Mr. Chairman, I see my friends across the way think that ignorance is bliss and that those who have been very attentive in the debate have suddenly arrived. That is nice to see.
I have a couple of questions for the government House leader. First, did the minister himself not publicly say just a few days ago that he was opposed to inserting an opting out provision in the bill? Now he is here defending it. I wonder what changed his thinking in this respect.
Second, with respect to the apparent perpetuity of such a decision, how would that work in the next parliament if there is to be another compensation commission and legislation is passed at that time? Or would there be changes that track judicial salaries? Would they apply to people who opt out at this point? Or again is that in perpetuity?
Colleagues opposite are saying to read the bill. The bill has been on the table for about two days and we have a couple of hours in committee, which is not a normal opportunity to read the bill and get expert external advice.
The bill is silent on this matter and this is committee of the whole where we have an opportunity to ask substantive questions.
I would also like to ask the government House leader about the accrual rate for the pension plan. My understanding was that chairman Lumley verbally suggested that the benefit accrual rate be 2.5% in order for the value of the pensions to be neutral given the increase in the pensionable salary. Could the minister confirm that? If that indeed was the intention of the commission, why does the bill propose a benefit accrual rate of 3%?