Debates of May 9th, 1995

Points Of Order

[The Speaker]

We have a withdrawal. Remember, tomorrow is Wednesday.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-85, an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and to provide for the continuation of a certain provision, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and on the motion that the question be now put.

Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member has six minutes remaining in his intervention.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will reflect on the position I took in my town hall meetings. I signed a document in front of my constituents saying that I would not accept the current MP pension. Those witnesses signed as well. I found that to be a different way to handle this issue rather than a tired old promise about the MP pension plan.

I was lucky enough, and some would not consider it so, to be elected to this position. I went to the department of supply and services my very first day here and said that I did not want to take part in the MP pension plan. I told the young man that I had made a promise to my constituents. The MP pension plan was not fair and I wanted to withdraw from it. He told me I was crazy, that it was a lot of loot. I agreed that it was a lot of loot, but asked how I could withdraw. He told me I could not withdraw. I did not want to participate so I asked him what I should do. He said that the money would be taken from me, but I could sign a document saying that I would not participate in the MP pension plan.

That is what I did. I wrote down that I did not wish to accept the MP pension plan and asked that the contribution not be taken off my paycheque. The young fellow told me that I was the first MP in Canadian history to withdraw from the MP pension plan.

I reflected on his comment that I was crazy, that it was a lot of loot. Why would a sensible person in my position withdraw from the MP pension plan? Am I a bit loony? Am I independently wealthy? Can I say this is insignificant to me?

In my lifetime I have raised seven children on one income. In 25 years of practice in medicine I have saved $80,000 toward my retirement by putting money into RRSPs. That money is the only money I will draw when I retire. I need a pension.

I asked my constituents: Do you think that an MP should get a pension? Universally they said you bet, but all it needs is to be fair. When I asked what they considered to be fair, they simply said: "You put up a buck and we will put up a buck. It goes in the pot and when the pot is empty you are done". That is what Reformers are asking for.

I ask my Liberal colleagues in their caucus meetings to think about the discussion which took place on this issue. New members of Parliament faced people on their doorsteps as I did. There are 100 brand new Liberals who know they are wrong on the MP pension issue.

This is not a partisan issue. It is an issue that reflects integrity. Why has government lost integrity? I have gone over statements that were made over the last 15 years, back to 1976, concerning the budget. "Now that the recovery is well established and private spending is rising, it is equally appropriate these record deficits should recede". That was a statement by Donald Macdonald.

Michael Wilson: "When the government came to office we encountered a debt problem of massive proportions. The buck was passed to us. Well, the buck stops here". On we go to Don Mazankowski: "We will substantially reduce the deficit". All the while the deficit was climbing, going to the ceiling. Finally, we get to the government of today which says exactly the same thing.

Is there integrity in these Chambers? We are told that MPs will be eligible for pension at age 55. I got my calculator out and calculated the average age of MPs in the House. It is 49.4 years. Think of it. We will not have to wait long.

I went home and asked the people in my riding, the butcher in Pincher Creek, the pharmacist in Blairmore, the grain farmer in Vulcan, the housewife in Fort Macleod, the retired doctor in Claresholm, the stockman in Nanton, the nurse in High River, the barber in Okotoks, the teacher in Bragg Creek, the elder on the Siksika Nation: What do you think of the newly reformed pension plan. They replied this pension plan is wrong.

I started my intervention today by saying I wanted to thank the Liberals opposite, and I do. I want to thank them for giving me the opportunity of telling my constituents that if I choose, I can run in Macleod for the rest of my days on this issue alone. I have been given the platform that tells people there is integrity in some parts of the House of Commons.

As I did for the pension plan when I arrived, I will be withdrawing my name from this pension plan, as will my colleagues. I wish to say loudly and clearly to the House that I would like a fair pension. I would like to be able to look my constituents in the eye and say: "You put up a dollar for me and I will put up a dollar which will go toward my retirement". That is fair, that is just, that is equitable, that is proper. I will not take this pension plan.

In every forum, think of it for the next election. Line up the candidates and ask whether they will take the MP pension plan. As was said when I campaigned: "Oh, no". There is a group who will not take this pension plan but will reform it. How will they reform it? With 100 more Reformers here, a transmission across the floor and then the MP pension plan will be reformed and reformed properly.

Once again, thanks to Liberal strategists, thanks to senior cabinet ministers, thanks to the class of '88, thanks to all those who did not listen to the new Liberals, thanks to the old time politicians and thanks to the Bloc for making Reformers the only individuals in this Parliament with integrity on this issue. Thank you very much.

[Vic Althouse, NDP, Mackenzie, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on questions and comments, I share something in common with the previous speaker. Having served more than 15 years in this House, the legislation before us does not affect me either. It does not affect him because he has not earned a pension. It does not affect me because I have already earned one and this law is not retroactive and does not take away property and contributions we have already acquired.

