Keith Martin

[Immigration Enforcement Improvement Act, May 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the hon. member for Red Deer has already made an application to the government to have an emergency debate on Bosnia.

[Royal Roads Military College, May 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Royal Roads Military College located in my riding is closing this week and is being gutted.

In this House the Prime Minister assured me that Royal Roads would become an educational facility and would receive the same deal as Collège militaire royal in Quebec. The reality has been completely different.

CMR received $25 million over three years. Royal Roads received the same, but had $5 million promptly removed. Conditionality was linked to the deal on Royal Roads but not to CMR. Most appalling of all, ministers of this government are having secret negotiations with developers to sell up to 300 acres of pristine old growth of Royal Roads property for a condominium development.

The treatment of the staff at Royal Roads has been nothing short of reprehensible. Previous educational facilities purchased by the college, including the school's oceanographic teaching vessel, have been removed. No such parallel exists at CMR.

This government, in collusion with the province, is destroying this superb educational facility. Despite what the Prime Minister says, CMR in Quebec has been given preferential treatment and Royal Roads and the people of B.C. have been shafted.

[Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, May 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and an honour to speak today on Bill C-87.

It is a very poignant moment to do so, given the fact that a little more than a week ago we celebrated the 50th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day all across the world.

Today we are moving toward enacting a bill to implement the convention on the prohibition of the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. The saying goes that all is fair in love and war, but there are conventions which dictate to us as human beings a minimum level of behaviour even in the horrors of war.

This basic level of human behaviour is an obligation of those who engage in war. The use of chemical weapons contravenes that in a most heinous fashion. Terrible acts have been committed on fellow human beings. Chemical weapons are one example of what has happened.

Chemical weapons are weapons of mass destruction. The chemical weapons convention was signed by over 130 countries in January 1993. It is the first multilateral agreement that abhors an entire class of weapons of mass destruction. The act enables an organization to look at chemical weapons production facilities to ensure that they will be destroyed and that the chemical weapons stockpiled by countries will also be destroyed.

All government and industrial facilities will be monitored and the act will be implemented by the countries. It is a powerful act but it is necessary. It is important to realize that it does not impinge on industries to engage in legitimate industrial production of chemicals. It comes down on industries and countries manufacturing chemical weapons for aggressive and warlike purposes.

I reassure industry in Canada that the purpose of the act is not to come down on it but to form a broad framework to be applied not only in this country but in other countries for the collective security of all. I also reassure the industry that its stocks will not be destroyed in any way, shape or form.

There are three categories of schedules in the act. Schedule 1 includes such chemicals we are aware of such as sarin, tabun, soman, and the mustards that were used with widespread and tragic effectiveness in World War I. There are some legitimate uses for these chemicals in pharmaceuticals and in cancer research. Some of the precursors are used. Therefore one would have to obtain permission or a licence in order to use them, and that applies to all 130 signatories.

Schedule 2 includes such chemicals as amiton, which are key precursors for schedule 1 chemical weapons. The individuals and companies that make them will be subjected to scrutiny if they make over a certain amount.

Schedule 3 is the least powerful, the least destructive of all, as they are often used in industry but can in large enough quantities

be used as chemical weapons. We have such chemical weapons as hydrogen cyanide and phosgene that have been used before. Companies that manufacture these chemicals will be eligible for occasional checks and balances as time goes on.

In the act is the establishment of national authorities responsible for collecting information that they will give to an organization that has been set up called the Organization for the Prohibition of Conventional Weapons or the OPCW.

All signatories are essentially responsible for checking within their countries all the industries that will be manufacturing any of the chemicals in the three schedules I mentioned.

The information will then be given to the OPCW which will then decide if it is necessary to take further action. The national authorities in conjunction with the OPCW will facilitate the inspection. They will also control the export and import of chemicals where necessary. The country of origin is responsible for enacting Criminal Code legislation that will provide penalties, fines and imprisonment if individuals or companies are engaging in the production of chemicals for aggressive warlike use in the future. Again, we must make the distinction that the convention is not to be used against companies engaging in the production of chemicals for medicinal or industrial purposes.

I caution the government that the cost should not be excessive. We must do this within our fiscal constraints. We want to ensure that the agency that will be set up will not be onerous or develop a morass of bureaucracy in the future. We do not have the money to do that, as we all know.

