Jake Hoeppner

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the last four minutes and address the issue of exclusion costs. The hon. member for Brandon—Souris moved this amendment to exclude both the inclusion and the exclusion clause.

You would wonder why this clause became an issue. We were dealing more or less with the exclusion clause in Bill C-72 and we did not hear too many complaints about the exclusion clause until an ill wind from the east brought up the idea of an inclusion clause. This idea was planted in committee. It was planted in hearings that we held in western Canada. We found out very quickly that this inclusion clause that was proposed for C-72 would create a lot of problems.

Now we see what this has really done. The member for Brandon—Souris, and I think rightly so, has made an amendment to exclude both. When we looked at the commodity groups or had them before as witnesses, they were dead set against this inclusion clause because their farmers that control the commodity groups would have nothing to do with the inclusion clause. I was somewhat surprised why they were so hesitant or why they objected the most to this clause.

I was talking to some railway officials just this last week and we got by accident on this inclusion clause and I said: “Can you inform me somewhat why, in the special crops industry, this is such a harsh clause or this is such a harsh thing to deal with?”

They explained to me that with the exclusion of the special crops from the wheat board, the commodity groups controlled completely the buying of the grain, the moving of the grain and the transporting of the grain across the ocean. When customers want to buy some of the special crops like canola, sunflowers, canary seeds, they buy it on the basis that it is delivered right to their plants. That relieves a lot of headaches for them. They demand delivery. When they buy a product, that product better be delivered on time or else there are huge fines or huge discounts.

The companies that control these special crops have a tremendous record of getting that crop to the destination. This has always been the problem of the wheat board grains. We do not want to just blame the board for some of these problems but the board grains are always on the basis f.o.b. Vancouver, Thunder Bay or Montreal and that is where it stops.

After that, it is up to the customers to try to find transportation to organize it, to bring that product to their plants or to their processors. This has become a real issue as far as the Canadian Wheat Board grains are concerned, the delivery of those board grains.

Customers demand that they have delivery on time because it offsets their production times. It offsets the commitments they have made to the finished end users of their products.

I think this clause has to be removed. If it takes the exclusion clause to go along with the inclusion clause, that has to be supported by this House no matter what because we do not want to ruin or hamper the special crops industries which have really been the survival of western farmers in the last decade or two.

If we should take away the special crops, farmers would all be bankrupt today and they would not be able to survive on just the wheat board grains.

It is sometimes hard to believe the issues that arise when some of these bills or amendments are dealt with. It has made me a little wiser as far as the transportation of special crops is concerned. I think we have to do everything humanly possible to either amend this bill to a point where it is acceptable by farmers or completely table it and forget about it until some other government will take the bull by the horns and give western farmers what they want, a choice that will make the system work.

As one of the Liberal members asked, how can we fix this inclusion and exclusion clause issue? It is very simple. All we have to do is make the Canadian Wheat Board a voluntary institution and all these problems will be resolved by themselves.

Farmers will take their product to the place where it is shipped, where it brings the best price, where it is delivered to the customers because they want to produce a product that is used and has benefited other countries as well as our own.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, having had that encouragement I would like to go on the record as saying that transportation probably is a very important part of the bill. I would like to challenge some of the statements that have been made.

The second grouping suggests that the provinces should be eliminated from making decisions on the Canadian Wheat Board bill and transportation probably has a very big part to play in that regard.

I point that out because during the late 1970s and 1980s we moved tremendous amounts of grain to the Soviet Union and other east bloc countries. We could move it for about $30 or $40 a tonne cheaper through Churchill. They even offered to bring in icebreakers to move the grain out of that port. For some reason there was enough clout either in Ottawa or somewhere else to defer all that grain down the St. Lawrence, which cost us an extra $38 a tonne to move.

The provincial governments should have some clout. They should have some say. I cannot comprehend why hon. members would object to that. Ontario, for example, runs its board completely by itself. It ships its grain in whatever direction it wants and sells it to whomever it wants. It seems very strange that the bill would specific that provincial authority or provincial input should be outlawed. That just does not make sense.

I would think we would want to make sure the bill was beneficial to farmers and put the most money back into their pockets. Those are the people who have sweated and worked hard. They have taken chances. They have paid all the input costs and should get out of it what it is worth.

