Reg Alcock

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, February 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I was surprised by the comments of the previous speaker, my friend from Riviere-du-Loup. I know the member quite well. We served on several committees together and I know him to be very thoughtful on policy. But he may have been mistaken when he came into the House. The bill we are debating today is Bill C-28, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, not legislation referring to employment insurance.

I would like to reflect a bit on the all of the debate I have heard here. I was not necessarily going to speak on this bill when it first came forward because I assumed that it would slip through this House very quickly because of what it contains. I am surprised by the speeches that have been made by the Reform Party and the Bloc and the New Democrats when they look at this piece of legislation.

The member for Riviere-du-Loup has just taken some time to tell us about a series of other very important issues of concern to him and his constituents. But I would ask him and I would ask other members, when it comes to the substance of this piece of legislation, exactly what part of it they are against. Are they opposed to the increase in funding for health care and education and social programs? Are they opposed to the improvements in the registered education savings plan that allow people who can contribute to registered education savings plans to have greater ability and greater flexibility in the management of those plans?

It is not the only answer for education savings. There need to be other strategies and other supports brought to bear, because people in Canada have differing levels of ability or differing levels of economic capacity. But for those who can save, the registered education savings plan is a very legitimate strategy. To make that more reflective of today's costs and to make that a more efficient instrument strikes me as a very positive change.

Perhaps they are opposed to the changes in transfer pricing. This has been an argument that as the economy has globalized I have certainly heard raised by the New Democrats and others in this House, the concern about companies being able to shift their profits across borders by the way in which they price internal services within their corporation. We have changed that. Is that not an improvement? Is that not something that if the member for Riviere-du-Loup went back to his 500 constituents and asked them what they thought about it that they would support?

We have increased the tax credits for film and video production services. We have introduced a new refundable 11% tax credit to provide economic development assistance to film and video productions produced in Canada. For those of us who are concerned about our cultural industries in this country and for those of us who see those industries as extremely important in terms of job creation and skill development and in terms of the economic strength they bring to this country and our ability to celebrate our own culture, is that not a good thing? If the Reform Party were doing what it claims to do, representing its constituents, would the constituents who have asked about that not feel that was a pretty positive move? Certainly the strength of the film industry in British Columbia and Alberta is well known.

If we go down to the other major changes, they are all changes designed to do something I have heard people on the other side of the House talk about repeatedly: make the tax system more fair, take out some of the inequities, prevent people from manipulating the system to gain additional benefit they would not normally be entitled to. That is what this bill talks about.

I wanted to stand up today in the end to thank and to congratulate the Minister of Finance. I was part of the SSR committee that first looked at changes in social service, as was the member for Riviere-du-Loup. When the question of the CHST was first raised, a lot of us were extremely concerned.

We were concerned both about the cut and the reduction in support for important and necessary social programs in Canada. We were also concerned about the loss of control, the loss of position, the loss of authority on the part of the Government of Canada to set a framework for social services across the country.

At that time it was pointed out to us by others, including the Minister of Finance, that we were in danger certainly in my province and the province of Quebec and some others of seeing the cash portions of our payments go to zero in health care and losing all of our ability to enforce the principles of health care. It was felt that by bringing all of these programs together under one legislative umbrella it would give us more strength to maintain a national presence and national standards in these important services.

After a long argument in our caucus the Minister of Finance agreed to set a floor of $11 billion. I am delighted to be able to stand here today after four years of very, very tough decisions by this government, courageous decisions. It is easy to make the spending decisions but it is tough to make the decisions to cut and this government has done that. It has taken the tough decisions and tough action to get its spending under control. Finally we are beginning to see some modest benefit from that.

[Committees Of The House, December 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, a report entitled “Ensuring Access—Assistance for Post-Secondary Students”.

[Volunteers, December 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Alexis De Tocqueville once wrote that volunteerism is the foundation of the civil society. I am happy to report to the House that the spirit of volunteerism is alive and well in Winnipeg South.

Last month I attended two receptions for volunteers at the Dakota and Greendale community clubs. Without these volunteers who quietly go about running the community centres without adulation or acclaim, there would be no hockey, no soccer, no baseball, no dance, no recreational activities for seniors.

I believe, as Jeremy Rifkin and many others do, that volunteers such as the ones from the Greendale and Dakota community clubs serve as a third pillar which complements the role of government and the private sector in our society.

At this festive time of the year it is appropriate to recognize the efforts of those who make things a little better for others. So, to the many civic-minded volunteers who undertake work of such importance to the quality of life in my riding, I simply want to say thank you.

[Transport, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, last week the prime minister announced a new bilateral agreement with China.

Winport Logistics of Winnipeg is teamed with Kelowna Flightcraft and is ready to enter this new market now. Can the Minister of Transport tell us what he is doing to ensure that Canadian companies can take advantage of this new agreement?

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, December 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the father of Canadian broadcasting, Graham Spry, once said that only the state or the United States could provide Canadians with radio and television programming. Today, however, this is no longer true.

The advent of the 500 channel universe means that Canadians have a wide range of options open to them, but this has not lessened the need for the CBC. Only the CBC provides programming from a uniquely Canadian perspective. In recent years the CBC has had to adapt to audience fragmentation and changing fiscal realities.

It pleases me to note that despite this, the CBC has become more efficient and more Canadian in character. Since Canadianizing its prime time schedule, for example, CBC English television has gained more viewers than it had only a few years ago.

I would like to commend the corporation for its efforts to reflect Canada to Canadians. It is my belief that only the CBC can be to Canada in the 21st century what the CPR was in the 19th, a link that joins the country.

[Winnipeg Boys And Girls Club, November 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House today to the Winnipeg Boys and Girls Club and its Floodbusters program.