I note with some interest that his constituents have told him they will accept a pension plan where the government adds one dollar, as the employer I suppose, to every dollar that MPs put into the pension plan. I have done some of the calculations.

In my own case over 15 years, had the government contributed dollar for dollar to my contributions and had we been able to earn the kind of interest that is available through RRSPs, the accumulated value of those funds at 8 per cent would have been more than enough for me to have taken the equivalent to what I

am going to be getting if and when I retire at the maximum amount forever. When I died my estate would still get the bulk of the money.

That is with the kind of contributions that were made in the past 15 or 16 years. The only difference is that the government has not been contributing one dollar each year. Its contributions have had to come willy-nilly whenever the fund runs dry.

The other factor that most of the public and certainly my friends in the Reform Party seem to be missing is that the program we were all forced into when we became members a long time ago pays for the use of the funds that we have contributed. They go essentially to the government to use and spend as it chooses. At the end of each year, it allocates 4 per cent simple interest for the use of those funds. The funds have not been earning market rates of interest. Our pension deductions have been used to subsidize the operation of government.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

We have to pay tax on the 7 per cent.

[Vic Althouse, NDP, Mackenzie, SK]

Yes and when we start to collect pension afterward, anyone who collects the pension will be paying tax on it as the money comes back. When we pay into the RRSP we do not pay taxes either and that is the other option available.

I understand from the hon. member who just spoke that his constituents told him they would accept a pension where the member puts in a dollar which is matched by the government and is treated like an RRSP. The point I am making to the House is had that option been open to older members such as myself when we came here, we would have such a large fund accumulated that we could take money out at 8 per cent and we would be taking a larger pension than we will now be getting under this fund.

Our pension contributions have been used to subsidize the operations of government, and I think it is not unfair for government in those few cases, when those members retire, to make up for the fact that it got very cheap money at 4 per cent simple interest over all those years of contribution.

I think we are saying virtually the same thing. I am in agreement with the constituents my hon. friend just mentioned. Had we had that option open to us, those of us who have served 15 or more years would have had a bigger pool of money than using the current fund. The proposition he is offering is actually a richer form of supplementing people who have served in the House of Commons than the old system, and there is leftover money in the fund, which becomes the property of the retired member and becomes the property of his heirs and successors after him.

I can understand the proposal that is being put forward by members of the Reform Party. It is a very good proposal, because it leaves long-term members more money and it leaves a fund for their heirs and successors, which the current fund does not.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I believe that the hon. member for Mackenzie said he was rising on questions and comments. If he did, that would indicate that he thought we were in 20-minute speeches. In fact we are in 10-minute speeches, so the House will treat his questions or comments as being an intervention.

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Lisgar—Marquette, MB]

Mr. Speaker, being a farmer, I always say that a bin of grain is a bin of grain. When I see a pension of $5 million, it is $5 million. It amazes me: one member says that if we only put in a dollar we get it and another member says that if we put in five or six we will get that. What mathematics are correct?

I have known a lot of business people and I have known a lot of farmers, and for some reason I have not been able to find those guys with $5 million pensions. Where are they hiding?

It is a pleasure to address this bill. I also like to remind the members across the way that during the election campaign one of the main issues was that of MP pensions. Canadians clearly voiced their opposition to overly generous pensions. They were seen as yet another example of the greed and the self-serving interests of the government of the day. We heard so much about Mr. Beatty's pension during that time, and a few others, and the Liberals kept reminding us of those pensions. Now they have all of a sudden forgotten about that. Maybe we need another election.

Even when the Liberals realized that their pensions were glorified, they kept harping on them. It reminds me a little of a Fordson Major tractor: when you had to start that thing you had to really turn the crank, because if it was turned halfway it would backfire and break your arm. I think it held the record for broken arms.

When I looked at the recent Manitoba election, there were at least two broken arms on every Liberal. It was the gun registration and the pension plan that left them with a little toehold of Liberal policy in Manitoba. I would like to emphasize that they should remember that taxpayers do have a vote. So far we still have that opportunity.

The bill establishes a minimum age of 55 for eligibility and it eliminates double dipping. Hurray. That is what we wanted. That is a good point, but it does not do the whole job. While the age limit has been increased, the interest on this well funded plan keeps multiplying. When I look at the calculations, I think it is something like a 10 per cent decrease if it is calculated out to the final end.

When I look at some of the people and the cuts they have taken, especially in western Canada, when I look at the WGTA and some of these things, 10 per cent is minimum. I do not know how I am supposed to convince my farmer friends, when 48 per cent of their income is coming from off farm jobs, that we politicians need a $5 million pension. That disturbs me, really.

