Debates of June 8th, 1995

Gasoline Prices

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

I listened with interest to her comments about ethics when she related to the House all these contributions the Reform Party received. I have some figures for the Deputy Prime Minister. The Liberals received substantial contributions from major oil companies: $14,000 from Husky Oil; $27,000 from Amoco; and $47,000 from Imperial Oil.

After repeated unjustified gas price increases, the Liberal government refuses to act to conduct a gas price inquiry. Canadians want to know: Is the government's refusal to conduct an inquiry based on these huge contributions by the oil companies, or is it because it wants more from the oil companies?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, if the member is asking whether or not we have the courage to move on issues based on what is best for the country, he should ask why as Minister of the Environment I am moving to ban MMT, something that governments for 15 years have not had the guts to do.

We are moving to ban MMT despite concerted lobbies by people in the petrochemical industry. If the member thinks a single contribution by a single party will move this government, he is dead wrong.

Presence In Gallery

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, I would like to call your attention to the presence in the gallery of Mr. Oscar Arias-Sanchez, former president of Costa Rica from 1986 to 1990. This same person is a Nobel peace prize winner, which he earned for his peace efforts in Central America.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Points Of Order

[The Speaker]

Earlier today the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster rose on a point of order concerning the report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs on Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons.

The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster contended that amendments made in committee to clauses 98, 99, 100, 101 and 101.1 require a royal recommendation and that they should have been ruled out of order in committee.

The argument made by the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster was based on a comment made in committee by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice that new inspectors would have to be hired and trained to fulfil the role instead of adding additional tasks to the duties of police officers.

I have now had an opportunity to review the committee report and Bill C-68 as read a first time and as reprinted by the committee. I am now ready to rule on this matter.

Bill C-68 received first reading on February 14, 1995 with the proper royal recommendation attached thereto.

Clause 98 is the key clause as it relates to this point of order. It was amended by the committee and now reads as follows:

In section 99 to 101.1 "inspector" means a firearm officer and includes in respect of a province a member of a class of individuals designated by the provincial minister.

In the opinion of the Chair, while clause 98 was amended in committee, the amendment brought to it does not fundamentally alter the financial responsibility of either the federal or the provincial ministers involved.

Clause 98 as introduced in the House had the concept of "police officer" for which the concept of "inspector" has been substituted by the committee. It still remains a provincial ministerial responsibility as to which class of individuals shall

be so designated. It may well be that a provincial minister decides to recruit an entirely new class of individuals for the purpose of clause 98, but it clearly remains the decision of the provincial authority to do so. Whether the class of individuals are called inspectors or police officers has no direct impact on the royal recommendation attached to the bill.

The other amendments brought to clauses 99, 100, 101 and 101.1 deal with the powers and duties of the inspectors. The Chair has come to the same conclusion in respect to those amendments.

Therefore I rule that the amendments do not alter the objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications of the royal recommendation and that the report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs tabled in the House on June 7, 1995 is in order. Bill C-68 can consequently proceed to report stage.

Business Of The House

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government what is on the legislative agenda for the next few days?

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Secretary of State (Parliamentary Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will proceed with the report stage of Bill C-85, the retiring allowances legislation and we will continue with it tomorrow morning.

During routine proceedings tomorrow the government will propose a motion as it does every year at this time to provide for additional sitting hours during the last two weeks before the scheduled summer adjournment. If there is time left after this motion is disposed of, we will return to Bill C-85.

On Monday we will proceed with Bill C-68, the firearms legislation, followed by Bill C-41, the sentencing legislation, followed by Bill C-85. Each day next week we will deal as far as we can with these bills in order. We will go on to the next one in order when the stage at which we are considering the first one has been completed.

If at some point during the week we find ourselves finished with all these bills or unable for the time being to proceed with any of them, we would call Bill C-89, the CNR legislation; Bill C-92, regarding the wheat board; Bill C-70, concerning income tax; Motion No. 24, concerning a committee examination of conflict of interest; Bill C-87, the chemical weapons legislation; Bill C-88, regarding international trade; and Bill C-94, the MMT legislation.

If any priority items such as Bill C-22, Bill C-69, Bill C-82, Bill C-86, Bill C-91 are reported from committee or sent back from the Senate for further consideration, we will insert them into the list.

