Debates of June 12th, 2000

Parliament Of Canada Act

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise this evening, despite the somewhat late hour, to address some of my comments on Bill C-37.

I rise tonight to address an issue that strikes at the very heart of my political philosophy and personal credibility. I joined the Reform Party of Canada in 1988. The party at that time was less than a year old. I made the decision to leave the family farm and run as a candidate later that summer in what became known as the free trade election. I lost as did all Reformers. However the party's platform of fiscal accountability, criminal justice reform and changing the very way in which government operates that first attracted me lived on. In fact it flourished.

I was subsequently elected along with 51 other Reformers in 1993, partly because people believed the time had come to change the system. Reformers believed we were undertaking a noble mission to come to Ottawa to push for fundamental changes, reforms, the very reason for our name.

Constituents knew that because we were in opposition there were limits to what we could accomplish and how many changes we would be successful in convincing the Liberal government to adopt. One of these was to strive to change the MP pension plan.

This is the third attempt at convincing the Liberals to fix the plan and to bring it into line with what is available to other Canadians. I am afraid I must report that once again we have been unsuccessful, for this bill like its predecessors does not address the basic fact that the MP pension plan is still too rich. It still needs reforming.

I did not and I do not begrudge politicians a pension. However I do begrudge that the pension is richer than anything other Canadians are able to access. I also find it unpalatable that politicians are able to set their own level of remuneration. We have heard a number of speakers from almost all the parties talk about this point tonight.

I was and still am offended by the lack of accountability and transparency under which the federal government operates. I was first elected in 1993 and during that session of parliament I stood in the House and spoke out in adamant opposition to the self-serving generosity of the MP pension plan. I am no better than any other Canadian and I am therefore undeserving of special treatment. I am still opposed to the generosity of the present plan.

As chief opposition whip part of my duties include caucus morale. It is hard to create harmony among a team that is treated differently. Within the Canadian Alliance caucus there exists those MPs who opted out of the 1995 pension revision and an MP who opted into the 1995 revision. There are those who were given no choice but to participate in the pension plan by being elected in 1997. There are those who opted into the MP pension plan in 1998 and those who continue not to participate.

One would think all MPs are treated the same. After all, are we not all endeavouring to do the same job despite what party we might belong to? This is a difficult situation to manage and one that I feel should never have occurred. Rather than face another opt in clause with how divisive that is, I believe the clause forcing all MPs into the plan is a step in the right direction.

Equality is the underlying principle of the Canadian Alliance and its predecessor, the Reform Party of Canada. Anything less than equality of all MPs is unacceptable. As a result of this legislative change MPs will no longer be allowed to opt out or remain out. They will be legislated into the plan like those elected for the first time in 1997.

MPs should not set their own level of remuneration. One of the worst conflicts of interest a person can be placed in is to have the responsibility to decide upon one's own remuneration, that is paid pension and perks. A CEO has a board of directors to do it for him or her. The CEOs are in turn responsible to the shareholders of company. The government shareholders are the taxpayers. Yet who is responsible to them?

Ministers of the crown have to declare their assets and have their holdings administered by a blind trust. This is necessary in order to ensure that cabinet removes even the appearance of a conflict of interest.

An act of parliament should not directly affect the net worth of a minister or a member. Yet what are we doing here tonight? We are amending legislation that substantially affects the net worth of members of parliament. We have our hands in the till deciding how much we personally are worth. It is a conflict of interest and I submit it is wrong. It is extremely difficult and some would argue impossible to be completely objective.

The MP pension plan is overly generous in that it provides pension benefits for MPs at a level that other Canadians cannot legally obtain. Yet this same government restricts the RRSP choices of Canadians who are trying to provide for themselves.

How can we as parliamentarians make decisions that affect the lives of all Canadians if the laws do not apply to we who create the laws? Canadian Alliance has a policy on this issue, debated and passed by grassroots Canadians. It is one that I believe in wholeheartedly. It is policy position No. 70 which states:

Parliamentary compensation will be recommended by an independent commission according to private sector standards. The decision of Parliament will be implemented after a subsequent election.

In other words it is our policy to amend the pension plan once elected to government and to make those amendments retroactive.

Following the last general election the Blais commission, about which others preceding me in the debate tonight have talked, was charged with reviewing the allowances of members of parliament. One of the commission members was Mr. Ray Speaker who served as Reform House leader, had a long and distinguished career in the Alberta legislation, and served one term as a member of parliament in this place.

The Blais report was quite comprehensive and made numerous recommendations, made laudable by the fact that the commissioners did not have a direct stake in the outcome. Yet the government has selectively chosen the recommendations it likes and has disregarded others such as doing away with tax free allowances for MPs to which Canadians in the real world have no access.

I have been a loud opponent of this pension plan and here I stand today about to enter the plan. I have said before that I believe that members of parliament are fully deserving of a pension, just not this one. Therefore I stand here with three options tonight.

First, I could support the bill, surrender my opposition to the inequality of the MP pension plan, go back on my stand to reform the MP pension plan and malign the fiscal sacrifices some of my colleagues and I have made in the past. I believe that would be wrong.

Second, I could abstain from voting if this issue actually comes to a vote. This would be difficult for someone who has stood in the House and referred to the plan as the piggy plan. I would be as self-serving as Liberals opposite who begrudge the responsibility of administering taxpayer money wisely. That too would be wrong.

Or, I have a third option. I could vote against the bill. Some would say it is insincere to stand and vote against a bill that I will personally stand to profit from. I am opposed to the level of pension remuneration that is included in the bill. I am opposed to the fact that I as a parliamentarian am put in a precarious position of voting on my own pay and benefits. I am opposed to the fact that the Liberal government has had three opportunities to rectify the inequality in the pension plan and has chosen to criticize those who have fought for change.

Unfortunately my colleagues and I who have fought for seven years to change the pension plan will be looked down upon for re-entering it, and those who have held no regard for the taxpayers will be without consequence. I am sure that many of my constituents will provide me with their views on this issue over the summer, and as always I look forward to their input.

This matter is not over. It will be rectified after the next election when the Canadian Alliance takes over and refocuses the balances of power in the interests of Canadian taxpayers and takes the decision making on MPs' remuneration out of the hands of the MPs themselves.

In conclusion, let me reiterate my three main points. First, I have never been opposed to a fair pension for all MPs, but fair must mean in line with plans accessible and legal for all Canadians to attain.

Second, an independent commission must determine the level of remuneration for MPs, removing all potential conflicts of interest.

Third, the Liberal government has had three opportunities: two years ago, in 1995, with Bill C-85; about the same time in 1998 and now today. It has had three opportunities, including the bill before us, to rectify the flaws within the pension plan and yet has chosen not to do so.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this evening we are debating a bill in second reading which concerns MPs' pensions.

There is one thing I would like to clarify right off the bat. It is very true that it is easy to get involved in demagoguery within such a debate, because the people debating it are the ones directly concerned. It is easy to blame other people, or to make political judgements without stepping back from a subject such as this. I do, however, have reservations about the process and about the bill per se, but I shall come back to that.

There is one thing I want to say right away: it is perfectly normal for MPs to have a pension plan like a good many other people do, whether in the public service or in the private sector.

There are also plans in place, such as the Quebec pension plan, to ensure that the greatest possible number of people have a retirement income. Parliamentarians must not be left out, and it is normal that they would have a pension plan. It is also totally normal in that—and it is important to point this out—the MPs who benefit from the plan also contribute to it.

Currently, members who participate in the pension plan contribute 9% of their salary to it. In the months or years that followed the 1993 election, the government decided to change the pension plan so that MPs could no longer start collecting a pension immediately, but only at age 55. Such a change made perfect sense. Indeed, it was totally unacceptable that, for example, a 40 year old MP leaving after sitting six years in parliament would collect a pension until the age of 55, while getting a percentage of his salary.

