House of Commons Hansard #73 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was agreed.

Topics

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

The hon. member says two wrongs do not make a right. It was not me who asked for that clause. I remember those who asked for that particular provision to exist.

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Brian Pallister Canadian Alliance Portage—Lisgar, MB

Do you give us everything we ask for over here?

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Those provisions were asked for.

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

The Chairman

All questions will be made at the appropriate time when the member has the floor and will be made through the Chair, otherwise we will not facilitate the debate we are engaged in.

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

In addition, I am asked are there any other opting in provisions? Hon. members may not want to consider that example. I recognize that perhaps it was not the best example, and members felt compelled at the time to ask for this for whatever reason and so on. It was a tough one, and I remember it. However there are other examples.

For instance, the Public Service Superannuation Act has opt in provisions. The Canadian Forces Superannuation Act has opt in provisions, and I notice the member is listening attentively, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act also has opt in provisions for the beneficiary of the particular emoluments in question.

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Chairman, let me deal first of all with the Lumley report. It is a report, a recommendation to us. It is not a direction to the House. It does not absolve the House of its responsibility to take its own decisions. The government and members of the House cannot hide behind a report. It is nothing more than a report.

On the question that was raised by my colleague from Calgary Southeast, what the Lumley report does with respect to retroactivity is speak with eloquent silence. It gives no authority at all for the action that the government is taking.

If the government is saying that it cannot depart from the Lumley report on other matters, then it is inconsistent in pretending that on a question where the Lumley report is silent, as it is silent on this issue of retroactivity, the government can reward members of parliament for service already performed by adding extra income to each one of us. That is simply wrong. It is illogical. It cannot be defended in the context of the report and it certainly, if I may return to the question of the Lumley report generally, the Lumley report in any event is only a report to the House. It is not a directive that binds us.

We are people here with the opportunity to make our own individual and free decisions, and that is what should be done.

The dilemma we face and are trying to address with this particular amendment has nothing to do with the level of compensation. That is, as everyone knows, a very real problem. We are dealing however with a much more serious issue, which has to do with the sense so alive in the Canadian public that this is an institution with the primary interest of serving its own interests. To take the a very current matter, this is an institution that puts the interests of the pay of members of parliament ahead of the safety of children who might be assaulted by activities on the Internet. That is the concern.

The issue is not about the level of contribution. The issue is about the degree to which we can win back respect for the House of Commons. The way to avoid the impression of being self-serving is to say that what we pass will not apply to us, that the pay raise we authorize will not apply to us. It will not apply until a later parliament. It is a very simple principle. It is a very strong principle. We should not be self-serving in the House. If we want to deal with and combat the cynicism alive in the land then we have to find a way in which we stop this image instead of reinforcing the image of being a self-serving institution.

Another point is that surely there should be a practice here that when we go to the electorate we should be honest with the people who vote for us. The government House leader did not talk in the last campaign about the salary increase. He did not, nor did I, nor did any one of us indicate that one of the first things we would do in the first six months we were back would be to enrich ourselves through the salary payment.

We have to be honest with the people of the country. To do it this way by bringing in a bill like this so early, giving it such priority and trying to sneak it through at the end of a session, simply undermines the kind of respect that can be won for a House of Commons of this kind.

I was rather surprised by my colleague and friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona, who expressed his concern that there would be debate at the next election campaign. I recall an instance some years ago in which a party leader suggested that election campaigns were not the place to debate national issues. I did not think that was right then and I do not think it is right now. Obviously these issues should be debated in election campaigns. We should not resort to devices that would deny the opportunity for the people of Canada to debate issues which they consider to be of importance to them.

I would like to come back for a few moments to the matter of conflict of interest. I agree there is no conflict of interest in the strict meaning of the word, but as far as an apparent conflict of interest is concerned, there is certainly that. The election was in November. Now we are in June. Six months after the election, one of the first actions of this parliament is to give us way more money. This is guaranteed to be perceived as a major conflict of interest.

