Roy H. Bailey

[Speech From The Throne, February 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, this is my first time to speak during the new session. I congratulate you on occupying the chair and express my confidence in you.

I have thanked my constituents. It is a rare that they would ask me to thank some other people, some of whom are in the House. The hon. member from Winnipeg has already spoken. I always enjoy what he has to say. He referred to the campaign as being more than just a bit dirty, but the dirt and the innuendoes actually helped me.

When I started my campaign my crew knew that I had about 41% of the vote. Then the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration made a speech which reached my constituency. It was in the Ottawa Citizen and stated that I above everyone was anti-immigration. Those words riled my constituents and I jumped about 5% in the polls because they knew it was absolutely untrue.

Then one night on television a former premier of the province of Ontario said that the Alliance in the west could put up a donkey and get it elected. I know he was talking about me and I will say why: I am the one with the biggest ears over here. Immediately I went up another 5%.

Then we had an incident in which a reporter said, and he wishes he had not said it, that the Ontario vote was a sophisticated vote. It is, as are the votes in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and British Columbia, but the tone in which he said that put me up 10%.

By this time my crew estimated that I had 61% of the vote. The surge in popularity came more from comments that were meant to degrade me and my efforts in my constituency. Finally, and this is a little humorous, one of the other candidates accused me of stealing his platform and that put me over the top.

In a sense I say to people who tried to use a smear campaign that it blocked hundreds of Canadians from going to the polls in the last election. If it continues we will have fewer Canadians exercising their right to vote.

My colleague from Medicine Hat referred to security. I wish to talk briefly about security at home. He referred to security on the international level. I know what it is like to look into the eyes of a child who lives with insecurity. I know what it is like to look at elderly people who live with insecurity. I certainly know from the past four years what insecurity means to my constituents.

I am very proud to be the Department of Veterans Affairs critic. I say to the government and to this side of the House as well that if those in veterans affairs knew that the veterans affairs committee was not an independent committee, I think they would feel insulted. They would say they have enough on their plates, enough matters to be discussed, that they should be a separate committee.

I will ask a question this morning in the House. The very people providing the security and the freedom we enjoy are now some of the most forgotten people in Canada, and that ought not to be. Many veterans out there have not received medals for the various campaigns they have been in. They have been asking for them for years. Widows of veterans have been cut off from some of the vet programs. That ought not to be. Where is their security?

To top it all off, a young fellow in the army reserve came to me. He volunteered to go overseas to Bosnia and was ordered to get his passport. When the passport came, unbelievably he had to pay for it. A man who is volunteering his time to serve with the Canadian forces had to pay for his passport. I hope he receives remuneration, but the last I heard he had not.

Let me ask one more question. I believe that a promise made is a debt unpaid. It is clearly recorded that the government still owes merchant navy vets some $70 million. I believe that should be paid and it should be paid now. There was no mention of it in the throne speech, but I believe it should be paid.

Another forgotten group is grassroots aboriginals. For years they have been crying out for help, telling us of the fraud, the theft, the corruption and the mismanagement. These accusations reach my office and I am sure they reach the offices of members opposite. These accusations come from rank and file aboriginals. They are not invented on this side of the House. They have been crying out for years. I can understand their feeling of insecurity.

The throne speech indicated that billions will be allotted to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I ask the government, and particularly cabinet, to listen to the rank and file. Aboriginals should be included so that they have a degree of security on their own land. They do not now. People in Regina are on a hunger strike in the hope that the government will say that enough is enough and bring about security.

Security means fundamental changes. We must respond to the auditor general. We talk about the inherent right of self-government, treaty entitlements and land claims which will bring security to all. However all of the claims mean absolutely nothing unless we change our approach to accountability for the common people, the grassroots people.

I want to spend my last two minutes talking about the terrible insecurity that exists within my constituency and across the farms of western Canada. Towns and villages are disappearing. On the main street of my town four businesses have closed. They will never reopen.

We are watching a whole generation, fourth and fifth generation Canadians, completely deserting our province because the government bungles more money than ever got into the hands of the farmers of western Canada. It has thrown away more money than will ever go to make agriculture a sustainable industry in western Canada. We need to provide them with some measure of security.

