Roy H. Bailey

[Supply, March 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased that the hon. member mentioned health care. If there is one thing the government cannot erase from the minds of Canadians from coast to coast to coast, it is seeing the 50% originally promised in the act drop to 16%. Canadians across Canada see this on their televisions. It is the most powerful ad. What is the source of that ad? The provincial health departments across Canada.

To stand here and say that the government will rectify this with an infusion of $2 billion is sheer nonsense. Canada's health today, the health act and the future are dependent and will be determined in this decade. This is what everyone writes about. I do not see that coming with this government.

[Veterans Affairs, March 8th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, who is responsible for protecting the security of our veterans' personal health information, the government or a private contracted company?

Is the Minister of Veterans Affairs willing to stand here today and take personal responsibility for this critical error?

[Veterans Affairs, March 8th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, last week Veterans Affairs issued 12,000 health care identification cards. These cards contained confidential and personal information, but they were sent to the wrong people. How did this breach of privacy take place?

[Supply, February 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, one thing we have heard all day today during this debate, and which is something my hon. friend opposite has said, is that all Canadians could have a decent retirement package. To my mind and in my reading, CPP was never meant to be the ultimate in pensions. I want to make this point clear. It was the government's way of supporting other pension plans. It was never designed to be the only way. If we combine the CPP maximum with OAS, we still do not have a good income on which to live.

We have been somewhat misleading for the public watching this debate today, in misleading them into thinking that CPP together with the OAS is all a person needed and that it is sufficient. The hon. member will recognize that with today's modern costs, that is not enough upon which an individual could retire.

[Supply, February 24th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I have more of a request for information because I would like the hon. member who just spoke to clarify something.

When groups such as the Ontario Teachers' Federation, and other groups like that across Canada, engage someone to invest their pension funds, does the member have any idea what kind of criteria goes with that, how are they represented on the board, and is there some form of direction that they give to the firm with which they deposit their funding?

For instance, I noticed that across Canada there are several groups, such as the Ontario Teachers Federation, that have moved their funding or moved their investment from one institution to another. Does the member know the criteria by which that is standardized?

[Supply, February 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the comments of the hon. member opposite.

At times I am a little uneasy with the government investing my money. If I want to invest money and lose it, and I probably would, I would take the loss.

Recently in Saskatchewan in my constituency the federal government put $22 million or more into an ethanol plant. Up the road on the same line the provincial government, along with an American investment firm, was building an ethanol plant but it fell through. Because it fell through, the provincial government lost several million dollars of taxpayers' money.

A company in which one invests has to be accountable for that money. Therefore the government, provincial or federal, must be accountable to the ratepayers for the money it has lost.

[Supply, February 24th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, although the motion deals with the ethics of the investment of the CPP, for most Canadians and most members of the House when we think of the CPP we think of constituents coming to our offices. These constituents feel they are qualified to reap some of the benefits of the CPP, but then there is the long paper trail that follows after that. I would like to believe that the decisions made as to those who qualify are the same regardless of what province they may reside in.

I have personally experienced this on many occasions. Someone who comes in at 62 years of age is likely to be accepted because they are only three years away from getting the OAS, and then they are disqualified. However, if they are younger people who are totally disabled, at 51 or 52, let us say, I find myself saying to these people, out of pity, that I cannot believe it: they cannot qualify because they are unemployable, but then it starts with papers and doctors, and doctors and papers, and finally there are hearings and so on. It is the most un-Canadian thing that I know of.

I know this is not really the topic, but I would say to my colleague, and to other colleagues in the House too, that maybe this is the time for us to say, number one, we want uniformity and, number two, we want some consistency that has nothing to do with age. When someone is a beneficiary of this program, he or she should be allowed to receive it.

I have insurance on my house. If something happens through a storm or something, I know I am going to get something. People who pay into the CPP and then become disabled do not know, and in many cases they will not receive any assistance.

Perhaps this does not deal directly with the investment part of the CPP. However, as far as Canadians are concerned, what I am speaking about right now is the most important part of this plan.

[Hockey, February 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday CBC carried part of the Hockey Day in Canada from Shaunavon, Saskatchewan which played host to Don Cherry and Ron McLean.

Less than a generation ago Saskatchewan boasted that it produced more pro hockey players than any province in Canada and further, more than any country in the world. Sadly, this statistic is no longer true.

The rapid change in the population of rural Saskatchewan, with the loss of hundreds of young farm families, has reduced the number of talented hockey players.

Thanks to a government that has no agriculture policy for western Canada and a Saskatchewan-only audit of junior hockey, hockey is struggling to continue in Saskatchewan.

The government needs to take much of the blame for the diminishing hockey program. The Liberals should get a match game misconduct penalty and that should start after the next election.

[Supply, February 17th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, I would like to inform the House, with regard to the statements made, that those people in that particular government who committed criminal offences went to jail. There was no amnesty. I am not too sure whether that will happen here.

In dealing with the former premier, it is my understanding that he will not be running for the Conservative Party in Saskatchewan.

[Supply, February 17th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, I had a position of trust: he as a member of the RCMP and I as the CEO to a board. I want to say that if what the hon. member has said is true, I cannot believe why in the world this government even needs a cabinet minister if that minister is not going to control how the money in the various departments is being spent. The people of Canada do not believe that the Prime Minister knew nothing of this event. They will never believe that.