Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your encouraging the people to hear my words because I do speak them sincerely and hope they fall on sympathetic and understanding ears.
When I came here I was very sad to see the MP pension plan, knowing also the public perception of it as being excessive. There were many different terms used to describe it. The words obscene and excessive are often used. Being a mathematician I did some work on the MP pension plan from a mathematical, actuarial point of view. It was with great regret.
I am a family man with a wife and children. I am getting old; not very old, I am still young and energetic in thought. I am approaching that age when I need to think seriously of my pension. My wife was always a full time mom and so we have always lived on my income. The pension plan I had where I worked before accrued at the rate of 2 per cent per year. In terms of a possible pension benefit that means when I reach the age of 65 my deferred pension from my previous institute will give me 54 per cent of my best years in that place, which means I will get a pension of approximately $30,000 per year.
So there is no question as to whether I am double dipping, I am not now receiving a pension. I will be receiving it as a deferred pension when I reach age 65. Those are the rules. Had I not come here I would have reached my full pensionable age at 61 and I would have had 70 per cent by then.
However, having left my other employment I no longer am able to accrue pension benefits there. I came here and realized immediately I could not with integrity face the electors who elected me and participate in this pension plan.
At the time of our election in the fall of 1993 when I went to do all of the book work and fill in all the forms that we had to do as new employees of the House, I asked if I could opt out of the pension plan. I was told by a very kind person I could not because it was controlled by legislation and until the law was changed I had no choice.
Therefore, against my wishes I was registered into the MPs pension plan. I was being forced to pay into the plan approximately $590 per month. I do not object to paying $590 per month as long as I receive a fair pension on retirement, but there is a real problem with that pension plan because not only do I put in $590 a month but presumably the employers, in our case the taxpayers of Canada almost directly, are matching it.
What is wrong is this pension plan permits me as a member of Parliament to accrue pension benefits at a rate not available to other Canadians. The Income Tax Act does not permit the rate of accrual even if the person is willing to make those payments into a registered pension plan at that rate.
However, and this is critical, in the Income Tax Act self-employed persons have higher limits for RRSPs. If we as members of Parliament were able to get out of the MP pension plan and put our investment into an RRSP like other Canadians with the same rules and limits we would be able to provide for ourselves a pension which would surely be adequate.
I have observed most people who serve in the House do so at mid-age as opposed to an early age. There are some young members here and I commend them for their early entry into the parliamentary process. Most already have RRSPs or other pension plans started. They will not be dependent totally on their earnings from the House of Commons.
It seemed to me very unfortunate the pension plan here was inadequate because I would like to have finished my pensionable years either by staying at my other place of employment or by being able to do a comparable program here so that the two of them tied together would give me a reasonable pension and look after my needs as I enter those years of non-productive work, although for me hopefully that will be many years hence. That was not available. Hence we began to call strongly for the ability to opt out of the plan.
I want to address primarily and specifically that aspect of the plan. I do not know what words to use because I do not want to be unkind. I saw the proposal in Bill C-85 on the retirement allowances act for members of Parliament a one time provision which states that after it is brought into force all members will
have 60 days in which to indicate their willingness to continue in the plan, which is simply a spin on allowing opting out.
I thought this was particularly politically vindictive. There are people on this side the House elected by the electors who have as much respect for them as every Liberal elected to the House. I promise that. Those people are now being told: "You do not have the same rights and benefits as others. We will give you back your money and you will have to pay taxes on it". They are basically saying those of us who want to stand on principle will pay a very high price.
I am not backing down. I am doing this on a matter of principle. Frankly, my Reform colleagues and I are taking a tremendous economic hit on this. We are doing it on principle because it is right. We understand we will receive a little interest. Meanwhile members not opting out are telling the public their service here, as far as the pension portion is concerned, is worth two and half times as much or more.
When we calculate this we find if we were to make even reasonable assumptions on interest rates and inflation it would require an additional deposit of about $2,500 per month per member in order to provide the kind of pension these people are asking for. Clearly it is a vindictive, very malicious attack on those who want to stand on principle. I object strongly.
The rules of the House should apply equally to everyone. The fault of the government is that it divides people by saying some are in this class, some are in that class and some are in another class. Consequently there is an increasing amount of rancour and bitterness which could be avoided if we were fair with each other.
I am sorry my time has expired. I would like to speak for another half hour given permission. Should I ask for unanimous consent?