Bill Gilmour

[Canada Post Corporation, September 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the motion put forward by the member from the Bloc regarding Canada Post.

Motion 403 proposes the government ask Canada Post Corporation to integrate into its development plan a strategy promoting the local development of regions and municipalities in Quebec and in Canada. I have several concerns regarding this motion.

The first issue that needs to be addressed is the wording of the motion, as I find it quite confusing. This motion addresses Quebec and Canada separately, which does not make sense when Quebec is a province within Canada. I fully recognize that we are facing a referendum in Quebec regarding separation. However, the last time I checked Quebec was still a part of Canada. Perhaps legislative counsel could iron out this obvious oversight and clarify the wording so that it simply refers to Canada. Then all provinces will be included using that definition.

Besides the wording of the motion, it is somewhat confusing as to why this motion is being proposed by a separatist in the first place. Canada Post is a Canadian corporation set up to serve Canadians. If the member is so keen on pushing the separatist agenda, why the interest in a Canadian crown corporation? The member simply cannot have it both ways. Surely he does not expect to separate from Canada and then take the crown corporation with him. A separate Quebec will obviously run its own postal system, not one subsidized by the rest of Canada. Canada Post serves Canada, and that includes all the provinces within its borders, nothing more and nothing less.

I also have problems with the fundamental intent of this motion, which suggests that Canada Post be used to prop up declining regions and municipalities. Given that Canada Post is a money losing venture, how does the member propose that it be used to build municipalities and regions? It does not make any sense.

Canada Post's mandate is to best serve the postal needs of Canadians. Getting a letter quickly and as inexpensively as possible from one area of the country to the other should be the primary concern.

Canada Post is a basic service and must fulfil its role as independently as possible, without reliance on government subsidies or unwanted interference.

In 1981 Canada Post Corporation was created and given a mandate that included achieving self-sufficiency while acting at arm's length from the government. At that time Canada Post faced economic uncertainty and was losing $600 million a year. Canada Post has turned its business around in the last 12 years, but there is still plenty of work to be done.

This past year Canada Post lost $70 million, the third loss in five years. Canada Post was forced to increase its stamp price by two cents this year because it claimed to be in such financial trouble. Given that Canada Post is running a deficit, the corporation needs to focus its energy as much as possible on its basic mandate: delivering mail quickly and at the lowest cost.

If Canada Post cannot run its own business, how can we expect it to promote regional development? This smacks of old style, pork barrel politics: full speed ahead and to heck with the costs.

It is fundamental that post offices must be established on a basis of need for service. Location should be selected on the basis of where they will best meet the needs of the local residents, not for buying votes from a town or rewarding political supporters.

Regional development ideas went down with the Titanic , so why are we trying to refloat them here? With any crown corporation, taxpayers need to know that they are getting their money's worth. They want good service and fair prices, not another bloated bureaucracy with a fuzzy mandate incorporating regional development.

We know we have problems with our crown corporations. Canadians need to be assured that their tax dollars are being spent wisely. They want an open, efficient postal system, because Canadians are frustrated with poorly run corporations that ignore their primary role.

A point that particularly frustrates me with current legislation is that I cannot go back to my constituents with any assurances because crown corporations like Canada Post are exempt from access to information inquiries. Why is it that when crown corporations are supported by taxpayers they are at the same time protected by a cloak of secrecy that cannot be accessed under freedom of information? Canada Post has a monopoly on mail delivery, but it refuses to open its books to the public for fear of competition.

Questions have been raised again and again regarding Canada Post competition against other courier services. The Canadian Courier Association has accused Canada Post of using its exclusive mail revenues to subsidize its courier services, yet we cannot find out the answer because the corporation is protected from access to information. Business is complaining that Canada Post has an unfair advantage with its courier services and that they are forcing private enterprise out of business. However, the real story never sees the light of day because the answers are hidden behind this shield of secrecy.

Canada Post claims to have had an independent study done by KPMG to review the matter. Where is the study? We have not seen it. Canada Post refuses to release it. Canada Post protection from public scrutiny only raises more questions.

Questions have been raised about Canada Post's granting of contracts. Bidding for advertising mail services, for example, is obscured and potential bid players are raising questions about the procedures for bidding for services. For example, if a bidder has tendered the lowest bid he or she may not get the contract. The reasons for choosing one bidder over another are completely obscured and there is no way for an individual to find out where their bid sat compared to the others. Exemption from access to information prevents individuals from reviewing the results of any particular contract.