Another thing I want to comment on for a few minutes is the contingency fund. I do not know why farmers would support a bill with this type of fund when they have no actual control over it. With the five appointed commissioners or directors the government would still have control because it will put in the CEO at its pleasure and fire the CEO at its pleasure. Why would we want to put money into a fund that we cannot control? That seems to be plainly ridiculous.

Members of the wheat board appeared before us as witnesses. They were asked what the contingency fund would cost farmers and what percentage of the funds from what is to be sold through the cash market will be deducted for the contingency fund? They said that it would be from 5% to 10% of the gross amount of that cheque.

I do not know if Liberal members have not paid attention to the return on agriculture investment today. The top investment money one can get from one's assets today is probably 1.5% to 1.75%. If the board is to deduct 5% as a minimum and up to 10%, farmers will lose money selling their grain. There is no way to make the contingency fund pay. Why would any farmer be so foolish as to sell his grain in that kind of market? It does not make sense.

I cannot understand why a person would want to take money out of his pocket and put it into a fund where the auditor general cannot even look at it to see whether it is invested properly.

A year ago I introduced a private member's bill to put the auditor general in control of the wheat board. Every member on that side said no way. They did not want accountability.

That nice book the hon. parliamentary secretary to the minister of fisheries holds up in the air is a smoke screen. It is not worth putting a match to it. If members want to find out why they should look into the elections act to find out how many millions that auditing firm paid to the election fund of the Liberals. It is very interesting.

I flew back to Ottawa in August to do some work. I picked up the Hill Times , and what did I see? I saw a whole page ad by the Canadian Wheat Board telling western farmers how good it was. How many western farmers read the Hill Times ? It cost western farmers $3,200 to put that ad in the paper. Can you believe that, Mr. Speaker? I cannot believe it.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 20th, 1997]

Do you mean there is another wheat board?

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 20th, 1997]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-283, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act (audits).

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise in this House and introduce this private members' bill to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act (audit).

Currently the auditor general does not have the authority to audit the Canadian Wheat Board. Over the years, the auditor general has provided a valuable service to Canadians by pointing out waste in federal government as well as showing where Canadians have received value for their money.

Western farmers and Canadians in general have demanded legislation that would make the Canadian Wheat Board more accountable to producers.

This bill endeavours to do exactly that and probably restore the faith of farmers in the Canadian Wheat Board.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a real pleasure to rise in the House today to speak on a bill that I have looked at thoroughly.

It is appreciated that after 34 years I farmed and had a wheat board permit book, I can finally say something on the issue.

I was enthused when the hon. member for Malpeque started to talk about the benefits of the Canadian Wheat Board. He must have a relative in Winkler, Manitoba. During the fair this summer I had an office there and people came to talk to me. One gentleman came in and asked me to support the wheat board.

I want to maintain the wheat board. I have always wanted to keep the wheat board but I want to make it accountable and make sure it gets the best prices for the farmer.

He wanted me to make sure the wheat board stayed. I asked him how much wheat board grain he grew and whether he was a big farmer because I did not know him. He had a quarter section and a good job at Triple E, a mobile home manufacturer. He grew a quarter of wheat board grain, mostly feed barley.

I asked him how many bushels he sold to the wheat board and his answer was zero. He sold no grain to the wheat board. I then asked why he was concerned about keeping the wheat board. It was because he raised hogs and wanted to keep cheap feed prices.

The hon. member for Malpeque went from dairy to beef cattle. I know why he wants to keep the wheat board. He wants to keep cheap feed prices. That is the support the wheat board has.

It is amazing to hear him say that the wheat board is the main gatherer of supplies. It has the supplies it can deliver. Why do we have all our wheat board grain in bins, all the canola, flax and lentils? Everything is gone. It has been sold at good prices. Why do we have wheat board grains in the bins? There is no money for that.

The member also talked about law breakers. The member for Malpeque should explain which laws were broken. All they did was sell their grain for a better price than they could get from the wheat board. Is it criminal to get the best price for their grain?

I can see why members opposite object to the preamble my hon. colleague from Yorkton—Melville proposed. They do not want to sell it for the best price. They are afraid to put that in the preamble because somebody could challenge that statement.

Why did parliament originally pass the wheat board act? In the 1920s and the 1930s it was to provide competition to the grain companies to get a better price for the farmers. Why has a preamble never been included in the wheat board act? Why is it a sin to put that preamble into an act that is supposed to protect the interests of farmers? I would like that explained.

