Lost their last election, in 2000, with 10% of the vote.
Canadian Wheat Board May 29th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, in January the solicitor general was asked to initiate an investigation into allegations of criminal activity by the Canadian Wheat Board. The solicitor general wrote to me, saying that the RCMP concluded there was not sufficient evidence to support these allegations.
Could the solicitor general provide me with a copy of the RCMP report, as was promised by his office to be done by May 22?
Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act May 12th, 1995
Let them sign a petition that their grandchildren are willing to pay for it.
Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act May 12th, 1995
Something our grandchildren will pay for.
Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act May 9th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, being a farmer, I always say that a bin of grain is a bin of grain. When I see a pension of $5 million, it is $5 million. It amazes me: one member says that if we only put in a dollar we get it and another member says that if we put in five or six we will get that. What mathematics are correct?
I have known a lot of business people and I have known a lot of farmers, and for some reason I have not been able to find those guys with $5 million pensions. Where are they hiding?
It is a pleasure to address this bill. I also like to remind the members across the way that during the election campaign one of the main issues was that of MP pensions. Canadians clearly voiced their opposition to overly generous pensions. They were seen as yet another example of the greed and the self-serving interests of the government of the day. We heard so much about Mr. Beatty's pension during that time, and a few others, and the Liberals kept reminding us of those pensions. Now they have all of a sudden forgotten about that. Maybe we need another election.
Even when the Liberals realized that their pensions were glorified, they kept harping on them. It reminds me a little of a Fordson Major tractor: when you had to start that thing you had to really turn the crank, because if it was turned halfway it would backfire and break your arm. I think it held the record for broken arms.
When I looked at the recent Manitoba election, there were at least two broken arms on every Liberal. It was the gun registration and the pension plan that left them with a little toehold of Liberal policy in Manitoba. I would like to emphasize that they should remember that taxpayers do have a vote. So far we still have that opportunity.
The bill establishes a minimum age of 55 for eligibility and it eliminates double dipping. Hurray. That is what we wanted. That is a good point, but it does not do the whole job. While the age limit has been increased, the interest on this well funded plan keeps multiplying. When I look at the calculations, I think it is something like a 10 per cent decrease if it is calculated out to the final end.
When I look at some of the people and the cuts they have taken, especially in western Canada, when I look at the WGTA and some of these things, 10 per cent is minimum. I do not know how I am supposed to convince my farmer friends, when 48 per cent of their income is coming from off farm jobs, that we politicians need a $5 million pension. That disturbs me, really.
I heard the previous speaker admonish us to be reasonable and to address issues the way they should be addressed. We keep badgering each other about this pension plan and will not do anything about it. That bothers me.
A 10 per cent cut over all the time that we debated this issue is not enough. When I look at the problems we have in the farm community, when I look at the problems we have in the undernourished children in our schools and certain places, how can I justify this?
It is up to us MPs to finally buckle down and make some decisions. I was very impressed with the students we have had over the last couple of weeks under the forum for young Canadians and how well informed these people are, how they have started looking at the issues of the day. I was impressed by one of the students when she said: "Mr. Hoeppner, we are prepared to take the cuts. We are prepared to take a lower standard of living if you somehow give us the opportunity to get our feet on the ground to do it."
If I look at the situation today, if we do not make those tough decisions and bring that deficit down to zero, these students will not have the opportunity to do what they know they should be doing. It is up to us to give these students that opportunity. If we do not, history will record us as those MPs who did not have the willpower, who did not take the opportunity they had to pass on the torch to future generations so that they could at least do what has to be done.
When I look at the past 25 years of government operations and see $550 billion passed onto the backs of future generations, I am sick when I even think of this pension plan. It is disgusting that we have to debate it even, that we cannot take the necessary steps to make it honest and to make it accountable. If we do not, we will be held accountable. We cannot pass that blame on to anybody else. It is imperative that we make this decision, that we do not pass on criticism continually.
When I heard the hon. member the other day mentioning that we as Reformers were now brainwashing teachers and that students were writing him letters about this gold plated pension plan, I said maybe there is hope. I will take that responsibility for having that effect, if we are creating it. It is a must. It is a must not because we want to be put on a level playing field, but it is a must that we preserve this country. This country is too great to let it hit the wall. I have seen countries that have done it, and I do not want to have the consequences.
When I look today at the Mexican situation, it looked so bright just a year ago and then all of a sudden, because of a few bad political mistakes, boom, it hit the wall. What is happening today? When one looks at Chiapas today, its people are getting restless. I hate to think even of what would happen if they start revolting.
I again urge members in the House to make the decision. Let us not fool around. Let us not badger each other. We know that $5 million for a pension plan is too much today.
In the future, some day when we get the country back to the prosperity it should have, maybe it is attainable. Let the future generations do it because they will have to cope with $5.5 billion of debt, which they had absolutely nothing to do with.
We should give them that opportunity to use their expertise, to use their enthusiasm, and not try to squash that. If we as members in this House do not react to their request, we are going to be recorded in history as being the ones who squashed their incentive, their initiative. I think we deserve to do that much in the House.
