Mr. Speaker, I am also delighted to support the motion as amended because I too value very highly the work of firefighters. The case they make for increasing their accrual rate so they can retire five years early is a compelling argument. They face many hazards and dangers to their health as they fulfill their lives as firefighters and they end up reducing their lifespans. They want to retire earlier so as to enjoy more years of their retirement. I have always felt that was a very compelling argument and have always been in favour of it.
We need to recognize in this particular instance that as my colleague from Medicine Hat has pointed out, the motion is one of non-action. It is a way for the government to say that if the motion passes, it will consider it and think about it. It reminds me of when I was a young man with a young family. When my kids would ask me for something, I would say I would think about it. It is a very polite way of saying no.
For the government to consider the advisability of it is simply a way of saying it wants to think about it but it does not really want to do it. I think we ought to do it.
We ought to also be aware that there is a considerable cost. If we look at it actuarially, it will cost money. I approve of that. Firemen and firewomen, or whatever the technical term is--