Jake Hoeppner

[Supply, November 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and a pleasure to speak to the motion of the official opposition. I agree with their motion when it says there is a lack of action of the Liberal government. I somewhat disagree when it says there is a lack of transparency. There is a lot of transparency and I do not like what I see.

When I look at the transportation policy of the present Liberal government it reminds me very much of a continuation of the Liberal transportation policy of the seventies. I see very little difference between that transportation policy and what I have seen brought forward to the House.

In the 1970s the general Liberal philosophy was: "If it ain't working, close it. Don't try fixing it because somebody else will fix it". I remember very vividly in the 1970s the pressure that was put on for the abandonment of some of the inefficient railway branch lines. The public was forced to accept these. The communities where these branch lines were abandoned were promised at that time that money would be saved by abandoning these rail lines and that money would be put into infrastructure in the road system.

It is with great sadness that I report that we have seen none of those infrastructure improvements on the road systems. We are still waiting. When one comes to the rural communities of Manitoba these days, when one wants to drive through the countryside in the end of June after the highway department people have filled in the potholes with some more asphalt-to make sure there would not be a pothole they have put in a little extra so there is a bump-and when the restrictions come off the highways so that we can haul our regular load and farmers get to moving their grain, one will see dozens of farm trucks doing the bunny hop from one pothole bump to the next pothole bump.

We have done this now for 20 years and farmers are getting tired of this type of infrastructure. When the Liberal government proposed the new infrastructure program that is going to cost the general taxpayer about $6 billion, among the first comments I heard from my constituents was: "Jake, make sure that we get something done to our road system. We were promised this in the seventies and we are still waiting".

It is sad, Mr. Speaker, to inform you that we are still waiting. Just recently I checked the infrastructure programs that have been approved in Manitoba. I can tell the House that the rural communities have about one-half of what Winnipeg South Centre constituency received. I do not see any elevator systems or big highways. All I see in that area are projects for new community centres, new swimming pools and that type of a sports luxury infrastructure.

It amazes me when I hear the hon. member on the Liberal side saying that we have a rail system that binds the country together. I must say to him that those rail ties, those pieces of steel do not exist any more in our communities. Those rail ties now line miles and miles of fence line holding up four strands of barbed wire or supporting the boards on a corral fence to keep the cattle separate.

If that is what this government means by binding the country together, by abandoning more of these railways instead of making them efficient, I do not think I want that kind of unity.

The minister asked for input this morning on how to solve some of these problems. I think it was made very clear to the transport minister and also to the agriculture minister in May of this year when the subcommittee on rail car allocations suggested that the grain transportation agency should be done away with. It was causing more of a problem than a help in car allocation.

It was also suggested very strongly by every member on the subcommittee and the agriculture standing committee that we should finally do something about the backtracking. We are wasting millions of dollars by backtracking grain, disrupting the grain handling system. There is a very simple solution and I would like to read a couple of comments out of yesterday's Quorum :

The National Transportation Agency estimates 1.1 million tonnes of grain last year that landed in Thunder Bay was backtracked to Winnipeg, Canadian Pacific Ltd.'s gateway into the U.S. and to Fort Francis, Ont., Canadian National's link to the U.S.

These cars are being held up by backtracking and it is costing us money. It is a very simple problem to solve.

"It's ludicrous," says Tad Cawkwell, a barley grower in Nut Mountain, Sask. "You don't head north if you want to go south".

It amazes me that our railway system and our grain handling elevators decide when they get to Winnipeg instead of making a 90 degree turn into the U.S. to go south they have to go another 700 kilometres east then come back to Winnipeg and take a left turn south.

What is the result of this? The result is that roughly 13,000 hopper cars filled with Canadian wheat, barley and oats destined for the U.S. each year take a scenic route that is 1,400 kilometres longer than any direct route.

