Chris Warkentin

[Old Age Security Act, November 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss Bill C-362 and its proposed amendments to the old age security program.

All Canadians can be proud of our country's retirement income system. Simply put, it is recognized as one of the best in the world and is emulated by countries looking to set up an effective, long term public pension system.

The old age security program, along with the Canada pension plan, provides all Canadians with a solid foundation upon which to build their retirement income. Together, Canada's public pension delivers about $54 billion in benefits to Canadians every year.

Bill C-362 proposes reducing the minimum residence requirement for OAS benefits from 10 years to 3 years. However, I must respectfully disagree with the hon. member for Brampton West on the premise of the bill.

From a public policy perspective, the old age security program is fair and sound. It is the first tier of Canada's retirement income system, serving over four million Canadian seniors every year.

The OAS pension is designed as a measure of income security for seniors. It recognizes their valuable contribution to Canadian society, our economy and their community over a lifetime. Unlike pension plans in most other countries, Canada offers, as part of a public pension system, a tier that is fully funded by general tax revenues instead of contributions.

Most countries have pension schemes that require years of contributions to qualify for benefits. For example, Japan's seniors must contribute for 25 years to be eligible for a pension. From this standpoint, we can see that Canada's pension plan is exceptionally generous.

In Canada there are none of the restrictions about citizenship or nationality often found in other countries. To gain the right to a lifelong pension, we only ask that seniors make a reasonable contribution of 10 years to Canadian society.

A number of governments have examined the current OAS residence requirement since it was established in 1977 and have kept it intact. In fact, during the last Parliament, the Liberal Party voted against Bloc amendments that would have instituted these very changes. For the Liberals, it has only become an issue of fairness or respect for new Canadians when they no longer are in government and they no longer have to worry about the consequences of their actions.

I believe the 10 year residence requirement is sound and reasonable. It makes no distinction between immigrants who have just arrived in Canada or Canadians who return to Canada after living abroad.

Under current rules, a person must live in Canada, after reaching the age of 18, for a total of 40 years to receive a full pension. A person must live in Canada for a minimum of 10 years to receive a partial pension.

Many seniors who qualify for OAS and who have low incomes also receive a guaranteed income supplement, designed to help Canada's poorest seniors. Once again, the 10 year rule is a reasonable compromise. It strikes a good balance between an individual's contribution to Canadian society and his or her right to receive a lifelong public pension.

This policy is a result of a long-standing dynamic conversation with Canadians. Since 1977, the residence requirement for OAS has served countless new Canadians. This program has been there for generations of immigrants who have built a new life for themselves and their children in Canada, and this government will ensure that it remains that way. Many of these immigrants came from countries that have signed social security agreements with us.

On the world stage, Canada is a leader among countries that have signed social security agreements. To date, 50 agreements have been signed between Canada and foreign countries. Because of these reciprocal agreements, many newcomers to Canada are able to meet the 10 year residence requirement to receive the OAS pension by using years of residence or contribution in both countries. This means that these seniors are able to receive benefits from both Canada and their countries of origin.

In a nutshell, it means that people who have lived or worked abroad can meet the 10 year residence rule by adding these periods to their Canadian residence. These agreements recognize the contributions that people made to their previous country of residence and allows them to qualify for benefits in which they may not otherwise have been entitled.

Canada is continuing to negotiate agreements with countries that share comparable pension plans so we can improve the access of our growing immigrant communities to pension benefits.

The courts have also considered the residency issue that the bill raises. In two landmark cases, they upheld the issue of fairness of our residence provisions for the OAS pension.

One of these legal challenges made it all the way to the Federal Court of Appeal. The 2003 ruling confirmed what most Canadians knew. The 10 year residence rule does not in any way discriminate against Canadians on the grounds of national or ethnic origin, as my hon. colleague across the aisle would have us believe.

I find it interesting that it was the former Liberal government that fought this case in court, yet today the Liberals are claiming the opposite. Only today it has become an issue of discrimination, as far as they are concerned. As my hon. friend from Palliser pointed out a few moments ago, it was the sponsor of the bill who openly admitted that her government believed so strongly in the current model of the bill that it fought seniors' groups in the court until they ran out of money to protect this system and the changes that they now propose. The hypocrisy abounds.

