What's wrong with giving in?
Lost his last election, in 2000, with 42% of the vote.
World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act November 24th, 1994
What's wrong with giving in?
Petitions November 24th, 1994
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House today, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition on behalf of constituents from Regina-Lumsden. This petition is signed as well by people from Saskatoon, Balcarres, Watrous, Esterhazy, Langenburg, Churchbridge, Carnduff, Kisbey and Carievale in Saskatchewan.
The passage of the drug patent legislation Bill C-91 has caused undue hardship on the consumers of prescription drugs, the sick and the elderly. Since this bill was passed the cost of prescription drugs has increased over 100 per cent, at the rate of 12 per cent per year since 1987. The petitioners are calling upon the government which in opposition supported the repeal of Bill C-91 to repeal the drug patent legislation now that it is in government.
Bill C-91 is creating a great deal of hardship not only on individual users of prescription drugs, but on health care plans and governments across the country. Health care plans spend about 17 per cent of their money on prescription drugs and hospitals.
Supply November 22nd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I want to share with members a little bit of history. This is not an issue which is new on the public agenda. For example in Saskatchewan in 1977 the then government of Allan Blakeney, who was a New Democratic Party premier, foresaw the problems of unfunded liability with respect to pensions for the civil service and also with respect to elected members of the legislature.
Before I get into that historical perspective, for a couple of minutes I want to say that I believe fundamentally that serving your country and serving the public is an honourable profession, whether you are an elected member of a legislature, of Parliament, or an employee of one of the provincial, municipal, or federal governments.
People want their elected representatives to be accountable, to have a pride in serving their country and to be compensated in a very satisfactory way so that we are responsible to those who pay our salary as opposed to having large incomes from secret sources or sources other than the taxpayers. If that is the case we become accountable to those who do pay our salaries.
The point I want to make in my intervention this afternoon is that I believe serving your country is extremely important and our compensation should be adequate. I believe that a pension system is part of a compensation package, it is deferred income. I also believe, however, that the pension system we have now is unfunded in terms of its liability for taxpayers, it is very costly, and I believe it has to be changed.
I do not just say this. I have undertaken some initiative to see some change. On September 21 I introduced a private member's bill, Bill C-270, which is the money purchase plan bill.
It calls for the Government of Canada to change the MPs' pension system from the defined benefit to the defined contribution plan of a money purchase. It would be fair. It would be effective. It would reduce the taxpayers' subsidy of pensions from $7 to our $1, to a more fair $1 for $1. We contribute a dollar, the employer contributes a dollar and it goes into an RRSP-like account, earns interest, and at the time of our selection to take the money we become eligible to purchase a joint spousal life annuity which then reduces the amount of pension that we have, depending on the age of our spouse if the spouse is younger than us.
This is something that is very important to me. To get back to my history comment, in Saskatchewan this type of plan was introduced-the defined contribution plan or money purchase plan-in 1979 for elected members of the Saskatchewan legislature. It has proven cost effective. It is the only pension plan for elected officials in the country that is endorsed by the Saskatchewan Taxpayers Association, by the Canadian Taxpayers Association, by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. It is even endorsed by the National Citizens Coalition, to which some people may not be attracted but at least it is endorsed in the sense of it being fair, equitable for both taxpayers and members.
I maintain that this is an opportunity for the House of Commons. When the Prime Minister introduces his bill, we should look at my private member's bill, Bill C-270. It is modelled after the Saskatchewan plan which has been in effect for 15, almost 16, years. It would be a very effective approach to addressing some of the concerns of taxpayers.
I want to ask the member from the Reform Party whether he has seen the bill that I have tabled and whether his party would endorse such a plan which has been endorsed by many of the same associations which support his party.
Taxation November 22nd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The Auditor General reports that corporations owe $3 billion in unpaid taxes to Revenue Canada from 1993. He also states: "Clearly, reducing deficits through more effective tax collection is preferable to raising taxes. Taxes receivable are an important national asset and leaving them uncollected has a serious impact on the deficit".
Will the minister stop threatening students with increased costs of education and working people with cuts to UI and start paying more attention to collecting the $3 billion owed to Revenue Canada by these corporations?
Petitions November 2nd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, the second petition I have to present today pertains to the Senate.