As additional backup items we would like put before the House are Bill C-54, Bill C-65, Bill C-52, Bill C-62, Bill C-88 and Bill C-85.

Point Of Order

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

During oral question period, I referred to Jacques Rose, but I meant and I should have said Gérald Larose. There is a major difference.

[Michel Dupuy, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to have unanimous consent to table the list of people who attended the fundraising dinner to which many of the questions during question period were addressed.

[The Speaker]

Members have heard the request. Is there unanimous consent to table this list?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-85, an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and to provide for the continuation of a certain provision, as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Members Of Parliament Retiringallowances Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I will share with the House the ruling by the Speaker on Bill C-85.

There are 40 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-85, an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and to provide for the continuation of a certain provision.

Motions Nos. 1 to 7 will be grouped for debate but voted on as follows: Motion No. 1 will be voted on separately. A vote on Motion No. 2 applies to Motion No. 3. Motions Nos. 4 to 7 will be voted on separately.

Motions Nos. 8, 9, 10, 36, 37 and 38 will be grouped for debate but voted on as follows:

a) A vote on motion No. 8 applies to motion No. 36.

b) An affirmative vote on motion No. 8 obviates the necessity of the question being put on motions Nos. 9 and 37.

c) On the other hand, a negative vote on motion No. 8 necessitates the question being put on motion No. 9.

d) A vote on motion No. 9 applies to motion No. 37.

e) A vote on motion No. 10 applies to motion No. 38.

Motions Nos. 11 to 35 will be grouped for debate but voted on as follows. (a) A vote on Motion No. 11 applies to Motions Nos. 12 to 34. (b) Motion No. 35 will be voted on separately.

Motion No. 39 will be debated and voted on separately.

Motion No. 40 will be debated and voted on separately.

I shall now propose motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 to the House.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Could you clarify the procedure for me? You grouped motions numbered 1 to 7 if I am not mistaken. Then, you said something about separate votes. Can you confirm to me that motion No. 1 will be voted on separately, and more importantly motion No. 4? It is really important to us that motion No. 4 be voted on separately.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Dear colleagues, I wish to make it clear that motion No. 1 will be voted on separately.

Also, motions numbered 4 to 7 will be voted on separately.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-85, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 5 and 6, on page 2, with the following:

"the House of Commons may, within sixty days after the".

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-85, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 23, on page 2, with the following:

"before doing so is deemed not to have elected".

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-85, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 30, on page 2, with the following:

"before doing so is deemed to have not elected".

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-85, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 37, on page 2, with following:

"tion 2.1 for as long as that person is a Canadian citizen."

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-85, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 11 to 17, on page 3.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-85, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 27 to 34, on page 3, with the following:

"2.4 A member referred to in subsection 2.3(1) who ceases to be a member and subsequently becomes a member in the thirty-sixth or any subsequent Parliament may not elect under subsection 10(1) or 32(1) to contribute in respect of any session".

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-85, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting lines 37 to 45, on page 3 and lines 1 to 5, on page 4.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the MP pension bill of the government. I cannot believe how fast government members want to get it through. No wonder people in the country are calling them pot lickers and accusing them of being at the trough and pork barrelling. All these phrases arise from the fact that they will not come clean with citizens and tell them exactly what they are receiving in terms of the gold plated pension plan.

We have made a number of motions in amendment to try to improve it. Our overall objective-and it is the reason we object to it-is to bring the pension plan for MPs and senators into line with those in the private sector. We would like to see MPs in this Parliament and all future parliaments fully opt out. We would also like to see a Canadian citizenship requirement for all members of the plan and to see members pensions subjected to the same clawback conditions as the old age security.

I will address Motions Nos. 1 to 7, the first grouping. The effect of Motions Nos. 1 and 6 is to change the opting out provisions so that members of future parliaments can make a one-time decision to opt in or opt out of the plan during the first 60 days the House sits after they are elected.

Clearly the Liberals are trying to prevent it from being an election issue in the next election by only allowing members of this Parliament to opt out of the trough light plan. However, as we can see from the Ontario election, it is and will be an issue in the next election. I predict members of Parliament who do not

opt out in this session will be voted out in the next, should they choose to run again.

We would have liked to participate in a fair pension plan but in good conscience could not and cannot participate in a plan such as the one offered in Bill C-85. All 52 members of the Reform Party, along with a few Liberals, have already indicated they will not accept the pension because it is too generous. How many members have to opt out before the government gets the message that its trough light plan needs some work?