Some may argue why this convention is necessary; did chemical weapons not go out with the first world war? The reality is unfortunately they did not. We have seen more recently in Japan the release of chemical weapons that had tragic effects. Sarin was released on a civilian population, killing hundreds of individuals. Stockpiles have been found in Japan. More recently the Iraqis have used chemical weapons for aggressive purposes to commit genocide within their own country against Kurdish individuals. That is a hot spot which will affect us in the future.

The convention was designed to keep good countries in check and to come down hard on those countries that would seek to use these weapons from Hades in a fashion that is aggressive and would cause destabilizing effects.

The UN will be the ultimate body that will receive information from the OPCW. That brings a larger question, which we ought to examine, which is the ability of the United Nations to act quickly and effectively in the face of threats to regional and international security. We have seen Rwanda, Burundi, the former Yugoslavia, Angola, Sierra Leone, and the list goes on. In fact there were over 40 major conflicts in the world last year. That number is not decreasing; rather, it is increasing. In the future we will see countries such as Nigeria, the Sudan, possibly Kenya, Kashmir, and a host of other countries blowing up-not to belittle those already on the front pages of newspapers, showing on a daily basis the tragedies civilians are enduring in places like Bosnia, Croatia, Burundi, Rwanda, East Timor. The list goes on and on. We have learned nothing in over 50 years. We ought to remember that.

The OPCW is an example of what is considered to be conflict prevention. Even though this is a small but very important act, there are many lessons that can be learned as conflicts loom ahead. In fact there are many things we can do to prevent future conflicts. The United Nations must set in place a list of transgressions that are completely unacceptable to the international community. It must set a list of transgressions down that are threats to regional and international security, behaviours that are considered to be patently unacceptable such as genocide and gross human rights abuses.

I also mention countries engaging in self-destructive behaviours. I bring to the attention of the House the expenditures occurring in military hardware. Many people believe that in the post-cold war era we live in a safer place. We are far from it. The world as we know it now is a much more dangerous place.

While there was a decrease in global arms spending from 1987 to 1990 of some $240 billion, military spending in many parts of the world has actually increased. It is interesting to note which countries are increasing their expenditures. Curiously enough, it is particularly in the poorest areas of the world. Sub-Saharan Africa and east Asia did not have a decline in their military expenditures; rather, they were increased.

In general when we see violent conflicts occurring the military expenditures are increasing also, which means that they are taking away from the expenditures necessary in providing basic human needs.

According to the UNDP, in 1990-91 all developing countries spent the equivalent of 60 per cent of their combined expenditures for education and health on military expenditure, compared with 33 per cent in industrialized countries.

Let us take a look at who spends the most on military hardware. It is very telling. In 1990-91: Somalia, 200 per cent military spending compared with health and education spending; Ethiopia, 190 per cent; Angola, 208 per cent; Yemen, 197 per cent; Pakistan, 125 per cent; India, 138 per cent; Myanmar, 222 per cent; Iraq, 271 per cent; Sri Lanka, 107 per cent; Syria, 373 per cent of its spending for education and health was spent

on military expenditures. Clearly these countries are not among the richest of the world; rather, they are among the poorest.

Along with this list of transgressions we also need to draw up a list of responses from the international community. For example, early diplomatic initiatives can be employed, along with positive propaganda. The former Yugoslavia and Rwanda are interesting examples. When the conflicts were first beginning, the people who started to stir up and fan the flames of ethnic discontent were in part using negative, hateful propaganda. The people who were on the ground, NGOs and representatives from other countries, saw this and were helpless to do anything about it.

A lot could be done if a system were set in place by the United Nations to immediately put positive propaganda into the theatre when negative and hateful propaganda is being spewed forth by individuals who are trying to fuel the flames of ethnic discontent and trying to stimulate conflict. I think it would do a lot to dampen down the hatred and ethnic conflict as it starts. It is an interesting area for us to try to convince the United Nations to engage in.

Another aspect, which is particularly appropriate given the fact that the G-7 summit is occurring in Halifax in June, is the use of the international financial institutions as non-military and inexpensive levers on countries that are engaging in these transgressions I mentioned before. It has not really been looked at very carefully.

We were in Washington not too long ago and I spoke to Mr. Fauver, Mr. Clinton's sherpa for the G-7 summit. I asked him if we could use the international financial institutions to exert pressure on countries or groups who were trying to stimulate a conflict by trying to pit one person against the other. He said it could be done but that it was difficult. I think this might be an inexpensive but effective and eloquent way of trying to defuse conflicts before they occur.

