Allan Kerpan

[Canada Grain Act, May 11th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I listened to some of my colleagues speak to the amendments to the bill. It brought me back a few years to shortly after we were first elected in 1993. This issue arose then. It was a fairly major issue in my part of Saskatchewan.

In my old riding of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre a good number of people produced specialty crops. There were also dealers that bought and sold the various crops. I talked to many of those fellows at that point in time. A great many were certainly supportive, if not anxious, to see some sort of insurance program whereby producers could be assured that their produce would be insured against any company that might happen to get into financial trouble.

Many dealers wanted to see this take place. Unfortunately it did not happen as quickly as it might have or could have, but it was not for lack of trying on many people's part. At that time some government members liked the idea of an insurance program. I see one of them in the House right now.

That is not what I am here to argue or to debate today. I truly believe that there should be and must be some way to protect dealers and producers from unfortunate events taking place within a company.

What strikes me as odd is that if we speak with farmers in the coffee shops and grain elevators in central Saskatchewan where I come from, generally speaking the federal government will become the laughing stock of the conversation. This is not all the time but a lot of the time. The angle farmers take is that the federal government is in their faces again and whenever it gets involved things cannot be good.

This amendment allows producers to have voluntary participation in the program. That is the key to having some success within the system.

If we look at other aspects—and we do not have to be farmers to think some of these ideas—obviously we do not have carry fire insurance on our houses if we do not want to. It is voluntary. We do not have to carry insurance on possessions if we choose not to. Obviously most Canadians carry insurance because we could not afford to have any type of major loss.

That is also the case in the farm business. Many farmers carry crop insurance because they cannot afford a single loss. They all carry insurance on their farm machinery because they cannot afford to lose a $200,000 combine, which would break many producers.

The key is that the whole system is voluntary and that is what makes it effective. As a farmer I have not carried crop insurance for about 10 or 12 years because I thought it was too expensive for what I might get back out of it if I lost a crop. I was prepared to look after myself in the event of crop failure. We have had a few in Saskatchewan. We are not like Peace River in northern British Columbia where if they do not get 60 bushels an acre it is a failure. I happen to live in Saskatchewan where we are quite happy if we get 60 bushels in two or three acres. That is the difference.

[Canada Labour Code, May 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a point well taken, rest assured. I meant that it was to my far left.

One thing struck me as being odd about the member's remarks. About a year ago we were campaigning in the 1997 election. One of the big reasons the federal New Democrats and of course the provincial New Democrats are so much in love with labour is that they get most of their election funding from that area.

My wife is a school teacher. She belongs to the Saskatchewan Teachers Federation. Her union dues to a large degree go to the person who ran against me in the federal campaign as a New Democratic. I do not know whether or not she likes that but there is something wrong with this whole picture. That is a bit off topic and I would like to get back to the topic at hand which is of course Bill C-19.

In this parliament and in the last parliament, there was a great deal of talk about labour, about unions, about how they are constructed, about how they should negotiate, how agreements should be made, how strikes should or could or may not happen. I remember in greater detail as it related to the business of agriculture, something which I am personally involved in, along with a large number of others in my province of Saskatchewan.

We went through a series of strikes in those years. Railways were on strike at one point in time or another with different unions. I think there are something like 27 or 29 unions that a bushel of grain must go through from a farmer's gate until it gets loaded on to a ship on the west coast, at Thunder Bay or at Churchill.

From firsthand experience as a farmer, that is one of the most frustrating areas. A person works all year to grow grain and spends huge amounts of dollars and if he is lucky he may make a profit but it is seen at the end of the tunnel. Then there will be a union that will put the kibosh on that, or in some cases management will put the kibosh on that, because there will be a slowdown or stoppage in grain transportation.

What it really is doing is affecting innocent third parties far more than anything else. It is the innocent producer of the grain who suffers most. We have to come to a system in this country where we do not allow those types of things to happen.

I am all in favour of negotiation and consultation between unions and management. I know that without management, unions cannot exist.

As my colleague from Skeena mentioned a few minutes earlier, there certainly is a need for unions at least in some companies. We all have seen companies that have taken advantage of their employees. There definitely needs to be some control and unions are a very important part of that.