The very real problem we all face is the country's cynicism about public life. Why is that? Because our actions earn cynicism. The action of moving forward now on a salary increase as one of the first priorities of parliament will bound to be seen with cynicism. Is there a way to protect against it? Yes there is. The way to protect against it is to adopt the amendment proposed by my colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, which would ensure that we in this parliament do not profit from the salary increase, only parliamentarians in subsequent Houses would profit from that increase.

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Dennis Mills Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON

Mr. Chairman, I fail to understand the member's logic. I feel that the member is speaking from an advantaged position. There are many of us in the House, and I would include myself as one, who are speaking from an advantaged position. I respect the member's position as the leader of the party.

The leader has a remuneration package, and I respect that package, that is in a different category than those of most other MPs and backbenchers in the House of Commons. I say respectfully, Mr. Chairman, through you to the member, that he should have that package.

I have been saying in the Hill Times for three or four years, as the right hon. member knows, that I think members of parliament are not properly remunerated. My constituents know it. I have said it publicly. I come from the private sector and quite frankly I am advantaged too. I say to the hon. member that there are many in the House who have families and who do not have the advantage the right hon. member has. The amount is irrelevant, whatever the advantage. I am not pointing to the amount.

The point I am making is that I do not think people in the House who are advantaged have any right to lead the way for those in the House who have economic challenges to meet in order to feed their children and put them through university and to pay their mortgages. I cannot identify a member in the House who would not, if he or she could, through the joy of working in the House, work for nothing. For the right hon. leader to single out that by having a proper remuneration we are not doing any other public policy initiatives I find a bit unfair.

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief.

First I want to point out that there are some part time nurses in the country who are earning less than $20,000 a year as their total salary, less than the income here. Yes, I am advantaged. Yes, the hon. member is advantaged. Yes, members of parliament who had investments in golf courses are advantaged. Of course there are advantages, but that is not the issue.

The issue here is this: should parliament confer advantages on itself? That is the issue. What this proposal would do is say no, we do not confer advantages on ourselves, we establish a regime that will not apply until after there has been an election. That is the principle. I think the hon. member can understand it. It should be enshrined in the legislation of a parliament that respects its reputation, as much as we all should be defending and respecting the reputation of this parliament in a cynical age.

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

NDP

Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB

Mr. Chairman, my question is for the right hon. member. I generally pass up opportunities to contribute to cynicism about politics because I do not think it does anyone any good, but I have a long memory.

I was here in 1981 when the right hon. member and his party voted for a pay increase that was retroactive. That was in the first year of the parliament and I do not remember any speeches like this at the time. There were only 10 people who voted against that raise and pension plan at that time. I was one of them, so I remember the debate very well.

Perhaps the right hon. gentleman could explain to us the difference between the position he took then and the position he takes now.

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Joe Clark Progressive Conservative Calgary Centre, AB

Mr. Chairman, I remember those circumstances very well and I remember the reaction that was ignited in the country. There was a substantial decline in respect for this institution, in part as a result of the sense that we had been self-serving as a country. What we should do in this parliament is learn from past experience.

The public holds parliament on a short leash. The growth of cynicism in this parliament is one of the most serious issues we face. There is no doubt that action on pay contributed to that cynicism then and action on pay will contribute to that cynicism now unless we adopt the motion that has been brought forward by my colleague, which will say that this parliament has the determination and the foresight not to profit from its own acts. That is why we are proposing this amendment.

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Ken Epp Canadian Alliance Elk Island, AB

Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I have a real concern. We have a whole pile of amendments and I have a very important one on clause 4. We have now used half of our time or more and we are still on clause 1. I wonder if we could move on.

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

The Chairman

Respectfully, the order made earlier this week provided that clause 1 would be debated for one hour. I will close that debate at 4.29 p.m. and then we will move to the other clauses subsequently until 5.15 p.m.

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Jacques Saada Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak, but I cannot remain indifferent to the comments by the right hon. leader of the Progressive Conservative Party.

When, over the weekend, I spoke in my riding about the increase in members' salaries, reaction was, naturally, a bit tongue in cheek at times, that is to be expected, but generally the people in my riding understand very well that our work deserves recognition.

