Elwin Hermanson

[Petitions, March 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from the communities of Eston and Elrose calling on the federal government to make sure there is full utilization of the port of Churchill to improve the economies of the prairie provinces and Canada as well.

The petitioners call on the federal government to act immediately to develop a strategy in order to utilize this important seaport to ship other exports as well as grain. They pray and call on the House to direct the minister responsible for the wheat board to ensure that for the upcoming shipping season the port is used to its maximum and at the very least 5 per cent of Canada's annual grain shipments be shipped through the port of Churchill.

[Petitions, March 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to table in the House today. The first is signed by constituents from Kindersley-Lloydminster in the Kindersley area.

The petition states that the Liberals made commitments to the Canadian public, many of them pre-election promises which have now been disregarded or ignored by the Liberal government. The Canadian public is becoming more and more cynical of its elected officials because of these antics; most recently with the Liberals' promise to eliminate the goods and services tax, a promise which it has broken.

Therefore the petitioners request that Parliament oppose and condemn the federal government's plan to rework the goods and services tax into a value added tax which may be expanded to foodstuffs and prescription drugs.

[Grain, March 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in the budget the Minister of Finance briefly referred to the disposal of a fleet of grain hopper cars. This issue is extremely important to farmers and they need answers to some questions very soon. They need the government to reveal its intentions or even its inclinations of how it is going to deal with this matter.

Will the Minister of Transport please give the House a couple of simple answers. When will the government dispose of the 13,000 hopper cars and more important, what is the department's asking price? The farmers who are interested in buying should at least know what the numbers are on the price tag.

[Speech From The Throne, February 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could share the optimism that the hon. member had for the future of the Canada pension plan. He seems to think that some minor adjustments and a slight increase of the contributions to the plan will salvage it.

He also talked about the baby boomers in his presentation. I happen to be in that group and one of many millions of Canadians who wonder whether there will be a CPP around when we reach eligibility age.

Another factor that he did not discuss in his speech should be considered. When we baby boomers were teenagers at the time of the centennial, the federal debt was only $17 billion. The population was about 20 million. Twenty-nine years later, 1996, the debt has multiplied 34 times. It is now $570-odd billion and is growing by over $90 million per day. This debt will be borne by the baby boomers as well.

How does the hon. member expect the younger generation, the children of the baby boomers, to make higher contributions to the CPP to fund our retirement while heaping on them a debt that is continuing to grow by $90 million a day? There are already three Liberal budgets or another $100 billion to add to that debt.

If it were just the CPP contributions that were going to go up, maybe the younger generation would be able to shoulder it. They will have to shoulder the interest on the increase of $100 billion in three years and no plan to balance the budget in the near future. The projection now is 2 per cent of GDP and 2 per cent is still billions and billions of dollars added to our debt every year.

We are handing this over to the baby boomers' children as well. They are going to be shouldering higher CPP deductions or premiums or however we arrange it, plus paying higher taxes to pay the interest on the debt which continues to grow.

Certainly it is not a fair burden to place on our children. I do not really think they will be able to shoulder it unless we take more responsible actions sooner.

[Points Of Order, February 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of Parliament I am sure that I have made errors and staff members have made mistakes.

I want a ruling from you, Mr. Speaker. The fact that someone makes a mistake, does that exempt it from being a breach of a member's privilege? I would like clarification from the Chair. Is an honest mistake or a dishonest mistake not cause or not eligible to be a breach of privilege?

[Committee Of The Whole, February 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will speak briefly to this matter because it is something I was involved with earlier in my role as House leader for the Reform Party in the previous session of this Parliament.

It is not that the government was not aware of this promise. We talked about it in the procedure and House affairs committee and in the House. A commitment was made, a promise to change the way Deputy Speakers are selected. The government recognized and acknowledged in committee and in the House that it was a policy it had endorsed and that its party stood behind.

