Madam Speaker, I have to sometimes apologize for my colleagues because I want to give credit where credit is due. Some credit should be given to the Liberal Party.
When I was flying to Ottawa a couple of weeks ago I met this fellow on the plane who said: "I want to give credit where credit is due to the Liberals because they made me a millionaire". I said: "A millionaire, so why are you so sad and forlorn? What were you before?" He replied that he had been a multimillionaire. It brings me back to this pension plan to ask: "Who is becoming the millionaire, the businessman or the member of Parliament from the Liberals or this separatist group over here?"
I am wearing an appropriate tie today. It has some little piggies on it. It reminds me of the poem I learned in grade three when I was 22 or so. It goes:
This little piggy went to the pension market over here And this little piggy can buy a new home And this little piggy buys the best of roast beef But all these little piggies will ultimately get none
That is my little piggy story. If the government thinks we are kidding it had better bear in mind the word retroactive because when the next election comes and the present government is out, we will be back visiting Bill C-85.
I have listened to a lot of things in this House of Commons during this past session. The other day when the Prime Minister-he has done this numerous times but I am speaking of recently-stood up in the House of Commons he had the nerve to compare himself with a hockey player to justify this fat cat pension plan. It was absurd for the chief politician in Canada.
Why these folks over there try to mix salary and pension is beyond me. There are people like the President of the Treasury Board, who should know better and who also will pick up a good pension. Why are they not listening to the people, through the Reform Party, through all the contacts that they have, through all the organizations in this country, about pensions? I will never know. It is certainly not a populist organization at all.
One member recently in making a comment to one of my colleagues suggested that my colleague should resign if he does not like the pension plan. I think the shoe should be on the other foot. This group should resign for putting in the pension plan. If they will not resign we will be back talking in a couple of years through an election.
For years as I was growing up I was concerned about political remoteness. When I lived in Atlantic Canada I heard that when I was a young man and later when I moved to British Columbia. Everyone you talk to talks about political remoteness and how Ottawa does not resemble what is really going on in the country.
This pension plan is just so representative of that political remoteness.
During the election campaign in my riding there were three big issues: the economy, the criminal justice system and the pension plan. Even before the election, I decided to opt out of the pension plan, as my colleagues have. I still kept thinking about this political remoteness.
When we talk about things here in the House of Commons from day to day, you cannot understand for instance these separatists who come into this House wanting and agreeing with a pension plan. I think it is absurd enough that they are getting a salary, much less asking for a pension plan at a cost to hard working Canadian citizens.
I also wonder why it is that the Liberals keep hanging on to this and why it is they try to keep mixing it up with the statement that we are not paid enough, we need a future, we need a pension plan. I cannot understand how they are missing the boat. I guess it is political remoteness. They just do not understand.
Three bills have just gone through the House-this is the last one-where the government has restricted debate and enforced time limitation. They were Bill C-68, the gun law; Bill C-41, commonly known now as the hate law, and sex crimes too if we consider sexual orientation; and Bill C-85. All three are on very important issues and the government has the audacity to limit debate.
Some of the other bills which have gone through are just plain useless but government members debated and debated and debated. When it comes down to the three important bills which the government has goofed up on it limits debate. When we talk about political remoteness it is here in this House.
If the government thinks for a moment that this Reform Party is going away, it is just starting and it is growing. It is growing in Ontario, it is growing in Atlantic Canada. The government can stick to its polls. It tried that in the last election and there were 52 Reform MPs brought here. The government can stick to its polls but it will not work. The Liberals are going to the same Jurassic Park as that other group did. That is where they are going.
What is wrong with a plan that is no better than other people get; a one for one contribution? What is wrong with that? Why must they have more? What is in it for them? What is not in it for the taxpayer? People in my community do not understand it, yet Liberals say they represent people all across Canada. It is political remoteness.
I have seen here problems with ethics, problems with integrity and problems with arrogance to the hilt. However the real problem in the House is a four-letter word called greed. It can be called nothing better than that.