Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to have the opportunity to speak on the issue of MP pensions.
I represent a constituency where there is a very large number of retired Canadians. Part of my constituency is described as God's waiting room because of the number of elderly people who live there. From the responses I get I can see that the make-up of the constituency is changing.
There is a lot of concern, not only from the elderly people in my constituency but from those in the middle age category and the younger people who live there. I take a bit of ribbing from my colleagues because I have developed a two way communication with my constituents. I often have stacks and stacks of letters from them, letting me know what they have to say.
My latest return had over 2,800 responses. The most consistent concern of my constituents is the overbloated MP pension plan. In their comments I hear a real contempt for members of Parliament and their overbloated pension plan. I would like to share some of their comments.
One constituent says: "I think government pensions are too early for too few years and too much. We cannot afford it. The general public do not get pensions like that". Another says: "MP pensions should start at age 65. MP pension plans should be in line with the general public. Cuts to MP pensions are not deep enough. They are whittling away at our pensions but are still feathering their own nests. We worked hard and long to save for our retirement but we might as well have sat in a bar and drank our savings. To this government it seems sloth is rewarded and hard work and responsibility are penalized. Let the MPs cut their excessive pensions before they cut ours."
"Why do government pension plans still totally out perform private plans? How can they say they want to increase eligibility to 67, yet they are eligible at 55? MP pension plan changes and cuts are not nearly enough, in fact are quite inadequate and presumably made to prevent rebellion. Your disgusted taxpayers are expected to make large sacrifices to help pay off the huge debt."
"MP pension changes must be more drastic." No one should be allowed to have pensions before the age of 60. Changes should be retroactive to include all former members of Parliament.
"The MP pension plan is a joke. The proposed changes are a joke. Would Svend and Ms. Copps make well over $1 million pulling down a pension from the private sector? Could you, Val?"
"Government pensions should be equivalent to the private sector. On members of Parliament pensions further cuts should be made here. Why should MPs receive higher pensions than one would receive in private industry? Changes should have been more drastic and no pension should be paid out before 55, regardless of when the MP started. MP pensions should be in line with industry". I could go on. I took one small handful from the stack I have.
I repeat, the one consistent message I get from my constituents is they will not accept another change to the pension plan that leaves it as bloated and as unresponsive to the demands of the constituency, that leadership be shown by the members of Parliament in the House. They expect if sacrifices are to be asked of them there should be like sacrifices from the people sitting in the House.
Like my associate, I will be opting out of the MP pension plan. I have given notice to my constituents that I will be opting out of the plan. I have received many phone calls and many letters supporting that decision. They do not feel I should be here without any kind of compensation. However, they feel the pension plan is asking too much from the ordinary taxpayer. I have to agree with them.
The Reform Party has come up with a very plausible pension plan that would make plenty of sense not only to members of Parliament but to the people we expect to pay for the pension plan. I suggest the government side take a close look at the alternatives placed before it from the Reform Party; a plan that would be adequate, a plan that would be fair and responsive to the years of service MPs put in. That would not be any more than what the person in the private sector of the people in my constituency can expect.
I hear from some of the seniors in my constituency that many of them are retired on $975 a month after 30 years of working for the same company. How can I possibly defend a pension plan that allows a person to collect after 55, that allows individuals who sat in the House for over six years to collect millions of dollars over a period of time up until they are 75. How can I defend that? I cannot.
I ask the House to please reconsider the bill before us now and to be responsive to the thousands and thousands of Canadians asking the House to show leadership and to show members are responsive to what Canadians are asking for.
It disturbs me to hear the responses and the comments from across the House. They do not seem to feel there are any expectations of them to make this kind of sacrifice. It disturbs me these people sitting in the House of Commons who have been put here to represent Canadians in their constituencies are not listening to what Canadians are saying. They are certainly not representing Canadian views in the House of Commons.
I hope before the debate is over they will get the message from their constituencies. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to share my constituents' concern with the House. I hope their message is shared across the country and listened to by the Liberal government.
