Randy White

[Penitentiary Inmates, November 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thought the golf course at Ferndale penitentiary was too much. I thought that prisoners getting old age security and GST rebates was repulsive. Free condoms to support their habits and conjugal visits for relief was a lot to expect.

Holy smokes, the prisoners are at it again. Cigarettes at Saskatchewan penitentiary are $1.12 less on the inside than they are on the outside. At the Edmonton institution they are $1.27 cheaper and at the Atlantic institution $1.42 cheaper, and on and on it goes.

To commemorate the occasion of cheaper smokes for prisoners on the backs of the taxpayer, I am introducing a new brand packaged by Liberal & Co., tested by the health minister and financed by the Solicitor General. No, they are not Benson & Hedges; they are Marleau & Grays for the inmate who has everything.

[Supply, November 22nd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, there is one thing I agree with, the statement by the hon. member from the separatist party that he does not plan to be here too long. I can agree with that. We hope he is not here very long either.

I really think the question was about the savings that we get from this pension plan. I do not know if the hon. member heard but we are actually borrowing about $40 billion a year to run this country. We are spending $40 billion more than we take in. I kind of think it would be a good idea, although it is hard to convince the Liberals about this, to try to pay that down. What do you think of that? Maybe we could just try to balance the budget for a change.

It is not just a matter of taking the money from some of these ridiculous accounts and trying to find out what to do with it. This is a very principled issue. The question is whether or not people after six years of service anywhere deserve a pension as exorbitant as this one. The answer according to the taxpayer is no, so why do we spend all of this time trying to coax this government into change? We should not be here doing this. Everybody in this room knows that these changes have to be made and there should not be debates.

[Supply, November 22nd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I love a crowd, that is all.

We have told the people in Canada that we are going to ignore the Senate. We will do what we want on that, although they wanted some changes in it during the election. We are going to ignore the MP pension plan. We are going to make some very small changes to it. Just watch, when the changes come out to the pension plan and see what we get. We have got 52 already qualified, so they will do all right.

I have actually had some personal experience in developing pension plans. I have developed a pension plan. It is a money purchase plan. It is significantly different than a defined benefit plan. I do not want to get into the details because I do not want to take the time. I am having too much fun having a little discussion on some of the other things.

I want to talk about the defined benefit plan for a minute. I will read for clarification. They calculate pension benefit payments according to a defined formula. That is what is basically and inherently wrong with this MPs pension plan:

These kinds of plans become more difficult for employers to administer. Uncertainty in financial markets, changing rules and regulations and problems in dealing with actuarial surpluses and liabilities have made defined benefit plans consistently more risky.

Indexing, cost of living increases and so on lead to a deficit in the MP pension plan. We have to make up a deficit, of course, at some time or another. That is another whole lesson these folks have to learn. They are not doing well at that.

We had an actuarial adjustment to the MP pension plan of $158 million. That is okay. Just throw the $158 million into the pot for them, because it came from the taxpayer.

Let me give a little lesson to the folks next door. I will say it like this. "If you continue to think the things you thought, you will continue to get the things you got". That is saying they had better focus on the future, because they are continuing to go the same way as the Conservatives and the Liberals before them. Nothing has changed. They had better learn.

Personally, when I came into the House as a member of Parliament I asked to be relieved of the pension plan so that I would not have to pay into it. I wrote the comptroller a letter and asked him: "Is it possible to get out of this ridiculous plan?" Here is the letter I received:

I am writing with regard to your letter of December 7, 1993, in which you indicate that you do not wish to contribute to the retiring allowances accounts under the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act. However, pursuant to the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, members are required to make pension contributions based on the amounts payable by way of sessional allowance.

Therefore, we are unable to accede to your request and will continue to deduct your pension contribution until such time as the existing act is amended.

Here is the part I like:

I trust the above will be to your satisfaction.

It is not to my satisfaction. It will never be to my satisfaction and it will not be to the Reform Party's satisfaction. It will change. It must change. It has to change. I replaced a fellow in my riding 52 years of age with 18 years of service. He is now picking up $46,803 a year from the taxpayer. That is only about $2 million if he gets a little older. What the heck, we are only taxpayers out here, folks.

I just cannot understand. I guess it is because when the Liberal Party is in opposition it says: "Ah gee, all these things are wrong. They have to change. The pension plan is exorbitant. We

do not deserve it". However, when it gets over there: munch, munch, crunch a munch at the trough.

[Supply, November 22nd, 1994]

The one who supports MP pensions.

[Supply, November 22nd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, don't we have an interesting debate going today? It is funny how the affairs of men have changed when they become government, isn't it?

We listen to the hon. member justify how hard he works, which is important, and how he justifies living off the Canadian taxpayer through the pension plan. I am going to address double dipping, among other things.

Perhaps Liberal Party members could ask themselves what is the difference between the MP pension plan and Lotto 649. The difference is risk. There is risk in getting Lotto 649, a payment for life, but there is none in the MP pension plan. Are there not all kinds of taxpayers out there ready and willing to pay now?

I want to address the red book and the blue book for a moment. We have heard so much about this red book. Canadians should think back to how long they have been hearing about this red book. They have been hearing about it since the election. It was written during the election to sell taxpayers on what they wanted to hear.

The blue book is the Reform policy document. Canadians have been hearing about it for years. That is the difference between a party of commitment and a party that wants to come to Ottawa and sell the folks on an election every five years. That is the difference.

Now that they are the government, here we go. We are going to hear more speeches from these folks. We are going to hear all about how we can justify through hard work a pension plan.

There were a number of major issues during the last election. I would suggest the finances of the country was the number one issue. Other issues were the criminal justice system, the problems with immigration and the fact that Parliament needed an overhaul through things like recall and free votes and so on.

There were two issues that the people put before the politicians. One of them was the Senate. The people were saying: "Either toss that group out or elect them". The other issue was: "What about MP pensions?"

We have elected the Liberals. We have a majority government. What are the Liberals going to do? They have put three, count them, of their party hacks in the Senate. I congratulate the Liberals. They have done exactly what the Canadian people did not want. Now we hear today about the Governor General's appointment. I believe he has some affiliation with the Liberal Party.

The second issue was the MP pension plan. Virtually every Canadian told politicians to do away with it. What happened? The Liberals said they were going to study it for a year. What do the Liberals over there have to study? We already know what is wrong with it.

There was reference to the study. By the way, that study was supposed to cost around $150,000. I could have provided the service for very little. It finally ended up costing, if you can believe it, a little over $200,000. One can check the firm who did it to see if they have any affiliation or made any contributions to the Liberal Party. I know what the relationship is.

Here we are at trough day yesterday with 52 who are already jumping into the trough. What have they told the taxpayers? Where are they over there?

[Supply, November 22nd, 1994]

Can you redefine double dipping?

[Supply, November 22nd, 1994]

No, it is not.

[Supply, November 22nd, 1994]

Now that we are government things have changed.

[Supply, November 22nd, 1994]

It is so different now that we are Liberal, eh? Now that we are government.

[Supply, November 22nd, 1994]

Now we are going to justify it.