Roy H. Bailey

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I have in my office a photocopy of a cheque stub belonging to a young farmer who lives just north of me. This young man took off some grain during damp weather. Two semi trucks arrived from the grain terminal and he received 61 cents a bushel cash advance. By the time the trucking and the freight was paid this individual picked up a cheque for $1.47. That is as true as I am standing here.

I ask my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake, if this present trend continues in the west, what will it take to save it from complete abandonment of the agriculture industry?

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak very passionately about my constituency, as the Secretary of State for Children and Youth just did. I particularly want to address the minister in charge of rural development.

I want tell the last speaker that if he wants to see rural development in a rural area going into collapse, he should look at what is happening with the amount of money that this government has put into my constituency. Of the $1.7 billion announced across Manitoba and Saskatchewan, only 26% of the money has been paid to the farmers as of March 12. Some 60% of all Manitoba and Saskatchewan farmers had their AIDA forms rejected.

This is what I have as of today: First, the highest debt ever in my constituency; second, more paved roads having to be returned to gravel; and third, the worst fallout of people leaving the constituency with the abandonment of towns all because this government did not treat the number one industry in western Canada in the same way it treated the west during the national energy crisis.

I do not know how the member can stand and brag about rural development when I am facing rural decline.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words of the hon. member. It is obvious from all of the surveys that health care is the number one issue across Canada. It is also obvious that, no matter what province we travel in, we can pick up a newspaper and there will be horror stories about the health care that is being provided because of lack of funding.

We know that we have an aging population. We know that modern technology in health care requires a great deal more money. We also know that the premise of sharing between the federal government and the provinces with the Canada Health Act is really based on a formula which is quite simple, 50:50. That has dropped, in some cases, to only 11% from the federal government to the provincial government. Health care is in serious trouble in Canada if it is to remain universal, as we would like it to be.

What does the hon. member see having to happen if we are to preserve universal health care in Canada?

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the member and put forth a particular situation that was drawn to my attention this morning. There is a number of ongoing sales because of the economy in western Canada. When there is an auction sale the auctioneer comes, takes a list and so on. He publishes that list.

This case is a typical example of another widow who is having an auction sale. Among the goods listed are some firearms. The auctioneer, being a professional and one who used to belong to the provincial organization, did everything right until sales day and he was stopped from selling the widow's guns. Because of this government and the senseless legislation that is supported in only two provinces, we send another widow away with a loss of $8,000. The government is totally to blame for that happening. Would the hon. member like to comment on that?

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I too rise in objection to the member opposite referring to this party, the Canadian Alliance Party, as being some kind of a religious bunch of nuts and yahoos. I suggest that the hon. member retract those remarks or apologize to the House.

[Deanna Geddo, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring to the attention of the House a very special constituent whom I have recently had the pleasure of meeting.

Dr. Deanna Geddo was born in Hungary and when she was but 10 days old her home was completely destroyed by bombing. He family became refugees, escaping through Hungary, Austria and Switzerland. At the age of six she moved to Argentina and graduated from high school at 16. She graduated from dentistry and became the first woman to perform implantations in Argentina.

After the coup in 1976, Dr. Geddo came to Canada bringing her many skills, talents and professions with her. She speaks seven languages, is a professional playwright, a noted director, and a talented violinist. Her autobiography would be a huge volume.

During my visit I saw her warmth, kindness, hospitality and, above all, her genuine desire to serve her fellow man. I welcome Dr. Geddo to the constituency of Souris—Moose Mountain, to Kenosee Lake and to Wawota where she now practises dentistry.

[Weyburn Fowl Supper, March 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to announce to you, to the House and indeed to all of Canada that the city of Weyburn has now received recognition that can be found in the Guinness Book of Records .

Part of the autumn tradition of western Canada is for groups to hold fowl suppers. This tradition is carried on by church groups as well as charitable organizations to raise funds for community causes.

The Weyburn Performing Arts Society on October 10, 1999 set a new record for the world's largest fowl supper with 1,641 people attending.

