Vic Althouse

[Agriculture, April 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, when the minister of agriculture appeared in front of the agriculture subcommittee on grain transport it was strictly do as I say, not do as I do. He said to prepare for the future. As our glorious leader on this important challenge, he then retired to the rear and complained about his administrative duties: how to make a payout, to whom, why, when and for what land. Such problems.

He avoided any discussion of the long term transport decisions already inflicted on agriculture by his government: no Crow payments August 1; branch line deregulation by January 1; full rate deregulation by 1999; decisions that will increase freight rates dramatically as rates rise to those of other products and U.S. freight rates.

With that much bad news facing us in the trenches no wonder our little general could not bring himself to look at or even alert the troops. What vision, what courage, what a total disappointment.

[Agriculture, April 26th, 1995]

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

With the budget announcing the elimination of the Crow benefit under the WGTA effective August 1, abandonment of branchline protection effective January 1 and full grain rate deregulation by the year 2000, the government has inflicted great damage on the global competitive position of our prairie farmers.

Assuming the government would like to see agricultural activity continue on the prairies and given this land locked, underpopulated but highly productive region will likely continue to export the vast surpluses from production for years to come, why has the government not considered turning control of CNR, which it wants to privatize anyway, over to farmers so they can control at least part of the system from farm to port?

[Petitions, April 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present petitions gathered by people along the Chelan Subdivision of the CNR, which is now, thanks to government order in council, no longer protected to the year 2000. Virtually every resident along that line has signed this petition.

The petitioners are asking Parliament to support Canada's rural way of life by rejecting the policy proposals of lifting the prohibition order on branch lines and developing agricultural and rural development policies for Canada in which rural citizens are considered to be human beings with spiritual, social, and economic needs and not just economic commodities or statistics.

[Questions On The Order Paper, April 5th, 1995]

For each of the last 20 years, what proportion of gross domestic product has Canada received in tax revenue from: individual income taxes; corporate income taxes; manufacturers' sales taxes; goods and services tax; payments for services rendered by federal agencies; contributions to Canada pension plan and contributions to civil service pension schemes (military, RCMP and parliamentary)?

[Questions On The Order Paper, April 5th, 1995]

For each of the last 20 years, what proportion of gross domestic product has Canada spent on: unemployment insurance programs; old age pensions; Canada pension plan; civil service pensions (including military, RCMP and parliamentary service); family allowance and/or child tax credits; health care; protection of property (police, military and prisons) and interest on debt payments?

[Rail Strike, March 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a comment concerning the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster who is pretending to speak for the NDP. He does not.

[Agriculture, March 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in the budget the government decided to pay western landowners $1.6 billion as a partial offset to the decline in farmland values that will result from the abandonment of the Crow benefit and the Crow rate.

The minister of agriculture has decided in his wisdom to include summer fallow in the calculation for the payment but not the 10 million acres or more of cultivated lands that are seeded to forage crops for hay and seed production. The rationale for this breathtaking leap of logic seems to be that grass seed was not listed in the Crow benefit schedule.

Could the minister explain his version of fairness to one of my constituents who cash rented a half section from an uncle, seeded it to alfalfa and has been producing seed? How does my constituent tell his uncle that his land is not eligible for a payout because his nephew seeded it to alfalfa?

The uncle knows his land will lose just as much value as the land across the fence which is not in alfalfa but there is no compensation for him. How is that fair?

[Transportation, February 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have a proposal for the Minister of Transport who says he wants to rid himself of the financial obligations for the Crow benefit. He also says he wants to get rid of the Canadian National Railway.

Since the present value of the Crow benefit obligation is somewhere between $7 billion and $9 billion, sums which the government is hard pressed to find, why does the minister not offer prairie farmers the CNR (North American) as at least a partial payment of the Crow obligation?

While CN's net worth is considerably short of the Crow obligation, it could be a start toward providing a means of connecting farm fields with sea ports in a way that satisfies both Canadian needs and international obligations under the GATT.

Such a proposal leaves farm people with some control over export costs since it allows them real choices in striking a balance between viable railways and viable farms, something the minister has not considered so far.

[Immigration Act, February 6th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan pointing out how he and his party feel that there has to be more staffing in the immigration department. It seems that is a necessity.

I have also been listening to his party for the last year and a quarter complaining that the government must cut some $40 billion from the deficit and they keep saying it should be done almost immediately. That will mean reducing about 25 per cent of the services that the government now looks after which presumably will mean a 25 per cent cut in the personnel who have been delivering those services.

If the hon. member is going to be adding to the immigration department, what departments is he going to be proposing to do away with and where can he get rid of 25 per cent of the current crop of civil servants and still add to some departments? He will have to do away with whole departments and perhaps do away with the military to perform these new services that he is now advocating. Where can he take these kinds of cuts and still get rid of about a quarter and still add to his chosen ministry?

[Question Passed As Order For Return, February 6th, 1995]

Regarding the Net Income Stabilization Account (NISA) payments, ( a ) how many individuals participated in NISA over each of the last 4 years, ( b ) what has been the cost of purchasing and installing computing and processing equipment since the program began in 1991 to the present and are there any plans for future major improvements, ( c ) what is the waiting time from date of receipt of application until date cheque is issued, ( d ) in 1993 and 1994, how many applications fell into the category requiring 1 month for processing, 2 months, etc. up to 10 months or more and what are the chief reasons for the delays?

(Return tabled.)