John Solomon

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, September 27th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus I would like to join in making some comments on Bill C-50, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act.

The Liberal government is amending the Canadian Wheat Board Act to introduce the voluntary check-off program for wheat and barley research. I believe this is a very good move on behalf of the government and on behalf of the producers and those who support this move.

It is reminiscent of the pulse crop producers in Saskatchewan who over the years have had check-offs on their crops, on their production for the purpose of research, for the purpose of enhancing their markets, for the purpose of providing greater returns for agriculture in the pulse crops that are produced in the province of Saskatchewan.

It has proven very successful there. I predict it will be very successful if it is managed properly by the government and by the administrators for the wheat and barley end of it as well.

The proposed check-off has been debated by western farmers over the last few years. There is no major opposition to the concepts and the government is responding to a proposal from the Western Grains Research Foundation. The proposal was developed by producers and farm organizations, the research community and the Canadian Wheat Board.

The Western Grains Research Foundation is proposing a 20 cents per tonne check-off on wheat and a 40 cents per tonne check-off on barley. This could produce an estimated $3.8 million for wheat and $900,000 for barley. The levies will be deducted from the CWB final payments beginning with those for the 1993-94 crop year. These funds would be automatically transferred to special accounts set up and administered by the WGRF.

The bill excludes check-off on soft wheat and barley marketed at delivery points in Alberta. This is a point that requires further review and explanation. The Alberta government has introduced a long list of check-offs on farm products.

It is our view in the case of barley producers that some of the money is being used in a permanent campaign against the Canadian Wheat Board. All farmers should be in the check-off as proposed in this bill. Alberta farmers will obtain the benefits of plant research financed by Saskatchewan and Manitoba farmers while the Alberta barley growers association uses its check-off to attack the Canadian Wheat Board which is trying to build its industry.

If the Alberta barley producers want to maintain a check-off for political purposes, it would be their business. If the aim of the check-off is to foster plant breeding research to reduce the administrative costs of the check-off, since the barley growers association, including Alberta producers, members of the WGRF and others, there is no logical explanation to exclude them from this voluntary check-off.

I have a question for the member for Lethbridge, a member of the Reform Party. How do the member and the Reform Party square their support for the bill and yet do not support the Alberta farmers from being involved in the check-off, contributing to the research and contributing to the benefit of their industry and using their money to contradict and campaign against the CWB?

[Petitions, September 21st, 1994]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure on behalf of constituents and other Canadians in Saskatchewan to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36. The petition is signed by people from Moose Jaw, Saskatoon, Pangman, Ogema, Minton, Oungre, Kenora and Nipawin, all in Saskatchewan.

The petitioners are extremely worried about the impact of Bill C-91 which was passed in the last Parliament extending the patent on some prescription drugs for up to 20 years and guaranteeing drug manufacturers monopoly prices and substantial profits at Canadians' expense.

Prescription drug prices in Canada are the most expensive in the world as a result of the bill. The petitioners are calling for the repeal of Bill C-91. The Liberals in opposition supported the repealing of Bill C-91. The petitioners are asking the government to repeal the bill as quickly as possible to reduce the pressure on drug plans and health care plans across the country.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, September 21st, 1994]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-270, an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act (money purchase pension).

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure today to introduce a private member's bill entitled an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act (money purchase pension).

The bill if passed will significantly change the MPs pension plan. It is designed to reduce the burden significantly taken on by taxpayers under the current member of Parliament pension plan.

Currently members of Parliament contribute $1 for $7 of taxpayers' money to the existing plan. This new plan is $1 for $1, taxpayer by member. It will reduce the cost to taxpayers of the pension plan for members of Parliament by approximately $11.7 million per year.

This is a plan that is endorsed by the Saskatchewan Taxpayers Association, the Canadian Taxpayers Association and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. It is a plan that is modelled after the Saskatchewan MLAs plan which has been in place for over 15 years and works very well for both taxpayers and members.

It will end unfunded future liabilities of MPs pensions. It will also reduce overall pension payout and set a higher age limit for qualifying for a pension.

I hope to gain support from all sides of the House on this very important bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Questions On The Order Paper, September 19th, 1994]

Does the government plan to implement the recommendation on page 90 of the Report of the Auditor General of Canada, 1993, under the section "Observations on Tax Revenue, Departments of Finance and National Revenue", to clarify the regulation on the resource allowance income tax provision?