Something that could be done is not renegotiating the loans of countries. They need money to fight a war; if they do not have the money then they cannot fight a war. We can decrease non-humanitarian aid to countries that are engaging in this behaviour. The removal of preferential trade status is another example of what can be done. These countries should be penalized and brought to task. The international community should let these countries or groups know that their behaviour is completely unacceptable for this to occur.

We can then go ahead and do the traditional form of diplomatic initiatives. Something the government has put forth, which I think is a very good move, is the construction of a rapid deployment force. We are not talking about a standing army but rather a force that would be comprised of individual countries that would contribute arms, equipment, or people to go in on short notice to areas of conflict in order to dampen down a conflict or prevent a conflict from happening. This might be another issue that could be brought up at the G-7 summit in Halifax. We are not talking about an army that would stay at one place at one time; they would stay in their countries of origin.

Another useful aspect is that these groups could come together on a periodic basis and train. One of the problems the United Nations has always found is that when they get soldiers and put them into a conflict the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. They do not know the equipment, they do not know the commanders, and they do now know how things work. This would obviate that, by bringing them together every year or so to go through manoeuvres and the motions so that they will understand how to engage in a conflict such as this.

We also have to combine the increased monitoring capability of the United Nations. In the UN there exists a crisis monitoring group, but to date it has been very ineffective in actually informing the United Nations in a timely fashion about conflicts that are occurring. Much can be done in this area also. We need to incorporate NGOs and groups on the ground to form a network of military intelligence that could feed information in an expeditious fashion to the UN crisis group, who could then process it and give it to the United Nations.

What is the rationale for all of this? People will ask why we are getting involved in the affairs of other countries. The rationale is very clear. Contrary to what has happened in the past when armies were killing each other, most casualties that occur in conflicts these days are not army personnel but are innocent civilians. We saw this in Bosnia and in Rwanda time and time again.

In 1993 there were over 40 million displaced people in the world. The United Nations high commission for refugees recognized this as a great tragedy. Where do these refugees go? They move within their own countries but they also emigrate to other parts of the world. No border is completely intact; borders are in fact porous. What happens half a world away will come back to affect us. The United Nations also estimates that while there are presently 40 million refugees, the number is likely to increase to over 100 million by the year 2000.

When conflicts do occur, we see the massive and widespread destruction of a country. All the aid, development, and hard work of decades are washed away in the course of a month or two of conflict. It will take decades to rebuild that. Furthermore, the seeds of hatred are planted, not only in the people subjected to the war but also in the unborn children, because they will be subjected to the same hatred and prejudices their families were

subjected to. This is a cancer that starts very early and grows. It takes generations to go away, if at all.

Also, within our own country when conflicts erupt we are forced to engage in peacekeeping, peacemaking, defence initiatives, aid and development at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Is it not better to put in a few dollars now and save hundreds of millions in the future, rather than wait until everything blows up?

There is no need to discuss the humanitarian aspects of those who are involved in the conflicts because they are evident. For those of you who have seen war situations, as I have, it is not a pretty sight. These individuals want nothing more than to live in peace and harmony but are forced to engage in activities or have heinous crimes meted out to them, which they are powerless to deal with.

One mistake made in foreign policy is in the global community we do not have the backbone to deal with individuals who for their own self-interests are stimulating ethnic hatred. When we negotiate with these people it is important to realize they are not necessarily speaking for their entire populace. They may be only be speaking for a very small number of people. Their motivations should be questioned at every turn.

Few countries in the world have the international recognition and capability to form a system to address the pressures and conflict we will have in the coming new world order. Fortunately, Canada is one of the few that can do this. We must persuade our colleagues in the international community to set up a framework and a system of responses from the international community and identify early on the precursors to conflict. In short, we must do what we can, where we can, and when we can, given the fiscal constraints that are put upon us.

The action we have taken with the conventional weapons ban is truly admirable and is a shining example of what Canada can do. People may not understand that Canada is one of the leaders in putting forth this ban. It is something we as a country ought to be very proud of.

While we have managed to put forth a convention on the ban of mines, I suggest Canada take a leadership role in putting forth a convention on banning the production, stockpiling and sale of land mines and anti-personnel devices because their primary target again is civilian.