Under the pre-1995 plan, an MP would accumulate a pension at a rate of 5% per year in office. Therefore, a member with eight years in the House, or two mandates, would get 40% of his salary upon retiring, until his death.

Under the change made, it was no longer possible to collect that pension before 55. So, a person leaving office at 40 cannot receive any pension until age 55. That pension is deferred and paid only at retirement age. That change made sense and it was welcomed by the public, because it made the plan more realistic, more in line with the reality elsewhere, both in the private and the public sector.

At the time, MPs had the option of not participating in the plan. That was my case. I chose not to join in that plan. This means that I do not contribute to the plan, but will not benefit from it either. That was my choice and it still is.

What I do not like about this bill is that as soon as it is passed—and I am convinced it will be, because a majority of members here will support it—I will no longer have that option. I will automatically be covered by the plan, even though I do not wish to be covered, and I have a problem with that.

I was allowed to opt out and now I am being forced back in. I would like members to continue to have the option or, if people are forced to contribute, see the government at least wait until election is a thing of the past and say “From now on, there is a universal system that applies to everyone. It will apply to anyone who is a candidate and who wins the election”.

I opted out. I also told my constituents that I had done so. Now, I will have to tell them that the government has introduced a bill that forces me to opt back in, effective tomorrow morning. I have a lot of trouble with that and that is why I cannot vote in favour of the bill.

Not everyone is familiar with the bill. Why is it being introduced at this particular time? In the amendments to the legislation in 1995, there was an oversight by the government. The result was that members under 55 years of age who had contributed to the pension plan and who ceased to be members, no longer received severance pay, while members who had opted out of the plan, as I had, were entitled to severance pay.

Obviously, this is not fair, because when members finished their term of office, or were defeated in an election, they did not have a few weeks or months of income to give them some breathing space financially speaking. Nor were they covered by EI.

The government therefore wished to correct this oversight. I have no problem with that part of the bill, which gives MPs an allowance for six months after the end of their mandate or after they lose their seat. I do have a problem with the other part, which now requires everyone to belong to the pension plan.

I know also that it is not necessarily the government MPs who are affected by this part. It is mainly a group of Canadian Alliance members. I have trouble with members who get themselves elected by saying “I do not want to belong to the pension plan” and who now will conveniently be able to say “I was forced back into it”. One could well think this provision was put there primarily for their benefit.

That does not work. I have trouble with people who made these noble speeches just to get elected. That was not the only thing they were running on, but it was part of their platform. Now they are sneaking in the back way, claiming that the government forced them to join the pension plan and the government will play along by saying “Let's go ahead and rush this through at the end of a parliamentary session”.

It would have been better to have at least divided the two matters, the first one being to correct the fact that an MP who leaves at the end of a legislature, or after having been defeated in an election, can benefit from the allowance. I believe there is a consensus, or there might be close to unanimity, on this. I have no problem with that part, but I do have one with the second part, which states that, as soon as there has been royal assent, I am going to have to start contributing again to this plan to which I do not want to belong for a variety of reasons.

Members will also be able to buy back past years. They have at least been given this option. There is no requirement to buy them back. Happily, the door has been opened, meaning that I am not forced to join retroactively. But in the future, I will have no option.

I repeat that if it were at least done after an election, after an announcement was made to the effect that there will be a new plan and that members elected in the next Parliament will be subject to such and such conditions, people would be more aware, and the government party would have the leisure to leave things as they are. That would have been clear, transparent and understood by all.

I do not want to talk for hours on this. I have made my point. I think it is too bad that things often happen in an improvised and hasty fashion. Had it been otherwise, it would have meant no need to return a few years later to correct an error, because it was done in haste the previous time. People quickly saw that something was left out in the case of severance pay, but no one wanted politically to take on the dirty job of bringing it all to the table.

It takes ability and courage to defend the things one believes in. I have nothing against those who say “I do not believe in that. I think the plan should be mandatory for everyone”. Such arguments and such an opinion are defensible. At least they should have the courage to do it a little more transparently.

If they had involved a few more people in the discussions at the time, had it not gone on at just one level, had people been more involved, at least forewarned, they would have avoided this sort of error. Except for a few people who were involved in the negotiations—and here again, I would say that that has been limited to people very close to the government House leader—we are hearing about this bill for the first time today, with technical amendments to the plan, with the result that questions are being raised by those who will join the plan retroactively.

I will give an example that concerns me. For the 2000 tax year, I contributed to my own RRSP. I prefer to manage my own affairs and I therefore contribute to an RRSP. With this bill, I am being forced to contribute to the government's pension plan. I will therefore find myself in the situation of having over-contributed for this year. I will have to withdraw contributions from my RRSP, be over-contributed, because I was not aware of this fact. I have a lot of trouble with a plan that operates this way and which, on top of that, forces on me a choice I did not make, when I had been allowed to opt out.

This deserves some thought, and I would have liked members to have a bit more time to examine the bill, and go through first and second reading, committee of the whole, and third reading in 48 or 72 hours. I imagine that the government is worried that people will start being swayed by public opinion, but it should have the courage to say what is going on.

Earlier, the Bloc Quebecois House leader quite rightly said “I too can just imagine what some radio and television commentators will have to say tomorrow about those MPs who voted themselves severance pay”. That may be, but we must also have the courage to say that these people are earning more than most of us here, and than all of us because, except for ministers, all members' salaries are the same.

The sanctimonious elements in our society should take a look at themselves, because they enjoy much better conditions than we do. Meanwhile, we must have the courage to face criticism here and there and say “Listen, we will do this. We will take a little longer to do it properly”.

There is a legitimate debate on this which is related to the whole issue of enhancing the role of members of parliament. I was going to conclude, but this brings another point to mind.

Salaries and pensions are two things that may attract people to political life, but they are not the only ones. If the government is serious when dealing with issues such as salaries and pension plans, if it really wants to enhance the role of members of parliament, it should also take a closer look at the concrete work and real powers given to MPs.

I am convinced that if it improved that role somewhat, if it gave more flexibility to both government members and other members, if the Prime Minister did not control everything from his office, the work of members would be enhanced in such a way that the issue of salaries would become less important. There are elements to consider, but these elements are part of a whole.

It is not true that people enter politics only because of the conditions that relate to their duties. They also do so because they want to change things, to have a say in the decisions made. There is a lot of work to be done in that respect and I am convinced that all members of this House, except for a few ministers and those who hope to become ministers, share my view.

We talk about this a lot among ourselves but, at some point, we will have to take action. Compensation is also an issue. We must have the courage to tell people that, if they want good MPs, they have to accept the fact that these MPs must have a good salary and a good pension plan. I have no problem saying that. Often, the type of people we get depends on what is expected of them. To attract quality people, the whole package must be interesting, including the compensation aspect, the influence aspect, and so on.

There are several factors which motivate someone to go into politics, including the desire to change things and to improve the lot of the people one represents, but also the capacity to do it under reasonable working conditions compared to what one would earn elsewhere in society. All that should be taken into account.

I do not agree with the members of the Canadian Alliance who say that this issue should be left entirely to people from the outside because we must be able to make our own decision on this issue. I have no problem doing it and I would have great difficulty accepting that this decision be left to people who would not be accountable to the public.

In short, I think we must be able to have that debate, even though it might open the door to a demagogic kind of rhetoric. Some may have already gone in that direction, and others will do so, I am sure.

Because of the way it is being put through and because of its content, forcing us back in after we had been allowed to opt out, as I did, I cannot vote in favour of the bill, whether at second or at third reading.

From what I can understand of the motion, there is little possibility either of amendments at the report stage. I would have liked to have seen that possibility provided, so that the possibility for people to opt out if they wish, which had been allowed, could be retained.

