Mr. Speaker, I have followed the debate today with great interest. I thank my colleagues for strongly debating Bill C-85 and the massive problems with it.
I also thank my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois who rose to speak to the bill. He actually made a number of very good points. Of course there were a couple of points with which I would vigorously disagree. However, I thank my colleague from the Bloc for indicating that we are in fiscal trouble in this country and that we do need to see a more responsible approach to economic concerns by the government, which is something we have not seen.
I rise today to again debate Bill C-85. This bill would be more appropriately entitled: "an act to make minimal changes to the gold plated MP pension plan". It is clearly a case of the government not being honest with the Canadian public. Its overblown pension scheme is nothing more than a back door way of increasing MPs' remuneration. It would rather do it through the back door with fat pensions and hope that the public will not notice or kick up a fuss.
I do not understand why this government is fighting so hard to hang on to its ridiculous pension. Other jurisdictions have come to grips with reality and have done the responsible thing: they have reduced or even eliminated their members' pensions.
The province of Alberta completely eliminated the pension plan for its MLAs as there was such public hostility to the very rich compensation plan.
In the past week or two, in my home province of Saskatchewan, Premier Roy Romanow announced a major reduction in pension levels for MLAs, including himself. That was done in an attempt to help his cause in the upcoming provincial election. He has eliminated the taxpayer ripoff and is instituting a matching dollar for dollar pension system for MLAs. It seems that Saskatchewan can set up a pension system with a ratio of one to one but 3.6:1 is the best this government can do.
This is a Liberal government and that is a socialist government. I have heard members opposite talk about how terrible these socialist governments are. I certainly am not a socialist. I never was and I do not intend to become one. However, it is quite revealing when even a socialist government in Saskatchewan comes forward with a more responsible pension plan for its MLAs than this government brings forward for members of Parliament.
What the public objects to is the fact that the pension plan for MPs is not only out of line with other pension plans, but it would be illegal if it were not specially protected by Parliament. The same government that wants to continue the fat cat pension would prosecute any private firm which set up a similar plan. How is that for two-tier irony?
Reformers on this side of the House have long said that members of Parliament should not be treated better than other Canadians. Bill C-85 does not bring the compensation package for MPs any closer to private sector levels. Rather, it underscores and reinforces the differences between private Canadians and members of Parliament.
This is, after all, the House of Commons where ordinary Canadians are to come together and govern themselves. It is not the House of Lords, to be filled with aristocracy. I always have trouble with that word, probably because I do not fit in that class. It is not an exclusive club reserved for the privileged, even though the Liberals like to treat it as one. Members of Parliament have the means to provide for their own retirement and they should do that, the same as many Canadians have to do.
Not being part of the aristocracy, I was a self-employed farmer before the election. Being a self-employed farmer, I had to make arrangements for my future retirement. The only pension plan available to me as a farmer was the CPP, which I may speak about later if I have time.
Canadians want to move toward the next century with enthusiasm. They want the government to be in touch with reality. Government members have forgotten that it is Canadians they are here to represent. Canadians want the government to reflect society's progress into the future. They do not want to be dragged back a few decades.
The Liberals are unwilling or unable to come up with new plans and structures suitable for the Canadian society of today. The only new thing this government has come up with is new taxes. It seems to think the role of government is to invent new ways to take money out of the economy to support old govern-
ment programs that are out of date and not living up to our expectations, including an outrageous pension plan.
The government's refusal to really change the MP pension plan is a good example of this resistance to the kind of change Canadians are demanding. When compared with the massive problems with the state of our government, the MP pension plan may not seem like a big deal. However, if the government cannot solve a simple problem like this when the solution is so clear, when do we have any hope it will be able to deal with the big questions facing our country?
Plain old common sense says that if we take care of the little things the big things will take care of themselves. The government is failing on the smaller issues, particularly these issues of principle. It is no wonder it is way off base when it comes to the larger problems facing our country.
