Charlie Penson

[Trade, December 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what we are getting for our billion dollars. We know that Canada is being asked for a billion dollars for the latest IMF bailout of Asian countries, but what are we getting in return?

Will the Japanese lower their 20% tariff on canola oil? How about the Koreans with their 13% tariff? What has the government done to demand tariff reduction against our products in those countries?

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 19th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I see that the truth hurts. It is very interesting that the people in the Liberal Party who want to maintain the status quo of the Canadian Wheat Board have even moved beyond the status quo of the Canadian Wheat Board. They are now trying to have more crops included that farmers are not asking to have included. Those very people are not representing areas that are under the Canadian Wheat Board jurisdiction.

What authority do they have to put a group of farmers in western Canada under a system they do not even have in Ontario, Quebec, Prince Edward Island, any areas where there is agriculture? I do not think they should have that moral authority. When we ask very simply that there should at least be some accountability shown in the preamble to the act as in Motion No. 1, even there the Liberals do not have enough dignity to say that they respect farmers in western Canada, that they respect that there should be some accountability. They even want to deny us that. It is wrong and they will pay the price for it.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 19th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, the member for Malpeque is making some noises from the other side. He is talking about the structure of the board under this current arrangement, but the board is still accountable to the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Two-thirds of the members on the board are elected and one-third are appointed but the chair of that board is appointed by the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.

This government is totally out of touch with the debate in western Canada concerning what is going on and what farmers want. Farmers want a system in which they have a choice in how they market their grain. I know a great many farmers who want to keep the Canadian Wheat Board so they can pool their product, accept an average price and use that vehicle. I also know a great number of farmers who do not want to use that vehicle. They want a dual system. They want to be outside of that monopoly. This bill does not address that at all and I suggest it is doomed for total failure.

There is no accountability in this act. When my colleague from Yorkton—Melville said that the very least we can do in the preamble to the act is to suggest that we must have accountability to farmers rather than to the minister, we were ridiculed by the other side. We were ridiculed by people who do not have constituents under the Canadian Wheat Board jurisdiction. I see a member who grows potatoes in P.E.I. I do not see any move to try to include potatoes under the Canadian Wheat Board Act. I see a lot of lawyers over there from Toronto who are more interested in keeping control over Canadian farmers than they are in serving their needs.

We have a system—

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 19th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to debate this important bill in the House today. We have seen quite a bit of activity here talking about the low attendance in the House. I would agree that this is a very important bill for western Canadian farmers and people should be paying attention.

I would like to speak in support of my colleague from Yorkton—Melville and his introduction of a preamble to Bill C-4. The preamble I am interested in is the section where he says:

Whereas such an organization will have a very significant effect on the producers of grain and must therefore have the securing of the best financial return to them as its object and first priority and must be accountable to them for its performance.

Why would we want such a preamble introduced in the bill? I suggest it is because under section 5 of the current bill, there is no accountability to farmers. We did not have it in Bill C-72, it was not in the previous Canadian Wheat Board Act and we do not have it in this bill. This is an effort to try to bring some accountability by the Canadian Wheat Board to its producers.

In the recent M-Jay Farms case, the Canadian Wheat Board argued forcefully and successfully, I may add, that it is not accountable to farmers. It has always taken this position in court.

For example, in 1976 the Riske case, it found in favour of the board and not in favour of accountability to farmers. When the board is talking to farmers, however, it says quite the opposite. The board should not be allowed to speak from both sides of its mouth on this issue. Since the board is accountable to the minister and not farmers, I wish that the minister would stop letting the board misrepresent this position.

Mr. Hehn, Chief Commissioner of the board has said on many occasions, and I will quote: “We look forward to a strong and successful partnership with farmers of western Canada.” That is in the Canadian Wheat Board annual report of 1994-95. “There can be no partnership without accountability.” He also goes on to say on another occasion: “It is your grain and your marketing agency”, Grain Matters, January-February 1996—“With no accountability, again this is an absolute falsehood.”

I quote the Chief Commissioner of the board: “We are looking for ways to be more accountable to farmers.” Grain Matters, May-June 1996. He said this at the very same time that the board was before the courts arguing just the opposite.

In the grain case of the M-Jay Farms the board was arguing that there is no accountability to farmers by the board. It is only accountable to the ministers, and the courts found exactly that.

He goes on to say: “We are structured to do the job for farmers” the Edmonton Journal , October 11, 1996. Had he been totally truthful he would have said: “We are not accountable to farmers and we are in court here today to prove it.” And that is exactly what happened.

Furthermore there is nothing in the amendments to Bill C-4 that would make the board accountable to farmers. I refer to the board's section 5 which says, and I will read it. This part has not been changed at all. Section 5 says: “The board is incorporated with the object of marketing in an orderly manner interprovincial and export trade grain grown in Canada.” It says nothing about accountability to farmers.