Weyburn is known for many things, for its hospitality, its cleanliness and having the largest inland grain facilities in Canada. And now, thanks to the community and the support of the performing arts society, it is known throughout the world for this event.

Congratulations to the hundreds of volunteers who in true western spirit volunteered to make this record possible.

[An Act To Give Effect To The Requirement For Clarity As Set Out In The Opinion Of The Supreme Court Of Canada In The Quebec Secession Reference, March 13th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I had not intended to take part in this debate, but having been here this afternoon it may seem to people watching that this is a dispute between Ontario and Quebec.

I know that hon. members opposite do not mean it that way, but because they are the closest to Quebec it sometimes comes across that way. Indeed, people from western Canada, particularly in my area, look upon this more as a debate down east that does not make reference to them.

In my province the largest ethnic group is comprised of Anglo-Saxons, followed by the Ukrainians, the Germans and then the French. I was born in a French town. I refereed hockey in a dozen French communities, so I know very well what it is like and I am very proud to have lived in those French communities. My son-in-law's name is Tetreau and I am proud of that as well.

Having said that, I am not about to leave the west out of this picture. As westerners are looking at this debate this afternoon, many of the people in my constituency are asking what we are arguing about. They are losing their farms. To them this is not an important issue over their individual issues because of what has happened.

Let us take a look at what was handed to Quebec with confederation. It was guaranteed 24 senators. That is the same as the four western provinces. It was also guaranteed so many members of parliament, regardless of what happens to its population. The only other province which got that guarantee of course was Prince Edward Island.

What we do not understand about this is, when people talk about a sovereign nation, nobody explains to the people west of Ontario what they mean by that. To westerners a sovereign nation is a separate entity unto itself. It has its own laws, its own money system, its own trade and commerce, all of that. It is indeed a separate nation.

When I read what Quebec voted on, it talked about sovereignty and then all these other things. As far as the people of western Canada are concerned—and let me say that it is very clear as I travel in western Canada—if my hon. friends in the Bloc want a sovereign nation, it will have to be the total meaning of sovereignty. It will not be some sort of association. It is one or the other. They cannot have it both ways.

At the present time Quebec is part of an association, the federal government, and so is Saskatchewan an associate of this government. We do not ask for separate identities. The Europeans are coming together for particular reasons, because they are bound by international agreements or monetary agreements. Quebec would have to have a separate agreement entirely. Otherwise, B.C. would want to go. Not too long ago it was the four western provinces. Some of my friends from the west will remember the WCC, the Western Canada Concept Party. That is what it actually wanted. Its separation was based on a financial barrier, for obvious purposes.

While my people are floundering around trying to understand how they are going to live for another year, we have people here whose reasons to become separate and totally apart from Canada they say are not based on economics. That could be proven.

It has never been quite clear to the people of western Canada why these people are attempting to separate. To be honest with you, Madam Speaker, in all of my reading and following of this issue, that issue has never become fundamentally clear to me and it has never been fundamentally clear to the people beyond Ontario in western Canada.

[Human Resources Development, February 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, as a result of the government's policies, western farmers cannot even get a break-even price for the products of their hard labour. Yet RMH Teleservices, a U.S. company worth $80 billion, was given $1.6 million to set up in the minister's riding. This was money it did not ask for, money it did not need. In fact it would have set up there anyway.

The minister has attempted to excuse the abuse of taxpayers' money by saying that grants are needed. Can the minister explain how RMH Teleservices—

[Modernization Of Benefits And Obligations Act, February 15th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, what the hon. member opposite just said prompts me to ask a question which has bothered me as I listened to everyone talk.

I am a married man. Therefore my marriage is registered. I wonder if with CPP, Revenue Canada, life insurance, accident insurance and spousal benefits it is not absolutely imperative that these these relationships will have to be registered relationships.

It is inconceivable to me that one could change partners without deregulating it somehow in the same way as if I divorced my wife. None of that is in the act. If we do not have this term in the act, who will register these people? Will it be the provinces? Who will do it? It is not in the act. Unless we have some kind of registry this whole thing will be awry all over the country.