Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak in the debate on Bill C-85. I do not think any piece of legislation has enraged people in the country more than the concept of MP pensions.
I remember back to my days in private professional practice when we said we should not drive a car our clients could not afford. I think in some ways that is how people regard MP pensions.
The system being revised here today is possibly better than most private pension plans. Possibly one problem we have in the whole issue of debate is we have not properly focused on the whole concept of remuneration of members of Parliament, and MP pensions are one factor.
Unfortunately things often get confused in Ottawa when we look at various aspects of remuneration, even in the public service. The public service has something like 1,400 separate agreements that cover remuneration for public employees.
The point I am trying to make is when we look at pensions we cannot strictly look at the concept of pensions and compare them with private industry. We have to look at the whole concept of remuneration of members of Parliament.
Another aspect is exactly what does the public expect and what kind of qualities and qualifications do members of Parliament need to come to this place? For most people it is not a matter of money. I believe that is true of all my colleagues in the House. In my case I really did not even know how much members of Parliament got paid until I came here. When the first paycheque showed up in my bank account it quickly enlightened me to the fact I was being employed for less than half of what I made in the private sector.
The government commissioned an independent study to review the whole matter of MP pensions and also remuneration of members of Parliament. The study came back basically saying reduce MP pensions to reflect the norms of the private sector. At the same time it talked about changing the entire way we are remunerated in terms of salary.
The reason our salaries are so strange goes back over a long period in our history and there are some aspects that have been picked up over time that probably belong to the past. I suppose it is much like laws on the books in Parliament. We often take a great deal of time to update and modernize them.
That is what is happening with this whole issue. The government clearly has gone far beyond its commitments. I will read from the red book because there seem to be points members opposite have missed entirely. It says Parliament will end double dipping. That is what this legislation does. It also talks about reviewing. I point out and underline it says "review the question of the minimum age at which pensions will begin to be paid". We are doing more than reviewing them. We are changing them, moving them to the age of 55.
We have actually surpassed the red book commitments because we also have talked about the accrual rate at which we can receive pensions. Currently the accrual rate is 5 per cent which means we get a 75 per cent pension after 15 years of service. By reducing from 5 per cent to 4 per cent we have increased the number of years we have to be in the plan to get a 75 per cent pension from 15 to 19.
We actually have a reduction in the total remuneration of members of Parliament. It is a wage roll back. Not only have our salaries been frozen for a number of years but now the government, through this initiative, has actually reduced our salaries, our remuneration, which includes pensions as a part of that.
Clearly this goes way beyond our commitments to the public. We have ended double dipping. The first $5,000 of other income a former member can have from an appointment or whatever is excluded.
Any moneys over that, he will have to basically claw back off his pension. If somebody were to get a $50,000 appointment and were collecting a $12,000 pension, he would not get any pension at all.
There is a very interesting study by Mr. Jeffery. This is very interesting, very allusive for some of the members of the Reform Party who are so quick to possibly give up their options in this plan.
These are members of the former Parliament. I have little clips here. It is very allusive as to how members' remuneration is affected after their life in Parliament. We all think we will be here forever.
The reality is, as many of my colleagues have mentioned, less than 50 per cent of members will ever collect a pension. Here is a quote from a former member: "My advice to those who are neither on leave from a tenured position nor wealthy would be not to seek office until sufficient means to live independently beyond leaving office". These are people who have paid the price: "Life after defeat was quite different. I feel that my time in politics has drastically curtailed my credibility when seeking employment. So much for service to one's country".
Another quotation: "My experience as a member of Parliament was a major hindrance to finding employment". This is from a cabinet minister: "Cabinet experience was no great help, not compared with the loss of income opportunities over 17 years".
Another quote: "My oldest son is about to enter university. I had hoped my retirement allowance would be available to fund his education if necessary. It has been required to keep up the mortgage".
If I had to retire after 22 years in the House on my gold plated pension, the euphemism often given by the Reform Party of $46,000 without additional income from a job, I would be in tough shape.
The record is very clear about what we are talking about. What we are talking about is the remuneration of people who have given up their careers or whatever to come into this great House.
In some ways I see MP pension as a form of danger pay. These are things that do not really make the Toronto Sun or for that matter the National Citizens' Coalition.
We talked about the fact that less than 50 per cent of members collected. Another interesting statistic is that of the ones who do collect, the 50 per cent who do collect, less than 30 per cent receive pensions in excess of $50,000.
Why is that? It is because they are unable to attain the six-year vestiture period. My Reform colleagues constantly argue why this is not comparative to the private sector. If the private sector were involved the vestiture period would be two years.
I wonder why some of our Reform colleagues are opting out of this plan. There is another interesting aspect. Right now MPs are required to contribute 11 per cent of their pay into this plan. The new plan will be 9 per cent.
Could it be that the Reformers are not very good savers? What they want to do is spend. In other words, by taking the 9 per cent of these pension contributions they will give themselves more disposable income. Could it be they are not very good financial advisers, not very good at managing their own affairs? They want to spend for today rather than save for tomorrow.
