Joe Comuzzi

[Grain Transportation, March 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Transport.

The Grain Transportation Agency announced last week that to fill the grain sales of committed grain and the grain that we will be selling until the end of July, the railways need an additional 5,000 hopper cars.

Without these additional cars, grain sales will suffer and the ports of Vancouver, Prince Rupert and Thunder Bay will suffer serious slowdowns. We know the 5,000 cars are neither affordable nor available.

Will the minister order today that all hopper cars be used exclusively within Canada and forbid the use of hopper cars east of the port of Thunder Bay? Will he continue to order under section 17(4) of the Grain Transportation Act the use of truck transportation where feasible so that this grain can get to market?

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, March 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to pose some questions to the previous speaker.

[Saint Lawrence Seaway, March 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to discuss this very important motion brought forward by my friend from Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies that the government should take the necessary measures to ensure the St. Lawrence seaway remain navigable on a yearly basis and doing this through a more effective allocation of the icebreakers and their operation in eastern Canada.

I was interested in the comments just made by my friend from the Reform Party. He is interested in the costs of keeping the St. Lawrence open on a year round basis, the effect it would have on the coast guard and the impetus the coast guard could bring to this very important issue of icebreaking, not only along the St. Lawrence River but on the Great Lakes and their additional duties in the Arctic. If one considers the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence system, Canada is really a country that is water bound on three sides and on the southern perimeter by half the length of Canada. Therefore, we are from sea to sea to sea to sea and therefore a maritime nation.

I was particularly interested in the remarks of my friend from Quebec who mentioned the unfair subsidies that create an artificial freight rate with respect to grain and oil seeds. This is generated because of sections in the Western Grain Transportation Act which create an artificiality in the movement of grains whether they are to the ports of Prince Rupert, the port of Vancouver or the port of Thunder Bay and eventually from the port of Thunder Bay to the downriver ports in which he has an extreme interest.

Our side has yet to make a decision about what we are going to do in the future, whether we continue to pay the shippers, in this case the Canadian Pacific Railways and the Canadian National Railway, or whether we pay the producer so that we can maximize the return to the farming community. More important, by withdrawing support of the subsidy paid directly to the railways in this country we can then create a level playing field for all transportation loads. We let the farmer, as we let the manufacturer of automobiles, furniture or any other commodities, make the ultimate decision on how to ship their product to market. If we take away that artificial subsidy that is creating distortion in our freight system now in Canada, we then allow the farmer to maximize his or her return and choose the most effective way to ship his or her product to market.

As my friend knows, at certain points in Canada we will find that it is more effective-and I think that point goes beyond the western boundary of Manitoba, to go beyond that point-to ship and use the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence seaway in order to transport those products of grain, oil seeds, potash and coal than by using other ports.

I respect that comment. It is one of the issues that we will be addressing in the very near future.

The issue that we are really talking about when we discuss the opening of the St. Lawrence seaway for a full 12 months is whether the St. Lawrence seaway-Great Lakes system is still a viable transportation route in Canada. It is an infrastructure that we have built and paid for, to answer my friend's question. It is a transportation route that was approved in 1954 and 1956 and completed in 1959. It was paid for through the Government of Canada. There was some support from the United States for the two locks that it owns and still operates.

In the last seven years there has been a complete refurbishing of the Great Lakes locks especially around the Welland canal in the amount $175,000. It has just been completed. The system in itself today is very viable and in good shape.

Your colleague in the front row who is going to speak after me is part of the subcommittee that we on this side of the House have formed to analyse whether the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence is a viable transportation route in this country. If it is not viable we want to know what we have to do as a government to make it a viable transportation route and what changes are needed that are presently obstructing the use of the St. Lawrence-Great Lakes system and the down river ports that create so much employment in Montreal, Quebec City, Baie Comeau, Sept-Iles and all of the other areas in the province of Quebec. There is an ability there to recreate those jobs that were lost because of the flow of grain going to other centres.