By opting out Reform Party members save $38 million to the taxpayers. It would not take long to figure how much the Liberal government could save. Over 450 members of Parliament belong to the plan already. If current members opted out, the minister of immigration alone could save taxpayers $3 million and the Deputy Prime Minister could save the country a lot of money as well.

Motions Nos. 2 and 3 would have the effect of changing the bill so that a member who dies before the expiry of the 60-day decision period is assumed to have done the right thing and not opted in. The bill does exactly the opposite. It automatically opts these people in. How dare the government try to taint the reputation of a deceased member this way. It is ridiculous.

Motions Nos. 5 and 7 would change the bill to allow all members to opt out completely. Under Bill C-85 MPs who as of October 1993 already had six years of service could only opt out of benefits earned from October 1993 onward, thus creating the trough regular and the trough light scenario.

All members, even Liberal cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister, should be given the opportunity to do the right thing. The inability for longer serving MPs to completely opt out under Bill C-85 creates a two tier system among MPs. The biggest issue is that the bill through its generosity creates a two-tier system for MPs and the public.

Mr. Brian Corbishley, a CA and former assistant to the Auditor General of Canada, is head of KPMG management consulting and author of reports on legislature compensation for the Alberta government. He testified before the committee as one of the few witnesses allowed to appear in one day so the Liberals could fast track the bill. He said that the proposed pension under Bill C-85 was seven times more generous than the typical public sector plan and was four times more generous than the typical private sector plan.

Paraphrasing Mr. Corbishley again, to compare pension plans we combine all the elements into a single measure: the value of the pension earned in one year of service from the employer's contributions; in other words the amount that would have to be set aside to invest each year to pay for the pension. The value of the pension earned from the employer's contribution in one year of service for this member is about $43,000 under the current plan. Under the proposed plan it falls to about $34,000. In the private sector for a person of the same age and same income it would only be $9,000.

The maximum pension for MPs under this plan is 75 per cent of earnings in the best years. For others it is 70 per cent but it takes 35 years to earn it compared to this plan which allows MPs to earn their full pension, 5 per cent higher than the private sector, in only 19 years.

Another witness, actuary and former MP Paul McCrossan, said that the bill entrenched the benefits at a level higher than those available to general taxpayers. I believe the compensation for MPs should be brought into line with modern private sector practice.

Motion No. 4 imposes a Canadian citizenship requirement on all members of the plan so that if a province separated, MPs from the province would not draw a pension from the Canadian government. I have heard comments from members of the separatist party in the House that they do not care what is going on in the House because they will not be here next fall anyway. I think they are wrong. They will still be here and Quebec will still be part of Canada.

If any Bloc members opt into the plan it will be a clear sign that they realize they will still be in the House and in the country long past the fall.

I ask all members of Parliament whether it makes more sense to give us a readily definable salary rather than keep a convoluted pay scheme and a pension plan that is no better than those in the private sector, a transparent and taxable remuneration package. Under the current format Canadians do not even know or have a precise picture of an MP's total compensation package. The scale has tipped so far toward big pensions at the end of the rainbow that for many politicians re-election becomes a top priority because to qualify they have to get elected for a second term.

Are members running a second term to qualify for a million dollar pension, or are they running a second term to serve the country for the salary they will be receiving? It generates more survival mode thinking and less commitment to tackle the tough issues facing Canada and Canadians. Canadians should be able to have a say through an arm's length agency what politicians should be paid.

Let us make compensation upfront. Let us make pension plans upfront, straightforward and out in the open. How difficult is that? Why is it that MPs are setting their own standards? Why is it that MPs set their own pensions? Why can they not hire an arm's length independent body to set a pension plan equal to and no better than the private sector? I will tell the House why. It is

self-serving. They feel they deserve it and cannot justify it outside the House, and the paying public is now aware of it.

As the witness from KPMG management consulting told the committee reviewing the legislation, if the objective is to achieve fair and equitable compensation for MPs, the pension component should be considered in conjunction with other components.

After eliminating the gold plated pension plan, which the bill clearly does not do, the House could agree to a proper balanced package that would be more palatable and compatible with Canadian taxpayers. The proposed Liberal pension plan should be no better than that in the private sector but it is. Politicians must realize that they are no better than those who voted for them. For some reason they think they are.

