Debates of June 13th, 2000

Parliament Of Canada Act

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Chairman, on that same point, this bill was presented to members of parliament exactly 24 hours ago. It is unprecedented that a bill as complicated as this one would be laid on the desks of all members of parliament 24 hours before we proceed to clause by clause consideration.

The Canadian public watching tonight should understand that the minister because of the complexity of the bill has three officials with him at the table. He has three officials with him to interpret a bill, which members of parliament cannot do in a 24 hour period. We do not have the resources in a 24 hour period to go through the details of the bill.

The question I have for the minister would be simple. Why would he attempt in the old fashioned sense to rush through a bill like this one in the dying days of this session without consulting members of parliament and without having the bill before members of parliament so that they could examine it as closely as he has been able to do with the aid of assistants? I point to the three technical advisers that the minister has with him tonight. They were not available to individual members of parliament.

I would like to quote from the editorial section of the Hill Times . It deals with the point of individual members of parliament, and I am talking about the member of parliament from the Ontario region. The article suggests that everything is conducted by the Prime Minister's Office, basically keeping members of parliament, in fact Liberal members of parliament, out of the circle. We have Liberal members of parliament not knowing what the government is doing. They are being blindsided by their own ministers, particularly the PMO, and in this case I might suggest the minister responsible for this bill.

I want to quote from the article. The member says that there are at least 50 potential Guy Fawkes in the Liberal caucus. Historians would know that Guy Fawkes led a group of rebels who wanted to blow up King James I and parliament in 1605 in what was known as the gunpowder plot.

I guess the member is suggesting that there are a number of very disgruntled members of parliament on that side, the government side of the House. Obviously the government was pressured by the official opposition. The history of the bill will reveal that it has been brought in to appease what is now known as the Canadian Alliance, formerly known as the Reform Party.

Many Reform members landed in this place in 1993 because they railed against everything that we would consider the rightful duty of members of parliament. In other words, they pretended to be everything but parliamentarians. They exercised their lungs to a great extent on the benefits individual members of parliament would receive when they retired. They railed against it because it was a very convenient thing to do.

Now we have the CA members of parliament having second thoughts about what they did in the 1993 and 1997 elections. The interim leader of the CA, the member who formerly represented Beaver River, talked about pigs at the trough in terms of pensions. They made the Canadian people believe that every member of parliament would retire as millionaires if they were in this place for as little as six years because of the pension plan, only to find out that it was not the case.

The example I used last night was the member for Saint John, formerly the interim leader of the Conservative Party. She has spent the good part of her adult life in public life. In fact she has spent from 1993 to the present day in the House of Commons. If she were to retire today she would get a pension of about $20,000 a year. She would have to live to be 117 years old if it were to become a million dollar pension. If we simply multiple $20,000 by 50, that would put it in the $1 million range.

That type of absurdity, which the Reform Party preached in 1993 making all members of parliament look greedy and as if they were pigs at the trough, got them into this place. Now they suddenly realize that it was not as good as they thought it was. However, they did rail against it and it did get them into this place. Now there is a certain sense of reality.

It is like a lynching in the morning. They are now realizing that they are not quite as popular as they were back in 1993. There is a strong possibility that they will be defeated at the polls when the next election comes.

Let us think about it. They do not have a leader. They are still trying to determine if the leader will be coming from Ontario in the name of Tom Long, or from Alberta in the name of Stockwell Day, or the individual who formerly led the Reform Party whose name I cannot mention in the House because of the rules. He is the member who represents Calgary Southwest.

They are suddenly realizing that they are caught in a vacuum. Things are not going quite as well as they thought they were for them politically. Some of those members are saying that they have been in this place since 1993 and if they suddenly leave they will not have pensions.

They are realizing they may not run in the next election because it does not look quite as easy as it was back in 1993, or indeed in 1997 when they won again out west. They are saying they need a bit of a safety net, and understandably so. We do not argue with that.

Most intelligent people would say that when we dedicate 6, 8, 10, 12 or 15 years of our lives to public life, at the sacrifice of our families in many cases, we are entitled to some kind of a package at the end of the day.

In fact, some of the wives of the CA members are now saying that their husbands went to Ottawa and railed against the pension and are asking where it leaves them as spouses or as widows if something should happen to their husbands. That is the sad reality. It is a sad reality that some of us will not be here forever and some of us will leave a spouse back home alone. We are saying that they are entitled to pensions. We have always said that as members of the Conservative Party, and rightfully so the Liberals have said the same.

