Howard Hilstrom

[Agriculture, February 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, farmers still reeling from the income crisis have now been hit with rotating strikes by the grain weighers. Grain shipments are off 200,000 tonnes costing farmers more money. The government has had since 1993 to negotiate a new union settlement.

Will the Treasury Board minister guarantee farmers that this dispute will not cost them another dollar?

[Supply, February 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, over the past 100 years there have been a number of programs and efforts to address poverty and homelessness. That has not worked out. We would not see it today if it was gone.

The member opposite has a small problem in Canada with 600,000 people, a very clear responsibility of the government to 600,000 people. How come government policies of both the Liberals and Conservatives over the last 100 years have not at least been able to provide housing for our aboriginal people, a lot of whom are poor. Where is the plan for that?

[Supply, February 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the member that cost recovery for instance is simply just another tax. It is affecting many sectors but primarily it is affecting agriculture.

The member mentioned agriculture in his speech. Because of the poverty we have on farms I was wondering what solutions the member could recommend the Liberal government take to alleviate poverty in the agriculture sector. Does the member have an answer for that?

[Teaching, February 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to acknowledge two teachers for their outstanding efforts. These teachers are from the Evergreen School Division, located in the Selkirk—Interlake riding. They have been internationally recognized for their work with special needs students.

John Sarkozi, a resource teacher at Gimli High School, and Brian Thordarson, a resource and classroom teacher at Riverton Early-Middle Years School, were recently awarded the professionally recognized special educator certificate for special education teaching by the Council for Exceptional Children. The Council for Exceptional Children is the largest international professional association for special educators, related service providers and parents.

I take this opportunity to thank those two men and special needs teachers throughout Canada for the extra effort they put forward to educate students with exceptional qualities.

[Supply, February 11th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, the government speakers have indicated that the provincial governments were at fault, that it is not really the government's fault as it has great programs.

Over the past 130 years or so that this country has been governed, the Liberal Party has been a big part of it. Where we are at today in child poverty is a direct result of its performance as a government. It cannot avoid responsibility for that.

Besides the broad issues, there is one area which is clearly the responsibility of the federal government and that is aboriginal affairs. Our Indian reserves are pockets of poverty which I have been trying to do something about in my riding.

I ask the member if the tax issues cannot be fixed, can those areas of aboriginal affairs be fixed where there is no accountability for the money that is going into those reserves? People are getting incredibly rich and the poor and the small children are literally starving and in poverty.

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

Mr. Speaker, I re-emphasize that Motions Nos. 1 to 21 in Group No. 1 point out that the bill is poorly crafted. It is a thinly veiled attempt to circumvent two unfavourable rulings that Canada received at the World Trade Organization tribunals. It is provoking very real trade retaliation from U.S. trade representatives and it is offensive to fundamental freedoms.

There are some very practical reasons why I oppose Bill C-55 on behalf of the constituents of Selkirk—Interlake. This foreign publishers advertising services act will have a large negative impact on my riding and on all Canadians. The minister has said words to the effect that this bill is about promoting Canadian culture. I think the minister referred to ensuring that her daughter has magazines to read that have Canadian content.

I say this bill is really about promoting the heritage minister. It is not about Canadian culture at all. Let us look at this promotion. The protection of what appears to be two major publishers in this country is what this whole bill seems to be about. The two that have come to the attention of this House are Maclean Hunter and Télémédia Incorporated, two very large companies that really have no problem standing on their own or competing with others. I think they would agree this has nothing to do with their not being able to compete.

As soon as any country starts to go into protectionism and reduce trade the population of that country soon becomes much poorer. Throughout history look at the greatest nations in the world like Rome. We find that the rich nations were those that had open and free trade. They became wealthy. Their citizenry became wealthy. That is what is under attack in Bill C-55. We want to close in among ourselves. Deal inside Canada. Keep the evil foreigners away, in this case the Americans. Tomorrow it will be the Europeans. The day after that it will be the Japanese. That is what this bill is about. It is about dollars and cents as to its repercussions.

Mr. Gary Leech, one of the chief executive officers of Manitoba Rolling Mills, a steel rolling plant in Selkirk and a subsidiary of Gerdau, was so concerned with the possibility of trade problems in steel exports from Canada to the United States that he sent me a letter outlining the problems he sees will come up. Bill C-55 and protectionism is exactly what he does not want. He wants to see the exports that earn large amounts of money for Canada continue to flow to the states. It is a good customer. It wants to make these purchases. There is an example of a direct impact on my riding. It is one of the industry items that we are exporting that we do not want to see shut down.

