Inky Mark

[Human Resources Development, December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party of Canada is taking “extraordinary measures” according to their political boss Senator Dan Hayes.

The Minister of Human Resources Development is planning a staged announcement of six transitional job fund projects in Manitoba totalling $1.7 million.

An HRD faxed memorandum addressed to an official at foreign affairs asks whether the member for Provencher or the member for Winnipeg Centre should make roll up announcements and site visits, but all six project locations are in Churchill and Selkirk—Interlake ridings.

To include the local MP irrespective of party in announcements would be extraordinary. What is not extraordinary is for the foreign affairs minister to use public moneys for purely political purposes.

[Access To Information Act, December 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, since time is a priceless commodity I will say that I am very pleased to be able to speak to the bill. As has been mentioned—

[Supply, November 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I respect the hon. member's comments and I respect his position. I do know that municipal governments are under the responsibility of all provincial governments, including the province of Quebec.

I think the object here is to encourage provincial governments to seek the assistance of municipalities to get into the milieu of discussion. The downfall of the last attempts with Canadian unity was the lack of grassroots involvement. If the hon. member believes in accountability to the people who elected and sent him to Ottawa, then I believe that the municipal governments and the citizens who live there and pay taxes are equally as important as the people who sit in the legislature at the provincial level.

[Supply, November 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I think this is an opportune time for this country to re-evaluate the relationship between the three levels of government. The hon. member may know or may not know that there are other countries in the world which only have two levels of government and do not have three levels such as this country.

The reality of history is that municipal governments existed long before the federal system came into being, way before confederation came about. Even though the provinces always elaborate and keep saying the municipal governments are the creatures of the provinces, they have taken a very paternalistic approach to the relationship between provinces and municipalities, it is high time we have a little more equality among all three levels.

[Supply, November 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the unity team representing the municipalities, I am pleased to speak to the very important topic of unity. We all know that this discussion is necessary and is on the minds of most Canadians.

I begin by telling the House what the Official Opposition has done so far to promote public awareness and discussion of the Calgary declaration.

We have circulated two letters to more than 4,400 municipal councils in Canada encouraging them to get involved in the process. That is the first order of government, the level of government closest to the people.

We have circulated copies of the Calgary declaration to municipal leaders on demand. We have circulated letters to all the premiers encouraging them to get involved with the municipal leaders in discussions. We have asked the prime minister to make a copy of the Calgary declaration available to every household in Quebec. We have posted a copy of the Calgary declaration on the website of the Reform Party of Canada, www.Reform.ca, including an analysis and survey.

Some questions need to be raised about what the government is doing at this point in time. What leadership has the prime minister taken to involve Quebeckers in awareness and discussion of the Calgary declaration?

Another question needs to be raised. What has the prime minister done to involve municipal leaders in the unity discussion coming out of the Calgary declaration?

I would like to elaborate on some of these points. I will begin by addressing the issue of municipalities, governments that are part of the main stakeholders in the Canadian unity debate.

Canadians are looking for leaders who will work in positive ways to strengthen and to unify the Canadian federation. There is no doubt that many of my former municipal colleagues in the House, and there are at least 60 of them, believe that the municipalities should be heard and taken into account.

Municipal governments provide direct service to citizens. No one understands the real issues related to serving the public at that level as they do. It is long overdue that the federal government recognize municipal governments as legitimate entities in their own right.

I reiterate that in 1996 the current prime minister in Calgary, at a meeting of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, acknowledged the importance of municipalities. He indicated that he would do something more than just acknowledge them as an entity and their own rights. We are still waiting for that to occur.

As a newly elected member of Parliament and as Official Opposition deputy critic on national unity for municipalities, I want to make sure that municipalities are involved in building a better and more united Canada.

During the last federal election national unity emerged as a key issue, certainly in my riding. Federalists across Canada, regardless of political affiliation, were disturbed by the near failure of the federalist side during the last Quebec referendum campaign. There is a deepening conviction among more and more Canadians that a positive resolution to the unity issue requires a two pronged approach.

