Andrew Telegdi

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

In their blue sheet the Reform Party states it supports the re-examination of MPs' and senators' expense allowances, free services, staff privileges and limousines. The leader of the Reform Party has a $31,000 annual expense account paid for by the Reform Party which is supported by the taxpayers of this country.

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

They are doing politics differently, like they promised they would. Just listen to them howling in the back.

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

Mr. Speaker, I recall vividly after the election when we first came to this House in January 1994. A party which came from the west promised to do politics differently. Its members promised to take the moral high ground, if you will. They wanted to make this Chamber work more effectively. Sadly, after all this time, we know that is not the case. I want to talk about that. It is important that Canadians who are watching understand the hypocrisy in the House coming from the west and that they have a chance to reflect on it.

The debate on pensions was introduced as an opposition day motion on November 22. At that time, Reform Party whip wanted members of Parliament to be paid $12,000 a month. On top of that he wanted members of Parliament to have a 5 per cent pension contribution matched by the government.

I noticed that since the debate has started once again, it is no longer $12,000 a month that the whip of the Reform Party wants members of Parliament to have. Now it is $150,000 a year which is more than $12,000 a month. It is amazing. If we leave it for another six months, he will be asking for $200,000. I have answered a number of letters about that issue. I have pointed out the hypocrisy of that position.

When I talk about some of the hypocrisies, let me focus on some of the things that have been said by Reform Party members. They said that they oppose any assistance to political parties from public funds, including any refund of candidate or party electoral expenses. Guess what the reality is. They have taken the refund for 50 per cent of eligible campaign expenses estimated to be between $2 million and $3 million.

[Harold Beaupré, May 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on the morning of April 17, 1943 a Lancaster bomber with a seven-man crew, part of the 83rd Squadron, crashed in German occupied France after a raid on Manheim, Germany. The pilot, Pilot Officer Glen McNichol, was killed in the crash and the six survivors were taken prisoner.

Pilot Officer Harold Beaupré, one of the survivors, was liberated from a prisoner of war camp in Lubeck, Germany on May 2, 1945. Today marks the 50th anniversary of Mr. Beaupré's liberation.

Two months later, on July 2 Mr. Beaupré became a prisoner of love and married his wife Margaret. Mr. and Mrs. Beaupré raised four children and continue to run their business, Beaupré Stamps, in uptown Waterloo. They continue to contribute to the social and economic life of their community.

To Mr. Beaupré and to all Canadians who served in the two world wars, the Korean war and the ones involved in past and present peacekeeping, we give our thanks and admiration.

We will always remember the sacrifices they made and continue to make for Canada.

[National Defence, May 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. As the minister is aware, the efforts of the competition bureau to increase competition in household moving have been thwarted by the IDC.

The first two new suppliers in the past 20 years have been eliminated in the first 30 days of the contract. As a result of IDC action, the only wholly Canadian owned suppliers were forced to withdraw.

Can the minister explain to this House how this came about and what action the government proposes to take in this regard?

[Grand River Hospital, April 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House of the birth in my community of the Grand River Hospital on April 1, 1995. This dynamic new beginning in health care in the Waterloo region came together with the amalgamation of the Kitchener-Waterloo hospital and the Freeport hospital. The Kitchener-Waterloo hospital and the Freeport hospital represent 175 years of caring with their unique strengths and proud history of service.

The new Grand River Hospital will be governed by one board of trustees and managed on two sites by one administration. It will continue to provide the high standard of quality, innovation and accomplishment to the residents of Waterloo region. What is unique about this event is that it was initiated by two former hospitals with the aim of delivering the best possible quality of service and maximizing existing resources.

The people comprising the leadership of the two former hospitals are to be commended for their vision in pioneering this union under the aegis of the Grand River Hospital. Their efforts are to be applauded by all Canadians.

[Supply, March 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member for Peace River.