In future, after another election, having it apply to new members is not a problem. Those who were allowed to opt out could at least be left with the choice they made in the past, a choice that should be respected. Whether they are now telling us that it is better to belong to it, or not to belong to it, the decision is up to us. Those who made that choice made an informed decision, and I have no problem with that. I can live very comfortably with what I decided. Today, however, I must say that I am not all that thrilled with this bill and my being forced back in the plan.

I am therefore submitting these comments to the House. I hope they will cast some light for certain members and that, between now and when it is passed at third reading, there will at least be a minimum of leeway for some arrangements to ensure that the choice made by individuals to opt out can be retained.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is one of those debates that comes along from time to time about which one begins to wonder exactly why are we having it. What will be the end result of this debate and what will be achieved by having a debate of this kind?

We ask ourselves a whole lot of questions because it brings into question, at least for me, the whole question of what this place is about. Who are we as parliamentarians? How can we concentrate and get so involved in a question of this kind when in fact we have big things to discuss in our nation?

I cannot help but think about Chuck Colson who has written a number of books about the role of government. He made two observations. He said that a good government exists for two purposes: One, to resist evil, and the other, to be a ministry for good. If those are the fundamental issues of good government, to resist evil and to create and minister to that which is good and make it better, then I ask myself what this has to do with what we as parliamentarians are here to do.

We all need to be paid, we all need pensions and we all need to be looked after. That is certainly true and I do not want to denigrate that in any way. However, what is it that will make a good government do something that is good for Canada? I would like to suggest that the number one requirement here is to demonstrate balance, equity, equality and fairness and that we recognize that there ought to be a reward for a job well done. There should be recognition for people doing what is right.

If that is something that is positive, something that is desirable and something for which we are looking, then where is the balance in this situation right now? Is it a balanced situation when the rules of the House are, if not changed, bent to suit a particular direction? I find myself in a real argument about the way in which this is being done.

I want to refer to the comments made by the hon. member who spoke just before me. He was in a similar situation. He wanted to know why this was suddenly forced upon us to deal with now at the end of the session. He wanted to know why we could not have had months to study it and to look at all the nuances of how it would affect people. That was what he was after and that is what I am after as well.

We have had all kinds of leaks to the press. We have had all kinds of comments and presentations made to our caucus and other caucuses. We were sworn to secrecy on these things but what happened? What is it that we are trying to do here? We are trying to create a balance between that which is confidential and that which is transparent and open.

There is something else that has happened. There is divisiveness in certain elements of what happens in this place, and that is the divisiveness based on party lines. The Liberals will do things because they are Liberals and the Canadian Alliance members will do things because they are the Canadian Alliance. There is a division along those party lines.

We have an issue here that is not a division along party lines. We have a divisiveness that has been created between parliamentarians. Individuals are finding themselves in opposition to other individuals, sometimes in the same party and sometimes in other parties. However, the issue is one of non-unity. What this does is it disturbs what we should be doing here. We should be building an environment where people can see that there is some equality, some fairness and some way in which we can have balance in our country. This is an issue where we could demonstrate and exercise a leadership role, but what do we have? We have divisiveness, not along party lines, but essentially pulling one group of MPs against another group where we have different plans for different people. I believe that is wrong.

The hon. member who spoke just a moment ago said that he did not like the idea of a third party coming in, perhaps an independent group, and telling us the way we should be remunerated, so we as parliamentarians do not speak to that issue. There is a lot of merit to that particular idea. I do not want to abrogate my responsibility to some other group and tell them that it should determine what I should be paid, what my pension should be, what my benefits should be and what my perks should be. I think it should have an input but it should not be the ultimate determining factor.

We are the supreme body in this country. We are the ones who determine the laws of the land. I think we need to look at that. While the opinion of other groups should be taken into account, I am not sure it should have the final say. There is a balance here that has to be looked at as well.

There is more than that. The strength of a nation does not lie in divisiveness. The strength of a nation comes from working together and from being strong. If there was an outside party or an outside country that suddenly decided to commit acts of aggression against Canada, what would we do? Would we divide ourselves along party lines? If somebody was threatening the welfare of our nation and wanted to destroy our nation, what would we do? We would come together and take care of that aggressor. The unanimity of pulling together is what builds a nation. This is one of those areas where we could pull together, and I think we should.

As I was preparing for this particular debate I asked myself why I came here and why I was a Canadian Alliance member. I told myself that it was because I wanted to make a difference. There are some things that should change. I am sure there are Liberal members opposite listening to this speech right now who are saying “Yes, and I too wanted to make a difference”. I commend them for that, but the interesting thing is that there are some things about which they made no changes whatsoever.

There are some very significant ways in which I think we can agree. One of those ways is that we have to make the decision making process of the House transparent. We have to make it democratic so that it reflects the four areas in which we can represent. Those gentlemen opposite—there are no ladies at the moment—will recognize only too well that one of their roles as elected MPs is to represent their constituencies. When they have found out exactly what those constituents want, they represent them by saying what their constituents want.

Another way is where they have to sit here and say that they do not know what their constituents want them to do in this case, but that they need to make a decision in a certain area and that they will exercise their best judgment and apply all their knowledge and skill in order to resolve the issue and become a trustee on their behalf, acting in their best interests. That is a very important role that we all have to play.

We also have a role to play on our mandate. We all ran on a certain platform and we must do the things we said we would do. If constituents voted us in and gave us a majority, which the people sitting in the chairs opposite have, we are obligated to live up to that particular standard. Finally, of course, we need to advocate particular positions from time to time.

What is the mandate that we have taken? What are the promises that I made as an MP when I ran in 1988, in 1993 and in 1997? One of them had to do with changing the democratic system in Canada. It had to do with really representing the people and doing what the people felt was right. It had to do with free votes in the House and a clear indication of what the people wanted regarding senate reform and fiscal responsibility. It had to do with recognizing that people wanted tax cuts, a balanced budget and the debt paid.

Have we had that? These are the things to look at. Some people will say “Oh, but Mr. Schmidt, you also said that you did not like this pension plan”. I did say that and I do today. I will oppose this bill, partly because of the way in which it was introduced and partly because the benefits in it are still too generous as far as I am concerned.

We need more than that. We also need to recognize that if we are really going to be democratic in this country we need to give the people a voice that is meaningful, a voice where they can determine what happens. That means that on certain issues there ought to be a referendum. We are not the wisest people. We do not always have the answers for everything. The people have a right to express themselves and there are certain issues upon which we should listen to them and let them decide what the issues are.

We also need to balance our country so that no one part of it is stronger than another or that no one part is given more advantages than another.

What will happen after all this? We have all listened to the debate. We know we came here to change things and to make things happen, and we did. There is a balanced budget today. Why? Was it because the finance minister wanted a balanced budget or was it because the pressure from the people was mounting and he had to do it?

Balancing the budget was a good thing. We were the catalysts to that balanced budget and I feel very proud of that.

We achieved other things. We made a change to the pension plan. It was in the right direction. This is another step in the right direction, but is it enough? The answer is no, it is not enough. There are more changes that have to be made.

What else have we done since we came here? We have learned a lot. We have learned that there were some things that we did and some things that we stood up for that were actually pretty stupid. We really did not have to do them but they were done for cosmetic reasons and people will never forget them.

When the leader of our party took the keys for a car and gave them back the first time around, I do not think there is any Canadian who at this time will not remember that particular incident, but what did it really achieve? It was not one of those things over which a big issue should have had been made.

We need to recognize that there are things that really matter and there are things that do not matter as much. We have learned some of those things.

We have also learned that some of us have very deep emotions. We have sometimes allowed those emotions to colour our better thinking. We need to think with our heads and we need to feel with our hearts. The balance we need is to bring those two together so that the compassion we feel in our hearts is mediated through the intellect in our heads which says that if we go this way we have to look at what the implications will be down the road. We need to be really careful about that.

That was one of the things that happened when this particular pension plan was changed in 1995. Yes, it was changed and it did move in the right direction, but not everything was thought about and it should have been. It was rushed through.

