Howard Hilstrom

[Supply, March 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Mississauga West early on in his speech today severely insulted me along with many western Canadians. He also gravely inflicted damage on the people of Quebec.

[Public Service Of Canada, March 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I will say who had better get back to the bargaining table. It is that government over there.

There has been a wage freeze for six years and the government is doing nothing to settle the strike. I want to know why in the last six months or in the last year it has not been able to do anything. What is the excuse? What is the reason? How many more millions of dollars do farmers have to lose while boats are lined up in the Pacific Ocean waiting for grain?

[Public Service Of Canada, March 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, as of this morning grain shipments in Vancouver had completely stopped.

PSAC has now set up picket lines at all five terminals and they have shut down as a result. Other labour unions are not crossing the picket lines.

Daryl Bean stated in an interview last week that grain is now a primary target and boats are starting to line up.

How long is the Treasury Board minister going to force farmers to wait for their grain to be shipped?

[Curling, March 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today it is my pleasure to congratulate the winners of the 1999 Labatt Brier, the holy grail of Canadian curling.

On Sunday, March 14, Manitoba skip Jeff Stoughton, third Jonathan Mead, second Garry Van Den Berghe and lead Doug Armstrong defeated the Quebec team of Guy Hemmings, Pierre Charette, Guy Thibaudeau and Dale Ness.

The game was a classic epic battle between two curling giants. Quebecers can be proud of their congenial champion and the people of Edmonton can take pride in staging a tremendously successful brier with the highest fan attendance ever.

All Canadians, especially Manitobans, wish Jeff Stoughton and his team good luck as they go on to represent Canada in the 1999 world championships at Saint John, New Brunswick.

[Agriculture, March 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, neither the transportation minister nor the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board has taken a stand on the Estey report. They sit on their hands, say nothing and do nothing. It is time to come out. Do you want more regulation as the Canadian Wheat Board is saying, back to the 1980s, or do you want to move forward with commercial contracts?

[Agriculture, March 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.

Yesterday the Canadian Wheat Board's response to Justice Estey's report recommended that the grain transportation system revert to the regulated system of the 1980s. This is unacceptable. It is time for the minister to take a stand.

Will the minister support the intent of the Estey report and move forward, or the Canadian Wheat Board's response and move backward?

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, March 9th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, certainly I have said quite clearly that I am not in favour of lotteries being included in the formula because of the incentive it gives to governments to try to raise those revenues.

I also have a question with regard to casinos that are going to be on our aboriginal reserves. How does this work into the formula?

Part of the problem is that it gets so complex and convoluted that it is difficult to work with. It may be okay for government actuaries and accountants, but the problem is that the average Canadian has to understand how this works because it is his or her money that is being thrown around by governments. That is why I would like to see a much simpler formula. I thank the member for his question.

[Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, March 9th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to Bill C-65.

When future generations look back at today's Hansard they are going to see that the member for Broadview—Greenwood gave a speech in this House and was subsequently followed by the member for Selkirk—Interlake.

The people of Selkirk—Interlake sent me to Ottawa to represent them, to stand up for them and to put their points of view across to the government in a way that it would understand. Some constituents suggested that I take a length of two-by-four or a fence post. I have to say that I declined, but today, after hearing the member for Broadview—Greenwood, I wonder if I should have followed their advice.

That member constantly referred to the west as that remote region, the region out west. The member for Broadview—Greenwood is the epitome of that thinker who says that the centre of the universe is Toronto, the centre of the universe is the Liberal attitude, the arrogant Liberals, the “we will tell you in the remote regions what is good for you” Liberals, the interventionist Liberals. That was his favourite, the interventionist Liberals. I would simply say that the people of Selkirk—Interlake believe that Toronto and the member's riding of Broadview—Greenwood are in fact remote regions to them and we resent being referred to as a remote region.

He was speaking about the interventionist government being the kind of government that we need, and big intervention, not small. I would suggest to the member that he look at the interventionist activity that could have been taken in relation to our native people and the poverty and the homelessness that he was talking about. In that case the government has all the authority and the right to act on behalf of those poor people and has not done so.