I look forward to your support on the subcommittee that has been formed on the viability of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence seaway. Your colleague and our colleague from the Reform Party form part of committee that will be bringing all of these considerations together. We will be studying them. We will be visiting your area hopefully in the near future. We would very much like to discuss in depth all of the pros and cons to the motion you bring before this House today which is: Is it possible to maintain the St. Lawrence River on a 12-month basis.

We will be very interested to hear the proposals that will be forthcoming. I would like to continue this discussion at another time after we have had the opportunity to review all of the information and facts that are so necessary in order to make those vital decisions to ensure the stability of our maritime transportation system in Canada. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to make those comments.

[Easter Seal Campaign, March 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, one of the most pleasant duties as a member of Parliament is supporting the work of very important organizations in our constituencies and throughout Canada.

I had the opportunity last weekend in Thunder Bay to support the local Kiwanis Club in its kick-off luncheon to support the national Easter Seal campaign.

Those involved, Jim Whatley, Don Murphy, Shelagh McMillan, Pat O'Brien and Janice Harding are again to be congratulated for their efforts and their tremendous dedication.

This year's Tammy, Sarah Hovila-Dumbrell, and Timmy, Michael Holdt, are two outstanding young Canadians who, despite the challenges they face, are doing a marvellous job in their roles as ambassadors for the Easter Seal campaign. Both are fine examples to all Canadians who are physically challenged.

Sarah is a kindergarten student with a wonderful smile and she is a tremendous charmer. Michael, with respect, is a grade one student and a bit of a ham. I told him last weekend that he could very well end up as Speaker of the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I compliment my colleague for his maiden speech in the House of Commons. It was well put and very thought provoking.

We know how important the information highway is and will be for all of Canada in order to develop our educational resources and our health resources. I wonder if my colleague would mind spending a few moments to tell the House, and through the House the rest of Canada, how the information highway that he envisages will assist the small and medium sized businesses in this country in which we have all conceded the jobs that Canadians so sorely need are going to be developed.

The question is how would the information highway assist these small entrepreneurs in order that they may benefit from this remarkable technology?

[Social Security System, January 31st, 1994]

Madam Speaker, on January 21 I asked a question of the Minister of Agriculture. The purpose of the question was to draw to his attention a flagrant abuse of taxpayers' money by way of subsidy through the Western Grain Transportation Act.

The substance of my question was the fact that we had found out the CNR and CPR railways were using taxpayers' money by shipping grain into an area for the purpose of gaining a subsidy even though the eventual destination was not in that area.

Let me give an example. We have found that grain which is subject to no subsidy and is for consumption in the United States has been transported from as far away as Alberta to the port of Thunder Bay, where it is subsidized if the eventual consumption is in the United States. Grain has been transported from as far away as Alberta to the Lakehead, to the port of Thunder Bay. The trains then turn around without unloading the grain, find their way back to Winnipeg and points west, and then go down into the United States. That is a flagrant abuse of taxpayers' money. That is what we were trying to point out to the minister through that question.

We are trying to say that when we find these abuses in our system, we have to step in as a government and stop them as quickly as we can.

As a result of that abuse I found out over the weekend that the city which I represent, the port of Thunder Bay, has not had a worse shipping season in the last 31 years as it experienced in the year just past.

When there are abuses and irregularities in the system, it means one does not play on a level playing field with respect to shipping in this country. By the very fact that we have these regulations that set artificial means and ways in which to ship grain in this country so that we do not have an actual cost, then the port of Thunder Bay and every port along the St. Lawrence Seaway suffers.

That was my reason for bringing that to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture and to the Minister of Transportation. I asked them to review that abuse. To this day I have not heard whether they have started to review the abuse or not.

Again, please review the abuses under the Western Grain Transportation Act and give every port in this country a fair opportunity to get into the proper business of it.

[Foreign Affairs, January 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate you on your elevation to the position of Deputy Speaker. It is the first time you have recognized me since I have been in the House and you have been in the chair. We on this side of the House are very pleased the Prime Minister saw fit to make the appointment. We are very hopeful and wish you good fortune in your future role. I am also thankful for your allowing me the opportunity to make some comments with respect to the former country of Yugoslavia.