One is a vigorous, inspiring and far-sighted vision for making federalism work better, a vision of a 21st century Canada which appeals deeply to all Canadians, including Quebeckers. This vision must reconcile and integrate the values and aspirations of importance to Canadians in every part of our country and at every level of government.

Second, a well defined, federal contingency plan for dealing with another referendum on sovereignty and/or a declaration of independence by Quebec. This plan must be made clear in advance of any decision on such matters and what the consequences would be for Quebec and Canada as a whole.

The Reform Party of Canada, which now forms the official opposition in this House, is committed 100% to the task of building a better and more united Canada, a Canada that includes Quebec as a full, essential partner.

Specifically, we have committed to co-operating not only with federal and provincial governments but also with Canadian municipal governments to help develop a vision for a better Canada and to propose alternatives where these are needed, including in Quebec.

Over the last six years as a municipal official, it was my privilege to visit and speak to many municipalities across this country. It is my conviction that public support is growing for a new non-constitutional effort designed to strengthen the unity of this country and that such an effort should focus on defining a vision of a better Canada which includes the following five elements.

First, a stronger commitment from the federal government to the equality of citizens and provinces in law.

Second, a rebalancing of the federal and provincial powers to meet the demands of the 21st century that take into account the responsibilities of municipalities as the governments closest to the people.

Third, ensuring this rebalancing equips each province with the tools required to protect and develop the unique features of their economies and societies.

Fourth, reform the institutions of Parliament and the federal system to make them more effective and accountable to the representation of local, regional and public interests.

Fifth, ensure genuine consultations with the public involving them in any major changes to the federation.

Municipalities are putting forth resolutions that will reconcile and integrate the principles and values of equality, uniqueness, balance of powers, effective representation and public involvement which go a long way toward defining the vision that Canadians are looking for to strengthen and unite the country.

I do not have time to read the many letters that I have received from municipalities across Canada, but I will at this time indicate the meat of the letter that I sent to the premiers on September 18 which reads “Municipal leaders across Canada are already making clear that they have a stake in the future of our country. Municipal governments frequently refer to themselves as the first order of government, the government closest to the people. Could we encourage municipal leaders to participate and hold town hall style meetings in each community open to residents of the communities with the assistance of facilitators. The information will be provided by the provincial governments with input from experts, including the participation of local MLAs, MPPs and MNAs. The key advantage of such a process and mechanism is the opportunity to transcend political partisan loyalties over commitments. This is the kind of leadership I believe Canadians are looking for.”

I would like to close by saying that Canada is a federal union of provinces and territories and Canada desires a balanced federation where provinces and citizens enjoy equal status before the constitution and the law of Canada. Canadians nationally and in each province and territory desire a country with better jobs, with brighter prospects for their children, with better health care, with more responsible and efficient government services, lower taxes, greater individual freedoms and more open and accountable government institutions.

Therefore, the Government of Canada and the provinces should pursue only policies and legislation which express the aspirations of Canadians to build a better Canada, more equal and united from sea to sea.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand in this House and bring the concerns of the farmers of Dauphin—Swan River. As you know, my riding is very agricultural-based. There are farmers right through it, from one end to the other.

During my short break at home I heard many concerns about the new bill, about the attempted change to the Canadian Wheat Board. I must say that the majority of the farmers in my constituency support the Canadian Wheat Board, but they want real change. They want change that is going to impact the farmers' lives.

One comment that has been raised continuously is: Why is it that we, the producers of the crops, have no control on how it is marketed, no control on the price, no control on the transportation to market? I really have no way of responding to these types of questions because the Canadian Wheat Board is a very big monopoly that basically dictates. It is very paternalistic in its approach.

Farmers in Dauphin—Swan River are asking for a real change that will bring about real democracy. The purpose of the Canadian Wheat Board should be for the benefit of the grower and the producer, not the people who live in Ottawa who sit in this House.

Another concern that is raised continuously in my riding is the question: Why are farmers that are trying to market their product across the border treated like criminals?