Once a conflict is over these land mines and anti-personnel devices stay for decades and I will give some examples. It is also important to realize that these weapons are not meant to kill; many of them are meant purely to maim and they maim children.

Many of the anti-personnel devices are showered from helicopters or planes. They are made of plastic and look like little toys. Children pick them up and get their arms or their legs blown off. I have seen this in Mozambique. Teenagers found these things and had body parts blown off. Believe me, it is not fun to spend four hours in a hospital operating room debriding somebody's leg after taking off the other leg.

Worldwide there are over 100 million land mines that have been set. It not only affects what we know about Cambodia but in Afghanistan 400,000 people have been wounded. The UN is now engaging in activities to remove land mines. About 85 hectares a year are done. It will take 4,300 years to clear Afghanistan of mines.

In Croatia over 330,000 hectares are completely uninhabitable and totally useless for industry. It costs Croatia over $230 million a year purely because the area is seeded with land mines.

Chechnya is another example where hundreds of thousands of land mines were sown in a very short period of time. Many areas of Chechnya will not be able to become economically self-sufficient for a long time because of that. When the civilian population tries to plant their fields or go to work, they will continue to be subjected to periodic incidents of having their limbs blown off or of being maimed.

Many of the land mines are plastic, some are metal and many are invisible. They cost between $3 and $30 to manufacture and up to $1000 to get rid of. Every year there are two million land mines seeded and about 85,000 being removed.

There is a land mine called the black widow or the PMW, a 10 centimetre plastic mine with 240 grams of TNT that can rip off a leg at the hip. There are about 20 million of these land mines deployed all over the world. China and the former Soviet Union make them.

There is the Valmara 69, also known as the bouncing betty. This one leaps up one metre and explodes, showering metal fragments for 20 metres. It is made in Italy. It is shocking to see the countries that actually make these, from the United States to many countries in Europe to China and the former Soviet Union.

This is something we need to address and Canada can take a leadership role in this. There is no military use whatsoever for this weapon which again is primarily used to maim civilians. Usually those who are maimed the most are the children and the men and women who work in the fields. We must take a leadership role on this as we have done on chemical weapons.

While we have had the convention on chemical weapons, we also need to consider the aspect of conventional non-nuclear weapons. The proliferation of non-nuclear conventional weapons, particularly small arms, is something that is having a huge destabilizing effect on the world stage.

When I worked on the Mozambique border there were hundreds of thousands of AK-47 assault rifles pouring into South Africa from Mozambique. An AK-47 can be bought for $5 to $20. When you have an AK-47, you have a lot of power. These people are desperately poor. They have no food and are starving and all they can do is sell these weapons. These weapons are ubiquitous in the developing world and there is a huge destabilizing force in that. It also enables people to engage in violent criminal acts which also impedes a country's ability to get on its feet economically.

Whether we are looking at west Africa, southern Africa or east Asia, crime is one of the largest problems confronting the developing world. It is something we need to address.

The G-7 summit is coming up. Over 90 per cent of conventional weapons are made by G-7 nations. It is hypocritical for us to say we are helping countries on the one hand with our aid and development, but on the other hand we are selling them the arms either through private dealers or by government to government sale. We are cutting off our nose to spite our face because in the long run conflicts brew. These are not things to be taken in isolation. They are to be taken collectively in the name of collective security.

Bill C-87 shows that Canada can, as it has in the past, show leadership in foreign policy. One person not so long ago in the celebrations of V-E Day said a poignant and kind thing about the people of this country: "If the Canadian people could look at Canadians the way the people in Holland look at Canadians, then indeed they would learn a lot and indeed they would be proud".

I ask the government to remember that. I ask the Canadian people to remember that in the hope that we can use that esteem and respect we have on the international stage to become more aggressive in addressing these threats to international security, not only for the people who are involved, but also for the people in this country.

Although we may be far away from areas of conflict and think we are immune to it, we are not. People will leave areas of conflict, the have not areas to areas that have. Canada is a have country. It will put stresses on this country that we are not prepared to deal with. It will cost us money that we do not have. Above all else, we should do it for humanitarian reasons. Although we may be different peoples, we are in fact one people on one earth.

[Foreign Affairs, May 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, that was not what was said last week. It sounds like we will see no evil, speak no evil and hear no evil when it comes to our foreign policy on human rights.