We are getting to the point where we are allowing groups—and I am not going to say special interest groups because they are not, they are unions—but we are getting to the point where we are allowing small segments of our workforce to tie up entire industries. A few minutes ago I mentioned the grain transportation system.

I know that a couple of years ago the Grain Services Union, which is the union for Sask wheat pool employees, voted to go on strike in September. September in Saskatchewan is a very important time of year. It is harvest time and we definitely need our elevator agents. It was very interesting that in this particular strike many of the employees refused to walk out. Many of the employees at the local elevator agents and in fact our local elevator agent Mr. Brent Hartman refused to go on strike. He crossed the picket lines and opened his elevator.

In a small town of 350 people such as I live in, to have a fellow stand up for the producers' rights even though he is a union member and a good union member, is admirable. I take my hat off to these people. It was very important and a very critical move by those people.

The other half of this bill that I see as a huge negative is the way the democratic process is being handled. It has been mentioned today how undemocratic things are not only in some areas of the labour process and the labour force but also in this House of Commons.

We profess in this country to have one of the greatest democracies in the world. Certainly I do not think anyone would argue that we have the best country in the world. There is no question about that. However I look across at some of the Liberal members who were heckling our members when democracy was discussed. The fact is I have been here now for almost five years, some might say too long, and we have all seen in the last five years a good number of occasions when members on the opposite side were whipped into line by their whip.

Obviously the latest occasion was the vote on hepatitis C which was held last Tuesday night. I walked out of the Chamber after that vote was held and I ran into a couple of the Liberal members. They had rather sheepish looks on their faces. We got to chatting. When I asked them what they thought, they said that they really had two options. They said that they could have voted in favour of their constituents and in favour of our motion but they felt that no one would talk to them the next morning at caucus. They said that they had to make that decision as to whom they were going to support first, their party or the people who elected them.

If it comes to that serious of an issue and members of parliament do not have the intestinal fortitude to stand up for the people who elected them in the first place, they have no business being in this place.

The member for York South—Weston had the courage to stand up for the people who elected him. What happened to that member? Everyone knows he now sits right beside the curtain on the opposition side. He is history. Those members over there knew that. They knew that if they voted for the Reform motion on hepatitis C there would most likely be serious retribution and they could end up sitting on the opposite side of the House, out of government.

What is more important? Why are we here as members of parliament? If we are not here to represent the people that elected us first, then that is a dishonest way to become and remain a member of parliament. It is fraudulent to forget who elected us.

We talked a lot about that in the campaign. In fact I was thinking about that yesterday. A year ago we were involved in a federal election campaign. One of the issues in that campaign was democracy and the way MPs should represent their constituents. Every member of parliament I will admit has a different way of representing his or her constituents and well that should be.

The bottom line is that the people who elect us pay us. We owe that first debt of duty to them, not to the whip or the party leader. Until that changes, the things we see in this bill are going to continue to happen. We are not allowing for the regular Joe Public to have his or her input into this country's business. That very critical point of argument has to be dealt with.

I will not support the bill the way it stands. That is a given. If members from all parties, including the New Democrat members who seem to think it is a pretty good piece of legislation, could take a step from their own political parties, they could have a good look at the bill and see what it really means to democracy and the average worker. They may find that the bill has some serious shortcomings.

I call on all members of parliament to take that step back from party lines just for a second if they could. They could think not about what their whip or party leader wants them to do, but about what their constituents may want them to do. Ultimately, when we are done with this business, our constituents are the people we have to live with when we go home.

[Canada Labour Code, May 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member from down the way as she gave her speech a few minutes ago. At the end of it she talked about how Reformers should take note, that we put ourselves forward as protectors of labour. She said that with a great deal of sarcasm so I am assuming she did not really mean it that way.

[Canada Labour Code, May 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I listened to my colleague give such an eloquent speech. It is a real shame that there are not more here to hear that. When I look around the Chamber I realize there are fewer members than the required number for quorum.

[Gun Control, March 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we can surely tell there is a Liberal convention in town judging by the antics of the Liberal last row members of Parliament on the other side today.