The reality check is the harm in trade between Canada and the U.S.. It is our biggest customer and we are its biggest customer. It would enter into the hundreds of millions. When we get into a tit for tat trade dispute, which is what the heritage minister seems to be trying to get us into, it soon turns into billions.

At best, the intent of trying to protect a couple of our publishers to the tune of a few million dollars is not worth the trade costs and problems we will have if this bill gets passed.

I am the chief agriculture critic. Agriculture is another gigantic industry in western Canada, in my riding in particular. At present Canadian agriculture and agri-food trade is over $28 billion a year. We are not talking a few million for the publishing trade.

I pointed out that Motions Nos. 1 through 21 have very much to do with the World Trade Organization talks. We are coming up to those talks. What we are going to find out is that the trade representatives from other countries are going to look at Canada and say “Are you putting out bills like Bill C-55 and going into a protectionism type mentality? Our economies are about 10 or 15 times bigger than yours. You are going to be the loser”. We will not see that in published print but I guarantee that is exactly what we are talking about in the debate today.

The cost to agriculture could be gigantic. We are talking about an industry of $28 billion in exports a year. In agriculture we depend on trade for our survival. Right now we see the problems of agriculture with reduced exports to other countries and low commodity prices. They are low because the dollars we are able earn from trade and the lower exports are hitting families on Canadian farms in the pocket book.

We are not talking about some hypothetical bill, that is really does not matter or that it matters to only a few Canadians. This matters to everyone.

At present commodity prices have collapsed and in Saskatchewan the estimates earlier on this fall were that the drop in income could be as high as 70%, Manitoba as high as 45%, Prince Edward Island as low as 41% off from past years.

Instead of introducing legislation that would ensure a viable agricultural sector, this government seems to spend its time on Bill C-55. Bill C-55 will erode our farm markets and will deepen the income crisis we are in already.

I point out that our exports to the United States have been hurt by South Dakota and North Dakota which feel that we are subsidized, that we are exporting products which are not in keeping with their pesticide regulations or other chemical regulations.

I believe Bill C-55 will just add to the frustration of American trade negotiators. They will not necessarily say they are restricting the movement of grain, cattle or hogs into the states because of Bill C-55 but in the back of their minds they will see Canadians as unfair traders, people trying to restrict trade and put up barriers to the United States and other countries.

In the fall the agriculture minister was real big on this. He said don't worry about trade, it is just to do with the elections in the United States. When that is over we won't have any more problems. The elections in the United States were over in the fall and the trade disputes and the trade irritants got worse. It was false that the elections were the cause of the trade disputes.

On top of all that now we see Bill C-55 which could be looked on as the straw that broke the camel's back if passed. I urge all members to vote against this bill.

[Agriculture, February 5th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the agriculture minister still does not understand that the farm income crisis is real and serious. He says that he is still diligently working away.

How hard was he working during January when he was out of the country on a junket? By what date will the farmers have a plan on the table and can start getting their cheques? I would like to ask that right now.

[First Nations Land Management Act, February 1st, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like clarification, Madam Speaker. The other day in question period I was shut down by the Speaker, so to speak. I was denied the right to speak when I used the words “not true”. I wonder if it has changed for this debate or not.

[Finance, February 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, seeing as we have a minute left I would like to ask one more question.

Does the member who just spoke see any opportunity for having an auditor general type of accountability for moneys that go from the federal government to aboriginal reserves to be used in common for everyone?

That is what seems to be lacking at this time. There is the lack of an independent auditor who cannot be controlled by the people who are handling the money, in this case the chiefs and the councils.

[Finance, February 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just spoke has probably given one of the best accounts of the situation with aboriginal people in Canada today that I have heard in parliament since I came here in September 1997. I cannot speak to the 1992 and 1993 statistics and all those things. Figures can be twisted around so that we are not too sure what they actually reflect.

The fact is that with the wise use of financial resources we can make some immediate impact for poor people both on and off reserve. The accountability issue is something that poor people on reserves across the country have been raising. Accountability is seen by the simplest explanation I have heard: “The chief lives across from me in a $200,000 house. I am living in a house with no running water, no sewage and very little insulation in some cases”. The funding that went into reserves for housing has been well documented over the years. Why do some have so much and some so little? This is the funding the hon. member is talking about.

Will the member keep speaking to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and pressing his government along the lines he spoke about today? If he does I would be pleased to support him.