Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was federal.

Last in Parliament April 1997, as NDP MP for The Battlefords—Meadow Lake (Saskatchewan)

Lost his last election, in 1997, with 28% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Agriculture May 10th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, may I extend my congratulations to the member who just spoke on her tireless and courageous support of the ethanol industry. I too support the ethanol industry not only in my own constituency but right across Canada. I congratulate the member for her work and I urge her to continue with what she has been doing.

Second I also congratulate the member for her comments regarding the interest free cash advance. I was in the House earlier this session when the member raised the question with the minister of agriculture and I am pleased that he is in the House again tonight to hear the member's request for an extension, in fact the reintroduction, of the interest free cash advance.

The member who just spoke and the minister of agriculture who comes from Saskatchewan will know that the interest free cash advance is not just a benefit to the farmer but it is a benefit to all of Canada.

Farmers under our current system, a marketing system that I support, cannot sell grains whenever they feel like it. They are subject to quotas. They are subject to elevators that are full. They are subject to a system that is backlogged so that grain can simply not be delivered when the cash is needed to pay for clothing or tuition fees, food or other payments that the bank requires in order to allow for a farm family to remain on the land.

The interest free cash advance is a small price for our nation to pay for an accessible agricultural product and an income at the farm gate when in fact the grain needs to be sold and the system will not allow it to be sold.

I urge the member to continue to call on the minister of agriculture to reintroduce the cash advance. I have a brief question for her. She did ask the question of the minister before. Can she give the House an indication whether the minister is responding favourably to her request?

Agriculture May 10th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I have divided into two short parts.

The first part is on GRIP. In 1991 when the previous government brought in GRIP my colleagues in the NDP in the House and I were among a very few who spoke against GRIP and predicted many of the problems that have beset the program ever since.

We were criticized quite heavily throughout Saskatchewan and elsewhere by farmers who did not support the NDP generally. We were criticized because the farm economy was in such bad shape that farmers were prepared to accept any program that would provide them with some very quick relief. Certainly we admit the first year of GRIP provided some incredible relief for Saskatchewan and other farmers. We realize many producers, in the atmosphere of needing money in 1990-91, were prepared to accept the program they knew was not going to be acceptable in the long term.

The member referred earlier to the Reform always being against GRIP. Where were their members in 1991 in Saskatchewan when the program was being promoted by the Conservative Party to the support of many farmers in Saskatchewan?

The second point I wanted to make with regard to the Farm Credit Corporation-

Agriculture May 10th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the remarks of the hon. member for Souris-Moose Mountain. I share with him responsibilities for many farmers in the province of Saskatchewan. Many of them are looking in this spring of hope to an opportunity to have a much better year than they had previously, both financially and cropwise.

The hon. member in his remarks commented on the problems of transportation and moving the grain to ports. I am wondering if the member is aware that the railways have fallen short of their requirements in terms of shipping.

In fact, I understand in the second quarter of the current crop year railways reached only 75 per cent of their targets on shipments to the west coast and 82 per cent of their targets to Thunder Bay. The Western Grain Transportation Act allows for penalties to be applied to the railways should they fall short of their commitments or targets.

Would the member for Souris-Moose Mountain agree that perhaps the federal government should examine imposing the penalty clauses of the WGTA at this time when, as we realize, they have never been applied in the past?

Agriculture May 10th, 1994

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member for Malpeque who listened closely, as I did, to the comments of the member for Vegreville.

The comments were riddled with contradictions. One of the biggest was early in his remarks when he talked about the fact that governments should not be a partner with farmers or with agri-business. Then he went on to outline the Reform's three-point program which puts the government in partnership with farmers and agri-business. It did not make sense.

Would the member qualify or further explain what he meant by saying that there should not be any partnership and why he called for a partnership?

At the same time I would like him to deal with the issue of the majority deciding an issue. Clearly in Saskatchewan the majority of farmers who attended government sponsored discussions on transportation, clearly those who have attended the conferences of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, the National Farmers Union and other farm organizations in Saskatchewan have spoken in favour of the status quo for grain transportation and the maintenance of the Crow benefit.