I heard the previous speaker admonish us to be reasonable and to address issues the way they should be addressed. We keep badgering each other about this pension plan and will not do anything about it. That bothers me.

A 10 per cent cut over all the time that we debated this issue is not enough. When I look at the problems we have in the farm community, when I look at the problems we have in the undernourished children in our schools and certain places, how can I justify this?

It is up to us MPs to finally buckle down and make some decisions. I was very impressed with the students we have had over the last couple of weeks under the forum for young Canadians and how well informed these people are, how they have started looking at the issues of the day. I was impressed by one of the students when she said: "Mr. Hoeppner, we are prepared to take the cuts. We are prepared to take a lower standard of living if you somehow give us the opportunity to get our feet on the ground to do it."

If I look at the situation today, if we do not make those tough decisions and bring that deficit down to zero, these students will not have the opportunity to do what they know they should be doing. It is up to us to give these students that opportunity. If we do not, history will record us as those MPs who did not have the willpower, who did not take the opportunity they had to pass on the torch to future generations so that they could at least do what has to be done.

When I look at the past 25 years of government operations and see $550 billion passed onto the backs of future generations, I am sick when I even think of this pension plan. It is disgusting that we have to debate it even, that we cannot take the necessary steps to make it honest and to make it accountable. If we do not, we will be held accountable. We cannot pass that blame on to anybody else. It is imperative that we make this decision, that we do not pass on criticism continually.

When I heard the hon. member the other day mentioning that we as Reformers were now brainwashing teachers and that students were writing him letters about this gold plated pension plan, I said maybe there is hope. I will take that responsibility for having that effect, if we are creating it. It is a must. It is a must not because we want to be put on a level playing field, but it is a must that we preserve this country. This country is too great to let it hit the wall. I have seen countries that have done it, and I do not want to have the consequences.

When I look today at the Mexican situation, it looked so bright just a year ago and then all of a sudden, because of a few bad political mistakes, boom, it hit the wall. What is happening today? When one looks at Chiapas today, its people are getting restless. I hate to think even of what would happen if they start revolting.

I again urge members in the House to make the decision. Let us not fool around. Let us not badger each other. We know that $5 million for a pension plan is too much today.

In the future, some day when we get the country back to the prosperity it should have, maybe it is attainable. Let the future generations do it because they will have to cope with $5.5 billion of debt, which they had absolutely nothing to do with.

We should give them that opportunity to use their expertise, to use their enthusiasm, and not try to squash that. If we as members in this House do not react to their request, we are going to be recorded in history as being the ones who squashed their incentive, their initiative. I think we deserve to do that much in the House.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on the motion before us today to move this bill one further step along the way.

The hon. government whip this morning called for the question to be put in order to move this bill on to committee. I think that is a wonderful idea. When this bill goes to committee, we will be calling witnesses to find out what they think of this bill. If we are to call in interested people regarding this bill, every taxpayer in the country deserves to be heard with their opinion on this bill. Bring them in, bring them all in.

The Reform Party would be quite willing in this particular situation to approve a travel budget for this committee to go right across the country to find out what taxpayers think of this bill. All taxpayers have an interest in this bill, not just the ones around here, not the special interest groups we normally hear from, but the taxpayers, each and every one of them, those who have to squeak by and eke out a meagre income and yet pay taxes for us, as well the rich and the famous who do not mind paying their taxes, but even the small individual Canadians who have to be squeezed by Revenue Canada to get that last nickel out of them.

We have heard how the Minister of National Revenue has said that they are going to be aggressive to ensure that tax collection policies collect the taxes owing. We expect these people to pay the taxes while we sit in the lap of luxury for the rest of lives. These are the people we should be hearing from. They want to be heard.

That is why I think this committee should travel right across the country and stop at every little town, village, and city along the way to find out if there is a consensus for the government's policies it has brought in on this particular bill, if there is a consensus in the country to support what it is trying to do. I very much doubt it. I do not think there is any consensus whatsoever. In fact if there is any consensus it is in total and absolute opposition to this bill introduced by the government.

I think the motion today is quite appropriate, that we move on to the committee stage. Let Canadians speak. Let them be heard. We have talked for days in this House on this particular subject. There has been acrimony and animosity. Let us find out what Canadians, the rank and file, really think about this subject. I am quite sure that they support the Reform Party's position, which is if you want a pension let it be reasonable.

According to the Deputy Prime Minister, we have made such great sacrifices. I said before, show me one person in the House who has been dragged in here kicking and screaming to serve. I do not think there is one, not one. Therefore there is no sacrifice. Everyone who sits in this House is here because they want to be in the House. That is the reality of it all. It is not the idea that we have served so much and we have given so much that we are entitled to live in the lap of luxury at the taxpayer's expense for the rest of our lives. That is not defensible in this day and age. The previous speaker talked about how he would not want this wonderful country to hit the wall. Neither would I. We all know that is a possibility.