Why would we pass legislation in the House that does not identify what it is all about? Why would we pass legislation if we do not have the guts to include the preamble or to indicate the intent of the bill, what it is supposed to do, and the bylaws in the bill upon which regulations and rules have to be set?

Not everybody is a lawyer. We do not have any on this side. The Liberals have lots of them so they should be able to identify the intent of a bill. If they do not want to identify the intent, why have it? It sounds ridiculous to me.

I was impressed by the hon. member from the Bloc. We have always been classified as separatists; Reform members are separatists. We can work together with our Bloc colleagues and identify good and bad legislation. I appreciate those members in the House who have the guts to say what is right and what is wrong.

Why in the world would we pass legislation to divide the country? If it is not unifying when Reform and Bloc members agree on a bill, I do not know what is unifying. What are we to say about that?

What will hon. members from Ontario answer? Every member of its wheat board is elected. Why should Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan have partially appointed boards? Why are Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan different from Ontario? Why can we not elect all the directors and make them accountable to the farmers? That is what should happen.

If they can give me a solitary reason why they should not be elected when Ontario's board members are elected, I will agree with them. As long as it gives different powers and different regulations to different provinces, it only creates separatism and hostility among certain parts of the country.

We have had enough of that. We have seen for three and a half years in the House the divisiveness that is created when different regions have different powers. Why do we want to create another difference? I would like that explained to me. I cannot see that happening in the bill, the way it is drafted.

I do not know why these people are afraid of identifying the bill for what it is. If the bill does not give farmers the right to sell their grain for the best price, it is not worth the paper it is written on. It will do more harm than good.

I would like the House to support amendments such as the one moved by the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.

I also express my appreciation to the hon. member for Brandon—Souris. He did a very good job relating his feelings. He is a member of the opposition who has an interest in farming. He is located in a central community which benefits from the farmers around it. He knows what he is talking about. He is not just talking through his hat.

It has been a pleasure to say a few words. I am sure I will get another chance when some of the other motions are being debated.

I encourage Liberal members to stay in the House and listen to the debate. I see they have disappeared again. We can see from that how much interest they have in the bill. We can see how much they are concerned about what is happening in western Canada. It is a shame there are only four or five members on that side of the House when we are debating a bill of this importance.

[Income Tax Act, November 17th, 1997]

It is job creation, very true. In addition, it said:

A record high 25,000 Winnipeg renters could afford to purchase a home.

This was an added incentive. It really surprised me this was an impact of the bill. It would increase Winnipeg's job opportunities or the building trade by 25,000 homes. That is quite impressive.

I hope my colleagues on both sides of the House will see the bill as something non-political that will encourage and give our young people the opportunity to invest, to have a home and to build up equity that in future years can be turned over for their retirement or for senior housing.

The bill also refers to co-op housing. If people buy a condominium or an apartment in a co-op housing project they will be eligible under the bill as living in individual dwellings.

The bill is very well designed. It will not reduce government revenue. Rather it will probably increase revenue and be positive for the economy, not negative as some people presume.

This opportunity has provided me with quite a bit of publicity in the papers. My delight in this regard is that it shows Reform has good ideas. People who have never voted Reform say this is a bill thought out by a Reformer that helps everybody, the whole country, not just Liberals, Conservatives, Bloc members or Reformers.

If the House cannot see the light of day on that and support the bill, it will be very discouraging to keep on working. What are we working for? We are working for the country. We are trying to build the country.

We are trying to set up an economy for the 21st century that will be positive, that will give our young people something to dream about, and that will tell our young people we in this generation look after them. We will try to support them in carrying the huge tax burden because of the debt load and other mistakes made by past governments.

When we look at the past mistakes we cannot say it was just the government that made these mistakes. We as individuals, as constituents, allowed it to happen. It should have never happened. We were complacent. We did not pay attention so the problem is there.

I will just wind up in my remaining minute by saying that I am asking for the support of my colleagues in the House. If there are some amendments that improve the bill, I will not object to them. I hope the bill will do something for young people to encourage them to keep on building the country as did our pioneer forefathers.

[Income Tax Act, November 17th, 1997]

We can debate that argument when we are dealing with some other bill. The government would probably agree with that statement so we will not get into that debate.