What does the agriculture minister say to a problem like this? It almost surprised me when I saw it in the paper. It really is a bit of a fluke in the system that goes back many years. It simply squanders some of the limited resources we have to overall pay the costs. Is that the type of Liberal government we have that condones that type of policy? I am surprised that we still have a transportation system at all if that is our philosophy of a good transportation system.

I was very pleased this morning when I heard the transportation minister quote a speech from Winnipeg on October 6. I would like to quote a few other stats that he brought forward in that speech. I thought he had a very good handle on what the problems really are and I thought he addressed them very well. I would like to bring them to this House this afternoon.

As he pointed out in one of the first statements, U.S. railways have higher labour productivity than Canadian railways, 64 per cent higher to be exact. The minister does know what one of the problems is. U.S. tonnes per mile are about 66 per cent higher than in Canada. Why is the government acknowledging that this is the case but is not doing anything about it?

Simply, my answer to these questions is that we have grain companies, we have railways that are lobbying very hard not to change the system because it benefits their pockets and they do not really care about what happens to the farmers' pockets. As long as the farmer grows the grain they know they have to ship it and they will continue to bleed us dry for as much as they possibly can.

The transport minister went on to explain that this is a bleak picture, everyone shares in the problem, not just in the failure to respond to changing technology or economic conditions. Other problems were created by governments through excessive regulation and taxation, by railway management, through top heavy structures and by labour, through low productivity and complicated work rules.

When I see the GTA coming out with figures that tell us that for every month during the summer a thousand railway cars or a thousand hopper cars were put into sidings and then taken out empty, I am beginning to wonder who is really looking after the system and how qualified they are to run that system.

When the committee made the recommendation to do away with the grain transportation agency that was one of the wisest recommendations that committee has probably ever made, and it has been followed up on.

The survival of the rail industry is critical to Canada, the minister continued, but it cannot be a survival at any cost. The industry must reinvent itself. How can the industry reinvent itself when we have had increased technology over the last 30 years that never has been really used or has had any effect on increasing the efficiency of this transportation system?

How can this railway system reinvent itself when it costs the railways $6,000 to $7,000 more in just fuel taxes from Toronto to Vancouver than it would take for the same distance in the United States? The government needs these funds and I do not think it is willing to sacrifice them to become more efficient in the rail system. It will have to take place somehow.

What the minister means by reinventing the system is not very clear to me. That is one place where we need transparency. I do not think we can run hopper cars without wheels and make them more efficient.

The other thing I would like to stress, and it was a very important point that the minister brought forward, is that rail has more than 200 separate kinds of actions or decisions that must be approved by the National Transportation Agency. Why are those regulations there? Why has government allowed them to be put in place. It was mostly through lobbying of provincial governments, special interest groups and not by farmers I can guarantee that.

He goes on to say on the following page, and it is almost unbelievable that one would know about these things and not do anything, that in Canada the approval process for conveyance can take up to six months. In the United States approvals are granted in a few days.

I think the minister and the government do know what is happening in the transportation system and they do know what the answers or the solutions are, but the political will has not been shown. It amazes me when I see some of the provinces leading the way in some of this reregulation or deregulation of the transportation system.

Manitoba and Nova Scotia have already taken off some of the property taxes and fuel taxes to the railways to help the system become more efficient and productive. Why can the federal government not make simple legislation in this House to help along some of the provincial initiatives?

Regarding the port of Churchill, when we read about the fumbling and the bungling of the issue of Churchill it always amazes me why there is a port there at all. Here we have a salt water port that would be the envy of the world and every government since the 1970s has either tried to destroy it or somehow put it in a light indicating that it is not effective or efficient.

I hope my input into this question is encouraging this government somewhat to take some action. Inaction is definitely there and transparency can be taken as clear or unclear.

[Yukon Surface Rights Board Act, November 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would say if we had one government and the same laws we would not need that trade dispute settlement mechanism. Here we are creating more governments, more laws and we are forcing more dispute settling mechanisms on our society.

If we were one nation with the United States we would not even have trade laws. This is a very good example. If we were a North American community we would probably have some of these problems resolved before they ever happened. Because we are different nations we fight for each right. It is only natural.

