Lost his last election, in 2000, with 36% of the vote.
Employment Insurance Act May 14th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's presentation. The member from the Reform Party, the hon. member from Saskatoon and I are all from western Canada.
The Reform Party spoke about equity and fairness and pointed out, rightly, job growth in western Canada. I would like to ask the member from the NDP whether he agreed that weeks worked to be eligible for unemployment insurance in Manitoba ought to be the same as other areas in western Canada, for example, in Alberta.
Petitions May 9th, 1996
Madam Speaker, I have petitions presented by constituents in the Lac du Bonnet and Steinbach areas.
The petitioners state that whereas the privileges society accords to heterosexual couples should not be extended to same sex relations, and whereas societal approval including these privileges would be given to same sex relations if amendments were made to the human rights code, they therefore pray and request that Parliament not amend the human rights act to indicate societal approval by including the undefined term sexual orientation in the proposed amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Flooding May 1st, 1996
Mr. Speaker, flooding in southern Manitoba has reached critical levels. In the Red River Valley region alone 180 families have been evacuated.
The Government of Manitoba is saying national defence is not meeting its responsibility to the flood victims.
Can the Minister of National Defence tell the people of Manitoba what actions and financial help Canada has provided to southern Manitoba flood victims?
Budget Implementation Act, 1996 April 25th, 1996
Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to answer the member's question. I want to refer to a response by the member's former colleague and that is the one-sided picture always presented by the Bloc on these matters.
Some of the largest dairy producers in the province are in my riding of Provencher. The riding of Provencher produces almost 50 per cent of the milk in Manitoba. Of course I too was concerned about any possible decreases in subsidies to dairy farmers. I remind the member again that it was a Liberal government in the early 1970s which brought in that support system and continues to defend it also for Quebec farmers.
In specific response to his question about the subsidy, he must know, ought to know and should be telling his constituents and his dairy farmers that they have been allowed to pass those costs on, through the Canadian Dairy Association, to the consumers. Over a three or four year period, the reductions in those subsidies will be recovered by the dairy producers.
It is my pleasure here today to give the hon. member that information so he can share it with his dairy farmers in Quebec if he does not already know that.
Budget Implementation Act, 1996 April 25th, 1996
Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise in the House to participate in the debate on Bill C-31, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament March 6, 1996.
I would like to take this opportunity to discuss the portion of Part II of Bill C-31 that deals with the sale of government owned railway cars, or hopper cars, as they are known. In the budget of the Minister of Finance on March 6, 1996 he announced that in order to continue the transformation of the western grain handling and transportation system, the government would do primarily two things. First, it would dispose of its fleet of grain hopper cars and second, it would minimize its role in the day to day operations of that system.
The government has committed itself to selling all of its fleet of 13,000 grain hopper cars. This policy change is designed to enhance the competitiveness of the grain handling and transportation system while keeping increases in freight rates paid by producers to a minimum.
I would like to remind the House of a couple of incidents, in particular in the use of grain hopper cars in the export of grains to the Vancouver port, the difficulties that western farmers have had in the control over that process. I am pleased to say that this allocation process will give western Canadian farmers greater control over that export process.
These decisions were adopted from a package developed by senior executive officers or the SEO group. This industry group was tasked last year with reviewing car allocations, the disposal of the government hopper car fleet and the Canadian Wheat Board's role in transportation. The review was announced in the 1995 budget. The report by the SEO group was carefully reviewed and it is important to note that several of their recommendations were not accepted due to concerns voiced by producers and producer led groups.
Two of the discarded proposals which were very important included a proposal by this group to sell the government cars to the railways for $100 million with a $1 per tonne freight rate increase for up to five years to cover the cost.
Second, producers were also concerned about the lack of a producer's voice on a proposed car allocation policy group. The Minister of Finance listened to these people. He listened to the producers and he acted accordingly.
I should point out that between 1972 and 1979 Canada had a Liberal government that listened to the pleas of farmers who were concerned about the transportation of grain at that time. It spent up to $500 million with interest payments on those capital costs to provide an additional 13,000 grain hopper cars for western Canadian farmers.
How will the commercialization of the grain hopper cars affect farmers? Selling the fleet will allow for the efficient use of grain hopper cars. Cars will now be allocated on a commercial basis responding to market need. This will improve the ability of farmers to get their products to market quickly. It is an essential element, particularly with regard to a disposable good such as grain and in getting it to our international markets in the Asia Pacific rim and eastern Europe.
The government has already acted in its latest budget to protect the farmer's position by limiting the freight increase associated with the sale of the cars to 75 cents per tonne, as announced in the finance minister's budget. It will also postpone that same increase by another year to 1998. Further, efficiency improvements will generate reductions in the freight rates which should offset the increases over time.
