Len Taylor

[Petitions, March 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition to the House of Commons. The petition contains 8,000 signatures collected by representatives of the Animal Defence League of Canada.

The petitioners note that individuals convicted of wilfully causing pain and injury to an animal presently face maximum penalties of six months in jail to two years prohibition from owning an animal and/or a maximum find of $2,000.

The petitioners note also that in practice they do not know of any maximum penalty ever having been issued no matter how atrocious the offence. The petitioners state that they find this abhorrent and unacceptable when animals are not appropriately dealt with by our laws.

Therefore, the petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to enact harsher penalties for offences against animals and establish an education program for judges to help them understand society's abhorrence and condemnation of acts of cruelty to animals.

[The Budget, March 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in the remarks of the Secretary of State for Training and Youth she commented quite extensively about programs for aboriginal people and the ability of aboriginal people to participate in our economy as a result of budgetary measures.

She mentioned a number of programs but I notice she did not mention the aboriginal economic development program, something that is absolutely essential to provide assistance to aboriginal people who have difficulty in achieving financial commitments from existing financial institutions to develop the economic means by which to create self-sufficiency within their own communities.

The aboriginal economic development program, just when it is needed most, has received a more than unfair reduction in commitment from the federal government, a reduction of approximately 30 per cent as I understand it.

I wonder if the secretary of state could comment on the need for the aboriginal business development program and what her thoughts are about this unfair cut or reduction in federal commitment to that program.

[Points Of Order, March 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in light of what has taken place here, I think out of consideration we would accept the offer put forward by the hon. member.

However I wish to stress that the point of the intervention was that the use of the standing order in this case was not introduced properly either by the government or in our understanding of the ability to debate early.

We realize even in the event of the debate carrying on through the evening that New Democrats would likely have an opportunity to speak. However the problem that exists is that the legislation the government is bringing forward, which the government is scheduling to pass this evening, may not be necessary given what is happening on the west coast. Therefore we should debate that process prior to debating the motion itself.

[Points Of Order, March 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly understand the dilemma you are in because I face a similar dilemma at this end of the House. With all due respect, I believe you are aware that this is the first time in this Parliament the government has seen fit to utilize this section of the Standing Orders.

Therefore, when the minister rose to state that he was rising under section 53 of the Standing Orders, I immediately reached into my desk, pulled out the Standing Orders I have here, and was reading the Standing Orders as you were reading the motion.

It took me a couple of moments to realize that there was a debate on the motion itself. I like many members of the House take some time to understand the full implications of every standing order. With respect, I think it would have been appropriate had the word debate been used to prompt individual members to their feet should they have wished to debate the issue.

Having said that and understanding your position, Mr. Speaker, and given the nature of the debate, the fact that there is much information about the dispute the government is introducing legislation on, perhaps members may wish to reflect upon it.

I would ask for unanimous consent of the House to allow for this hour of debate to carry forward and therefore allow some of this to be discussed prior to putting the motion itself.

[Points Of Order, March 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I was looking at Standing Order 53, the provision under which the motion was presented to the House. I believe the motion presented is actually in contradiction of the intention of Standing Order 53.

Standing Order 53(3) says:

Proceedings on any such motion shall be subject to the following conditions:

(a) The Speaker may permit debate thereon for a period not exceeding one hour;

The intention of Standing Order 53, when it was passed by the House was not to allow debate to exceed one hour. The minister and government have proposed we ignore the intent of this regulation and continue debate until such time as a minister of the crown deems the day is over.

I believe this is specifically against the intention of the Standing Order. I would like the Chair to review this before we proceed any further along these lines.

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciated the words of the hon. member whose concern for youth I also share.

I was quite taken by the debate which began with the paper on social policy and particularly the section that applied to young people and tuition fees. The proposal would see additional money made available to young people, but the result would be a massive increase in tuition fees across the country.