If I read the findings of the court in the M-Jay case, where it ruled against M-Jay Farms, they said: “But the express purpose of the act as set forward in section 5 is not the maximization of profits for producers, but rather the orderly marketing of grain grown in Canada in interprovincial and export trade.” Essentially quoting section 5.

They go on in the court case to say “Taken in this view I take it that this statute is responsibility not to any individual producers but rather to the minister under the act”. The members on the other side ask us why we are trying to bring accountability into this House, why we would ask for it in the preamble to the act. We are doing it because they would not make changes to section 5. The court has found consistently that under section 5 the Canadian Wheat Board is not responsible to farmers but to the Minister of Agriculture. Nothing has been changed in the act. Section 5 has not been changed and therefore there is no accountability.

[Customs Tariff, November 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to Bill C-11 today. I want to indicate that the Reform Party is supportive of the bill. Largely this is a bill which simplifies and harmonizes Canadian customs legislation.

When this bill landed on my desk for me to critique it on behalf of my party I thought we were getting a case of bills, but in fact it was only one. It was a foot and a half thick. Canada is simplifying and clarifying our customs codes. We are taking it down from 11,000 to 8,000 codes. We still have 8,000 tariff lines for import duties into Canada. We can do even better than that and I hope we can in the future.

This initiative came from industry. It wanted government to clean up some of these areas of customs tariffs. The free trade agreement negotiated some 10 years ago with the United States was one of the prime motivators to phase out tariffs. The tariffs between Canada and the United States had been phased out except in a couple of areas like supply management and textiles, that type of area. In response to that we were able to clean up a lot of customs lines.

The Reform Party supports this bill because we are supportive of free trade in general. We would even go further. We want to have further trade liberalization and we believe that the only protection Canadian industry really deserves and needs is protection from exporters from other countries that are selling product in this country that is subsidized or protected by tariff at home.

We feel we can compete head on on the basis of production with the best in the world. Industry in general is starting to recognize this. Companies such as Teleglobe have been privatized. They are saying we should open up investment because they want to be able to compete with the best in the world. There is a big market outside of Canada and if we want to do that, if we want to have trade liberalization in other countries we have to provide that at home as well.

That means we should move to a freer trade environment worldwide. We have good networks in place. We have good trade agreements. We must move further to keep this bicycle rolling down the road. We must move further to try to reduce tariffs and subsidies in countries such as those in Europe. By doing so I believe we will be able to reduce our tariff activity in Canada, our import tariff regime, even further than the 8,000 tariff lines we have for the protection of industry. That will mean industries that compete on the basis of production will compete head on worldwide in that new world out there. They have to be competitive as well. If they cannot be competitive, they probably do not deserve the support of Canada's government in providing tariff protection for them.

On that basis I would have to say that although Revenue Canada raises about $3 billion a year on tariffs, there is a very large bureaucracy that has to administer that tariff structure. We hear of Canadian government officials who travel to places like Georgia to check on their carpet manufacturing industry to see if they are not dumping into Canada. We see they have to be assessed duties. It is a very expensive regime to keep in place.

There are a number of areas within the Canadian economy that already have quite a harmonized basis of business. The steel industry is one example. When we think of trade in Canada we sometimes think of product moving outside of Canada or into Canada by the shipload. In fact, most of our trade does not occur that way. Eighty-three per cent of our exports go to the United States and most of our exports move across the 49th parallel day in and day out by truck. It is a small commercial quantity that is moving to service some need. It might even be that a parent company is either in Canada or the United States.

We are moving more and more toward a harmonized trade relationship with the United States in particular. This is reflected by the fact that we are going to be phasing out our customs duties in those areas. However, we have 8,000 customs duty lines left. The sooner we can move to trade liberalization so Canadian companies can compete head on with companies outside of Canada that are neither subsidized nor protected by tariff, the better off we will be and the sooner we will be able to clean up the rest of our customs lines.

We support the early implementation of the bill and we support its passage.

[Supply, October 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Ottawa West—Nepean raised some personal experiences and I think we all have them. Every member who has risen in the House today has related some tragedy.

I know she talked about things improving, although I sometimes wonder. In my riding I had a family that had a very tragic experience. It involved a woman by the name of Joanne Perrotta. Both her brother and father were severe alcoholics. Her brother after a heavy night of drinking went out and ran into a transport truck in 1989 and was killed. Then Joanne, who was a non-drinker, was working late one night. On her way home she was broadsided by a drunk driver and was killed.

The next year her father was driving drunk, as he had done several times, ran over a motorcycle driver and killed him. This tragedy kept going on and on in that family.