Other measures, such as legislating the fair sharing of productivity gains between farmers, railways and shippers will assist farmers. The other side of the coin is how will this policy affect the railways?
Currently cars are allocated on an administrative basis which is not effective. Selling the fleet will result in more efficient use of the cars that will be allocated in response to market demand.
The railways will be given the flexibility they need for efficient day to day operation of the system. These efficiency improvements will over time result in lower costs for the railways and consequently lower freight rates which will help farmers. Proposals to buy the cars will be encouraged by all interested parties including-from my perspective most importantly-producer friendly entities. Producers, farmers, the railways and any other interested party will be given their say.
As the budget stated, the federal government will consider all proposals put forward for the disposition of these cars. It will take into account the interests of producers, shippers and railways and the need to make the most efficient use of these cars.
Bill C-31 seeks to implement the measures I have outlined and to implement the budget the minister has given. The commercialization of these cars is a sound and productive measure of the budget. It should be allowed to be implemented at once. Producers, grain companies, railways and ultimately Canadians will benefit from this privatization exercise.
As my colleague, the Minister of Transport recently stated: "We have to ensure that Canadian grain reaches world markets as efficiently as possible. Improving global trade in this way enhances Canada's international competitiveness, a key element of the government's economic growth and jobs strategy."
Petitions March 6th, 1996
Madam Speaker, I draw to the attention of the House a petition provided by 1,000 people in the Lac du Bonnet-Pinawa area.
They draw to the attention of the House that the Canadian nuclear industry provides enormous benefits to Canadians for safe and environmentally sound power and research and development. Atomic Energy Canada is the government agency responsible for Whiteshell in Manitoba and Chalk River in Ontario. Whiteshell makes substantial contributions to the economy in eastern Manitoba.
Therefore the petitioners pray that the Government of Canada will not close or downsize the Whiteshell facility and make a public declaration of that support.
Petitions December 4th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the second petition I have is with respect to assisted suicide and euthanasia. It has been signed by constituents from Rosenfeld, Rosenort, Niverville and St-Malo.
They too respectfully pray that Parliament ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no change in the law which would sanction or allow in any way the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
Petitions December 4th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have two petitions to present on behalf of people in the riding of Provencher.
The first petition concerns abortion. It was signed by a number of constituents from Niverville and Morris. These constituents respectfully pray that Parliament act immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.
Small Business Loans Act October 26th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. Basically, the praise for this particular initiative rests not with the member for Provencher but with the Prairie Harvest farm group from Altona which came up with the idea.
I can only tell the member that the role of the Government of Canada throughout this whole process has been one of facilitator. These kinds of innovative ideas with respect to secondary processing of our natural resources, which the World Bank has just said that Canada is number two in the world, have been there for quite some time.
I want to point out our trade difficulties with the U.S. and the cap on durum wheat which was unfairly placed on us by the Americans. The Government of Canada responded to that unfair trade action by going through the office of the Prime Minister to the minister of agriculture and indeed the minister of western economic development to say: "Okay, if we cannot ship our durum over the border, let us be really smart and keep it in our own back yard. We will process it and sell it to Canadians and Americans".
The short answer of course to the parliamentary secretary is that the Prairie Harvest group out of Altona came up with an idea, approached the Government of Canada for some help and we were glad to act as a lever on this important project.
Small Business Loans Act October 26th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. He raises some valid points and concerns. It is no small secret that the Canadian business community is very concerned about the goods and services tax. It was concerned about it when it was announced and of course it still is. However, that never did the government or the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister say that we did not need the revenue. In its previous form as the manufacturers' sales tax in 1984 of 9 per cent and then moving up, I believe, in 1992-93 to about 13 per cent or 14 per cent, prior to being changed to the GST, the Government of Canada has been dependent on those revenues and will continue to need them.
The difficulty is the structure and the nature of the tax. The member is quite correct when he states that the imposition of the GST had an inflationary effect and stalled purchases. For example, someone may want to build a home in the riding of Wild Rose or Provencher. That person would order a $100,000 of materials and then there would be labour involved. When taking that lumber out of the yard that person would be stopped at the gate and charged another $7,000. That, of course, is going to kill investment and purchases. I think people have been painfully aware of that.
The government has made it quite clear, particularly leading up to the next budget that we will be addressing the matter. The parliamentary secretary has spoken about the GST only in the last couple of days and mentioned that we are equally concerned about it on this side of the House.
I ask the hon. member from Alberta to speak to his provincial counterparts and ask them to join with the other provinces and with the Government of Canada to work out some reasonable solutions to deal with a harmonized tax which will be in the best interests of all Canadians and, therefore, the Canadian economy.