Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's speech raises the following comment: What a pity the government did not do its homework in this case and has no comprehensive proposal it can table on this issue, because what we have here is a motion that is unsatisfactory.
The Reform Party's motion has no really comprehensive approach to the questions being asked by all voters. Earlier, the hon. member said it contained a point similar to what was said in the Liberals' red book. I think some modesty is in order. The point was raised by all voters we met during the 1993 election campaign. Everyone everywhere, in Quebec and the other provinces, at all levels of society, was wondering how their elected representatives had managed to get terms of employment that were far better than those of most people in this country.
The government, by the way, has yet to meet its commitment, because it has not yet tabled legislation it promised to introduce. And of course the Reform Party could be blamed for presenting a motion that is so vague we cannot vote in favour of it, since we really do not know how the alignment with private sector plans would work.
It seems to me that in his speech, the hon. member talked a lot about avoiding double dipping and also about reviewing the age at which members would receive a pension and introducing a minimum age, and I think we could agree on that. For instance, during the election campaign, people said: Paul, you are 40
years old, which means that when you are 46 or 47, you will get a pension for life, and we pay for it. Nice work if you can get it!
Fortunately, I had the right answer, because I kept telling them: No sir, I do not intend to sit for more than one term in the Parliament of Canada, because I hope I will not have to come back, once we have settled the constitutional issue. I must say I found this answer very convenient.
In concluding, I would like to try to modulate the hon. member's views, and I would ask him whether he does not think it would be advisable for the government to table its bill in the near future, because it has already finished its first year. People who would like to get into politics during the next election, in about three or four years, should have a good idea of what they are getting into, and as well, it may be easier to deal with these issues at the beginning of a government's term.
You have had time to consult the way you consult on all kinds of things. We have probably had enough consultations. So, is the government going to make a decision very shortly so that during its first term, it will have responded to the wishes of all voters who want to ensure that their members are well paid but not excessively so? Their working conditions should make it attractive for talented people to run for Parliament, but at the same time, fairness should be a major consideration within the Canadian system as a whole.