It is no secret that seniors constitute the fastest growing segment in the Canadian population. With baby boomers poised to retire in record numbers, our pension costs will skyrocket in the coming years. In the next 25 years, nearly one in four Canadians will be a senior. With our rapidly aging population, relaxing the residence rule for OAS would have significant fiscal implications for Canada and the public pension program.

In fact, it is now estimated that reducing the 10 year rule for OAS to three years would cost Canadians over $700 million in combined OAS and GIS benefits in the first few years alone. In the long run, these costs would surely rise exponentially.

The government is taking the responsibility to ensure that this program remains for the generations of Canadians to come, including the children and the grandchildren of new Canadians. Canada's retirement income system is a robust, sustainable program, one that is envied around the world. It is hailed for its impact in reducing poverty among Canadian seniors and in preventing a drop in living standards after retirement.

I urge my hon. colleagues to consider these things and vote against the bill.

[Agriculture and Agri-Food, November 19th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government is listening to farmers right across this country. More importantly, we are acting. We are opening borders, defending farmers' interests at the WTO, and working with the provinces to get farm families the help they need.

Just last week, Canada's agriculture ministers held a meeting to discuss elements of Growing Forward, the new policy framework for Canada's farmers. Can the Secretary of State for Agriculture tell us how farmers will benefit from this Conservative government's actions?

[The Environment, October 24th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my constituents in Peace River believe that the environment is one of the top challenges facing our country.

Thanks to the leadership of our government, Canada now has a tough and realistic plan to clean up the environment after 13 years of failure by the Liberal leader and his party.

On climate change, we have demonstrated leadership at home, with our turning the corner plan to achieve an absolute reduction in greenhouse gases of 20% by 2020. We have demonstrated leadership in the world at the G-8, at the United Nations and at APEC.

As far as conservation is concerned, we have invested $375 million in conservation programs and in protecting our heritage in places like Nahanni National Park and the Great Bear Rainforest.

On clean water, we have invested $93 million and are taking action on cleaning up our rivers, streams and lakes with tough new regulations for sewage.

The fact is that the Liberals did nothing but talk about the environment for 13 years. The reality is that this government is taking action. They talked. We are acting.

[Cancer, October 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, today I stand in the House to pay tribute to some real Canadian heroes.

In January of this year, a U of A doctor published findings that DCA, a commonly used drug, had shown real potential in the fight against cancer. When Peace River resident Terry Babiy learned that pharmaceutical companies would not fund the necessary $800,000 human trials due to the limited profit potential, he and the local community stepped into action.

Believing that they could raise $250,000 to contribute to the effort, the local radio stations, businesses and citizens held countless fundraisers of every imaginable form. To date, their efforts have yielded over $260,000 and an announcement that clinical trials will commence was made in recent weeks.

I commend the people of Peace Country for giving so generously for such a worthwhile cause. Their generosity is an example for communities across this great nation. I am proud to represent these hard-working and compassionate people, and even more proud to congratulate them on this success.

[The Arctic, October 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to helping the Arctic finally realize its true potential after years of neglect by our Liberal colleagues. Under our government's leadership, we are strengthening Canada's sovereignty and place in the world.

Could the Minister of Foreign Affairs explain what action our government is taking to protect our country's sovereignty, specifically in the north?

[Justice, June 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been calling for justice reforms for over a decade and finally they have a government that is listening and acting.

Since coming to office, our government has advanced over a dozen criminal justice reforms that will protect Canadians and their families.

With the support of opposition members in this House, many of these bills have been passed on to the Senate for its consideration before becoming law.

However, the Liberal-dominated Senate seems to be maintaining its hard-earned reputation for stalling and delaying by employing unreasonable tactics to deny Canadians the protection they so rightly deserve.

It is so bad that even provincial justice ministers are demanding that the Senate do the right thing and pass these bills right now. Alberta's justice minister, Ron Stevens, is adding his voice of support, saying that the goals of our federal justice reforms to deter and denounce serious offenders are consistent with the desires expressed by many Albertans during recent public consultations.

I call on all Liberal senators, but specifically Alberta Liberal senators, to do the right thing and pass these important bills so that Albertans and Canadians can have this protection.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, June 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to complete the debate. I appreciate the many people who support it and who spoke on the bill thus far. I hear the support coming from the benches and I do appreciate it.

