Len Taylor

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, May 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the largesse of the government and opposition members on this matter. I did not request the opportunity to finish my remarks, but I am very happy to do so. I regret cutting into the time provided for private members' business, because to me it is a very important time in Parliament. I will wrap up my remarks very quickly.

When private members' time arrived I was quoting from the conclusion of the presentation made by the National Farmers' Union to the committee. I will start the quote again: "The cuts announced in the federal budget will have an unprecedented impact upon Canada's agriculture sector. These cuts, from the loss in transportation subsidies to the cuts to food inspection, increase producers' costs of production, making us less competitive".

Members will recall that one of the red book promises of the government was to reduce the input costs of farming. These matters have increased the costs of farming. Therefore, the red book promise on agriculture has certainly been broken.

I will finish the quote from the National Farmers' Union: "The Canadian government has cut far beyond the requirements of the GATT agreement, leaving farmers alone to fight the European Union and the United States treasuries. The government should reassess its policy of unilateral disarmament, which leaves Canadians vulnerable in the international marketplace".

This is a very serious matter. We have long term implications to communities on the prairies and to the future of Canadian agriculture in the international marketplace. We should be setting these provisions aside until we have had a full study of everything that has been done. We should not be dealing with it in terms of just balancing this year's budget.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, May 31st, 1995]

The member wants to hear about the double loonie. I am very pleased to have aroused some interest from members opposite. It is a pleasure to know they are listening at such an important time.

The report stage motions before us relate to Bill C-76, the budget implementation bill. The amendment put forward by my colleague from Kamloops, which was seconded by me, proposes to eliminate those sections of Bill C-76 which deal with the government's proposal to remove the Crow benefit. That is the benefit that applies to western Canadian farmers for the movement of their grain from farm gate to port.

I have been engaged in this debate for quite some time. The constituency I represent is rural and relies heavily on agricultural income to survive. The constituency which I have represented for six years has been engaged in the debate over the future of the Crow benefit for quite some time. My constituents have advised me frequently and constantly of the need to retain the Crow benefit.

Through the motion which is before the House today, I ask members to consider eliminating these sections from the bill in order that we can study in greater detail the future implications of this very rash move which the government has undertaken.

The minister of agriculture will recall that at the beginning of this debate I asked the minister to withhold the sections of the bill, the intention to eliminate the Crow benefit, until such time as we did investigate the full implications of this move on the prairies.

I put forward that proposal before this debate began and here we are at report stage, prior to third reading, and the government has not indicated any understanding of the implications of what the elimination of the Crow benefit will mean to the prairie economy.

The argument comes down to the fact that for each elevator point on the prairies those communities will lose $1 million in income currently in those communities. I have previously used Glaslyn, Saskatchewan, a community of about 350 people, a

fairly large elevator market area with a very good, strong delivery point.

Currently $1 million in that community will not be there after August 1 when this bill comes into effect; $1 million from that community, $4 million from the city of North Battleford and millions more taken from rural Saskatchewan as a result of the implications of this bill.

What does that mean in terms of the future of those communities simply because they are growing wheat which is demanded by countries all over the world, countries not paying the freight on that product but expecting our farmers to pay the freight to get it to port position so that it is competitive?

A presentation by the prairie pools to a committee in Ottawa on April 27, 1995 concluded: "The termination of government transportation assistance and the resulting decrease in farm incomes not only threaten the vision but the ability of the Canadian industry to even maintain its current competitive position in the world markets".

These are people who deliver a product to that competitive marketplace telling us very clearly in response to this move on this bill the vision of agriculture as presented by the government enhancing our competitive position is threatened and that our ability to compete is threatened. We should pay heed to some of these experts who have been commenting on this over the years.

I also quote from another presentation made before the finance committee studying Bill C-76. The national farmers union's report concluded that the cuts in the federal budget, which are in addition to the elimination of the Crow benefit and including it, will have an unprecedented impact-

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, May 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to put in my two cents worth on the report stage motions. It is not a loonie, it is two cents worth today.

[Employment, May 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance will know that the latest Statistics Canada report on unemployment shows that 56,000 women gave up looking for work in the month of April, sending the labour force participation rate for women over the age of 25 down to its lowest rate in 11 years. He will also note that the participation rate for youth has fallen by 8 per cent since 1990, and the small drop in the unemployment rate last month was due entirely to people leaving the labour market.

Will the minister admit that this is a disgraceful performance by the economy which is supposed to be in a recovery and which needs massive job creation if there is any real hope of meeting the problems of the deficit?

[Forestry, May 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this is national forestry week in Canada and I want to bring to Parliament's attention the fact that this year's designated forestry capital of Canada is the town of Meadow Lake in northwest Saskatchewan.