Given that the post office monopoly is under the umbrella of the patronage king himself, the public works minister, it is high time that Canadians were allowed to look into the books and practices of Canada Post. Already we have caught the minister responsible for this crown corporation with his hands in the cookie jar, handing out post office leases to his political supporters in Nova Scotia.

How many other instances of political patronage are there wrapped up in this corporation? Canadians want to know. It is high time the government came clean and put an end to the old style practices within our crown corporations.

Canada Post, like all crown corporations and government agencies, must be accountable. That is first and foremost. Services need to protected and functions run as cost effectively as possible with the least likelihood of incurring public debt.

The government should move Canada Post out of the subsidized role of courier service and ad mail delivery and limit it to what it was designed to do in the first place, pick up and deliver mail.

I cannot support the motion to allow Canada Post to become involved in regional development because it would be a poor business decision and is simply contrary to the primary role of Canada Post.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, September 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am continuing on from my speech which was interrupted by a vote on Tuesday.

The environment minister claims MMT contributes to sparkplug failures, in particular a type of sparkplug manufactured by General Motors. GM claims there were more warranty complaints against one of its single engine sparkplugs in Canada than in the U.S. and MMT was to blame. However, studies conducted by the Southwest Research Institute demonstrate that a short circuit problem occurs in the brand new plugs and it has nothing to do with MMT. It is also important to note that GM has since withdrawn the sparkplug in question from the North American market. Therefore, in short, that argument does not hold any weight.

What we seem to be missing on this issue are the facts. The Canadian Petroleum Producers Institute has called for the environment minister to allow industry to examine MMT and its impacts in a fact based joint assessment which would be conducted by PPI and the automakers; in other words, get the two players in the same room.

Why has the government refused to call for or conduct an independent technical review? The largest fuel additives testing program in history conducted over five years for the U.S. EPA concluded MMT poses no problems for vehicle emission systems.

In addition, the recent decision by the U.S. court of appeals determined that MMT does not cause or contribute to a failure of any emission control device or system. The EPA testing program looked at MMT's effects on catalytic converters, onboard diagnostic systems, exhaust systems and sparkplugs among a variety of other factors. The EPA concluded MMT passes the most critical of tests with a comfortable margin.

As a result of the U.S. EPA testing program, MMT may be introduced in the U.S. by the fall of 1995. Why then are we banning it in Canada when the government has stated it wants a uniformity of standards with the U.S.? The result of the U.S. court decision alone would be sufficient reason for the government to withdraw Bill C-94.

We need to look closely at why we are being asked to consider banning interprovincial trade in MMT. This proposed ban clearly contradicts Bill C-88 which is intended to remove barriers to international trade and constitutes unilateral interference into interprovincial matters. We need to have some solid evidence before making such a move.

Bill C-94 must be examined more thoroughly by the industry committee. As it stands we are still left with more questions than answers. Without any legitimate answer from the government the bill cannot be justified.

[Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, September 19th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the motion to amend Bill C-94, an act to ban the importation of MMT.

My colleague, the member for Calgary North, proposes to withdraw Bill C-94 from second reading and refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Industry. I support this motion, because when we look at the facts it will become very clear that the banning of MMT is clearly an industry issue, not an environmental issue.

This bill revolves around an industry dispute, a dispute between the Canadian Motor Vehicle Manufacturers' Association, the MVMA, and the Canadian Petroleum Producers Institute, the CPPI. It should be referred to the Standing Committee on Industry.

The environment minister has Bill C-94 on a fast track through the House on environmental grounds, but there is no impartial evidence to support this approach or the minister's supposed environmental claims. That is the reason we are debating an interprovincial ban on MMT, as opposed to environmental concerns.

It concerns me that after a review of legislation proposed in Bill C-94 and of the scientific evidence or lack of scientific evidence presented both in support of the bill and in opposition to it, I am still left with one question: Why is this government proposing to ban MMT?

In the last session I asked the House to lay out the facts that support this proposed legislation. I am still waiting for those facts to be presented, which leaves me asking the same questions and drawing the same conclusions. The minister's decision to ban MMT is purely political. The fact is that the minister's decision has been influenced by the MVMA.