I have worked in this area almost from the first day I arrived at the House of Commons. One of the things I am getting used to is that change seems to be slow. Everything the hon. member has said is borne out by my experience.

I am gratified and encouraged there is a review of the process going on at the political level. As the member knows, four van lines used to handle all the moves. It was pretty much restricted to a monopoly of those four van lines. Now that process is being opened up and two additional companies will be involved. In terms of the management of household moves, I believe the department is looking at that now.

It was not too long ago that we had the case of a number of generals going south on a golf junket. The trip was cancelled by the Minister of National Defence.

Both the member for Peace River and the member from the Bloc have raised the point, which has unanimous agreement in the House, that waste is something which has to be eliminated. It has to be the job of all members of Parliament and not just the government. I commend the member for Peace River for his interest in that matter.

This is an issue I have been working very hard on. I think changes will be coming. I wish to thank the hon. member for his interest and help in the matter.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96, March 20th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. friend for his question. There is no question there is instability when we are talking about the political liability of Canada.

Let me refer to something which appeared in the Globe and Mail today: ``Quebec's economy would collapse like a house of cards after a yes vote in the referendum, and Canada's would not fare much better, a respected economist predicts in a new book. Marcel Côté, a senior partner with Groupe Sécor and a former economic adviser to Canadian Prime Ministers and Quebec premiers, writes that a sovereign Quebec would be pummelled by an unprecedented convergence of negative economic factors''. Of course it would not help Canada either.

We have some negative forces, one being separation. It hurts the average citizen who tries to borrow money. It hurts government but it hurts the person who has a $100,000 mortgage and has to pay a higher premium. It is not assisted any by the Reform Party which is trying to say our economy is unstable.

We are not a third world country. The member is gravely misinformed if he believes we are. We are a country that was judged by the United Nations for the second time as the best country in the world in which to live. That is what Canada is.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96, March 20th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in favour of Bill C-73 and to express my thoughts on the budget delivered by the finance minister on February 27.

I will make a short response to the comments made by the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party in debate. It is worth recalling the climate or the mood in the country before the budget was brought down on February 27 and the political instability posed by the possibility of Quebec separation, which continues to be a problem.

The BQ complains that we cut too much and that we singled out Quebec for the cuts. The Reform Party claims we did not cut enough and that we were unfair to western Canada. If Bob Rae, the New Democratic premier of Ontario, had his say, he would tell us the budget was unfair to Ontario.

These three groups were disappointed by what happened in the budget. The BQ is disappointed because the budget is no help to it in the upcoming referendum, where it will destroy Canada as we know it, as well as the economy of Quebec. The Reform Party found that its tax revolt did not materialize. The Reform Party has been doing its best to add a couple of percentage points

to borrowing costs by forever preaching that our fiscal situation is not sound. As for Bob Rae, he is also disappointed because he does not have a launching pad for the election in Ontario.

The finance minister is putting Canada's fiscal house in order. The budget outlines concrete measures for real deficit reduction and fulfils commitments made by the Liberal Party during the election campaign. The government had to make difficult decisions in the budget process. The Kitchener-Waterloo Record from my community said the budget showed how tough it is to eliminate the deficit. The budget is tough but it is also fair. Everyone must share the burden of deficit reduction.

The Minister of Finance has worked hard to ensure that spending reductions are balanced evenly in all regions. The government's deficit targets are reasonable and achievable. The Reform Party should learn from the lessons of previous governments. We cannot balance the budget with unrealistic deficit targets.

Over the last few months I have spoken to many constituents about what they wanted in the budget. They wanted the government to reduce the deficit through spending cuts and not through tax increases to the average citizen; do not tax health or dental plan benefits; do not tax RRSP contributions; increase taxes on large and profitable corporations; make the public service more efficient and effective; eliminate the waste of hard earned tax dollars.

