Mr. Chairman, if anyone thinks that we could have a pension plan which would be the same for every MP under any kind of scheme, that is unachievable.
By definition, the tenure here is different for everybody. We are obviously subject to the democratic rule. Some members are elected at 45 and finish at 55. We have a colleague in this Chamber who was elected for his first term at the age of 69 and is now in his second term. We had a colleague who resigned in 1993 when he was 82. We have a colleague in this House right now who was elected at age 22 or 23.
There is a whole variety of these things at any time. This is not a conventional employer, nor are we conventional employees. That is the difference.
Comparable to the private sector is an interesting thought. What about executives in the private sector?
Some have referred to the present plan for members of parliament as being generous and gold plated. However, I do not believe it is.
I read from page 139 of the Blais commission report which states:
The pension plan for Members of Parliament, while appearing to be generous, is not necessarily out of line with public and private sector plans that recognize the impact of mid-career hire aspects of the career path of their senior employees.
That is from the Blais commission report.
The other thing about the plan is that the Chief Actuary of Canada, in and around 1990 when there was controversy about the plan, published a report in which he talked about assuming an equal employer-employee contribution. That does not exist in any public sector plan because we do not vest the money in a particular fund. We do now for the new contributions to CPP that this government brought forward, but that is a new beginning in that regard. Other plans are not like that.
Some would argue that the superannuation plan has a second component which has that feature. But generally it does not. There is an unfunded liability because the premiums are not invested in various schemes that generate interest dividends and other forms of income. That is true of public sector plans.
In 1990 I believe it was, the chief actuary said that he believed this plan was just as solvable as one in the private sector.
Should everyone be in the plan? Yes. That is my position. When people opted out of the plan two years ago, I remember making passionate speeches in this House to my opponents telling them they should stay in. That is what I said at the time and I have not changed my mind.
If anyone thinks today that I will accuse them of being hypocritical if they decide to opt into the pension plan, no, I will not. I refuse to participate in that dialogue. I have to be consistent with what I said.
If I said four years ago that it was wrong to opt out of the pension plan, surely I have to say now that it is right to opt in. Otherwise it would not be very logical and I would be quickly reminded of that not only by people opposite in this House, but also by the media and by the public generally.
I do not think it is wrong. I think it is right. I said so before and I stand by what I said. I am the first to say that what is offered to MPs overall, as the Blais commission report recognized, is not onerous.