John Solomon

[Gasoline Prices, April 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry. Over the past few days gas stations across Canada have increased their prices by as much as 10 cents a litre without justification.

This is the sixth price increase in the last 11 months, representing more than a 25 per cent increase to consumers and a 40 per cent increase to oil companies' revenues after record profits last year. These increases will cost Canadians over $3 billion each year and will hurt business, agriculture and consumers, basically our entire economy.

Failing a voluntary rollback by the oil companies of these unfair increases, will the government act to protect consumers by rolling back these costly increases until a price review can be conducted to see if these price increases are justifiable?

[Petitions, April 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise to present a petition signed by constituents of mine as well as from people residing in North Battleford, Aberdeen, Melville, Ituna, Herschel and other places in Saskatchewan.

This petition pertains to repealing Bill C-91, which has doubled the price of prescription drugs for Canadians and has put in jeopardy the drug plans of many governments in Canada.

This petition asks the government, which in opposition supported repealing Bill C-91, to keep its promise and to repeal Bill C-91.

[Interest Rates, April 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal interest rate policy is killing the hopes and dreams of Canadians to own their own homes. As well it is severely hurting our Canadian economic recovery.

Since the Liberal government jammed the interest rates upward last fall, the result has been that the last half of 1994 was the most brutal on record for house sales. The high unpredictable interest rate policy is also forcing residential construction into a nosedive which is costing thousands of jobs.

This Liberal government has not learned its lesson from the last time it was in office when its high interest rate policy caused the 1980 recession.

I am telling the Liberal government to listen. High interest rates mean fewer home sales, less consumer spending, smaller economic growth and fewer jobs. The Liberal high interest rates are wiping out any chance Canada has of seeing an economic recovery and it is hurting families desperately.

Canadians are worried about their future, but this government is not interested in home buyers or Canadian consumers. It is only interested in keeping the banks and the moneychangers happy and wealthy.

[National Solidarity Day For The Aboriginal Peoples Of Canada Act, April 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I wish to comment with respect to the Speaker's last words. I am not debating the Chair and I want that clearly understood. I want to put on the record that I stood in my place and I wished to say a few words about this business before it expired. The Speaker was busy doing other things but I wanted to participate-

[National Solidarity Day For The Aboriginal Peoples Of Canada Act, April 4th, 1995]

Chief Sol Sanderson from Saskatchewan.

[National Solidarity Day For The Aboriginal Peoples Of Canada Act, April 4th, 1995]

A great idea.

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House this afternoon to ask a question of the member for Saskatoon-Dundurn.

I am quite taken aback by his very weak defence of the elimination of the Crow benefit for western Canadian farmers. I am taken aback because he says in his remarks that the elimination of the Crow benefit will take away almost half of the net farm income from farmers in Saskatchewan alone; it will reduce their land values by a significant amount; and it will double and in many cases triple freight rates for the transportation of grain. He said: "This is creating opportunities for farmers", that the Liberal program of eliminating the Crow benefit for farmers, which will devastate rural Saskatchewan and western and rural Canada, is creating opportunities for farmers.

This is reminiscent of another movie. The movie I refer to is in Saskatchewan with Grant Devine, the PC premier who bankrupted the province-he and his cabinet-almost single-handedly in nine short years. It was one of the wealthiest provinces in Canada. They fired 275 highway workers and their comment at that time was not "creating opportunities for farmers"; their comment was that they were freeing up the workers to participate in the private sector. That is exactly the same kind of comment, the arrogant positioning of the Liberal government with respect to the elimination of the Crow, that we hear today in this House of Commons.

I find that personally distasteful. I predict, and many farmers and other people in Saskatchewan predict, that come the next federal election we will not see one Liberal member of Parliament re-elected as a result of this single attack on farmers, as well as the rail-line abandonment issue.

The member for Malpeque, another Liberal member who voted in favour of the abolition of the Crow benefit, is now chairman of an agriculture subcommittee going around the country listening to farmers' concerns, joined by Reformers and other Liberals, to see what impact the elimination of the Crow benefit will be. We can tell them what the impact will be, but having the Liberal member for Malpeque and his other members go around the country listening to farmers' concerns is like putting a pack of wolves in charge of the hen-house. Liberal and Reform members are saying: "We want to hear what the impact will be, Mr. and Mrs. Farmer. Please tell us. Although we voted to eliminate it, we are going to try to listen to your concerns." That is a sham. That is a scam.

The Liberal member for St. Boniface, who participates in this debate from his seat, does not understand the issue because he does not have any rural component in his constituency. If he did, he would be in jeopardy of losing his seat as well.

How does the member from Dundurn explain that the elimination of the Crow benefit and massive rail-line abandonment will increase exports when in fact grain will not be produced for export in the same quantity as it is now? Farmers will be going bankrupt in substantial numbers and people will see a smaller number of farmers farming in western Canada. How does he square that?

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

Shame on the Liberals.

[Harbourfront Centre, April 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to speaking up for Ontario, the 98 Liberal Ontario members sure are quiet. This is especially true for MPs from the city of Toronto.

The Liberal government has decided to eliminate all funding to Harbourfront, a world class cultural centre set up by the Trudeau government. It was originally set up to run in perpetuity by revenues from the original development but, as with most Liberal plans, it fell through.

