Thank you, Mr. Speaker, phone calls should be done that way as well.
The present proposal introduced a two tiered pension system, those who were elected before 1993 and those who were elected in the 1993 election. Two kinds of pension plans are operating. That is an unfairness in itself. Why should one group of MPs be treated differently from those who are coming up?
I want to illustrate exactly how obscene the benefits of this plan are. Here is a list of the top 10 takers under the new plan as proposed by Bill C-85 so everyone recognizes what we are talking about here. The figures are estimated on nine years as ministers and living to age 75. These are the people who qualify under those categories, assuming also a 5 per cent inflation rate per year.
The hon. member for Sherbrooke will collect $4.5 million. It so happens that this individual is also the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. The member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte will get $3.9 million. He happens also to be the minister of fisheries. The member for Cape Breton-East Richmond will get $3.6 million. The member for Burnaby-Kingsway will get $3.5 million. The member for Winnipeg Transcona will get $3.3 million. The member for York West, who happens to be the minister of immigration, will get $3.1 million. The member for York South-Weston will get $2.7 million. The member for Hamilton East, the Deputy Prime Minister, will get $2.5 million. The member for Papineau-Saint Michel will get $2.6 million and the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell will get $2.1 million.
Where is any other Canadian with a normal income and the usual kinds of productivity going to get that kind of pension? I submit to the House that the witnesses who appeared before the committee stated that it is not going to happen.
The President of the Treasury Board said that this is a significant change and reduction, which is a lot of bafflegab and clever but very misleading words. It is hypocrisy under the guise of an election promise.
I could not help, as I was preparing some of my notes, to think about a nursery rhyme that I learned. It goes something like this. It fits this hypocrisy beautifully. It says: "Little Jack Horner sat in the corner, eating his pudding and pie, he stuck in his thumb, pulled out a plum and said what a good boy am I". I could not help but think about the Liberals sitting in their places, looking and revising their pension plan. They stick in their hand and they pull out a gold plum and say what a good Liberal am I.
That is not all. In the final analysis it is the victory of greed and self-interest over common sense and responsible leadership. That is the saddest part of it all. Where is the leadership? Where is the example for our young people? Where is the example of responsible expenditure of public funds?
We are supposed to be the guardians and to treat taxpayers' money as funds kept in trust on their behalf and to expend them in their best interest. However, what do some MPs do? They say: "Please cut back and be responsible, but not us as MPs. We are just fine and should be given a little more. Our pensions should be cut a little but not too much. We have to make a lot of money after all we gave up".
I do not think there is a single MP in the House who did not calculate very carefully what the cost to come here would be. Some looked at the pension plan and said: "Wait a minute. That is a freebie. That would be great for me to have". That has
become the issue and is not a measure of productivity. It happens after years of productivity here.
There is a serious lack of leadership. We need to get our leadership back into focus. We must become examples to young people and to other citizens.
Let us examine some of the great and wonderful benefits. I return to the point I made earlier about the President of the Treasury Board saying that we have been forced into it. He said that we should look after the interests of our families for the future.
If anybody in the House is looking after family members, it is some of our people. I look at one of my colleagues who has a young family at home. If there is anyone here whom I know personally who cares about his family, it is this man. He is saying: "I am opting out of the pension plan". The issue is that we have calculated the cost. We know the cost and have said that we want to pay the cost as all other Canadian citizens have to pay a cost to retire.
I commend my colleagues who have decided to opt out of this overly generous plan and who are prepared to put their reputations, their leadership and their imagination on the line. There is another vision for Canada, a vision of responsibility, a vision of leading the country into a moral position that says we will treat taxpayers' money as a public trust with the same jealously and with the same concern as we have for our own.