The people in the riding also understood very clearly that it was not our intention to underestimate or overestimate our work, and, that to avoid doing so, we asked a commission for recommendations.

When we consider these recommendations, matters of this importance, and I see someone with the experience of the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party trotting out rhetoric, putting the protection of child safety in the balance, when I hear him making digs about owners of golf courses and raising all sorts of questions about honesty, I cannot remain indifferent.

Honesty involves assuming one's responsibilities when one must and not making contradictions such as we have just seen. How can a person argue that there had to be a debate during the election campaign when their colleague is prepared to make a decision now on condition it be binding for those who come after? He has no interest in an election debate. He is interested in rhetoric. That is unacceptable.

I will not go on any longer on the subject. One thing is certain. Up to now, prior to the intervention by the right hon. leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, the level of debates around this table was excellent. I would like to go back to that debate.

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Jay Hill Canadian Alliance Prince George—Peace River, BC

Mr. Chairman, I will try to be brief because obviously a lot of my colleagues want to join in the debate. As the member for Elk Island indicated, there are a number of amendments that we would like to get to and have people speak to.

I want to make a couple of points for the hon. government House leader who spoke earlier in defence of the legislation. First, he said, and I believe I would be quoting fairly accurately, that he hopes everyone will opt in and he hopes no one will vote against the legislation. With all due respect, I think there will be a number of people who will vote against it, perhaps not because they do not agree with different parts of the legislation but because they certainly disagree with the process through which this is arrived at.

It is important that the general public understands that a number of people have great difficulty with this process whereby, as a number of people have indicated, we debate, decide on and rush through a bill concerning our own remuneration. I fully expect, with all due respect, that some people will be voting against the process, against what we view as a very seriously flawed process.

Second, I want to briefly address the opt in clause. In responding to the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford, the House leader said something to the effect that if an individual does not opt in basically the entire existing remuneration package will stay in place for that member of parliament.

I cannot believe that the government would proceed with something that would create an administrative and logistical nightmare for the people who govern and administer the wage and benefit packages for members of parliament. I cannot believe that we would put something in place that would affect not only our wages but our pensions and the rate they accrue at and in which some people would still have a tax free allowance and other people would not. To have individual situations of that nature is absolutely ludicrous. I think the general public needs to be aware of that. It really calls into question why the government would have an opt in clause like this for something as fundamentally altering as legislation dealing not only with wages but with pensions and other benefits.

As to the issue of this amendment, I certainly support the intent of it so that it only applies after the next election, such that, as a number of the Progressive Conservatives who put this forward have indicated, we would not be dealing with stuff for our own benefit unless we actually run in the next election and are re-elected. There would be an understanding among the general public that this would apply at that time.

I would question the right hon. member who just spoke. He should have had those types of concerns when he was a high profile cabinet minister with the Mulroney government. He could have changed it then. If he is so fundamentally opposed to the process, let me say that it could have been changed then, as it can be changed now.

It is absolutely ridiculous that the Prime Minister defends this by saying this is the way it has always been done and therefore it always has to be done that way. As the right hon. gentleman said, and I agree with him on this point, there is nothing preventing us from changing this. At this time we are a law unto ourselves, especially in dealing with issues that benefit ourselves.

There is a last point I would like to make, and then I will turn this over to colleagues who also want to address the bill. I would direct this to the government House leader. We have a different government than we did a year ago, but it is basically the same administration. I think most people understand that. A year ago we dealt with the pension and remuneration package put forward and the government sought to end the opt out or, in other words, to have everyone in the plan. I assume that was because it saw the error in having multiple different schemes for different MPs, with some in and some out.

Yet the reality is that we are perpetuating that error in judgment by having another situation whereby we could have MPs treated differently in regard to whether they opt in or stay out. Why was there a different rule last year where everyone was forced back into the pension plan in order to try to have uniformity when we now have a plan with all these people who could opt out?

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Mr. Chairman, in the last point raised by the hon. member he asked why the government forced—I think that is the word he used—people to come back into the pension plan a year ago. There were discussions that went on between people at that time. I said at the time—

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

An hon. member

I remember you wearing the pigs.

