Dennis Gruending

[Agriculture, February 24th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, thousands of farmers in Saskatchewan and Manitoba are in dire straits this winter due to circumstances beyond their control. There are international subsidy wars going on and while our federal government has not supported our farmers, the Europeans and Americans have supported theirs.

This morning the federal Liberal government took a baby step in the right direction. After months of lobbying by the premiers of Saskatchewan and Manitoba and by our federal NDP caucus, the premiers and the Prime Minister announced $400 million in additional assistance to agriculture.

I want to welcome this announcement. Every bit helps. But having said that, it will not solve the farm income problem. What our farmers need is a long term program which will kick in and support their income every time it drops disastrously, as it has in the last two years.

We welcome this morning's announcement, but it does not get the federal government off the hook. There is a lot more to be done.

[Canada Post Corporation Act, February 23rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support my colleague from Kelowna in moving that the bill be withdrawn but that the subject matter be sent to the industry committee.

This is a good procedure, as he has outlined it, as it will allow the committee to give this idea a very thorough perusal and bring it back under the auspices of the Competition Act. This procedure would, if anything, enhance the bill brought forward by the member for Kitchener Centre.

I commend and congratulate the hon. member for the obvious hard work she has done in bringing forward Bill C-229, an act to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act to prevent the delivery of certain mail that perpetrates telemarketing fraud.

I note that another member introduced similar legislation about a year and a half ago which would ensure that the Canada Post Corporation would not deliver contest lotteries or prizes which would require individuals to pay before they collect the prize.

This bill would ensure that our beloved crown corporation is not used inadvertently as a tool to mislead consumers. Specifically, it would prevent Canada Post from delivering mail which displays a logo that mimics in any way a federal government logo.

I note that approximately 70% of telemarketing scam victims in 1999 were over the age of 60.

I would like to refer to the personal experience of an elderly person who was taken in by this kind of scam artistry and fraud artistry. It was not a pretty sight.

The person received mail indicating that she would be getting a prize if she made a phone call. I want to make the point that often senior citizens are lonely and talking on the phone is therapeutic. If we would call them more often it would be good for them. When they make these kinds of calls and the clock is ticking, and they do not know it is a scam, it is a particularly cruel type of fraud that is perpetrated on our senior citizens.

In the case of this person, I do not know exactly, but she lost hundreds, perhaps thousands of dollars. She was ashamed to tell her children and family members about what had happened. These scams victimize people, most often the elderly, and for that they are particularly heinous crimes.

I am glad to see a bill that will make it unlawful for the post office to be used as a delivery mechanism for scam mail. The post office, like many other crown corporations, including the CBC, has a special place of trust in our minds and hearts. It is particularly cruel when it is used for these sorts of devious ends.

I know from our labour critic and other people in our party that the people working for the post office, the mail workers and the letter carriers, are also concerned about this because they are the people who process this mail and they can see the ends to which it is being put. We have been told that the people who work for the post office would like to see something which would make it unnecessary for them to have to deal with this sort of mail. Many of them know people on their mail routes personally and are particularly concerned when they are victimized in this way.

The Canadian Association of Retired Persons has stated that its members are fully in support of the bill put forward by my hon. friend from Kitchener Centre. The association wrote: “With so many thousands of Canadians falling prey to unscrupulous persons who use the mail to facilitate illegal activities, it is vital that legislation be passed which will prevent them from doing so and will punish them if they persist”.

The organization known as PhoneBusters was mentioned earlier today. Representatives of PhoneBusters are also in support of what they call crucial legislation which can be used successfully in the ongoing battle against telemarketing fraud. They indicate that Canadian consumers have been losing money daily to these sophisticated criminals. They also indicate that they are confident this bill would help reduce the victimization of residents across the country.

I support the bill as it was put forward for many reasons which relate to its content. It is very important to many Canadians, especially senior citizens. I want to reiterate my support for the motion of my colleague from Kelowna to refer the bill to committee where it will get the kind of airing which it deserves.

Again I congratulate the member for Kitchener Centre for having introduced this legislation.

[Supply, February 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the comments of the hon. member for Winnipeg South. I want to say that the New Democratic Party supports Bill C-20, the referendum bill, in principle. I believe people in my riding want us to support the bill if the Liberal government will improve it somewhat. It is very important that the Parliament of Canada has something to say in the event that a province decides to secede.

My question for the hon. member revolves around the committee and its hearings which are supposed to elucidate the whole debate around how the bill might be improved.

I believe the hon. member and some of his colleagues not that long ago toured western Canada to decide how the Liberal government might best improve its fortunes there, although I think that is unlikely. In that case it was important to travel. However, we are now hearing that it is completely adequate to simply have television. In other words, people can watch but they cannot participate before the committee. Justifications were given for that today but I do not agree with them.

Given the member's experience travelling in western Canada with the Liberal committee, does he believe that this committee should travel?

[Supply, February 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have heard my hon. colleague talk eloquently about the democratic need for the committee to travel. We in the NDP agree with that, as my hon. colleague from Winnipeg mentioned earlier.

I would be interested in a little more detail as to where the hon. member believes the committee should go and over what period of time. How thorough should these hearings be?

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, February 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to talk about the World Trade Organization, agriculture and the plight of our farmers.

The World Trade Organization talks broke down in Seattle last year and it is a good thing they did. This hiatus gives us some time to reflect upon the Liberal government's blind pursuit of a trade agenda that has been destructive to our farmers. They are hostages of the government's cult-like adherence to the ideology of free trade at any cost.

