House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 63% of the vote.
Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act December 8th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. I have heard debate from both sides of the House today. On one side I heard about coming onstream, being smart and getting into the new century.
Why are the provincial governments not jumping on board the new taxation vehicle that is being created in the bill that has come before us through closure?
Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act December 8th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party. I am glad to hear him talk about using committees. Since I have been here the department has deliberately abused the committees.
There is one thing that bothers me with the federal and provincial governments and it is part of the nineties. It appears that it is actually deliberate that provincial and federal governments stage information leaks. In doing so the governments are able to get a course in public opinion for much cheaper. That is an abuse of committees. It really makes committees look like tools of the government that are not able to fulfil their original purpose.
Railway Safety Act December 4th, 1998
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the bill, in particular to the Bloc motion before us. Perhaps we should look historically at the motion. Railways were the first type of major land transportation. They were used years before cars were built and we had highway traffic acts in each province. Therefore the standards set out in the Railway Safety Act must be applied from coast to coast. We cannot put in a separate statute for a safety feature for one province and negate that safety feature in another province.
As my colleague from Cypress Hills—Grasslands said, it appears the bill is aimed at one province, that it is not national in its scope. It seems to be a redundant and therefore I will not be able to support the amendment.
There is a growing concern that we should have a more co-ordinated safety program. Like my colleague from Cypress Hills—Grasslands, I am wondering why we had to hurry this bill through. It would be more of a safety issue at this time to have a national trucking safety policy co-ordinated with this bill.
Eventually we will have to deal with a national policy on the trucking industry and adapt it to the bill before us. That could have been done in conjunction with this bill which would have made abundantly more sense than pushing this bill through as quickly as we did. The last time the Standing Committee on Transport met we had a presentation on ITS, intelligent transportation systems. This presentation proved to the few members there that this is the coming thing. ITS no doubt in the future are there not just for the railway system but for the trucking system. They are there for the automobile, all traffic, and should have been co-ordinated. All these things should be built in to one facet of a National Safety Council presentation.
The railways in the United States, because they are the oldest, are reneging about getting into ITS. I suggest to hon. members opposite that the same would be true in Canada that the railways will be the last to co-operate in ITS because historically they are the oldest and they are the granddaddy of them all.
What impressed me with the presentation, which leaves the motion out, is we must have a national program and that national program through intelligent transportation systems will eventually become a continental program. I agree with the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands that we should not have pushed this so rapidly. We should have incorporated it not within this bill but made this bill more applicable and easily applied when we move to the highway trucking industry.
I want to congratulate a person who came to the transport committee. I asked him for a video. It was about safety on the rails. I viewed the one hour video which was excellent. The problem is it was made in the U.S. There is nothing wrong with that in itself, however the reason I wanted this was to see if it was all right with the copyright to make some copies, send it out to my schools, particularly on the two major railways through my constituency, for safety reasons to be presented in the schools.
I saw the big accidents of Amtrak, Southern Pacific and so on. I had some concerns about that. I encourage the Minister of Transport in working with other ministers in the House that we should present a Canadian video to each province's departments of education and schools so that we could stop these needless fatalities of children taking chances, playing on right of ways of the railway and the needless risking of lives at crossings and so on.
We cannot support the motion. We will be supporting this bill. The final plea I make is please look at the safety features not only with regard to the operation of trains but relating to the general public and for this department to come up with a good safety video similar to the one I mentioned produced in the United States.
Petitions December 4th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from people in the immediate areas of Ottawa, Kanata and Nepean, pursuant to Standing Order 36. The petition contains over 600 signatures. These people are deeply concerned about the topic of pornography.
The petitioners are asking parliament to pursue changes to legislation that would give municipalities some say and a right to prohibit these activities within their communities.
Aboriginal Affairs December 4th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Why does the minister only listen to the chiefs and councils when the grassroots people report injustices?
Why does the minister talk only to the chiefs and councils? Why does the hon. minister not listen to the people who are really in need?
Petitions November 30th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am very pleased to present a series of pages from the southwest corner of my constituency.
This means that hundreds have come in. The petitioners spell out very clearly that they believe, as do the majority of Canadians, and understand the concept of marriage as only a voluntary union of a single male and a single female.
Transport November 30th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. The Canadian airline industry is growing but the number of safety inspectors is decreasing. That is according to the group which the minister has just said they commissioned to do the study. There are now 80 inspection jobs vacant and every month they lose 5 qualified inspectors while hiring only 1 more. This makes a net loss of 4 every month.
The minister has known about this situation for months. Independent reports say the industry is on the verge of a crisis. What steps is the minister taking now—
The University Of Saskatchewan Huskies November 30th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the University of Saskatchewan Huskies can now be properly crowned the Canadian football team of the nineties.
The Huskies captured their third Vanier Cup national title in the SkyDome last Saturday when they defeated the talented team from Concordia University.
The Huskies have dominated Canadian university football for many years. Professional coaching, team loyalty and, above all, the Saskatchewan tradition of never yielding to adverse conditions distinguish them.
We congratulate Canadian university football in Canada. The tradition continues to grow and Canadians from coast to coast appreciate the dedication and the sportsmanship displayed by these young men.
Again, congratulations to the University of Saskatchewan Huskies, the football team of the nineties.
First Nations Land Management Act November 26th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, in my remaining few minutes I would like to clear up any difficulties that some members opposite may have.
Let us set the record straight. Let us make absolutely sure that we are not disputing the right of Indians to honour their land treaties. That is not the issue. The issue that is before us today is how we are going to bring about accountability with this bill. How are we going to change the conditions which the hon. member for Wild Rose mentioned?
There are some questions that hang very heavily on the shoulders of elected officials on the government side of the House. Why are we denying thousands of people the right which we enjoy of self-determination in government? Why do we continue to do that? Why are we prepared to go ahead with massive land claims when the people at the grassroots want accountability? The government is not helping them to attain that.
Those areas which have accountability, to a large degree, are areas in which we do not see what the member for Wild Rose saw. The more transparency, the more accountability, the better it is for everybody. We have no right in this House to deny the term and the meaning in totality of self-government. As we go into a new century we should not be considering legislation that puts the cart before the horse.
To deny shows that this government is not really looking at reality. Government members can talk all they like about accountability and partnership, but until we put into place the machinery that brings about accountability, the machinery that brings about local grassroots governments, then we are going to continue with the mess that we have in many areas across Canada.
What I ask of this government is to not keep putting forth bills with no end to them, but to look at the reality of what is happening in Canada. Let us look at what we have to do to cure the biggest social issue facing Canada today.
The government can hide from it. Obviously it does not want to take responsibility. Sooner or later the responsibility of what goes on from coast to coast without self-government and without transparency will rest on the shoulders of government.
Why should we be promoting more avenues and more room for land claims which we agree with, but which we do not agree with if they do not contain accountability? This government is quite prepared to do that, but we are not.
Canadian Farmers November 26th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food was informed when we returned to the House after the summer break that farmers were going broke.
Since that time—and it has taken weeks of pressure—he finally believes what we already knew. The minister now agrees that farmers need assistance, but he still does not understand.
He wants the aid he gives the farmers to be matched by the provinces. That does not make sense in Saskatchewan.
Does he not realize that Saskatchewan has the highest proportion of farmers to its population? Does he not realize that Saskatchewan is more dependent on the agri-food industry than any other province?
If farmers are not making money in Saskatchewan, Saskatchewan is not making money.
This government did not ask Newfoundland to cough up money when its cod stocks were depleted and it should not be asking Saskatchewan to cough up the money now.