Charlie Penson

[Agriculture, May 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, U.S. protectionism extends well beyond softwood lumber. Our farmers are also under attack as the Liberals continue to fail to come to their defence. The U.S. will be dumping an additional $73 billion into its farm programs. Our farmers cannot fight against the U.S. treasury on their own.

Why has the government failed to secure international opportunities for Canadian farmers through trade negotiations that would phase down these international subsidies?

[Government Expenditures, May 3rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the dismal economic predictions from last December have given way to unexpected economic growth for the first quarter of 2002. Tax revenues are flooding into federal coffers and economists now peg the federal surplus at between $7 billion and $10 billion.

The big question is, what is the Minister of Finance going to do with this surplus? I say he should keep as much as possible from his free spending cabinet colleagues to pay down the $547 billion national debt. When faced with an unexpected windfall most reasonable people would take advantage and pay down a chunk of their debt. They would not go on a new excessive spending spree, especially if interest payments were almost one quarter of their budget.

Last year interest payments on debt cost Canadian taxpayers $42 billion. The Liberal government must control its spending habits or debt repayment will fall by the wayside. If we do not pay off the debt during good economic times, when will we?

[Firefighters' Pensions, May 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to speak in favour of the motion moved by the member for Dufferin--Peel--Wellington--Grey.

Canadians have a strong tradition of being very appreciative of the efforts and sacrifices our firefighters make for our communities. Nevertheless, the tragic events firefighters faced on September 11 have put the dangers that firefighters face everyday into a clear perspective.

Canadians understand that firefighting is a high risk job, not just because of the constant danger of fatal injury, but also due to toxic substances firefighters can be exposed to in the line of duty which may cut their lives short.

The International Association of Firefighters does a good job of putting forward the concerns of its members to members of parliament. Not only does the IAF come to Parliament Hill every year to make its case, but it also ensures that real people from our communities talk to us about the issues. It has been effective in communicating the need for changes in pension regulations over several years.

The Income Tax Act recognizes the dangerous nature of firefighting by allowing firefighters, along with others who work in what is defined as a public service occupation, to retire at 55 years of age without penalty.

At the 2% accrual rate required by law, 55 year old firefighters with 30 years of accredited service could best retire with 60% of their working income. However the federal government identifies 70% of pre-retirement income as a benchmark for an adequate standard of living for retirement. This inequity should be addressed so that firefighters and their families can have the financial security to retire with dignity and that is what Motion No. 326 is advocating.

The Canadian Alliance values retirement security as a vital element of independence for all Canadians. We believe the foreign investment restriction for retirement investments should be eliminated and that Canadians should be given greater opportunity and more control over saving for their own retirement.

We are not alone in this belief. Just yesterday the Ontario municipal employees retirement system called for the federal government to abolish the 30% foreign content restrictions on pension and RRSP investments. This is one of the country's largest pension funds. It manages about $35 billion on behalf of firefighters, police officers and other Ontario municipal employees.

Allowing all Canadians more freedom to decide where to invest their pension and RRSP funds would help firefighters. Motion No. 326 asks the government to consider the advisability of increasing the accrual rate. It would not have the effect of making any changes. I agree with the motion. However in the name of fiscal responsibility I would like to ask some reasonable questions.

I cannot help wondering what municipal and provincial governments think of the proposed change. Once the rules have been altered, firefighters would have to win the extra pension benefits through their collective bargaining benefits negotiating process. Nevertheless, provincial and municipal governments should be consulted because the extra employee portion of pension contributions would ultimately have to come out of their budgets.

What about the other public safety occupations defined by the Income Tax Act who, like firefighters, are allowed to retire at age 55? This category includes police officers, corrections officers, air traffic controllers and commercial airline pilots. If special pension rules were granted for firefighters, we could expect those working in other occupations to expect the same consideration. A responsible government would take a serious look at the fiscal implications of this contingency.

I thank the member for Dufferin--Peel--Wellington--Grey for sticking with this issue over the past several years. At the very least Motion No. 326 gives members of parliament an opportunity to emphasize how much we appreciate and value the work firefighters are doing by saying they should be able to save for a financially secure retirement. I support the motion and have no reservations.

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, April 30th, 2002]

Yes, they like that but they do not know where it comes from nor do they really care, as long as there is food on the table. However do not let that poor farmer have the chance to earn a living. It seems as though they are throwing roadblocks in the way of agriculture at every opportunity.

