Madam Speaker, I have a question for either the hon. member for Beaver River or the hon. member for Calgary West.
Accept for argument's sake that in juridical terms what we are dealing with is not a constitutional right, because unlike the United States constitution the Canadian Constitution has no contract clause. We are dealing with a constitutional privilege.
Is it the thrust and intent of the motion not merely to cover presently operating privileges as to pensions but those that might be said to be in a private law sense to have already vested, that is to say, contracts already entered into? The argument as presented would seem to suggest that this should apply both retrospectively and prospectively in the full sense. I wonder if that is in fact the intent and purpose of the amendment.