Howard Hilstrom

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, June 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Have the rules changed in the House and we are going to refer to each other by our names in this place? The member was talking about Minister Marchi.

[Petitions, June 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition today from 75 of my constituents and constituents from all over Manitoba who feel that parliament should re-enact legislation and reinstate chiropractic services for aboriginal people. These services have been eliminated and are no longer available. The health of many Manitobans are affected by this decision. They pray that this be brought back for the use of Manitobans.

[Petitions, June 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition today from people in my riding in the Beauséjour area who are petitioning that marriage is a voluntary union of a single man and a single woman.

They pray and call upon parliament to enact Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage Act, so as to define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into by a single male and a single female. They pray that the House take notice of that.

[Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, June 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the position of the member for Davenport on the bill is obviously not being substantiated by many people in the House and across the country. He is taking a minority position. In his arguments he is bringing forward to us the idea that it is the Reform Party's problem and the Reform Party's bill.

Does he agree the bill was put forward by the Liberal government and is being passed by a majority vote in the Liberal Party?

I have a second question which gets down to the technicalities of the bill and concerns discussions about scientifically based decision making. We have to be clear that international trade and issues dealing with pesticides are based on science only. The Europeans are denying beef access into Europe on a non-scientific basis. Health Canada has denied rBST on a non-scientific basis.

Would the member comment on whose bill it is and clarify that it is in fact a government bill? It takes government members to make sure there is a majority to get it through.

Would he also clarify that the bill is purely based on scientific decision making with regard to toxic substances? The bill provides for a national ban on substances banned in other provinces or industrialized countries. This abandons risk assessment as the basis for priorization and chemical control when it is the standard accepted internationally.

Does the bill not undermine the necessity of requiring science based decision making?

[Division No. 456, May 31st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on this series of motions I would like to have my vote recorded as no.

[Bank Act, May 26th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, certainly we support the bill. I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board mention that the bankers of Canada, the Canadian banks, the big five, also agreed that it was good.

Is there a possibility of any connection between the agreement of Canadian banks to this competition coming in and the possibility of the government having agreed in return to support the mergers in the upcoming session in the fall?

[Bank Act, May 26th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am certainly old enough to remember the 1984 to 1993 timeframe. I also remember the change from the manufacturers' sales tax to the GST. When I compare the two, I see that in fact the take from the GST is probably 50 to 100 times larger than the take from the old manufacturers' sales tax.

I would like to ask the member from the Conservative Party if the changes that were instituted by Mr. Mulroney and company were not the start of the gigantic tax increases that we are living with today? I would like to have an answer to that.

[Grain Transportation, May 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Estey report has every thing to do with farmers' income. The Canadian Wheat Board is set up by federal legislation but it does not represent every farmer.

The Canadian Wheat Board minister is ultimately responsible to farmers for how it fulfils its mandate. The Canadian Wheat Board is obstructing this progress by not going along with improvements to this transportation system. Without the Canadian Wheat Board being on side, Arthur Kroeger has very little chance of success.

What is the agriculture minister going to do to ensure that the Canadian Wheat Board or the Canadian Wheat Board minister do not obstruct badly needed improvements?

[Agriculture, May 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the farmers, the bankers and the credit unions are telling us that this program is virtually useless for a lot of farmers.

The minister of agriculture's officials have indicated that even farmers who qualify for this emergency package will only receive 40% of their entitlement now. It will be fall before those few who do qualify for assistance will receive their full entitlement.

Are his officials, who said this, wrong? Will farmers really have to wait until the fall to get help from the government?

[Agriculture, May 7th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of agriculture promised farmers bankable assistance in December. It is now May and, while application forms have gone out, not one cheque has been cashed.

In our minority report we identified $500 million in farm input taxes, costs and user fees which could be eliminated today without waiting for any application form.

The premier of Ontario has heeded that advice. He has cut sales tax to farmers because he knows lower input costs help farmers now not later. When will the federal government follow suit?