Article content continued

“It is unfortunate that we had to force the government to do the right thing on this issue, but we are satisfied that we were able to bring about these changes without delay.”

While the speedy passage of reforms to the lucrative pension plan makes for good politics for all parties, it opens a new line of attack for the opposition.

Why is OK to separate one section, but not others?

The opposition argues that those sections which make major changes to various facets of Canadian life need more study than will be afforded if they are all bundled into one bill.

“Apparently, splitting the bill is possible after all,” NDP House Leader Nathan Cullen said.

“Why not do it for the other surprises: for research and development, for navigable waters? Why not do it for the environment?”

Tory House Leader Peter Van Loan said if the opposition would agree to swift passage of other measures, the government would be glad to hive them off.

“We’re always willing to talk with other parties about if they want to see things passed through quickly,” he said.

“But here was an opportunity where there was a consensus that there was support for the government’s position that we have to move towards a fair share on pensions, to moving it quickly through the House and we took the opportunity to do that.”

The New Democrats had wanted the pension changes put before committee, arguing that there was an inherent conflict-of-interest in MPs deciding their own remuneration.