For example, the insurance and other benefits were cut off. Certain people were treated unfairly with regard to severance. Had we been given enough time to study this, we all would have recognized that. However, we were not given enough time and consequently the thing did not come through the way it should have.

We have learned that to rush usually creates more problems than it solves. Therefore, I would strongly recommend and urge the government to re-look at this bill and ask itself if it really has to be done this fast. What is wrong with waiting until the fall session? Why can it not happen after the next election? Why does it have to be done right now? Who said that it has to be done right now? Someone in his or her imagination decided that it has to happen now. We did not say that. The MPs generally did not say that. However, someone in his or her wisdom decided that it had to happen now. I do not accept that.

Something else seems to be at work here. There are two characteristics that are very significant. One of them is greed. We all need money to live and we all need pensions to live. Yes, I am one of those who thinks that we as MPs should be paid properly. We should be paid in a fair and reasonable way. We should also receive pensions and benefits similar to those of other Canadians. That is not the issue here. The issue is that we should not become greedy in that pursuit. That is the issue we need to look at.

There is another one that has to do with power. The leader of the government has simply said, “This is the bill. Take it or leave it. You are going to do this”. The seeking of power very often takes a lot of energy but the degree to which people hang on to that power often means a greater energy being expended. This is a sop that is being thrown to certain people and I do not believe it is complete.

I wish to deal with one other subject. It has to do with the leadership of MPs in their respective communities and their families. It has to do with stewardship. Stewardship means that we are handling the resources and finances of other people on their behalf in their best interests. Stewardship is not an easy thing to learn. It is something that has to be learned and taught and it has to exist in a variety of areas.

There is stewardship in our finances, how money is managed and applied in such a way that it can be defended. When asked by the boss or family, one can say how much is made and explain what is happening. If a father comes home having spent the week's wages in a casino or bar, what kind of stewardship or financial responsibility is that?

There is another responsibility and it has to do with health. There is stewardship in health. How do we look after our bodies? Do we exercise them properly? Do we eat properly? These matters are very significant. When symptoms arise that should be dealt with, have they been dealt with?

There are the skills we have and how we use them. Are we lazy or are we diligent and aggressive in applying them so that our entrepreneurial talent and skills actually bring about a greater economy, a better production of goods and services? The abilities and talent we have involve stewardship. Are we creating music or art? Do we create for ourselves or for the benefit of society and lift the level of cultural awareness in relation to art and music, and things of this sort?

These are very significant issues with regard to stewardship. They have to be dealt with. We should be leaders in this area as to how we manage other people's money. We have not demonstrated a very good example in that regard. We have created deficits. We have created a burden for our children and grandchildren simply because we wanted services and goods for which we were not prepared to pay. That is wrong.

We have to teach this to our children. We have to teach it to our friends and neighbours. We have to be accountable to one another. We have to call each other to account and ask, “Is that really the way you should be managing your time? Is that really the way you should be managing your money or the people's money?” We have to address these questions.

We have to recognize that we need to develop stewardship as individuals. It is so easy to become part of a herd, to be sheep and follow one person in a particular direction. Where is the individuality here? We are being denied the individuality that is possible.

I cannot as an individual MP do what I feel I should do. I can do only one thing and vote against it. However, when it is all over, I will be forced to do it the way the government wants it done. On an issue like this, where it is not a partisan matter but rather an individual MP matter, we should be allowed to speak our minds. We should be be allowed to vote. We should be allowed to exercise what we think is best in the exercising of stewardship for our people.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder how the hon. member feels about people who have given 25 years of their lives. Does he not feel they should have any form of pension whatsoever? Perhaps their spouse is ill and they need some form of health care plan, which one also loses when one leaves here. Does he not feel they should be able to look after that person? How does he expect them to feed and care for that person? How does the hon. member expect the family will survive? I truly am in absolute shock.

For 18 years I served at the local level. I gave right from the heart and I am glad I did. I hope I was able to do something positive for my people. When I left and came here they shook hands with me and said, “Thank you very much for being with us”. In fact, some have asked me to come back. I get no pension for that, absolutely not a penny, but a lovely hug and a thank you. I thank them for that hug and the thank you they gave to me.

I came here. I probably made history in 1993. We did not have any money for research when there were just two of us. I did not know I could put in for my living expenses. I paid for it all out of my own pocket from 1993 to 1997. I did not know that we could be compensated.

Here we are with a little pension that someone told me tonight was around $20,000 a year. Heavens, when I heard about the gold plated pension, I thought it must have been something that was around $40,000 a year. After 25 or 30 years of their lives, people are going to get $20,000 a year. Is that not something?

I am not just looking at my life but I am looking at the lives of so many who are here, people who have been here much longer than I have, 20 to 25 years. Do they not deserve something? I have never had one single solitary person in my riding say to me, “We do not want you to have a pension”. Not one person has ever said that to me.

I say to my hon. friend that I just cannot believe what I am hearing tonight. All members are deserving of something. I think if every Canadian from coast to coast knew the sacrifices made by members and their families and spouses who allow them, whether they are male or female, to come here to this House of Commons to serve their people, not one that I know of, if they were told the truth, would not want members to have some form of compensation through a pension when they leave here.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have three comments. The hon. member obviously was not listening to what I said. At least on three different occasions I said very clearly that I am in favour of a pension and I think we should be properly remunerated and that we should have the appropriate benefits. I said that at least three different times during my speech. That is the first point. I am not in any way denying a pension to anyone, not to myself nor to anyone else. That is not the issue.

What I did say was that the pension should not be more generous than those available in industry and the other superannuates. That is what I said. It is not a denial of pensions. The hon. member has misrepresented rather severely what it is that I said.

Should people be remunerated for what they do here? Of course they should and I said that too. It is really unfortunate that the hon. member has taken upon herself to say what she did just a moment ago.

I would appeal to us all. Let us build a pension that we can all support, one which makes sense, is fair and creates the equity and balance we want. That is what I am after and that is what I said.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I stand in my place to speak to an issue which I think is very important to Canadian taxpayers and voters. It is the whole issue of how we manage their money. I talk a lot about this because I am on the finance committee. Over and over I have been on record as saying that we should give Canadian taxpayers a break. It is time that we reduced their taxes.

Here we are on a Monday evening in June debating the change in the pension plan.

I have not had a great amount of time to look at the bill since we only got it today. It has been a bit of a rush job. From what I see, like most bills we get here, parts of the bill have some gravel mixed in with the tapioca pudding. Some things are probably necessary and should be done and then there are a few things that perhaps are beyond what should be done. I will try to put this into perspective from my own point of view.

I have heard several members say that there is no Canadian who thinks that members of parliament should not have a pension. I am not sure that is accurate. Some people I have talked to have said that they do not get a pension so why should we. There are some who think we should get no pension at all from the taxpayer. Some others have quite the opposite view. Some say they know how hard we work. They know how many hours we put in and therefore, we should have a pension. Some people have even said to me that they think I am a fool to have opted out. So be it; that is their opinion.

One lady even told me she would not vote for me again because if I was that stupid not to take a pension, I must lack intelligence in other areas too. I told her that was her choice. I made that choice because I believed it was the right thing to do at the time. I found out later that she had been kidding and had a great deal of admiration for a politician who finally acted on principle and actually put his money where his mouth was. But it has been a real personal dilemma.

I do not think that in making speeches here tonight we are going to elicit a whole bunch of sympathy from the taxpaying public no matter what we say or do. I have an idea that two-thirds of Canadians have no pension plan other than what they provide for themselves. If that is the case, then we need to be rather discreet in how we describe our work. I am not trying to elicit any sympathy but it is important to put some facts on the table.