That is why I tried to explain that when a father allows his son to go into different operations usually it brings problems with it. That is what I have been trying to point out. Division does not create unity and unity does not create division.

[Yukon Surface Rights Board Act, November 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite convinced there were laws and institutions that abused our native brothers and sisters. It makes me very sad that I lived to pay testimony to that.

I think through some of the law reform that we have had we are at a stage now where that should not happen, not nearly as easily.

I would also like to remind the hon. member for Yukon that the white people were not always here. I read in history where there was self-government by these native people. They did also have problems. They had a right at that time to live very peacefully. They had a right to live without starvation. When we read the history books it did happen.

I am not blaming them for that but we have to realize that through history there have been problems. As we have learned from these problems I think we have become wiser. That is what we have experienced through the thirties and the forties probably where a lot of abuse was happening to these First Nations and it makes me very sad that it did.

I also note that if we are going to pass laws and make commitments which we have to honour with future generations' wealth we are asking for severe problems and a lot worse conditions in this country than we have today.

[Yukon Surface Rights Board Act, November 1st, 1994]

Well sisters, brothers, whoever it is. I would think that the government has never been able to print money. The government's money comes from the taxpayers and it only comes from taxpayers who are working and sharing it with other people. If that $8 billion to $10 billion is not sharing I would like to know how much it would take before it was called sharing.

Right now with the attitude of the sharing that our government has had, we are in debt to the tune of $550 billion which some day either the native children or my children will have to repay. How this is going to be accomplished I do not know, but I wish the hon. member for Yukon could give me some suggestions. I would surely support her in any way that we could resolve that issue so that it could be settled in some better way.

Eventually when financial disaster does come upon a nation it creates a lot of other problems. That is one thing we have to realize with all these settlements. If we are going to be fair to future generations we had better be fair to the generations here today. We will be forcing them to pay something we were not willing to pay.

With that I will close my remarks. I wish this House would make some decision that would not just benefit us today but that would also benefit future generations.

[Yukon Surface Rights Board Act, November 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and an honour, maybe with a bit of hesitation, to speak to this bill today.

As I was listening to the hon. member from Yukon, I threw a few pages from my speech away. I thought I probably did not have the insight into native land settlements or land agreements, but I do have some insight into what division means and I do have some insight into what co-operation means.

As a farmer I must say I have never seen any farm operations succeed when they started dividing and becoming independent. When a father owned all the property and all the machinery and had control of the situation, the family usually worked together very well. There was very little infighting. However when some of the members felt that their wisdom was probably greater than that of the founder who had built the corporation or the company and they wanted to divide and become separate little nations, it seemed to run into problems.

Sooner or later the governor was neglected. They were setting up boards which consisted of neighbours trying to settle disputes in the farming operation. Generally there was conflict. There was hurt. Usually it wound up that family members did not even want to see each other or recognize each other as being in the same family.

It really worries me when we start addressing our problems by creating separate little nations. We have talked so much about the Quebec issue. I have explained very often in this House that unity cannot be created by division. That seems to be so contradictory. That is one thing we are missing with these bills.

I was very much opposed to Bill C-33 and Bill C-34 for one very simple reason. I did have those bills analyzed by some of my native friends. I asked them to give me direction on how I should vote on those two bills. The feedback I got was: "If you vote for Bill C-33 and Bill C-34, I will lose my hunting rights. I will lose my fishing rights that I had in this great country of ours. From now on I will have to go and ask each individual nation to have those privileges". That really hit home to me. How is that type of feeling going to solve the problems of what happened probably a century or so ago?

The other problem I had with these bills was the way they were debated and the way they were rammed through this House. When true democracy is neglected it generally is the beginning of human rights violations and the beginning of unrest and civil disobedience which in a lot of cases ends in revolt or revolution. That is happening now in eastern bloc countries.