Our involvement in Yugoslavia is on two fronts: a diplomatic front and a military front. The ongoing diplomatic initiatives undertaken by our minister and his parliamentary secretary who is with us this evening are commendable. I congratulate both of them on the very fine job they continue to do with respect to trying to solve this almost insurmountable and horrendous problem on the diplomatic level. The parliamentary secretary has visited with many of the people who originated from that country in my riding of Thunder Bay. I know their efforts both at the United Nations and at NATO were very well appreciated, not only by the people whom I represent but I am sure by all Canadians throughout the country.

The second area in which we are involved in this dispute is the military area and the participation of our military personnel who have been sent there to try to bring some order to the chaos. It is obvious they are there on humanitarian grounds by exclusion. They are not there as peacemakers because there is just no peace to make and that is really the role of our diplomats. They are not there as peacekeepers because there is no peace to keep. Obviously they are there on the very valid grounds of humanitarian reasons.

The main issues when one discusses the humanitarian aspects are those of providing the basic necessities of life such as food, medicine and some degree of shelter to the people who are always the innocent victims, those who are directly involved and those who are hurt in a conflict in which they have no part.

You had an office down the hall from me, Mr. Speaker, and I would see your children going back and forth. I am particularly grieved when I look at the atrocities perpetrated on children in this area and the sadness. From my perspective, whenever I see a program in the newscast referring to this troubled area and I see the children, my mind goes to my grandchildren as I am sure it does for other Canadians. The situation is horrible. One wonders

why it cannot be resolved, but that is beyond what we can do in the House.

When discussing why we are there, the military aspects of our involvement, naturally we on this side of the House rely very much on the competent minister we have in charge as Minister of National Defence. I am glad he is in the House this evening to listen to the debates on both sides in order to formulate some opinion on what we should do.

I thank the minister for insisting that this is a free and open debate for every member of Parliament to voice their own individual concerns. I am also very pleased to compliment his parliamentary secretary to whom we look for guidance in military matters because of his many years in the military. In his second career he chose to join us in the House of Commons, bringing his wealth of military experience with him. There are some very good resource people on whom we base our information.

The question really comes down to why we are there. Why are we in Somalia? Why are we in most other troubled areas in the world?

Yesterday we welcomed in the House the President of Haiti. He was a democratically elected president of a democratic country. The military of that country chose that he should not be allowed to exercise the democratic principles his country wanted him to exercise. As a result he is a president without a country because the military will not let him perform his duties.

When one thinks of that aspect one says how lucky we are in Canada. It could never happen in Canada. Because of the military in this country and because of the democratic process that we have, there are very distinct lines and the military always responds to the people of Canada through the Minister of National Defence and the cabinet.

Logically when decisions are made at this level I suspect that with any proposed action to assist our allies or to make a contribution to the United Nations or NATO, the Minister of National Defence would first meet with the chief of staff to discuss the proposed role in which our military would become involved.

The first issue to be ascertained naturally, as I spoke earlier, is whether it is for humanitarian grounds, peacekeeping or peacemaking.

Once the minister sets out very clear terms on what our objectives should be, the chief of staff I assume would then confer with his assistants and colleagues in the department of defence and the military on how best they could fulfil the mandate on the order of the defence minister and the cabinet and, through them, the people of this country.

I think the role of the military is to analyse the degree of success of their mandate and what commitments they will have to come back to before they accept that responsibility when they meet with the minister and talk about the necessities of fulfilling that mandate. What is the required manpower? What is the required equipment? How long will it take to fulfil the obligation and to bring whatever action there will be to a satisfactory conclusion?

I think at that time if one could imagine what the decision making process would be, the political arm swings in and makes that fundamental commitment to the military personnel to say that it will provide the manpower, the equipment and the funding necessary to do the job.