The budget shows the government has listened to the concerns of ordinary citizens. The Minister of Finance has focused his efforts on spending cuts. He recognizes the heavy tax burden borne by average Canadians. The minister has not raised personal income tax rates and has not taxed health or dental plan benefits. For most Canadians the RRSP contribution limit has not changed. The budget also makes taxation more equitable. Large corporations will pay their fair share of taxes. The profitable banks will pay a new temporary tax. The taxation of family trusts will be tightened. Individuals will no longer be able to defer tax on business or professional income.

The Minister of Finance has also made a commitment to reduce the size of government and eliminate unnecessary expenditures. The minister has said a basic philosophy of program review was the federal government should not be doing what someone else can do better.

I urge the government to stop the military's rip off of taxpayers' dollars by inefficient management of government moves. The government should implement its own reports and contract out move management, as was recommended by so many of the government's committees.

The government has consolidated its transfers to the provinces for health, post-secondary education and social assistance. The new Canada social transfers will be more effective and more sustainable than the old program funding. The CST will mean a drop of about 3 per cent of provincial revenues. However, it will also give the provinces more flexibility to structure and innovate their social programs.

This small change in funding to the provinces will not affect medicare. The federal government will still enforce national standards for health care. Medicare will continue to be universal, comprehensive, portable and accessible.

The government has protected the average senior citizen with full indexation to protect them from inflation and old age security on the basis of family income.

Education is an important concern to my constituents. The riding of Waterloo includes the campus of Conestoga College and two of Canada's leading universities, the University of Waterloo and Wilfrid Laurier University. The concentration of post-secondary students in the Waterloo region is the highest in the country.

Post-secondary institutions have played a crucial role in my community's economy. The residence of the Waterloo riding are proud of Canada's record of excellence in post-secondary education. They also know our education system must continue to develop in order to meet the challenges of the next century.

I am pleased the government has reaffirmed its commitment to our internationally renowned system of higher education. We need to ensure our post-secondary institutions are accessible to our youth who must compete in the international marketplace. We must maintain accessibility through the income contingent loan repayment scheme.

The University of Waterloo and Wilfrid Laurier University are renowned for excellence in research. Because of their efforts the Waterloo area has become a breeding ground for entrepreneurs and information technology.

Waterloo riding is home to 125 export oriented information technology companies. These companies have revenues of more than $600 million annually and employ 5,500 people in knowledge based jobs. By the year 2000 they project that 25,000 to 30,000 people in the Waterloo region will be working in the area of information technology.

It is imperative when we talk about wealth generation that we recognize our post-secondary institutions are vital to this effort. The government must make a strategic long term investment in wealth creation through research funding. The government has worked hard to limit the cuts to research and development. This is not enough. I encourage the Minister of Finance to do everything possible in these difficult times to continue to fund vital research that will help us compete in the next century.

My constituents and all Canadians demanded a fair and equitable budget. This is what the government has delivered.

There is an area in the budget on which I must express a bit of personal disappointment, the budget of the Solicitor General. That is one area which was not cut. There was a slight increase.

I am concerned that there is more and more push in the climate of the House for longer sentences and putting more people in jail. This is a waste of resources. It costs much more to keep somebody in a federal penitentiary than to put somebody through a Ph.D. program. There are far too many people serving time in jail for non-violent crimes.

There are much better ways of dealing with that. I hope in this session we will start working toward that and start implementing some programs we have talked about in the House such as crime prevention and community safety. We know every dollar we spend on prevention results in savings of $5 to $6 at the end of the line and we are not wasting the money on penitentiaries.

Last year Canada once again was declared the best country in the world in which to live. The job we in the House have, not just the Liberals but all parties, is to make sure Canadians from coast to coast and in every province enjoy that kind of lifestyle in the future.

[Petitioners, March 20th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the second petition is signed by 30 people and deals with the CRTC. It calls on Parliament to request the CRTC to review and hold hearings on cable industry regulations in order to protect the interests of the Canadian public from unfair marketing practices such as negative option billing in so far as tied selling is a reviewable practice under the Competition Act.