When I die my wife is entitled to some kind of compensation. This is a sad reality for CA members. They are willing to swallow themselves whole on this issue because they realize that they made a huge mistake back in 1993. Here is an example of the hypocritical nature of their position.

One of our members ran against a Reform member in the last election. I will not identify the member, but I can if necessary. The Reform candidate was railing about the pension the particular MP would get if he were re-elected: he was going to get a million dollar pension if he were re-elected to the House of Commons, which was absolutely not the truth. At that time that member was to get a $16,000 pension, not even equalling the $20,000 this member will get after eight years of service. The million dollar pension turned out to be a $16,000 at the age of 55.

The Reform candidate was railing against a golden pension of a million dollars that turned into a meagre $16,000 pension. The candidate for the Reform Party was yakking in that fashion, condemning that little pension if the other candidate were re-elected. If the Reform candidate had been eligible for a pension as a school bus driver, it would have surpassed by 100% the pension of the re-elected member of the House of Commons. In other words, his pension would be $32,000 a year as a bus driver, but he wanted to deny a pension to a member of parliament who had come to this place week in and week out, leaving his family behind, because it was fashionable at the time.

I want to quote from a former member of this place who did not come back as a Reformer. His name is Stephen Harper. This is what he had to say about the process we are now going through. It was very accurate.

I am trying to lay out that the official opposition, the CA formerly known as the Reform Party, has scrambled in the last number of weeks to make this happen. That is how it usually works. It is sort of like the Friday night special. It is getting late in the session, late in the week, and they will just kind of slide this thing through. Guess what? They are not going to force it to a vote or to a debate.

It will be a conspiracy of silence to put this bill through the House of Commons without any public input, without any transparency. There is no transparency. As I mentioned, the bill was laid on every member's desk last night at six o'clock.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

You should have had your House leader talk to you about that.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

That is pure nonsense and he knows it.

In any event, Stephen Harper, who refused to run for the Reform Party in the 1997 election said this about the case of the Reformers swallowing themselves whole or flip-flopping on this pension issue. I am quoting from the National Post , the official Reform Party CA publication. The owner of the paper is Conrad Black but at least he had the decency to print this.

Stephen Harper said, “It is a case of you scratch my back, I will scratch yours and all the skin comes off the taxpayers”. Stephen Harper is president of the National Citizens' Coalition. He said, “It is a terrible betrayal of all the people who voted Reform”. It is a betrayal of the people who voted Reform because many of those members, and I can point at them now, came in here in that bit of rage against pensions.

Some of them came here because they defied everything that parliament stood for. For example the present leader of the CA, formerly the leader of the Reform Party, the member for Calgary Southwest, is the guy who took the keys. They handed him the keys to a chauffeur driven car in 1993. He made a point of having the press there when he eagerly passed the keys back and said, “This is a perk, I do not want this car”.

In 1997 after having walked to the House of Commons on shoe leather as most of us do, he decided, “That car might have been a good idea. Why don't I keep the car? It is four years later and people will have forgotten what we did in 1993”. It was a publicity stunt. People will forget. He is quoted as saying that people have 20 second memories. I guess he figured that the 20 second memory would kick in or kick out. People would not remember, but they did. It is on tape. We watch it on the evening news from time to time. They love to replay that one.

There was a major flip-flop on that one. That was a perk. That is one thing most of us intelligently think when we look at a minister's or the Prime Minister's life and how busy they are going from here to there. I think they are entitled to a driver to get around the city to go from meeting to meeting.

Then there was the Stornoway issue. For those people who do not know but I think most people do, Stornoway is the official residence of the official opposition leader. That is at public expense as is 24 Sussex Drive. We are saying the Leader of the Opposition is entitled to a home because that person is sacrificing a lot to lead a party and it is a very responsible position. It is the same for the Prime Minister. No one would deny the Prime Minister 24 Sussex Drive and what goes with it.

In this case the Leader of the Opposition mocked it. He said, “Stornoway is nothing more than a fancy bingo hall. I am not going to stay there. Forget about it. It is not in the cards”. Except when he got elected as Leader of the Official Opposition he changed his mind. He suddenly forgot what he said. It looked pretty attractive from his point of view after he became Leader of the Official Opposition. So guess what? He moved into Stornoway. How did he get there? He got there in that car provided to him by the taxpayers of Canada, the very car he said he would never drive in.