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

The Chairman

Order, please. We have approximately two minutes left in clause 1. The Chair and the vast majority of members are interested in the final comments in this debate and I would hope those who are taking freely of their time to go across the floor to one another will not be seeking the floor at a later time.

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Mr. Chairman, there were commitments made a little over a year ago to colleagues on both sides of the House which I said I would never breach and I will not. Notwithstanding the provocation, I will not breach those commitments. I live by the word I make. Even today, notwithstanding what is being said, I will not breach the commitment that I made to colleagues in the House. I will leave it at that on the score of this particular issue. The hon. member knows perfectly well to what I am referring.

In terms of the acceptability of the amendment, I do not believe this amendment makes the bill better at all. I will summarize what I said in the beginning for the benefit of all hon. members. I urge them to defeat that amendment. There is no such recommendation in the report. It is not in keeping with the tradition under which we have operated in the past. It does not make the bill better. It makes it worse. The bill works perfectly well. As it is now it works even better. This amendment is not progressive. As a matter of fact, in my view it is a step backwards.

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

The Chairman

Order, please. It being 4.29 p.m., pursuant to the order made on Monday, June 4, 2001, the committee of the whole will now proceed to the subsequent clauses of the bill.

The questions on all three amendments to clause 1 and on clause 1 itself will be put at 5.15 p.m.

(On clause 2)

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Jim Pankiw Canadian Alliance Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK

moved:

That Bill C-28, in clause 2, be amended by replacing line 21 on page 1 with the following:

“commencing April 1, there shall be paid to”

That Bill C-28, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 15 and 20 on page 2 with the following:

“is equal to 44 per cent of the remuneration”

Mr. Chairman, the most significant amendment I have proposes that the salary increase for members of parliament and senators would be restricted to 2% as opposed to 20%. The rationale for that is that is what was proposed to the Public Service Alliance of Canada.

Furthermore, that future increases, which was my amendment to clause 1, would not be tied to the salary of the chief justice but rather would be the aggregate average percentage in the wage increases earned by members of the Public Service Alliance of Canada. This is a fair reasonable approach and something I believe the Canadian Taxpayers Federation has said would be fair and reasonable.

My first question to the minister is, how can he feel that it is justified for members of the House to take a 20% increase in salary when those same members have failed to provide a salary increase to taxpayers in the form of a substantive tax cut? I think taxpayers will find the taking of a 20% salary increase to be offensive based on the fact that they themselves have not been given that type of an increase in the form of a tax cut.

My second question is, because the bill proposes to extend a stipend to chairs and vice-chairs of committees that heretofore has not existed, does the minister not view that as just another extension of the ability of the Prime Minister to exert influence and control over his own members? Of course one of my amendments would be to repeal that stipend.

My third question for the minister deals with the opt in clause. Does he not see that as somewhat political grandstanding? In effect, what that would do is set up a two tier salary system for members of parliament. Does the minister feel that some members of the opposition, who may choose to not opt in, deserve less salary than members of his own caucus? I am thinking in particular of the member who helps his constituents depending on whether or not they vote Liberal and the member who makes up allegations of racism in British Columbia.

Regrettably, my amendment, which dealt with changing the retroactivity to go back only to April 1 as opposed to January 1, was ruled out of order. I had to refer to it in general because there was not a specific clause to refer to. Does the minister not think that the retroactivity is excessive?

Finally, because some members are curious about this, I would like the minister to clarify the opting out provisions. If some members opt out, then seek re-election and are re-elected, would they remain opted out or would they be in? The bill does not seem to be clear on that. It states that elected members would be in, but what about members who previously were members?

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario

Liberal

Don Boudria LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Chairman, I wish to respond to a number of the questions raised by the hon. member.

He is advocating that we base ourselves on other formula for establishing what the salary increase of members of parliament should be. It gives me a good occasion to raise something which I had not before. I draw to the attention of all hon. members page 12 of the Lumley commission report, table 3.1.

The consumer price index between 1991 and 2000 has increased by 21.6%. The average industrial wage increase was 23.6%. The general public wage settlement was 15.2%. The general private wage settlement was 22.4%. The Conference Board survey of wage increases was 31.9%. Members of parliament increases were 6.0%.

