House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 56% of the vote.
Petitions November 23rd, 1994
In the second petition, Mr. Speaker, the petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend the human rights code or the Canadian Human Rights Act to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to include in the prohibitive grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase of sexual orientation.
The petition is signed by constituents of Prince George-Bulkley Valley. Once again, I personally support the petition.
Petitions November 23rd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present a petition from the people in my riding of Prince George-Bulkley Valley.
The petition deals with section 241 of the Criminal Code. The petitioners pray that Parliament not repeal or amend section 241 of the Criminal Code in any way and upholds the Supreme Court of Canada's decision of September 30, 1993 to disallow assisted suicide and euthanasia.
I would like to add that I personally support the petition.
Aboriginal Affairs November 22nd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I remind the minister that it is precisely the fact that Reformers do care about the plight of the Indians that we dare to question this. It is something no other party has done in this House. The government knows it. That is why its programs serving the natives have been an absolute failure.
Since 1981 the number of individuals receiving social assistance funding in the native communities has risen from 85,000 to the current 130,000. Spending has gone from $200 million to $1 billion. These are unacceptable results. Considering this, will the minister take immediate steps to bring this social spending on native affairs under the scrutiny of the Parliament of Canada?
Aboriginal Affairs November 22nd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General reports that the department of Indian affairs is currently spending approximately $1 billion on the delivery of social services to on reserve Indians. The Auditor General also says they are spending this $1 billion with no substantive legislative authority, no plan, no goals, no monitoring and no accountability for results.
How can the minister account for the utter failure of these programs despite the billions of dollars that have been spent on them?
Supply November 22nd, 1994
Madam Speaker, I listened in great agony to the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. While I was listening it reminded me of the days when I was a young lad working on a farm in central interior B.C. My job that summer was to clean out the stables. Listening to the hon. member speak, what he was saying bore a huge resemblance to what I was throwing out of the stables that summer.
I want to touch on a couple of points. The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell made a statement that there is no greater honour than to serve the people. He referred to the right hon. prime minister of the past, Mr. Diefenbaker. I would say that there is no greater disgrace in the House of Commons than the MPs' pension plan as it currently stands.
We may serve this House as MPs with the honour of serving the people, but that is counteracted. Any pride we may feel in this House is counteracted by this obscene MPs' pension plan. But this government refuses to change it. It says it is going to do it. When the Prime Minister was in opposition he said he could do it in a day. Now 400 days later we are wondering how long his and his government's days are.
The hon. member who just spoke, and I would like to just put this on record, has been in the House 10 years. If my arithmetic is right, and we will give him the benefit of the doubt, he has probably contributed about $75,000 to the pension plan, averaging $7,500 a year. If he retired tomorrow, and let this go on the record for all the people of Canada to see, for a $75,000 investment he would collect $2,152,672. Such a deal, such a deal. It is no wonder the Liberals do not want to change the pension plan.
The hon. member also referred to the NCC. He said the Canadian people were vulnerable to malicious, hugely disparaging ads by the NCC that exposed this pension plan. What the Canadian people are most vulnerable to is the constant cash grabs by the government to pay for these things. That is what they are most vulnerable to.
Let us clarify this double dipping phrase once and for all. Obviously the member opposite is very confused about what the Canadian people think about double dipping. That is not surprising. This government has a habit of not listening to the Canadian people. The Canadian people hate double dipping which specifically refers to someone who serves in the House of Commons for six, ten or fifteen years, is paid reasonably well as an MP and then is eligible to collect this gold-plated pension.
They collect the pension. As a matter of fact, the hon. member has been here 10 years and he could collect a pension of $33,540 a year starting next month. The member retires and of course his Liberal pals are still in government. What happens is he gets appointed to a key government position. Now he gets a salary from the same government he just retired from. He is getting $33,540 a year in pension and now he is eligible to get whatever in his new job.
That is double dipping. Let us be clear about what Canadians think of double dipping.
I am sure that today is going to be a fun day on this subject. I encourage more comments from the Liberals although they have an indefensible case. I am sure there will be some more rhetoric and more stable waste coming from the other side of the House today before we are through.
Supply November 22nd, 1994
You have to get elected first.
Members Of Parliament Pensions November 21st, 1994
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister in his Liberal red ink book had promised to reform the MPs pension fund. While in opposition the Prime Minister was concerned that this issue was of such importance he wanted to recall Parliament to end double dipping and establish an age requirement with respect to the collection of pensions.
Today 46 more Liberal trough feeders are joining the crew. The golden pension for these 46 will cost Canadian taxpayers almost $1 million when they leave Parliament.
The government had to borrow $158 million to top up the pension plan in 1992. The Prime Minister should end this lunacy and live up to his promises of past and present. Regardless of what his 46 new trough feeders think, he should make any new pension reform retroactive to election day, October 25, 1993.
Justice November 17th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, while a whole lot of lawyers make a lot of money from this defence and while this minister ponders his political options, the travesty of justice continues.
Last week the Minister of Justice wasted no time to kill any possible use of a cultural defence in criminal cases. Will the minister now act with equal speed to immediately put a stop to this insane use of drunkenness and drug induced defences?
Justice November 17th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Just yesterday a Gatineau man was found not guilty after he severely beat and threatened to kill his wife. His defence: A large intake of cocaine made him unconscious of his actions.
Will the Minister of Justice now show some backbone and some leadership and put a stop to this insanity in our justice system?
Supply November 15th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I listened again with some bewilderment to the comments of the member of the Bloc and there are a few points I would like to make.
She says that the government has been foot dragging on the high speed rail issue. Quite frankly, given the statistics, given the financial prospect, the viability of high speed rail in the Quebec-Windsor corridor if I were having to pay the bill believe me I would be foot dragging as well. I would not want to get into it.
The member talked about the success of high speed rail in European countries. For many years the high speed rail system in Europe has been heavily subsidized by the governments where the trains operate.
This country cannot afford to get into more subsidization of crown corporations or transportation systems. We are subsidized to death. We have VIA Rail being subsidized with hundreds of millions of dollars. It is interesting that the chairman of VIA Rail, a person who is operating a company at a huge loss every year, absolutely dependent on government subsidies to keep his company afloat, is now advocating and promoting a high speed rail system.
At least if we had some sort of track record with the company he operates, his support would at least be somewhat credible. The hon. member has talked about the economic factor of high speed rail. There is no financial data that support the fact that a high speed rail system in Canada, in the Quebec-Windsor corridor, could even begin to be financially viable without continued heavy subsidization from the government.
I would like to talk about one other thing. Where are the customers going to come from? Let us say that they did start to attract a lot of customers. Someone in the transportation industry is going to suffer. Is it going to be the airlines? Are we asking the airlines to lose more customers who would travel on trains?
Statistics and studies have shown that the Canadian people have a tremendous love for their automobiles. We are not going to change this love for the automobile that the Canadian people have simply by putting a high speed rail system in. They are not going to overwhelmingly start getting out of their cars and flocking to a high speed rail system overnight.
If this government were to enter into this thing it would be like going to the store to buy a new television set when you have no food in the cupboard. That is the state of the economy. That is the state of this financial house in Canada. We cannot afford to even think of a high speed rail system at this time.