The MVMA wants the minister to ban MMT because it claims that MMT is responsible for problems with onboard diagnostic systems. However, there is a problem with this claim. Automakers are experiencing the same problems in the United States, where MMT is not in current use. Given this fact, and without any impartial evidence, it is difficult to understand how equipment problems could be the result of MMT's presence in Canadian gasoline. We have two different cases.

There are many things that do not make sense with this bill. For example, it is difficult to understand why this government is proposing to ban a substance when research has shown that removing MMT will increase vehicle emissions that cause smog and poor air quality by up to 20 per cent.

Over the last decade Canadians have worked hard to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxide to meet international and domestic commitments to improve air quality. While we have been successful at freezing NOX emissions at 1987 levels, and we have pledged to do so with the OECD, can we now afford to consider increasing NOX emissions by 50,000 to 60,000 tonnes a year? This is what will happen by removing MMT from gasoline.

The government has yet to provide any answers regarding what will replace MMT in gasoline. MMT is the only fuel additive that has been scientifically proven to reduce emissions of NOX. Alternative fuels such as ethanol also benefit from addition of MMT, so this will affect their performance as well. Without MMT ethanol puts NOX into the atmosphere, but when MMT is added to a 10 per cent solution of ethanol blend it reduces emissions of NOX by 30 per cent.

In addition, the minister has failed to address what the health impacts of banning MMT will be. Air pollution can be a threat to public health and health costs. NOX is one of the leading contributors to formation of urban smog. Scientific testing has demonstrated that without MMT, emissions of NOX will increase by 20 per cent over current levels. That means additional production of NOX every year, which would be equivalent to adding a million cars to our roads.

Despite the environmental and health evidence, the environment minister still echoes the concerns of the MVMA that MMT in Canadian gasoline is causing problems for the onboard diagnostic systems in the new model American cars. The minister says she wants to ban MMT so that consumers will not have to pay $3,000 or more for their automobiles next year. However, there is no scientific evidence to support this claim. These claims were made by the MVMA's counterpart in the United States, and the U.S. court of appeals has determined they were totally unfounded. In addition, automakers are having exactly the same problems with OBDs in the U.S., and MMT is not currently used, so it cannot be the MMT that is causing the problem.

The environment minister has also stated that if vehicle manufacturers carry through on threats to remove OBD systems the result would be a tenfold increase in vehicle emissions. The OBD system does not reduce emissions. OBDs are monitoring systems, which provide drivers with notification by a dashboard light of a potential problem that could increase emissions. Removal or disconnection of the onboard system would prevent the dashboard malfunction light from illuminating, but it would not have the direct result of increasing emissions.

It concerns me that the minister does not appear to understand the function of these onboard systems, especially as she cited this as one of the major reasons for banning MMT. The environment minister also indicated that she has received studies from the MVMA that illustrate that MMT is the cause of onboard failures. I find this most interesting. If these studies exist, why has GM recently announced that it plans to conduct tests in the U.S. to determine the effects of MMT on the onboard systems?

[Questions On The Order Paper, September 18th, 1995]

What are the sources and amounts of government funding per annum from 1990 to the present, including the 1995-96 estimates, to Native Trappers School of B.C. Canada and to Fritz Dueck and/or Sigi Dueck of British Columbia?

[Questions On The Order Paper, September 18th, 1995]

What was the total dollar amount direct and indirect, and source of government funding included in the 1995-96 estimates to the western Canada wilderness committee?

[Questions On The Order Paper, September 18th, 1995]

What are the individual and total costs incurred by the deputy minister of the environment regarding office renovations, furniture, vehicles and sundries from October 20, 1994, to the present?

[Auditor General Act, September 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, before I get into talking about the bill I would like to make a few comments about the previous speaker, my colleague from the Bloc.

I find it most interesting that the Bloc would want the federal government to bow out of environment on the federal arena. However it is quite prepared to accept Canadian tax dollars to raise

the Irving Whale . This is part of the double message, the double standard. I expect it is some of the nonsense that we will have to put up with over the next six weeks from Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

A similar issue is the pensions. Bloc members want out of the country but they sure do not want out of the pension plan. They are quite prepared to accept it.