In closing, since 1993 the government has deliberately used alienation to divide Canada and to give it the largest block of voting. It believes in going ahead and alienating and it can always be government. That is a national philosophy of which it should be ashamed.

[Economic Policy, October 19th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, naturally when an MP reads or hears a budget, their attention is drawn to how it affects their own constituency.

Despite what the member of the New Democratic Party has said, one of the things which really disturbed me, representing a province where the number one industry is falling and falling very quickly, representing a province that has lost 6,200 of its main producers in the last year, September to September, representing a province that will lose that many more and the rural area of the last best west is becoming desolate, not one word was mentioned in this budget to support an industry that stretches across the entire western Canadian area.

As a matter of fact, the government has only paid out 42% of the total amount of money allocated by the government to assist in a small way to keep some bread and butter on the table of these people. As a parliamentary measure, I understand that we may be seeing AIDA come to Saskatchewan and maybe we can get a few more cheques out. In a briefing with a radio station last night, I said that would not buy one vote.

Yes, I am pleased to see tax cuts and I am pleased to see that the government has listened to us with regard to tax reduction. All one needs to do is take a look at my province with the worst health system in Canada, the worst road system in Canada, absolutely the poorest drug plan in Canada and part of that, not all, is the fault of the NDP. It could be fixed by their potentially new leader.

He said to get rid of all the health boards and start delivery. That is the problem with NDP philosophy. The problem with NDP philosophy is part of the problem why Saskatchewan has no highways, no health care under an NDP government and the absolute poorest rating in Canada. For them to talk about this budget is inappropriate.

My last comment, the western grain industry will never forget the government for the lack of attention that it has paid to it. The government will reap the results come November 27.

[Veterans Affairs, October 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Justice Brockenshire brought down a damning judgment against the federal government, condemning the government for breaching its trusteeship related to the pensions it managed on behalf of the severely handicapped veterans. Canadians need to know as soon as possible if the government is going to honour the judge's decision? Will the minister now do the honourable thing and negotiate a settlement starting today?

[Grain Transportation, October 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, some farmers did not get any of that money and the hon. member should know it.

Some 22,000 western farmers have been forced off the land and more will be forced off the land. To make matters worse, the government has ignored virtually every stakeholder in the industry. It is the farmers who have to pay for this needless delay in grain shipment.

When will this ministers and this government allow the grain companies to deal directly with the railways so the farmers can at least get a few precious cents in their pockets?

[Grain Transportation, October 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Transport spent countless hours questioning witnesses on Bill C-34, the grain transportation bill.

The minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and the Minister of Transport will recall that I predicted chaos. Well, that chaos is here. The wheat board's tendering process is so flawed that only a paltry 7% of the grain tendered has even been bid on.

Why will these ministers not admit that this bill is flawed and that the grain companies should deal directly with the railways to get the grain moving again?

[Civilian War-Related Benefits Act, October 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I imagine that the majority of Canadians watching this morning have been looking for the benefits of the bill from a period of time when many members of the House were not even born. On average they have been waiting up to 55 years, which I doubt is the average age of members of the House.

The audience out there who will be recipients of the benefits in the bill is very few in number, compared to the brave people who served on the frontlines during the war.

Younger Canadians and those looking at the bill in the House for the first time ask what the Newfoundland Overseas Forestry Unit has to do with the war. As a matter of fact those people had some tremendous skills not just in cutting trees, but skills in building beams so that coal, a badly needed war commodity, could be shipped. They were able to speed up the shipment of coal, which was very valuable to munitions plants and so on.

My hon. colleague mentioned the number 3,680. As one who is a bit older than the average member of the House I remember what little attention they received. I also remember a movie about those in the Ferry Command, but little attention was ever given to those brave people. Because Newfoundland was not part of Canada at the time, most of them joined the British army rather than joining the Canadian army.

I also have a comment about the Canadian firefighters. Somebody picking up the bill, or even students in school, would ask what firefighters have to do with veteran related bills. These were brave people who went overseas. Many lost their lives in the terrible blitzkrieg, particularly of the city of London. They have had basic access to income tested veterans programs but limited or no access to pensions for service related disabilities and no access to veterans independence program.