I do not know if the hon. member had an opportunity to read that table. If he had, he would know that what he is saying would probably result in a greater increase than the one we have now.

Second, let us look back at a few things historically. I shared some of this with a few colleagues across the way, albeit not all of them but a few. I will give an example, and it is not the be all and end all of examples, but it is certainly one.

In 1963 a judge of the federal court earned $21,000 a year and an MP earned $23,700, 12% more. In 1971 a judge was up to $36,000 and an MP at $33,000. These are the MP salaries grossed up, assuming that everything would be taxable, so that we can compare apples and apples. In 1980 a judge was at $70,000 and an MP was at $66,000. We were still reasonably close. In 1992 a judge was at $155,000 and an MP was at $106,000. In 2000 a judge was at $179,000 and an MP was at $108,000. From 1992 to 2000 the MP's salary had gone up $1,900 a year and the judge's salary had gone up $25,000.

In response to a question from the hon. member from Calgary, I indicated that Bill C-12 was retroactive to April 1, 2001. That is not correct. It is April 1, 2000 that the retroactivity provision of Bill C-12 applies. What that does is it gives a salary now, April 1, 2001, of judges at $204,600 and MPs at $109,000. Today an MP earns 45% of the salary of a judge. Even with this so-called generous increase, MPs will still only make 55% of the salary of a judge. That is how far the salary structure had fallen behind.

Yes, we could say that the amount is excessive. We can say all these things. They are easy to say, a lot easier than defending the bill perhaps, but it does not mean they are right. What is proposed in the bill I believe is right. The Lumley commission proposed the amount. We did not deviate from the 20%. We did not say that it should be 25% or 30%. Using some of the indices it should have perhaps been higher. Using the index that the hon. member wants to propose perhaps would have been lower, but we used the objective one produced in the report. That is why we used that one.

Why are we offering chairs and vice-chairs greater remuneration than others? They are positions with greater responsibility, as are the positions of the House leaders, the leaders of each party and anyone else who holds some of these offices. It is not a matter of whether the Prime Minister appoints them. I could turn around and ask the member about his leader appointing the vice-chairs, which would be equally silly.

What about the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party then allegedly appointing the chairs and vice-chairs in the Senate, and so on? We could spread that nonsense all over the place. It does not accomplish anything. The fact still remains that a chair and a vice-chair of a committee are positions that are, according to the commission, worthy of further remuneration, which is something that exists at the provincial level in many if not most of the provinces in Canada.

In terms of the opt in clause, hon. member wants to know if that means that some members are not deserving of the salary? No. I think all colleagues in the House deserve the salary. That is why I said a while ago, and I do not know whether the member was in attendance when I said it, that I hope everyone will opt in. I also hope that all members will vote for the bill. However, I repeat that even if they vote against it I hope that they opt in anyway because in my view they are still worth the salary.

On the retroactivity, the hon. member asked why we used that date. I answered that in a previous question. It goes back to January 1 because in past reports it went back to the date of the last election. I did not go quite that far back because it was only a few days prior to the beginning of the calendar year and it caused probably greater aggravation than it was worth. So I stopped after January 1.

This report is about the present parliament which started after the last election. That is why that date was used.

Finally, if members do not opt in, they remain opted out. It does not change after the next election.

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Brian Pallister Canadian Alliance Portage—Lisgar, MB

Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to add my comments to those made thus far on this bill.

I begin from the position that there is room for principle on all sides of this debate. I begin from the position that every member of the House will use what principles they have to make their decision on this bill. However, we were not born with principles, and some would argue that the very fact we are debating the bill is evidence that we have do not them. I do not take that position either. I take the position that I have principles, so as a principle based member of the House I will try to use those principles to make my decision on how I vote on the bill.

I begin by sharing with the members of the House some of the experiences I have had which have developed those principles in me. One fundamental principle I have is that I believe very strongly in equal pay for equal work. I believe that is a fundamental principle that we should all stand for in the House and that we should support wholeheartedly with every ounce of strength we have.