I worked at the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology for a number of years. Tonight while some of the other members were speaking I did a quick calculation. I was in that pension plan. I have not yet taken my pension. I have not yet retired from NAIT in the sense of actually receiving my pension payments. I did go through the retirement procedure so I could be replaced by a permanent staff member instead of perpetual temporary staff. I thought it would be fair to that person. But I have not yet begun taking my pension.

My pension at NAIT is rather mediocre, if I dare say it, in the sense that the politicians of the day in Alberta made themselves a very good pension, but did not make a very good one for the civil servants. Our pension plan is actually reduced by the amount of Canada pension plan. Basically my contributions to the Canada pension plan are just a gift to the Government of Canada since whatever I get from the Canada pension plan is the same amount by which my pension from the provincial government plan is going to be reduced. So that is not a great deal of money here.

I thought about the salary. I did a quick calculation and my gross salary at NAIT when I quit was around $24 an hour. That was before deductions. We all know after deductions that is about $12 per hour. I made about $24 an hour.

Many people think that having left NAIT to become a member of parliament I am rolling in the dough. I again did a quick calculation and based on my salary here, I make $16 an hour. Of course, I make a lot more money because I have the privilege in this job of working easily 80 hours per week, whereas at NAIT even though we were required to work 36 hours per week, I usually only worked about 55 hours per week.

My hourly rate of wage is down and that is just a fact. I am not trying to elicit sympathy. It is a choice I made. Very frankly I have to admit that at the time when I decided to run for parliament I did not compute that. As a matter of fact it was after my nomination or perhaps just shortly before when somebody asked me what my salary would be. I said that I had better check that out.

I was always under the impression that MPs got paid lots and so I had not paid any great amount of attention to what the pay actually was. I discovered that is was about 15% higher than what I was making at NAIT so I thought it would be okay. However I no idea of the amount of the expenses in this job and what it costs to be a member of parliament. Again those are just the facts.

Having given up the growth in my pension at NAIT, I came here and I was upset because there were some critic groups, people such as the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and others, who had drawn a great amount of attention to the MP pension plan. They called it the gold-plated plan and everything else. I looked into and, sure enough, there were some aspects of the pension plan available to members of parliament that were actually somewhat offensive. I found several things really offensive.

First, in order for me to collect 70% of my salary, including Canada pension, when I worked at NAIT I would have had to work for 35 years. Thirty-five years of service at 2% per year, which was the rate of accrual, gave me 70% of my salary. As I said earlier, the amount we earn from Canada pension is taken away from that pension so it is not really even a full 70%. That is after 35 years of work.

Then I looked at the MP pension plan and I found that MPs would be eligible for 75% of their salary on retirement if they had worked for 15 years. To me that seemed a little high. For the Liberal members who just came in and do not realize what I was talking about, this was before the revisions to the plan, when it was still at a 5% accrual rate.

I was then told that the Income Tax Act did not permit ordinary participating pension plans to accrue at more than 2% per year and that in the federal government a special law was passed by MPs and senators that basically exempted them from the Income Tax Act. I felt that was wrong. It was not right for members of parliament and senators not to have the whole law apply to them as it applies to every other Canadian.

After I was elected in 1993 I went to the payroll office and asked if I could opt out of the pension plan. I was told that I could not. It is an act of parliament and I was required to participate in it. If I remember correctly, about $590 per month in contributions would be taken off my paycheque before I ever got it and I was in it whether or not I wanted to be,

I know that some of my colleagues at that time actually filed a letter saying that they wished to be exempted from the plan and not participate in it. I did not file a letter. I did it verbally. When it was denied I said “If you are going to take my money anyway, I guess there is nothing I can do about it”. As a new member of parliament trying to get two offices organized, staff members hired, learning the ropes in a brand new job and everything else, I did not have a great deal of time to work on that part of it.

We know the history of it. About two years later for fairly political reasons the Liberal government decided that it did not like all this criticism of the MP pension plan and said that it would call the bluff of those MPs. In a piece of legislation it offered us the opportunity to opt out. It said that it would get us to stop criticizing the MP pension plan by having half of us opt out and the other half stay in. It would cause dissension in the ranks and that would be the end of it. Then it could have its MP pension plan and live happily ever after.

Imagine the government's surprise when 51 of 52 on this side opted out. I did so on principle. It was an individual decision. I was asked “What about the one who opted to stay in? What is going on? You guys are divided”. I said “No, it is the strength of our party. We are not told what to say. We are not told what to think. We are certainly not told how to act in our party”. This was an individual decision. The fact that 51 out of 52 opted out voluntarily without coercion from anyone else is a mark of what principled people we are.

I was very proud at that time to opt out and decided to make the best of it. At that stage we had that opportunity. We got back our contributions into the MP pension plan minus income tax, which meant that we got a very small amount of money after tax. Some of us were able to roll that back into an RRSP.

I started contributing to an RRSP as my way of supplementing my living after I retire. That has been sort of a difficult thing to do. Other members have been enrolled in the MP plan. They contribute approximately $590 or $600 a month into a very generous plan. I did a little computation and found out that if I wanted to give myself the same benefits they are getting, because of my age and not having enough time for the money to grow with interest, I would have to put about $3,000 a month into an RRSP. That is not permitted under the Income Tax Act so I cannot do that, besides which I could not afford it.

I therefore have kept on making payments of around $600 a month into my RRSP just as before. This is one of the big reasons I will be voting against the bill now before the House. If I decide that I want to continue to contribute to my RRSP because of the fact that my total savings for the future are not that great, with the plan before us today I shall lose all my RRSP room or the bulk of it.

I am not ready today to announce whether or not I will be running in the election following the next one. I have already stated publicly that I plan on running again in the election this fall or next spring, but after that perhaps I would like to see some younger guy come in and represent Elk Island with all the energy that he could bring to the job.

If that is the case, I would get only my contributions back because I will not have put in the six years under the plan that we are speaking about today. In the meantime, for the next six years I will lose my RRSP room so I will be able to do even less in terms of looking after myself.

I think it is not a well thought out plan. I am against it on that account. I am also against it on the account that it still provides for members of parliament and senators benefits which are not available to ordinary Canadians.

I believe that if ordinary Canadians can accrue 2% per annum on their pensions then so should members of parliament. That should be the limit. Really in a sense the plan before us is simply a way of deferring the tax on a fair amount of income.

I did a little calculation. If one looks at just the contributions into an annuity to provide similar plans, we would have to put in, depending on the age of the person and how many years he or she will pay in, anything between $1,700 a month and $2,500 a month. That is an eight year plan. When I did my original calculations of $3,000 a month it was on the assumption that I would be a member of parliament for four years.

The fact of the matter is that it is not really possible for a person to contribute enough into an RRSP with the present RRSP rules. I think what should be done is very simple. We should have a system whereby the amount that members of parliament and senators contribute to their future retirement plans is within the same limits as those provided to and restricting ordinary members of the public.

I also want to take a bit of a swipe at the the taxpayers association. I have tried to talk to it about one of the things that has bothered me over the years, but I have not been able to get together with the association. Now that I have said it in the House I imagine that my phone will ring tomorrow, but it has not rung when I phoned before and it has not returned my calls.

I have tried to get them to actually admit publicly that the difference between what one contributes into the plan and what one gets out is not all coming from the taxpayer per se. Some of it could appropriately be called interest on one's contributions.

I think that by and large the taxpayers association has failed to take that into account. It has simply added up the total amount of the benefits, and that is what it has put on its billboards along the highways. Since I am a mathematician of sorts and I know the math of finance, I have always felt that was intellectually dishonest of the association. It has not served Canadians well by giving them that misinformation.

It is true that it is still too rich compared to what is contributed, even if one matched dollar for dollar on behalf of the employer the taxpayers of the country. It is still richer, but it is not rich by the amount the association claims. For example, if people contribute $1,700 a month to an RRSP or to a growth annuity, if I can use a calculation here again, after 19 years they would have put in $395,000. That contribution alone would entitle them to $1.5 million in total of annuity payments taken out over 30 years.

