Lee Morrison

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 9th, 1995]

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.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. The hon. member says that we are discussing pay and benefits. There is nothing about pay in the bill. We are discussing pensions, period.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is there not a House rule that requires speakers to keep to the subject? I thought we were debating Bill C-85 and the amendments thereto.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 4th, 1995]

Name one.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I was very interested in the remarks of the member for St. Boniface.

It is really quite amazing the passion a member can arouse in himself when driven by unmitigated greed.

I would take issue with some of the remarks he threw this way with respect to the consultation of families, for example. I think most people in this caucus consulted their families. They also consulted their constituents. The net result that obviously arose was that people said: "Thou shalt not steal". We are in this, and we are in it together.

The hon. member also made remarks about whether or not certain members of the Reform Party had given up this perk or that perk or had made certain sacrifices. I gave up my 10 per cent. That has nothing to do with this debate, nothing whatsoever. I occasionally eat in the parliamentary dining room. So what? I never said I would not. So what are they driving at? We are talking about a multimillion dollar rip-off of the Canadian public and the hon. member is talking about trash.

I would like to ask the hon. member, since he is so critical of others in saying what did you give up or what sacrifice have you made, what has the hon. member given up? What sacrifice has he made? Can he name one thing?

[Petitions, May 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have been requested to table a petition signed by 63 Canadians, of whom 9 are residents in my riding.

The petitioners call on Parliament to desist from passing legislation legalizing the use of BST/rbGH in Canada. They further request legislation be passed requiring all imports produced from BST/rbGH treated cows to be so identified.

[Supply, April 27th, 1995]

Yes, perhaps turbot. We were supposed to be debating the Reform Party's motion on the reform of the Canadian health care system. We heard a dissection of the American health care system which is totally irrelevant to the discussion being held here today.

We heard the hon. member saying that we must have good health, that good health is so valuable. Who is arguing? Let us get down to basics and talk about the motion instead of dragging in these straw men, setting them up and kicking them down.

I wish I had the hon. member's gift of eloquence but I thank heaven I do not have his gift of logic. He will not stick to the issue. He wants to know what local administration of health means. I can give him a good example.

I was born and raised near Swift Current, Saskatchewan in what was known when it was first formed 50 years ago as health region number one. It was the first medicare system in Canada. It was an experiment. My family helped to create it. They worked hard for it. It was a great success and do you know why? Because it was run by a bunch of country doctors and municipal reeves. It did not have a giant bureaucracy leaning over its shoulder telling people what should or should not be done. It was a wonderful system.

When the Canadian medicare system was finally set up some 20 years later the results of that experiment were ignored. It was thrown out the window. A massive federal bureaucracy was set up to oversee the medicare system we had worked so hard for. Our system was efficient, it was effective and by God it was cheap. Nobody went without medical care. If we did not have the specialists available in our rural area to do certain procedures, we sent them somewhere and we paid the bills. That is what local control means.

In this day of marvellous communications we do not have to go that small. However surely to heaven we can put it at the provincial level where politicians have to respond directly to the people who elected them, where the system is run by the people who are most directly concerned. That is what local control means. That is anathema to the Liberals because they are the great centralizers, the great controllers.

[Supply, April 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. member for Winnipeg South were the minister of fisheries because I have never seen so many red herrings dragged through this Chamber in the brief year and one-half I have been here.

[Gun Control, April 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I recently received a letter from Darrell McKnight, a Fredericton man whose shotgun was seized under order in council a few weeks ago.

His comments were so sensible that I will read them verbatim:

I don't purport to know more about law than the Attorney General. However, when I was very young, my mother taught me that taking something which belongs to someone else was wrong. It was called theft, and there used to be a law against theft-even theft by government.

This incident is typical of the level of honesty and fairness we can expect from the Attorney General. To call him a thief would not do him justice because he is much more powerful and dangerous to this country than a common thief who must break the law to steal from us. The minister just changes the law with the stroke of his own pen.

That is what one ordinary Canadian feels about rule by order in council.

[Supply, April 27th, 1995]

You destroyed it.