Yet the member who believes very strongly in letting the majority decide continues to argue that the interests of the large corporations and the large farmers should be put above the ordinary producers throughout Saskatchewan and other parts of the prairies.

I would like the hon. member who speaks eloquently about agriculture and other issues to explain these things to me and other members of the House.

Questions On The Order Paper April 26th, 1994

Following the 1989 report of the task force on tax benefits for northern and isolated areas, will the government proceed with the termination of the tax benefits for certain northern and isolated areas?

The Environment April 21st, 1994

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, April 22, is Earth Day and although polling experts say that eight out of ten Canadians are deeply concerned about ecological issues the present public policy agenda has been completely taken over by economic concerns, the debt and the deficit, social programs and unemployment.

Although these issues are important their significance pales next to the long term significance of a healthy and sustainable environment.

It is time we acknowledged it is not only the federal deficit that threatens future generations of Canadians. If we destroy the earth's ability to support our way of life there definitely will be fewer jobs and social programs. The economic issues that preoccupy public policy makers now will be completely irrelevant.

Therefore, on Earth Day I urge all Canadians who are concerned about the environment to continue to try to keep it at the top of the public agenda. It is only through constant attention that the environment will be placed high on the government's list of priorities.

Questions On The Order Paper April 19th, 1994

Will the government implement recommendation No. 3 in the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, entitled: "A Time for Action" (34th Parliament, third session), which calls for the transfer of control of housing programs to aboriginal people and, if so, when and how, and, if not, why?

Questions On The Order Paper March 14th, 1994

Who was asked to conduct a review of Canada Post's rural conversion plans, what resources were provided for the review process and what criteria and direction was given to those asked to conduct the review?

Questions On The Order Paper March 10th, 1994

What is the government's intention regarding the automated security systems planned for the Fort Battleford national historic park in Saskatchewan, what is the rationale for the conversion, and what tests have been done on the system under consideration to guarantee that it works?

Borrowing Authority Act, 1994-95 March 7th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House today on the important matter before us, the matter being the borrowing authority bill. Bill C-14 provides the government with the opportunity to borrow some $34 billion to see us through this fiscal year.

I have stood in the House many times over the last five years. In each of those years I have seen the government come forward about this time, shortly after the budget was brought down in the House by a finance minister, and ask the House for the authority to borrow money in order to get it through the year.

Each year these funds address the central problem of the past, that program spending has been greater than the revenues received by government. We have now reached a point where as a nation we are borrowing money simply to pay the interest costs on the debt that has accumulated over a number of years.

Every Canadian manages debt of one kind or another. Many Canadians who purchased homes have gone to the bank and borrowed money in order to mortgage the facility and be able to live in it. Many Canadians with businesses have borrowed money or have incurred debt either to maintain the capital of the business or maintain an inventory for the business. Many Canadians have borrowed money for furnishings, holidays or whatever they want on credit cards. In each case, whether a home owner, a business person, a farmer who borrowed money for equipment to operate his farm or a consumer on a credit card, the debt is always considered in terms of manageability.

As a nation we continue to ask ourselves how much money we need in a given year and then borrow to make up the total over and above what we have. The difference between us as a nation and us as homeowners, farmers, business people and consumers is that as a government we are not managing our way through. We have no specific plan to deal with the accumulated and accumulating debt other than to talk about reducing the annual deficit to the point where we might come to a percentage above our GNP. In and of itself that certainly is not good enough.

Looking at the public debt charges we see right off the bat that last year the government's budgetary spending was $161 billion with revenues of only $121 billion, resulting in a shortfall of over $40 billion. This year, 1993-94, the government is adding $45 billion to that total. The spending will reach $167 billion and revenue is only $115 billion, resulting in that $45 billion shortfall. Of course the next couple of years continue along those lines.

As I said, in and of itself that is a horrible situation. Debt itself when it is manageable is acceptable. When it is unmanageable, it is unacceptable. The situation here is the government is not prepared to manage that debt accordingly.

