Roy H. Bailey

[Kyoto Protocol, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, nobody cares more for the environment and has shown more toward a cleaner environment than the area from which I come. Therefore, when the member asks me if we care about the environment, absolutely we care about the environment. We care about the environment very much. That is why we want to take the lead in providing other fuels and other sources of fuels. That is why we want to take the lead in the petroleum industry to be more consistent with emission qualities.

We care about the environment. What we do not care for is the scare tactics that we will all die if we do not do something about it real fast and that we will all be treated equally. We know that will not take place, but indeed we are very conscious of the environment.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I heard two points from the member who just spoke and the previous speaker on the government side of the House. I hope everyone in Canada remembers what they had to say.

The former minister of finance stood in the House and proclaimed, for everyone to hear, that Kyoto would not cost anything. This will cost millions and millions. To try to deny that is a pure fallacy, not only to the House but to the nation.

I was asked three questions this morning by very concerned constituents in my province of Saskatchewan, which is primarily an agricultural province. First, how much will this cost? No one can answer that question. If it costs 2¢ a litre for all the fuel that is consumed, that puts a lot of farmers out of business. People would not phone a car company, say that they want a certain kind of a car, ask what it would cost and then say they will buy it even though the salesperson was not sure of the price. People do not do that. People phone and ask me, and I am sure they ask members on the government side of the House, how much this is going to cost. Nothing. Who is kidding who? No one is buying that.

The second thing that no one is buying is what was said by the member who just spoke, that all of a sudden we are going to become diseased, we are all going to die from breathing problems and all of the other things. There are just as many scientists who, after listening to what the gentleman had to say, would have one word in response, “hogwash”. Many scientific facts say that is hogwash.

My hon. colleague, in talking about the weather and the changes in it, mentioned Greenland. Some real sharp high school students, who had not done their homework, phoned me the other day. They even wanted to know the number in the lounge. They wanted an example of climate changes in the world. I asked them if they knew where Greenland was. I told them that Greenland was so named because it was green at one time, that it was gorgeous, that it was growing gardens and vegetables, but that was 1,000 years ago. Climate has gone up and down over the years and it always will.

If the province of Saskatchewan will be hurt the way I think it will, it will be disastrous. I heard the hon. member saying that all parts of Canada will be treated equally under Kyoto. Once again, no one believes that. All parts of Canada will be hurt and hurt badly, particularly the province of Ontario which has the largest consumers of fuel and gas. First, Ontario consumers will pay the higher price, which they are not paying now. I rolled in here last night and, going back to the old measurement, gas was 80¢ an imperial gallon cheaper than what it was when I filled up before I left the airport in Regina.

Going back to this, let us put 2¢ on every litre of gas that goes through farm machinery. Add the fact that Saskatchewan does not have enough money right now to pay the crop insurance claims. Then, with all of that, say that no part of Canada will be adversely affected. It is simply not true.

I speak for my province and my constituency. My constituency has the only two coal-fired turbo plants. I would challenge anyone on that side of the House to say that industry will not be affected. There is also a huge oil patch in my constituency. I again challenge anyone on that side of the House to say that will not be affected. We know that jobs were lost before and we will lose a lot more.

The hon. member from the NDP asked the government if there were layoffs. I wonder why he was asking that. I heard from that side of the House that they would increase employment, but if the unions are looking for layoffs, what about the oil patch? What about the farmers who cannot cope with the new prices?

The questions keep coming in, questions for which the government has not supplied any answers.

The hon. gentleman, who just spoke before me, used scare tactics on Canadians saying that if we do not move on Kyoto everybody will drop dead in 10 years. What kind of malarkey is that, to stand and talk about that in the House?

What happened in 1918? It was the biggest flu epidemic to ever hit Canada and we have never had one since. Was that caused by pollution? To draw these facts out of the historical perspective is nothing but nonsense.

The government has not learned, and it certainly did not learn with gun registration, to do things on a cooperative basis. We will not get cooperation out of a province like mine if it goes under with taxation. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation has a motto, “Go ahead and tax me, I'm a Canadian”.

