Mr. Speaker, my party is against such an amendment, but supports the bill and the government initiative for a number of reasons.
First, this amendment was brought forward because of a potential conflict of interest. My colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party and the member for the Canadian Alliance have supported this proposal.
I think a mistake is being made here, because this bill is the logical follow-up to the process that got underway when the act respecting the compensation of the elected members of this House was passed.
Lawmakers decided that, after each parliament, an objective committee of experts would review the whole issue of compensation. Each time there is an election, this is done. Too often, lawmakers, lacking courage and unable to explain to their fellow citizens how things really are, have put aside reports that had been paid for, reports that established, based on objective parameters, what the decent salary of a parliamentarian, of a minister and of the prime minister should be.
This is about following up on a report based on a high quality study that was done by people who are totally above reproach with regard to the conflict of interest issue, knowledgeable people who can be objective, people who have such wisdom that we in parliament should agree that their recommendations have to be implemented.
Therefore, there is certainly no conflict of interest in doing what the law says and following a process that was established by previous parliaments. I take absolutely no shame in taking part in the proper application of an act. Clause 1 states that the prime minister's salary should be equal to that of the chief justice of the supreme court. I tested the idea in the riding of Roberval, Quebec, which is not a rich riding. I met dozens of people, some of whom upbraided me, saying “You MPs will be voting yourselves a raise; you are going to have huge salaries”. I checked, and then I asked each of them “Are you opposed to the Prime Minister of Canada earning the same as the chief justice of the supreme court? After all, the Prime Minister is the one who appoints the chief justice and, in my view, the responsibilities of the Prime Minister are greater and have more of an impact on the citizens of this country”.
They all told me “Well, no, we thought that the Prime Minister earned more than the chief justice”. All citizens know in their heart of hearts that there is one basic principle: if politicians had not been cowardly in the past, if politicians had had the courage to treat themselves as they treat the public, if politicians had had the courage to respect certain principles, the Prime Minister of Canada would never have earned less than the chief justice.
Similarly, ministers should earn more than their deputies. When I asked people in the riding of Roberval “Do you think it is right that a minister, who is responsible for a department, who has no job security, who is accountable day in and day out for his department, should earn less than his employees who are deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers?”, everyone answered that this made no sense.
There is a place for common sense in legislation, and I think that this bill adopts principles to which we cannot object. The only reason for refusing to have anything to do with such a bill is lack of courage.
I will tell the House something: I do not think that anyone here is interested in going down in history over a question of salary. But everybody would like to leave this parliament with his or her head held high, saying “When the time came to make decisions, even the most politically difficult ones—by which I mean the ones that concern us personally—I had the courage to make them, and I made them with my head held high. I confronted public opinion and I cannot be faulted in any way”.
Hon. members will recall a lot of demagoguery in the recent past around salaries, benefits and pension plans. We all know what the outcome was at the polls. I am convinced that the people of Roberval will respect me and my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, because we had the courage to speak up and uphold the principles in which we believe.
We support the government, and we will be opposing the amendment, and all amendments, coming from certain opposition parties. We are not trying to score political points with MPs' salaries. It is too important an issue, and if our predecessors had shown more courage, we would not be where we are today.