He moved into the hall and, insult of all insults, he did not turn it into a bingo hall as he said he would. That could have offset the expenses of running Stornoway if he wished. If he took in 500 bucks a night on bingo he could turn it over to general revenue. Is the finance minister or the minister responsible for the treasury board here? I do not see them. I guess that was part of the scenario, “I will turn it into a bingo hall and hand over the 500 bucks or whatever we take in each night and that will help offset the expenses”. But no, he did not do that. He is living there with his family which he is entitled to do. We do not deny that. But the truth is he railed against it.

That is the type of flip-flop which I think the Canadian people find unsavoury. In fact supporters of the former Reform Party find it unsavoury. That is exactly what Stephen Harper is referring to in the National Post article. I think the headline on the article tells it all. It reads in big print in the National Post of June 13, 2000, “Grit pension ploy divides alliance” and it is subtitled, “Bill prompts party to drop hardline stance against system it had often attacked”. Those members attacked it often and ferociously for a number of years. I could read a number of other quotes of what they had to say about the pension plan.

The point I am attempting to make is simply how could any party rail against a pension plan the way those members did simply to get a seat in the House of Commons? It was a convenient thing to rail against. Then they came into this place and completely changed their position. Hence, they were swallowing themselves whole. What other party could get away with it?

This is pretty cute. We are going through the bill clause by clause, not to lose focus on the bill itself. There is a provision which gives them a year. Maybe the officials at the desk can point this out when it is their turn to consult with the minister. This is quite cute. This is part of their scenario. They are hoping against hope that the election will be held within the year. Then they could safely get away with what they are doing.

Tonight in the House I noticed how clever they are. We have to give them points for being clever. About half of them stood up to vote for the bill and they were looking around to see if their neighbour would stand up to vote for it. Some of them, and I will give them credit for this, had the backbone to stand up tonight to vote for this pension change. Many of them did not. They were looking over their shoulders to see what might happen. Paranoia surrounds that party to begin with.

There was certainly no free vote which is another thing they railed and chatted about almost continuously between 1993 and 1997.

Anyway, they now will have a year. They have to decide within a year whether they are going to buy into the pension plan. This is their second go around.

[An hon. member]

The third go around.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Oh, it is the third go around. The first time some of them opted in, they were relegated to the back benches for defying their leader because they chose to buy into the pension plan. That was at about the same time when their leader was sitting in the second or third row. The leader of the Reform Party, when he first came to the House of Commons said, “Hey, listen. This is new. I do not want to be special. I am going to sit in the second or third row. This is going to be great and wonderful. It is a new sense of equality in the House of Commons”.

That was a very popular thing to say and do until after about three or four weeks he decided that he was getting lost in the crowd. Yes, there are such things as television cameras. Yes, there is something to be said for sitting in the front row. I would just love to be sitting beside my deputy leader in the front row but that privilege is given to our House leader. He is the honoured gentleman to sit beside this wonderful lady day after day and night after night in the House of Commons.

Guess what the Leader of the Opposition did on this one. He completely changed his mind. “Hey, listen, that sounded good but it does not work so off I go to the front row”. He did not look too good in the front row. He had to have his hair changed. This is true as I am standing here. He said, “I do not like the look of my hair”. I think they did a focus group.

It is like me, Mr. Chairman. You can remember when I had a pretty good hairdo about 12 years ago. My wife does not brag about my hair anymore for obvious reasons. I do not have much.

That did not stop the Reform Party leader. Guess what he did? He had a makeover, which is fine. There is nothing wrong with doing that. A lot of people do it. He got a new hairdo and a dye job to go with it. He did not like his voice because the focus group said it was too high and squeaky and he had better change it. He attempted to change his voice in his makeover. He got rid of the glasses as well and used contact lenses because apparently that gives a better impression on television.

The point I am making is that these are major flip-flops, some of them personal, to which we are entitled. I guess dress is important in this business. The way we comb our hair and the colour of it are all important. Those are major flip-flops by the Leader of the Opposition.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Let us get rid of those phoneys in Ottawa.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

He is quoted as saying, “Let us get rid of those phoneys in Ottawa”. Exactly. He mentioned that time and again, those phoney politicians in Ottawa. He railed against anyone who was a “professional politician”.

We notice that he does not rail against these professional politicians anymore. Why? Because he is a professional politician. He is the consummate politician. He is the politician who came to Ottawa. This was an intellectual flip-flop but I am not sure that he will pull this one off. Remember the slogan was that the west wants in, “We want a voice from western Canada that will go there and set the tone for the rest of the nation”. That is what they wanted.

