Jake Hoeppner

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, October 7th, 1997]

None, none, at all. Is it democracy to have somebody in Ottawa dictating to farmers in western Canada what they have to do, no matter what the price?

They did not listen to the latest ruling by Judge Huband in Manitoba on the wheat board court case. He said the wheat board had no accountability to farmers. It does not have to maximize prices. All it is obliged to do under the wheat board act is to move grain.

Is that representing farmers? For goodness' sake, to me that is distortion. Perhaps I am getting a little strong with my words. Maybe I had better tone down.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, October 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to sit in the House, listen and learn, and then give the opposition some good advice and perhaps explain a term or two.

The hon. member for Winnipeg South asked me why we could not support democracy. In the last election were there only Conservatives and Liberals on the ballot? Were there not Reform and NDP candidates? When we vote on the Canadian Wheat Board, why do we not have on the ballot single desk selling, open market or voluntary wheat board? Why do we not have four options? To me democracy is a clear vote with no argument.

In committee we elected our chairman. I wanted to ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to the minister for the wheat board how he explains democracy and I was ruled out of order. To me democracy is a vote by a secret ballot, not one with a policeman standing at the door and counting fingers. That is not democracy. I have seen that type of democracy in the Soviet Union and in Eastern Bloc countries but not in democracies like Canada, the United States and Great Britain.

I am all for democracy. I am for a free vote on the Canadian Wheat Board. Everybody has hammered me because I do not represent farmers. Let us ask members across the way how many rural Liberal or NDP members there are from Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta? Not very many. They cannot hold one to a dozen that we have, so they should not tell me that we are not representing farmers.

[Income Tax Act, September 30th, 1997]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-223, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction of interest on mortgage loans).

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to introduce my private member's bill to the House today, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, deduction of interest on mortgage loans for first time homeowners.

The bill provides for the income tax deduction of the interest paid by a taxpayer on the first $100,000 on a mortgage loan secured by the first qualifying home acquired by the taxpayer.

This bill would provide these first time homeowners with a much needed tax break and would also benefit the Canadian housing industry. This bill would make home ownership a feasible option for more families. Recognizing the importance of the family unit, this would have a positive impact on Canada's social climate. Some conditions apply to this bill and are outlined in it.

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

[Petitions, April 18th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, in the last petition the petitioners call upon Parliament to urge the federal government to join with provincial governments to make the national highway system upgrading possible.

I agree with the petitioners.

[Petitions, April 18th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, in the second petition the petitioners pray that Parliament not increase the federal excise tax on gasoline in the next federal budget.

[Petitions, April 18th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I have three petitions to present. The first one contains 51 names.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to recognize the fundamental right of individuals to pursue family life free from undue interference from the state and to recognize the fundamental right and responsibility of parents to direct the upbringing of their children.

I fully support the petitioners.

[Agriculture, April 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this government has to realize if farmers had been given a marketing choice, as the Western Grain Marketing Panel recom-

mended, they would already have resolved the transportation problems.

But because the minister arrogantly refused the recommendations of his own panel, the whole exercise was a waste of millions of taxpayer dollars.

How do the minister and the government plan to compensate farmers for his arrogance and negligence?

[Agriculture, April 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of agriculture.

In the last three and a half years this government has messed up every agriculture policy it has touched. It killed the Crow subsidy without having a competitive and efficient grain transportation system in place and as a result farmers have bins full of grain that cannot be moved.

Full grain bins and empty pockets have been Liberal and Tory policy for the past 130 years. How does this government expect farmers without cash to put in this year's crops?

[Manitoba Flood, April 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Manitobans are again facing devastation from flooding. In fact, it is predicted this will be the worst flood situation since the mid-19th century. Thousands of people will be forced from their homes, and while local governments are better prepared than ever before, we could be entering into unknown territory according to a natural resources spokesman.

Manitobans would like assurance that the federal government will work quickly and co-operatively with the provincial and municipal governments to provide emergency relief for families and financial compensation to repair flood damage.

I hope Manitoba flood victims will not have to experience a repeat of last year when the federal government attempted to renege on its commitment after the fact.

[Farm Debt Mediation Act, April 17th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I always enjoy listening to the member from the Peace River area because he knows how important agriculture is.

Would he like to comment on an issue we addressed this morning when we were dealing with Bill C-34. This kind of flows into Bill C-38 which is more or less trying to dissolve farming operations which we hope can be avoided somehow. This morning we were asking for emergency cash advances of $50,000 interest free. That was denied because the government would not accept our amendments to Bill C-34.

However, in the last couple of months the Liberal government has doled out about $250 million to a company like Bombardier, that is interest free and probably forgivable. How does that compare with his feelings of how the farmers are treated in the west and even in Quebec, as we heard from our hon. colleague from the Bloc.

The Liberal government promised fairness, equality and democracy. I do not think we have seen any of that in the number of bills that have been passed lately.

How does my hon. colleague feel about this?