After being in the Soviet Union in 1990-91 and looking at the conditions some of the native people enjoy today, I wonder what we are grumbling about in this country. No matter where we live in this great country of ours today, we have nothing to complain about. We have not got people starving. We have not got people freezing to death for lack of clothing. We have not got people killing each other just so they can get to the food supply.

We have a federal government today that has a great desire to treat everybody equally. The government in previous years has not only passed laws that are supposed to work against discrimination, it has passed laws that are going to be guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. When I see that now we are creating separate nations and these laws that work so well are not going to be applicable, what are we getting into?

When I look at this bill that is setting up a board with 50 per cent of the people appointed by the Yukon natives council and 50 per cent by the federal government, I wonder why. I own property and there are all kinds of acts that protect my rights should the mining companies or oil drilling companies want access to that land. If I am not happy with the decision these acts force upon me I have the full right to go to the Supreme Court of Canada but I am also liable for the costs that are incurred through that. That is one deterrent I think is very effective in avoiding a lot of disputes we would probably otherwise have.

It seems to me that this board will have the power to make some decisions. If the First Nations do not feel the decision is right, they can appeal to the Yukon courts. If the First Nations feel that ruling has gone against them, what happens then? Do they go to the Supreme Court of Canada? Are the laws enforced by the native law enforcement agency or the Canadian law enforcement agency? This is something that really bothers me because I am sure there will be disputes where the resolution will not be acceptable to either side and law enforcement will have to be used.

I listened to the hon. member for Churchill the other day when he said: "My people have made a commitment that we want to live in peace and enjoyment of the land and the resources with generations in the future". How does that pertain to these land settlement claims or independent nations? "We want to live with each other, we want to co-operate but we want to separate". To me that is a recipe for disaster.

When I try to analyze these bills in light of my own experiences with other situations, I must say we are binding our future generations to dispute after dispute after dispute. It does not seem possible that these boards under the conditions in which they are set up will ever be able to be disbanded. We will continually have problems in developing these huge tracts of land.

We in the Reform Party are so often classified or stereotyped as not being beneficial to other people. Personally I would rather donate half of my resources to the next generation than to find out in later years that my children or their children are fighting and forcing a settlement on each other.

We see that happening today in the former Yugoslavia. All of a sudden they have decided they can live better as separate little nations. It takes foreign countries to come in and try to solve the disputes.

I would never be able to rest in my grave if I were party to some agreements that in the future should have to be resolved by military force or by some other type of unlawful activity as I would call it.

I think back to the 1940s. I can remember the situation right after the 1930s and how the white people in our community and the native people shared their assets and their food because everybody was in a tough situation. If we could get back that type of concern I do not think we would be talking about these huge land settlement deals.

It worries me when I see $8 billion to $10 billion being paid to our native brothers every year and we are not being given one little bit of recognition for that.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I was inconsistent in my remarks. The reason why these grain cars have been diverted to the United States is that under the Western Grain Transportation Act the railways get paid on the amount of grain they move.

However if we do not have the engines to pull these cars, it does not do us very much good to try to get the amount of cars on the system that are needed. Therefore these cars that provincial governments, the federal government and the wheat board bought for the transportation system have been diverted across to the U.S. to gain income. They could not be used in Canada because of the lack of engine power.

It is financially beneficial to the railways to do that. Freight rates in the United States, the pace at which they move their cars, the time of turnaround for these cars are far superior to the Canadian system.

We exported some grain last year and the agent who was shipping that grain further down the line paid from $250 to $750 per car according to the need that he had for them. There was a tremendous amount of incentive to move cars that the railways could not use to the U.S. because of a lack of engine power and benefit financially by probably millions and millions of dollars.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege and honour to be in the House today to address Bill C-57.

Just before I start my address I would like to make a couple of comments on the debate I have heard this morning. I have travelled quite a bit and I think culture is very important. I have never had the opportunity to meet a cow that speaks French or a chicken that speaks French or English. I have had different cultures fry bacon and eggs for me in the morning and I have always enjoyed them no matter with what type of vocabulary they were prepared.

