Jack Ramsay

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I was wondering how far you would allow me to stretch the limits of this debate.

Nevertheless, when I look at the bill and the amendments, I look for the balance as we do with any legislation and reform of legislation. I ask myself whether the bill relieves the pressure building up from a number of sources against the monopoly held by the wheat board. I do not see that it does that. That is unfortunate. In my riding, which is a large agricultural riding, there are good, honest, hardworking people on both sides of the debate about what we should do in terms of reforming the Canadian Wheat Board.

It is unfortunate that in democratizing the board the minister and the government are unwilling to go the full way. They are allowing a number of members on the board to be elected but are retaining the power and the authority to appoint the president. Why is that? What is there to fear about having the president of the Canadian Wheat Board elected? What is wrong with that?

I would like members on the other side to provide a rationale for only going part way. There is common ground on the whole issue of reforming the wheat board, of election of the board by those in agriculture who have a vital, vested interest. We have an indirect vested interest because they produce the food we consume. They provide the new wealth on which the government taxes so exorbitantly every year. They are the ones to whom our international brothers and sisters look to provide the food they require but cannot grow in their own countries.

Why would we not go all the way and allow for the complete democratization of the wheat board? Then those in agriculture would be accountable and responsible. They understand the trials and tribulations of farmers in attempting to keep their farming operation going.

The problem is that when it comes right down to it the wheat board does not care very much whether or not my farming neighbour has to go bankrupt. It really does not care. Farmers are always looking for ways and means of enhancing their own standard of living and ensuring that their profit margin is broad enough to face a possible bad year when there may be a crop failure. They are looking for security, as I think everyone is.

The whole business of seeking security and freedom to seek security are very much part of the freedom individuals throughout the world seek. Farmers are seeking freedom that would allow them to secure their farms for their children and grandchildren. They want to function in a system that is clear and unequivocal. They want to direct their sales and products into markets that will give them the greatest return.

Why would they want a greater return? It is so simple. Why are farmers seeking a greater return and the right to market in areas that grant them the greatest return? It is to provide for their families, to provide for their children, to provide for their own feelings of security. If the wheat board is the mechanism that will provide that, why is it that many with a vital vested interest do not recognize that?

I have talked to farmers on both sides of the issue. I have asked them what they are seeking. It always comes forward that they are seeking security for their families and for the continuation of their operations in spite of the fact that they might face a crop failure or the kinds of financial difficulties those in the farming community face from time to time when they have to go to the lending institutions to ask them to carry them over a certain period of time into the next fall or the next spring, depending upon the type of crops they are developing.

When I look at the motions in Group No. 4 I see a lack of democracy. This is unfortunate. We could have reached a balance everyone would have supported, certainly those in the agricultural community. I have not talked to anyone who is against the election of the board. That has formed part of the common ground that could bring the both sides together.

Transparency is another issue. Why can we not have a full and transparent audit of what the wheat board is doing on behalf of farmers? Why do we not have that? That is what they are seeking. I have not heard farmers say that they would be against the auditor general auditing the books of the wheat board as the auditor general does for every other department of government. Why not do that?

There are areas of common ground that we could be moving on. We could develop balance that would not threaten the existence of the wheat board. However, if the wheat board does not change and bring in reasonable alternatives that strike that balance, we may see the wheat board damaged in ways no one wants to see it damaged.

Questions have been raised with regard to whether or not the wheat board's monopoly is a violation of some of our international agreements such as the free trade agreement. Is there a subsidy? When ranchers can buy barley at prices below those of their competing neighbours to the south, is that a subsidy? What will the international tribunal have to say if there is a challenge there? Pressures are building up to challenge the wheat board monopoly.

We do not know for sure how those questions will be answered, but we should be looking ahead. If we want to maintain a marketing board called the Canadian Wheat Board, we should be addressing some of the concerns of farmers. Bill C-4 falls short of that. It is unfortunate because we have an opportunity to strike that balance. Many of the motions in Group No. 4 would lend themselves to striking that balance.

Some of my colleagues have touched on the the international code of ethics for Canadian business. What is the wheat board afraid of? Why would it not want to bind itself to the international code of ethics for Canadian businesses? Is there apprehension or fear? If so, what is it about? What is there about the international code of ethics for Canadian business that the Canadian Wheat Board finds offensive, or why is it reluctant to come under that code of ethics?

