Mr. Speaker, there are 906 names opposing amendments to the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that include consideration of same sex relationships.
Lost their last election, in 2000, with 10% of the vote.
Petitions December 8th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, there are 906 names opposing amendments to the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that include consideration of same sex relationships.
Petitions December 8th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present five petitions to the House. I have petitions with 976 signatures opposing further gun control.
Violence Against Women December 6th, 1994
Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for Yukon how she feels about violence.
As kids we were always taught at home when we went to get the cattle out of the pasture not to wear red because it could infuriate the bull in the pasture.
I have seen so much violence in my own community. When you look into some of these cases there is always stress which had developed by actions on both sides.
How could we diffuse this? What could we do to prevent this in a number of cases? It is a matter of prevention, not putting on the red shirt when we know there is already a problem.
That is the big answer to our problems. Somehow or other we must discolour that red shirt when there are problems in the family or problems between husband and wife.
World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act November 29th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I did not have a list of speakers so I have been rising pretty regularly. I finally made it and I appreciate your indulgence.
It is always a pleasure to rise in this House and speak on the issues. Today it is the World Trade Organization bill. It is a pleasure as a farmer and now as a politician to address some of these problems.
I have heard so much today about trading with different partners. I would like to remind some of the hon. members in this House that when we talk about trade with the United States we have a trade surplus of roughly $35 billion right now as far as goods are concerned. We can imagine increasing our trade with the U.S. but I think we will also have to be realistic and realize that we import more from the U.S. at that time.
The problem as I see it is that we lose this huge trade surplus with the U.S., with negative trade balances with a lot of other countries that could really afford to pay for more products that we have to sell. Japan has a $2 billion trade surplus with us. Germany has the same amount, more or less. The British Isles have over a $2 billion trade surplus. Even Mexico has a $2 billion trade surplus with us.
When we look at those points there has to be something wrong that we cannot penetrate these markets. I have a big feeling that some of it goes back to the inefficiencies of our manufacturing and exporting companies. We have heard over the last couple of weeks in testimony before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food that we could probably donate raw products that our farmers produce to the manufacturing companies and they still would not be able to compete. It does not really seem that the problem of competition is in the primary producers' field.
Therefore I have to address one of the big problems that I see and that is in the transportation policy. If members watched the CBC last night they would have seen the CBC addressing the issue of backtracking grain from Thunder Bay to Winnipeg and into the U.S. We have heard so much that this Liberal government is trying to correct some of the problems that are there. I point out that the western grain transportation policy was passed by the previous Liberal government. It had a very nice provision in it where non-performance could be thrown against transportation companies like the railways and they could be charged if they failed to deliver the products that were guaranteeing under the Western Grain Transportation Act.
Backtracking is simply a breaking of that agreement. It is disrupting the transportation system. It is making it inefficient. It is not allowing us to compete with other countries. It is also putting an extra tax burden on our taxpayers. The one backtracking issue is costing taxpayers today anywhere from $15 million to $40 million a year. We cannot afford that in this country with the debt load we have.
We also have to realize that the railways probably are in a pinch in some areas. When we look at the over taxation on fuel compared with the United States and some other countries, if we look at the extra taxes that our corporations are paying compared with the Americans, they also are in a bind and are trying to somehow make ends meet.
Some other problems are in the management of the crown corporations. When we see a management person getting $300,000 as just a little benefit of interest free money, this is added into the cost of shipping our products. Those are issues that we have to address.
We say we need more value added. This has been the theme that I have heard on the farm for the last 10 years now. We need more value added but in the next breath we hear that we have lost 100 food processing plants and abattoirs.
Why has this happened? It has happened very simply because we were not competitive in the world's finished products. We are very competitive in raw products. However when it comes to the processing end and we see markups of 200 per cent from the time it leaves the farm gate until the time it hits the retailer, this is not efficiency.
These are things that have to be addressed before we will become competitive in the World Trade Organization. It makes one wonder sometimes why we would stress the point to become more efficient always at the primary producer to produce more. If we look back at statistics we see that we have increased production in grains and oilseeds. We have increased production in all other products far ahead of the efficiencies that have been built into our manufacturing plants.
We have to start realizing that something has to happen because if we are going to compete, we have to be competitive. It is imperative that the western grain transportation subsidies be revamped. Somehow under GATT it is going to be forced on us and the sooner we do it the better off we will be.