Let us say for the sake of round figure that people paid $400,000 in and got $1.5 million out. Then they would get $1.1 million that they did not put in. Where did it come from? It came from the accumulated interest. In a sense, the difference is what the contributor has lent to the federal government, not unlike buying a Canada savings bond or a government T-bill.

There is a loan to the government. It has the use of that money over that time. Some of it is simply interest taxpayers would have paid to the holder of a bond if it had not been that the government had that money available from the contributor to the pension plan. That is true for every public servant. That is true for everyone who is a member of parliament or a senator.

I would simply say to the taxpayers association that it has a case, but its case is not as strong as what it has been saying because of the lack of taking into account the proper, legitimate interest portion of the growth as opposed to being totally subsidized by the taxpayer. In fact the money does all come from the taxpayer, but like I said it was also partially interest on the loan that the taxpayer got by the contributions the particular member has contributed.

It is most unfortunate that I am being signalled since I could speak some more about this subject. I would like to simply say in conclusion and in summary that I intend to vote against the bill because of the coercive force of it and because it is still outside the parameters available to ordinary Canadians.

At the same time I would say that as a person who has always been the sole provider in our family I do have to look very carefully at what the options are, because I believe I have an obligation to my family. I will have to look at it very carefully. It has been a dilemma for me and continues to be. I want to say that I have, above all, a deep desire to serve not only the taxpayers of Elk Island but also the taxpayers of Canada with honour and with respect.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a different aspect to the debate before us. My remarks will be related very much to the politics of this issue, as opposed to the substance of the bill itself. As most members of the House know, the matter of pensions for members of parliament has been a lightning rod in the last number of election campaigns, which has been largely promoted by one political party over another.

In that regard the concern that I have is that this was used as a political wedge in a very aggressive fashion in the 1993 election campaign and in the 1997 election campaign as well.

When that was done the language that was utilized and the literature that was produced was against very noted members of parliament, including my former leader, Mr. Charest. I know that every member who sits with the Alliance, the former Reform Party, utilized that particular document in terms of the amount of compensation the former member for Sherbrooke, the hon. Jean Charest, would actually receive from pension benefits. It was based on the fact that he may live to be 90 and that if he had lost the election at that particular time it would have amounted to such and such an amount.

My comments are in defence of the solid, hon. members of parliament who lost their seats in the election of 1993 because this issue was used as a political wedge.

I have difficulty in terms of taking this approach initially because some members of parliament who sat formerly as Reformers, who are now with the Alliance, I regard as very honourable individuals. I compliment the member of parliament whose father was the former provincial leader of the Socreds. He said “We did some really silly things that we should not have done in the first place”. They gave away the keys to the limo. They were going to turn a national institution, Stornoway, into a bingo hall. They attacked all senators, including Senator Ron Ghitter, who was a very solid legislator at the provincial level as well as the federal level. Personal attacks were made by Ezra Levant and the member for Calgary West which were clearly over top. At least they had the fortitude to apologize for their remarks.

Reform Party members opposed pension plan schemes for members of parliament. They went on to say that the Reform Party would support the provision of pensions for MPs only—the key word being only—if those pensions were no more generous than private sector norms and met all requirements for a registered plan under the Income Tax Act. That is the litmus test that was established by Reform members of parliament. My concern is whether they are following that perspective.

There were very moderate approaches made by some individuals who clearly said that the pension plan is too generous and should reflect what we would see in the private sector. There were other members of parliament who chose to ratchet up the rhetoric. This is what they will have to deal with when they go back to their ridings in the next election campaign.

One of the gimmicks that we know still exists within the Reform protocol is the issue of recall. In the event that constituents do not support the way their member has voted, that member could be recalled. The number of signatures that is required to do that is not all that great. I suspect that there are a number of members of parliament who are now with the Alliance, formerly the Reform Party, who are a little apprehensive about that particular aspect which they advocate. They did not advocate the pension plan, now they do. They did not advocate residing at Stornoway, now they do. They did not advocate taking the car, now they do. Maybe they do not advocate recall now.

I know what the current leader of the Canadian Alliance said on a previous occasion about the pension plan. She came to my riding the other day and made a very direct comment. She said “We are going to win the riding of Saint John. We are going to win the riding of Fundy—Royal. We are going to win the riding of New Brunswick Southwest”. This in spite of the fact that they did not have one poll to substantiate their capacity to win even one seat. They said that they were going to send them home whether they received a pension or not. The point is, that would be a purely political jab with respect to the pension plan.

With these comments on the pension plan Canadians will know which MPs are greedy and which ones really care about the taxpayers. Those are not my words; they are the words of the member for Edmonton North. She went on to say “Believe me, the voters won't soon forget those MPs who promised integrity in government but decided to pig-out while the trough was still full”.

[An hon. member]

Who said that?

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

That was said by the member for Edmonton North, the current leader of the Canadian Alliance.

Another concern I have is with a hard working Alliance MP for whom I have a lot of respect. These are debates and challenges which they will have to work out among themselves. On August 6, 1998 he stated, when a member of parliament chose to opt into the pension plan, “Members who opt back in are liars or hypocrites”. That was very callous, and perhaps short-sighted.

[An hon. member]

Who said that?

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

That was the member for Calgary Southeast. I suspect that will be a difficult issue for them as time goes on.

I also recall comments made by the former House leader for the Reform Party. He stated “It is those principled individuals who took it on themselves to opt out of the gold plated MP pension plan who got on the alternative pension placed before the House today”.

The member for Elk Island spoke just a few moments ago. The approach he takes in the House more often than not is one of moderation. He said that the kind of language which uses such terms as gold plated pension plan was rhetoric that was not becoming of the House. I commend him for that. However, I question the tenacity and the visceral approach that the member for Langley—Abbotsford took on that particular day.

When I look at the comments of what other individuals have said, I believe it is time to build a strong coalition of Conservative voters, ones who want to pay down the debt, lower taxes, grow our economy and acknowledge where they were wrong.

Last weekend the member for Calgary Southwest said that Prime Minister Mulroney still had not apologized properly to the Canadian taxpayers for what he did with the free trade agreement, which has grown our trade with the Americans from about $100 billion in 1988 to over $320 billion annually. The free trade initiative was brought forth by the Progressive Conservative Party. It was an initiative which represented the fact that Progressive Conservatives are prosperity builders of this nation. We are very proud of that. Those members should apologize for the language and terms they have used and for accusing our members of taking a pork barrel approach.

I will comment on another member of parliament for whom I have a lot of time. He is a very learned member. He is one of the best questioners in the House. I am talking about the member for Medicine Hat. He tries to do his work on the finance committee. However, again an apology is required for the language he uses when referring to the pension plan as only being available to members of parliament: “It is disgusting. It is the height of hypocrisy”. These are the words of the Canadian Alliance.

I referred to the House leader of the Canadian Alliance. He is probably one of the most moderate, nicest guys that we have here in the House of Commons. When he made his remarks, Mr. Speaker, I know that you were in the chair at the time. I hasten to add that the member for Fraser Valley chose not to state this particular quote: “All Reform Party members are going to opt out of the pension plan because we stand on principle and we do not swim in gravy. We are going to opt out”.

I will now refer to the hon. member for Calgary Southwest who is vying for the Canadian Alliance leadership. We will have to question the leadership candidates in terms of what their particular issues are as well, be it Tom Long or Mr. Day. There are questions about when the member for Calgary Southwest, the son of a former Alberta premier, said: “It is the intention of Reform MPs to opt out of the pension plan. We call upon every member of the House to do likewise. Opt out or get out will be the cry in the constituencies”. Is it the cry in the constituencies? Will it be the cry that will actually precipitate recall?

