Howard Hilstrom

[Agriculture, February 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the government has its priorities all wrong.

While the government has been busy giving subsidized money to multi-billion dollar companies like Wal-Mart, the official opposition has been out in the countryside consulting with farmers. As many as 75% of farmers believe that the future of their farms is very bleak.

The human resources development minister is part of the problem, not part of the solution. How can the minister justify wasting millions of dollars subsidizing companies like Wal-Mart when she should be helping farmers save their farms?

[Supply, February 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The present member speaking from the government side and the previous member from the Progressive Conservatives have referred to the number of individuals in the House of Commons. I do not believe that is in keeping with the rules.

[Petitions, February 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by over 300 constituents of my riding of Selkirk—Interlake. It states that one in five Canadian children live in poverty. The House of Commons in 1989 unanimously voted to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. Since then child poverty has increased by 60%.

As a result they are petitioning the federal government to use the budget 2000 to introduce a multi-year plan to improve the well-being of Canada's children.

[Agriculture, February 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, Saskatchewan grandmother and farmer, Lillian Kurtz, has been driven to hunger strike because the Liberal government is ignoring her pleas to address the farm income crisis. At the same time the HRDC minister has broken her own grant rules, unlawfully diverting taxpayers' money that could have helped people like Lillian.

Why is the Prime Minister turning his back on farmers like Lillian Kurtz while still allowing the HRDC minister to mismanage billions of dollars?

[Municipal Grants Act, February 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see progress being made in the relationship between municipalities and senior levels of both the provincial and federal governments. The debate today concerns Bill C-10 and the Group No. 1 motions.

Before I continue I would like to commend the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Association of Manitoba Municipalities and the individual municipalities in my riding that have contributed to and worked on the legislation to enable the rules to be more clearly defined and set out, in effect making the federal government responsible on paper and accountable for the grants it will be giving to the municipalities in lieu of taxes. Legislation is never perfect. As a result several motions and amendments are being submitted to try to improve the legislation. I will touch on those later in my speech.

I will now touch on the purposes of this act. Not everyone in my riding is fully clear on what Bill C-10 is doing. It essentially addresses the issue of compensation for untimely payments. It deals with the fair and equitable administration of payments in lieu of taxes, setting out clearly the responsibilities of the senior level of government. It also establishes an advisory panel to advise the minister on disputes concerning payment amounts.

The interaction between government levels is of utmost importance. We have another level of government in the area of the aboriginal reserves which is getting into the situation of acquiring additional lands by removing lands from the local municipalities in given areas. In the riding of Selkirk—Interlake the area of the Regional Municipality of Grahamdale is running across this problem. It does not seem the government has dealt fully with setting out the guidelines and the terms for grants in lieu of taxes on behalf of Indian reserves that should be made payable to local municipalities when they lose their taxes.

That is an issue for another day and another debate, but it is an issue that should be addressed. I am taking this opportunity in the debate on Bill C-10 to raise it so clarity can be brought to the relationship between Indian reserves and local municipalities in how they deal with taxes between each other and providing services to the citizens of those communities.

The history of concern over the levels of responsibility among the different governments goes back to 1950 when the government initially started making payments in lieu of taxes. It has taken some time, but we now see that it is being codified in legislation to remove a lot of the ambiguity.

The committee set up in 1995 was the joint technical committee on these payments. It was formed to examine issues associated with federal payments in lieu of taxes. Its findings addressed some of the issues through non-legislative means, which is fine and dandy when there is good co-operation between the federal and provincial levels of government. As we are seeing in agriculture today, that co-operation is not always there. The agriculture issues I talk about are the safety net ones where the provincial governments and the federal government are not working co-operatively. That relates directly to the necessity for bills like Bill C-10 to clearly establish this relationship.

One of the legislative changes that is primarily in place deals with interest on payments made after an agreed upon date when the taxes or grants in lieu of taxes should have been paid. The legislation states that it is in the opinion of the minister and at the minister's discretion.

With something as straightforward as the payment of taxes or the payment of a grant in lieu of taxes which has a set and agreed upon date, the minister does not need any leeway in compensating municipalities for money they lose because the federal government has failed to live up to its agreement to pay its taxes on time. The average Canadian property owner who must pay his taxes would quickly find out if he were late by one day that interest begins to be applied. I think that discretionary aspect of the legislation could certainly be removed.

With regard to third party leases there is some question in my mind as to whether or not the people who lease government property or a portion of a government property are paying their full share of business taxes.