Farmers always take it in the neck. When there is a bad year, no one else suffers but them and those who rely upon a healthy agricultural society.

I was talking to representatives of the two railroads. When farmers put grain in a grain car and it sits more than three days, they have to pay a penalty of $40 per day. When there is a long shore strike or anything that prevents the grain from reaching the market and the ships are sitting offshore racking up demurrage penalties, who pays for that? The farmers pay for that.

I had a farmer say to me “What is wrong with the picture? I have to pay for the transportation of my grain to the port. I have to pay for the cleaning. The cleanings are sold and I receive no benefit”.

There is much wrong with that picture. We can look at Bill C-4 and ask whether it strikes the balance. It does not strike the balance. That is why I encourage all hon. members to take a close look at the amendments being offered. I feel there is a balance that we need within those amendments.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in this debate on Bill C-4 and in particular the Group No. 4 amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if you know very much about farming, but I do know that you have a lot of knowledge about grains and what you can do with grains. I commend you on your entrepreneurship in setting up a bakery that not only is successful but produces some of the most tasty results in which Edmontonians have an opportunity to partake.

I commend you, Mr. Speaker, for providing this kind of service to so many people in your community.

When I look at the bill and the Group No. 4 motions—

[Indian Affairs, February 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, last week the Deputy Prime Minister said that he would look into the possibility of paying for Bruce Starlight's legal fees, seeing as how the leaked letter was the basis upon which the civil suit was launched.

Will the government pay for Bruce Starlight's legal fees?

[Indian Affairs, February 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Indian affairs minister has given excuse after excuse to justify the scandal in her department. She has left the grassroots Indian people feeling betrayed while she leaks their letters, ignoring the cause for the letters in the first place.

What steps has the minister taken to investigate the charges of fraud and corruption against Chief Whitney as outlined in the letter she received from Bruce Starlight?

[Supply, February 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I listen to this nonsense. I listened to it for years before I was elected. I used to watch this kind of nonsense from both sides of the House.

My wife and I have raised four children and they are now young adults. We have twin sons. When our two boys were in grade 10, they got part time jobs making a minimum salary. When they came home with their paycheques they were aghast at the difference between their gross pay and what they were going to be able to cash that cheque for because of people like this taking and gouging young Canadians like our children and millions like them.

They are being gouged with high payroll taxes and now we are hearing this kind of verbiage that drips with the attributes of hypocrisy.

That is what we are hearing. They are saying that they are responsible, that they have got to give control back to Canadians. Who took the control from them in the first place? Who increased the taxes year after year after year?

I was born, my mother tells me, in that old log house that I remember with a sod roof. We eventually moved out of that house. We were not unlike many of our neighbours. We moved out of that home to a better home, but we could never have done it if 50 cents of every dollar we had earned had been taken away by taxes.

We built this country on low taxes. What is destroying this country is high taxation. When there are millions of families like Kim Hicks' who are struggling to make ends meet on $30,000 a year and the government is taking anywhere from $2,500 to $3,000 away in taxes, that is criminal. That is what is wrong with this country. That is what is wrong with this government. A single mom with one child makes $15,000 and has to pay $1,300 in taxes. What does the member have to say to those people? Certainly the nonsense he has given us today and placed upon the record is no comfort to them.

When we look at the mess we are in, we look at the pilot of the Titanic . Who piloted the Titanic into the iceberg? Someone who was absolutely asleep at the wheel. That is what we have seen for the last 25 years. The pilots, whether they were Liberal pilots or Tory pilots, for the last 25 years have steered us asleep straight toward an iceberg and that iceberg is now $600 billion in size.

Forty-seven billion dollars of the taxpayers' money has to be used not on social spending, not on health care, not on education, not on seniors, not on those people who need it. No. It has to be used on the iceberg that the Titanic is headed toward.

That member stands and ridicules, mocks and scorns every attempt that the opposition members bring forward to return control back to the people. What does he do? He pretends by saying “We have screwed up this country but we are the only ones that can solve the problem. We are the ones that brought us into debt but we are the only ones who can get us out of it”.

Everyone understands the principles of economics. At the end of every month millions and millions of families have to sit down and pay their bills. They know that you cannot continue to go on and on if you are spending more than what you are bringing in.