To get back to the bill we are talking about today, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the bill to amend the Auditor General Act. I want to make clear from the outset that the Reform Party supports efforts that balance economic and environmental considerations to maintain a clean and healthy environment for future generations.

We are into the third session of the 35th Parliament. Yet to date the government has been visibly lacking in its environmental initiatives. A recent study by the National Centre for Economic Alternatives ranks Canada as the second worst in deterioration of land, air and water. We have seen little action from the minister to address this situation. We have heard plenty of rhetoric but have seen very little action to address key environmental concerns.

Bill C-83 is one of the very few initiatives the Minister of the Environment has announced and it is far from revolutionary. Bill C-83 amends the Auditor General Act to create the position of commissioner of the environment.

The commissioner of the environment was one of the initial undertakings of the standing committee. This bill comes to the House after a lengthy process of consultation with witnesses before being sent to the minister. During committee I listened with members on both sides of the House to witnesses who came forward with recommendations on what role and which responsibilities the new position of an environmental auditor general should take.

At the end of the hearings the recommendations were consolidated and I worked with members of the committee to sort out and weigh the various recommendations. We put together a standing committee report of recommendations which was then forwarded to the Minister of the Environment last year.

It was a long process of deliberation. I commend the many members and witnesses who contributed to the process. I am also pleased to say that for the most part the members of the standing committee on the environment were able to put aside partisan politics to work for a common goal: to establish the role of a commissioner of the environment.

It is unfortunate, however, when so much time, effort and expense goes into these studies and committee reports that the end result is barely acknowledged by the minister in the resultant legislation.

Representatives are flown in from all over the country at taxpayers' expense to present their concerns to the committee. One of the roles of standing committees is to listen to and consult with people on government initiatives and bills before the House, a role which has been widely abused by this and previous governments. It is unfortunate that the process of consultation under this government is somewhat meaningless.

Despite any decisions made by the parliamentary committee or any feedback from Canadians while the government is on the road supposedly consulting with people, the bottom line remains that decisions are still made behind closed doors at the whim of the cabinet. It is particularly disappointing to note that very little of Bill C-83 reflects what was contained in the recommendations of the parliamentary committee presented to the environment minister last year.

Why have a lengthy consultation process when the minister is going to ignore the results?

If the bill is representative of the minister's initiatives on the environment it speaks volumes. Members on both sides of the House proposed a number of excellent recommendations regarding the commissioner of the environment, most of which the minister chose to ignore in the bill.

When the Canadian public has had the opportunity to examine the bill they will conclude that it accomplishes particularly little to protect the environment. It is little wonder Canadians have criticized the minister for coming up short on her accomplishments. Clearly this legislation is not the answer to environmental concerns.

Canadians are waiting for the government to take charge and pass reasoned, meaningful legislation, not bills like this one which is completely lacking in substance and will do very little to change the status quo on environment.

It should be noted that the commissioner of the environment was not only a committee recommendation but also a Liberal red book election promise which the minister again fails to deliver.

The environment committee made several recommendations for the office of the commissioner of the environment, 17 in total. The Reform Party supported the initiative. Yet few of the committee recommendations have been followed through in the bill which barely resembles the intent of the parliamentary submission presented to the environment minister.

For example, the standing committee recommended that the office of the commissioner of the environment and sustainable

development be established by new and separate legislation. However the bill is an amendment to the Auditor General Act. The bill is neither a new nor a separate piece of legislation.

The government promised in its red book that it would appoint an environmental auditor. The bill does not do that. It creates in legislation the position of a clerk who reports to the auditor general, a clerk with a limited role and with very few powers, not anything remotely close to an independent environmental auditor.

The standing committee on the environment recommended that the government establish a new office designated the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development. The legislation does not establish a new office.

The commissioner of the environment is clearly not an independent environmental auditor general but a clerk reporting to the auditor general who will assist with environmental issues. It is not independent. It is not powerful. It is a clerk.

I am sure the auditor general already has several assistants to help him with environmental issues. I question the need to entrench the position in legislation, especially given the limited mandate spelled out in the legislation. The government has severely reduced the scope and extent of the position by establishing the commissioner of the environment within the offices of the auditor general in a position.

I can question how much if any the new position will actually change the status quo. The auditor general already responds to environmental issues. Now he has his new clerk entrenched in legislation to help him with the issues. This does not change anything.