[Petitions, September 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my pleasure to present to the House a petition signed by many of my constituents in Regina-Lumsden.

They believe that the Senate is an unelected, unaccountable institution which has become a home for recipients of patronage and which has discarded any notion of working for the best interests of Canadian taxpayers. They also believe that the cost of the Senate, which is $54 million a year, and the travel costs related thereto are exorbitant.

They call for this House to abolish the Senate.

[Committees Of The House, June 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, everybody in Canada knows that the GST was purely the transfer of a tax burden from corporations to ordinary Canadians. As New Democrats we oppose that sort of transfer of burden from one sector to another.

I would like to ask the member a question pertaining to whether or not the committee reviewed any other alternatives besides just a new name for the GST. For example, there are a number of family trusts outstanding. The total value is about $70 billion that goes untaxed. This is a tax free situation provided to very wealthy families. It was a tax free situation afforded to those people by the former Liberal government for 20 years, extended for 20 more years by the Conservative government, and this government has not done anything with it.

I am wondering whether the committee has reviewed that matter and in particular is looking at some of the transfer of profits from corporations operating in Canada to other countries. The example I use is Imperial Oil. Last year it declared a dividend of $580 million. Of course 70 per cent of its shareholders is the Exxon corporation of the U.S.A and $405 million left Canada through this nice little tricky tax free situation to go into the United States.

We lost a portion of what we believe should rightfully stay here either to work in our economy or contribute to our taxation system. I would like to know whether the government is looking at the situation or whether it considered looking at the approximate 63,000 profitable corporations in Canada with substantial profits that were not taxed a dime on their profits.

I am wondering if the committee considered some of these very important tax sources as opposed to once again going to low income people, middle income people and others who have very difficult financial circumstances to deal with right now with their families and getting along in Canada.

[Gasoline Prices, June 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question through you to the Deputy Prime Minister, has the Government of Canada referred my request for an investigation into gasoline pricing to the bureau of competition policy? If so, when will it be reporting back to Canadians on this matter? Will you consider setting up an energy price review commission to review all gas price increases in all regions of Canada to protect Canadian consumers-

[Gasoline Prices, June 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

Recently the people of Saskatchewan and other Canadians saw a dramatic and unexplained increase in the price of gasoline. Gasoline prices have gone up despite no tax increases, despite no increases in inflation, despite no increase in the price of crude year over year, and despite the fact that major oil companies announced substantial increases in profits.

Given the above, has your government referred my requests for an investigation into gasoline pricing-

[The Late Ed McCullough, June 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I stand in the House today to pay tribute to the late Ed McCullough, a pioneering member of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation and former member of Parliament for the Saskatchewan riding of Moose Mountain. Mr. McCullough passed away on Sunday at his home in Cannington Lake after a lengthy illness. He was 85 years old. Born in Moose Jaw, he grew up on his farm near Ponteix in southwest Saskatchewan.

Ed McCullough was first elected in 1945 as one of 18 CCF MPs from Saskatchewan. Although defeated in 1949 he was re-elected in 1953 and in 1957.

Ed was known as a very generous man to all who knew him. He farmed near Cannington, was active in the co-op movement and was a long time member of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and other local co-ops.

Ed was a man of vision and very highly principled. He was a Canadian pioneer who contributed greatly to the quality of life in his community, his province and his country. He was an inspiration to the people who knew him and throughout all of his life worked to promote co-operative principles.

The funeral is being held today in the Wawota United Church. On behalf of the New Democratic Party caucus and all members of the House of Commons I would like to offer my condolences to his wife Madge, to his daughter Peggy Monson and her family, which I know very well, and to all of Ed McCullough's family members.

[Petitions, June 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure this morning to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 which calls for the repealing of Bill C-91.

Bill C-91, the drug patent legislation was passed in the last session. These petitioners feel that this bill was inappropriate for two reasons: first, it is has driven up the cost of prescription drugs to Canadians consumers, in some cases by over 100 per cent; second, it has put in jeopardy the prescription drug programs that some governments sponsor to assist citizens in their respective provinces.

These petitioners come from many parts of Saskatchewan including Saskatoon, Lanigan, Leroy, Watson, Winyard, Kindersley, Kyle, Lucky Lake, White City, Herschel, Dinsmore, Bursey and Rosetown.