Agriculture May 5th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address the motion of my hon. colleague from Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.
The motion states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately pursue negotiations with the provinces and the agri-food industry in order to reassign jurisdictional responsibilities in agriculture and eliminate overlap and duplication.
The hon. member refers to this process as reconfederating agriculture. This is an appropriate term because it alludes to a new way off looking at how levels of government should treat agriculture.
The motion undertakes to prod government to adopt a more efficient and effective agriculture industry by reducing the amount of overlap between the federal and provincial governments. It is important to note the suggested changes and jurisdictions could be made without any constitutional amendments.
There are major changes afoot in the area of agriculture. In the west we are seeing the subsidy for grain transportation eliminated after an existence of close to 100 years. Global change in agriculture is at an unprecedented pace. We must change the way
we treat our industry to keep up with it. This is combined with an ever increasing realization that governments at almost all levels are in serious debt.
We do not have the money to fund everything. It is time to cut back significantly. Agriculture departments are no exception. The Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food has had its budget cut considerably in the recent federal budget.
It is now time to take a hard look at how we can eliminate overlap between levels of government so we can get the most results from our scarce tax dollars. In 1994-95 the 10 Canadian provinces will spend a total of almost $2.2 billion on the agriculture industry. The federal government will also spend an additional $2.2 billion on this industry. That is a total of $4.4 billion all coming from the same taxpayers.
Where are the provincial or federal funds? The 10 provinces had 10,000 civil servants employed in their agriculture departments this year. The federal government had about the same number for a total of approximately 20,000 full time people on the public payroll in support of private sector agriculture. That equals one person on the public payroll for every seven farms. Clearly with these statistics we must examine what kind of effectiveness we are getting for our expenditures.
As members of Parliament we must strive to ensure we have an industry more marketed oriented, can respond faster to external demands and is more productive and efficient.
With regard to government involvement in agriculture it is really time to get out the microscope and closely examine what government does in its dealings with agriculture.
By looking at the various components that make up the agriculture industry we can clearly label the tasks that should be performed by government and the tasks that should be left in the hands of the industry. As has been stated by my colleagues, reconfederating agriculture means we will develop a system of agriculture in which more decisions are made at the local level and at the farm gate.
Reform members have always said farmers, given the opportunity, will always make the decisions in the best interests of the industry. The motion really asks for the federal government to initiate a process where government at all levels works to give farmers this opportunity.
There are some important themes in the motion. The basic idea is that the decisions in the industry should be made at the closest possible level to the farm gate. The higher levels should be programmed where the federal government and provincial governments have some input.
We should ask the following six questions from this type of service. Does the program continue to serve the public? Is there a legitimate role for government in the program? Is the current role of the federal appropriate or could it be realigned with the provinces? What program related activities could be transferred to the private sector? How can overall efficiency be improved? Is the program affordable?
Government responsibilities would be clearly divided between the federal government and provincial or territorial governments. The provinces would be responsible for natural and human resources. This makes sense because these resources are specific to each province and they vary from province to province.
The federal government would have responsibility for trade policy, whole farm income, stabilization, import, safety and health standards and fiscal and monetary policy. This would reinforce the goals of the federal government which are to assist lower levels of government in areas that span provincial boundaries and managing issues common to farmers and processors regardless of what area of the country they come from.
Among the functions of government should be research and development to ensure among other things we are investing money primarily in sound ventures that guarantee return on our investment.
Another necessary role of government is establishing a necessary level of regulatory policy in the private sector. Although I think most people in the industry would agree that overall there should be a decrease in regulations and that governments should get off the backs of farmers and processors, there is still a need to provide a basic level to ensure the integrity of Canada's industry.
Another government responsibility is to create the lowest level of taxation possible for the most efficient environment for agriculture to operate in. The tax burden in Canada is simply too high. It has been fueled by indiscriminate overspending and it stifles investment and jobs.
A clean break is needed from the cycle of tax and spend. If we are ever to realize the full potential of our industry there are a few other responsibilities to be studied. I know my colleague and others have discussed these at greater length.
The responsibilities of the agri-food industry would be to provide the supplies to meet the demand. That is to say, by providing goods to the public the industry should have the responsibility and the input at all stages in the life cycle of goods including research and development, production, processing including storage, inspection, grading and labelling, and transportation. Producers must be directly involved in the marketing of their products. Financing and insurance should be available to processors in a competitive atmosphere.
I think the motion of my hon. colleague addresses these issues and gives some very important input into regulating or deregulating the agriculture industry so that it will become productive, efficient, and compatible in today's world standards.
Lobbyists Registration Act April 25th, 1995
It was the wrong bill.
Lobbyists Registration Act April 25th, 1995
I thought you were going to change that.
Lobbyists Registration Act April 25th, 1995
Your greatest challenge is trying to attract constituents.
Lobbyists Registration Act April 25th, 1995
Do something about it.
Lobbyists Registration Act April 25th, 1995
Twenty million dollars, no matter what it is.