The red book promised the environmental auditor general would report directly to Parliament. This was also recommended by the standing committee. Again the government has reneged on its promise. The bill comes up short of fulfilling this promise. Bill C-83 proposes the new assistant to the auditor general will report to the auditor general, not to Parliament as promised. When the commissioner reports to Parliament it is through the auditor general, not as an independent body.

The committee also recommended that the commissioner submit an annual report to Parliament. The bill proposes that the commissioner's annual report to Parliament will be on behalf of the auditor general who does the same thing. Appointing an assistant to speak for the auditor general hardly changes the status quo.

Another recommendation from the standing committee on the environment which the minister has ignored is that all reports produced by the commissioner be referred automatically to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development or to one or more parliamentary committees if the subject matter of the report makes it appropriate or necessary. Again there is nothing in the bill to support the committee recommendations.

Within the duties of the commissioner of the environment the only reports the commissioner will be making to Parliament on behalf of the auditor general will be related to the status of environmental petitions brought to the attention of government and the status of departmental sustainable strategies. The bill does not empower the commissioner of the environment to report on much more than these two items.

In addition, the role of reporting on departmental sustainable development strategies is not a new initiative of the government. It was tried before when the last government attempted to establish an office that would report on the status of departmental sustainable development strategies. This office was called the office of environmental stewardship. Its mandate was to carry out environmental audits of federal departments and agencies in co-operation with the office of the comptroller general. The details and funding arrangements were all laid out in the green plan. This April we learned that the plug had been pulled on the green plan. It appears that this same office created by the last government has been dismissed by this government and reintroduced as a new initiative. The games they play in the tired politics of the old line parties.

The committee also recommended that the commissioner be granted in legislation adequate access to information powers commensurate with his or her mandate. Given that the mandate for the commissioner is so weak clearly explains why the bill contains no such recommendations.

The minister also completely ignored the committee recommendation for the commissioner to have the discretionary powers to appoint individuals to one or more advisory committees to assist the office in the performance of its duties. This committee recommendation has been completely ignored.

The committee also recommended that legislation to appoint the commissioner should be with the approval of Parliament. Instead the bill allows the auditor general to appoint the commissioner in accordance with the Public Service Employment Act. Actually, this is one recommendation of the minister which merits serious consideration because in this instance it may eliminate the potential for a patronage appointment, an area where this government has been so free. By allowing the auditor general to appoint a commissioner of the environment the position will be more at arm's length from the government.

There is nothing in the bill that outlines the term or length of office for the commissioner. The standing committee recommended that the position be held for a term of five years which may

be reviewed only once, in other words a 10 year maximum. The position would have a specified length of term. By allowing the position to be renewed only once would prevent a monopoly of the position and would allow fresh new ideas to be injected into the position on a regular basis.

There is nothing in the bill which addresses the recommendation that the commissioner be paid a salary equivalent to that of a judge of the supreme court. However, the salary of course is based on the role and mandate of an independent, effective position. Given the measly powers and responsibilities of the position, such a salary clearly is not warranted.

There is nothing in the bill that subjects the commissioner's office to a parliamentary review. The committee recommended that the office be subject to a review every five years by Parliament. This would allow members of Parliament to evaluate the effectiveness and usefulness of the position. It is clearly evident that the minister has failed to carry through on this recommendation in her bill. Such a clause could be contained in the bill to ensure accountability. If the role is not effective or necessary after five years a new government may wish to review and reconsider the position. I suggest the government consider this.

The red book also promised that the environmental auditor general would have "powers of investigation similar to the powers of the auditor general". Yet in this bill the responsibility for reporting on environmental issues remains with the auditor general, not with a new body. The only powers of investigation that the new commissioner on the environment will have in the proposed legislation will be those designated by his boss.

The government is backtracking on another red book promise. Obviously, as assistant to the auditor general the commissioner of the environment does not have the same powers as his boss to whom he reports. Whether issues are reported through the auditor general or the auditor general's assistant, the commissioner of the environment, it is still up to the auditor general to decide whether action will be taken.

The government is not bound to any of the recommendations of the auditor general nor is it required to make a formal response to the auditor general's report. As a result-and we are well aware of this-many recommendations in the auditor general's reports have been ignored for years by governments which would rather not recognize the problems or act on the solutions.