As you know, in this country we really do not have a justice system, not the way the courts operate. These farmers are treated in the worst way, worse even than criminals, by far. That is a question that is continuously raised. These people probably did break the law as it exists today in transporting their products to market, but we need justice in this country. We have to treat them in a fair and equal way.

As my colleague indicated previously, that is the political crime that they have committed by doing this. Anyway, the people of Dauphin—Swan River feel that this is not fair. It is not fair to treat people in this manner.

The third concern is about the Canadian Wheat Board and the control of the direction of the full grain and how they market the grain and how they transport it out of this country. As you know, the port of Churchill with the amendment to the Marine Act is becoming part of the private sector and also, with the privatization of CN, it is going to be a big plus for the province of Manitoba in terms of exporting grain.

Considering that the port of Churchill was built in the thirties, someone at the federal level had a vision for the farmers of western Canada back in 1930. We have lost that vision over the last 60 years. That port is totally underutilized.

The big advantage of using the port of Churchill as I have vented in this House is that it is 6,800 kilometres shorter to European markets than it is from the Thunder Bay port. Yet, over the last 60 years this port has been totally neglected. In fact this year the Canadian Wheat Board has shipped, I believe, less than 400,000 tons through the port of Churchill.

Therefore, on behalf of the farmers, the wheat board has to increase the amount of grain that it ships out of this country. It is high time that the grain started moving north and south instead of east and west at a cost to the farmer.

Shipping grain through the port of Churchill will save the farmer of western Canada $20 per ton and that $20 will go in the pockets of the farmers, which will in effect improve the local economy and in effect will increase what goes into the pockets of Ottawa as well.

There is no doubt that the Canadian Wheat Board has been a good thing in the past.

I mean in the past because I am reminded by older farmers who went through the tough times of the 1930s and the pre-war period that the wheat board was there for their protection. Today we live in the 1990s.

This is the age where governments talk about entrepreneurship, Internet technology, the shrinking global economy. There is no doubt that there are many farmers out there who can ship their own products much more effectively and efficiently than a monopoly.

I am not saying that the government should not be marketing the product but I believe the farmers in Dauphin—Swan River want that option. They want an option to market their product on their own.

It is all about accountability. The constituents of Dauphin—Swan River are looking for accountability with the new Canadian Wheat Board accountable to the farmers and not to the politicians in Ottawa. They want accountability through the organization's being more transparent and they also want more options.

The final analysis is that they want the Canadian Wheat Board to work on behalf of the farmers and not on behalf of big business and government.

[Lieutenant Colonel Billy Barker, November 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we can tell much about a country by its heroes and how it treats them.

This forgotten Canadian hero shot down 53 enemy aircraft during World War I. This forgotten Canadian hero received the Victoria Cross, the DSO, the Military Cross, the French and Italian military honours, six gallantry awards from King George V and others. Billy Bishop called him the deadliest air fighter who ever lived. This forgotten Canadian hero was the first president of the Toronto Maple Leafs and first acting director of the Royal Canadian Air Force.

Some 50,000 people joined or watched the mile long cortege at his funeral in 1930, yet his grave is marked as Smith in a family crypt with no indication of what he did for Canada.

Canada, it is time to give Lieutenant Colonel Billy Barker, VC, this Canadian hero from Dauphin, Manitoba, the recognition he deserves.

[Access To Information Act, October 22nd, 1997]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-253, an act to amend the Access to Information Act (disclosure of results of public opinion polls).

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to introduce a bill entitled an act to amend the Access to Information Act (disclosure of results of public opinion polls). This bill requires the government to make public any public opinion poll commissioned by any department, branch, office, board, agency, commission, corporation or other body established by Parliament or by the governor in council.

Public opinion polls paid for with public money should be made public. Governments in Canada have had a bad habit of being secretive about the wrong things. Mr. Speaker, you will know that it was not until the 1980s that Canada even had an access to—

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Canada Marine Act, October 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-9. I am glad to hear that the member opposite is positive about making all these changes to the marine act. I am afraid it is some 50 or 60 years too late.

I am here to talk about history. I want to give members of the House a history lesson. As we know, this bill will have a huge impact on the port of Churchill in Manitoba, which has been grossly neglected by this government and former governments.

