Business of Supply  For those keeping score at home, Mr. Speaker, that is another instance of the Duffy defence.

Business of Supply  Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to reinforce that—at length, even. The member is quite right. An important point is that the standard of ethics and appearance of conflict of interest does not come from just this side of the House. It comes from the Prime Minister himself. It did not come in a footnote or scribbled on the back of a napkin; it came in a huge document that was released with great fanfare.

Business of Supply  Mr. Speaker, this harkens back to the defence of the justice minister, who was actually one of the first to engage in these unsavoury fundraisers. I am now using the language of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. The minister went to a fundraiser with a bunch of high-powered lawyers in Toronto and then, when questioned on it, said she was there as an MP from Vancouver and that was all, that the lawyers were really excited to meet an MP from Vancouver, so there was no problem.

Business of Supply  Mr. Speaker, it might just help to step back and mention for a minute what it is we are here to talk about. Really, what we are here to talk about is how it is that the government intends to implement and enforce the very same rules that the Prime Minister sent out to his ministers when he appointed cabinet.

Canada Pension Plan  Mr. Speaker, the idea of a reliable pension plan requires it to be responsibly managed, but there is a great record of success when it comes to the Canada pension plan that shows it has been successfully managed to date. If there are proposals on the table that would imply unsuccessful management, then those are bad proposals.

Canada Pension Plan  Mr. Speaker, first of all, I concur with the member that one of the important aspects is that the provinces are onside. I would recall for the sake of the chamber that provincial premiers for a long time had wanted to meet with the federal government about the Canada pension plan.

Canada Pension Plan  Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today and support BillC-26 at second reading. We have heard quite a difference of opinion in the House on the advisability of this bill. Maybe we can start from a place that we do all agree with, that it does not serve the Canadian economy well and certainly does not serve Canadian seniors well to have people retire into poverty.

Public Safety  Mr. Speaker, when it comes to RCMP members, the Liberal government has been taking the Conservative approach as well. The men and women of the RCMP put themselves on the line every day for Canadians, but on average they are making 11% less than their counterparts across the country.

Salaries Act  Madam Speaker, I have often said that one of the things I find frustrating about Liberals is that their politics often seem to be informed by a desire simply to be in politics and to win as much as possible in politics, not to stand for any particular principle. The principle can change from day to day.

Salaries Act  Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Cariboo—Prince George, a former seatmate of mine. We used to have more occasions to discuss the issues of the day, so I am glad to take up that habit once again and say that he is quite right. It is not believable that in a country as large as Canada, we are going to have one minister on top of all the details and important things there are to know about the various regions, whose economies are quite different.

Salaries Act  Mr. Speaker, I thank the member from the party formerly known as the third party for his question. I would note that this is part of the fundamental dishonesty about the government's arguments on the bill. It is not that people do not think it is important. This is such a rinky-dink notion that all of a sudden, after a whole Canadian history of having ministers of state, in order to implement a portfolio, somehow all of a sudden, because the Liberals were elected that if a minister of state is put in charge of something it is not important.

Salaries Act  Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to contribute to the debate on Bill C-24. I am always interested when governments present bills. We have to understand the motivation of a bill in order to really judge its worth. Part of my comments today are going to be about what I think the motivation for this bill really is, and hopefully in assessing that, we will be able to get a better sense of the worth of the bill.

Salaries Act  Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question that actually has to do with the legislation. Could the member elucidate for the House, in practical terms, what exactly is the difference between a minister of state to assist and a minister for whom a department is designated?

Salaries Act  Mr. Speaker, I think there might have been a slip of the tongue in the answer to my previous question, so I want to give the member the opportunity to correct himself. I think he meant to be talking about ministers for whom a department is designated. He said that they will be working together, and that is what the new arrangement is going to be, but he said “minister of state”.

Salaries Act  Mr. Speaker, I have a basic math question for my esteemed colleague. Is it not true that, regardless of how many responsibilities ministers have, they only have a certain number of hours in a day? If they are given more responsibilities, they have to divide their time by the number of responsibilities, not multiply it by that same number.