This opens the doors for authorized organizations to challenge legitimate animal use. I want to quote from one of those organizations. A recent statement--

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, April 30th, 2002]

As my colleague from Edmonton North reminds me, even people have ear tags. I am not sure why ear tags for animals are a problem but they very well could be construed to be cruel. I am sure castration would be cruel, and it goes on and on.

Under the new bill, animals will be moved out of the property section. There will be a shift in status, impugning legal rights, quasi-judicial status, almost human status. It is absurd and is designed by a bunch of people who seem intent on driving the agricultural industry into the ground.

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, April 30th, 2002]

In fact it would have the opposite effect as my colleague has just said. Bill C-15B seems to be taking dead aim at a hard pressed agricultural industry that does not seem to have any support from the government in any way at all.

Farmers are under stress from agriculture commodity prices being very low. That is caused by huge subsidies taking place in other countries around the world. The government's answer is that it will not get in there, mix it up and protect them in trade agreements. The Liberals have said they are not interested in helping agriculture.

The GATT and the World Trade Organization came to some kind of an agreement in 1994 to reduce agricultural subsidies by only 15% over six years. The Liberals on the other side were reluctant to sign off on that. In fact they wanted to protect the supply managed dairy industry, the textile industry and the cultural industry with huge subsidies.

Here is a sector of agriculture, especially the grain and oilseed sector, that is going down the tube because the government offers it no protection. First, the government will not enter into subsidies for it. Second, the government will not enter into trade agreements that restrict others from using subsidies to devastate Canadian exports around the world.

There is a lack of support for agriculture in the subsidy business, which I can understand and support, but the government will not open up things like the Canadian Wheat Board. It will not allow competition in the transportation industry to let farmers take advantage of at least some market opportunities. The government puts roadblocks in the way at every turn and now we have had two bills before the House in the last couple of weeks that would result in huge problems for the agricultural industry in the country.

The government tells us in Bill C-15B that it would not be a problem. We know that there are some people who exploit and are cruel to animals. There are provisions there to handle that right now. We know that people are being charged. One person that probably might have been charged was a minister of the government who left the car windows up a few years ago in over 30 degree heat with an animal inside. That minister could have been charged but no charges were laid.

Now the government wants to move this forward and insert codes in Bill C-15B that could be open to interpretation. I think of my own brother who has 1,500 head of livestock in the beef industry in the Peace River riding. I see a huge industry in the Peace River riding trying to diversify, trying to find some way to continue to exist under the pressures of a government that will not support them in any way. What do they get? They get more regulation from the government. It makes it difficult.

What about the cattle industry? What about the issue of how these codes could be interpreted? Ear tags is one of the things that is happening. It is a method of identifying a herd in case there is an outbreak of disease to trace it back and stop that disease in its tracks. Ear tags could be considered to be cruel to animals, as well as the dehorning of animals.

[An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, April 30th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-15B with deep regret. I and a lot of people in the country cannot understand where the government is going with these kinds of issues. It seems like it has some kind of vendetta against agriculture. I and the people who produce food cannot understand where this is coming from and why the government seems to be so much against people who produce food.

This is not the first time. Bill C-5 is still before the House and is on the same track. There is a lot of window dressing. The government pretends to be sincere about protecting endangered species. What actual protection is it offering?

[Kyoto Protocol, April 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, despite denials from the natural resources minister that a 10 cent a litre Kyoto tax is in the works, Canadians are suspicious. The Liberal government's track record on Kyoto is murky to say the least.

Just in case the Liberals are wavering, I want to remind them of some very important contingencies.

First, nearly half the price of gasoline at the pumps is already taxes and there is no evidence that higher gas taxes curb consumption.

Second, a tax hike of this nature would do serious damage when the Canadian economy is still vulnerable.

Finally, since the United States will not implement Kyoto, any drastic moves on Canada's part will only ensure that our standard of living will continue to fall behind those of our neighbour.

Canadians remember the NEP. Who can blame them for being suspicious when the Liberals start thinking out loud about new ways of taxing energy.

[The Environment, April 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, what I am worried about is the hot air coming from that side of the House today. The last time a government tried a gas tax like this, in 1979 to be exact, it brought down the government.

Premier Campbell and Premier Klein have both called for a first ministers conference on Kyoto. Will the government work in good faith with the provinces to develop a made in Canada solution that works and one that does not include a gas tax?

[The Environment, April 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we understand that the government might try to recover the cost of Kyoto on the backs of taxpayers, 10¢ at a time. The idea for the gasoline tax comes from the same Liberal government that has repeatedly promised there would be no carbon tax to implement Kyoto.

Will this broken promise be just another on the long Liberal list of broken promises?