The west wants in was his slogan. It got him here in 1993, among other things which I have already mentioned. He came to Ottawa but suddenly realized that his so-called right-wing agenda, if one wants to call it that because I hate mixing up left and right, would not make him Prime Minister of Canada.

Talk about this makeover; this was a complete flip-flop. We can change our hairstyle, dye our hair, cap our teeth, put in contact lenses or whatever we have to do, even lose weight if we have to. The major flip-flop is he said, “I cannot get elected on this right-wing agenda so I am going to have to put a little water in my wine to temper down my policies. We are going to do a number of things”. This was the leader of the Reform Party speaking at the time.

First, he said the party would change its name.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I have been listening very attentively for quite some time to the hon. member, my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party. I wonder what this has to do with the title of the bill because that is what I thought we were supposed to be debating.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

I am getting to that.

[The Chairman]

The member says he is coming to the title so we will look forward to those pertinent parts of his remarks.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Chairman, I am getting to the title. That is a good point and I will move in that direction. We are getting at the major flip-flop and it has to do with the title of the bill, and I will suggest a new title once I reach that point. I do not dare to say it out loud at this point but eventually we will get there.

He decided that despite everything he has done he cannot become Prime Minister of Canada because he will have to water down his policies. He will have to change direction a little and the first thing he will do is change the name of the party.

It went from the Reform Party to CA. We have had a lot of jokes in this place, some of them played out by the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Canadian Heritage has had some fun with that title as well. Talk about chameleons, Canadian Alliance members not only changed their image, they changed the name of their party in the hopes of broadening the base. They have changed their policy to broaden the base.

We have to remember that they came into this place with the idea that the west wants in. Now they are flirting around with the big blue machine in Ontario. Bay Street will now run the party because they have a man by the name of Tom Long up there who has pockets deeper than all of us combined.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. It does seem to me that we should be debating the title of the bill. I wonder if the member is just running off at the mouth like this because his party is down to 9% in the polls. Is that part of it? I just wonder if he could work that into his comments.

[The Chairman]

I appreciate the assistance of the House leader of the official opposition. We are under a time limit, as hon. members know, with respect to the committee of the whole and there are some other members who have given notice to the Chair that they would like to ask some questions of the minister.

Might I suggest we move on to questions? The hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest of course will have the opportunity to make a 20 minute speech, at the very least, on third reading later this day. Perhaps we can deal with the bill. Is that agreeable to the committee?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Chairman, with your tolerance and understanding, I want to move to the question regarding the title of the bill.

[The Chairman]

I think it might be wise, in fairness to other hon. members who do want to ask some questions, that we allow some time for that, given the time constraints on the committee. I would urge the hon. member to exercise a little judicious restraint, particularly when he seems to be straying a bit far from the title in his remarks.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit that the name of the bill should be changed to the reversal of fortunes bill for the reform party.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Chairman, if nothing else, this has been somewhat entertaining.

I want to answer a few of the initial questions that have been asked. In the first part there were questions, but I think we eventually strayed somewhat from the questions. I will leave other members to judge as to whether or not the word somewhat is appropriate.

One the first point, whether or not this bill was rushed, I do not think that is the case. I submit to the House that there were wide consultations. As a matter of fact, the consultations were so wide that things being what they are, some of them were even leaked to the media.

Even if one claims that he or she was not consulted, it was reasonably easy to find out from one's House leader whether or not consultations had taken place because it was front page news in several media, much to my chagrin. I still have a few scars from that particular episode not that many weeks ago. I do not believe that anyone can claim to be surprised that this bill is before the House.

The second thing is that there were some comments on whether or not this was a partisan effort on the part of the government against its own backbench, and stuff like this. I have not made this a partisan issue at all. Even if provoked, I have not touched this and I will not. I will gladly engage tomorrow in a partisan argument on policy with my colleagues across the way. I am looking forward to tomorrow's question period. If hon. members across want to give it their best shot before we leave here on questions that are of interest on policy issues, I will gladly do that. However, I have not and I will not take part in the debate on this bill in terms of a partisan accusation against anybody, nor will I say who wanted what portion of the bill to be enacted as opposed to another portion, which party, which group of MPs or which individual MP wanted a particular clause as opposed to another clause, as opposed to an amendment. I have not done that and I will not, even though there has been some provocation to do so. I believe I have to be true to the admonition I gave to colleagues yesterday in the House at the second reading debate. If I want to be consistent with that, and I believe that I am, then I will not reveal that.

