Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the dissertation by the member opposite representing Halifax, the bastion of public service in Canada.
I remind the member opposite that Canada is not a perfect place for the people she listed in her dissertation, all of the groups that were designated. It is not a perfect place for men either. The world is not a perfect place.
In my experience the drive to perfection is better achieved through education rather than legislation. We cannot legislate tolerance; we can educate tolerance. We cannot legislate wisdom; we can educate wisdom. There are some things the government just plain cannot do. I leave this aside and recognize that this legislation will pass.
Why, if this legislation is so good and so necessary for the public at large, are there two sets of rules? Why do we ask Canadians to do one thing while we do another? Why do we ask Canadians to do with less when we are prepared to accept our pensions the way they are? If this legislation is so good, why does it not extend to the House of Commons?