Nelson Riis

[House Of Commons Standing Orders, February 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments of my hon. colleague from Lethbridge. I tend to agree with almost everything he said. I echo his comments on the proposals enunciated today by the government House leader. They are a major step forward.

I listened with particular interest when he referred to his previous life and that there were times when perhaps government policy was influenced more by who people knew within the government than from a democratically driven change. We can probably say that similar observations have been made about Ottawa, that perhaps public policy has been driven in the past by lobbyists and others from the outside as opposed to the public generally.

One aspect of the reforms proposed today that concern me is the ability of any of these reforms to deal with initiatives before us at the moment. That is the matter of cigarette smuggling. People have said this is an item that ought to receive serious input from provincial ministers of health because of the implication it has for health.

If this is not caving in to pressure from the cigarette manufacturers it is certainly caving in to pressure from people participating in illegal activities. Does my hon. friend from Lethbridge think any of the proposed changes introduced today would help us if they were in place today to deal with some of the critical issues confronting us surrounding this whole matter of cigarette smuggling?

[Point Of Order, January 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have no difficulty giving my friend 60 seconds to make a comment. If he is simply reflecting the frustration he feels about not having ample opportunity to make interventions, I am sure it is something that we all feel.

The Standing Orders restrict us to 10 minutes for questions and comments and yet you will notice, Mr. Speaker, that at the end of that period there are still, almost inevitably, four or five members standing.

I simply want to say I respect the frustration my hon. colleague feels, but I remind him that it is probably a frustration that we all feel a good part of the time. We are restricted by the Standing Orders. However, if he has a comment which he feels compelled to make now and requires 60 seconds, I certainly would give him unanimous consent to do so.

[Speech From The Throne, January 27th, 1994]

Who wrote this throne speech?

[Speech From The Throne, January 27th, 1994]

Not at all.

[Points Of Order, January 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I simply want to thank the Prime Minister for this initiative. It is a new initiative that I believe the previous government did not use at all in terms of providing an opportunity for parliamentarians to have a role in policy making.

The Prime Minister has indicated in the House on a number of occasions that this will provide an opportunity for all members who are interested in the issue to state their views on behalf of their constituents.

I assume that on debate today if necessary we will not see the clock in order that all members who wish to participate will have an opportunity if more time is required.

[Canada Water Export Prohibition Act, January 25th, 1994]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-202, an act to prohibit the export of water by interbasin transfers.

Mr. Speaker, I have a very short explanation.

During the discussions regarding the North American Free Trade Agreement questions were asked whether the passage of that legislation would not facilitate the sale of water from Canada to the United States and Mexico through interbasin transfers. While there may be some concerns in people's minds, this bill will put those to rest because it would simply prohibit the export of water by interbasin transfers from Canada to either the U.S. or Mexico.

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

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements And Federal Post-Secondary Education And Health Contributions Act, January 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to introduce a bill that would prohibit the export of water by interbasin transfers.

[Environment Industry, January 21st, 1994]

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the standing orders do not permit me to respond to the minister, but I simply want to say that we appreciate this statement being made in the House announcing this new government initiative.

Coming on the tails of what the House leader was saying the other day, that there would be a number of debates on important policy issues in the House of Commons to which members can contribute, I simply want to say-

[Taxation, January 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General's report reminded us that successive federal governments' tax policy has resulted in a tax regime that is now recognized by all to be unfair, unjust, biased, distorted, confusing, convoluted and discriminatory.

Having completely lost faith in the tax system, Canadians' responses include tens of thousands of businesses collecting the GST and simply keeping the money, hundreds of thousands of Canadians purchasing contraband cigarettes and illegal liquor, and perhaps most Canadians participating in the growing underground economy where business transactions are conducted in cash or through barter to avoid paying tax.

This system has created a nation where millions of Canadians now consciously and regularly break the law. This has led to a serious erosion of our value system.

There are many reasons to clean up our tax system and to restore Canadians' faith in it. But surely what it is doing to our nation's value system ought to make reform of our tax system a major priority in the upcoming federal budget.

[Speech From The Throne, January 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know we are going to vote now on a motion to put a cap on government spending. I recall that on June 18, 1992 we gave royal assent to Bill C-56 which placed a cap on government spending to the tune of $107 billion for this upcoming year.

My question is, having a statute that already limits government spending to $107 billion, why are we now-