The issue of early retirement has not been adequately addressed. In the private sector if someone takes early retirement, benefit levels are lower for each additional year they draw from the plan. Private sector pensions do this because they believe in being actuarially sound, a concept that seems to be foreign to this government.
The total national and provincial debt exceeds 100 per cent of our GDP. Government programs like the Canada pension plan are threatening to collapse because of the hundreds of billions of dollars in unfunded liability. The Liberals have never done anything on an actuarial basis, but it is high time they started. They do not even know how to balance the books. They never have and I am becoming convinced they never will. It seems only Reformers have the knowledge of how to balance the books.
How can this government and the Trudeau and Mulroney administrations before it explain to Canadians that they have ruined CPP, the people's pension plan? They have ruined it, thereby jeopardizing the retirement plans of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Canadians. At the same time the government worked hard to protect and preserve the MP pension plan. It is purely self-interest and nothing more.
The Liberal government is putting its own interests ahead of the country. Its members are selfish. As the member for Macleod so aptly said, they should be described as hypo-grits. That is one of the best descriptions I have heard in days.
The pensions being drawn by some past members have been brought to the attention of the House. Massive, luxurious pensions are being given to Perrin Beatty, Ed Broadbent, Joe Clark, Brian Mulroney and John Turner. It is interesting that John Turner moonlighted while he was here. Not only did he collect his MP salary, but he was in business. He was never in this place. He collected two salaries. Now he leaves this place and he collects a fat pension. Where is the responsibility? Why do we not start designing programs that are fair and reasonable, not this kind of nonsense. Mazankowski, Wilson, they are all receiving their fat pensions.
Future recipients will be the member for Yukon, the member for Hamilton East, the member for Halifax, the member for York South-Weston and York West. Where will this money come from?
It will come out of the pockets of fishermen with lower incomes or perhaps no income at all because there are no fish. It will come out of the pockets of farmers who are paying higher grain transportation costs. It will come out of the pockets of salesmen who are paying an extra 1.5 cents a litre gasoline tax. The money will come from the pockets of small business people. It will come from the pockets of retired folk who are paying for this luxurious pension plan.
I am sick and tired of the whining from the members opposite about how tough it is for retired MPs. I just received a notice from Gowling, Strathy and Henderson in my mail. It is pleased to announce that the Right Hon. Ramon J. Hnatyshyn has rejoined the firm as a partner. They are having a little party to celebrate that and would like me to come. I think I will pass up on the invitation.
In this so-called pension reform the government has refused to stray too far from the old cushy system in this plan. It is reticent to cut off its own gravy train no matter what the public thinks about it. Despite the fact that the Canadian public disapproves of the MP pension plan, the government is unwilling to significantly change it.
I ask the member for Kingston and the Islands to listen. The Liberal frontbenchers are like alcoholics who have tasted the booze and want a generous supply. They cannot control it. They are pension addicts. To them public money is like alcohol, one dollar is too much and a billion is never enough.
The Liberals should do the honourable thing and go cold turkey. They should opt out of this plan. They want to make their backbenchers pensionaholics too, just like they are so that they can all cry in their beer together. They have to have trough regular or trough lite. They are addicted to the pension and cannot walk away from it.
Bill C-85 fails to deliver on effective pension reforms in two ways. It fails to bring the MP pensions in line with the private sector plans available to most Canadians. More important, it fails to bring MP pensions in line with what Canadians are
willing to provide for members of Parliament. We cannot lose sight of the fact that we work for the Canadian public.
I will be opting out of the pension plan. I want to represent the wishes of my constituents in this matter. They have told me in no uncertain terms that the MP pension plan is totally out of line.
I did a survey in my riding and 97 per cent of the respondents said that the MP pension plan is irresponsible and they would like me to have nothing to do with it. I want to do the right thing. I am proud to opt out of this thing. I would much rather take less income and have no pension when I leave this place than do the wrong thing and be an embarrassment to my constituents and my country.