The Canadian coast guard building in Selkirk—Interlake has been partially leased out to a private business entity. I have tried to find out some information on it, but the coast guard is kind of like HRDC. It does not want to give out any information. It really drives us nuts, but we will keep trying. Is this business entity paying its full and fair share of taxes, the same as any other business located in the city of Selkirk? I raise that question so that the government will hear it and address it if in fact there is a problem in that area.

The amendments put forward by the official opposition and the other parties should be seriously considered by the government. Where they are actually improvements to the bill, I would like to think that the government will support those amendments.

The Reform Party and I as the member of parliament for Selkirk—Interlake support the legislation. As I have said, we recognize that a lot of work by the municipalities and their associations has gone into this issue. The most redeeming feature of the whole legislation is the level of co-operation that has been shown and the recognition that the federal government should not be telling the provinces how they will negotiate and imposing rules on local municipalities.

As I said, I am in favour of the legislation. It will be an improvement to the relationship between the municipalities and the federal government.

[Privilege, February 8th, 2000]

My member's privilege, Mr. Speaker, has to do with debate this morning. The member for Mississauga West was speaking about myself and the Selkirk—Interlake riding and referring to HRDC moneys that had flowed into my riding.

The member for Mississauga West is referring to material that he has access to out of the HRDC department or from the hon. House leader of the Liberal government which I as a member do not have access to. As a result my ability to debate and to discuss the very moneys that have flowed into Selkirk—Interlake are hampered by not having access to the same information that the government members have.

As a result, my privileges have been abused in the House. I would ask that all the files pertaining to the HRDC money that has flowed into Selkirk—Interlake be turned over to me so that I can defend myself and answer to allegations that are brought forward by the members on the Liberal side.

[Agriculture, February 7th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, in December the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food sent the standing committee on a whirlwind tour of western Canada and pretended to consult with farmers. The Liberal dominated committee only held nine meetings to discuss the ongoing farm income crisis.

In spite of efforts by the Reform official opposition, the Liberals, PCs and NDP all refused to extend the meetings into Ontario and B.C. and refused to travel more than one week. This is disgraceful.

The official opposition continues to hold real consultations with farmers. Again, we have held over 55 town hall meetings with farmers across B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario and have seven more meetings scheduled.

In the past, farmers believed that the Liberals did not understand the farm income crisis. Not anymore. Now they know for a fact that the Liberals just do not care.

Farm families have grown tired of announcements that do not have any meaning. How can they believe the minister's promises of new assistance when he has only delivered 25% of the AIDA money he pledged last December?

[Agriculture, December 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, listen to this quote: “AIDA has been a disaster all on its own. It still has over $1 billion in the pot, yet only $500 million has been distributed so far”. Those are not my words. Those are the words of the agriculture committee chairman in a statement made last week. Even the member for Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington said that he was ashamed of AIDA.

Does the Prime Minister agree with his caucus colleagues that he has failed farmers, or is this just another example of the Liberals saying one thing out west and doing a different thing here in Ottawa?

[Agriculture, December 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the farm income crisis rages on while the government looks for bureaucratic ways to fiddle with its wounded AIDA program.

Let me read some quotes from the Liberal chairman of the agriculture committee: “AIDA has been an absolute failure” and “we have got to find a way of fixing it or at least coming up with a sequel that will do a better job”.

Since he will not listen to farmers, why will the Prime Minister not listen to his own caucus members and help farmers now?

[Supply, December 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the facts are on the table. The premiers of Manitoba and Saskatchewan have asked for an immediate $1.3 billion. They have asked for a natural disaster declaration for the flooded regions of the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. That money should go out to the provinces right now.

With regard to east versus west, that is not true. I put forward a motion in the standing committee on agriculture asking for a tour of Ontario so we could talk directly with the farmers there. It was cancelled by Liberal members of the committee; we will not be going to Ontario. My colleagues in the Reform Party and I will be required to do it by ourselves and report back to parliament on what farmers in Ontario are saying.

My last comment is with regard to maximizing returns of the Canadian Wheat Board. We have no idea whether or not it maximizes returns. That simply comes from the Kraft report. The wheat board gave him some statistics and he said that it looked like it was doing a great job.

There is only one true vote in an economic situation, and that is the vote of the client, the farmer who says he is doing better because of the wheat board and will deal through it, or he is doing better with another company and will deal through it. The choice of the farmer is the important issue.