Charlie Penson

[Tobacco Act, March 6th, 1997]

You had better give credit where credit is due.

[Parliament Of Canada Act, February 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I see I do not have much time, but I am supportive of the bill that has been introduced by my colleague.

In my view, this is a non-partisan issue. I am surprised to hear that it has raised a few voices on the other side speaking against it. The last speaker has just said that municipal governments have used this system and it has worked well there. I suggest that it can work well in the federal Parliament as well.

I know that this has been a long-time interest of my colleague from Kindersley-Lloydminster. The theory is that fixed election dates introduce an element of fairness, more certainty, more cost effectiveness and more independence by the MPs.

We are all in favour of reform in a number of parliamentary areas to try to make MPs feel like they are more involved in the process, have more power in committees and have more free votes. I think that is what we are striving for. We are trying to represent our constituents to the best of our ability but sometimes the process has been in our way.

The previous member talked about the need to change the election time from 47 days to 36 days and about why that was necessary. That a system that was used when people travelled by train. I suggest that the system we are using today for elections that can be called by the Prime Minister at his whim is in the same category. We need to move forward. It introduces more certainty into the system. I would support it.

I would like to quote from an article in the Montreal Gazette by Andrew Coyne on February 11, 1997. It is interesting that he has raised the same issue. He is asking why the Prime Minister should go to the polls after a little more than three years. I will read the quote:

But I have a more fundamental question: why should it be up to him? Canada is one of the few democracies that still leaves it up to the government of the day to decide when elections should be called-

We would not trust the governing party alone to set electoral boundaries, or to count the votes. Yet it is accepted as normal democratic procedure that it should time the election to its own purposes at the zenith of its popularity-In most other democracies, elections are governed by a set timetable agreed upon and understood well in advance, rather than the Prime Minister's biorhythms.

This is popularly associated with presidential systems, like the United States and France, but there's no reason it could not apply to the parliamentary democracies as well: the existing five-year limit on the life of any Parliament, within which time new elections must be held, might be turned into a regular appointment.

He makes the argument why this could be case.

The provincial election is on in Alberta right now and the election date is March 11. In my part of the world that could be minus 35 or 40 Celsius. I know that the politicians out campaigning are having a bit of a difficult time let alone some of the people who are travelling to the meetings to hear their potential elected representatives. I suggest that in a country like Canada October would be a good time and I see every reason for supporting the idea of changing to fixed election dates.

I appreciate participating in this debate. I think that we should look at this as a non-partisan issue.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 18th, 1997]

Absolutely. That brings us to the amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act that the minister has decided to bring in. What are the amendments? They give more control to the minister and the government, more control at a time when they are asking farmers to accept more risk. That is not tenable. If members look at this legislation they will see countless times that different matters "have to have approval by the minister of agriculture and the Minister of Finance".

Specifically, section 18(1) has been added to the act, requiring the directors of the new board to follow any directions given to them by the governor in council. It is apparent that the board has become merely a puppet board to be controlled by the minister of agriculture.

In conclusion, it is absolutely essential that the agriculture committee travel to western Canada. It will fill its members' ears as should be because this is a badly drafted piece of legislation and does not reflect what farmers want. I encourage the committee to

take as much time as possible and travel where people live to discuss this as a very important issue to farmers.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take part in the debate today to discuss Bill C-72 which makes amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act and to move those discussions to committee.

My son and I and our families operate a 1,500 acre grain farm in Alberta in part of the area designated to be under the Canadian Wheat Board. I have a lot of colleagues on this side of the House who are farmers as well and who have experienced firsthand the Canadian Wheat Board's operation. It always amuses me to hear speakers, like the hon. member from Ontario who spoke just before me, express their views on how great it is under the Canadian Wheat Board when they have not had any actual experience under the board. Ontario is exempt from being under the Canadian Wheat Board operations, and I know there is another member from Ontario ready to speak here.

Between the members who are not under the board's operation and the lawyers from the other side who extol its great virtues, it seems they are being a little hypocritical. If it is so good, why does the Canadian Wheat Board not operate in Ontario and Quebec as well?