When I was a businessman two years ago in the private sector I had benefits given to me by my company. They were taxable benefits. What I received in terms of pension was nowhere near what it is here. The double standard in the House is pathetic and I am here to say that it is pathetic. I am now a politician. I am paid as one and I am paid to be one. We have a double standard. We have tax free benefits the public does not even know about. It should not be that way but the government will not do anything about it and I think the Canadian public wants something done.

Politicians should never forget who pays their salaries. Unfortunately it appears that by supporting Bill C-85 the Liberals, the Bloc, the Tories and the NDP have forgotten. In the name of justice and fairness we urge the government with our amendments to go further than it has with Bill C-85.

A lot of MPs have served in the House. A lot of MPs have had the opportunity to fix the situation. In the House today there are 205 rookies and I cannot believe they have allowed the veterans to scoop them. These veterans are finished. Some of them will not even run again but they will retire with the old pension plan that gave six to one in contributions, not this one that gives 3.5 to one.

If the government ran on a platform in its red book based on integrity and restoring integrity to politicians, it would not be forcing time allocation on a pension bill. The Liberals would not be bringing in closure on the gun control bill. The things they are doing to speed things through so the Canadian public is unaware of what is being thrust on it will come back to haunt them at election time two years from now. It will be the Reform Party that the Canadian public will have to vote for in order to correct the wrongs and put right what the government is failing to do.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I remind those in the House and Canadians who are listening that the government promised to ensure there was an age of eligibility, which has been done. Before this legislation came forward members could collect a pension at any age after six years of service. Now there is an age of eligibility. The government also promised to eliminate double dipping. This has been done.

The government honoured its promises and went further. It ensured the contributions of taxpayers to the MP pension plan would be reduced by over 33 per cent. It ensured the accrual rate, the rate by which credits are accumulated for pensions, would be reduced by 5 per cent to 4 per cent, a reduction of 20 per cent. At the request of the Reform Party it granted this legislation which will permit members to opt out of the MP pension plan. The government has honoured its first two promises and has gone beyond with three other initiatives.

I am amazed at the boldness of my Reform colleague who has just spoken. He used the terms trough regular and trough light, which his leader so effectively used to try to denigrate what was happening. He ought to be referred to as the MP who introduced trough heavy duty. On May 4 he suggested MPs should be paid $150,000 a year and get regular pensions. If that were to happen it would cost the Canadian taxpayer a lot more. Trough heavy duty has been suggested by the member who had the gall to stand up in the House and try to pretend he would fix things. I am really amazed.

The hon. member quoted testimony. I am surprised he did not quote testimony from C.E.S. Franks, a witness when we examined the bill:

If MPs pensions are looked at solely in comparison with the pensions and pension schemes of other professionals, then the pensions of parliamentarians seem excessive. And that is the comparison normally made.

When these proposals for reform of the pensions of members of Parliament were first made public the media was filled with reports comparing the pension an MP would make after fifteen or twenty years of service with what a school teacher or civil servant would receive after the same period.

Not surprisingly, by comparison the MPs' pensions looked very advantageous. What these reports and experts failed to note is that less than ten per cent of MPs serve in the House for fifteen years or more, and that, after most elections (1993 was an exception) the majority of ex-MPs have served too short a time, less than the required six years, to receive any parliamentary pension whatsoever. In fact, a great many ex-members not only do not have a pension but have a difficult time in finding employment and in re-establishing themselves after serving as a member.

If my colleague is to be selective, I assure the House I will bring some balance into the debate.

I agree the MP pension plan is generous. I will not deny that. However, we must look at it in the total context. If we look at the international scene, France, England, Germany and any number of others, and if we look at the major components such as eligibility, the amount contributed by government, the age a person can collect a pension, number of years of service, et cetera, some countries have provisions equal to or better than

the provisions we have in this plan as it stood and even more so today because of the changes the government has brought about.

If we look at provincial and territorial standards we find the same thing. In other words, in certain provinces one works less than six years. In certain provinces one can collect a pension before age 55. I could go on but I will not. The point is we have to look at it within the total context, which my colleague and his colleagues will obviously refuse to do.

These motions are unacceptable to us for any number of reasons, some which I have mentioned, some which I find extremely misleading, some which do not deal with the topic whatsoever. I am shocked and disappointed it was done so early in the debate.

