So how deep are your pockets when it comes to giving goodbye payments and pensions for Members of Parliament (MPs) who lost their seats or decided not to run again?

Unfortunately, they better be deep.

Consider the case of Winnipeg MP Jim Maloway, who was elected in the 2008 fall election, but lost his seat in this week’s election. After serving just two and a half years, Mr. Maloway won’t qualify for a federal MP pension, but he will receive about $78,886 as a severance package.

That’s about half an MP’s starting salary of $157,731. Not bad pay if you can get it, is it?

Had Mr. Maloway served just six years as a Member of Parliament, he would have qualified for the lucrative MP pension plan – arguably one of the best pension plans in Canada.

The MP pension plan starts out with annual payments of around $30,000 once someone hits 55 years of age. However, the starting amount rises significantly once you get a few years under your belt and automatically increases each year for inflation.

Unlike many taxpayers who are working an extra year or two because their RRSP portfolio crashed during the recent recession, MPs need not worry about such inconveniences.

In the case of defeated Winnipeg MP Anita Neville, she’ll receive approximately $54,544 per year for her pension after serving just 11 years of service. But Ms. Neville’s situation is hardly shocking when compared with some of her peers.

Consider the case of Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe who is due for an annual pension of about $140,000 per year. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation estimates that if he lives until he’s 80 years of age, Taxpayers will have given him $2.9 million in pension benefits.

That’s quite the haul for a guy who spent years trying to break up the country.

It’s true that the overly generous formula that determines MP pension payments was reduced a few years ago. But if you peer into the new rules, you’ll find they’re still, well, overly generous. Right now, for every $1 MPs put into their pension plan, taxpayers contribute about $4 towards it.

That is why the Canadian Taxpayers Federation has recommended MPs overhaul the pension plan to make it a defined contribution plan.

Under such a plan, the federal government would match contributions MPs put into their own pension fund. If an MP puts in $1, then taxpayers would put in $1. If the fund does well, then MPs would see a gain. Conversely, if the fund performs poorly, then MPs would also feel the pinch.

That would bring MPs in-line with many private sector companies that offer the same type of pension plan. In fact, it would still leave MPs better off than most Canadians that have no pension plan whatsoever.

Consider that Statistics Canada data from 2009 shows only 6 million of Canada’s 28.1 million citizens over the age of 15 have a pension plan. Yes, over 75 per cent of us have no plan whatsoever.

Hopefully the new faces in Parliament will achieve what the old faces ignored; a more reasonable pension plan for MPs.