Bill C-72 has been very badly drafted. It will enhance the control and the power of the minister of agriculture. That is exactly the opposite of what is wanted in the agricultural community currently under the Canadian Wheat Board. It is so bad that I think the minister should resign. It is not just for this reason. The minister has established a clear record in the past three and a half years since he has come to this Parliament and become the minister of agriculture. I will go through items and I suggest that he has failed on every account. He has made those on all sides of this issue angry at him for the way he has handled the amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board and the whole marketing debate throughout the prairies.

Some historical background is necessary in order to talk about the Canadian Wheat Board with some knowledge. The Canadian Wheat Board was established in 1917 during the first world war as a war measures act. I can understand quite fully why that would be. In a war you want control over food supply. We had some commitments to Britain at the time and we wanted to have stable prices during wartime.

After the first world war the Canadian Wheat Board was disbanded as it should have been. The grain trade operated in a free market economy until 1935 when the Canadian Wheat Board was re-established. It was brought back as a dual market with private grain trade. It operated in that way for eight years until the beginning of the second world war. At the height of the second world war, in 1943, the Liberal government decided that the Canadian Wheat Board should be brought back in a monopoly capacity. There again was the factor of war conditions.

I support the move that was made at that time. We were supplying grain to Britain again. We were supplying grain to our allies. We wanted the price to be kept down in order to support the war effort.

However, after the war other factors became involved. There were some five-year contracts. As one of my colleagues said earlier, Mitchell Sharp, who has been a minister in government, has been quite critical of the fact that the board continued as a single desk agency when it was not required after the war.

That sets the context for the debate that has taken place in western Canada for the past several years. The debate is all about marketing choice. Some farmers want to pool their products, have the Canadian Wheat Board do their marketing for them and accept an average price. Farmers on the other side of the issue want to market their own grain. They think they can do better than the board is doing. They have their own special needs. It may be that they have a big farm payment to make at a certain time of the year and need cash flow when some of their neighbours may not need it.

That is the debate that is taking place. It is a matter of whether we should have complete restrictive measures and marketing through the Canadian Wheat Board or whether there should be choice. I understand fully both sides of the issue. We live in a free democratic country and my belief is that farmers should be given the choice to either haul to the Canadian Wheat Board and accept an average price or to go on their own. I suggest that farmers will decide with their produce which system they like best. I think it should be left that way.

This is the background to that issue. In the last three years, the Liberal government has taken away the subsidized Crow freight rate even though our competitors have not removed subsidies to the same extent that this government has. We have moved faster than all our international obligations suggest we need to. These days

farmers are paying the full cost of freight. As such, they have had to scramble to try to find the best possible market prices in order to survive. Many of them are doing just that.

However, I suggest that the minister of agriculture is tying one hand behind the back of those farmers who want to survive. He is suggesting that the farmers simply could not market their wheat and barley internationally. He is saying that it is not possible. I think he is actually suggesting that farmers are not smart enough to do that.

Let us look at the facts. I farm myself. We market a number of products and my neighbours market a number of products already and there are companies out there that facilitate that. Canola is right up there in terms of dollar value with wheat as to which is the biggest export outside the country in dollar value per year. Canola is not marketed through the Canadian Wheat Board. Peas are not marketed through the Canadian Wheat Board. Farmers are marketing these products: fescue, clover, flax, rye, lentils. The list goes on. They are marketing beef. There has been a 40 per cent increase in the export of beef since the free trade agreement. The wheat board does not have to do that. There is no monopoly situation. It is a market economy.

For those who want to market through the Canadian Wheat Board and accept a pooled average and not have to do their own research and marketing, I suggest they keep that method in place. However, for those who do not want to market through the wheat board but want to look for other alternatives, that should be a matter of choice.

This brings us to the current round, 1993. Let us go through the list. Besides losing the Crow rate, the minister decided to increase pressure on the grain marketing debate and set up a grain marketing panel about a year and a half ago. This was a hand-picked Liberal panel. The chairman of the panel is a Liberal buddy of the minister of agriculture. I am sure the minister thought this guy would do what he wanted and come up with a favourable report. In fact, I think maybe that was the original plan.

However, once farmers and farm groups started making presentations to the panel, the members of the panel had their eyes opened up. In fact, there was so much demand for the panel to travel to different parts of the country that it had to finally agree to go to Edmonton and Regina. It was just going to hold hearings in Winnipeg.