It is a cry which must be respected if fairness in leadership by example and integrity are to be restored to parliament and any budget it endorses. When the word integrity comes into play, I am very proud to be a member of the Progressive Conservative Party and to be part of a team led by the Right Hon. Joe Clark. Mr. Clark is an individual who has taken a very honest approach to government. His integrity and honesty has always been beyond question. Again, I want to build a coalition with members of parliament who are in the Canadian Alliance, the moderates within that caucus with whom I have had the pleasure of having conservations.

I want to really do the things that we need to do in this country. We have to pay down the debt. We have a $580 billion debt, which is a mortgage on the future generations of this country. I want to lower taxes to grow our economy and to maintain our international competitiveness. We must recognize the fact that the economies of the Irish, the Danes and the Finns have taken off. There has been 18% growth in the United States, 14% growth in Germany and 14% growth in the U.K., while Canada has fallen behind with only 7% growth. Those are figures for 1992 to 1998.

We need to get our tax regime in order. To do that we need to build a coalition, an alliance, a further conservative consensus. We will not be able to do that if members continue to make visceral attacks on our leader, Mr. Clark.

A comment has been made that maybe I want some time out, but I do have more to say. At the time the member for Beaver River said that they would win Fundy Royal. I had the honour in my riding association to have all eight MLAs who actually share the boundaries of Fundy Royal at my nomination just about nine days ago today. They endorsed my campaign. All eight riding associations came forward to endorse my campaign. The most fiscally conservative premier in the country, Premier Bernard Lord, was actually there as my guest speaker. I know the strength of my riding. She attacked me. She was going to send us home whether or not we had a pension.

I want everybody to know who threw the first dart. This particular member of parliament said that the pension plan was a scheme, a dream, when one thinks about what has gone on in the last several years to make sure MPs look after themselves. In other words some may opt out but the rest will continue to pork out. It is what I understand. Those people who are still in an overbloated pension system because they have qualified now will just continue to pork out while some people will opt out.

There were some immoderate approaches taken by reform alliance members. I spoke of the moderate language of the member for Elk Island and the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. He mentioned quite simply that the MP pension plans should be converted into a money purchase system, the same as many private companies are doing.

I do not have any problem with taking that kind of an approach if that is a belief he wants to follow. However, visceral attacks were made by the member for Elk Island about the gold-plated pension plan. He attacked hon. members of parliament who actually tried to advance public policy in the country, hon. members of parliament who actually stood in the House and delivered principles that built the prosperity of this nation.

I look at the member for Cumberland—Colchester. I know he was attacked on that very issue in 1993. I look at the former member for Charlotte as it was called at the time, and now the proud member for New Brunswick Southwest, who was attacked on that very same issue. The visceral hatred brought forth against our candidates at that time should be remembered.

I know that my colleagues in the Reform camp or the Canadian Alliance camp, with reform as its middle name, may look at the language in terms of reciting these quotations and be a little upset over it. The intent of what I was trying to do was to say that the language the former leader of the Socreds brought forth provincially was wrong. It was wrong to use hatred and visceral attacks condemning our leaders in terms of Brian Mulroney to the degree they did. They utilized hatred in terms of attacking with respect to the keys and not taking the limo, not taking the house in Stornoway or the chauffeur, and opting out of a pension plan and maybe opting back in.

If they want to build a coalition of Conservative voters, I think it is time that the hand is more than just extended and they say that they went over the top time and time again in what they said about some hon. members. It probably was not in the spirit of developing sound public policy.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think I will make a comment. Very frankly I do not require a response from the member. I would like to point out to everyone who happens to be listening to the debate that in fact the then Reform Party, which is now the Canadian Alliance, was the only party that ever both publicly and privately said it would do something to try to make this pension plan fairer for Canadian taxpayers at the same time as giving a commitment to fix it for everyone. As far as I am concerned we will form government.

The member can bray all he wants about how we are such terrible guys, but we are the only ones that have ever done anything about it. All other members, including those on that side, have always very happily taken whatever they could get without ever questioning whether or not it is fair.

We will continue to question the fairness of it. I will personally. We need to work on it until we get it right. Right now there are some changes being proposed in this bill. As far as I am concerned they do not yet fix it. The work is not yet finished. With that I end my comments. As I said, no response is needed, nor required, nor wanted.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to try to be a little generous in that regard. I think the reform alliance actually did the Canadian public some degree of service by recognizing the fact that the pension plan, as was stated previously, probably was not the best pension plan to reflect the will of Canadians in that regard. I give him credit in that regard.

I also want him to go back to their platform in “Let the Future Begin” in 1997 on which every one of his members ran. They indicated that people would not be receiving pensions until they were 55, which was probably a step in the right direction. I say this to correct the record.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and a question for the member for Fundy—Royal. I listened intently to what he said. I thought his comments were quite profound and quite illuminating. A fair amount of light needs to be shone on a lot of the statements that have been made in this place since 1988 and especially since 1993.

The hon. member for Elk Island said that somehow this policy would change the pension plan for everyone else. This policy would change the pension plan for the Canadian Alliance. No one else opted out. No one else said they would not take it. This pension plan is being changed for one group of people only, and quite frankly there is a term for that. There was some talk about braying, but I will talk about con. I have heard crows on a gut pile before and that is what it sounds like to me. I would like an answer.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is wrong in one aspect. It is not just Reform or Canadian Alliance members that this bill actually applies to. It applies to about 90% to 95% of Reform or Canadian Alliance members. That would be the accurate number. This bill has really been brought forward because of them. There are a couple of members in the Bloc, but the bill was brought forward mostly for the Reform Party.

The issue that will come into play at home over the course of the summer is the Reform vehicle which I think is wrong in terms of recall. I am not an advocate of that. The number of signatures required to precipitate a recall situation would be quite difficult, especially when I look at the comments.

In August 1998 the member for Calgary Southeast stated “earlier this week the MPs who opt back in are liars and hypocrites”. That is a very difficult situation for them to sort out internally. I know reform alliance MPs work for their constituents and try to do the best they can in that regard.

What I am trying to illustrate is that one of the fundamental principles of conservatism is that of self-responsibility and responsibility for our own actions, our own community and our own families. In order to do that we are responsible for our own words, our own actions and our own visceral attacks. That is the issue that I had in play.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get into a great debate which I do not think will be beneficial to anyone whom the particular bill benefits or does not benefit. For those whose idea it was to bring it in and who participated in the negotiations and for those who did not, I want to read from a Reform Party of Canada blue book from the past. Then I will ask the member if he supports that policy just so we are clear.

I think what is happening here this evening is that a number of members are stating what our policy was or was not in the past, and I think we need to be clear about it.

The Reform Party supports the provision of pensions for MPs only if those pensions are no more generous than private sector norms and meet all requirements for a registered plan under the Income Tax Act. Reformers also support using an independent body to make binding recommendations to parliament with regard to MPs' pensions and that these recommendations be applied to the future benefits paid to both retired and currently sitting members.

That is what the blue book used to say for the Reform Party of Canada when there was a Reform Party of Canada. I just wanted to point that out to the member and ask him if he has a problem with that type of policy, although I do not believe he has.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the issue is that they have a vote before them and they have to make that determination. The key word is only, only if it did not exceed what was found immediately in the private sector. The issue here is not to cloud what we have before us. It is whether this bill does or does not and whether they will vote for it or not, whether they want to deal with it.

With respect to the reasoned approach that was just quoted, I think a lot of Canadians agree with it, but that is not what we are debating today. I thank the hon. member for his question and the opportunity to participate in this evening's debate.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the member to answer the question. The question was regarding Reform Party policy. It says in the blue book:

The Reform Party supports the provision of pensions for MPs only if those pensions are no more generous than the private sector norms and meet all requirements for a registered plan under the Income Tax Act.

The member for Prince George—Peace River asked specifically for the member's comments on this Reform policy. The member sounded like he was opposing it. Could I get an answer on that, please?