The attitude of the government shows the callous disregard for the gross human rights abuses that are taking place all over the world. I am sure the government's insensitive approach to human rights will be little comfort to the valiant souls subjected to torture and incarceration without trial while fighting for human rights and democracy throughout the world.

Why has the government flip-flopped yet again on its foreign policy commitments? Why has it broken another of its red book promises?

[Foreign Affairs, May 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, many Canadians were shocked to learn last Friday that when it comes to Canadian foreign policy the government believes trade should take precedence regardless of a country's poor record on human rights.

Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs explain the shift in policy, given the fact that it breaks yet another promise set out in the infamous red book wherein it reads: "We will continue to support democracy and respect for human rights worldwide?"

[Supply, May 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak on our Reform motion.

Today we are speaking about the failure of the government to keep its red book promises. When we were elected in October 1993 the much touted red book was supposed to be a

new tone for the people of the country, a new tone for the people in Parliament to work with. It was supposed to be a tone full of honesty that would engender public trust, that would bring more effectiveness to the House. What we have seen is a book not of hope, not of promises kept, but a book of promises that have been broken.

That is an insult to the House. It is an insult to democratic principles. Most of all it is an insult to the people of the country.

I will give some examples and then move on to constructive solutions. When I and many of my colleagues in the House were elected a year and a half ago there was great hope. With 205 new members there was great hope there would be a different mindset of doing things in the House. As individuals we would be more effective in representing the wishes of our constituents and bringing our expertise to the House, more effective in presenting our ideas and more effective in bringing members of the public who have expertise to the House to present the most constructive solutions for Canada.

Unfortunately we have fallen back into the same quagmire of business as usual-what a shame.

In the House there is great hope and potential. Many members of the House possess great skills, particularly the backbenchers. In the backbenches of the Liberal caucus there are great skills which are not being tapped deliberately because of business as usual.

When we came to the House the Prime Minister said he would give greater power to the members of the House to better represent the people of the country. Again, we see business as usual.

Instead of committees acting independently and having more power, in many cases they are merely an arm of the government, an arm of the insidious movement of order in council.

We in the House know but the people may not recognize the power structures in the country are extremely pyramidal, with power centred in the hands of perhaps a dozen individuals in the House while the rest, by and large, are under the control of the government.

We in opposition try to act in a different way to bring forth constructive solutions. However, time and again we are merely shut down, not on the basis of merit, but on the basis of politics. This does a great deal of disservice to members of the House.

I will raise one specific example which is close to my heart and one which I feel is a great shame. It is the example of the health committee, which deals with one of the most important aspects in the country, the health and welfare of Canadians. There are good people from all parties on the committee. Unfortunately the committee is merely a functioning arm under the policies of the government, rather than dealing with the big problems that affect the health of Canadians or being able to have the power to function and manoeuvre to address the problems in a construction fashion.

All one needs to do is look at the nature of what the committee is studying to find out it is not addressing the big problems. That not only applies to the health committee but to other committees also.

I implore the government to give members of the committee the power to use their expertise, to mine the talents in the country and use them to bring forth the most constructive solutions and address the biggest problems of the country today. Unfortunately that is not happening because we are dealing with politics and not with problems.

Another example is order in council decisions by very few. People are advanced to positions not on the basis of merit but on the basis of who they know in many cases; not in all cases, but in many cases. This does a great disservice to the people of the country who could do great things.

I go back to one aspect of the function of the government. When there is a problem in the House, what do we do? We do not deal with the problem. We deal with what I call studyitis, a disease pervasive not only in Parliament but also in other parliaments and governments of the world. It is an infectious disease that has infected most members of Parliament. That is very sad.

When there is a big problem affecting us, do we bring forth the most relevant studies and the most relevant and effective solutions to the problem to show a real life example? No, of course not. We study it. Why do we study it? It creates the illusion we as elected members of Parliament are working on it. We give the illusion we are actually trying to address a problem. In effect, we are telling the Canadian people we are trying to offset the problem and decision making processes.

As a qualifier, I am not saying we do not have to study things. Please, when things have been studied eight, nine and ten times, and when we literally have rooms full of studies on the same subject, why are we studying it again?