It has been interesting to bring this bill forward. I would like to thank the members who have shown up for the debate. I also want to indicate my thanks to members across party lines who have indicated their support for this bill. I would like to say a few things on that. The show of bipartisan support is not only support for this bill, but it is bipartisan support for our communities and young people who might otherwise become addicted to crystal meth or methamphetamines. I want to thank each member who plans to vote in favour of sending this bill to committee. We will work to make that happen.

We have had a number of discussions this evening. People have spoken about the effects of addiction and the effects of crystal meth. I want to reiterate a couple of things, specifically the importance that we tackle crystal meth for the one particular reason that it is so addictive. So many experts that I have spoken to over the length of time I have taken to research this have spoken about the addictive qualities of crystal meth and the fact that it only takes one time and many people are addicted for life. It is dangerous and it needs to be brought to our attention. We let these things happen in the shadows of our communities, but it takes people like us, members in this House, to stand up and say we are not going to let these things continue on and destroy the communities we live in.

We have heard tonight that these drugs, crystal meth or methamphetamines, are being mixed with other drugs. When young people and others buy illegal drugs, what they think are less addictive drugs, they may also be ingesting crystal meth or methamphetamines. Of course, that addictive quality is going to drive them to become addicted in a much faster way to the other drugs that they are taking.

I want to take a couple of moments to mention the front line workers who are affected by crystal meth every day. I want to thank them for their support and their work on the front lines. I want to thank the police officers for their work. They work with people who are addicted to crystal meth. They fight the good fight every day. I thank them.

I want to thank the medical workers and paramedics who see the impacts of crystal meth on a daily basis. I want to thank the addiction counsellors who work so hard. Often it is a losing battle with crystal meth users because it is such an addictive drug. Many people remain addicted even though they may go through counselling. It is very difficult for addiction counsellors to continue their work, but I would like to thank them for their continued service.

I would like to thank the teachers who see the impact on their students. I would also like to thank the parents, the children, the grandparents, the families who are so often affected. What got me started with this issue is the impact it has on communities and on families. We want to prevent this from affecting any other family. If we can save one family from the pain that I have seen in my community, if we can save one individual from being impacted by the detrimental effects of crystal meth, then we have done something great.

I know there is work that needs to happen on this bill. Together as we work in committee we can figure out how we want to deal with it to ensure that the people who are producing crystal meth are gone after. We can do that in committee. I urge all members to support not only this bill, but support the communities they live in and the young people who might otherwise be impacted by this drug.

[Senate Tenure Legislation, June 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the first part of our plan to strengthen accountability through democratic reform was a Senate term limits bill. This simple, three clause bill was introduced on May 30, 2006 and for over a year it has languished in the unaccountable, unelected Liberal dominated Senate. We introduced this Senate reform bill for one simple reason: the Senate must change.

The 45 year terms for unelected, unaccountable politicians are simply not acceptable. Remarkably, yesterday the Senate committee recommended that the Senate not consider this bill at third reading until the government refers it to the Supreme Court, even though the Senate has no constitutional authority to do so.

These obstruction tactics are a dangerous grasp at power by the Liberal dominated Senate and simply offer more proof that the opposition leader is powerless within his own party and that the Senate must change.

Our Conservative government is leading the charge to end the practice of 45 year terms for unelected, unaccountable politicians.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, May 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, yes, we did look very closely at individual rights. Obviously, the government wants to ensure that everybody understands it is looking for a provision, so that before the people who are investigating can charge anybody who is making or thinking they might produce crystal meth, it has to be proven there was an intent to produce with the chemicals and the precursors, wherever the drug was being made.

Obviously, the provision is to ensure nobody is inappropriately targeted because one happens to be buying cough syrup or something of that nature. Certainly, the intent to produce is essential. It is the provision that ensures nobody is tracked down without the intent.

[Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, May 30th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is my intent that the penalties would be in line with any other penalty, basically, within the act. They would be applied, basically, with penalties for anybody who was going to traffic drugs. If there was an intent to produce, the penalty would be the same as if one was going to bring a drug in.

A unique thing about crystal meth, of course, is the fact that it can be produced locally, so there is no way police are able to catch this in either the growing process, like they are able to do with some other drugs, specifically marijuana, and they would not be able to cut it off in terms of the influence.

We are asking that the police have the tools, once they see somebody and can prove there is an intent to produce crystal meth or methamphetamines with the precursors. These individuals would have the same type of penalty as if they were bringing in a drug from a different location.