We have some current problems with the VI program, but this is not the bill or the time to be discussing them. I certainly will be discussing the problems with the veterans independence program in committee. Hopefully we can resolve some of the current problems, particularly as they relate to veterans widows trying to live alone in their own homes. If any of them are listening, or members of the press, let me assure them that I would bet money the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs will deal with those issues and look after them pronto. At least that is the feeling I have from the committee. Certainly that is my aim as an official opposition member of that committee.

I want to say a word about another group my hon. colleague mentioned, the Ferry Command personnel. These people got some recognition during this time, but they flew unarmed planes. They flew sometimes in the worst of conditions, delivering the planes across the Atlantic Ocean to Africa and Britain. Many times the equipment and fuel supply were very limited and as a result many lost their lives. There are not many of these honourable and heroic people left in Canada. As a matter of fact, later on this month there is a commemoration service to honour a few more than 50 of these great people.

It is a shame that Canada has taken 55 years to honour people whose fatality record equalled that of the air force. It is not a very bright chapter in Canadian history. Although many of them may be listening this morning, they are probably feeling more gratitude about the fact they are being recognized in the few short years they have left to live rather than any remuneration they may receive.

It has been 55 years. Many of these people are up to 90th birthdays. It has been many years and some of them have missed many opportunities. In spite of the benefits coming to these deserving groups so late in their lives, at least the official opposition, and I understand all opposition parties in the House, will be supporting Bill C-41.

It is not a perfect bill. Whenever we deal with the recognition of people, pension funding or liabilities, we almost have to make a bill to fit every individual person. It is like providing some aid to farms in western Canada, which I might point out is virtually nil. It is very difficult to get a bill that will suit everyone's needs.

I draw attention to the statement allegedly made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs to the Atlantic media, which I found to be very misleading. It bothers me somewhat, simply because he suggested the opposition delayed the passage of the bill. I hope it was a media error. I am proud to stand in the House today and say no one, particularly in the official opposition, delayed the passage of the bill. He claimed that we did not let the bill go through all stages after second reading.

If the bill had gone through at that time the significant amendment the minister announced today regarding the RCMP would probably not have been picked up. That is what all parties on this side of the House wanted. This was accomplished, but I do not think it was the result of the opposition in any way delaying passage of the bill. I hope in due course the minister will make the necessary corrections.

While I am on this point I would like to clear up another matter which may mislead people. The bill, when passed, would give pension benefits to certain civilian groups for overseas service during the war. We all have to agree today that this is very laudable. It is really not what these groups have asked for year in, year out.

I am sure every member of the opposition and the minister know full well these civilian groups were asking for the same benefits the merchant navy vets were receiving, as was announced recently. I am not opposed in any way to the merchant navy vets getting benefits, but it is very difficult to draw a line between the merchant navy and the Ferry Command, to draw a line between the brave nurses who served at the front, or to draw a line between those who went into the pits of the coal mines in Newfoundland. It is a pretty small line to draw, and they did not get anything.

The minister singled out merchant navy vets for ex gratia payments for this injustice but completely ignored these groups in the process. I do not know why. I have some ideas why they were ignored, but I suggest this should be the subject of another bill which I recommend the minister introduce into the House as soon as possible.

I have received piles of submissions and letters. As soon as I was appointed by the official opposition as the member in charge of veterans affairs, the letters came in from all over Canada.

I understand the concerns on both sides of the issue. A person who has lived for many years with a disability, which we might say was a frontline disability, is only now receiving compensation. Those few hundred out there are asking the same question. The precedent has been set.

The bill was rushed quickly through the House. We will not block the bill, as we have said from the very beginning, but there are some individuals out there who I hope are considered on an individual basis. There are so few of them left there is no reason why they should not be included.

Let me give an example. A retired sergeant named Michael Schlueter contacted my office hoping to have some input in the bill. The retired sergeant thought it would be possible for him to appear as a witness before the standing committee, but I told him that would not take place simply because we were not hearing any witnesses. Let me speak about this chap. While on duty in Canada he had part of his right arm blown off. It was not in a war zone but it was related to a war effort. Because he was injured in Canada and not in what we would call a special duty area, he was not eligible for a disability pension until he was discharged from the forces. Thank God we have corrected that.