For 25 years and beyond, that is what the Liberal and Tory governments have done to the people of this country, to my children and millions of other children. They intend to do it to our grandchildren as well, particularly with the 73% increase in the Canada pension contributions our children and grandchildren are going to have to pay.

The member should hang his head in shame and say “Yes, we made a mistake. Let us correct it. Let us work together to do something for our children and our grandchildren” and for the Kim Hicks of this country.

I do not know if the member has anything to respond that is worthwhile to these facts but I certainly give him the opportunity.

[Conditional Sentencing, February 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Alberta court of appeal's scathing indictment of the Liberals' legal loophole called conditional sentencing is completely justified.

The court of appeal stated that the use of this skimpily drafted legislation undermines respect for the law. This scathing judgment is fully justified and here are just some of the reasons why.

Darren Ursel received a conditional sentence after abducting and sodomizing a young woman. Eric Robertson walked free after pleading guilty to 11 counts of indecent and sexual assault. Just last week a Montreal judge allowed two men to walk free after they were convicted of forcefully raping a teenage girl.

In the face of this unacceptable use of conditional sentencing, what has our justice minister done? Absolutely nothing, except to say “Leave it to the appeal courts”.

We on this side of the House implore the justice minister to immediately amend the law and plug the loophole. Deny rapists and other violent offenders the benefit of this legal loophole. Make the amendment before respect for the law—

[Impaired Driving, December 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the festive season is upon us and with it the sad reality that party goers may get behind the wheel of their car drunk, endangering their lives and the lives of their passengers and innocent Canadians.

In Ontario alcohol related offences jumped 22% in the first week of the police holiday RIDE program over the same period last year. In just one week 146 people were charged with drinking and driving.

Impaired driving is the largest single criminal cause of death in this country. Every six hours someone is killed by a drunk driver and yet nothing has been done at the federal level to address this serious problem.

MADD Canada has repeatedly made demands for changes to the Criminal Code in an effort to deter drinking and driving and protect the lives of innocent Canadians. To date their demands have fallen on deaf ears.

As a result, provinces such as Alberta and Ontario, not the federal government, are leading the way to make those who drive while impaired face stiffer penalties.

[Justice, December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, obviously the justice minister is unconcerned about innocent men, women and children who are being victimized by these people and there is no deterrent whatsoever in the law. In fact, a briefing note from the minister's own office indicates that not only are the conditional sentences not being monitored but also there is no offence for a breach, which is unacceptable.

We ask the justice minister one more time. Will she amend this loophole in the law and do something about this dangerous piece of legislation and protect the innocent people of this country from these dangerous offenders?

[Justice, December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' legal loophole called conditional sentencing has allowed convicted rapists and other violent offenders to walk straight out of court and not serve a day in jail. We asked the justice minister if she would close the loophole in the law and she has refused. Now the B.C. attorney general is making the same demand, citing over 900 cases in his province where this legal loophole has been applicable.

Will the justice minister close this legal loophole and ensure convicted rapists and other serious violent offenders are jailed and not allowed to walk free?

[Divorce Act, December 8th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank our colleague from Mississauga South for bringing this bill forward as well as for many of the comments he has put on the record today.

It is unfortunate that this bill is not a votable bill. I think there is a feeling and a thought moving through all caucuses in this House that all private members' bills ought to be votable bills so that we not only hear the concerns of private members as expressed through their bills but also that we have a right to vote and represent the views and concerns of our constituents on these important matters brought forward by private members. Those are my opening comments on this bill that the hon. member has brought forward.

I have looked at the bill and am wondering about its constitutionality and its cost. The greatest pressure placed on any family is economic pressure. If there are not enough dollars to go around, it will weaken the other dynamics within a family and lead to frustration, irritation, confrontation and eventual disintegration of those emotions and feelings that keep a family together. In looking at how we can strengthen the family let us begin there first.

If this government wants to strengthen the family, let us look at how we can do it economically. When 50¢ of every dollar that the mother or father brings home goes to taxes in one way or another, that is an enormous attack on the economic viability of that family. What can we do in that regard? After we take money from them, do we direct money back to those who are experiencing difficulty, those living in poverty or below what we call the poverty line?