During the election the Reform Party promoted very strongly its plan of a trade distortion program that would take over the transportation subsidies. It seems to me that maybe that is the direction we will have to go to make our transportation system more efficient.
If I look at what is happening under the World Trade Organization rules and subsidies today, it means that we will be shipping a fraction of our grain under these subsidies and still be qualified as green. All of a sudden one day in the middle of a month we will find out that we have shipped an amount that we were qualified to ship under these subsidies and we will have a totally different freight rate.
This is going to cause a lot of stress in marketing especially when farmers are realizing that products like canola have a very small quantity allocated to them under this grain subsidies program because the quantities have been set according to the production that we had in the 1985 to 1990 period.
This means that canola production increased drastically from 1990 to 1993. Our limits on subsidized transportation on canola will be very small so that the producers who may be selling into that market in the first month will qualify for the subsidized freight and then the rest of the canola production will have to go under full freight rate costs.
This will also pertain to wheat and I can see this being very disruptive and argued among farmers trying to push their product on to the market, trying to get a little advantage, get a little better price, and it is going to create a lot of hardship and a lot of heard feelings in the farming community.
That is why I would suggest very strongly to this government that it quickly restructure the western grain transportation subsidies into another program so that we do not have these disputes arising even among farmers. We do not need any more disputes. We need more co-operation.
If we do not get more co-operation between farmers, manufacturers and transportation we will not compete in this World Trade Organization globe. It is very important that we do enter this World Trade Organization and play fair ball with it.
Mr. Speaker, it was mentioned before that you had some experience in refereeing. I think you will also agree that the linesmen were very important in that game, that they did have to help in keeping the game under control.
I think this is where the hon. member from the NDP failed to realize that we will have referees and linesmen who are not from the multinational food processing corporations. These are going to be set and enforced by countries. It is only with the will and determination of countries like Canada supporting this trade organization, making sure that the laws are kept and abided by that we will have a very successful entry into this trade organization.
I would appreciate it if the hon. members on the other side of the House would take it to heart and make us competitive by becoming competitive inside the country, doing away with trade barriers, doing away with overtaxation and doing away with some of the disruptions in the grain handling system by strikes. We need co-operation. We need this country to get more exports to improve our balance of trade and to make this country productive and rich again.
World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act November 29th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, on debate, please.
World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act November 29th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's comments.
We have been dealing with the backtracking of grain for the last year and we still have not seen any action on it by the minister. How much time does the hon. member think we have to resolve some of these issues? They will be very critical when we come into the World Trade Organization. I would appreciate a few comments on that.
Grain Export Protection Act November 24th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I would like to address this bill today from the viewpoint of the farmer. I have farmed through all the years that we have had disruptions in the grain handling system.
My career started in 1957. I farmed through about 10 years of fairly decent grain handling activities. We were without strikes until 1966. It amazes me when I hear members on the opposite side today saying how important it is to support labour and management. My colleague from Lethbridge never stressed that it was totally labour's fault that these strikes existed. There was probably some belligerence from the management side as well. The problem in the grain handling system probably lies with both management and labour.
The first strike in 1966 was at a time when farmers had no grain drying facilities. I remember very well how the grain was backed up in 1966. We had decent weather to combine but we did not dare combine because the grain was tough and damp. We had to leave that number one quality wheat out in the field until the weather cooled enough so that we could store it. This is what happens to the farmer in the grain handling system when we have labour and management disagreeing.
By 1972 we had had backups on grain. There were good crops. I remember very well that in 1971 I bought three bushels of barley for $1 because there was no movement in grain. I bought numbered wheat at 70 cents a bushel to feed to my cattle operation.
Grain farmers did not know what to do with their top quality grain. That was the first time in my life that I had ever heard of farmers going bankrupt. It was not due to the farmers nor to their efficiency or work habit. It was due to unions and management not agreeing on a set price.
In 1971, grain handlers got a 66 per cent increase in wages. Farmers were selling their grain for one-third of the price that they should have had. If that is treating people fairly, I never want to be discriminated against.
The hon. member for Saskatoon-Dundurn, who is a lawyer by profession, suggested that there is third party liability in this situation. If two cars driving by his home were involved in an accident, rolled into his house and his house burned, who would pay for it? Would the hon. member pay for it? I bet he would not. That is what farmers have put up with for 30 years.