I am of the view that the only reason this parliament has worked at all, and I happen to believe that it has worked quite well, has been that the House leaders of all parties have been able to speak to each other on a variety of issues at any time, without notice, and to consult each other for the benefit of making this great institution work. They have been able to do that in full confidence knowing they would not have to stand in front of a microphone five minutes later and explain what they might have said in a remark to their colleagues of other parties.

I am not just saying that about the relations between myself as the government House leader and any one of the House leaders of other parties. I believe it has been true of relations between opposition parties as well, and I compliment all House leaders for that. Again on that score, I do not believe that it would be appropriate for me to say that this clause is beneficial for someone or that there was a deal made this way or that way, and so on. I will not do that.

In the initial remarks, I heard an hon. member say that I had experts available this evening. I do not apologize for that. I believe they are here to answer questions about an individual clause and how this bill will work. These same officials and others will be available tomorrow and in the weeks to come for individual members of parliament because this is, after all, a bill that affects individual members of parliament.

When it is all said and done, I am told that the House of Commons officials will distribute a circular informing members on which officials can answer questions, whether it has to do with accrual or how one buys back time time, if that happens to be the case for a particular member.

I was informed earlier this day by the very competent people who are sitting with me here in the House of Commons that officials will be available to answer the following questions: How will it affect the tax treatment? How does it do so if a person has already full contributed to their registered retirement savings plan? How does one transfer that? What is the percentage of interest that one has to pay if one is buying back time? All this will be made available for members of parliament. Those are the kinds of questions I thought we would be engaging in regarding this bill.

Something has been said here that I do not think is accurate. There is this business of the election to buy back and the limitation of a year in that regard. On this score, I will say that no one lobbied me on any side of the House for that provision to be there that way. That provision is there that way because it is the one that already exists in the act.

In other words, someone who was, hypothetically, elected in 1984, defeated in 1988, and came back in 1997 had one year to buy back or to make up his or her mind to buy back the time. If we are going to have a provision here whereby members can elect to buy back the time, why should we treat members of the House differently than we would treat someone who was defeated and came back? My argument is that they are entitled to the same thing and that is why that is the case. However, that is not a provision of this bill. That is already the case for anyone who has ever served and came back later and bought back their service. That was not invented for anyone sitting in the House now. Finally, to repeat what I said, I was not asked by anyone to put that in as one of the conditions. It is an automatic one that exists already.

[Rob Anders, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the government House leader pertaining to the title of the bill, namely, the retiring allowances act. I was wondering if the minister might be able to comment on a bill that was recently passed not so long ago with regard to retirement allowances.

When I look around the Chamber I see the guards who represent us here in the House of Commons and who do their jobs dutifully. I note that the government rated the pension plans of the public service employees not so long ago, yet it is ready to once again tinker with the pensions of the members of parliament. I think that speaks to a real contradiction and conflict of interest when members of parliament can decide on their own pay, pension and perks, but other people in the country are not allowed that same type of privilege.

As a matter of fact, other people in the country do not decide on legislation that directly affects their net worth because they are not ministers and they are not members of parliament. People like the guards in this place do not set their own levels of remuneration. They do not have pension plans that are above and beyond what the private sector has.

What I would like to ask of the government House leader is this. Why does he feel that it is okay for members of parliament to be making these decisions on their remunerations? In a sense it begs the question, who guards the guards? I noticed that he had a particularly broad smile on his face, going from ear to ear, as the member for the Progressive Conservative Party was speaking. I have no doubt that the government House leader takes great glee in his Machiavellian manoeuvres with regard to the MP pension bill.

With regard to the title, would it not be better for everyone in the country to have a system whereby a certain percentage of their wages went to a mandatory retirement savings plan and a certain percentage went toward a mandatory unemployment savings plan, whether the person is the grass cutter in this place or the Prime Minister?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I am glad the hon. member has asked a question about employees of the House.

He perhaps knows, or perhaps does not because he is somewhat newer than other colleagues, that I am the only House of Commons employee ever to have been elected to this place. I think that at least on this score I know something about it. Without any pretension, I would like to say to the hon. member that I probably know a little more than he does about working conditions on Parliament Hill.

I also contributed to the House of Commons employees' plan. When I ceased to be a member of the House of Commons staff and was elected to the Ontario legislature, I was handed back my premiums with 2% interest. I was not permitted to transfer it to the plan that I had as an elected official.