I think this is something that sometimes overshadows the problems we really have. It is always important to me that we address the real issues and make sure those things that help us to survive or give us the opportunity to live in this country are not destroyed.

As we know, this bill implements Canada's full participation in the World Trade Organization. This is the result of our signing the Uruguay round agreement on the GATT in April this year.

The Uruguay round agreement was the largest and the most complex trade negotiation ever undertaken. The final package included more than 25 separate agreements. The nations that signed this agreement have made commitments to eliminate tariffs and other barriers to trade.

From Canada's standpoint this makes it necessary to amend at least 31 different statutes. Each country will have to amend its subsidy and support programs and its border control measures in order to harmonize them with an overall world standard.

Reductions will occur in the volume of subsidized exports.

These must be reduced by 21 per cent over a six-year period ending in the year 2001. Our country's expenditures on export subsidies must be reduced by 36 per cent over that same six-year period.

With a minimum reduction of 15 per cent for each commodity domestic support programs must also be reduced by 20 per cent over the six-year period. Regional development, research, environmental protection and farm income protection programs are exempt from this.

The system of quotas in supply management sectors will be replaced by tariffs that will be lowered an average of 36 per cent over the six years.

I must agree that supply management has very good protection under this tariffication program. I will generally limit my comments to the areas for which I am responsible as the Reform Party critic. They are the areas of agriculture, transportation and agriculture trade. These are truly areas where the nations that took part in this agreement have worked toward establishing a common set of rules to standardize their industries.

The Reform Party is very much pro free trade. We supported the free trade agreement with the United States and we support further extension of free trade in general through the NAFTA and the GATT.

With agreement on the Uruguay round I think we can look forward to more economic growth around the world. This will in turn lead to more investment and more jobs. About 50 per cent of Canadian farmers revenues are generated by exports. That means the agriculture sector will definitely benefit from increased access to foreign markets and from reductions in trade distorting subsidies in other countries which are the major reasons for low world grain prices.

The Reform Party supports several transportation reforms. The underlying principle on which we base our reforms is the belief that Canadian agriculture products should move to market by any expeditious mode, any route in any form or state of processing based exclusively on the principle of cost effectiveness and with the best interests of the consumer in mind.

This is one reason I have been a very strong supporter of the Hudson Bay Route Association in promoting the port of Churchill. When I look at the distance to Churchill and to the other ports I realize how much saving there is as far as rail line maintenance is concerned.

When I see statistics, and these are done by different investigations or task forces, that we could cut our costs of transportation by about $20 to $25 a tonne, I think it is not only cost effective but also environmentally friendly.

The other thing we have to realize is that we have a huge north in Manitoba where the native people depend on this type of transportation.

We should be striving to develop an atmosphere that provides for a viable, self-reliant market driven industry by creating an environment in which regional development is eliminated as a goal of transportation policy.

We support elimination of transportation subsidies but the funds should be redirected systematically to comprehensive safety net programs that are designed to defend Canada's food producers against matters over which they have little control.

We cannot eliminate transportation subsidies altogether without a definite long range plan to help the industry adjust accordingly. By reallocating the funds and paying them to farmers as part of a GATT-green program we can allow our economy to diversify and can give farmers the opportunity to take advantage of the market forces of the new international trading agreement.

One thing that was really impressive to me the other day when the former agriculture minister, Mr. Whelan, was a witness before the standing committee was how we have lost our secondary industries, our processors and are killing plants due to transportation problems and other types of subsidies.

It is of the utmost importance that we try to resolve that problem. Canada should endeavour to create a genuinely competitive transportation system. To achieve this end the deregulation of the railway system and the privatization of Canadian national rolling stock should be clearly defined goals.

I do not know what the answers are but when I looked at the speech that the transportation minister delivered the other day, seeing that the labour force is only 64 per cent as efficient on our rail lines as it is in the United States, I know that subsidies are not the only problem. When I also see the United States transports 66 per cent more freight per rail mile than we do, we also know there is another problem of moving the products in the most expeditious way.