The Liberal red book criticized the Conservatives for their lack of action in the area of environmental assessment, yet this government refuses to conduct a full environmental assessment of critical environmental hot spots such as the Sydney tar ponds in Nova Scotia. It appears the gap between rhetoric and action is as evident with the Liberals as it was with the Conservatives.

The Minister of the Environment has complained that she cannot perform her job without public pressure. Why then does the minister not create a real position for the commissioner of the environment with powers to put some pressure on her department which she is having so much difficulty handling?

The standing committee proposed to create a separate, independent office of the commissioner of the environment that would have real powers and would be responsible to report directly to the House. The legislation fails to meet the fundamental goals of the standing committee and of the Liberal red book of election promises.

It is high time the government came clean on its election promises. The changes proposed in Bill C-83 to amend the Auditor General Act are simply cosmetic. It is all just a big show from the Liberals in an attempt to fool the public into thinking they are actually doing something when clearly they are not. The bill is nothing but fluff. It accomplishes little.

The government made a number of promises to Canadians. It is becoming very apparent that it cannot or has no intention of keeping promises such as establishing this position. It is time the government came clean on its agenda. If government is going to encourage others to clean up their act, it is time it started putting its own house in order.

From the failure of the government to establish a real environmental auditor general, or a real ethics commissioner for that matter, to the failure of individual members across the way to resist the draw of the pension trough, the picture is clear: the government has no intention of keeping many of its promises to the people of Canada.

[Members Of Parliament Retiringallowances Act, June 22nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, if we are not ramming this legislation through why are we standing here on the last day of the session talking about it? If it has been around for so long, explain why we are here on the last day.

Good grief, that answers it right there. Give me a break.

[Members Of Parliament Retiringallowances Act, June 22nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, on the first point on the polls, only one poll will count. The Conservatives found that in the last election and it will be the same poll for these people. They are on a downhill slide. Self-serving legislation like this will not do them any good at all.

On the second point of the hon. member's question, the purpose of coming to Parliament as an MP is not to set yourself up because you cannot get a job when you go out. If you were good enough when you came into this place you will find a job when you go back out.

I do not expect any guarantees when I go out of this place. I will not set myself up and use this place as a big trough to get in knee deep so that I can set myself up on the way out.

I will go out with a normal pension or I will go out with no pension at all. This is not the place to set ourselves up for the future.

[Members Of Parliament Retiringallowances Act, June 22nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt.

I point out to the House at the outset that I am not pleased with the method the government is using to force this particularly biased legislation through the House.

The government cannot be at all comfortable with this legislation or it would allow members of Parliament free debate. That is not happening. What do we see? We see a government slipping this through as quickly as possible during the last day in an attempt to hide it from public scrutiny.

Canadians are not stupid. They will see through this strategy, through the government's attempt to put one over at the very last minute. They will not be fooled by this undemocratic strategy.

The Liberals, like the government before them, are underestimating the Canadian public. The new plan does not address Canadians' demands for a fair system of MP pensions. The new plan is hardly any better or any different from the old plan.

It provides for a few adjustments by taking from one area and adding somewhere else, all at taxpayers' expense of course. This plan simply raises members' take home salary by reducing MP contribution rates.

Liberals in the committee on procedure and House affairs excluded witnesses from coming forward to speak on the bill. The government claimed it would allow witnesses only who could prove they were experts in MP pensions in an effort to eliminate groups such as the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, which has been very outspoken in its efforts to push the government into bringing MP pensions in line.

The government's exclusionary tactics have denied ordinary Canadians the right to appear before committee to express their views. Who does the government think pays the MP pensions? The Canadian taxpayers do and they deserve a right to be before the committee and have their views heard.

The Liberals in committee also objected to witnesses who refer to the trough goers in derogatory terms unless they jammed all the witnesses into a one-day session. It appears when it comes to the greedy personal interests of members across the floor, there simply cannot be any discussion.

Regardless of general consensus against the new plan by witnesses, the Liberal majority on the standing committee after just 12 minutes of deliberations pushed the bill through with not one change at all, what a sham.

We now see why the ethics commissioners is only a figure-head. It is because there are no ethics regarding policies of the members opposite. Why should taxpayers have to continue to pay this ridiculous subsidy to members of Parliament?

