Elwin Hermanson

[Supply, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated hearing the hon. member for Provencher speak to this issue.

As he is no doubt aware, a very divisive issue in western Canada has been that of the recipient of payments under the Western Grain Transportation Act. Should those funds be paid to producers or paid to the railways as they are currently being administered? Does the hon. member favour the status quo of paying the WGTA to the railroads? Would he favour paying that transportation subsidy to producers? Or, does he have a new initiative that he would prefer to see undertaken?

[Supply, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief.

My colleague and neighbouring member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre referred to safety net programs and the ongoing problem. I am hearing in my riding of Kindersley-Lloydminster that in spite of all this consultation there is not the foggiest idea of what program will be replacing GRIP which is currently being discontinued.

I wonder if the member has had the same problem in his riding.

[Supply, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the Minister of Finance speak to the issue of agriculture. I appreciate his presence here because a lot of the decisions affecting agriculture have a dollar attached to them.

His speech was rather a motherhood one. I am sure that if you glance through Hansard you would see similar speeches made by agriculture ministers and finance ministers since time immemorial both at the federal and provincial levels.

There was really nothing of substance that I can take back to my rural riding and tell my constituents that I heard this from the government and it would give them hope or at least help them to prepare for the decisions they have to make to manage their farming enterprises.

A crucial question we would like to have clarification on from the Minister of Finance is-I am not talking in broad motherhood terms-when federal financial support for agriculture is justifiable.

Reform has very clearly stated the basis on which we feel support is justifiable. I can mention eight areas. What about countering international trade wars? What about transportation issues? What about natural hazards? What about regional disparities in agricultural sectors? What about variations or instability in the marketplace returns from agriculture produce? What about sustainability of rural Canada? What about research and development? What about environmental and conservation measures?

Specifically, does the government support funding for agriculture in these definite areas because I am not sure there are enough dollars to cover all of them. We need to know the priorities of the government. Because the minister went to great lengths to say that the federal agriculture minister was so wonderful I am sure they have had considerable consultation and have an action plan in place.

I would like to know what the priorities of the federal government are with regard to consolidating federal programs. The minister said it is an issue they may pursue. We want to know what programs are going to be consolidated in the agriculture sector. What can we expect from the government?

We also wonder if it would pledge to cut down administration but retain funding in real dollars for actual agricultural programs, except perhaps if savings could be accrued through reduction or de-escalation in the trade war.

[Theme Park, April 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is really disappointing to see the government with its blinders on. The report by the Federal Bureau of Regional Development on this project claims that the revenue generated by visitors to the park will be less than half of what is projected. The cost of maintaining the facility will be almost $900,000 per year higher than projected and to run the park properly it might have to triple its payroll.

The evidence indicates that this patronage park will run deficits every year.

I ask the Prime Minister whether his government is prepared to bail out this money pit year after year, or is the Prime Minister prepared to show some leadership and pull the plug on the boondoggle-no more federal funding?

[Theme Park, April 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

In addition to the $20 billion in spending cuts that we tabled, we have a very practical example. Yesterday the Prime Minister referred to vast private sector support for the patronage theme park in his riding.

I would point out to the Prime Minister that Hydro Quebec, which is supplying almost all of the so-called private funding, is a provincial crown corporation. In fact the taxpayers of Canada and Quebec are contributing almost all of the funding for this boondoggle.

In light of the fact that this theme park is almost entirely funded by public funds and not the private sector, will the federal government withdraw its support for this doomed project?

[Sahtu Dene And Metis Land Claim Settlement Act, April 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Churchill on his first participation in debate. I think we were very appreciative of the words he spoke, his commitment to Canada, and the warmth and conviction with which he speaks.

I have spoken to many Canadians and I am sure I speak for millions of Canadians who would like to express appreciation to the hon. member for Churchill for the part he played in the debate over the Meech Lake accord. I have had many people express to me their appreciation for the fact that the hon. member for Churchill played a major and a significant role in defeating the Meech Lake accord and preventing it from being imposed upon Canadians.

I also want to congratulate the hon. member on his concern over Canada as being a country built on two founding races. I know that my Reform colleagues and I for many years now have shared the view that as a false conception of Canada it is not relevant in very many parts of the country and certainly does not recognize the role played by the true founding race of Canada, the aboriginal people.

I do have a question. On our side of the House and in our caucus we have asked the minister of Indian affairs, we have asked the Prime Minister and we have asked many influential members on the government side to provide us with a definition of aboriginal self-government. I heard the hon. member for Churchill speak about aboriginal self-government today. It is very difficult for us to fulfil our role as an opposition until we have the terms of aboriginal self-government defined for us so we can determine whether they are good and just and will make us a better country and will enhance the role of aboriginal people within the nation, whether it may be divisive and negative on the country. I plead with the hon. member for Churchill. Would he at least be so considerate as to give us his definition of what aboriginal self-government is.

[Theme Park, April 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it seems the Prime Minister is telling taxpayers that instead of wasting all their money he will only waste half their money.

According to the February 15 edition of the Globe and Mail during the election campaign the Prime Minister promised to fork out the pork in his riding. He said:

I have the impression that when files from Saint-Maurice cross the desk of a minister-I needn't say more.

Will the Prime Minister rise above patronage politics and tell his ministers not to give preferential treatment to his own riding?

[Theme Park, April 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

The government is planning to spend 4.5 million taxpayer dollars on a patronage theme park in the Prime Minister's home riding in spite of a report commissioned by the government warning that the project was doomed to fail.

According to the Deputy Prime Minister the government reduced its contribution to the park by more than half because of the concerns raised in the Legault report.

If the government was concerned enough to cut funding to this patronage park in half because it will fail, why did the government not do the logical thing and cut the funding altogether?

[Hibernia, April 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I get really concerned when I hear the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans answering a question on megaprojects.

I am trying to bring to the attention of the government the boondoggles it is involved in. I wonder why the Prime Minister is preparing to waste $4.8 million tax dollars on a patronage park in his home riding. It is my understanding that perhaps the feature attraction will be a fantasyland ride called debt mountain.

Why is the Deputy Prime Minister ignoring a federal study which says that just like the failed humour museum in Montreal, the patronage park is also a bad joke?

[Hibernia, April 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Reform Party said the problem is that governments keep getting themselves in deeper and deeper and the sooner we extricate ourselves from these types of mismanaged projects the better.

When is the government going to learn? Hibernia is joining the Bricklin auto plant, the Mirabel airport, and now the Lloydminster upgrader has run out of operating funds. These are all entering the white elephant hall of fame.

What would have been the benefit to Canada's unemployed if the money spent on so-called megaprojects had been directed to deficit reduction, leading to lower taxes and thereby creating real jobs?

When will the government come to its senses and rescue taxpayers from the Hibernia project before it sinks?