Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to make a few general comments before I make a motion pertaining to this bill. Mr. Chairman, to my understanding, the Executive Council who is sponsoring the bill initiated this anticipated freeze and it was brought forward to the Management and Services Board for consideration in the fall. At that time, it is my understanding that the board agreed to bring forward this particular bill and the Minister of Finance has done so.

But, Mr. Chairman, I have concerns about this bill. As Members will know, I am disappointed that our own board, the Management and Services Board, in my view, didn't properly consult the Members to see if this initiative should take place or not. Mr. Chairman, the intent is to soften up the union. We all know that. It has been said that the only way to soften up the union is to do this type of thing. Members weren't canvassed to see if this was the proper method and that is my concern. The Management and Services Board didn't consult with the ordinary Members with regard to this issue, although it is only a freeze.

After that, Mr. Chairman, the Executive brought it forward in our Caucus meeting. That is the only time we were advised that this bill was coming forward. They didn't give Members the opportunity to discuss it amongst themselves. I am disappointed with this particular bill, Mr. Chairman, because the Executive Council had other methods they could have utilized, rather than using Members, if their main objective was to soften the union. To get from point A to point B, the Executive Council had many options, but they chose to use this method. Since that decision was made and every time you talk about Members' salaries or indemnities it is controversial to the public. In the territories or in southern Canada, every time you talk about Members' salaries it is a controversial issue. Members are afraid to talk about it.

Mr. Chairman, I am not afraid to talk about salaries. If this is the method they are going to use, then I think they should have gone further than what is being proposed. The current bill only proposes a freeze within our salaries. One must not forget that the main objective of the Executive Council is to soften up the union. We know that. The 1.8 per cent increase totals only $27,000. If we are going to be serious and try to soften up the union, then I think the Executive Council should have done more than just freezing our salaries. We should have taken a cut. Let's make amendments to the bill.

Mr. Chairman, since this method is being agreed to by many Members, even the Finance committee agreed to it -- I sit on this committee and I agreed to it -- but the government should have done more. If we are going to show the leadership, I think we should have done more than that because $27,000 isn't a big drop in the bucket. If we are really serious, we should have taken a more drastic measure. Since this method is being used, we should have gone further than what is being proposed now.

On top of that, to be even more serious, I think the Executive Council should have taken an extra cut. But they just want to freeze our current indemnities which won't change it much from what we are getting now. The Executive Council is hoping that with this method it would soften up the union. We know that has been reported in the paper. But I say to Members in this House if we are going to be serious and our objective is to show the way, the Members should consider taking a cut rather than a freeze.

Mr. Chairman, I will be moving a motion to that effect after other Members have had a chance to make their comments. Thank you.