This was most graphically illustrated in the health committee when an individual from the Inuit Tapirisat society came before us when we were deciding whether to study aboriginal health. She was a very eloquent lady who was representing Inuit people. She came before us with a handful of documents, put them on the table and said: "If you want to study aboriginal health and you want to come and see us, don't bother. Go home. This is but a small example of studies that have been done on us. We don't want studies. We want action".

That brought to mind something we do over and over again not only in health care but in so many other committees. What a waste of the taxpayers' money and what a disservice to the health problems that affect Canadians and that Canadians want action on, not two years from now, but now. The

solutions are out there. Let us enact them, work toward them and see how they work. If they do not work properly we should modify them to ensure they do work properly.

Trying to represent our constituents' wishes is something we were supposed to do as a democratic society and something the Prime Minister said he would enable us to do to a greater extent.

On Bill C-68 three courageous individuals from the government stood by what their constituents said. Their constituents overwhelmingly told them to oppose the bill, which we as party oppose for very good reasons. Those individuals stood up and opposed it on second reading and within 24 hours were removed from their committees. Why? It was a penalty for not kowtowing to what the party wanted to do. Is that democracy? Is that representing our constituents? I think not.

Another aspect that affects my riding in particular is the west coast fisheries disaster. The government was supposed to do something for fisheries all over the country, from the east coast to the west coast. Unfortunately the west coast fishery is being ignored.

As a precautionary measure I take this opportunity to tell the minister of fisheries that the poachers who poached last year, the poachers who almost caused the collapse of the west coast fishery, we came within 12 hours of collapse, are already to go ahead and do the same thing again. I know from the people in the trenches the west coast fishery poachers are getting prepared now to trash our west coast fishery. Please pay heed to that and deal with it now. The DFO office in Sooke, which represents a huge area, is being closed. The hatchery that releases 750,000 fry and is staffed with one person and numerous volunteers is also being closed.

DFO officers with west coast expertise in undercover operations are being moved to the middle of British Columbia. Why? I warn the government to pay heed to this because this is not very professional.

Another aspect is the ethics counsellor. This is an excellent idea but we cannot have an ethics counsellor appointed by the Prime Minister, answerable to an MP from the government and again answerable to the Prime Minister. The ethics counsellor must have the ability to operate independently, answer to an independent group and also to have independent powers to enact what their mandate is supposed to be.

Closure is another aspect which defies democracy. We should not have that in the House whatsoever.

We cannot continue what we are doing in Parliament. We must ensure Canadians have confidence in Parliament. We must allow members of Parliament to do what they were meant to, to represent their constituents' wishes in an effective fashion. I ask the Prime Minister to allow us to do this. He must stop the top down control and bring the expertise of his party to bear down on the huge problems that affect society and the Canadian people so we can have effective, fiscally sustainable, sound and responsible policies for the people of the country which they so dearly need.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 9th, 1995]

What does this do? It is another MP pension plan that contravenes the Income Tax Act and is completely illegal.

This new plan decreases the contribution rate from MPs from 11 per cent to 9 per cent. What does that do? It increases the pay that MPs take home. This plan is at least two times as lucrative as private sector plans and continues to contravene the Income Tax Act in at least two cases. Therefore that makes it completely and utterly illegal.

We in the Reform Party, as all members, have been given the chance by the government to opt out. What happened? To a person, the members of my party have opted out of this plan. When many of us, myself included, were given the sheets to sign for our pension plan when we came here in January 1994, we wrote on the top that we would not sign out of protest because we would not be a part of this plan.

It was an election promise we made and one that we keep. It is not only we who will opt out of this plan. There are a handful of hearty souls from the government side who, under duress and intense pressure from their own people, have decided to hold strong and represent the wishes of their constituents and opt out.

Are the members of the Bloc Quebecois, a group that is committed to destroying the country and tearing it apart, to be members of this plan? Absolutely. I find it completely hypocritical that these members are rushing to be members of a pension plan in a country they are running away from. Why does this group want to join a pension plan from a country that it wants to tear apart? It is hypocrisy. Its members should look in their souls and in the mirror when they decide to do this.

In this party, we propose not to be destructive but to be constructive. We have said all along that we want to be a part of the community, to join hands with the rest of the country to make it strong. One of the things that we can do is have the same pension plan as the people who voted for us.

