House of Commons photo


Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was respect.

Last in Parliament September 2008, as NDP MP for Elmwood—Transcona (Manitoba)

Won his last election, in 2006, with 51% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Speech From The Throne January 24th, 1994

Madam Speaker, I would like to register my objection to the recommendations made by the hon. member with respect to the privatization of CN rolling stock and with respect to the further deregulation of the transportation industry, particularly rail and, I might add, with respect to eliminating the Crow benefit. The member did not make it clear whether he wants to eliminate it altogether or whether he wants to pay it to the producers.

In either event, all three of the things that the member spoke of would have the effect of further weakening the role of rail transportation in not only the transportation of wheat but the transportation of goods, period.

As the member for Winnipeg Transcona, I would like to say that I object to that. The throne speech called for green infrastructure. There is nothing greener in terms of infrastructure than railways. What we need is policies in this country to encourage the use of railways, not discourage the use of railways.

The Late Hon. Steven Paproski January 20th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, much has already been said about Steve and I am not here to repeat the things that have been said.

I believe it would be useful at a time when we are opening a new Parliament, we are just into the second or third day, to use this occasion of Steve's passing to remind new members and the Canadian public of the underlying collegiality that has existed in this place for a long time and does not just begin today with a new Parliament. There was an underlying collegiality of which Steve Paproski was one of the best symbols and incarnations thereof. This is a place where friendships across party lines are

formed, where much co-operation has gone on and where the kinds of relationships that have been spoken of here today between other members and Steve Paproski have existed. It was not just in that case but in many cases.

One of the unfortunate things about public life and parliamentary life in this country is that those kinds of things do not get reported and focused on. The best thing we can do to honour the memory of Steve Paproski would be to remind ourselves of this fact and try and build on that kind of spirit which he brought to Parliament.

Everyone talked about the twinkle in his eye. It was visible, but it was a mischievous twinkle. Many times we were the victims of that mischievous twinkle from the Chair. He had a way of doing things that left even those who felt they got the short end of the stick smiling.

I will certainly miss him. I will not have the opportunity to do to you, Mr. Speaker, what I used to do to Steve unless you also understand Ukrainian. Coming from Winnipeg I speak a little bit of Ukrainian and Steve knew a lot of Ukrainian and sometimes I could tell him things that Hansard never picked up. I am going to miss that ability to speak to the Speaker in this personal code we had. For this he often called me Rasputin, which was his favourite name for me. So from Rasputin and as the member for Winnipeg Transcona I say to his family that we will miss him. Parliament was a much better place for his having been here all those years.

Human Rights January 19th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

Many Canadians who voted for the government were disappointed that one of the first things the government concerned about job creation did was to implement the North American Free Trade Agreement which many regard as an agreement that makes it more difficult for the government to create jobs and to protect existing jobs.

Following up on the question raised earlier with respect to events in Mexico, an interesting exchange in which those who were against NAFTA defended it and those who were for it criticized it, what does the government intend to do about the situation in Mexico? What is the government prepared to do if the human rights situation does not improve in Mexico?

Are we going to continue in this agreement regardless of what the Mexican army and government do to people who feel these agreements are destroying their lives?