The Liberals will get no feathers in their hat because they have had as many strikes during their reign as the Conservatives.
If this country is going to survive, the primary producers of our products must be treated fairly. If that does not occur something is going to happen. Hon. members should remember that in 1995 GATT will come into effect. The western Canadian grain farmer will have the opportunity to move his grain through the transportation system in the U.S.
As the hon. Minister of Transport pointed out in his speech in Winnipeg in October, the United States transportation system is 66 per cent more efficient than the Canadian system. The United
States primary elevator system and terminal system is less than half as costly as the Canadian system.
If farmers do not get a decent deal through this bill, in 1995 farmers are definitely going to move their grain through a system outside this country. At that moment the people in the east can start floating their toy boats down the St. Lawrence seaway because that is all they will have. Farmers will not put up with that any longer.
It is important that members opposite and members of the Bloc realize that if we do not give fair treatment to the people on the land who are being discriminated against, those people will no longer support them.
Any political system that allows its primary food producers to go down the drain will itself follow quickly. The slightest blip in the economy will force grain prices down. The 20 per cent of farmers who produce 80 per cent of the food today will be gone. I want to see hon. members on the other side at that time try to import food with a dollar that is worthless.
It is time that we as members of Parliament and the government start addressing the real issues, not the superficial issues. If we do not protect our food industry we will see something happen that this Parliament will wish it had never seen.
Mr. Whelan, the former minister of agriculture, said that we have lost 100 food manufacturing plants in the last 10 years. That tells me that something is very wrong in our system. If that continues another three or four years this country will lose its balance of payments to the point that we will not be able to pay the interest on the debt that Conservative and Liberal governments have put on the backs of our children and grandchildren.
Today, instead of being partisan we should start agreeing and improving the system so that farmers can make a living and support the rest of this country.
The hon. member for Malpeque is a very strong supporter of supply management. If the grain producers do not get a fair deal, his supply management theory will be out the window.
I wish I could impress on Parliament the seriousness of this problem. When I look at the Soviet Union today, which I visited after the coup in 1991, I see a country that has half the agricultural land in Europe, the oil of the Middle East and gold of South Africa, starving. It is an example of what happens when we allow the primary producer to go down the drain.
I hope that Parliament has enough logic and sense to start dealing with these issues. When I see statistics that show it takes the same amount of time to move a rail car from the prairies to Vancouver as it did in 1907 there is something wrong with our transportation system. It cannot be put on the backs of the farmers.
When I see that charges at our elevators are four times as high as in the U.S. it is not the farmers' problem. When the taxes on our terminals are three and four times as high as they are in the U.S. that is not the problem of the farmers.
I hope I have impressed on Parliament that there has to be a solution found to this inefficient, expensive system of grain handling because if we do not find it somebody will do it for us.
Canadian Wheat Board November 18th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question for the minister. Farmers know what they want and it is time to listen to their demands.
Why will the minister never listen to farmers' wishes or input but continually gives his ear to special interest groups no matter what farmers' concerns are?
Canadian Wheat Board November 18th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.
Recent polls and rallies have shown that farmers want an elected board of directors to run the Canadian Wheat Board. What action is the minister prepared to take to give farmers their wish to have an elected board instead of an appointed one?
Supply November 15th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I can answer all the questions because I do not know if I can keep track of them.
I think the first one had to do with the logo. If I were to put a logo on the CPR, I would call it the sleepy R. I think that would appeal to every farmer in western Canada. I think it is only because of a lack of scrutiny by the previous government that the Western Grain Transportation Act was implemented which gave the railways almost a licence to print money. By having those huge subsidies they were able to expand into the U.S. which they would not have been able to do with some ordinary transportation policy.
When it comes to criticizing the infrastructure program, I just want to ask the member why the ministers on the Liberal side or the people involved with the infrastructure program under the human resources development portfolio seem to get twice the money for their constituencies than any other constituency. This
holds true in Nova Scotia and also in Manitoba. I think that should be looked at very closely as well as where that infrastucture money has gone.
With regard to abandoning rail lines, the member knows the railway is the most efficient way to move products. A lot of these rail lines could probably be repaired instead of abandoned.