I want to quote from an article by Sean Durkan dated March 18, 1998. It states: “Did you know the Department of Justice completely misreported RCMP statistics on criminal use of firearms to make them look far worse than they were and bolster the argument for gun control. I agree with gun control but having the department alter figures to suit its purposes is outrageous”.

I for one would like to know what else the justice department misreported. If justice officials deliberately misrepresented RCMP crime statistics on gun use and violent crime, how do we know they did not mislead the public in other evidence?

This is just one more example of the Liberal way of ramming through distasteful legislation by concocting their own evidence.

[Canadian Parks Agency Act, March 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech of the NDP member from British Columbia. I am happy we are on the same side of an issue, which shows that people can get past politics to serve the country.

The member has some beautiful national parks in his province. I would like to think we have one in the province of Saskatchewan. The lack of a long range plan for parks across Canada bothers me more than anything else in the legislation. Could the member comment on how he sees this shortfall in the lack of a long range plan for parks across the country?

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question from my colleague for Saskatoon—Humboldt.

What I tell the people in my riding or the farmers that I speak with on a daily basis is that it is a very unusual type of situation where we would have three prairie provinces which live under different rules, forced rules from the government of Canada, than farmers in other provinces.

I think that is part of the frustration that farmers see. They see farmers in Ontario who do not live under the same rules. In fact, I don't believe the name of the Canadian Wheat Board should be the Canadian Wheat Board. It should be the “Western Canadian Wheat Board” because it really only does apply to provinces in western Canada. That is part of that whole frustration.

As I said in my speech, if we don't make big changes to the wheat board, it is not the farmers or the Reform Party or the Grain Growers Association who are going to erode and destroy the wheat board. The wheat board is going to destroy itself.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I can almost say after this member has spoken, that I can rest my case. That is exactly what I am saying. Let us have a full democratic process where the people who are most affected by this legislation have the opportunity to make a decision.

The member opposite was alluding to the fact that we are all elected from across the country to make those decisions. He is right. If there is a bill in this House on fisheries and oceans in Atlantic Canada, I do not have much expertise in that. I like fishing but that is as far as it goes. I am not going to be the guy who stands up and says “this is what you should do in Newfoundland” because I have no idea what the fishermen in Newfoundland think.

On the flip side of that, there is no way on God's green earth that an MP who probably has never travelled to central Saskatchewan can say “this is what I want you to do farmer Jones in Kedleston, Saskatchewan, because it is good for you”. It is not because they are bad people, it is because they have no ability. There is no possible way that they could know what that farmer in central Saskatchewan faces.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 17th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise at this late date to speak to Bill C-4. I have a few comments to make. I would like to inform the Chair that I will be sharing my time with the member for Elk Island.

Two things I am going to open with and I am also going to close with were mentioned just a couple of minutes ago by my colleague from Prince George—Peace River. If the government is convinced that farmers support Bill C-4 then put it to a binding referendum, straight and simple. There is no question.

When we look at Bill C-4 and the farmers and farm groups I have talked to about the bill over the last few months I do not see anybody on either side of the debate who likes the bill. The people who are solidly in support of single desk monopolies do not like the bill. Neither do some of the other people who would like the choice of a dual marketing system or any other type of system.

When nobody likes a particular piece of legislation it kind of reminds me of Bill C-68. We have a government which is saying “This is what is good for you people. Do what we tell you to do and be nice little children out in western Canada. Do as we say and we will get along just fine”. It does not work. It cannot work. It is the same type of arrogance we saw in Bill C-68 from the government in the last parliament.

I remember particularly one day in June 1996 that we held a debate on the wheat board in the House. That was in the last parliament. I looked across the way and we counted 15 lawyers who were Liberal members and 12 farmers on the Reform side in the House at that time. It struck me as ironic that there would be 15 lawyers, most of whom had never been to a farm in Saskatchewan, telling farmers from Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta how they should do their business. I do not understand that kind of thinking. It is something that I just cannot accept.

