Lost his last election, in 2004, with 35% of the vote.
Agriculture March 10th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, on Monday we were told that only elected officials would have been acceptable, then today we are told that in fact deputy ministers would have been acceptable. One of those two statements is incorrect, so I would simply ask the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board whether his statement on Monday is the correct one or if the statement of today is the correct one?
Agriculture March 10th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, two days ago the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board told the House that organizers of the farm rally in Regina last Saturday had insisted that only the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food or himself would be acceptable to represent the government.
On February 24 rally organizer Sharon Nicholson had written to the deputy minister of agriculture saying to please accept the letter as an invitation to attend in the minister's absence.
Will the minister now concede that his response on Monday was incorrect and apologize to farmers and rally organizers for the federal government's no show last Saturday?
Income Tax Act March 9th, 1999
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to debate Bill C-312. I congratulate the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River on bringing the bill forward.
In a previous job I had the opportunity to participate a little in the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing in the late 1980s and early 1990s. I remember distinctly one visit the committee made to Washington to meet with representatives of the political system in the United States. Practically their first question was why we were there to learn from them because our system was so much further advanced in terms of political financing and representation, the absence of soft money and everything else that goes with the American system.
While I do not necessarily have a problem with Bill C-312 and what it purports to do, I am also aware that governments can level up and can level down. My concern—and I thought the previous speaker on the government side put it well—is that the reason the tax endowments are greater for the person who makes a contribution to a political party as opposed to a small donor to a charity is to encourage grassroots participation.
It is incumbent upon us in this debate to talk a little about an important study that has just come out on the voluntary sector by a blue ribbon committee. It is very concerned about some aspects of charities and wants to make it accountable to end some of the abuses it sees.
It is staggering to note that there are 75,000 charities in Canada alone and that the amount of money donated every year is in excess of $90 billion. At the same time it is also noteworthy that apparently two-thirds of the revenues of charities come from government and only about 12% actually come from donations.
That may be hard to believe for some of us who are at home at 6 o'clock at night when the phones are ringing off the hook with callers wanting donations to this or that charity, but these seem to be the facts.
There certainly is some need to tidy up the problems. I will quote from the Canadian Unitarian Council on the voluntary sector and on charities which said the following:
What voluntary sector leaders told the Panel on Accountability and Governance about Canada's archaic charity laws:
“We are seriously concerned that the body charged with decisions about the public good is Revenue Canada. There is something fundamentally contradictory in the fact that an organization which has as its primary function the raising of government revenue also has control over determining which groups are acknowledged to have a contribution to make to a democratic society”.
The United Way in Drummondville said:
It is imperative that the legislation be in accordance with our modern Canadian values. It doesn't make much sense to come under the yolk of a law which is 400 years old.
We can see some good in the proposed bill. On the other hand we are concerned that the grassroots participation in the political field continues to be encouraged. I will await with interest to see what the mover of the bill has to say in his wrap-up comments.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act March 9th, 1999
Madam Speaker, very clearly that is the case. It is important when we are discussing land claims settlements that we recognize that. European and American settlers who came to what is now Canada, and my ancestors fall into the latter category having come from Virginia during the war of independence, did not treat our native peoples well. They were pushed off the land or into poor patches of land. Now it is time to redress those historic endemic problems and I think we are trying to do that the very best way we can.
I agree with my colleague from Beauséjour—Petitcodiac that this is something this parliament and indeed provincial and territorial legislatures will have to deal with, with dispatch and with a great deal of sensitivity today and tomorrow.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act March 9th, 1999
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands for his two questions.
With regard to why we do not level the formula out and do it on the per capita gross domestic product, I would probably be the last person in the House one would want specific advice from on creating a formula.
I have listened to a lot of the debate today on the formula and it seems to me that it is not terribly relevant. A formula is calculated. When it was first started in the 1950s equalization was based on three variables and now we are up to 33.
I have been involved with fund raising and revenue sharing and sometimes we get into very complex formulas. It is like getting behind the wheel of a car. I do not necessarily have to know everything about how the motor functions but I know where the key goes, and where the gas pedal and the brake are. What is important is that we have a formula that is overall fair to all of the provinces, both those that are recipients of financial largesse and those that are paying. Perhaps the government would be in a better position to answer specific questions on what the formula should look be.
It is the same with the land claims settlement. I cannot comment on what impact those settlements will have on equalization payments in the future.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act March 9th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to participate in the debate on Bill C-65 regarding equalization. This is the essence of what makes Canada Canada.
Earlier today on this main motion the House heard from the NDP finance critic, the hon. member for Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys. He is a very hardworking MP who had requested, in preparation for this debate, to hear from provinces as to their views and comments on the new equalization formula. I do not believe that in his remarks this morning the hon. member had time to refer to that except in passing. I would like to speak about how Saskatchewan sees this proposed reform on equalization.
The formula is that a maximum of $5,431 per resident to fund public service is the essence of the equalization formula. From Saskatchewan's perspective, the net effect will not be terribly significant. Saskatchewan wins in some areas and loses in others or, as an acquaintance from Australia once said, what they win on the merry-go-round they lose on the ferris wheel.