Then he went on to say:

Middle income Canadians would also experience an increase in disposable and discretionary income. There would be an easier transition from renting to owning and the family home would for once be the beneficiary of an enlightened tax policy as opposed to the victim.

That is the way I have looked at it. Why should a home be taxed? It is fundamental if one wants to raise a family as a unit. It is a lot better to raise a family under those conditions.

Another point struck me when I read the article by Mr. Segal. Many first time homeowners would also like to go into private business. They may have the intelligence to be an entrepreneur or to develop things. This tax break would let them either save money for some future rainy day, education purposes for their families or to start a small business. If they had a small equity or some money they could put into a small business, that is probably the direction they would take. It is pretty well ever family's desire to have a business in the home. We know what that would do for job creation.

It is interesting to see all the benefits. The Toronto-Dominion Bank was referred to in an article in the Winnipeg Free Press . I even got some coverage in a paper that really does not want to give Reform too much coverage. There was an article indicating that my bill would help first time home buyers. It made me feel pretty good I got that attention. This is what the article said:

On a typical 25 year mortgage at 6.35% first time home buyers could claim some $1,700 on their income tax, according to Diane Olivier of the Toronto-Dominion Bank.

Some $1,700 of extra income is quite a bit to a young family starting up or to first time homeowners. It is super. I did not do the mathematics, but I think the bank has the ability and the research people to put those figures together. The article continued:

“Some people can be scared off by the costs of purchasing a first house” said Rischuk Park Realty owner Rusty Rischuk. The proposed amendment would make Winnipegers more confident that they can afford a home. I think it is wonderful.

That is from another sector of the economy. People can have confidence in a certain idea or in something that gives them an opportunity to invest. Referring to last summer when the stock market was booming and interest rates were coming down, the article said:

Nearly 60% of the city's homes sold from January to September were bought by first time home buyers.

We know what that does to the building trade, the furniture trade or any business tied to manufacturing these homes.

[Income Tax Act, November 17th, 1997]

moved that Bill C-223, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction of interest on mortgage loans), be read the second time and referred to committee.

Madam Speaker, it is a real pleasure to rise in the House today to address my private members' bill, C-223.

This bill will be supported by a lot of industries right across Canada. I have had contacts from the housing industry and the banking industry, saying that this bill or this type of Income Tax Act change is long overdue.

This bill will make it more feasible for young families to own a home. When we look at the importance of families to a nation, we see that they are the basic building block of a strong nation. We want a good solid family, a family that has some encouragement and desire to put equity into a home or shelter.

We often forget that these young families will be dealing with a taxation burden never before been seen in Canadian history. Look at the $600 billion of debt which is going to be put on their shoulders in the next century, a debt which they will have to service. The way the government has been going the last three and a half or four years will add another $100 billion to that. We know we have to do something for these young families so that they will have an incentive to continue to pay taxes. Otherwise I think they will feel like giving up and saying “why should I even try to get equity because it is all going to be taxed away from me before I have the interest or the ability to own a home”.

I designed this bill so that it would not be an incentive for home owners to upgrade their dwelling or be favourable to the higher income families. I felt it should address the lower income families, the people who have really been behind the eight ball, giving them a level playing field when it comes to home ownership.

If we look back through history, no matter what happened in the thirties, the twenties and the fifties, home ownership was always something that set the tone for the economy of that decade. When people could afford to buy homes, we had a stronger economy. This is something that was really devastating in the thirties when homes were being vacated and people were moving to lower cost abodes. The country suffered for it. The number of homes built during the last decade was stagnant. A year or two ago home ownership picked up. When I did some research it astounded me that in 1993 there were 350,000 exchanges of home ownership. They were either people who were upgrading to better homes or people who could afford new homes. Out of that 350,000 changes in home ownership 50,000 were new homes. We know there were 50,000 new home owners in 1993. That is when things started looking a little brighter because government was trying to get the deficit under control and people had a little more confidence in the economy.

When we turn that into dollars and cents, it is quite amazing what that does to an economy with 50,000 new homes, plus the furnishings that are put into them, plus the landscaping and whatever that goes with a new home which provides a lot of jobs. That is what this country needs: jobs and the ability to afford to own a home.