There is a commitment to allow optional participation for this Parliament only. That was at the request of the Reform Party. The bill extends optional coverage to persons not vested six years so that small amounts of money from the previous Parliament would not remain in the account until a member retires.

Members with more than six years on October 25, 1993 are able to opt out for this Parliament and return their pension as a gift for the crown if they do not want to receive it when they leave office. The deeming provision protects survivor benefits if necessary for members who die before opting in. The requirement to be a Canadian citizen ignores the fact that a pension is deferred compensation for which members have contributed.

For all of the above reasons obviously we cannot be supportive.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I also wish to participate in this debate, and especially in the debate on the amendments put forward by the Reform Party in Motions Nos. 1 through 7. I must say that we agree with Motion No. 1, which provides that members of the next Parliament should be free to opt out of the plan.

We disagree with Motion No. 2, according to which a member who has not chosen one of the two plans is deemed to have opted out. We feel that all workers hope to receive a pension some day and want to deserve it.

Motion No. 4 is a big trap. We are a little taken aback to see that a democratically elected political party can dismiss the relevance of another existing political party and seek to punish the democratically elected members of a recognized political party for defending ideas.

Motion No. 4 would deny pensions to members who renounce their Canadian citizenship. This is obviously a direct attack against the Bloc Quebecois. The Reform Party must have reasoned that if Quebec ever achieves sovereignty, Bloc members will no longer be Canadian citizens and will therefore no longer qualify for the MPs' pension plan.

I strongly denounce this kind of amendment to a bill. The Reform Party must be seriously misinformed to issue such a statement. May I remind you that, in Canadian history, we are what is called a sovereignist party, a party that hopes to make Quebec a distinct country enjoying a very friendly relation with the rest of Canada as well as economic ties that are as close as they are today.

Let us keep in mind that Quebec is Canada's second trading partner after the U.S. As for Ontario, trade between the two provinces exceeds $68 billion, and more than 100,000 Ontario jobs depend on trade with Quebec.

We are very pleased with the services and economic agreements that we have with the rest of Canada. These arrangements reflect our concept of sovereignty, which is the recognition of the two founding nations, based on the existence of two strong governments which have economic ties.

I want to remind the Reform Party that, when it tables an amendment challenging the legitimacy of the Bloc's presence in this House, it is completely out of line with the history of this country, the Charter of rights and freedoms, and the Constitution. Let us not forget that, when the first Canadian government was elected, out of the 17 members representing Nova Scotia, 16 or 17-I believe it was 17-were sovereignists who wanted their province out of Confederation.

After four or eight years in Parliament, were these members subjected to punitive measures, on the grounds that they had a vision of Nova Scotia's future which differed from that of the rest of the country? Of course not. If the Western Party-I believe it is the correct name-, which was in favour of pulling the west out to annex it to the U.S. or create a new country, had managed to get 30 or so democratically elected members here, would we have tabled motions saying that these people, even though they were democratically elected, have no right to sit here and should be punished by not getting any pension once they leave? That would be totally absurd.

Some communist members also sat in this House. Were they told that, because they were communists, they would not be eligible for a pension later on? Would an extreme right wing government, which could be a Reform government, tell NDP members that, since they represent the extreme left, they will be punished by not getting their pensions? Are we here to discuss ideas or make arbitrary and dictatorial judgments?

In that sense, clause 4 is in total contradiction with the democratic process which Quebec and Canada are proud to share. That process provides that the people can choose its representatives among the various political parties and decide to elect Bloc members if it wishes to do so. However, will these Bloc members later be punished by being deprived of their rights because of the ideas that they defend? This is unacceptable. The left would not do that to the right, nor would the right do it to the left.

I also want to make it clear to Reform members that the fact that we are sovereignists does not mean that we want to break up Canada. That was never our intention. Sovereignists want to build a new relationship with Canada based on the two founding peoples. This would entail a very strong, central government in Quebec, a very strong, central government in Ottawa, and economic links between the two. However, Quebecers would pay their taxes to Quebec only and Quebec and Canada would only jointly buy the services that are deemed necessary to have in common.

