choices during challenging times. As well, nurses provide information and assistance in health promotion, illness prevention and during periods of illness and recovery.

I have spent 30 years in the public health field. I know firsthand the important role nurses play. I am therefore honoured to rise today to offer my thanks to all those individuals who chose nursing as a career. Through their efforts they truly make a positive impact on the health of Canadians.

V-E Day

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, 50 years have passed since the allied victory in Europe. That victory was, as we know by our cost, hard fought and dearly paid for. Canadians, united in the struggle for a better world, fought shoulder to shoulder with their brothers in arms to bring freedom and peace to Europe, almost broken on the wheel of war.

In my constituency of Huron-Bruce we have a strong Dutch community. Its people are proud to be Canadian and their energetic contribution to our community is a continuing and valued one.

They say, as we must echo, those years of horror must never be allowed to return. I know I speak for all of us when I say we must never forget what price was paid for freedom 50 years ago. In remembrance and in gratitude to those who gave all that was theirs to give, let us dedicate ourselves to working toward a better world for ourselves and those who follow us so that the sacrifice of those who have gone before may not have been in vain.

Minister Of Labour

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, desperately in need of francophone spokespersons for federalism in Quebec, the federal Liberals recruited a former minister from the Bourassa and Johnson governments.

Not even six months after her recruitment, the Minister of Labour has already done a brilliant job of assimilating the credo of the proponents of very centralized, orthodox federalism.

Yesterday, she abandoned Quebec's minimum demand, recognition as a distinct society. In the same breath, she forgot all of the years she spent defending the five minimum conditions set in Meech, promoting the Allaire report and fighting the federal government's infringement on areas of provincial jurisdiction as a member of the Liberal Party in Quebec.

It is regrettable that the Minister of Labour's political ambitions have made her betray the convictions she had up until her arrival in Ottawa.

John Black Aird

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Ontario and indeed all of Canada has lost a distinguished and dedicated Canadian with the passing of John Black Aird.

Mr. Aird served his country extremely well in several ways over a number of years. During the war he served as a lieutenant in the Canadian navy. After serving in the Senate for 10 years, from 1964 to 1974, he served as Lieutenant Governor of Ontario from 1980 to 1985. In both of these positions he gained the respect and admiration of all those he worked with.

His caring and concern for Canadians was vividly demonstrated when as lieutenant governor he devoted much of his time to helping the disabled.

John Black Aird served his country well; a fine role model to all who hold public office. Canada has lost a statesman and we share this loss with his family.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Members Of Parliament Pensions

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

Mr. Speaker, I offer my congratulations to the Saskatchewan NDP government for its initiative on capping MLA pensions and abolishing the premier's pension bonus.

The Saskatchewan NDP has set an example for the Liberal government to follow. I challenge the Liberals to abolish the special bonus pension for the Prime Minister which totals $50,000.

The Saskatchewan NDP has proven its commitment to fiscal responsibility and fairness with a money purchase pension plan for MLAs that has been in place for 16 years.

Unfortunately the Liberal government did the absolute minimum in addressing the concerns of Canadians with respect to MP pensions. The government did just enough to make the pension issue go away. However, it is an improvement over the Reform Party idea of doubling MP salaries.

Unlike the Reform Party, New Democrats have respected the concerns of taxpayers by keeping both salaries and pensions in check. This is an issue on which the Reformers and Liberals

come together in their race to the trough. They are taking different routes but end up in the same place.