I think at that particular period of time the role of the political arm or the role of the politician and the cabinet and the minister, other than being reported to on a daily basis, really turns itself over and those in charge of the military operation take most of the responsibility once that fundamental decision, or what I call the first order of command, is made.

That preamble of getting into that position leads me to reflect on why we have our military people in this troubled land today.

Let us reflect on what has happened in this House over the past little while. In the last government we had a Minister of National Defence who was perhaps preoccupied with other things. We had another Minister of National Defence toward the end of the term. During that period of time we had the chief of staff appointed ambassador to Washington and another chief of staff was appointed. When we came to government what we saw there had been a little dysfunctioning or disorientation.

What I am suggesting today is with that logical background of events that have taken place at this time I would respectfully request that our minister consider removing our forces from that troubled area and reassess our position with respect to our future role in providing military assistance to the troubled area about which we talked today and many of the troubled areas which I am sure will arise in the future.

I suggest we should define our role as to whether we are peacekeepers and if we are peacekeepers let us train our military as best we can and equip them as best we can.

I would like to close with a comment on how proud we are in this country that our military people in the former country of Yugoslavia are performing so admirably and that every Canadian is very proud of the role they are playing. I hope that our minister and our Prime Minister and all of us in this House say that it is time for us to get out and reassess our position.

[Speech From The Throne, January 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I will be succinct in my question but I cannot respond with any degree of authority for my colleague who is going to give the answer as to brevity.

I first wanted just to rise and compliment my colleague from the riding of Winnipeg-St. James for the excellent presentation that he has just given this House with respect to comments on his speech from the throne. I wanted to do that because of the very strong relationship and love between the people in his riding and all ridings in Manitoba and those of us in northwestern Ontario in the centre of this great country of ours. We have always felt that. What happens basically in Manitoba and in the city of Winnipeg and what happens in Thunder Bay and northwestern Ontario is that we both feel each other's reverberations. There is a jointness and a oneness there that we share from the centre of Canada.

Let me make this comment. I will try to be succinct. From the interventions that we heard and the remarks my colleague made there are so many things that they both talked about that bring us together: the grain business is vital to Manitoba and Quebec; the aerospace industry is vital to Manitoba and to the future of Quebec; the transportation industry and the local airport authority which Dorval and Mirabel have already implemented and which the city of Winnipeg is on the threshold of implementing brings us together. There are other areas of mutual interest that they both spoke about that lead us to being together in this country. I just wanted to compliment my colleague and my friends on the other side. There are many issues that should bring us together.

[Grain Transportation, January 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.

Canadian taxpayers subsidize the movement of grain in Canada by approximately $720 million a year. This subsidy is paid directly to the railways and I might say that the subsidy is abused. As an example, to qualify by regulation for the subsidy grain destined for the U.S. market must first go to Thunder Bay. Then from Thunder Bay it is shipped somewhere out west and eventually gets to the market to which it is destined. This is an abuse of the system. It distorts the cost of shipping grain in this country.

Would the Minister of Agriculture consult with the Minister of Transport to stop the flagrant abuse of taxpayers' money through this subsidy immediately? Would he then consider removing the subsidy paid directly to the railways? If there is to be a subsidy on grain in this country perhaps it could be paid to the farmers to whom it rightfully belongs.

[Forestry Industry, January 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, let me offer my personal congratulations and those of the constituency I represent, Thunder Bay-Nipigon. Our congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker, and our very best wishes. May I, on behalf of the people I represent, welcome you to visit with us in Thunder Bay at your earliest convenience.

There are many issues facing this government. I can think of no more serious issue than the protection of our natural resources, particularly our forestry industry.

The forestry industry is Canada's largest industry. There are over three-quarters of a million jobs as a direct result of our forestry industry which creates over $40 billion in wealth in this country. It is our largest single export commodity.

I ask all members of this House, my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois, the Reform Party and the New Democratic Party to strongly endorse a policy of reforestation in this country that will protect the forestry industry in Canada, not only for our generation but for generations to come.