For example, you may want to have a Senate, but we Quebecers may not, so you can have it and pay for it yourselves. If we both decide we want to maintain the St. Lawrence Seaway, we can do so together. If we decided to share an army, we could work out arrangements. The expression "based on the two founding peoples" simply means that. Currently, approximately 50 per cent of all people in Quebec-we had 49 per cent of the vote-share the Bloc's vision and the other 50 per cent have a different vision. Some people are still undecided, but a good 40 per cent of all people still share the vision that Quebecers can have everything they ever wanted within the federal system.

Therefore, we have two options. There is nothing wrong with being a sovereignist, it is not a punishable offence, it is not a terrorist movement or a movement bent on ruining things; it is a movement, a political party with a philosophy and a vision for the future of Quebec and if its vision prevails, even better. However, there is still another vision in Quebec, the vision of federalism. It is therefore a debate on the issues based on mutual respect which people must choose. It must be up to the people to decide.

And if the people choose sovereignty in the referendum, Bloc members, who worked here in Ottawa to bring sovereignty to pass, should under no circumstances be denied certain services or compensation for the years in which they democratically held seats and defended their vision against others. And if their vision prevails, they should not be penalized for having served Quebec, and indirectly Canada because I think that Canada would be in much better shape if we were two separate countries. They should in no way be penalized regarding their pension plans or other plans for having had this vision.

It is quite regrettable that a recently elected party which calls itself democratic, the Reform Party, would dare to table a motion of the kind. It is unworthy of a democratic party. It is an attack on the very act of democracy and the faith in it that all Canadians and Quebecers have. It is an insult to our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is an insult to our Constitution.

It is also an insult to western democracy to have to say in a motion that people are judged by their ideas and that their rights will be adjusted accordingly. No democracy can tolerate this. That is the kind of thing we would expect from dictatorships from the extreme right or extreme left and it has no place, it seems to me, in this noble assembly, the House of Commons, which has always been preoccupied with respecting democracy and above all respecting the hon. members who were mandated by their own electorate to sit in the House.

I think that clause 4 should be voted down or even dropped before the vote.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Okanagan Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I engage in debate on Bill C-85 and the motions to amend certain clauses of that bill.

The time has come for everyone to recognize that the current pension plan, which is the privilege of MPs of the House, is obscenely generous. Even if the changes proposed in Bill C-85 were implemented, they would still be obscenely generous.

I want to make reference to the Prime Minister's statement suggesting that perhaps MPs do not think they should be paid that much. An MP does not take a vow of poverty. Canadian citizens want their MPs to earn decent incomes. They want them to have decent pensions. They want to reward them for the work that they do. However, it should not be disproportionate to the benefits and salaries they receive.

Therefore, some fairness and equity has to be placed into this whole business. As MPs we recognize our worth. Canadians recognize our worth, but we do not believe that we should become some kind of elite component of society that receives benefits that are over and above those given to other members of society.

The right balance must be struck between a reasonable, personal income and a public rip off. The current plan is a public rip off as is the way it is conceived to be in Bill C-85.

This spring a number of changes were proposed. However, one change that I want to draw particular attention to is the chance to opt out of the pension plan.

Mr. Speaker, I would like you and all the rest of the members of the House to know that I have chosen to opt out of the plan. I take very strong exception to the statement that the President of the Treasury Board made when he said: "Reform members are all being forced to opt out".

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

Nonsense.

[An hon. member]

Nonsense in spades.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Okanagan Centre, BC]

That is absolutely a misstatement of the truth. Mr. Speaker, I want you and everybody else to know it was a very conscious and deliberate decision on my part. If any forcing took place it was the minister who would not change the present pension plan so that we could opt into it with reasonable assurance that it was fair and equitable with regard to the taxpayers of Canada.

If any forcing took place it was the lack of decision making on the part of government members. It did not introduce the kind of amendments that ought to have been introduced into the pension plan so it would be fair and so it would be generous in the same way that other pension plans are generous for all other citizens.

If any forcing is taking place that is where it is taking place. With respect to my decision I do not feel any compulsion whatsoever from my party or anyone else, but simply my allegiance to my constituents. My constituents have told me loudly and clearly that I do not deserve a pension any larger than the one that is normal and acceptable for all Canadians, and they are prepared to pay for that.

The other aspect is that the proposed changes are not retroactive.

[An hon. member]

Excuse me, I have to make a phone call.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Okanagan Centre, BC]

Good, make the call. I hope you do. The other point we need to recognize is-