My own constituency is taxing junior hockey clubs that never made a cent and is forcing teenage girls who are running a canteen to pay collectively $120 a year. I tell them to watch out if they go back to babysitting because they probably will have to pay taxes on that as well.

Giving credits to other countries, selling credits and so on, nobody knows how it will work. The government has not explained it. While all this is going on, we will be paying a very heavy price. Implementing this treaty will result in massive job losses. Somebody said that there would be some job increases. Every time one oil well is shut down 100 employees are closed off. Every time an extra tax is placed on the fuel industry the same thing will happen.

It will affect my province and western Canada very significantly. What can we do? There is one thing we could do and this is where the government could put some money in to save a whole lot. We could have it so that we go to the power corporations, put up the 110 charges and when it is kicking out so much it would automatically cut in and supply the fuel and the electricity for the farm. That is cooperation.

Down on Highway 18 we have a huge trucking plant. The windmill goes and as soon as it reaches a certain point it cuts in and supplies the electricity saving tonnes of coal and tonnes of emissions. These are the things that we could do but we have not even stepped out, first and foremost, to look at the cooperative approach.

Last week I was in Holland. I was amazed to learn that it is light years ahead of us. It has to buy most of its power but it also has its own wind generating plants that do just as I described.

We have not taken these positive approaches. We have not yet begun to look at other alternative fuel sources. I would say to all the people who have a cottage, a Ski-Doo, a Sea-Doo, a four-wheeler and an SUV, they will pay a lot of money because those are the big burners. We do not have to go to the extremes that the government is suggesting. We have to take the cooperative approach and we have not done that.

More people in my province today have quit farming than in the last 20 years. I received a number of phone calls this morning from constituents wanting to know basically the same thing: What effect will Kyoto have on the farming operation? The government owes these people an answer to that question but it does not have the answer. Everything it is saying is that it will design the plan but that we must give our cooperation to pass this accord and then it will tell us. That is not the way it works, which is why this is off to a very shaky start.

Another question I was asked is: Will the Kyoto accord have any effect on the growing of crops? They mention crops because they require a great deal of fertilization using a substance that has now been labelled toxic. I do not know the answer to that. Members of the House do not know the answer to that. The minister also does not know the answer to that.

As an individual, I will not buy a pig in a poke. I will not, as a representative of the coal-fired generators, coal mining, gas wells, oil wells, say that I support Kyoto, a deal that could well put them, because of the costs of the taxes thereof, just like in the national energy policy, out of business.

To say that this will affect different parts of Canada all the same way is not true. The government knows it is not true and it should not be standing in the House saying that. It will affect those areas that produce the fuels that we are presently using. Why does it not come out clean and say that it will?

There are too many unknowns for any person in the House to stand and support the agreement. Let me say that there are far more unknowns than there are knowns. Why would we want to support a basket of unknowns when we have no idea where this will lead us down the road?

[Petitions, November 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I wish to present deals with stem cell research. The petitioners call upon Parliament to focus its legislative support on adult stem cell research to find the cures and therapies necessary to treat the illnesses and diseases of suffering Canadians.

[Petitions, November 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present to the House today. The first petition asks Parliament to protect our children by taking all necessary steps against pedophilia. There are more of these petitions to come.

[Supply, November 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I believe my hon. colleague across the way used the key word in all of this, and that is accountability.

I want to ask the member a question. He is a member of parliament who has offices, as I do. When people come in and intrinsically he does not think they are disabled, does he do anything to discourage them from applying? Does he simply say to them that it is a long row ahead and to go ahead and apply if they would like to?

I think we have a role to play as well. We as members of parliament definitely have a role to play. I have personally asked “How disabled are you?” Mind you, I have had them apply. I said I did not want to support that at all. I ask the hon. member opposite, does he individually assist those who he has a real gut feeling qualify for disability?

[Supply, November 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, disability is something that could be short term or life term. The department should take great concern. With all the mechanisms we have today, it should be able to tell without having the dreadful experience of last month of calling in people who have severe difficulties in answering the questionnaire or getting to a doctor to get confirmation and who are paying out of their own pockets.