I know there is a public education aspect that is very important. I wonder if the member would agree that a tough deterrent for those people who are hardcore is actually a good method of trying to solve this problem.

[Canadian Wheat Board, October 29th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it looks like the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board has a death wish for the board. How else can we explain his erratic behaviour? Let us review the facts which go back several years.

Farmers are unhappy and want change so the minister hand picks a committee to make recommendations. When he does not like the recommendations, he asks for direct consultation. He asks people to write him. He does not like that either. Then he holds a plebiscite but he does not ask the question that captures the debate in the farming community. Then he introduces Bill C-72, a bill that nobody likes. It dies on the Order Paper. Then the phoenix that rises from the ashes is even worse. In the new bill, Bill C-4, he has made provisions to include commodities such as canola, oats and flax that are not presently under the jurisdiction of the board.

Just when you think it cannot get any worse, it does. If there is anything that is going to cause the Canadian Wheat Board to die, it is a minister who has shown how little he understands about what farmers want.

[Supply, September 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Stoney Creek for his comment and question.

I certainly agree with him that initiatives are being made. There is an effort to try to dismantle interprovincial trade barriers. That initiative has been going nowhere. There are provinces, especially those led by NDP governments, that are resisting very vigorously.

Failing being able to resolve this issue by consultation, section 93 of the Canadian Constitution clearly states that there shall be no restrictions or barriers to trade across interprovincial borders. Clearly the federal government has the authority to make the change.

While a Reform government would devolve many powers to the provinces where they can be administered better by either the provinces or the municipalities, this is one area in which the federal government has to show strong leadership, and it is not currently doing so.

To show how ludicrous some of these interprovincial trade barriers are, a constituent of mine in the Peace River riding had a contract to do some gravel work using some of his trucks up in an area seven miles from the British Columbia border in Alberta.

When the day was done and they had finished their work, they wanted to drive those same trucks into Dawson Creek, which was the nearest community, to stay in the hotels there overnight and eat in the restaurants. But they were restricted from doing so because the axle spacing on their trucks does not meet B.C. requirements. It would have cost them thousands of dollars to meet that specification. Those are the kind of silly rules we have in Canada.

We have more barriers to trade within our provincial borders than all of the European Community members combined. It is ridiculous. Seventeen 17 countries in Europe have been able to come up with standards so that trucks can roll across the borders, do not have to present papers and do not have special restrictions based on country of origin. Canada has negotiated better trade agreements outside our country than it has been able to negotiate inside Canada.

I suggest that when the member says that we need consultation and to put pressure on, the government clearly has the authority to make the changes and bring Canada into the 21st century.

[Supply, September 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster.

It gives me great pleasure to speak to the motion of the member for Medicine Hat which bears repeating:

That this House condemn the government for making their 50/50 election promise on any future surpluses without adequate public debate as to the optimal size of government, taxes, and debt, thus threatening to repeat Canada's 27 year old history of irresponsible spending, creating high debt, financed by high taxes, causing high unemployment.

This is an important motion because it goes to the heart of what caused our debt in the first place. It is not surprising to hear the NDP say that it is opposed to our motion today, considering that it was part of the coalition that started this whole spiral back in the late sixties to begin with.

The country needs a good debate about what should be the size of the federal government. It is all about priorities. How big of a government do we really want? Are we willing to pay the taxes it takes to run a government of that size? Can we not, with a smaller government and lower taxes, create a far greater prosperity for our citizens? This is the debate the country needs. It is the debate that is currently taking place in Alberta which has two surplus budgets.

Since this is my first time speaking in 36th Parliament, I would like to thank the people who elected me in my riding of Peace River for returning me to the House of Commons. I hope I can continue to show that I am working on their behalf and respect that they have put their faith in me. I would also like to congratulate you on your appointment to the Chair.

I am especially pleased to have been reappointed international trade critic because it is critical to Canada. It is also critical to my riding of Peace River and its economy.

Our export industries are oil, natural gas, agriculture and forestry. Nationally one out of every three jobs is related to exports. In my riding almost everything we produce in a basic industry line is exported and is vitally important.

Therefore I am always concerned about giving our Canadian businesses the best opportunities to take part in the global economy. Trade and investment deals open a lot of doors, but what happens if our companies cannot take advantage of these deals and conditions at home do not allow them to survive and grow? I am keenly aware that trade starts at home with sound domestic policies.

I congratulate the member for York West on becoming the Minister of International Trade. His ministry has an important role to play in securing Canada's place as we move into the 21st century. His job will not always be easy as there will be voices trying to hold Canada back. These voices will urge him to protect our industries from the cut and thrust of foreign competition. At the same time his department will urge him to resist these pleas for protectionism. I wish him vision and resolve to stay the course of trade liberalization which has meant so much to Canada in the last 10 years. I want to serve notice that I will be watching.

