May 25, 1983

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21

AGRICULTURE

LIB

Gaston Gourde

Liberal

Mr. Gaston Gourde (Levis):

All Quebecers involved in the agri-food business have welcomed the changes made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) in his plans for improving the Crowsnest Pass rate.

On the Opposition side, both the Progressive Conservatives and the New Democratic Party have been filibustering in order to prevent passage of Bill C-155, either by refusing to appear in the House for a vote, as was the case yesterday with our Progressive Conservative friends, or by presenting a staggering number of petitions-there were 92-as our friends from the New Democratic Party did.

Both parties have been courting the Quebec electorate for many years without ever making any serious commitments. I therefore challenge the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party to explain before the House the positions of their respective parties on the transportation of grain as it effects the Quebec agri-food industry.

We shall then hear, in public, in front of the television cameras, what our colleagues opposite have to say to Quebec farmers.

It is the truly controversial issues that are a test of character.

1 therefore ask the Members of the New Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservative Members to rise and speak frankly to Canadians in the Province of Quebec.

Topic:   STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURE
Sub-subtopic:   SITUATION IN QUEBEC-POSITION OF OPPOSITION PARTIES
Permalink

POLITICAL PARTIES

PC

Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp

Progressive Conservative

Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):

Madam Speaker, yesterday, May 24, an event of national importance took place in the federal riding of Brandon-Souris. The overwhelming victory which resulted in the Progressive Conservative candidate, Mr. Lee Clark, receiving 62.1 per cent of the votes cast, was confirmation of support for the Progressive Conservative Party and an expression of the desire of thousands of electors, when given an opportunity, to pass judgment on the Government.

Topic:   STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21
Subtopic:   POLITICAL PARTIES
Sub-subtopic:   ELECTION OF PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE IN BRAN DON-SOUR IS BYELECTION
Permalink
?

Some Hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

Topic:   STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21
Subtopic:   POLITICAL PARTIES
Sub-subtopic:   ELECTION OF PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE IN BRAN DON-SOUR IS BYELECTION
Permalink
PC

Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Epp:

The result is a tribute to the late Hon. Walter Dinsdale who faithfully represented Brandon-Souris for 31 years, and was a positive endorsement of an excellent candidate, Mr. Lee Clark. It was a response by thousands of citizens to get involved in the electoral process and, through that process, send a message to the Government. The Liberals sent in Cabinet Ministers, its Party President, and workers who offered jobs, airport extensions, and a voice in Government if their candidate would be elected. For their efforts the Liberal Party received 17 per cent support. It is the hope of all Manitobans that the Liberal Party will conduct itself in an uncharacteristic manner and keep the election promises it made.

The NDP, too, should take no comfort from the results. It tried to hold its vote in the city of Brandon, and especially in the provincial riding of Brandon East. The electorate judged the NDP and recognized that that Party, which has supported the Government on major issues, is certainly no spokesman for the western Canadian farmer. The NDP is not an alternative to the Government, and consequently was rejected absolutely.

Lastly, the byelection in Brandon-Souris gave the voters an opportunity to state in clear terms-

Topic:   STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21
Subtopic:   POLITICAL PARTIES
Sub-subtopic:   ELECTION OF PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE IN BRAN DON-SOUR IS BYELECTION
Permalink
LIB

Jeanne Sauvé (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Madam Speaker:

Order.

Topic:   STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21
Subtopic:   POLITICAL PARTIES
Sub-subtopic:   ELECTION OF PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE IN BRAN DON-SOUR IS BYELECTION
Permalink
?

Some Hon. Members:

More!

Topic:   STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21
Subtopic:   POLITICAL PARTIES
Sub-subtopic:   ELECTION OF PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE CANDIDATE IN BRAN DON-SOUR IS BYELECTION
Permalink

AVIATION INDUSTRY

LIB

Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Hamilton West):

Madam Speaker, Canada has an international reputation for excellence and reliability in specialized aerospace systems and products. This has resulted in Canadian aerospace industry sales of $3 billion a year in a highly competitive international export market. To sustain this worldwide reputation and to achieve the potential foreseen for the Canadian aerospace industry through the 1980s and the 1990s requires a very positive attitude on the part of prospective buyers. With that in mind it is with great

May 25, 1983

concern that 1 mention the recent criticism of one of Canada's outstanding high technology products, the Canadair Challenger Executive Jet. It is one of the finest aircraft of its class ever produced. It only requires a chance to work out some of its developmental problems.

Because of Government funding the aerospace industry is always going to come under public questioning. In this regard Canada is no different from any other nation. But, to achieve growth, the marketability of our aerospace products must be maintained and not be undermined by destructive expressions of opinion. As the editor-in-chief of the Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine commented editorially, "Canada's aerospace industry has served the national interest better than its critics allow. Canada should look at both sides of the issue and not drift into an anti-aerospace mode that would lose the economic and technical benefits generated by this industry."