I look at this bill and I see tinkering around the edges of the wheat board. I think the minister knows full well that unless he makes some changes, the wheat board will most likely explode from within rather than from without. He knows of the tremendous pressure from farmers and farm groups on the Canadian Wheat Board and yet he has failed. He has a very good opportunity here to make some changes that farmers can accept, yet he has failed to do that.

The two things that farmers tell me most is that they would like to have the opportunity to look at the books of the Canadian Wheat Board. They also tell me that they would like to elect all of the wheat board directors. Quite simple.

I think if you had those two basic fundamental steps, a lot of the pressure on the wheat board would be taken off. There is no question about it.

I think what Bill C-4 is about, almost as much as it is about the right to market grain, is basic rights in this country. Again, as I said before, we have seen over the past number of years the inability of this Liberal government to recognize the basic fundamental rights of Canadians on a lot of issues.

Another one that is before the Supreme Court is the right of Quebec to decide its own future. Our government fails to recognize the need for Canadians to have those particular rights and the rights of property, as I mentioned before, Bill C-16, the right to own a gun, the right to sell that bushel of wheat that you grew on your farm, yet you have no right to sell it in your own best interests.

A fellow came into my office when I was the member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre in the last parliament. He said he had a pile of durum on his ground in his yard, about 10,000 bushels. He said he could take that durum across the line and get $8 a bushel for it. In Canada there was no market at that point in time to sell that durum. He asked what he was supposed to do. He said he was going broke, that if he did not sell the durum he would most likely lose his farm. He asked if he should take it across the line.

What is anyone in their right mind going to tell this man? You have to tell him that he has to do the best that he thinks is right for him. Nobody could argue that. I have no idea what the man did but if it was me and it was my durum, I would be hauling it across the line to save my farm. I would just do that.

I want to touch on the arrogance that we see from this government. I have listened to the debate today about how farmers support Bill C-4. I would like to ask the government how many Liberal MPs have been to Saskatchewan, how many have been in the communities of Dundurn, Val Marie or Smuts, gone to the coffee shop and asked the farmers what they think about C-4.

I do not recall one Liberal MP being in Saskatchewan. Of course, we have to remember there are very few Liberal MPs in Saskatchewan. The parliamentary secretary said he believed farmers were fairly intelligent people. They are. They did kick out four Liberal MPs in the last election. Yes, I think they are relatively intelligent.

The question is how can you make a statement saying that farmers support this bill when you do not listen to the farmers in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. You cannot have consensus unless you listen to people. They have not done that. They have taken the advisory committee recommendations and put half measures in place in many cases. The minister said they acted on all the recommendations.

There was one. The advisory committee recommended that farmers be allowed to sell a certain portion of their wheat off-board. I do not recall the minister saying they acted on that one. Maybe I was not in my chair at that time, but I do not think he mentioned that.

It comes down to rights, to democracy and to the ability of any government, whether it be this Liberal government or any other government, to listen to the people, to let the farmers decide how they want to run their business, within certain regulations of course.

In Saskatchewan if you look at the state of agriculture, the NDP provincial government will say that all is wonderful.

That is a far cry from the truth. The fact is that there are 3,500 in my province who are in arrears to the Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Corporation. More farmers will probably go bankrupt this year then have in the last two or three years put together. That is what I would consider the edge of disaster for agriculture in Saskatchewan.

One of those concerns is the wheat board and one of those is transportation. We have problems out there. If only this government would take the simple time to listen to what the people are saying, some of those problems could be avoided. Some of those bankruptcies that will ultimately happen, and have happened, in our province of Saskatchewan will rest on the shoulders of this Liberal government. Indirectly, the blame for those bankruptcies can go to this Liberal government. In my opinion that is a shame.

I want to end by saying if this government has so much faith in Bill C-4 and if they believe that the farmers in western Canada who live under the Canadian Wheat Board support that bill by a vast majority, as most of the government members will tell us, then put your money where your mouth is. Let us put Bill C-4 to the test, to a binding referendum among farmers. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, if it comes back and the result is in favour of Bill C-4, I will stand by that decision as well.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In the last few minutes we have had a member from across the way who has given a half part of information that is critical to this debate. The member asked—