One witness to the standing committee estimated the new pension plan is seven times more generous than the typical public sector plan and four times more generous than the typical private sector plan.

MPs are in a very privileged position. Unlike most working Canadians, they can set their own remuneration. MPs set their salaries, their perks and their pensions. This is a heavy responsibility which few are entrusted with, and with that responsibility comes a great deal of trust and expectation for fellow Canadians.

The very nature of this pension plan is an abuse of not only MP privileges but also an abuse of the legislation that governs Canadians. The plan is out of line with regulations and rules governing pensions in the Income Tax Act.

I make reference to the accrual rate. The Income Tax Act allows only a 2 per cent accrual rate. The previous MP pension plan allowed for a 5 per cent accrual. This plan drops it to four, still twice that of the Income Tax Act.

Why are MPs different? The Liberals say they are proposing to reduce the amount of pensions, raise the minimum age for collecting pensions and eliminate double dipping. They will not say the full extent of the plan and why it is so distasteful that 52 Reform MPs, all Reform MPs, and a few ethical Liberal MPs will have nothing to do with it and will volunteer to opt out of the plan.

In addition, the Liberals in their amendments to this plan have taken the liberty of giving themselves a better deal by reducing MP contributions from 11 per cent to 9 per cent. In doing so what have they done? They have actually given themselves a raise as their take home pay will be increased by the reduction in the contributions-here we go again.

It is obvious the self-serving interests of some members on the opposite side have dictated the contents of the bill. It would be far better for MP pensions to be set up by an independent body at arm's length to the government.

Obviously many members cannot handle this responsibility themselves. At least at arm's length the agency would be better able to make an objective assessment of MP pensions.

Members on the opposite side are arguing the new MP pension plan is fair just because they feel they work hard and deserve fair compensation. For many MPs it appears their definition of fair compensation should be much more fair than for other Canadians.

I am sure many Canadians would be more than pleased to receive such generous compensation packages they were allowed, but they cannot play by the same rules.

This plan is not realistic and cannot be extended to the public because if it did we would bankrupt the country. Members with any conscience will think twice before gorging into this tax trough and will opt out. Members here to serve Canada and not themselves will and should do the right thing.

It is not easy to give up a hefty sum of tax dollars but if members think this over carefully and weigh it in their conscience, those who have one, they will do the right thing and opt out of the plan.

This newly revised trough plan will become very evident to Canadians and they will demand their MP take the decent course of action and stop robbing their tax dollars. They will demand their MP take the high road and opt out. Many will see why the Liberals are attempting to push the bill through. This plan will make many of these politicians millionaires. These MPs do not want to give up such a lucrative fortune, let alone negotiate a normal pension. They refuse to be pressured by the electorate to get their hands out of the cookie jar and start doling out taxpayers dollars fairly.

However, the Liberals have failed to gauge the mood of the voting public, just as the Conservatives did. The Liberals will suffer the same fate for not listening. This is what the Liberals fear, reprisals from their own constituents. That is why the government will not allow a simple provision in the bill for MPs to opt out at any time, not just a once only window but any time.

The Liberals clearly want to protect their fortunes. They have no scruples to lay off public servants, cut back on medicare funding or social services as long as they can protect their own greedy little self-interest. They tell Canadians to cut back and make sacrifices, but sacrifices are easy when they are in somebody else's backyard or come out of somebody else's pocket.

It is time for the government to look in its own backyard and do what Canadians expect, offer an MP pension plan similar to that available in the private sector.

I support an MP pension plan comparable to those which Canadians receive in the private sector and which meets all the requirements for registration under the Income Tax Act. The bill does not accomplish this as it stands. I, along with most Canadians, will have no part of it. All 52 Reform MPs will be opting out of the plan and it will save Canadian taxpayers $38 million.

I want the members opposite to clearly understand that when Reform forms the next government, the Liberals can kiss their extravagant pension plan goodbye. Reform will retroactively adjust all present and past pensions for any living MP to reasonable levels. We will remove the porkers from the trough because the government, as reflected in Bill C-85, is incapable of doing what Canadians expect. Old style politics lives on. The Conservatives paid the price for not listening and the Liberals are about to suffer the same fate.