We are two years into the 35th Parliament and nothing has happened. Now there is a motion before us today to debate. This is a free country and we are allowed to speak. We should be consulted about who is being proposed. However, we were told who was being appointed. That is not consultation. We were not asked to work with the government in choosing Deputy Speakers. We were just told this was the way it was to be.

It is quite appropriate for those who have to deal with the Chair to be able to make comments before a person is appointed.

We have worked in committee and in the House with the person proposed to fill this position. At various times we have been slurred by this person. This person has been unparliamentary toward us. This person has denied us our parliamentary privileges. Certainly we cannot speak after a person is appointed. That is not the time to speak. The time to speak is before the damage is done while we can still fix it and help the Liberal government to fulfil a promise it made.

Today is an important day. It is the first day of the second session of this Parliament. The governor general has just read the speech from the throne and expects Canadians to believe the government will keep its promises and keep its commitments to Canadians.

Here is one of the simplest promises the government could have kept. It ignored it. It has flaunted us with its failure to keep its promises. Then it expects us and Canadians to believe it will keep its word, its commitment to Canadians about jobs, its commitment to Canadians about good reform to social programs. I doubt it. The government is playing games. It is playing with words. It does not prove its actions by its deeds.

The government could withdraw this motion. It could consult with us properly. It could commit to its promises. Then we would have a better Parliament. We would have a better situation in the House and we would be able to get on with the nation's business in an appropriate way.

[Points Of Order, December 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in response to the hon. government whip and as the House leader in the last year of this session.

I want to make it abundantly clear to the House-I know you know this, Mr. Speaker-that this is the first formal presentation my party has made regarding the issue of the official opposition. We have not formally requested the government make a decision because we realize the government does not have the jurisdiction to determine who is the official opposition. We understand that is your prerogative, Mr. Speaker.

I reinforce what my House leader stated, that we give you that prerogative. Our House leader has suggested that there may be two ways that you might choose to deal with this issue.

We have not, at any time, asked the government to recognize us as the official opposition. We have responded to Canadians' concerns about who forms the official opposition in this House. That debate has at times occurred in the House but I want to clarify that this is the very first presentation by the Reform Party to this House and to yourself specifically regarding the matter of official opposition.

The only further comment I would make is that this is the correct timing. We understand this is a serious matter and want to give you adequate time over the Christmas and New Year's break and through January, if need be, to consider the argument that my House leader has brought forward, the precedents that he cited, not only from the Canadian parliamentary system but the British and Australian systems as well.

I also want to acknowledge that the government whip did recognize that my House leader has personal experience in this issue. The precedent he is using is to argue that the Speaker in Alberta made the right choice. He is bringing those arguments to you. Hopefully you would make the same choice in this case.

[Questions On The Order Paper, December 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On September 18 I put a written question on the Order Paper and asked for a response within 45 days. It was one of those questions which every government department should have had at their fingertips and I have not had a response yet. Now we are going into the Christmas recess and the House will not sit until February. I cannot understand why there is not enough competence to answer my question in a reasonable length of time.

[Parliament Of Canada Act, December 14th, 1995]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-366, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and the Canada Elections Act (confidence votes).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to introduce this bill which you described as an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and the Canada Elections Act.

As members recall, two or three days ago I withdrew a bill which was the incorrect draft. I had initially described that bill when I introduced it. The only additional comments I will make is that this bill will also bring more certainty as to the timing of byelection and general election dates.

In light of the vacancy in Labrador, the way this bill would affect that vacancy is it would prevent a byelection from being held in the dead of winter. It would also prevent the people from Labrador from not being represented for an undue length of time. It would also have prevented the past byelections that were held over the Christmas and New Year's season from happening.

This bill brings more certainty to the election process. It is not a violation of our Constitution. I believe it is a very good piece of legislation. I invite members over the Christmas season to look at it and if they could propose amendments that would make it an even better bill, I would certainly be willing to have them talk to me about it.

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

[Dangerous Offenders, December 13th, 1995]

We are not talking about parking ticket violations. We are talking about violent sexual offenders.