Mr. Chairman, the government House leader in response to an earlier question said that MPs in the current standard defined benefit plan make financial contributions of up to $10,000 a year. That is true. I am one of the people to whom he refers who in the past has written articles about this. I have never denied the fact that contributions are paid and that they are substantial.
The problem with the plan as continued through lack of amendment in this bill is that it provides benefits much, much greater than the contributions. In fact the benefits paid to an average member out of the defined benefit plan are some 3.8 times greater than the total average member's contributions.
The government House leader also spoke about a recommendation of the Blais commission which would have eliminated the provision in the Income Tax Act which allows members of parliament to shelter a third of their de facto income from taxation. I think this is an outrageous double standard that we impose on Canadians.
The government House leader also said that the committee which discussed the report of the Blais commission decided that this would be inequitable in terms of its treatment of people in different provinces. I take a rather different view of why the Blais commission's recommendations were not adopted.
I refer in particular to a statement made by the hon. member for Mississauga Centre, the government caucus chair, who on February 9 was quoted by the Hill Times as saying with respect to the recommendation to gross up the salary and replacement of the tax-free expense allowance that “if we are going to get nailed at least we want to get nailed for a reason and see it in the wallet”. She furthermore said that the government should “screw the Blais report”.
Does the hon. government House leader think that portrays a constructive attitude to the report of an independent commission? Does he not think that the bill before us today would be more credible with the public were it to have reflected the binding recommendations of an independent commission? Does he not in other words think that this process should be changed so that it is an independent one and that we are not put into a possible conflict of interest position?