The petitioners are from the constituency of Regina-Lumsden primarily. They believe that the Senate, being unelected and unaccountable, has become a home of recipients of Tory and Liberal patronage, and has been a discarded notion of a working body in the best interests of Canadian taxpayers over the past number of years. Because the Senate costs $54 million to $55 million per year to Canadian taxpayers, and that travel costs for senators alone are nearly $3 million, these petitioners request, pray and beg the House of Commons, the Parliament of Canada and the Government of Canada to abolish the Senate.
Petitions November 2nd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to stand this afternoon to present two petitions.
The first petition is signed by residents of my constituency of Regina-Lumsden, as well as the communities of Copper Sands and Pilot Butte in Saskatchewan. Pursuant to Standing Order 36, this petition is duly certified and states that whereas under section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada convicted murderers sentenced to life imprisonment without chance of parole for 25 years are able to apply for review after 15 years and that the murder of a Canadian citizen is the most reprehensible crime, these petitioners request that Parliament repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Liberal Party October 25th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, on this important date, Canadians have a right to ask: Is today
the first anniversary of the Liberal government or is it really the tenth anniversary of the Mulroney Conservative government?
Why? The Tory Prime Minister put his friends in the Senate. The Liberal Prime Minister is putting his friends in the Senate. The Tories ran an annual deficit of $40 billion a year. The Liberals, the same deal. The wealthy friends of the Conservatives received tax breaks through family trusts. The wealthy friends of the Liberals receive the same deal. Tens of thousands of profitable corporations paid no profit tax but found lots of cash to give to the Tory Party and to the Liberal Party.
Under the Tories, prescription drug prices have risen 12 per cent. Under Liberals they have risen 12 per cent. The Tories cut UI benefits. The Liberals have cut deeper the UI benefits. Liberals, Tories, same old stories. Mr. Speaker, can you see the difference? I cannot.
Department Of Natural Resources Act September 27th, 1994
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to share with the House and the members that the New Democratic Party caucus supports in principle the taking of the bill to committee.
The bill when it becomes law will amalgamate, as I understand it, under one minister the powers, duties and functions of the minister in the Department of Forestry Act and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources Act.
The bill defines natural resources to include all areas covered in the Department of Forestry Act and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources Act. The definition clause contains a definition of sustainable development, the same definition apparently as in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
There is a requirement under the general duties clause for the minister to consider the integrated management and sustainable development of Canada's natural resources in carrying out the minister's duties and functions. The general duties clause of the bill reiterates some modifications to the duties in the Department of Forestry Act to make these duties apply to all natural resources. It also describes current activities of the department and is consistent with federal government responsibilities and priorities in the natural resources area.
A reorganization bill usually has many objectives and opportunities: either amalgamation, centralization, efficiency, streamlining, expansion or in many ways hiding budgetary expenditures. During the report to the committee I will be looking at some of these objectives of the bill.
I have a couple of concerns I want to raise with the member for Cochrane-Superior. The minister in her remarks today said, and I quote: "Economic and environment concerns will continue to be addressed". She also said in the same statement that she will be committed to the market principles. It is my sense that these are contradictory, that you cannot be carrying out on behalf of the people of Canada an economic and environmental study to ensure that these are addressed yet leaving all of the elements of the responsibilities of the minister up to market principles.
I wanted to make the above point and I also have two questions. First, does the member not believe that these are contradictory, that the minister has indicated this previously? Second, has there been any provincial government response other than the members from the Bloc with respect to possible encroachments of provincial responsibilities in the energy sector, the forestry sector or some of the other natural resources sectors with specific reference to the province of Saskatchewan which is a province that I represent in this House?
Department Of Natural Resources Act September 27th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-48 is a bill which in principle I support and the New Democratic Party caucus supports in-
Canadian Wheat Board Act September 27th, 1994
Madam Speaker, the main political issue of Bill C-50 would be the opening up of the Canadian Wheat Board Act. That is the view of the New Democratic Party caucus. We are a bit concerned about opening it up even though it is for a good purpose. Inadvertently this may have a negative effect on the wheat board and its operation.
The reason I mention this point is that members of the Reform Party are demanding freedom to choose. They want referenda and other approaches to the wheat board and its orderly marketing process. It is my view and the view of some farmers I represent in the province of Saskatchewan that it poses a possible threat to the stability of the board.
I want to ask the Liberal member if the government could give some assurance or a clear statement on the future of the wheat board and to confirm again the government's commitment to orderly marketing and its election promise to ensure that the Canadian Wheat Board is an ongoing strong, single desk marketing agency.