Mr. Speaker, I do not mind admitting that on election night in October 1993 my family and I were thrilled and proud that I would be coming to this place. Now when strangers on aeroplanes ask me the inevitable question: "What do you do?", I usually tell them, quite truthfully, that I am a farmer and a retired engineer. I do not ordinarily mention this aspect of my life unless the conversation turns to politics.
It is not entirely because of the obscene pension plan which we are debating today, although that is certainly a major part of it. I have stated publicly on many occasions that I will never be a party to this daylight robbery, so it is easy to dissociate myself
from the unrestrained greed which is going to be allowed to continue, with minor modifications, if Bill C-85 is passed in its present form.
It is no great honour to participate in a charade. My colleagues and I on both sides of the House know, and the public knows, that what we say about Bill C-85 or any other bill is of little consequence. A dozen or so people make the decisions and all of the debate in the world will not change those decisions.
Whenever I hear an articulate and well researched speech in this place I think: "My God, what a waste". If the argument had been presented at a rural municipal council meeting where the participants, working essentially without remuneration, actually make decisions, the speech would have had great value.
I look around me and I see less than a dozen members. We are outnumbered by the clerks, the stenographers, the translators and the pages who make this place work. Where are the spear carriers? Where is the chorus? They are not here because they know that their presence is not required. Three times during debate on this bill there have been quorum calls. The reason is clear.
Hon. members on both sides of the House know that it does not really matter what we do about it here or what we say about it here. Even if government backbenchers and members of the opposition were here in great numbers, the ministers, the people who we might wish to influence, are almost never here except for question period. Then we ask them questions which we know will not be answered and the ministers do what is expected of them: they do not answer. They and their parliamentary secretaries respond like naughty children. The atmosphere of this place rapidly degenerates to that of a zoo at feeding time. I have to admit that I am as guilty as anyone.
Does the role of straight man or straight woman to the inner cabinet really merit a pension worth anything from a few hundred thousand to millions of dollars? I doubt it. Does it merit a pension scheme four times richer than anything available in the private sector? I doubt it.
The most objectionable features of Bill C-85 have been thoroughly explored by my colleagues, but as far as I can recall nobody has yet referred to the fact that the bill is silent on the question of former members who are dipping into this particular goody bag.
With the Speaker's indulgence I will read a couple of paragraphs from a letter to the editor in last week's Western Producer by Mr. Delon Bleakney of Turtleford, Saskatchewan. It reads:
I think we should deal retroactively with the gold-plated pensions of the MPs who voted for them for themselves while systematically bankrupting our country over the last 25 years. Somewhere in our civil service there must be some financial wizards capable of calculating the contributions (plus interest) that our MPs, serving and retired, have made to their pensions.
The people of Canada might even be generous enough as employers to kick in a percentage consistent with private plans.
When these calculations are complete, I suggest that we try to borrow enough money to issue each of the "troughees" with a cheque. (The borrowing shouldn't be hard, that is one thing they do excel at.) This cheque can be accompanied by an explanation of the calculations and the advisement "Here is your pension, you are responsible for yourself henceforth".
In this country retroactive legislation to relieve governments of contractual obligations or to impose financial obligations on citizens is certainly nothing new. The only novelty of my proposal is that it would be aimed at politicians instead of the public.
Saskatchewan did it with the GRIP program. Alberta did it years ago in order to tear up royalty agreements. This very government did it with the helicopter deal and is now trying to do it with the Pearson deal. Our very own Minister of Justice has been very busy instituting retroactive regulations to confiscate the property of Canadian gun owners without even going through the motions of parliamentary democracy. There are retroactive orders in council to deprive Canadians of their lawfully required property.
Defence of the gold plated MP pension plan sullies all of us in this place. We should be talking of eliminating them, not modifying them. We are all touched by this national scandal regardless of the personal stands which we may take in this place on this matter.
I beg members for the sake of the reputation of us and of this place to defeat Bill C-85 so that we can all stand a little straighter and walk a little taller.