When that is combined with other initiatives it leaves us in the position that we are rapidly losing our ability to care for the citizens and residents of our nation. We are rapidly reaching the point of losing our economic sovereignty because of the programs, policies and debt that have accumulated around us. Let me give a couple of examples of what I mean by this.

On the debt side of all of this we recognize that much of our borrowing today is coming from the foreign marketplace. We continue to sell treasury bills and bonds to ourselves in Canada. However of the some $400 billion accumulated debt at the end of 1992 more than $80 billion was held outside Canada. It was held by governments or banks or others outside Canadian borders.

Of that $80 billion, $8 billion a year in interest payments alone is leaving this country. That is $8 billion earned in this country by those people who are still working. It is earned and paid in taxes to this government, only to find that the money is put in buckets so to speak and transported across the border ending up in the hands of foreign banks or foreign governments.

Those tax dollars which leave Canada are of no use to us. Everyone knows that money earned in Canada and spent in Canada creates a nice little circle allowing for the money to be used several times. However when it is put in those buckets and sent on trucks outside this country so to speak, that money is not used again in Canada. Add that to other policies of the government and policies of past governments that remain in place and it is creating a very difficult situation for all Canadians.

We recognize from the Auditor General's report of two years ago that our tax system rewards companies that invest outside our borders. Canadian companies and American and other foreign multinationals operating in Canada and paying, one would hope, income taxes in Canada, that take Canadian profits and invest those dollars in other countries and create jobs in those other countries can then reduce their income tax or corporate tax paid in Canada.

When foreign companies operating in Canada make their investments, and there have been fewer investments in recent years, the investments made are generally in existing Canadian operations. They are businesses that are producing products and employing Canadians. When they invest, companies are inevitably downsized. Foreign investment has resulted in unemployment in Canada.

We used to encourage foreign investment to the point where jobs would be created. It would create new product. It would create new investment in our country. But the investment taking place today simply removes jobs from Canada. Of course with that downsizing and the so-called greater efficiency in that marketplace the profits earned end up going outside Canada as well.

The Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement has spurred investment from Canadian companies into the United States. There is a greater influx of Canadian capital into the American marketplace for investment. That is not something the business community has criticized because of course it is very excited about expanding Canadian opportunities in a larger marketplace.

That means that money invested in the United States employs workers in the United States at the expense of Canadian workers. If that money were invested inside Canada instead of inside the United States the return for Canadians would be much greater.

The economic circumstance taking place is one where government tax policies and other policies and government debt make it very difficult for this country to participate in building jobs, what the government says is its main mandate out of this budget.

Our economy is almost bent on self-destruction. This economy will not create jobs while we continue to support corporations, particularly transnational and multinational corporations which create jobs outside our borders. It is time this government took a long hard look at the way the creation of debt, the tax policies and the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement have diminished the government's ability to control the types of jobs that can be created in our country.

I do not want to leave the impression that perhaps all is lost. The important thing for government to understand is that, to use the language of the prairies, it must have some guts to stand up in the international marketplace and support Canadian industry and Canadian workers. It must support Canadian citizens who want to create a better life in Canada and to have some economic sovereignty within the North American and the world context.

Canada's tremendous resources in the past have simply been cut down and put on boxcars, fishing boats or whatever and shipped off some place else to allow for job creation and sales to take place in other parts of the world. For years we have forsaken a tremendous opportunity to create jobs and wealth, create new wealth in Canada that circulates in this country creating additional jobs and additional support.

If we continue to allow the marketplace to tell us what to do throughout Canada, through government, through the private sector, then our economy will slowly work itself down to the point where the only jobs left will be those servicing the unemployed or people on welfare. We have to find a way to pull ourselves out of that. Our economy cannot be allowed to shrink.

Mr. Speaker, you are signalling that my time is almost up. I will not abuse the privilege of the Chamber, although there are

probably two dozen other things I would like to mention. I thank you very much for your patience this afternoon.