We heard the Speech from the Throne on last Tuesday. It touched briefly on the importance of trade to the Canadian economy. One in every three Canadian jobs now depends on trade. These jobs were not created as a result of team Canada trade missions. I admit that many business people make important contacts on these trade missions. I would even admit that there are some countries where high level government presence is critical. However, these multimillion dollar trade deals do not happen just because the prime minister touched down in a jet with his entourage in tow.

On the contrary, while it opened some initial doors, it is interesting to find that our trade, especially our exports to countries like China, Hong Kong, India, Pakistan, Chile, Argentina and Uruguay just to mention a few, went down in subsequent years after the initial trade missions.

There is a lot of bragging on the other side about the importance of the prime minister opening these doors. I suggest he has to do some work at home to look after some problems that restrict the ability of Canadian businesses to take advantage of the trade deals.

In light of these stunning failures I wonder whether the government will continue pinning all its trade hopes on a five day dog and pony show.

For all the government's talk of trade successes it just so happens that most Canadian companies do not export. In fact 80 percent of our trade is done by 100 companies. Literally thousands of companies have never sent a representative outside our borders or even sold a single widget or service to a customer in a province west or east of them. Is this because they lack the imagination or lack the courage to leave their own backyard? No, certainly not.

In many cases borders between our provinces have been more daunting than the Himalaya mountains. After being in power for three and a half years the last time and being in power a long time before that, it is outrageous the Liberal government has done nothing to dismantle hundreds of trade barriers that exist between our provinces.

In the subcommittee on the special import measures act last year members heard that in many cases it was easier to export from the American states to our provinces than it is from provinces like Ontario. This is absolutely absurd. We even heard from a Canadian company that actually left Ontario in disgust to move to Michigan. The company could not do business in Canada from Ontario, but once they located in Michigan they could trade into Canadian provinces. We have an absolutely ludicrous situation that has to be corrected. They are not showing the vision on the other side to resolve the problem.

The problem of internal trade barriers is one that will take imagination and courage to overcome. I submit the government has neither the imagination nor courage. Otherwise it would have tackled it long ago.

The federal government has the power to demolish these internal trade barriers. Doing so will do more to create jobs and exports in the country than hundreds of team Canada trade missions. In fact it has been suggested that internal trade barriers may be costing Canadians up to $8 billion per year.

The Speech from the Throne also mentions making Canada the location of choice for global investment. It is a worthy objective. Canada is a wonderful location, but I wonder sometimes if the government has actually examined some of the existing problems.

Has it examined payroll taxes? They are a killer and they are going up, not down. Canadian pension plan premiums are going up by 77 percent over 1996 levels. On top of that, the employment insurance fund will run a surplus of almost $13 billion by the end of the year. What is this for? It is obviously to help the finance minister bring down his deficit, but it will be done on the backs of workers and employers.

Does the government honestly believe foreign investors will come to Canada to have their pockets picked? Why on earth would high level executives want to direct foreign investment from their country into Canada after examining our personal income tax levels? These are over 50 percent higher than income taxes paid by our six G-7 partners.

Now blue skies and nice folks are important, but I suggest they are not the only reason that companies invest in Canada. They look at business dollars as savvy executives. Good business conditions is what they are looking for.

We desperately need to dismantle our internal trade barriers and lower payroll and other taxes. We also need to remove some of the red tape on regulation that keeps our business people from concentrating on the product or the service they are selling.

In conclusion, trade and investment start at home. If the conditions are right foreign investments and exports will follow.

My riding of Peace River in Alberta is located in the lowest taxed province in the country. It is not surprising that our exports flow directly south where many of our trade barriers have already been dismantled.

The Liberal government should take a major initiative. Instead of taking a team Canada trade mission to Latin America this year, perhaps it should concentrate right at home and correct some of the problems it has the power to look after.

[Speech From The Throne, September 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to congratulate the new member for Nunavut on her maiden speech in the House of Commons.

I had the opportunity to travel to that part of the world a year and a half ago with Canada's foreign affairs committee, which was studying the Arctic Council in that area. I was greatly impressed.

It is one of the few ridings in Canada that is bigger than my own. I come from Peace River in northwestern Alberta and I can understand the difficulties in representing a riding of that size.

I was also struck by the impact of pollutants in Canada's Arctic and how they can affect people living in the area.

I have worked long and hard as the trade critic for our party to try to resolve the European ban on leg-hold traps and products from those traps from entering Europe. My understanding is that an agreement has been reached. I am wondering if the hon. member for Nunavut can tell the House whether she knows if it is satisfactory in addressing the concerns of the people who live off the industry of fur-bearing animals and whether the agreement will satisfy them.