However, we have to look at this because those people are wondering, if the navy vets are eligible for retroactive payments, what about the other people? Therein lies a very significant problem. If we were confronted with the sergeant, how would anyone in the House answer that? I do not need to single him out. There are probably hundreds of them. Any other Canadian can receive a disability pension while they are employed. The bill corrects that injustice so that from now on anyone in the Canadian forces or the RCMP can collect a disability pension if they are injured on the job.

The sergeant, who has only one arm now, told me that the bill creates two classes of disabled ex-armed forces personnel: first, those who will collect a disability pension if they are injured after the bill is passed; and second, the others who are ineligible for a disability pension because they were injured before the bill was passed.

That is a pretty sobering thought, is it not? I hope the committee will work on that and really think about it. We just cannot leave out those individual Canadians because of some magic deadline. There are only a few hundred of them left and we need to recognize them.

In conclusion, the minister and the committee have to consider ex gratia payments for those deserving individuals I have just mentioned. I do not think we can run away or hide from that. I really do not think Canadians would want the House to do so.

I applaud the minister for working with the opposition and taking seriously our concerns about the RCMP. I fully endorse the amendment. I could not care less whether the amendment came from this side of the House or even from another party. The fact is that it is there and it needs to be there.

I give my consent to the bill because of the humanitarian treatment accorded to the widows of vets receiving compassionate awards. There are some issues still to mention but we will deal with them later.

I give credit to the department for recognizing its accountability when mistakes are made in calculating payments but not burdening vets or their widows with having to repay overpayments. I have been through some of that and it is generally wee sums of money. People at that age, some of them now living alone, get flustered when they see a bill coming in that they do not understand. I commend the government for making that movement.

I am pleased that the provisions governing the amount of income support is calculated in such a way that it benefits the veterans more than it does the department.

I am pleased to support the bill but I want to caution members and those listening in who may benefit in some small way. I hope this is not the end of our responsibility on the committee. I think we have a lot of study to do yet. There are people out there from Prince Rupert to St. John's who are striving to live alone in their own homes. We have to go back and make sure we find a way to recognize them more completely.

[Veterans Affairs, September 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you a sad story.

Sergeant John, a World War II veteran returned home in 1944 from the battlefields of Europe. He married his high school sweetheart Sylvia in 1945. For the past 10 years John and Sylvia have received veterans independence payments from veterans affairs to help them live in their own home rather than be put into institutional case.

John passed away a few months ago and now a severe injustice has occurred. Sylvia, his wife, is denied by legislation the VIP monthly allowance that her husband was eligible. That was to help her to continue life in her own home. If the couple needed help keeping their own home when John was living, is it not obvious that his wife will need even more help now that he has passed away?

Parliament needs to correct this disgraceful injustice and provide veterans' spouses the same standard of living, not just one year after the veteran dies, but for the rest of a spouse's life.

[Supply, September 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a brave man to be speaking to this issue. I respect him for that.

When I fill up my gas tank in my province I pay 15 cents a litre provincial tax. I also pay 10 cents a litre federal tax. Would the member mind telling the House what percentage of that tax per litre, which was a designated tax because I was grabbed at the pump, went back to the province of Saskatchewan for the purpose for which it was taken?

[Species At Risk Act, September 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the world series is approaching and the government has thrown the third ball. It is the third time it has tried legislation like this and it is the third time it will strike out.

I believe the government has deliberately designed the bill to promote confrontation. Nobody in his or her right mind would design a bill that confronts the people in my constituency and in the constituency of the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, who did an excellent job of making this presentation. The bill is as ill-fated as the two former attempts. It will bring about the same animosity among innocent people as did Bill C-68, I can ensure hon. members of that.

Canadians from coast to coast agree that it is important to protect our wildlife. Canadians are enraged when people overfish. They are enraged when animals are hunted out of season. They are enraged when animals are hunted at night. Canadians aim for conservation. These same Canadians are delighted to work with any government to protect endangered species. This agreement must not come from the top down as this legislation has.