We are standing here today debating a bill that will make legislators rich for the rest of their lives. A few weeks ago we debated a budget and looked at the very real consequences and possibilities of the country hitting the wall. Future generations will ask: "Where were they when we hit the wall?" I will tell the House where we are. We are debating how we can keep ourselves rich.

[An hon. member]

How we can protect ourselves.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

How we can protect ourselves so that everybody else who has no say in the House except through us will have to depend on the decisions made in the House.

The economy will rise or fall based on the decisions made in the House. We will or will not hit the wall based on the decisions made in the House, but we will look after ourselves. We will be all right, Jack. They will point the finger at us and say: "We elected you to run the country on our behalf. We wanted responsible government. We wanted honest government. We wanted a government that would provide jobs for us, education for us and a future for our children". That is why we are here. What have we done? We brought in Bill C-85 that will let us be rich for the rest of our lives.

This brings to mind a famous French queen who said: "Let them eat cake". We will be eating cake while we expect everybody else to get out there to try to find a job that will pay them an income so that one bread winner can go out to work and the other spouse can stay at home to raise a family. We do not even see that in Canadian any more. Jobs of that kind are few and far between. Yet there are MPs in the House who expect to retire in the lap of luxury and without having to work. Prior to the introduction of the bill there was one member who would have received $70,000-odd a year. I believe that continues to apply in some cases.

At age 55, without having to work, they will be able to live the rest of their lives in the lap of luxury without having to produce a single thing while Canadians will have to work hard, slave hard, do without and pay more taxes for us. I cannot justify it. I do not think any one of my Reform colleagues could justify it. They have spoken one after the other, saying they will not take the pension.

I will not take the pension. I cannot go back to St. Albert, stand before my constituents and say I will opt in, thank you very much, I appreciate the money. When they are in my office saying that they have no jobs, what am I supposed to say?

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

Let them eat cake.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

No, I cannot say that because my responsibility is to lead, to govern and to represent the people of St. Albert. I do not think they sent me down here to vote for this kind of largess for myself at their expense.

The last budget told us that 45,000 civil servants with families and children would be laid off. Their careers have come to a full stop. Some of them are young and perhaps can get started again. Some are middle aged and some are looking at retirement not that far away. They say: "I had a career. I worked hard. I made my contribution to the country. I have earned my salary. I have made my pension contributions". The pension they can expect is a lot less than half of what we can expect. They made their pension contributions and all of a sudden the curtain came down and that was the end of it: "Thank you very much. We do not need you any more. You are out on the street and you can look for a job".

Where are the jobs? Where are they? Surely it is the responsibility of the House to provide jobs and they are not there. There will be 45,000 people with families on UI with their self-esteem destroyed and with their careers in tatters and ruins, and we are debating Bill C-85 to make ourselves rich.

I have a very serious problem with Bill C-85. I have a very serious problem with members of the government who stand to say how greatly we have sacrificed and how much we have given to the country. There are tens of thousands of unspoken, unnamed Canadians out there who are giving every bit as much, even more than we are.

The recognition they get is a Canada pension plan that perhaps may not even have any money in it to provide any kind of pension for them when they retire. We are now talking about elevating the age from 65 to 67 while for ourselves it is 55. Surely the double standard should cease. That is what we are saying. The double standard between those who legislate and those who are legislated has to cease. Why do we not start right here with Bill C-85, have it withdrawn completely and bring it back with a reasonable pension?

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to note that virtually the only people speaking to the issue are the people from the Reform Party. It is particularly interesting to note because a debate implies there are two sides: the good side and the bad side or the up side and the down side. In this case it is interesting that virtually none of the Liberal members of Parliament are prepared to stand in an attempt to defend this pension plan.

It is also instructive to take a look at what else is happening in the country in legislatures. I think of the B.C. Liberal leader. I will quickly read a news release that was put out under his name on April 22:

B.C. Liberal Leader Gordon Campbell announced today that pensions for Members of the Legislature will be eliminated under a B.C. Liberal government.

Campbell said it's time to put an end to the special pension and tax privileges that have traditionally been given to MLAs in British Columbia. "Elected officials should be treated no differently than any other British Columbian when it comes to receiving pension benefits from taxpayers. The MLA pension is not appropriate for a job that is based on an elected term of five years".

"Most people believe MLAs deserve fair and appropriate compensation. To ensure that happens an independent commission should be established", said Campbell. "There should be a single standard for all people of this province with MLAs paying the same taxes and having the same choices as other British Columbians".

Under the current system an MLA can receive a monthly pension if the member has served for seven years or more or has served in more than two Legislative Assemblies. "We don't want to penalize people for running for public office but we also do not believe there should be special perks".