We want to have the same pension plan as the private sector and in essence, lead by example. Therefore, we should collect

the MP pension plan at age 60 and decrease the contributions by the taxpayer. As one of my friends from my party just said, we should make it a one to one contribution. Above all else, let the MP control and manage his or her pension plan. It is interesting to reflect on this for a moment because it shows the the difference in mind set and philosophy that we in the Reform Party have to the government.

Government members believe they should get their lecherous tentacles into all aspects of people's lives from business to MP pensions. We in this party and the majority of Canadians believe that it is not the government members who should do the majority of things in the country, but people, individuals and private organizations are the ones who can best deal with the problems that affect them. Let government do what government does best and what the private sector cannot do and let the people and individuals do everything else. Our job is to empower the people to do that.

One of my colleagues was musing the other day about the so-called increase in pay. What he was really doing is trying to find ways of decreasing the cost to the taxpayer. He proposed abolishing the MP pension plan, abolishing the allowance but increasing the salary to compensate for this. He qualified this by saying that this does not in any way, shape or form represent the will or the wishes of this party.

Nobody in this party wants to increase the salaries of any one of us. The hon. member for Beaver River started off when she was a lone person in the House by voluntarily decreasing her salary by 10 per cent. She was the only individual in the House to do this. It is important to understand that out of the 295 members only one MP at that time did that. That MP was from the Reform Party of Canada.

Other things we have done that members of the other parties have not done is that we took the bull by the horns and tried to find out other constructive ways of saving the taxpayer money. We saved money on our flights by flying economy. We in my office managed to save the taxpayers at least $10,000 to $12,000 per year by flying economy and on cheap flights. If all of us were to do that we would save the taxpayers at least $3 million a year. We should look at that because it is certainly something constructive that we could do.

Many of our constituents have complained about this MP pension plan. Many of these people are individuals who fought in the last war, which we celebrated this week, and who have worked all of their lives only to have pensions of less than $1,000 a month. Furthermore, on that amount of money they are remorselessly taxed by the Canadian government. It is not something I would lay at this government's feet right now as it is something that has gone on for a long time.

I ask the government to look with compassion on those individuals who have made such a significant contribution to the backbone of the country. They have worked all their lives to make it the safe place that it is today.

I implore the government to lead by example. Give the people the confidence they need in their elected officials. As we saw in World War II, we came together to do great things, to defeat the fascism of Nazi Germany. That hope is not lost on us now. In 1995 we can all come together to build Canada, the greatest country in the world, to once again stand on its feet and be the middle power that it can be. We can only do that by coming together, leading by example and working together for the benefit and future of our wonderful country.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 9th, 1995]

Does it occur in the new plan?

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 9th, 1995]

What were the Canadian people saying in that election? We want democracy. We want to be heard. We want fairness, accountability, transparency, and above all else we want honesty from our elected officials. We want our elected officials to represent the people and we want to do for ourselves what we do unto others.

The single most objectionable thing that typifies the last government and in some ways applies to this government is the MP pension plan, this gold plated plan, which is unlike those in the private sector.

In response to the dogged efforts of the Reform Party, the government has finally buckled under and decided to revamp the plan. Is that what it truly did? Not at all. It brought out a plan that is mere it window dressing. We have seen a lot of it.

Yesterday when we spoke in the House on the OAS and CPP bill we saw much the same thing. Let me explain why. What happens with the new plan? The accrual rate decreases, but it only decreases from 5 per cent to 4 per cent. This is still double the rate in the private sector.

Furthermore, the Income Tax Act says that there can only be a maximum of 2 per cent. Therefore, the plan put forth by the government and the preceding plan are illegal.

The new plan is fully indexed to inflation. Do we see that in the private sector? Not at all. In the private sector, 80 per cent of plans are not indexed to inflation.

What is the new minimum age? It is 55, not 60. That is fine to an extent. However there is no decrease in the payments that are down if anybody collects before the age of 60. Again I bring your attention to the Income Tax Act.

The Income Tax Act says that pensions must be reduced by at least 3 per cent per year if collected before age 60. Does this occur in the plan before us?

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, one of the guiding principles of leadership is that the leader set an example. People despise double standards, especially with regard to leadership.

In the past, Canadian governments have been marked in their leadership and have been characterized by inaccessibility, arrogance, a disregard for the masses, in fact contempt for the masses, some corruption, and rule from an ivory tower mentality, a them versus us mentality. The proof was in the last election, when the government of the day was in no uncertain terms turfed from its position in government into an insignificant number in the House.