After the flood that Winnipeg suffered this summer, the department of human resources and the Winnipeg Boys and Girls Club got together and organized a program that hired 193 students. They worked all summer long cleaning up properties and helping homeowners repair their homes. They removed some 400,000 sandbags. They ran a summer camp for kids displaced by the flood so their parents could work on their properties. When the Red Cross was having trouble getting relief out, 12 members of the Floodbusters team worked with the Red Cross to ensure people got the compensation they needed.

The program was run by Mike Owens, executive director of the Winnipeg Boys and Girls Club, and Heather Popoff who actually directed the program. They did a superb job. I would like all members of the House to congratulate them.

[The Mint, October 31st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the minister for government works on his announcement yesterday that a new plating facility will be built in Winnipeg adjacent to the Mint.

This $30 million project will create between 100 and 130 construction jobs and 30 permanent jobs as the Mint brings online a process which they have invented and patented for plating coins. This allows the Mint to be more competitive around the world and will save some $9.5 million a year in annual operating costs.

It is a win for Winnipeg. It is a win for the Mint. It is a win for Canada. I thank the minister for his hard work in bringing this project to completion.

[Canadian Wheat Board, October 28th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, recently the Governor of North Dakota made a suggestion that U.S. wheat producers be allowed to sell their grain to and through the Canadian Wheat Board.

I would like to ask the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board if this is what he means by inclusion in Bill C-4?

[Science And Technology, October 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne the government made a commitment to support innovation and to assist in the commercialization of new technologies. I ask the Secretary of State for Science and Technology what action has been taken to ensure this commitment is acted upon.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, October 7th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, as a quick comment on the final remarks of the previous speaker, I suggest this is the Wheat Board Act. There has been a great deal of work done in the transportation department and the transportation committee on the issue of grain transportation and some of the problems in developing a truly competitive rail system. I do not think that is something contained in this legislation and we should not detract from the importance of this legislation in trying to solve a separate problem.

I congratulate the minister responsible for the wheat board for what has been a truly Herculean task. The minister has worked for more than two years consulting with producers throughout Canada. This is a service to more than 110,000 Canadian farm families. It directly affects their livelihood and you do not undertake changes to such a program without careful consideration and consultation within that community.

The minister has done a superb job and is to be congratulated.

I come from the city of Winnipeg. I do not farm. I live in an urban centre. Urban centres right across the prairies are enormously impacted by the health of the agricultural community. The large grain companies and the wheat board itself are located in Winnipeg along with the commodities exchange and a host of suppliers that make their living on the effectiveness of the work done in the farming communities around the urban centres.

I would like to focus in my remarks today on the whole issue of accountability and democratization. The minister has made a very prudent step in his move to open up the operations of the wheat board to control five producers.

I am a little surprised by the reaction of the Reform Party. Like the member for Qu'Appelle pointed out, members of the Reform Party came into the House in the last session, in the last campaign and now in this session talking about the importance of taking direction from their voters, the importance of listening to their constituents and acting in their best interest.

I cannot think of another circumstance when it has been clearer what producers want. A small number of producers would like to see the board abandoned completely now, but a substantial majority of producers, and not 50 plus 1, want exactly the kind of changes the minister is proposing.

I do not understand what part of democracy the Reform Party does not like. A majority of members of the new wheat board will be elected directly by producers. It is unclear what members opposite are objecting to.

The board will be more flexible. It will be more accountable. Producers will have the opportunity to make major management decisions such as excluding certain types of grain from the control of the board. I was interested in the remarks of the Conservative member who referred to including certain types of grain. That member supported the exclusion but had grave concerns about the inclusion.

Is that not what democracy is all about? If we tell farmers they are empowered to make decisions following a process that consults with the producers, and as in the act a vote must be taken, what does the member of the Reform Party fear?

If a significant majority of producers vote in favour of including something in the wheat board, are they not the ones to make that decision? Similarly if they vote to exclude something, are they not the ones to make that decision? Is that not what we have heard across the floor in the last four years from the Reform Party, that we should trust people to make the decisions in their own best interests? That is what the minister has tried very hard to do.

It is a balanced approach. It is a big step. It does not go all the way to full democratization, but it certainly takes us down that road and puts control directly in the hands of producers.

The bill is about five basic principles. It is about empowering producers. It is about putting authority where producers have always wanted it.

I urge my friend in the Reform Party to consider all producers. Let us not just be concerned about a few large producers along the American border. Let us consider what the wheat board has always been charged to do along with the rights and needs of all producers. Let us trust in producers as a group to make decisions which should properly be made by them because it has a direct impact on their livelihood. The bill enshrines that authority. It enshrines the democratic process that outlines the authority those duly elected members will have in the management of the new wheat board.

I was a little surprised to hear the opposition of the member for Portage—Lisgar to the new accountability provisions. I heard him speak about the need for the wheat board to be more accountability, yet when we take that action in the bill he wants to toss it out. I am a little puzzled by that.

The board will have access to audited financial statements. It will have access to all the operational information it needs to make decisions about the proper functioning of the wheat board. The board will have control.

It has enhanced powers in its overall flexibility. The board can make the decision to include or exclude types of grain. It can make the decision about how it will market. I fail to understand the concern of the member for Portage—Lisgar.

The bill does something the government has tried to do in a great many areas, that is open up the processes of governance and hand over to people directly affected in a community the right and responsibility for the management of that entity. We have seen it with the moves in the transportation industry. We have seen it with the moves in the establishment of independent, arm's length agencies, in research infrastructure and now in scholarships. We are saying that governments can step back and can trust the community to make those decisions.

I am fundamentally amazed the one party in the House that constantly preaches this process refuses to support it.