This is interesting because Mr. Campbell is a Liberal. I have always felt that a Liberal is a Liberal is a Liberal. He spoke of the old style Liberal politicians that seem to inhabit this place.

Campbell said that old style politicians set up systems that have isolated them from the realities that British Columbians face on a daily basis. "That's why B.C. Liberals say no special pensions and no special tax benefits for MLAs".

I wonder what happens when members like the member for Vancouver Quadra or the member for Vancouver Centre or the member for Victoria, a cabinet minister, manage to get across the mountains from British Columbia. Is there a change in the water in Ottawa? Is there a change in the smog in Ottawa? What is it that makes the difference for members who come from Vancouver and Victoria, British Columbia? What happens when they arrive in Ottawa that suddenly they seem to be in absolute total contradiction to the leader of the B.C. Liberal Party or the Leader of the Opposition.

It is not just British Columbians who seem to have this gross failure of understanding, some kind of a short circuit somewhere. It would seem as though the Ontario Liberals, currently seeking a mandate for their members of the provincial Parliament, have seen the light. For some reason it seems to completely elude the comprehension of the people who bear the Liberal stripe and come to the House.

There is a major difference between the federal and Ontario Liberal proposals. The difference is a defined contribution plan versus a defined benefit plan. These people are calling for a defined benefit plan so that the Canadian taxpayer will be on the hook and continue to pay and pay and pay for members no matter what happens. That is a defined benefit plan.

The Ontario Liberals are calling for a defined contribution plan, which is precisely what the federal Reform Party is asking for. We are simply saying that we should be going to a growing industry standard, which is matching dollar for dollar. In a defined benefit plan, if the employer and employee contributions plus plan investment performance do not match the promise made by the employer, the employer has an unfunded pension liability.

That leads me to members who were in the House in a previous Parliament. Some of them are currently in the House. Politicians were telling Canadians that there was no problem, that their porky pension plan was taken care of. Lo and behold, a few years ago Canadians were suddenly told: "Oops, we made a small $110 million mistake. Isn't that too bad? We will make sure we are properly funded. We will just take $110 million for ourselves from general revenues".

Although that was supposed to have resolved the situation, the following year they had to take another number in the tens of millions of dollars from the poor, hard working, overburdened, much shackled taxpayer. This is absolutely unconscionable.

I ask again as I did at the start of my address why it is, if federal Liberals are right and we are wrong, that we have virtually zero participation by Liberal members of the House in

the issue. Why is it that we have put up tens and tens of speakers out of our 52, whereas they have only put up a handful on the issue?

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

We are opting out and they are not.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

That could be. We are opting out and they are not. Maybe that says something.

There has been a lot of talk about what is fair for an ordinary Canadian to be able to come to the House of Commons. I think of myself as a relatively ordinary Canadian with a mortgage and a couple of used cars. I live off the salary I achieve through my work in the House of Commons. I am not independently wealthy. By opting out, the government has seen to it that I and the rest of the Reform Party members who are to opt out in good conscience will be personally severely disadvantaged financially.

It is punitive. All we are asking in very simple terms is a defined contribution on the part of the employer, namely the people of Canada, a matching of $1 for $1. Instead of that, the government is saying: "Either you come in and share the booty, get in on this $3.50 contribution for every $1 that you put in and become a millionaire at the expense of Canadian taxpayers or you are out without anything. You get no matching funds. You get no matching contribution".

I find it exceptionally ironic that members opposite will frequently speak up and say that we are taking some kind of advantage, that we are trying to take some kind of political gain. This is not a case of political gain. This has to do with a commitment to the Canadian people on the part of Reform politicians that we would listen to them in the same way that the Liberal leader in the province of British Columbia and the Liberal leader in the province of Ontario have clearly listened to the people of their provinces.

Justice must be done in this case. Justice is the exposure of this obscene plan that the Liberals are trying to perpetrate on the people of Canada. Let us take a quick look at how they managed to bring the legislation into the House.

A couple of Fridays ago there was the Progressive Conservative wake in Hull. Knowing that some people would be turning up at that thing, the Liberals chose that day to introduce their legislation. It was a Friday afternoon. If the Liberals really thought this legislation was worthwhile and would be accepted by the Canadian people, why would they try to get it into the House in the quietest possible manner when there might possibly be a diversion across the river?

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

They are ashamed of it.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

That could be. Maybe they are ashamed of it.

Let us look at the events of last Thursday. We came to the House to debate. Again, there are up sides and down sides. There is good and there is bad. That is what debate is all about.

We rose to speak in the debate. One or two Liberals ended up speaking rather sheepishly about it. Near the end of the day they pulled a bit of a prank. They decided we would be able to debate this all night long if we wanted to. They knew full well that what they were doing-the people of Canada must understand this-was getting the bill into and out of the House so fast it would make a lightning bolt look slow. They wanted to slide the bill through so quickly that there was no way that anybody would see the blur going by.