It is true the government's friends at the Business Council on National Issues repeat the mantra with zeal “free trade, free trade, free trade” and our so-called national newspapers sing the same hymn “globalize, globalize, globalize”. Our trade minister, our agriculture minister, our Prime Minister are all choirboys in the same chorus.

People in my part of the country are asking interesting questions. They are saying that if this free trade is such a wonderful thing, then why are we, the grain farmers, in such dire straits today?

Agriculture exports have increased by 65% over the past five years and farm receipts have increased by more than 43% over the last 10 years. Why is it in these circumstances that farmers' net income has actually dropped by 11%? Why are the very people whose hard work provides the statistics the government uses to promote its trade agenda losing their farms?

During the Christmas break I visited some of the farm communities in my riding. I was told that one small community had lost four families since last fall and the prediction was that it would lose at least that many again before spring seeding. I have spoken with farmers, with their family members, with regional municipality councillors and reeves. Believe me, there is a very crucial need for some support and reinvestment in rural Canada, especially in western Canada.

It is time for the government to come out of its trance and to realize that farmers in western Canada are paying the price for a warped trade agenda. They are paying with their farms, with the break-up of their families and some tragically with their lives as they are unable to bear the stress any longer.

Canadian farmers, in particular those who grow grains, are facing the worst situation since the Great Depression. The government's own income statistics and forecasts tell us that the next five years will not be any easier for the thousands of families that put bread on our tables. For farmers in my province of Saskatchewan the news is grim. Incomes for 2001, 2002 and 2003 will be below zero in the negative range.

If the Seattle talks had gone as the faceless WTO bureaucrats had wanted, our farmers would have been even more vulnerable to the cold winds of international trade. Since 1993 our federal government has cut its support for grain farmers by 60% all in the name of liberalized trade.

My colleagues in the New Democratic Party and I have been calling for the government to set aside $1 billion from the $100 billion forecast surplus for the next five years, a mere 1% of that, to pay for some support to farm families who need it terribly badly.

Canadian farmers represent a mere 3% of our population. Through their hard work they support about 14% of our jobs and one-quarter of our trade surplus, but they are asking why they do not benefit from it. We are saying that it is the government's responsibility to see that they do benefit from it rather than being left to twist in the wind.

[Agriculture, February 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, this past Sunday morning I met with Mr. Nick Parsons in Biggar, Saskatchewan which is in my constituency. I was not alone. The coffee shop was filled with local farmers and businessmen wishing him Godspeed on his journey.

As members may know, Mr. Parsons is driving his combine from Dawson Creek, British Columbia all the way to Ottawa. It is a slow, cold and difficult journey at a speed of 23 kilometres per hour and a distance covered of a maximum of 200 kilometres per day.

This trek is another desperate attempt to get the attention of this Liberal government to convince the government that if more aid is not forthcoming in the next budget, thousands of western farmers will go under before spring seeding.

Mr. Parsons and people in that coffee shop are saying that they need some help and they need it now. The government is looking at a budgetary surplus of approximately $100 billion in the next five years. Surely there is money to reinvest in the people who put food on our tables.

I salute Mr. Parsons. I look forward to seeing him and his big red combine here on Parliament Hill.

[Supply, February 8th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the comments of my hon. friend and I found them to be both thorough and thoughtful.

The New Democratic Party has always believed in giving a helping hand to people in any region of Canada when they need it. On the surface of things the transitional jobs fund was supposed to serve exactly that purpose. It was supposed to help people in regions of high unemployment, higher than 12%. We in the NDP support that initiative and we always have supported that kind of initiative.

People in my constituency of Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar did not qualify for this job creation program because, thankfully, our unemployment rate is far below 12%. There are very few areas in Saskatchewan which qualified for this program because our rate of unemployment is considerably lower than the threshold.

I believe that people in my constituency and throughout Saskatchewan would support a program that would move resources to regions of the country where there is high unemployment. Where there is high unemployment there is always resulting poverty. That was what the program was intended to do, if it had been administered cleanly, but this program was not administered cleanly. This program became a vehicle for Liberal pork-barrelling and political interference.

As we know, the Prime Minister's riding alone received grants of over $7 million, 17 of them. We know that the human resources development minister's riding also benefited liberally, even though her riding, like mine, did not officially qualify. There is real evidence that there was political interference to the benefit of Liberal ministers. My friend mentioned the word “cynical”. I find this a cynical and disgusting attack on the unemployed and the poor. This Liberal slush fund is a shame and a scandal.

As my friend mentioned, government ministers must take responsibility for their actions, and I agree with him that the Minister of Human Resources Development must resign.

Can my hon. friend comment on the effects of this kind of pork-barrelling and the other examples he mentioned, like CIDA? That is an example which is of much interest to me. Can he comment on what effects this kind of pork-barrelling and cynicism have in the long run on the electorate and on the body politic?

[Standing Committee On Finance, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member again for his question. I am sure that if our finance critic had had his advice in hand, he would have included that tax in his minority report.

While we are talking about a hypocrisy tax, I have just recommended some literature to the hon. member for over the Christmas holidays. I would refer him to a biography I wrote of Allan Blakeney, a fellow Nova Scotian, called Promises to Keep . Perhaps we would like to put that into the minority report as well.

[Standing Committee On Finance, December 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I would respond to it briefly by making two points.

First, I would refer to the surplus of almost $100 billion which the Liberal government is proudly crowing about at the moment. Second, I would remind him that it was his own party prior to 1993 which promised to get rid of the GST.

[Standing Committee On Finance, December 16th, 1999]

Yes, the Tory tax.

We believe that middle class and lower income Canadians need some tax relief. We would not extend that blindly as the previous Conservative and current Liberal governments have done to tax relief for big corporations.