Mr. Chairman, I think there are basically three questions in there. The first one is the statement that benefits are greater than the contributions. Of course. It is a pension. The benefits coming out of the plan are by definition and that is true of any pension plan.
What is different with this case is there is no assumed income on the matched employer-employee contributions and that is why it is not calculated. Take the matched employer-employee contribution and assume to it a normal form of income and as far back as 1990 the chief actuary said it was sound. But we have to make that assumption because most investments do bring in income.
Some of the largest owners of shares in banks today are pension plans. The Ontario teachers pension plan for instance owns a lot of shares of many of the large banks in this country and the pension fund is doing quite well. That is true. I recognize that.
On the issue of what an hon. member may or many not have said about the Blais commission report, I have not cast stones on anyone in this House for any element of what is in this bill, across the way to my own colleagues or otherwise. I will not do so. I think this package is reasonable overall. Even if there is some provocation, I will not participate in that. I want to end this debate in the tone which I think is right and which I believe I have demonstrated through the process. I will not take part in that.
I am against the issue of binding recommendation. I am against saying to my electors “I got a salary increase but it is not my fault. It was a binding recommendation”. That is wrong in my opinion. I am going to St. Isidore de Prescott in my riding this weekend. They will say that I voted myself a 2% increase and I will say yes. That is what I want to say. Yes. It is called accountability. Not my fault is not my way of doing things. Eventually I will be judged for what I do. There will be that judgment day and I will accept the judgment of my electors. But I will not chicken out. I will never say that it is not my fault.