It makes me think of the little mouse that I had under the seat of my car one time. I could hear a little rustle when I was driving along at night. When I stopped I would still hear the rustling going on. I turned on the light and could see a little brown blur. Then it would disappear.

That is what the Liberals were trying to do with this legislation, get it out of the light of the parliamentary channel, the light of this process so that Canadians would not realize that once again the Liberals had done it to them.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

We are giving you all kinds of time to explain.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay East, BC]

I will explain it further to the people.

The Reform Party found a procedural way around it and the whip really went rather ballistic on Thursday night. It was something to see.

We are exposing the bill to the Canadian people. I for one would vote for millions of dollars of travel so that the parliamentary committee could take this bill around Canada and expose it to Canadians. The government would then be able to see what the people of Canada really think of this legislation.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I do not mind admitting that on election night in October 1993 my family and I were thrilled and proud that I would be coming to this place. Now when strangers on aeroplanes ask me the inevitable question: "What do you do?", I usually tell them, quite truthfully, that I am a farmer and a retired engineer. I do not ordinarily mention this aspect of my life unless the conversation turns to politics.

It is not entirely because of the obscene pension plan which we are debating today, although that is certainly a major part of it. I have stated publicly on many occasions that I will never be a party to this daylight robbery, so it is easy to dissociate myself

from the unrestrained greed which is going to be allowed to continue, with minor modifications, if Bill C-85 is passed in its present form.

It is no great honour to participate in a charade. My colleagues and I on both sides of the House know, and the public knows, that what we say about Bill C-85 or any other bill is of little consequence. A dozen or so people make the decisions and all of the debate in the world will not change those decisions.

Whenever I hear an articulate and well researched speech in this place I think: "My God, what a waste". If the argument had been presented at a rural municipal council meeting where the participants, working essentially without remuneration, actually make decisions, the speech would have had great value.

I look around me and I see less than a dozen members. We are outnumbered by the clerks, the stenographers, the translators and the pages who make this place work. Where are the spear carriers? Where is the chorus? They are not here because they know that their presence is not required. Three times during debate on this bill there have been quorum calls. The reason is clear.

Hon. members on both sides of the House know that it does not really matter what we do about it here or what we say about it here. Even if government backbenchers and members of the opposition were here in great numbers, the ministers, the people who we might wish to influence, are almost never here except for question period. Then we ask them questions which we know will not be answered and the ministers do what is expected of them: they do not answer. They and their parliamentary secretaries respond like naughty children. The atmosphere of this place rapidly degenerates to that of a zoo at feeding time. I have to admit that I am as guilty as anyone.

Does the role of straight man or straight woman to the inner cabinet really merit a pension worth anything from a few hundred thousand to millions of dollars? I doubt it. Does it merit a pension scheme four times richer than anything available in the private sector? I doubt it.

The most objectionable features of Bill C-85 have been thoroughly explored by my colleagues, but as far as I can recall nobody has yet referred to the fact that the bill is silent on the question of former members who are dipping into this particular goody bag.

With the Speaker's indulgence I will read a couple of paragraphs from a letter to the editor in last week's Western Producer by Mr. Delon Bleakney of Turtleford, Saskatchewan. It reads:

I think we should deal retroactively with the gold-plated pensions of the MPs who voted for them for themselves while systematically bankrupting our country over the last 25 years. Somewhere in our civil service there must be some financial wizards capable of calculating the contributions (plus interest) that our MPs, serving and retired, have made to their pensions.

The people of Canada might even be generous enough as employers to kick in a percentage consistent with private plans.

When these calculations are complete, I suggest that we try to borrow enough money to issue each of the "troughees" with a cheque. (The borrowing shouldn't be hard, that is one thing they do excel at.) This cheque can be accompanied by an explanation of the calculations and the advisement "Here is your pension, you are responsible for yourself henceforth".

In this country retroactive legislation to relieve governments of contractual obligations or to impose financial obligations on citizens is certainly nothing new. The only novelty of my proposal is that it would be aimed at politicians instead of the public.

Saskatchewan did it with the GRIP program. Alberta did it years ago in order to tear up royalty agreements. This very government did it with the helicopter deal and is now trying to do it with the Pearson deal. Our very own Minister of Justice has been very busy instituting retroactive regulations to confiscate the property of Canadian gun owners without even going through the motions of parliamentary democracy. There are retroactive orders in council to deprive Canadians of their lawfully required property.

Defence of the gold plated MP pension plan sullies all of us in this place. We should be talking of eliminating them, not modifying them. We are all touched by this national scandal regardless of the personal stands which we may take in this place on this matter.