Topic:   STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21
Subtopic:   AVIATION INDUSTRY
Sub-subtopic:   EXPRESSION OF SUPPORT
Permalink

MOVEMENT OF GRAIN THROUGH PORT OF CHURCHILL

NDP

Rodney Edward Murphy

New Democratic Party

Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):

Madam Speaker, I would like to make a statement on behalf of the New Democratic Party, which is the only Party in this House to support the Port of Churchill consistently. Senator Argue recently offered to give $50 million to the Port of Churchill if the advisory board to the Canada Wheat Board would guarantee 700,000 tonnes of grain for export through the Churchill Port. Yet the Liberal Government has taken a number of steps to hurt that Port.

The Government has cut off grain sales to Poland, one of the main users of the Port of Churchill, on the basis of less than credible arguments-first of all, that Poland is a bad credit risk, yet we continue to deal with countries which have worse debt records; secondly, that Poland has a poor human rights record, yet we continue to sell grain to Chile and Brazil; thirdly, that we are punishing the U.S.S.R., while the U.S., pushing for a de facto embargo of Poland, recently sold 22,000 tonnes of wheat to Poland.

In the past the Government also failed to make improvements to the railway and port facilities necessary for the Port of Churchill. The Liberal Government has also refused to provide icebreakers to lengthen the shipping season on a regular basis.

However, the major concern of the people in western Canada is that the proposed changes to the Crow rate will kill the Port of Churchill. Once variable rates come in, then no grain will go through that Port. How can Senator Argue ask for-

Topic:   STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21
Subtopic:   MOVEMENT OF GRAIN THROUGH PORT OF CHURCHILL
Permalink
LIB

Jeanne Sauvé (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Madam Speaker:

Order.

Topic:   STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21
Subtopic:   MOVEMENT OF GRAIN THROUGH PORT OF CHURCHILL
Permalink

AGRICULTURE

PC

Blaine Allen Thacker

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):

Madam Speaker, Canada is one of the few countries exporting food, and therefore food production must be doubled on available arable land in order to feed the expected world population of about seven billion in the year 2000. Technology exists to double our food production by less summer fallow and applying fertilizers and pesticides. However, this would involve a threefold increase in energy use by farmers. As the price of oil and gas keeps rising, the cost of farm inputs increases.

Recent oil product price hikes will cost our farmers more than $70 million a year. Last February's increase in the price of natural gas will directly raise the Prairie's fertilizer bill by approximately $2 million annually. The cost of pesticides and other natural gas based chemicals is also rising.

The federal farm fuel tax accounts for 44 per cent of the cost of fuel paid by farmers. The PC Party has consistently pointed out the need for elimination of taxes on fuel used to produce food. However, the Government continues to turn a blind eye to the plight of farmers already hit by low commodity prices and high interest rates.

If the Government's irresponsible policy toward the cost of energy for agriculture persists, future generations may well find themselves desperately short of food.

Topic:   STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21
Subtopic:   AGRICULTURE
Sub-subtopic:   INCREASES IN FARM INPUT COSTS
Permalink

POLITICAL PARTIES

LIB

David P. Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to note the reaction of Brian Mulroney to a CBC news item which suggested his organization was making some efforts to rally the non-Clark supporters around Mr. Mulroney. The story so irritated Mr. Mulroney that he is reported to be considering suing both the CBC and Michael Duffy, the CBC's highly respected parliamentary correspondent.

Such a sensitivity and overreaction can only be explained by Mr. Mulroney's lack of political experience. Had Mr. Mulroney run and won in 1979, 1980, or in any of the numerous by elections since the last election, he would long since have become immune to these slings and arrows which those of us who have actually taken the plunge are subjected to regularly.

If this is Mr. Mulroney's reaction to the gentle and evenhanded Mike Duffy, I fear he will become apoplectic when the likes of Allan Fotheringham is turned loose on him. Those of us on this side of the House who would welcome his entry into electoral politics, urge him to remain calm and to press steadfastly on to the convention lest this attack of the media jitters turns out to be the big mistake of 1983.

May 25, 1983

Topic:   STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21
Subtopic:   POLITICAL PARTIES
Sub-subtopic:   PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE LEADERSHIP CANDIDATE'S REACTION TO CBC NEWSCAST
Permalink

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

NDP

Daniel James Macdonnell Heap

New Democratic Party

Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):

Madam Speaker, the statement made today by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) about the bombing of Mozambique is a weak statement which does not begin to meet the occasion. The fact is that South Africa has admitted bombing a city of a neighbouring country; it has claimed to have killed guerillas, which claim is disputed; and it has used as an excuse a bombing in Pretoria which was neither proven against Mozambique nor has been admitted by Mozambique. Yet the statement by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs appears to lay equal blame on all parties for the violence that is occuring there.

The fact is that the source of the violence, both the violence which we condemn among the terrorists and the violence of the Government of South Africa against a neighbouring state- the source of all that violence is the violent regime of South Africa against the majority of its people, which is carried out through murder, starvation, and enslavement. Therefore the Government of Canada ought to condemn not only apartheid in South Africa but its blatant act of war against a neighbouring state and its continued murder of its own black people.

Topic:   STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   BOMBING OF MOZAMBIQUE BY SOUTH AFRICAN AIR FORCE-CALL FOR CONDEMNATION
Permalink

May 25, 1983