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians, this member included, believe we should have a competitive regime. A pension plan should be something that would reflect the level of risk and the level of investment and contribution found in the private sector. That is the gist of the comments that may be in the book.

The issue is only if. During the vote that we will have later they will have to make their own determination. That is the relevant issue. I would say to the hon. member that is the issue before the House. As I said before, I wanted to talk about the politics of the issue in that regard. The visceral language, the attack, and the rhetoric used before was wrong, was over the top and was not becoming of this place House over the last seven years.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to inform the House that this is going to be carried to a vote. There is not going to be unanimous consent to move this ahead as reformers wanted. We will be here the rest of the night but we are going to force the vote on this issue.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

That was not a point of order but it was certainly illuminating.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to be splitting my time with the member for Surrey Central.

Going back to the comments which were made from the back corner, they seem to be prejudging how people are going to vote in the House. I do not know how they would know that. I certainly do not know how some of my colleagues are going to vote so I am not sure how they have decided that already.

I want to talk about how this issue has come to where it is at today. It seems I have had this date with destiny for quite some time. Mr. Speaker, you will know that there has been a bit of a tortured past with this issue within our own caucus. Why is it that this has come about?

When I campaigned in 1991 and 1992 I heard a lot of constituents say that there was a problem with the MP pension plan. I was not hearing much about the pay issue but I was hearing about the pension plan. Certainly there were some politics being played as I suggest there are today.

I heard over and over again that people thought that the MPs of the day had failed, that they did not want to deal with the issue of pay increases so they had decided to give themselves an increase through the back door. That is what bothered constituents more than anything else. They wanted the government and members of parliament to be up front on this issue. I agree and I think that still has not been done.

I do want to raise the issue. Some excellent comments were made earlier in the debate by people whose judgment I value, the member for Winnipeg—Transcona, and the member for New Brunswick Southwest in terms of the history on these issues of pay and pension. They were valuable and important to the debate.

I know it is hard not to take a few swipes along the way. I have been guilty of it myself. In 1995 I spoke out very strongly against the revised pension plan which was brought in. Why did I do that? I believe we still have not achieved the MP pension plan that most Canadians want. All we want, and I believe all that Canadians want, is a reasonable pension plan for members of parliament.

Was it a reasonable plan when we were raising this issue back in 1991-92? Let us examine that for a moment. At the time it was about a $6 contribution by the Government of Canada for every dollar the member put in. At the time a member only had to serve six years in the House. As someone said earlier, a member could be 27 years old and have a pension for life, albeit if the member only served six years it would not be that much, but it would continue until the member is 75 years old.

If that was a fair plan, why did the government change it in 1995? I suggest that improvements were made in 1995. They were not as much of an improvement as I would have liked to have seen, but there certainly were improvements.

Let us look at it for a moment. It was a step in the right direction. It was taken down to $3.70 for every dollar the member contributed. Although it is probably still twice as generous as a private sector plan, the age limit was changed to 55 years. People could not start drawing it until they were 55 years old.

Of course there was an opt-out provision for the class of 1993 and some of us took it because we were essentially dared to either take the second plan, which is kind of super-enhanced to a lesser degree, or nothing. So we did take it. But there were improvements. It ended the double dipping as was said earlier. We ended up with closure on that debate. I think we are still a ways away from it.

We need to talk about what happened in 1997. After the review, in 1998 the legislation went through, but in 1997 there was a plan calling for expense allowance increases, an enhanced severance package, and of course the opt-in provisions which some of our members took advantage of.

There was no provision for that more reasonable plan at least for the very MPs who had opted out. Some people have made the case that we do not want to do that because that creates another class of MP pensions. There are four classes of MP pension plans now. What difference would it make if there was a fifth? That was not a good argument.

What bothered me more than anything in the 1997 package which was put before the House, and which I vowed I would never be part of again, was it was essentially passed in the dark of the night. There was no debate and no vote in the House of Commons. The very thing we are sent here to do by our constituents is to debate the issues and vote on those issues at the end of the day. I must say that today's package moves a long way to recognize that was a problem. That was my biggest single problem with what happened in 1997. Many people in my riding asked me what we were trying to do by sliding that package through in the night.

Every elected member in the House should have the opportunity to debate the issues. If it is our pay, that is still fair game. We have to debate those issues. There needs to be a vote at the end of the day. I wanted to ensure that happened this time around.

Some of my colleagues joined in 1997 and I do not fault them for that. We have different situations. We have different financial situations. But the 1997 plan, the 1995 plan and of course the plan today still are all overly generous and do not meet the test we put forward in 1992.

What I am trying to say is I am not in favour of the current plan, although I understand many members are and most probably will be opting in. I have a problem with it. We need to go further to change it to a plan that is less generous than it is right now.

As I said earlier, there have been many good cases for different points of view on this issue, but I wanted to put my point of view on the record. I think this enhanced plan today has missed the mark again. There should have been a plan offered for those members of parliament from the class of 1993 that were out that was based on a fifth option, a fifth package. There are four classes in the plan right now. What would have been wrong with having one more class for those people?

I have talked to a number of constituents over the last seven years regarding this issue. They want us to be up front and honest with them about the issues. If we feel we deserve a pay increase, we should get up in the House and make the case for it.

I see some benefit in having an independent panel make recommendations to the House, but it really is for the members of the House to make those kinds of decisions in the end. It seems to me the most important issue from the point of view of our constituents is that we do not want to do through the back door what we are not willing to do through the front door, which is to have a super-enhanced pension plan because we are not addressing the real issue which is probably the pay issue.

In the previous parliament, Jim Silye, a former colleague of mine from Calgary Centre, made an important comment about what he believed was the best way to handle this. I agreed with him at the time and I agree with him today. If members were paid a proper amount we could do away with the special tax free portion, the tax free expense allowance, and members could look after their own retirement income. He made a good suggestion at the time. People laughed at him because he was a self-made millionaire and did not need the pension plan himself.

However, we do have to recognize that people come from different walks of life and we do not want to limit this place just to people who can sort of buy their way in here, people who are independently wealthy. We want a cross-section of Canadians in the House of Commons.

The class of 1997 as I said are automatically in the plan. There is no opt-out provision for them. The class of 1993, the ones we are really talking about today, are going to be compelled by this plan to be in it. Members of our party have been involved in some of these negotiations and I do not fault them for that, but my own view is I think we still have a way to go to correct this plan and I would like to see that happen.

In 1993 I committed to work to make this pension plan a fair one. I think that is what my constituents want. They want members of parliament to have a good basis for pay and they want members to have a good pension plan but it has to be fair. It has to meet the test and I do not believe that has happened today.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, what those members are proposing certainly has not met the test, because this scheme, and that is what it is, it is a scheme, was hatched in secrecy. Not one member of parliament with the exception of the House leaders had any idea what was going on. This was laid on our table tonight at 6 o'clock. Every one of them on all sides of the House should be ashamed of themselves.

Basically this is being forced by the party formerly known as the Reform Party, presently known as the CA. What those members did in a previous life in a previous parliament was to make the decision that they did not want in. They staked their whole political careers on this pension plan. They raged against it back home.

Some of that party's own members are now sitting on the backbenches because they defied their own party a couple of years ago when they opted in. They want to set the rules of the game themselves. In fact they are forcing the government's hand on this very issue. Unless it involves them, they do not want to have anything to do with the renewal of the pension plan. They are setting the rules and the government is stupid enough to fall into their trap, because now they can conveniently go back home and say the majority of parliament overruled them. That is exactly what they are doing. They are the hypocrites of all hypocrites.

We have heard the present leader of the party—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Order, please. I understand the member for New Brunswick Southwest is incensed over this, but I would ask that the remark hypocrites of all hypocrites be withdrawn.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the term hypocrite, but it was very hypocritical of the member, which is very parliamentary—