In my riding, a group in the Grand Prairie-Peace River area said it did not make sense travelling to Winnipeg to make a presentation to the committee. Surely the committee should be out listening to the farmers in their communities. Some kind of compromise was reached and the panel ended up going to Edmonton. The panel was not even anticipating that in the beginning. However, there was so much pressure from producers that is what happened.

Members of the panel had their eyes opened up and, to their credit, they wrote a credible report suggesting that compromises be reached in certain areas and a consensus be reached in certain areas. They then made a series of recommendations. However, the minister of agriculture did not comply with those recommendations. In fact, he even refused to meet with the panel to discuss its recommendations. That is how contemptuous he was because the panel did not write the kind of report he wanted.

Further to that, the panel had recommended that barley should be outside the Canadian Wheat Board. However, the minister could not accept that and decided to hold his own vote. He knew from an Angus Reid poll he had taken earlier that farmers wanted a choice in how they marketed their barley.

He knew he could not ask the farmers whether they wanted a choice in how they marketed their barley because he would lose and that was not what he wanted. Therefore, he designed a question that was all or nothing: Do you want to deal with the Canadian Wheat Board on all sales of barley, malt or feed grain, or do you want to have the board not involved in any of that and deal with the entire free market?

That is not the debate that is taking place out there and this ballot, when it is finally tallied and the minister gets the result he wants, simply will not end the debate because it has not addressed the real issue.

[Petitions, February 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition has been signed by 100 members from my riding.

It urges all levels of government to demonstrate their commitment to education and literacy by eliminating the sales tax on reading materials.

The petitioners believe that the application of the GST on reading materials is unfair and wrong. Education and literacy are critical to the development of our country and a regressive tax on reading hampers that development.

[Petitions, February 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions.

The first petition is signed by 982 people from the community of La Crête. The petitioners call on Parliament to provide a better postal facility in the La Crête area. The existing post office has been in use since 1972. It was adequate at the time but this is a growing community and the present building is no longer adequate or meets the needs of the people of the La Crête community. I have had the opportunity to look at the building and agree with this petition.

[Prisons And Reformatories Act, February 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listing to my colleague from Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. He has a pretty good handle on some of the problems regarding the fact that there are a lot of repeat offenders in the system.

I had the opportuntiy of visiting a maximum security prison about two years ago in Edmonton. It is the top level of the prison service, maximum security. There are a lot of social workers, psychiatrists and psychologists working with inmates to try to bring about some rehabilitation.

As a bit of background, about 75 per cent to 80 per cent of the people in the prison at the time of my visit were repeat offenders, returned after having served sentences in the past. However, the prison officials were trying to rehabilitate these people and that is very commendable.

However, at the same time we understood there was a drug problem in the prison. They were trying to rehabilitate prisoners from drug abuse at the same time that drugs were coming into the prison. That simply does not work. The warden of the prison admitted that there was a big problem. He said the drugs came in through conjugal visits, but I suspect it is more than that. Maybe some of the prison staff may be involved. However, it is ironic that we are trying to rehabilitate prisoners for drug abuse at the same time drugs are getting into the maximum security prisons.

My colleague said that he has worked a little in the prisons in his capacity as a doctor. I wonder what his ideas would be on how to correct the problem so that we could get back to rehabilitation, which is really what the prisoners deserve.

[Administrative Tribunals (Remedial And Disciplinary Measures) Act, February 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity today to speak to Bill C-49. It is the administrative tribunals act but it should be known as the bill which attempts to deal with patronage appointments to administrative tribunals.

It is important that we set the stage for this debate by looking at the Liberal government's red book promise on how it intended to deal with this area. On page 92 of the red book it is stated:

A Liberal government will take a series of initiatives to restore confidence in the institutions of government-and make competence and diversity the criteria for federal appointments. Open government will be the watchword of the Liberal program.

If Bill C-49 is one step in a series of initiatives designed to address the patronage problem, I suggest it is very much a baby step. If this is the best the government can do to address the policy expressed in the red book, it should be withdrawn and the government should start over again. This legislation is simply another type of window dressing which we see so often in this Parliament. It tends to mislead Canadians into thinking that something is being done when in fact very little is happening.

Let us examine the bill for a moment. It still leaves over 2,000 patronage appointments which can be dealt with by order in council. In fact the government has a special patronage appointment office in the PMO which deals with these appointments. It does not deal with the accountability factor. It reminds me very much of the old administration to which my colleague referred a moment ago, which was the Conservative government of the last Parliament. It was in office for nine years and patronage became very much a way of life, much as it has been for a century in this country.