This bill will make criminals out of people who are completely innocent. Within my constituency there are huge areas of ranch land. I suspect that without the knowledge of the person who has running cattle on that land, there could well be endangered plant species. If by chance that same rancher puts up a new fence and unknowingly drills through one of the endangered plant species, he is automatically a criminal. That is the way the bill is written.

Contrary to most laws, although the individual knows nothing about the offence, he has to attempt to prove himself innocent. This is not like ordinary law where all people are innocent until proven guilty. The fines are so outrageously heavy that if they were enacted, the individual would not only have to sell his entire herd, but he would have to sell his ranch as well.

Because a lunatic went mad and shot some girls at École Polytechnique, the government overreacted and brought in Bill C-68. To this day it has had no value to anyone except to make criminals out of a lot of duck hunters across Canada. It has not solved one crime. However, some innocent young fellows were denied the right to have FACs for their rifles because their divorced wives said they were dangerous people. The government brags about taking the guns away from these nasty people who have never even had a traffic offence in their lifetime.

This legislation is going to fail. The legislation will use the government's criminal law powers on innocent people. I wish all Canadians would listen to the fear expressed by some environmentalists who probably have never seen one of those plants. This small group has encouraged the minister to bring this bill in. Where did the minister choose to announce the legislation? He made the announcement not in the prairies, not in a city, not when parliament was sitting, but in the new territory of Nunavut during the summer.

The last time the bill came before the House, Dan Gardner, who is on the Ottawa Citizen editorial board, wrote “Any government that is serious about saving endangered species has to compensate landowners for economic losses. To do otherwise is to pit people against animals and when that happens animals lose every time”.

I would like everyone who is concerned about this to recognize that if the bill is passed, co-operation is gone. If the government takes the bill back and consults with people who will be affected by the bill, it will get wholehearted co-operation.

Right now the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, in facing confrontation, is preaching co-operation. This bill does not co-operate. No farmer, no rancher, no farm organization, no cattle organization to my knowledge were ever approached by the government before it brought in this legislation. As a result of that, it is going to fail.

In an area not too far from where I live ground owls are nesting. The farmer took down the endangered species sign because he knew this bill was coming and he would ultimately lose that property. That is not co-operation; that is dictatorship.

I plead with the government to not pass this bill. No amount of amendments will make the bill palatable. Read the bill and see what powers it gives to the government. It could destroy people's lives overnight. Property could be seized overnight.

I beg hon. members, backbenchers and all, to read the bill and then have the guts to stand in the House and vote against it for the sake of humanity and for the sake of the people in agriculture and for the sake of all people who could innocently be incarcerated because of the bill. Am I being extreme? Not at all. I urge members to read the bill themselves.

When this bill comes for a vote, I pretty well know that a good number of the members opposite will probably be whipped into shape, forcing them to vote for the bill. In talking to many of them, I know they do not agree with the bill.

For the sake of our livelihood, for the sake of our country, for the sake of wildlife, let us take aim at conservation. This bill takes aim at confrontation and that is why it is doomed to fail.

[Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada Act, September 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I sat today listening to the various speeches on Bill C-38. I would like to throw out some questions as this hour concludes.

Canada has the healthiest banking system. No, I do not own any shares in a bank, but Canada does have a banking system that is the envy of the world. I wonder what Canadians would think today looking in on this debate.

I heard members say that banks should be required to stay in business. Would the government require Dairy Queen to stay in business if a town was folding up? I heard people say that the banking industry is an evil institution because it charges for its services. I heard people say in the House that there is no competition. There is more competition in the banking industry today than ever in the history of Canada. Everywhere we go there is more competition.

What we should be doing, instead of trying to drivel out some 1955 or earlier speeches about how to nationalize the banking industry in Canada, is talking about the fact that the institutions that are providing competition to the banks are valuable institutions.

Why would members want to paint a picture, not only for the investment community but for all Canadians, that our banking institution is something of a very evil nature? That is the message they are putting out. I am ashamed as a Canadian to have to listen to this drivel about the banking institution, which is world famous, being an evil institution.