In the area of grains, oilseeds and special crops, Canadian producers should benefit from a more stable trading environment. Greater opportunities for exports and hopefully international prices will increase over the six year transportation period. With the volumes of subsidized wheat exported from the United States and the European union expected to be reduced 40 per cent over the next six years, significant market shares should open up for Canadian farmers.

Once this agreement goes into effect, the United States will no longer be able to use section 22 against imports of Canadian wheat. I would note however that these trade agreements can mean little if the government does not have the fortitude to back them up. We have seen other GATT agreements and they have all been broken by the bigger trade partners. As Canadians that is one thing we have to be very concerned about.

We look back to the wheat pact this government not only agreed to with the U.S. but imposed on itself. We see an example of where we were within our rights under the free trade agreement but were bullied away. Article 705.5 of the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement states clearly that the cross border grain shipments can be restricted only if they increase significantly as

a result of a substantial change in either country's support programs for the grain in question. That was not the case last year.

Increases in wheat and durum to the U.S. last year were the result of an increased demand in the U.S. resulting from many factors. There was definitely no increase in Canadian support programs. This government agreed to surrender anyway. Mere days after this wheat pact occurred we saw the United States sign a wheat deal with Algeria with what had been a major Canadian market, export enhancement durum. The disturbing influence of the United States export enhancement program always allows it to distort grain markets.

If the Canadian government had not buckled under the U.S. pressure, its senators, congressmen and farmers would soon have realized how detrimental the export enhancement program really was. Canadian farmers would only have recouped a small percentage of damage done by the U.S. unfair trade practices.

Hopefully we will see it align its harmful subsidy program under the terms of this agreement. I would point out that although this was a bilateral dispute, there are provisions in the new rules for GATT that would force the United States to prove Canada was unfairly subsidizing exports.

Hopefully this provision will be helpful in avoiding the capitulation that we have seen in the past from our government. This was brought home again last week when the United States department of agriculture began to require that Canadian wheat farmers who export into the U.S. have end user certificates. This despite the fact that the wheat pact signed with the U.S. included a peace clause that stipulated that Canada would be free from further restrictions or harassment for 12 months.

It is just another example of how trade agreements are useless if the government seems either unable or disinterested in standing up for the rights of its citizens. A partner in a trade agreement cannot be allowed to be a bully. If this is allowed, the agreement will fall apart sooner or later.

All that Canadian farmers really want is a level playing field. They know they can compete and be the best in the world at producing, but they cannot be expected to continue to be at a disadvantage in trading situations. With a fair set of trade rules that apply equally to all countries across the board, we can achieve that level playing field.

Before these changes can take effect there will have to be major changes to the Western Grain Transportation Act. Any government policy that favours export shipments is deemed as an export subsidy by the GATT. Canada has maintained that the Western Grain Transportation Act provides internal support to farmers, but some countries, including the United States, insist that it provides export assistance.

Recent studies confirm that it will be viewed as an export subsidy by the GATT. This point emphasizes that the shortest route to an export port is the best route. Under the agreement there will be two systems governing WGTA subsidy restrictions; one will be for grain shipped through Vancouver, Prince Rupert or Churchill. This is specifically export grain that is subject to an export reduction subsidy under the GATT.

The second system is for grain shipped through Thunder Bay or Armstrong. This is deemed as grain for export or for domestic use, and therefore the transportation payments for grain movements under the WGTA can be considered either an export subsidy or domestic support, depending on which shipping route is used.

This clause seems to me to set up a recipe for a tremendous amount of conflict and disagreement. It can only be a detrimental clause in this agreement and will probably cause a lot of hard feelings, not just between producers but also between shippers in the different regions.

WGTA payments on grain that travels through the west ports are contingent on that grain being exported. The GATT was notified that these payments were export subsidies and will be subject to the reduction commitment of 36 per cent for export subsidies and also the 21 per cent reduction in the volume. WGTA payments on grain shipped through Thunder Bay have been notified to the GATT as green domestic support.