When I came back as a member of parliament for the federal House of Commons, the federal civil service contributions could not be bought back and included in this plan. How many Canadians know that? How many Canadians know that even though I served in the House for 14 years, I was never able to apply one cent of that service toward another federal pension plan, namely the members of parliament plan?

Whereas, for instance, if one worked for Nortel in an Ottawa plant and was then transferred to Nortel in a Toronto plant, that person is entitled to transfer the pension plan. In my case, not only was I in the same plant, I was in the same room but was not entitled to transfer. How many people know that?

It is fine to say that the plan is generous, and perhaps there are aspects of it that are, but there are also sectors in which it is hopelessly deficient compared to plans elsewhere.

Let us not portray this thing as being a way to get rich. That is not factually correct. There are many people who have very generous plans in the private sector where the employee contributes one dollar toward a registered retirement savings account and the employer contributes a similar amount, or even stock options. Officials in the private sector are treated not only as generously but, in many cases, far better than we are.

In terms of the public service pension plan generally, I am pleased to answer that question too, because members of the House will know that for many, many years the public service pension plan was deficient. It did not have enough contributions for its payout and the taxpayers of Canada, through the Government of Canada, supplemented that account in order to have enough money to pay the pensions.

In another period, because of demographics and so on, the most recent one, when that account experienced a surplus, is it not normal that the taxpayers of Canada would get some of that back, given that they had contributed to it in the first place?

Finally, we have made the plan self-sustaining. We have made the public service pension plan self-sustaining. I believe that was the right thing to do for the long term.

Even the Canada pension plan has that self-sustaining ability which the U.S. social security does not have. Many things have been done in public sector pensions, and pensions generally, even pensions in the private sector, that did not exist before. I will not give too much detail about that—

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I was gracious enough to get off my feet so that other members who have legitimate questions could ask them.

The minister is filibustering. He is filibustering to take up the hour. I graciously submit that other members should be on their feet asking questions. The minister is taking too much time.

[The Chairman]

I have given the minister signals previously that he might curtail his remarks and he responded favourably to that request, as did certain other hon. members to whom I have given signals. The minister is answering the question. He may be taking a little longer, but I sense he has almost concluded.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

No, Mr. Chairman, I am finished.

[The Chairman]

All right. We will have a question from the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the government House leader, which carries on the dialogue that has been established.

The government House leader said, and I would certainly agree at one level, that House leaders and others who are privy to the consultations that preceded the tabling of the bill should not have to have a microphone stuck in their face and answer questions. I think that was the phrase he used. However, I wonder whether he thinks it proper, having said that, that they should be able to have a microphone stuck in their face and have it both ways.

I am referring to the fact, as the minister said, that there were wide consultations preceding the tabling of this legislation. In my judgment, the final form of the legislation, particularly with respect to the fact that the legislation legislates all members who had opted out back into the plan, is a feature of the legislation that was sought by the party which had the majority of the people who opted out.

The only reason this is before the House is because it was fast tracked, because there was unanimous consent sought and given to deal with this in the manner in which we are dealing with it, that is to say, in a fast track sort of way. People sought what we have before us and gave unanimous consent to fast track it.

Then, much to my dismay—and I mean this as sincerely as I can possibly say it—after seeking it, after giving unanimous consent for it to be fast tracked, they then voted against it at second reading.

I admire the government House leader's determination to be a gentleman about this. Yesterday I stood in this place and I said that I thought an ugly chapter in Canadian politics was over, and I meant it. That is because I thought that at the very least the people who had helped bring this legislation into being, who went out and defended the legislation, who justified it and said why they needed it, because of medical insurance, life insurance and the fact that they had brought this situation on themselves—all of those things I was prepared to listen to with the understanding that they would not then walk into the House, as they did this afternoon, and put the rest of us in a position of voting for a bill which they now have voted against, in the majority.

I say to the government House leader that I cannot find this anything but reprehensible. I wonder, are the people who voted against this provision not going to exercise their right to buy back, if that is one of the options that is open to them?

I just find it incomprehensible, I say to the government House leader, and I seek his view on this, that this could have happened this way. I understood, yes, that there might be the odd backbencher, that there might be the odd person who would not accept what had been negotiated between the parties, but not that the leadership of the party and the majority of the caucus, after having sought this, after having fast tracked it, would then stand to vote against it. I find it absolutely incomprehensible.

I have no more to say. In 21 years I have never seen anything like this.