I would suggest that he use his interventionist activities and abilities to move now, not sometime in the future when they get bigger government and more power. Do it now, with the power the Liberals have today.

I will now speak more directly to Bill C-65.

This has taken a bit of my time but the record is important for future generations. I will also be sharing my time with the member for Dewdney—Alouette who also has some important things to say about Bill C-65.

The interventionist member took some time pointing out Reform's position, my party's position, yet he strayed from the facts. The purpose of equalization is to promote equal opportunities for the well-being of Canadians, to further economic development, to reduce disparity in opportunities and provide essential public services of reasonable quality to all Canadians.

I would like to quote the Leader of the Official Opposition who stated “The official opposition, the Reform Party, is committed to equalization and has been from the outset. I believe that the rank and file people in provinces like British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario who receive no equalization payments and in fact are net contributors to the federal-provincial transfers also support the principle of equalization. They have objections as to how the federal government administers it and how the federal government handles transfers but do not object to the principle itself”.

That should put to rest the statements the member for Broadview—Greenwood made. He distorted precisely what the position is of the Reform Party and the Leader of the Official Opposition.

I would like to talk about some points in Bill C-65. It is certainly a big subject that cannot be handled in one short speech.

One of the things that has caused me some concern is the concept of gambling revenues. It is my understanding that the changes will see for the first time provincial casino revenues included in the formula for the calculation of equalization payments.

Myself and many people in my riding are very much against the video lotteries and the extensive gambling that is going on in Canada today. Without trying to say that no one should gamble, which is not the question, the question is how much reliance should provincial and federal governments be putting on gambling revenues as a major source of their incomes?

Once governments start to figure things in and say they are part of the income, if there is any danger of that drying up, the first thing they have to do is take action to get people to gamble in order to keep that source of revenue coming in. If governments need more money, they have to encourage more people to gamble. Gambling in itself is not wrong. The problem is that many people cannot control their gambling instincts. Having a public government, the representative of the people, encouraging gambling is not right.

Gambling revenues are going to be included in the equalization formula to determine payments. That is a big mistake.

As to what the formula is going to do over the next few years with regard to the individual provinces, I note that my province of Manitoba will lose about $37 million by the end of the five year term. The figures could certainly go higher, to as much as $50 million as some members have stated.

Premier Gary Filmon has taken a very good economic road and has had economic policies for the benefit of the province of Manitoba over the past 10 years. He spoke out on equalization when this formula was proposed. He clearly stated that the objective of Manitoba is to become at least zero or a have province. We are taking economic activity and initiatives that will get us to that point.

In the meantime, as has been pointed out by the Reform Party, the formula which is in place and which is being developed in part of this bill is so convoluted and unfair that it is not really transparent or obvious to Canadians how it works. It is subject to political influence and interference. I do not think our country should be run in a way which tries to equalize things and make them fair for everyone but in fact, the very formula that is being used permits the government to be either unfair to a province or excessively fair to a province.

A particular example is the province of Newfoundland. Just before the provincial election it was in a deficit position. It happened, I suppose by accident, that it was a Liberal who was trying to become the premier of the province again. Lo and behold, after refiguring the formula and recalculating how it works, Newfoundland's payments went higher and the would-be premier of the province went into the election saying that he had a balanced budget.

That is one example of what is wrong with this formula. Newfoundland no doubt deserves that money and needs that money because it has fallen on hard times in years past. But in treating provinces fairly, it should not be left to the government of the day to make individual decisions based purely on politics on how to be fair to Canadians and to the poor people of this country.

[Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act, March 8th, 1999]

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I thought we had moved on to the second group of motions. I could certainly continue and address the first group but I have already spoken. Is it still within the rules that I can speak?

[Supply, March 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, certainly family issues have been a big concern of mine since I was elected in 1997. They are a big concern for my riding.

My riding is not particularly wealthy. There are many people with average or lower incomes. Child poverty has been brought to my attention many times over and over, both through the school system and by individual parents. People have also brought forward the unfairness of the tax system that is in favour of the two income families and discriminates against one income families. Does the member not appreciate and agree that if this discrimination was removed, child poverty would be lessened in Canada?