John Harvard

[Committees Of The House, June 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations on Bill C-82, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mint Act, without amendment.

I would like to add a few more words on behalf of the committee. In the deliberations on Bill C-82, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mint Act, the Standing Committee on Government Operations heard two separate messages from both government and industry on the introduction of the new $2 coin.

First, the Government of Canada is introducing the new $2 coin because of the savings it will generate for the taxpayers. Within 20 years more than $254 million will be saved for Canadians with the introduction of the coin. Further, the government is expected to accrue an additional $449 million in seigniorage to the consolidated revenue fund within 18 months of the issue. The savings for taxpayers are significant indeed.

We also heard a second message loud and clear from industry, small and medium sized businesses in particular. Although industry supports in principle the introduction of the new coin because of the associated savings, business has expressed serious concern over the timing of the move. The affected businesses and associations clearly stated that the 12-month notice is not adequate time to prepare for this adjustment.

Given the fact that a delay in the introduction of the coin would cost the Government of Canada an estimated $109 million in the fiscal year 1995-96, the committee recognizes the need for the Government of Canada to balance both the requirements of industry with those of fiscal responsibility and budgetary prudence.

The committee recommends that the Royal Canadian Mint-

[Gordon And Diane Davidson, June 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the efforts of two Winnipeg St. James constituents, Gordon Davidson and his wife Diane. They recently travelled as volunteer advisers to the Czech Republic to assist the Sternberk town council with a long term tourist development plan. Mr. Davidson worked with a community committee to draft a plan to crate tourist trade opportunities in the town and set up advertising and promotional programs.

The Davidsons were able to embark on this adventure and share their expertise as volunteer advisers with the Canadian Executive Search Organization, which provides advisers to business and organizations in Canada's aboriginal communities, developing nations, and emerging market economies in central and eastern Europe. CESO volunteers are skilled Canadian men and women who willingly share their lifetime of practical experience with those who need it.

Again I congratulate all CESO volunteers, and especially my constituents, Gordon and Diane Davidson, on a job well done.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it is easy to attack the political profession. There are a lot of good people in this institution. I do not know the people from the Reform Party very well but I suspect there are some very good people over there as well. How can we move forward when people over and over again do everything they can to besmirch the political profession?

There is one other point that I want to make. Members of the Reform Party constantly chant this line that the MPs pension plan is twice what is found in other sectors, particularly in the private sector. They never talk about the need for a package of remuneration for MPs.

If MPs had a normal career, if MPs started at age 22 or 23 and were in their profession for 30 to 40 years, do we really think their pension plan would have to be much different from those in other sectors? Of course not.

Why is our plan different? It is because most of us come to this career in our forties. For example, take someone who is in their forties. They have a family. They have children in school, perhaps in university. For them to come into public life we want them to give up their careers. We want them to give up their private pension plan. When they come into public life we want them to take all the risks and absolutely nothing will be done on the part of the Canadian government to assuage or mitigate the risk that they face.

When banks arrive at loan rates they take risks into account. The Canadian public must do the same. I am trying to put the pension plan in context. This is the thing they never do. The member who just spoke should reflect on the points I have made and should stop bad mouthing this profession. This life is difficult enough without the kinds of contributions we get from those people over there.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 4th, 1995]

Do you want to listen to me or not?

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 4th, 1995]

It is a sad comment.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it is always difficult to speak on a subject like this, especially if you try to defend the pension plan for members of Parliament. Your adversaries will always try to paint you as being self-serving.

I have been in opposition. I know it is very easy for members of the Reform Party to stand and accuse anyone who might defend any elements of the pension plan as being self-serving and greedy. It does not take any bravery on their part to say the outrageous things they have said.

The previous speaker just said that political life at one time was seen in a good light, that it was a noble calling, but not any more. I wonder why. It is because people from the political right, members of the Reform Party have made it their calling day in and day out, month in and month out, year in and year out to go around and say how bad politicians are, how bad this institution is, how bad democracy is. It is little wonder when a band of people like that goes around this country year in and year out bad mouthing this institution that some Canadians say: "Gee, I guess it is true".

[Official Languages, May 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board.

My colleague is familiar with recent reports from the Commissioner of Official Languages. Those reports single out problems that some Canadians are having in getting service in the two official languages from federal offices.

Could the parliamentary secretary tell the House what the government is doing to get at these problems to ensure that Canadians receive federal services in either official language where that is entitled?

[Supply, April 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make one more point. When we privatize the system there is no trouble in taking costs off the public books. We could transfer $1 billion or $2 billion, perhaps even more from the public books, that is medicare, over to the private sector. When those costs show up in the private sector, because of wasteful competition the cost will not then be $1 billion or $2 billion, it will be $3 billion or $4 billion.

The hon. member is dealing in illusion, is that not true? That is my question.

[Supply, April 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member for St. Albert really does not get it especially when he advocates competition among insurers. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming that when there is a single public insurer as we have in this country, that is by far the most efficient and cost effective system. The one way we can control costs is when we have one public single insurer.

I was watching an American doctor on CBC television last night. Perhaps the member also saw him. His name was Dr. Katz. He spoke about the American system with competition among insurers which the hon. member champions. He said that the doctors and insurers cherry pick. They are not interested in you if you do not have money and are not wealthy. Can you imagine a system in this country where there was competition among insurers? Does the gentleman from St. Albert really think if he had a long history of heart trouble, the competitive system would be interested in him? Of course not.

The system with competition among insurers is only interested in the healthy and the young. You talk about privatizing the system. That is what you are talking about.

[Supply, April 27th, 1995]

Why should we?