This week Meadow Lake residents are celebrating the occasion in fine style, with events focusing not only on the forest but also on the outdoors, on youth, on children, on seniors and on the community itself.

The Meadow Lake forestry capital society has done a tremendous job to make this special week a successful one within the town. It deserves our support and congratulations.

At the same time, all parliamentarians must take account this week of the value of the forest to Canada's long term economic and environmental security. Forestry work can be well managed at the local and provincial levels, as has been illustrated in

Meadow Lake. However, there is a real and pressing role for the federal government in forestry matters.

During national forestry week we should renew our national commitment to the forest and all that it embodies.

[Canadian National Railway, May 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is bad enough that the Liberal government is planning to privatize rather than rebuild and enhance the services of Canadian National Railway, but now we learn that the shameful privatization initiative will not have any foreign ownership limits imposed upon it.

This obviously opens the doors for American ownership and control over our national railway, which until now has been the main economic link between eastern and western Canada and which has been a critically important player in the transport of grain to export positions.

If Canadians lose control of this vital component of our transportation infrastructure, we will be forced by default to allow such things as a continental grain market, which in turn will lead to the demise of the Canadian Wheat Board, another Canadian institution worth fighting for.

It appears the Liberals want to get rid of CN so badly that they are willing to sacrifice important and economically beneficial pieces of national identity. I call on the government to reconsider any rail line privatization plans, especially ones that do not limit foreign ownership.

[Privilege, May 2nd, 1995]

Yes, I can, Mr. Speaker.

I must comment on two points the hon. whip made with regard to what has happened in the past. He talked about requests for unlimited copies. I think the House is aware there are limitations on printing, that we all know those limitations and we all live within those limitations. That is not a problem. We are not asking for unlimited access to printing.

Second, the member said this has not occurred in the past. I have constituents who have received printed copies of committee minutes from me for the past six years. This has not been a problem in the past for me.

[Privilege, May 2nd, 1995]

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

[Privilege, May 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, allow me just one minute to respond to your comment and conclude my remarks.

When I requested the attention of the Board of Internal Economy on the printing of the firearms legislation itself, that process served as a delay. I ended up not being able to respond to my constituents who had an interest for more than two weeks because of the process of the Board of Internal Economy.

Although I will pursue the matter of a letter to the board, because I think the printing branch is not interpreting the board's decision correctly, more importantly, I do think that my privileges have been breached here, because I am not able to do my job if I cannot communicate the work of this Chamber to the people I represent. That is a breach of my privileges, and I want that considered, despite what the Board of Internal Economy does.

[Privilege, May 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address a matter of privilege today.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, a question of privilege is raised when an individual member of this Chamber feels that something has occurred that infringes upon the ability of that member of Parliament to do his or her job.

A matter of privilege should be raised at the earliest opportunity, and just this morning I received a letter that has prompted me to rise today on this matter.

The point I wanted to make is prefaced by comments concerning a recent Board of Internal Economy decision relating to the production of minutes for committees. I feel that the Board of Internal Economy provided us with extra support when it decided that the minutes of committees could be transferred electronically. I supported and I do support the decision by the Board of Internal Economy that allowed us to have quicker access to committee minutes via the computer process.

However, the printing branch of the House of Commons has interpreted a decision of the Board of Internal Economy in a way that I believe jeopardizes my ability to do my job well. That decision is as follows. As a result of the minutes not being printed by the House of Commons any more and simply put on to electronic transfer, individual members of Parliament such as myself have to print off the minutes from our computer in order to read them, review them, have them handy, carry them on an airplane and that sort of thing. The minutes are no longer available from the House of Commons committees branch or printed anywhere.

I have a number of constituents upon whom I rely for advice in helping me to understand certain pieces of legislation, certain bills and certain matters before the House. When committees meet to study those issues I have always had minutes of the committee available to circulate among the people within my constituency upon whom I rely for advice to do my job.

Today, on a request of mine from Thursday of last week, the printing unit of the House of Commons refused to print copies of minutes reproduced off my computer so that I could then circulate that to members of my constituency who would provide me with the advice I need to help me do my job. I need the feedback from the people in my constituency on the work that is going on here in Ottawa to ensure that the work I do here represents their interests and also ensures that I understand completely the impact of government legislation, programs, and policies on the people of my own constituency as well as across Canada.

Earlier this year, as you will recall, Mr. Speaker, because we communicated on this matter, on the firearms legislation I had asked if I could print copies of the firearms legislation to distribute in my constituency. I was informed that was not an option for me to consider.

The Minister of Justice has now appeared before the House of Commons committee on justice studying Bill C-68, the bill that I could not print in order to circulate to my constituency. I wanted to reproduce the minutes of the minister's statement to the committee, and the printing branch of the House of Commons told me that I could not have anything out of committees printed. As a result, I cannot service the people in my constituency who want to know what the government is saying on these issues.