I beg members for the sake of the reputation of us and of this place to defeat Bill C-85 so that we can all stand a little straighter and walk a little taller.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was not supposed to speak in the House today. I was not planning to do so but I was touched by a few of the arguments of my friends from the Reform Party.

One of my friends from the Reform Party said, and I fully agree with him, that we the people of the House of Commons are getting rich while the poor people in Canada are getting poorer every day.

First, the goal of the Bloc Quebecois is the sovereignty of Quebec. There will be a referendum soon. If we win it, and I think we will, all the people from the Bloc will lose their jobs and we will have no pension. We are not in the debate for that reason.

Second, I was also touched by an argument that is often brought forward by my friends in the Reform and I fully agree with that argument too. Slowly but surely we are hitting the wall and it is going to be quite soon.

I was reading this morning that a few economists, probably Canadian economists, were talking about a possible recession not later than the beginning of 1996. I saw a few papers last week where a few economists from the United States were talking

about a possible slowdown in the U.S., say in 1997. All these things ahead of us are not good news at all.

Also we accept the fact that the Wall Street Journal was talking of a possible breakdown of Canada from an economical point of view. We can look at the budget too. My friends from the Reform Party said it many times and I agree with a lot of their suggestions.

If we look at the budget we see all the cuts and we very well know that despite the billions cut the debt problem will be there next year and the year after. We are in a vicious circle and if we do not do something, nothing will get us out of this circle.

Since the beginning of this Parliament I have been listening to the ideas of my friends from the Reform Party. If there is one thing I realized throughout all the arguments, I never said it before but I will say now, people in the Reform Party came here with a certain naive point of view. I say very positively they had a new way of seeing things. They wanted to change things in a system that has been going on and on forever. We have to have a naive point of view to change things.

Most people were in a type of profound deception and realized today that despite all the good ideas nothing will be changed. Up to a certain point I understand their feelings. The Reform Party should realize that despite all the good ideas it has, and some are effectively good ideas, it will never be able to put them to the test because the political situation will not allow it.

Perhaps my friends will not like this comment, but the Reform Party will never be elected in Quebec. My friends from the Reform who were second in many areas in Ontario could very well think of winning an election if Quebec were not there.

My friends should think seriously about supporting the sovereignty of Quebec. Otherwise all the good ideas will stay good ideas with no meaning at all because the Reform will never be in power to put those ideas to work.

I remind my friends we do not want to destroy Canada. We fully understand Canada must go through a profound change. We think one change has to be a political one. Our friends believe and I also believe it also has to be an economic change. We are ready to make the first part of the change, a political one, to become sovereign, and to take our fair share of the Canadian assets and the debt and pay it. Every day we will pay our share of the debt and we will go on. Canadians will be able to control their country the way they want to and Reform will be able to think seriously about getting into power and making the major changes it feels it must make. For the moment this is only a dream.

About three months ago I had a discussion with one of my friends from the Reform Party. He told me the only thing Quebec wants is more power and more money. My friend is absolutely right. What my friend did not seem to understand is that it is the federalists in Quebec who that. The sovereignists do not want that at all. We do not want more power and more money. We want all the power and no money at all. We want to be at home in Quebec. We will pay our fair share of the debt and the Reform Party will be able to get into power in Canada and make the major changes.

For the moment this idea may seem strange but it is one to think about. I hope my friends will think about it.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to address the issue today.

If one issue has given ordinary Canadians a very sour view of politicians it is the grossly over generous MP pension plan. It has become a symbol of the elitist mentality that has overtaken our politicians when they are entrusted with the strings of the public purse.

It seems when we get there we give people the impression we think on a higher level. This MP pension plan has become a symbol for that type of elitist mentality. People have become so cynical about those who are put in power as their elected representatives that they are skeptical that any good thing can come out of this place. The cynicism is so widespread they do not believe a thing politicians say any longer.

When I worked in underdeveloped countries we lived out in the rain forest. In our home, besides cockroaches, ants and all that other kind of stuff, we had tiny lizards called geckos. My wife did not like these things so she ask our son to throw them out. If one tries to grab them and is not quick enough and only catches their tail, they have the amazing capacity to drop their tail. They are not harmed. In one's hand is this wildly wiggling tail and the gecko gets away.

When I came back to Canada I saw the same thing in our political arena. We have an election and when the election is done all we are left with is a wildly wiggling tongue. We have these politicians who make these promises, their tongues wiggling wildly, and they escape to Ottawa. They do their thing there. They line their pockets with this over generous MP pension plan. The public is outraged at the money being spent on this MP pension plan. They think it is a public disgrace.

There are some secondary effects to the MP pension plan. People are concerned about the millions being paid out through the plan. It is a disgrace. It is a plan put in place by the very people who will benefit from it. The people here use the taxpayers' hard earned money to line their pockets and people find that unacceptable.