This bill also gives these new home owners an incentive to apply their equity which can be used in their retirement. When they have a home to sell when they get to that age where they do not want to take care of it or they are forced into senior housing developments, they at least have some equity to back them up which today is a big problem for a lot of seniors who have never owned a home and have always lived in rental apartments. They find it hard to pay for accommodation later on.

That is another benefit in this bill. It will give people the opportunity to acquire equity that they can in their senior years use as a retirement fund.

For people who have been buying homes lately, who took the gamble because they thought the economy was turning up, I have proposed that this bill, if passed, will be applicable to first time home owners who bought their homes after December 31, 1994. Therefore, there is the opportunity for people who took the chance and went out on a limb because they were allowed to use 5% of their RRSPs to invest in a home, to secure their investment by being able to deduct the interest from the time that the bill is passed.

There was a complaint from a number of people who asked why first time home owners should get this tax break when people who rent out their units do not get a tax break. I was astounded when I researched the Income Tax Act to see what kind of tax breaks rental owners do get. There is a lengthy list which I will not take the time to explain in full but for example, any rental investor who owns a rental unit can declare the property taxes as an expense. They can include the insurance on their rental property, maintenance and repairs, heat, light and water, advertising, interest on the money borrowed, as I am proposing in this bill for first time home owners.

We can see that it is really not a level playing field for the home owners at this time.

People who have rental units can even include automobile expenses that they use for servicing the property, advertizing and commissions paid to obtain tenants. All these things are tax deductible.

That is why home ownership does not always sound feasible because the rental units can be rented at a fair cost compared to servicing the costs of a home. One needs extra wealth and income to own one's home. The bill, for the first time, would give lower income homeowners a more level playing field even if it is not totally level.

I looked at some legislation passed in the U.S. in the 1940s when all mortgage interest became a taxable expense. We are about 50 years behind in our income tax compared to the U.S. There are certain changes in its program I would not want to have in the Income Tax Act, but the U.S. did not look at the issue of how much revenue government was losing. It looked at the issue of how much more money was put into the economy. When taxes are saved they are invested somewhere else, which was behind the idea of writing that into its income tax act.

I found an article written by Hugh Segal. I do not always like what he says. A lot of people have heard him. We must give credit where credit is due. I thought he made some good comments. This is what he said:

Why should the tax system encourage one activity and discourage the other? Why is the family home a target? Why is it less important than an office, a warehouse or a piece of machinery?

That was the way I looked at it. The home is a basic place of shelter, the place where we raise our families with certain moral character, where we try to teach them what is good for the country, what will be ahead of them, what they will have to do and what their responsibilities will be when they become adults. I thought that was a pretty good argument.

In 1979 the Conservatives introduced a bill very similar to this one. However the government of that day did not last very long, only six months, and the bill died on the order paper.

[Supply, November 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed those comments and I would like to be educated a little further.

I know the Conservatives really believe in cost cutting. They paid for 212 Conservative members for two terms and then they only paid for two members. What kind of a plan do you have to follow to do that? That really helped us here in the House. That relieved the debtload quite a bit.

What do we have to do to follow that plan? I would like the formula.

[Supply, November 6th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, what I would like to point out to the member is that this tick is very dangerous. If there are enough of those ticks they will not just keep on sucking that red blood, that Liberal blood as we would say, in the tax system, they will kill the animal or the person. The worst of it is that the tick is not that bad. The pain is not that bad. But we have the darn mosquito that continually sucks that red blood. It continually acts like a tax collector. The more it has, the more it wants. It becomes habitual.

When there are little ponds sitting around that are kind of stale that seems to really attract those suckers. It seems to be what also attracts the Liberals: “If we can find an elephant or some industry that we can keep sucking, let us do it”. When there is a bankruptcy, the Liberals' philosophy is that it will create another job. Their philosophy is that some other sucker will come along.

It does not seem to be working too well because the provincial Liberal governments have been falling by the wayside like the mosquitoes and ticks when we start swapping them left and right. That is what is going to happen in the political field as far as the federal Liberals and politics are concerned. It happened to the Conservatives who invented the GST. Now the Liberals are trying to take credit for inventing it. I do not know what the deal is here but I imagine they are hoping that will give some credence to the Conservatives with their philosophy and hope that maybe some day they can swap some seats again. However, I am afraid it is getting late in the day and these tax suckers, these mosquitoes, will finally kill themselves.