We have a disaster in this country in this particular area. Not only are we paying taxes at the highest rate in this country's history, but we have also borrowed and spent $600 billion. Yet all of these children are living in poverty. The hon. member is absolutely correct when he states that we cannot talk about children living in poverty. It is families and communities that are living in poverty. We must address that and look at the causes of it.

One of the single greatest contributing factors to family breakdown is when there is not enough money to meet the family's requirements at the end of each month, to pay the phone bill, the power bill and perhaps the mortgage. This is what causes the stress.

As far as poverty is concerned, I think many members of my age, and I go back quite a ways, were born in poverty compared to what we have today. I was born in a log house with a sod roof without the benefit of a doctor or a nurse. Three of my eight brothers were also born under those conditions. We lived in poverty. We did not have power. We had an outside sewer system, if I can call it that. We did not have central heating.

A few years ago I asked my mother, who is still living in Saskatoon, what she saw as the greatest advancement over the years. She thought for a moment and said central heating. I asked her why she would say that because I thought it would be something else. She said, “You do not know what it was like to wake up in the middle of the night in a house frozen solid with three babies in diapers and having to light a fire to heat the frozen milk and to change diapers under those conditions”.

How we survived I really do not know. Do you want to talk about poverty? You bet we lived in poverty but we made it. Every one of my brothers and I made it. Why? Because of the love we had from our mother and father even under those conditions. We were looked after. They made great sacrifices and we knew they cared for us.

We had a justice system hanging on the wall. We knew when we did wrong but it never affected our sense of justice. Later we knew that justice system hanging on the wall was there because it was an expression of dad's love for his children. He wanted us to stay away from the lake that had just frozen over because he did not want us to fall through. He did not want us playing with matches. He did not want us doing all these things that could place our lives at risk. We knew that and that was an inherent feeling.

Yes we had great difficulty. But I do know this. My father never paid personal income tax until I was 15 or 16 years old. I remember the first time I saw him sitting at a table struggling to fill out the new form called the personal income tax. When my father took his grain or his cattle to market, he kept 100% of that dollar he brought home and he put that into the family. It kept us going. He was able to meet the economic requirements of our family to a degree, although it was certainly nothing like we enjoy today.

I remember seeing a television program where a single mother living below what they call the poverty line was being interviewed. I remember the television program showing the conveniences they had. There was central heating. There was television. There was a fridge. There were electric lights. If we had that back in my day, we would have thought we were living in heaven. To turn on a coloured television set, to have central heating when we got up in the middle of the night and to go to an indoor bathroom and not freeze and not have to get dressed to do so would have been a wonderful thing for us.

Marital breakdown is a problem and I commend my colleague opposite for bringing this bill forward and at least focusing the attention of members of this House upon this very serious matter. Let us look at the cause of marital breakdown. I say the number one cause is actions by government at all three levels. That is what weakens the economic stability of the family. When the money runs out before the end of the month or before the next paycheque, it is a serious matter.

We were getting letters from the letter deliverers and their families asking us to do whatever we could to end the postal strike. Why? Because they went two weeks without a paycheque. How were they going to meet their commitments at the end of the month just before Christmas? When we see these kinds of initiatives by people in responsible positions further attacking and weakening the economic stability of the family, certainly we have reasons to look at what is happening along with the effect of what is happening.

Marital breakdown in this country can be attributed to some of the things that we as responsible people do, whether it is within this House, within a union, or wherever it might be.

We see in Edmonton for goodness sake that the union and management could not get together and save 800 jobs. What happened? They went on strike and for reasons that are not all that clear, they have lost their jobs because the company shut down.

I commend the hon. member for bringing this issue forward. I wish as I stated earlier that this were a votable matter so that we as elected representatives of the people could express our support for this bill by way of a vote. I would like it to go before committee and have it examined in other areas. The area of counselling, who will pay for that? Will the family have to pay for that? It will be another drain on the economic resources of the family.

There are all those questions I would like answered about the bill but regardless, I still feel that this is an initiative that is to be commended. It is directed at a very important area of society, that is, what is happening to our families, and how we can maintain the strength of the family and give our children the greatest opportunity to receive love from a mother and a father and keep that family together so that we have strong, healthy, self-reliant children growing into adulthood.