House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 63% of the vote.
Petitions November 5th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House another petition on an issue about which my constituents feel very gravely.
They want to preserve the understanding of the concept of marriage as a voluntary union of a single male and a single female. I am proud to present the petition on their behalf.
Criminal Code November 4th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to the member. He has spoken very well. He has spoken to the point that Canadians very often would like an answer. On this bottom line the member has mentioned, we fail to take a look at it. When someone makes a study, they do the revenues from cigarettes, revenues from alcohol, revenues from gambling, but no one really puts a price tag on the results of these commodities within society, how much they cost the Department of Health, how much they cost the social structure with family breakdown and so on. We should be as a government taking a look at the bottom line.
Does the member feel that the bottom line with regard to revenue more often than not generally clouds the real issue, that society does not see it as such and that we have a hard time dealing with it?
Criminal Code November 4th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I address my question to my colleague from Medicine Hat.
He has cited many examples as to why Canadians today, with each passing week, are losing faith in the justice system of Canada. It does not matter where we go.
My hon. colleague talked about conditional sentences, parole and the Young Offenders Act. Every day in some newspaper we see the results of a justice system that is breaking down. Cutbacks have been made to the RCMP in my province and there have been cutbacks right across Canada, while crime is running rampant.
Would the member for Medicine Hat not agree that a public losing faith in their justice system will only amount to more and more crime simply because there is no punishment being meted out through the justice system?
Agriculture November 4th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, does the right hon. Prime Minister agree with the minister of agriculture that farmers should have to work off the farm in order to survive?
Agriculture November 4th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister of agriculture suggested that farmers should get another job off the farm in order to survive. Is this the answer to the farm income crisis? A survey in my constituency showed that up to 76% of the farmers were working off the farm in order to survive.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Do you agree with the minister of agriculture that farmers should have—
Supply November 3rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his comment. I still believe, however, that the New Democratic Party could help on this issue. I believe it could help on the taxation issue. I think the NDP should get together with the premier of Saskatchewan and do something about it.
Hon. members ought to know that every time we get into a situation like this, farmers are looking at this massive bureaucracy. For every five and a half farmers we must have a government employee. That is part of the problem. The other problem is taxation. I just vented one area of taxation. Time does not permit me to get into two more areas of taxation which drop right smack in the laps of the members opposite.
Supply November 3rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite made the suggestion that I should be more specific. How much more specific can anyone be as it relates to the taxes of the farmers in a growing number of areas within my constituency?
I was elected to serve my constituency first. That is what I am doing. How much more specific does the member want? This government reneged. Instead of giving 23.5 times the taxes of the previous years, it is going to cut it down to 5. Then the government latches on to the RMs and says they can maintain the roads on top of that. They are losing money. This is a debt. That is specific. It is a debt of the federal government. It was promised by the federal government. It was promised to the RMs. It was promised to the taxpayers and the Liberal government is not living up to that debt, and that is specific.
Supply November 3rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to be able to get in on the latter part of this debate, having just come from a constituency where another problem related to agriculture is very, very important.
In the area where I come from taxes rank third. For some dry land farmers it is freight, fuel and then taxes.
I want to show how this government, by a reversal of form, is killing rural government in Saskatchewan.
Rural government in Saskatchewan is maintained by rural municipalities. Generally it has an elected reeve and six councillors. We recognize and my friends in the rural government recognize that some of the land that is under their taxation jurisdiction, as part of the municipality, now comes under Indian land claims.
This argument is not about rural municipalities versus native claims. It is a direct concern of the little rural municipality out there with 400 or 500 people. This humongous government has reversed a policy and is forcing the rural municipalities to raise their taxes. It is not just one rural municipality. Many will follow.
This is a federal issue. What this government is doing is trying to pass on a debt that is owed by this government to the rural government of Saskatchewan.
Under the previous government there was a treaty land entitlement. I want hon. members opposite to listen carefully to this. That government agreed that the rural municipality from which the land would be taken would receive compensation based on 22.5 times the previous year's taxes.
After 10 years this was agreed upon. Harry Swain, deputy minister of Indian and northern affairs, wrote to the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities and said “The mechanism agreed with Saskatchewan in the September 13 cost-sharing agreement on treaty land entitlement appears to be appropriate”. That is when they agreed to pay 22.5 times the previous year's taxes. He was referring to the specific land claims.
