It's leaking.
Lost his last election, in 1997, with 33% of the vote.
Social Security Programs October 20th, 1994
It's leaking.
Social Security Programs October 20th, 1994
Madam Speaker, I followed with interest the presentation of the hon. member for Burin-St. George's. He had the typical Liberal approach to problems, don't worry, be happy. He was even discussing cardiac arrest. I am sure if he had a cardiac arrest he would still be saying: "Don't worry, be happy, there is no problem here. Do not bother calling the doctor. We are just fine and if we are not who cares".
He was saying there is really not much in this bill, there is no change. There are a couple of little administrative things here and there. I am quoting him close enough that he will not protest. He is saying there are some little minor administrative changes but basically this bill leaves everything as is with regard to OAS and CPP and the other issues that it deals with.
I would suggest that is probably the problem. That is why we are speaking rather energetically about this bill. It is lack of action. We have seen that from this Liberal government ever since it took office: "We are not going to do anything, no changes. We will diddle around a little, change the administration, have the appearance on the outside as though we are doing something, but everything continues as the status quo".
The hon. member said we should not be suggesting the sky is falling and let us not be alarmists. Perhaps the sky is not falling but I assure the House the foundation is crumbling away and the whole building will fall in on itself.
The government talked about studying. It is becoming almost gritting for one to hear the ongoing remarks that we are going to study this or investigate that. Right now we are having a conference on health but the players are not there. We have talked about fish but there are no fish so we are going to study that. We are studying peacekeeping and defence yet we have no plan. Now we are diddling around with OAS and CPP but we are not really coming to grips with the issue. The foundation is still crumbling.
I wonder how we can study so much and still be so unintelligent and not know what to do about the problem.
I suggest to the member, rather than lecturing the Reform Party about free votes, he look at the seriousness of the situation and be concerned about his constituents who may not have OAS or CPP because while he is looking for the sky to fall, the foundation is crumbling away beneath him.
Perhaps the hon. member would like to respond to the fact that we have a younger generation coming up that has no expectation whatsoever of reaping any benefits from OAS or from CPP. This generation, our generation, has been irresponsible. We have not balanced our budgets. We are creating a debt that is going to be placed on our children that they will never be able to pay. They will not even be able to sustain the social programs that we enjoy. That is unconscionable.
I hope that the hon. member will become a little alarmed and want to change some things to provide a better future for his children and his grandchildren.
Social Security Programs October 20th, 1994
Tell us about it.
Department Of Agriculture Act October 19th, 1994
The agreement was whether or not we would call a recorded division.
Department Of Agriculture Act October 19th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, Reform had agreed that if the debate did collapse on the bill we would have the vote on division. However I was informed that the member for Vegreville intended to speak and had prepared a speech.
However in the din and the excitement between the speech of the hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette and the response of the member for Burin-St. George's I think he did not hear you, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, if the House would be agreeable, we would appreciate it if you would give him an opportunity to speak to Bill C-49.
Department Of Agriculture Act October 19th, 1994
An honest politician.
Department Of Agriculture Act October 17th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in support of the amendment to the bill by my hon. colleague, the member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre. It only makes common sense that we clarify what is the role of the inspectors in relation to their being appointed and given a task by the minister of agriculture. That only makes sense.
My argument was reinforced by the hon. parliamentary secretary for the minister of agriculture who indicated that in other pieces of legislation, other acts, these powers are already specified.
Why should they not be specified in this act as well? It only makes sense. It is logical. It harmonizes with existing legislation that is already in place. The disconcerting part of it is that if we pass such a broadly worded clause in this act it may apply to future acts in which the minister has no business appointing any inspectors to deal and meddle around in the affairs of producers.
I am really concerned about the open endedness of this act. I am also concerned that the department of agriculture is already rather large, perhaps one bureaucrat to every three to five producers who are out there working. It looks to me like perhaps this is a make work project for more inspectors where they are perhaps not needed, crossing from one act to another.
It only makes sense. I would appeal to the government to respect the wisdom that comes from this side of the House and let us not make a fuss, let us simply adopt a good common sense amendment to the bill.
Department Of Agriculture Act October 17th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate with some interest, particularly the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader's rather lengthy argument against the need for more accountability in this House.
He mentioned there were a number of new members in the House and perhaps their lack of experience was the reason they might support more accountability. I assure you that for those of us who are new to the House, we have found the review of the estimates to be a very frustrating process. Of course, very little
occurs out of the review of the estimates. Anyway, if changes do occur in committee it is all reverted when it comes back to the House and the government has its way.
Another concern is that while the estimates are being reviewed by committee that issue is not open for debate in the Chamber itself. However, a report could actually be tabled much earlier and could give us more time to prepare for the estimates. If a report is tabled it certainly is open for debate and may hold the government more accountable for the actions of that department.
I hope that in light of the communication members of the Liberal Party sent to Canadians through their red book that they wanted to open this place up, make it more accountable and rebuild the trust with Canadians that they will support any measure which will make us the elected representatives of the people more accountable to them. I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Malpeque.
Social Program Reform October 6th, 1994
That's good. You can tell us then.
Social Policy October 6th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, many Canadians are very concerned about the intent and misguided direction of the Liberal government's review of social programs, and rightly so.
The growing federal debt proves existing programs are financially unsustainable in the long run and the long run is now. The minister of human resources seems intent on tinkering with social programs rather than making real changes to put them on a sound financial footing.
For the government to simply rejig programs that are financially unsustainable is dishonest. It is immoral to force on to Canadians a package of retreaded programs held together with bubble gum and binder twine. Programs that collapse under a mountain of debt will crush the very people the programs are intended to help.
I challenge the minister to prove to this House and to all Canadians that his social programs can survive the ravages of a government that cannot balance its books.
The first social aid program that should be cut is an unelected Senate.