It reminds me of the story of an MP who represented a riding in western Canada. He was a Conservative member in opposition for four years and then in 1984 he became a government member. One of the local companies in his riding suggested that maybe they could get some of the government's legal work through farm credit and that type of organization. This fellow said: "Oh, no, we would never do that. We are going to be squeaky clean". About two weeks after the government took power he took one of the law firm partners out for lunch and said: "Boy, was I naive. What do you want?" That was it and the gates were open to patronage appointments. We heard what Brian Mulroney said about that in the last Parliament and we are hearing it all over again this time around.

What happened to the process? What happened to the ideal in this country that jobs are awarded on the basis of competence and ability? What is wrong with that kind of process? Nothing at all. It happens in business all the time. It is a very admirable quality that we should try to achieve in the House of Commons.

What happened to the openness of process that was promised on page 92 of the red book? "Open government will be the watchword of the Liberal program". We have not seen much of that happening. What about competition for these jobs? What about fairness of process? It simply is not happening.

During the three years that I have been here I have certainly had my eyes opened as to how the system really works. Let us examine what has happened in the last three years.

A very competent minister of the government, the former Minister for International Trade, Roy MacLaren, was talked out of running again. They asked him to step aside so a byelection could be held. It is my understanding Mr. MacLaren was not very happy about that, but then he learned there was a little reward at the end of the line for him. He could become the British high commissioner. Of course we already had a British high commissioner whose term was not up until July, and this was in January. Poor Roy needed some interim job to tide him over and he was able to get a tidy

little contract with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade just to get him by.

It seemed that it was the foreign affairs area which really got rewarded that time around. André Ouellet, the former Minister of Foreign Affairs, one of our colleagues in this House the last time around, was talked out of running again to allow one of those bright stars to come in from Quebec. We are not sure how brightly shining they are right now but that was the idea at least. Mr. Ouellet was talked into stepping aside. Of course there was a little reward for him at the end of the tunnel too: chairman of Canada Post Corporation, which happens to pay $308,000 a year. That seemed like a fairly good amount. There was more.

Some of our other colleagues on that side of the House also got their rewards. They were asked to step aside and take appointments to the Senate, the great Senate, the heaven of patronage-haven, heaven. Jean-Robert Gauthier and former Acting Speaker Shirley Maheu got their rewards. I often tell my constituents that being appointed to the Senate is the only time someone can get to heaven without actually dying. That is what happens here. That is the kind of reward we see in this country.

With that kind of example being set, it is common knowledge that candidates from the Liberals and Tories when they are in power, candidates who may not make it into the House of Commons are also rewarded. They get appointed to the Canadian Grain Commission and every other job we can possibly think of.

It is no wonder Canadians are cynical about the process. We simply must get back to a process of accountability with people who actually have the competence to take these jobs based on past performance in other areas of life. They should not automatically go to people who were former members of Parliament, or people in power, or political candidates. There are a lot of competent people out there who would like a shot at being involved with these judicial boards.

There should be a fair and open process that addresses this issue. We simply do not have it now. This bill should be defeated. It should be scrapped. If the government cannot come up with anything better than this, I suggest it should face the Canadian public at election time. Quit tinkering. Bring something substantive forward or do not bring forward anything at all.

[Petitions, December 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from 41 constituents of Peace River.

The petitioners call on Parliament to create a national child care program based on the principles of accessibility, affordability, high quality, comprehensiveness and accountability for funding use.

[Softwood Lumber, November 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, surely this minister would know that every time Canada has had a trade dispute with the United States on softwood lumber we have won. In fact the $850 million he talked about was fully rebated to Canadian producers.

The only thing that has happened is that the United States has done an end run on us and changed its domestic legislation which means that we will probably not win at the NAFTA panel any more. That is why we are suggesting we should take this dispute to the World Trade Organization.

We have been in contact with many producers in the last few weeks. In fact, we surveyed companies and 80 per cent of those which responded want us to cancel this deal and walk away if we are countervailed by the United States again and to take this to the World Trade Organization.

Why will the government not honour that kind of concern by those companies that there is a threat of massive job layoffs?