In response to the cooperation, for the most part I do not take back what I said because on the field level they do an excellent job.

However, let me put something into perspective for the hon. member. In my province right now, the CCRA of the government is attempting to undermine to a phoney collection system and destroy a junior hockey club. While that is happening, it is forcing people to come in and prove that they are disabled.

The government has a responsibility to ensure that they are disabled. However, once they are disabled for life, why are they called back in to report this terrible disability all over again?

[Supply, November 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by taking a slightly different format. I am sure it is the same for all members of the House that in our constituencies we are probably more in contact with the human resources people than any other branch of government. I want to accentuate the positive a little. In most cases I must say that the regional offices of the department are extremely helpful to us. The staff in my offices would say the same thing. For the most part we deal more with human resources, because of all the various programs, than with any other department.

Before I get into the problem which we are discussing I will say that the human resources department in the field, in the constituency, has served me well. I want to accentuate the positive because it has been positive.

I heard on the radio this morning about the corruption in the GST. As long as we have people, as long as we have governments, we will have corruption. It is not that we must accept it, but we must continually fight it. If we want to take a look at the GST scandals and the scandal of the Minister of National Revenue, I have big one. It is terrible that an audit is being done of the Saskatchewan Junior Hockey League. It is completely out of this world, but that is another topic and we will fight that another day.

Of all the claims, correspondences, and people who come into my office, the disability tax credit issue takes precedence over everything else: immigration, farm aid, and everything that has ever come to my office. The problem is, as my colleague has pointed out, the possibility of fraud in the disability claims. There is no question about that. Members should ask any insurance company or province with respect to the workman's compensation.

I want to deal specifically with an issue which we could have dealt with differently. With all due respect to the government and the minister, they have bungled this one.

When people come to my office with a temporary disability, they could be checked out with one flick of the switch with computerization and so on. However if I have a woman, living 60 miles from my office, who has MS, who qualified years ago, whose situation is getting worse with that disease, and she has to come all the way in, through some rather nasty weather at some expense, not only to get the doctor's certificate, but to prove that she is still disabled, I believe that could have been avoided.

That is the argument I have with this department. Would there be people trying to get disability credits that did not deserve them? The answer is yes. On the other hand, I say this to the members opposite. If we were going to make a mistake I would much rather, as a Canadian and as a taxpayer, see it go too far this way than too far that way.

I have been around Parliament, boards and public life for a long time. When we push it to the extreme, as we did in this case, I had more heartaches and more nights without sleep over these people coming into my office than I had in many years in public life. This was a mistake made by the government and I know that it will do it right the next time because it has all the machinery in the world to check on disability claims quickly and accurately.

It is extremely difficult to deal with disability. I sat on some boards. We had people who came in and claimed they were sick and we asked them to get proof, like every insurance company. Somebody said that everyone who comes in claiming disability should get something. I do not believe that and I do not believe in that philosophy.

I want to describe very clearly a couple of cases I had. I saw a cartoon that was very good. A fellow was sitting in a wheelchair holding up two parts of wooden legs, saying “I haven't grown any new legs” in reference to this particular call for proof of disability. I would challenge the government and the department. I have no quarrel with asking for proof from some people who are on temporary or extended disability, but I have every reason to believe that those people who are severely disabled are known by the department. It really was very cruel to call in all those people. Frankly, it was very inhuman, yet we had to deal with those people.

I am glad that we have this program. I am glad that for the most part we do not abuse it, but I will say to the government that in the future when it is doing this it should make sure that it does just not pull every name out of the file and have everyone go through the same thing. It is wrong. I think the government knows now that it is wrong. Let us do it right the next time and let us remember that these are people who are suffering now and will continue to suffer as long as they live.

In my own thinking, I understand it. I understand what we go through with insurance companies and what the 10 provinces go through with workers' compensation. I have met people on workers' compensation and teachers on sick leave who abuse it, but the people who were hurt the most were not those who were abusing it. The people who were hurt were those who were truly suffering and had to spend money and suffer to prove their point. Let us not have this happen.