In my first occupation I was given the opportunity to work as a school teacher. We did not receive pay differentiated on the basis of our sex, race, creed, colour or any other factors. We received equal pay for equal work based on our training and educational background. That was a fundamental principle of my experience as a school teacher. Then I entered the private sector.

As a person who started a small business from scratch, I employed people on the basis of the fundamental principle, which should apply in the private sector and unfortunately sometimes does not, that people should be paid equally on the basis of their work regardless of any other factor. When replacing a position for example, one should compensate that person similarly or identically based on his or her equal ability to offer work and skill to a small business venture.

In the public sector such a principle is well understood. We abide by this principle in the public sector in every respect. We must support the principle of equal pay for equal work. That principle is something I believe is very important to all of us.

The question then becomes what principles are greater than that one? What principles are more important to us in the House than that one? If there are principles of more significance to us as members of the House, then let us speak to them through this bill.

The bill contains a clause which allows members to opt in. What that does is create two classes of members not differentiated on the basis of skill, work ethic, what they offer to the House or to the members of their constituencies, but solely on the basis of how they choose to listen to their principles and whether feel that the bill is in keeping with their fundamental beliefs.

If members of the House feel very strongly that the bill is contrary and contradictory to their fundamental principles, they must vote against it and must therefore opt out.

Let us examine why they must opt out. Because it is in the bill. Only for that reason must members be put in the position of having to make the choice as to whether they do or do not receive the benefits that other members do. In other words, what we are doing is debating a bill which penalizes those of principle.

It fundamentally detracts from the compensation of some members of the House based on one factor and one factor only: their personal principles, and that is wrong. It is wrong to debate a bill which contains a clause which creates two classes of members of parliament. That sends the wrong message to the people of the country.

As a member of our local chamber of commerce and as a participant in the national chamber of commerce, I know that small businesses in the private sector united together and initiated, through tremendous effort from their collective members, the idea of promoting equal pay for equal work across Canada. I understand how much work is involved in that. I understand the collective sacrifices made by volunteers to try to create a level playing field and provide an opportunity for all Canadians to share the benefits they deserve to receive from their work.

I understand what this opt in, opt out situation does and so should the members opposite. It sends a completely flawed message to the people of Canada. It says that there can be two different classes of members of parliament based on their fundamental principles. That is wrong.

The government House leader has repeatedly said that he hoped everyone would opt in. He said it with a palpable sense of guilt because he knows, as thinking members of the House must know, that this opt in clause is fundamentally flawed. I invite the House leader to explain if it is not flawed, why it is legitimate and valid. I invite him to tell us what the purpose of it is beyond the fact that it will simply allow members of principle to be punished financially for expressing their views on this bill.

Is there some fundamental greater principle to be served when we do not have the option in the House to opt out of any other piece of legislation? He uses the example of superannuation, but he knows full well that benefits are received in another form if not going into superannuation. That is not a legitimate example.

Is there a fundamental principle served by the presence of the opt in clause in the legislation? I ask him to address that question.

I believe that this particular clause in the bill sends the message that opposition has its price. It is too cute by half. It will be seen by Canadians to be a ploy to suppress opposition rather than encourage debate on principle. For that reason it is a sham and a shame. It creates a crisis of principle because it forces individual members of parliament to participate in what is essentially a game that none of us can win. It is a game which creates two classes of members of parliament for no legitimate reason whatsoever.

With the absence of this clause there would be opportunity for fundamental debate that could take place on significant principles on the differences we have, which are honest and legitimate. The reality is that this clause creates a phony debate. It is a diversionary tactic.

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC

Stand by your choice. It is a personal choice.

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Brian Pallister Canadian Alliance Portage—Lisgar, MB

Mr. Chairman, the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism may want to add some comments. I believe if she were in the private sector she would have been fired long ago. I believe she would have been fired, dismissed, sacked and gone. If she would like to add—

Parliament Of Canada ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

The Chairman

May I remind colleagues that in Committee of the Whole members are given less flexibility when it comes to relevance. In the short time left, I am sure members will want to speak to the debate on clause 2.