Coming from a rural riding I am concerned for a number of reasons. The ability of farm families to meet some of the costs for post-secondary education are becoming more and more difficult with each passing year. I was quite taken with the words of the hon. member, especially when he quoted some of the figures from the corporations that do not pay any income tax.

I will be very brief. At a time when rural Canadian people, particularly those on the prairies, are being asked by the government to pay, because of the elimination of the Crow benefit, perhaps an additional $14,000 to $15,000 a year to ship their product to market, how can the government allow companies like Canadian Pacific to earn more than $422 million in pre-tax profits without paying a single cent in income tax?

I ask that question of the government. However, in doing so I ask the member who just spoke if he would agree with me that it is certainly not fair for corporations to be allowed off the hook when ordinary, individual, rural families are being asked to pay so much more, thereby compromising the education of their children.

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the words of the hon. member who just spoke.

I recall back in the early 1980s when the debate around the Crow rate, at that time the western grain transportation subsidy, was conducted in the House. The farm organizations and the people of Quebec were very supportive of the western farmers and the desire to maintain a strong transportation link for the export of prairie grown grain. That support carried over and a good number of changes were prevented from being made because of the alliance between western farmers and farmers in Quebec.

I wonder if the hon. member has given any thought to the current debate brought on by the budget over the Western Grain Transportation Act. Can western farmers count on the Bloc Quebecois and the farmers of Quebec for support in maintaining this transportation subsidy?

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully and was quite taken with the enthusiasm the member opposite showed for the budget. She talked about the budget being fair and talked in terms of understanding and knowing how the fairness is applied across the country. She talked about the policies of the government that were obsolete, dysfunctional or redundant being eliminated.

Those two matters have to be applied to the communities that I represent in Saskatchewan with the loss of the Western Grain Transportation Act subsidy, the Crow benefit, which the member mentioned in her remarks. The Crow benefit currently represents $560 million. Two years ago it was worth $720 million, $400 million of which applied to Saskatchewan.

How is it that the member can indicate that the Western Grain Transportation Act is obsolete, dysfunctional and redundant when it is anything but?

The loss of the Crow benefit to our communities at the delivery points in my riding represents approximately $1 million to each delivery point. The community of Glaslyn just north of where I live has two elevators and is quite similar to most communities in my constituency. We calculate that in the crop year beginning August 1, 1986 farmers at that delivery point will pay $1 million more for grain transportation in the coming year than they did in this year.

In terms of fairness, what other community in the country has been asked to give up $1 million in revenue? Absolutely none. Communities that service the world with grain from Saskatchewan have to pay extra. I ask the member for the evidence she has that these programs are obsolete, dysfunctional and redundant and that the budget is fair.

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I have also listened to the Canadian people throughout much of my term as a member of Parliament. The last six years have been very tumultuous times, coming through the Mulroney era of putting a lot of pain on the backs of Canadians, and now sitting through this Parliament and the development of this budget, with taxpayers from coast to coast saying they have been taxed enough.

The finance minister claims this budget did not raise income tax for ordinary Canadians. That is not quite correct. A large number of Canadians were receiving and will receive to the end of this year the northern tax allowance. This tax allowance provides those who live further away from government services a benefit which other taxpayers do not enjoy.

The hon. member shares a part of the country with me, that is, people who currently receive northern tax allowances. Does he not believe it is unfair for those taxpayers in the phase out of the program this year to have to pay additional taxes?

[The Budget, March 14th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the minister about her commitment to child care. The budget eliminated a subsidy that allowed for a great deal of transportation funds to be available to farmers in western Canada. In the past, rural women have found themselves having to find child care when child care was not available. With the elimination of the Crow benefit the pressures on the financial aspects of farming will be increased. Rural women who have in the past called for child care I am sure will be asking the minister for her support in the future to see a federal commitment to child care in rural areas.

Can the minister tell us if she continues to be committed to child care, especially in rural Canada?