[Veterans Week, November 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the first day of Veterans Week 2002, I stated in the House that Canada's veterans are the pride of our country. That is no idle statement. The fact is that is the foundation of our party's veterans affairs policy. Canada's vets are the pride of this country, not just because of their sacrifice and service during the war, but because of their continuing sacrifice to Canadian society, not just after the war but indeed even until this day.

For example, I established 12 zones for the distribution of the Queen's medals. A vet was selected from each zone. I am very proud to say that five of those selections were vets who had not only put their lives on the line, but they have also served their country since. They have yet to receive their medals but that will happen shortly after the Remembrance Day service.

We have many memorials in honour of the sacrifice made by the soldiers, the men and women who died in the world wars. The poppies we wear are the present day testimony to our vets.

I was really proud yesterday, as were all members of the House, to stand and applaud the two gentlemen who were in the gallery. I believe they were both over a century in age. One of the gentlemen had also served time as a prisoner of war. He came here at my colleague from Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys' expense. In my mind we have never properly addressed that veteran's claim to all of the things he deserves as a result of his being a prisoner of war.

This year's theme is “Remembering Our Past, Preserving Our Future”. Ten years ago or maybe more, the theme for Remembrance Day was “If You Can't Remember War, Think of Peace”.

I am sure other members in the House remember, as I do, the dates of September 10, 1939; Sunday morning, December 7, 1941; and August 19, 1942. I was pleased to join the minister and other members to honour the Dieppe raid and veterans on the 60th anniversary of that date. What about June 6, 1944? That 60th anniversary is coming up.

We could not be here today on the foundation upon which we stand without the sacrifices made by our vets in the past. Perhaps the most common of all the slogans for Remembrance Day is “Lest We Forget”. Those immortal words that were penned by a Canadian army officer have rung through all our schools since the echoes of time. Lest we forget.

I remember two decades when in this country people sadly did forget. May that never happen again. I remember fighting this in the 1960s and 1970s. At that time, Canadian television programs that were being aired were stating that Billy Bishop had not really been a good pilot and had not shot down as many planes as had been claimed. Lest we forget. Let us not go down that road again.

What about the RCAF and the program condemning our brave men? They were here yesterday. It was claimed that the Canadian air force simply dropped its bombs wherever it liked and then hightailed it to home base. Lest we forget in this century, that that never happens again.

I am pleased with the minister's announcement and congratulate him and his government. It is great. I am glad to see recognition for the people who served in Korea. It was not a police action, but indeed it was a war. It was a war that took hundreds of Canadian lives.

This is not just rooted in our past. We will in this present day have an ongoing legacy. We are not done fighting for who we are and what we believe in.

No Canadian wants to see another soldier dead. May this day and this week be a constant reminder that the future is not yet written. It is up to us to design that future and begin that future today.

I was pleased that the House saw fit to fly the flag at half mast. I have already received comments from the provinces and municipalities and they also will follow that. I want to thank the people on both sides of the House. May that forever be part of the tradition of November 11.

[Veterans Week, November 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's veterans are the pride of our country. On behalf of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, I am pleased to support and promote Veterans' Week and this year's theme, “Remembering our Past, Preserving our Future”.

I want to thank members on both sides of the House for supporting my private member's initiative to have all Canadian flags flown at half-mast on federal buildings on Remembrance Day. I am encouraging the provincial governments and the territorial premiers to follow the example of the House so that flags will fly at half-mast on all provincial government buildings as well.

It is my hope that in the near future, on each and every November 11, flying a flag at half-mast will be as common as the poppies that we wear.

[Supply, November 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the parliamentary secretary and I have listened on and off all day to the various members.

Would the hon. member not concede that training is required today for the armed forces, particularly with what we expect in the way of long, drawn out terrorist attacks around the world? What are we doing to combat that type of warfare? I know it is very difficult but is there any special emphasis now on the Canadian armed forces to deal with terrorism as such?