I do not know how we can resolve that issue. I think it will be challenged and history will tell us that it is improper and we will have to address it.

According to the GATT text the total Western Grain Transportation program is an amber domestic support program, while the portion related to grain movement to the west coast and Churchill is considered an export subsidy. Canada will have to make according changes to address the export subsidy provisions of the GATT.

The challenge for Canada is to make the WGTA GATT-green. The Reform Party had addressed this problem very well with a trade distortion program that we recommended for WGTA during the election campaign. It was well received. I think the government will sooner or later have to realize that this type of program is the only one that will really be fair and beneficial to western farmers.

Since the GATT requires a change in the WGTA subsidy payment method from paying the railways to paying directly to farmers, it is likely the only method that would comply with GATT requirements.

This is another area where the Liberal government will have to be tremendously diligent and innovative. It has to find a way to pay that subsidy out so that it does not distort the value of land, it does not distort taxation to municipalities because we could be find a number of different real problems.

As I stated, under GATT countries have agreed to reduce their export subsidies by 36 per cent. There are several questions that arise in this bill. I know that farmers in my riding will have a number of concerns.

For example, what safeguards are there for farmers that the railways will be obligated to move grain to other ports? Also, what safeguards do we have that our rail cars will not be going to the United States?

Last year was a disaster for grain transportation. One of the main factors was that the railways decided to chase business in the United States. With the longer car turnaround cycle, this took needed grain cars out of the picture and caused serious ramifications. What assurance do we have that this will not be repeated?

There are also reports that the railways do not have enough engines. I would like to know if anyone has looked especially at this problem. We have the rail cars but we do not have the engines to pull them. That does not give us a very effective transportation system.

[Supply, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I will not be quite as harsh with the hon. member for St. Paul's as my colleagues.

I would like to ask him a couple of direct questions. I am reading from a speech given by the transport minister. That is my big concern. It says U.S. rails have higher labour productivity than Canadian rail, 64 per cent higher actually. I appreciated the comment that we are going to become competitive.

The other excerpt I would like to read is this: "Rail has more than 200 separate kinds of actions or decisions that must be approved by the National Transportation Agency". Then he goes on and says: "In Canada, the approval process for conveyance can take up to six months. In the U.S. approvals are granted in as few as seven days".

How is the Liberal government going to make us competitive with these kinds of hindrances? These have been injected into our system during the last 25 or 30 years. All of a sudden are we going to do it in a six-month period? I have been after the transportation agency to stop the back-tracking. It has been almost a year and we have not been able to stop that yet. What action can we take?

[Petitions, October 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Canadian Police Association I am pleased to submit a petition with 356 signatures. These petitioners from Manitoba call on the House of Commons to repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code of Canada to ensure that convicted murderers sentenced to life imprisonment of 25 years not be able to apply for parole review after serving only 15 years of their sentence.

I wholeheartedly support these petitioners.

[Co-Operatives, October 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise on behalf of the Reform Party to recognize and pay tribute to the co-operative movement in Canada.

I take this opportunity to congratulate and compliment the pioneers in the co-operative movement for having the vision and the dedication to fashion their dreams into reality.

The co-operative and credit union movement has had a very positive effect on this nation. Co-Op Vegetable Oils Limited of Altona, Manitoba, is one of the many examples of where a co-op has been a leader in its field. Not only did it help develop a vegetable cooking oil but it was also instrumental in encouraging and developing trade between the United States and Canada.

Co-ops and credit unions must be congratulated for being present to help communities develop and improve themselves. They must also be recognized as a player in our economy that

provided competition and has given people another choice, something that makes a democracy work very well.

It is with gratitude that on behalf of the Reform Party I acknowledge the accomplishments of co-ops and credit unions. We wish them well in future endeavours and encourage them to continue their innovative example of leadership.