The Liberals promised funding for Harbourfront but has left it high and dry. The Toronto Liberal caucus chair will not comment about this latest broken Liberal promise. The entire Liberal caucus will not comment on any of the 20 broken promises to Ontario. Why not? It is embarrassed with its record of broken promises, in particular its betrayal of medicare, education and job creation. Rather than account for its betrayal to Ontario it wrongly blames the NDP government.

The people of Ontario are learning their lesson of false Liberal promises as other Canadians have learned first hand. Liberals, Tories, same old stories.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, April 3rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to participate in this debate on the Bloc amendment with respect to Bill C-76, the budget implementation act.

What we have seen is an effort by the Liberal government opposite to try to get a handle on its budget without considering the effects on the economy in western Canada or the effects on the national economy.

What this budget has done is described in one word in terms of an impact on the province of Saskatchewan and on rural Canada. The day after the budget there was a one word headline in big bold black letters across the front of the Leader Post . The word was ``devastated''. Western Canada and rural Canada have been devastated by two major planks of that budget. I refer specifically to the elimination of the Crow benefit and the abandonment of rail lines in rural Canada.

The present minister of agriculture used to be a parliamentary secretary to Minister of Transport Otto Lang back in the mid-seventies. At that time the Liberal government attempted to commence the dismantling of the Crow rate as it was called then. The minister of agriculture who sits in this government today was defeated in 1979. He was defeated in 1980. He was defeated a number of other times provincially after that involvement with Otto Lang and the Liberal government to dismantle the Crow rate. He was re-elected in the 1993 election and was appointed minister of agriculture. In one fell swoop of a budget not only does he dismantle the Crow benefit but he also eliminates it entirely from the rural Canadian population.

What we see as a result of this very treacherous act on farmers who supported him in the last election is an act of betrayal. The minister of agriculture has stood in this House and betrayed rural Canada with the elimination of the Crow benefit. For the members opposite, as a result of this budget, I predict that not this summer, not this fall, perhaps not even next year, but in the next election which is held in this country no Liberal members will be elected in the province of Saskatchewan.

The budget and the elimination of the Crow benefit will be the major reason for the defeat of the minister of agriculture and all of his Liberal colleagues from Saskatchewan.

What is the argument for abolishing the Crow benefit? If the argument is that the Crow has to be cut to conform with the GATT, farmers do not buy it. The requirements of GATT can be otherwise met. At least that is an argument. If Canada cannot afford the subsidy, at least that is an argument. What is the argument for essentially scrapping this transportation policy and putting nothing in its place? It is not fair.

It is also not fair to reduce dairy subsidies by 30 per cent, but transport subsidies to Saskatchewan grain farmers are cut by 100 per cent. We know Ottawa has a deficit and debt problem, but we must do our bit. This means we should tailor the suit to fit the cloth.

The scrapping of the Crow has left serious questions unanswered. In the short term the issue of who gets the $1.6 billion payout and how and when it will be distributed must be answered now for the farmers in very clear terms so they can make informed decisions about this year's operations.

More important, Ottawa must look at the long term because these long term costs will be high. The former chairman of the agriculture committee, who is participating in this debate from his seat, is quite upset with the fact that farmers are upset with his government and his party for having eliminated the Crow benefit.

I can assure the member that when the next election is called even the Alberta members in the Liberal Party will be defeated as well and perhaps also those from the Liberal Party in Manitoba.

I want to recognize the impacts to farmers in Saskatchewan of the abolition of the Crow benefit. Swift Current is a city in the western part of the province. The tonnage, the freight rate for a tonne of grain, will increase from $13.82 in 1994-95 to $28.58 in 1995-96. That is about a 125 per cent increase. Also, the projection for 1996-97 shows the freight rate for a tonne of grain will increase to $32.28, a further increase.

In the eastern part of our province, the southeast where we have a Liberal member sitting, in Estevan district, the increase will be from $11.80 per tonne in 1994-95 to over double, $23.48 in 1995-96. For 1996-97 the projection is $34.64, tripling the current rate.

Those in the eastern part of our province will be hardest hit. The overall result barring crop adjustments will be a loss of $320 million a year in net farm income in Saskatchewan alone. This represents a drop in income of about 50 per cent for farm families, and any shortfall in grain prices will compound their loss.

At the same time, federal safety net funding is to be cut by 30 per cent over the next three years, again hitting mostly the grain sector. We see substantial increases to transportation in Atlantic Canada for highways and roads but we do not see any comparable increase for the loss of the Crow benefit which will severely impact our good road system in Saskatchewan.

Ottawa's changes to the regulatory system mean that as of January 1, 1996 some 500 miles of light steel rail lines will be subject to abandonment with no review, affecting 48 communities in Saskatchewan. Another 3,000 miles of branch lines become eligible for abandonment after an as yet undefined review process, affecting another 383 cities, towns, villages and hamlets. This fast tracking of branch line abandonment means higher trucking costs and the further one is from a main line, the higher those costs will be. For instance, the distance from Kyle, Saskatchewan to the nearest main line is about 70 kilometres; from Val Marie it is about 150 kilometres.

What about the higher road maintenance costs to support this increased trucking? Who pays for this? I am encouraged Ottawa finally recognized the road impact, but the $300 million adjustment spread over six years and across three provinces with only part of this designated for roads-