However, on the whole the revision is seen to be positive. For example, for the year 1999-2000 the province of Saskatchewan's entitlement may increase by about $3 million. This of course depends on the range of economic variables, particularly the price of oil futures.
Just as an aside, the World Bank outlook for commodity prices is not very encouraging for the next decade or so, and Saskatchewan is a resource based province that depends largely on the export of primary resources as are a number of other provinces. This impacts very significantly on whether Saskatchewan is a recipient province or indeed a have province. It has been in both categories from time to time.
The Minister of Natural Resources had suggested that Saskatchewan would be receiving a significant upturn in equalization and offset the 40% share of the province's entry into the agriculture income disaster assistance program. This is simply not true. I have mentioned $3 million for 1999-2000. The maximum calculation by the province's minister of finance would be $45 million over five years as a result of this new formula. It would barely cover the proposed cost for Saskatchewan for the agriculture income disaster assistance program for one year.
As a second aside, I want to again be on the record to talk about the basic unfairness in the AIDA program. Provinces are being asked, requested, forced to pay up to 40% for this income assistance when at the same time states such as North and South Dakota, Minnesota and Montana are not asked to pay any sort of money to help farmers on that side of the 49th parallel because their contributions are being paid by the national government in the United States. Here the provinces are requested to kick in 40%.
It is simply not fair to expect a small province like Saskatchewan, or Manitoba for that matter, both of which have high proportion percentage of the arable land base and a relatively small percentage of the population, to fund that kind of program.
On the equalization program itself, as I have indicated, Saskatchewan is in favour and is also in favour of moving to a ten province standard rather than the current five province standard. We believe this would advance the goal of providing quality programs at reasonable costs. We also favour a shorter transition period of probably two years rather than the current five years.
It is important for all of us to keep in mind that equalization is to maintain a relatively level playing field in terms of ability to provide programs and services. Generally speaking the payments go up to an individual province when its revenues are experiencing a decline.
As I have indicated, Saskatchewan has a particular interest in the work done on resource bases and takes the position that recognition of the higher cost of producing so-called new oil would represent an improvement. It is important for Saskatchewan and it is also important for provinces such as Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. A move away from the volume of production to the value on for example forestry would not represent a step backward in any way.
Overall the objective of equalization is not to get every last cent out of each of the have provinces. As I have said before, it is to ensure that all provinces offer a reasonably comparable level of services at roughly comparable levels of taxation.
The program has to be equitable and fair in order to function effectively which means it has to work both ways. Saskatchewan's position is that a change to a value based measurement on forestry does represent an overall improvement.
There is one thing in particular that some provinces such as Manitoba and Saskatchewan are opposed to. That is the changes to the equalization formula for the lottery base. The proposed changes would unilaterally impact on provincial policy decisions. To expand on that, I would use this argument. The choice not to introduce VLTs, which will have a large impact on entitlements, is a policy decision which therefore should not impact on the determination of fiscal capacity.
The government I believe has taken a different approach to this. It has included the new gaming as another new tax base. The argument is that this approach will increase Ontario's fiscal capacity and therefore benefit equalization payments to recipient provinces. A discussion at the finance committee did focus on the fact that Manitoba's population is one of the lowest participants in lotteries and gaming and how this particular low revenue source may be a factor in lower equalization payments for Manitoba. We would question the inclusion of VLTs in the new formula.
However, overall and in conclusion, the NDP caucus members present support Bill C-65 on third reading. It is a step in the right direction, but the important thing is to recognize and realize that it is certainly no windfall for the seven recipient provinces.
Canadian Farmers March 8th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, this past Saturday farmers were demanding the resignations of both the agriculture and the wheat board ministers because neither attended a farm rally in Regina. This no-show is in sharp contrast to last Monday's announcement when the minister of agriculture said that it was a great day for Canadian farmers. Saskatchewan and Manitoba farmers attending the rally disagree, saying that AIDA stands for “another insulting deceptive announcement”.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House why the government could not be bothered to send one representative from its 155 member caucus to explain this program to prairie farmers?
The Budget March 3rd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I think that 23% of eligible people in Regina actually receive some employment insurance benefits, the lowest in Canada.
We hear the minister of human resources on a daily basis say “There is no problem here. It is simply that there are more people working”. There is a huge problem in this country. Our constituency offices are being overwhelmed by claimants who are on employment insurance, demanding some relief. They are being told that they have no alternative but to go to welfare in order to seek relief for themselves and their families. The government knows it has a large problem and it is becoming more evident with each passing day.
The Budget March 3rd, 1999
I hope you are right, Mr. Minister, but we will wait and see.
The Budget March 3rd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I agree that supply management has made the farm crisis far less significant in some parts of the country than in others.
I was part of the agriculture committee that was in Washington last week. I can assure the hon. member that there is a deep-seated concern about supply management on the American side of the border. The Americans would like to see it done away with. The only thing they would probably put up on the same level is the Canadian Wheat Board, what they refer to as the state trading enterprise.
I would think in the great scheme of things that the government was making a choice. Knowing where their seats are, it would be that the Canadian Wheat Board would be offered up first, followed in the next round by supply management.