It is ironic that in 1930 members of this House had a vision for the future of this country and built this huge shipping facility and in 1929 a railroad was built to reach that port. Unfortunately from 1930 to 1997 not a lot has been done with that port. It has been neglected, misused or underutilized.

I am glad to hear that the Liberal government has finally realized that privatization is not a dirty word. I am glad to hear that the government believes the private sector can perhaps carry on the business of transportation of commodities, including airports, much better than the government sector.

In the short time I have I would like to talk about the port of Manitoba, our direct access to the world. Its main purpose for construction as outlined in the Ports Canada document is that about 25% of western Canada's grain growing area is located closer to Churchill than to any other port. This covers the area of central and northern Saskatchewan, northeastern Alberta and northwestern Manitoba. In other words, Churchill is up to 1,600 kilometres closer to European markets than the port of Thunder Bay. Those are facts.

Even though those are the facts and that was the original intent for the construction of the port of Churchill the Liberal government and previous federal governments over the past 50 years have totally neglected this fact and have put the cost of transporting agriculture commodities on the backs of farmers. That is the reason we have an east-west focus rather than a north-south focus.

Like the hon. member for Churchill, I visited Churchill this summer and had a chance to meet with Mayor Spence and his council. I was amazed at the facility there. What really amazed me was the shape it was in and how long it had been there.

I differ from the member for Churchill. I understand from speaking with the stakeholders at Churchill that the changes in the marine act will have an immense impact economically on the community of Churchill.

We also fail to understand that not only is grain exported through the port of Churchill but also consumer goods. It is a gateway to the big north of Canada. There is over $300 million in consumer products transported through the port of Churchill by barge and there is no doubt this will increase as further development takes place in northern Canada.

I would like to put on record the myth that the port of Churchill is really not the place to export grain and agriculture products to the world, therefore forcing the farmers over the last 50 years to pay all these ridiculous transportation costs at the ports on the east coast as well as on the west coast. Today we are still doing that; 60% of agricultural products shipped go west and 40% go to the east.

The break even point at the port of Churchill, I believe, is between 500,000 and 600,000 tonnes. Having spoken to the port manager yesterday, so far this year 11 ships have come in and two more are scheduled to arrive. He stated to me that 400,000 tonnes will be shipped through the port of Churchill this year, about a 30% increase from 1996. The projection is that management of the port would like to see 3% to 5% of the prairie crop shipped through the port of Churchill.

The three western provinces produce about 30 million tonnes of grain; approximately 1.5 million tonnes are shipped through the port of Churchill, which is very little in terms of the total export and transportation of grain in this country.

It is good news with the passing of this bill that the port of Churchill will be out of government hands and into private hands.

I have a concern that there will be a lack of a voice on the port board by the producers and a lack of a voice in the transportation company which has taken over the rail line between The Pas and Churchill.

It is my hope that farmers will be consulted by both the new owners and stakeholders of the port and the rail line. Otherwise we will end up with another monopoly as we had in the past when CN was run by government and the ports were run by government and the farmers will get the short end of the stick.

Another concern I have is that the Canadian Wheat Board must increase the amount of grain moved through Churchill. It is long overdue that farmers get their grain to market without being hosed by the transportation system in this country.

[Ukrainian Canadians, October 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the richness of Ukrainian culture displayed annually at Canada's National Ukrainian Festival in my riding of Dauphin—Swan River stands in sharp contrast to the injustice done to thousands of Ukrainian Canadians during Canada's national internment operations of 1914 to 1920.

When war broke out these hard working men, women and children were categorized as enemy aliens, imprisoned, their property confiscated, and their basic rights and freedoms removed. Five thousand Ukrainians were interned in 24 concentration camps across Canada.

From the 1980s Ukrainian Canadians sought acknowledgement from the Government of Canada of a wrong and restitution of the wealth confiscated from internees that still remains in federal coffers.

Despite efforts in 1991 by the member for Kingston and the Islands the situation remains unchanged. I ask hon. members to join me in bringing justice and closure to this regrettable event in our nation's history.