However, there is something else. There are some secondary effects to the MP pension plan. The MP pension plan gives people the wrong incentive in the performance of their job. The plan is totally out of line with what people who are not elected

could realistically expect; a plan so structured that an MP who can get re-elected can dip into it. It is structured in a such a way that the longer one is here the greater one's benefit so that it accrues into the millions of dollars if one can get re-elected for several terms.

What does that mean? Politicians can come to this place with the most honourable of intentions but when they see they will make a huge pile of money if they can get re-elected, that they can get the equivalent of winning a lottery, they become distorted in their vision of the country. They become blurred with the dollar signs before their eyes because of the MP pension plan. Most people do not realize it is not just the money we spend on this, it is the negative spin off effects because of this MP pension plan.

What is one of the biggest problems before the country today? Most people would say it is the economic condition. We have a huge debt and deficit. There is a lack of jobs and unemployment is way out of line. Our taxes are too high. How did it get that way? How did we come to the point at which we have overspent to the tune that we have enslaved our children for years to come?

Politicians made promises so they could get re-elected. They have the incentive built in with the MP pension plan that if they can only win the next election maybe things will hang together long enough.

Let me propose this. Let us remove this Cadillac pension plan. Let us reduce the salary of MPs until they solve our debt and deficit problem, until they begin to reduce taxes, until the jobs come back into the country.

Let us reduce that incentive until it is all fixed. If we were to take half of our salary, if we were to do away with the MP pension plan until all these problems were fixed overnight we would have a wonderful solution to everything ailing us. There is no incentive built into the system to make politicians do what is right for the country. The incentives are in the reverse.

MPs made promises just to get re-elected. They will cater to special interest groups and give them promises so they can get re-elected. They will raise taxes so they can promise more. They will spend more to get votes in their ridings. They will do whatever they can to get re-elected and feed at the trough.

What is another big problem in the country? I alluded to it when I told a little story about the wiggling tail and the wiggling tongue. We only have democracy for a very short time every five years. Politicians listen to the people only when it is convenient.

I see this very clearly in the gun control issue which I have been dealing with. Politicians will hide what they are doing. They do not even ask the people what they think. Politicians are afraid to put democratic reforms in this place so the people will have more to say.

Why do they not put in referendums? Why do they not allow for citizen initiatives? Why do they not allow the recall of an MP who does not do their job? It is because those citizens might say: "You are putting too much into your own pocket. You are not running the country the way we want it run".

There was an old farmer once who was on hard times, as many farmers are. He had a donkey. He had a hard time feeding the donkey. He thought he would put a little sawdust into his oats to make him feel full.

The first day he put a little sawdust into the oats. He gave it to the donkey and the donkey did not seem to notice. The donkey felt full and did not complain. He did it again the next day. He put a little more sawdust into the oats and he continued to do it.

He thought he was fooling the donkey. The donkey seemed fine. To make a long story short, one day he came out after the donkey was on a diet of almost pure sawdust and all four legs were up in the air.

That is what is happening in this country. It will soon have all four legs up in the air because people are being fed sawdust, a little more every day. The politicians keep adding it to their diet and think people do not notice.

They can put the MP pension plan in place. They think: "I will put this along and the people will swallow it. They will accept it". At some point people will say: "That is enough. We really have had enough of this sawdust. We might feel full today but hard times are coming".

We need to have real MP pension plan reform because it is hurting the country. It provides the wrong incentive for people to get re-elected or even to get elected. This is supposed to be the highest court in the land. That is an absolute joke.

We on an average day have very few people here listening to the debate, wondering if the legislation is good or not because we do not even have a say. The Prime Minister and the few people he surrounds himself with control the whole thing. There are no free votes in here.

The people of this country do not even have any input as to what the pension plan will be. The government will ram it through. That is why we do not have anybody sitting around here listening to the debate. It is because this is not the highest court in the land any more.

We have made a mockery of this place and what happens here. People do not even bother to show up to listen. I came here to build up the country and to make positive changes. People want to see people in public life there because they believe in sound principles, willing to serve their country selflessly.

The MP pension plan gives people the wrong incentive. It gives people elected to this place the incentive to remain here, not necessarily just to serve their country.

I have lived on the farm. I have raised pigs and I know what pigs are like. I wish everybody could see what it is like when they get to the trough. They stand there and defend their places. The biggest pig gets his snout in there and all the little pigs dare not disturb him. The pigs keep their snouts in there until they get fatter and fatter. They are pig headed. I wish I had time to explain what pig headed is. It is well illustrated when observing them. They will not listen to reason. They will do what they are bent on doing and will not change their plans in any way.

I see that happening in this place. We do not just have our noses in the trough; we are also being pig-headed in this whole issue.

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

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.