Just one year later, in 1992, deputy minister of Indian and northern affairs Dan Goodleaf wrote “The federal government recognizes that the recent TLE framework agreement has created a level of expectation by RMs that a standard of 22.5 times the previous year's tax revenue will be paid in all cases of reserve creation”.
My time does not allow me to read all of it, but I want to point out that one year after that promise there was a change in government.
This government was elected. By the way, five Liberals from Saskatchewan were elected.
What happened? This government unilaterally, after a commitment was made to the RMs of Saskatchewan, changed the 22.5 times to a lousy five times.
One has to ask the question: Where were the Liberals who were elected from Saskatchewan to support the RMs during that time? Where were those Liberals?
It means this. People who owned a piece of land with a tax rate of $1,000 were promised that they would receive $22,500 and the RM would maintain the roads. This government has now said that it will give them $5,000 and they can maintain the roads forever.
The RMs have been slapped in the face. As a result they have to raise taxes in the balance of the RMs because of the lost revenue.
The real problem is in the fact that no one in Saskatchewan can understand why the previous minister of Indian affairs and northern development refused to meet with SARM, the Saskatchewan school trustees and the provincial government.
The economy of Saskatchewan is in dire straits. Would this minister meet with the groups which are so drastically affected by this reversal?
A former Prime Minister of Canada from Saskatchewan finally erected a dam across the Saskatchewan River. Up until that time this hon. gentleman said that the federal government said Saskatchewan was not worth a damn. That is exactly what this government is saying to the rural municipalities.
This government is saying that it will give people $5,000 instead of $22,500 and they can maintain the roads. These people cannot do it.
Here is the situation. The government negotiates a treaty with an Indian band. The RM knows it is going to get 22.5 times the last assessment or the taxes on that piece of land. It does not happen. What happens? Revenue goes down. There is no money available for the schools. People are moving out.
Six or seven more land claims are imminent. This government sits here, smacks us in the face and says that it unilaterally decided it is going to be five times the assessment.
Where have the members of the NDP been? Where have the NDP members been in protesting this in rural Saskatchewan?
We are supposed to believe that the premier of Saskatchewan can pick up the phone to call the Prime Minister. All the premier would have to say is “back off and give Saskatchewan what it deserves. Give rural Saskatchewan what was originally promised”. Or do they really agree and continue to knock it away? More farmers are being affected very quickly.
This is a debt which is owed by the people of Canada. This government is saying to those 300 or 400 people in the rural municipality: “Who are you? You are not going to get the 22.5 times the previous year's taxes. You are going to get five times and you people can bloody well get your change out of your pockets and pay more tax dollars”. This is just one RM, but it is gaining momentum throughout Saskatchewan.
I can assure members that this local government, as well as the trustees, as well as the villages and towns, want to know if the government is going to continue this robbery. These people want to know if this government is going to continue smacking us in the face with five times the assessment and making the RMs responsible for maintaining the roads forever. This is an utter disgrace. It is a smack in the face to agriculture. It is a smack in the face to the people who have built the roads and everything else. Let us show a little concern. Let us reverse this and go back to the original agreement and do not slap Saskatchewan in the face again and again with every land treaty that is settled.
Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act October 29th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the hon. member.
We have something here that goes beyond what this bill attempts to do. If my figures are correct, 80% of all Canadians live closer to the United States than they do their neighbouring province. As a result of that population to the south, we have always been in a war with our struggle to prevent the sellout of Canadian culture. To many Canadians, culture means different things.
This bill needs total re-examination. Just as sure as what happened a few months ago in a retaliatory measure by the U.S. farmers against allegations that this government dumped wheat illegally into the United States all of which took place within my constituency, and as sure as I am standing here, the World Trade Organization is going to strike this bill down. In doing so, some Canadian industry somewhere is going to pay the price. I am getting tired of this.
We produce commodities which are superior in every detail; we produce better wheat; we produce better durum; we produce better hogs; we produce better cattle. All of those things are in my area of the country. The retaliation will probably not fall against anyone but western Canada and we will pay the price.
Let us put this back. Let us see if we cannot come up with something in negotiations before passing legislation that irritates the World Trade Organization and we in western Canada take it on the nose again.
Foreign Publishers Advertising Services Act October 29th, 1998
They cannot answer it.