Jake Hoeppner

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

Especially the backbenchers.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from my hon. colleague across the way.

I have been trying to say to the House that the farming industry should have never been put in this position. The bill will put farmers out of business. There is no place in the bill to help farmers

rejuvenate or become viable again. It is a last resort to make the pain a little less so they can get out of business.

That is not what we need. We have seen over the last three decades the farm population decrease to an unbelievable percentage. When I started farming a half section was sufficient to feed a family. Today a two-section farmer cannot survive. He has to have his mate either employed off the farm or he has to be involved in some other venture to make the farm viable.

We are taking jobs away from people who deserve then, The farm family should be on the farm making sure that it is running properly and is efficient and viable. That is why this piece of legislation is so bad. It will not give farmers any hope. It will just lessening the pain a bit of getting out of business. I do not know whether they will go on welfare or try to get into a new business, which is not easy today.

What astounds me is in the 1970s a Liberal government told us day after day that we had to have high interest rates to bring down inflation. We had to kill inflation. We have killed inflation. We have low interest rates and farmers do not have the opportunity to be viable. The passage of Bill C-38 will get them out of the system. It just does not make sense.

On the one hand a 24 per cent interest rate is inflationary. On the other hand the banks feel 24 per cent makes them viable. If it is not inflationary when the banks charge it, why is it inflationary when the farmer pays it? Those are the problems I have with some government policies. They like to interfere.

First we had to specialize and it did not work. Then we had to diversify and it did not work. Now we have to get value added industries, and who knows if that will work? If farmers do not get their fingers into value added industries, other industries will benefit and we will have less farmers rather than more. As I said, farming should never have been put into the position where it required this legislation.

Due to government policy over the last 30 years this has happened. It is not because of the way farmers have operated their farms. They have increased production. They have become more efficient. They have worked harder. The taxation system and the government bureaucrats have forced them off the land. That is very easily proven.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-38. Before I get into my speech I must commend my Bloc colleague for trying to impress on the House how important agriculture is to Quebec. It has always been appreciated by myself and other Reform MPs that Bloc members take such a unique interest in agriculture. They realize that we have to eat before we do anything else.

Bill C-38 is a quick way of fixing a farmer's problems. It decreases the time of suffering, but I still do not like to see that kind of thing happening.

The Farm Debt Review Act was established in 1986 in response to exceptional circumstances. The late seventies and the mid-eighties were difficult times in the agriculture sector. Family after family was forced to leave farming because it was not profitable. Why was it not profitable? Because of too much government interference.

Some members of Parliament will remember that in 1970 or 1971 the Liberal government of Prime Minister Trudeau was elected. The slogan at that time was we will create a just society. That sounded good. Everybody in western Canada felt that maybe conditions for western farmers would be improved, as well as conditions for western processors and the special crops industry.

The first thing that Liberal government did was increase the wages for grain handlers by 68 per cent in one shot. That was very extreme, although at that time their wages were probably not what they should have been.

That started a whole series of problems. The next thing the government of the day did, because of low grain prices, was to establish a program known as the LIFT program. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, if you were around at that time or if you remember that program. That program was designed to encourage farmers to summer fallow their land and to decrease the supply. They were paid $8 an acre to summer fallow their farmland.

That was a bad mistake. There was a crop failure the following year and the billion bushel surplus that everybody talked about, which was depressing prices, was gone. It was not there because of mismanagement in estimating what was held in reserve. That happened because three or four different grain companies in each town and each grain company, more or less, surveyed how many bushels were in the area, added them together and came up with an estimate which was three or four times higher than it should have been.

In 1972 we had grain prices the likes of which had never been seen before. Prices of $1.50 per bushel jumped to $5 and $6 a bushel. It was inflation. The farmers did very well. They started to be optimistic. People were encouraged to spend money.

The worst thing that happened was that government officials tried to encourage farmers to specialize. If a farmer wanted to

borrow money to improve his milk herd, or dairy operation or hog operation and wanted $5,000, $10,000 or $15,000, the Farm Credit Corporation would say: "No way. You have to get your act together and direct your energies toward one operation". If you did not borrow at least $50,000 or $100,000 you were denied the loan.

That gave farmers the direction to specialize. We saw small operations being closed down and bigger operations starting. Before we realized it, many farmers had a debt load that was beyond servicing when interest rates started, all of a sudden, to jump because of the money supply.

If I had not have been out of the country in 1981 and seen what inflation did in other countries, I probably would not have realized how detrimental it was to our country. However, when 24 per cent interest rates developed and farmers had debt loads of between $100,000 and $200,000, their debt load increased by one-quarter each year and they were unable to service that debt load.

This was the just society. I do not know if it was a just society for the bankers, the financiers or for whom. At that time I know there was a big debate on whether we should do away with the Crow and whether we should do certain other things.

I will never forget a program I was watching one night called Front Page Challenge . Members might remember Mr. Gordon Sinclair who was one of the specialists on the program. They were talking about the huge recession in the country. All of a suddenMr. Sinclair could not sit still any more and said: ``What recession? Twenty-four per cent interest rates. What recession?'' The financial institutions and investors were making huge profits. People did not realize we were losing farmers and business people left and right.

I will never forget the comic made out of the huge Liberal milk cow. Mr. Speaker, you might remember that picture. It showed this huge Liberal milk cow and the western farmers were feeding it as fast as they could. They were scrawny, poor, overworked and looked almost like skeletons compared to the huge cow. While the farmers in the west were feeding this huge Liberal milk cow, they were really feeding the eastern interests. Those interests were collecting the money and getting their 24 per cent interest rates.

The worst of it was that when one has a huge milk cow there is some organic material that has to be disposed of because otherwise it is environmentally unfriendly. Therefore, this organic fertilizer was dumped on the eastern provinces and it pretty well buried them. So we had three little problems. We had the western farmers starving to death. We had the eastern interests getting filthy rich and paying more income tax and the eastern Atlantic provinces being buried by something they did not really like. That was the situation that got western farmers into a huge debt load.

Looking back on the issue today, if we could have avoided the high interest rates at that time, we would have a lot more small business people still in business in western Canada and the family farm might not be in the position that it is today.

However, I want to get back to the debt review board. When we had the old board, it was at least willing to look at farmers who were viable and give them support and try to get them to reorganize.

Bill C-38 is only there, more or less, to get farmers out of business. Once you get to that point, I am a firm believer that just consultation and some advice is not sufficient. As members know, when banks or financial institutions are prepared to take over one's assets they have the best legal advice and the best consultation services available. They do not care about the cost. However, when a farmer is under that type of stress he does not have any financial power. He does not have the economic resources to get that type of advice.

If the government was really diligent and wanted to do something for farmers, it would make funds available to them to get the expert advice and consultation service needed because the banks or financial institutions have the upper hand.

During that time, I think during a Liberal government, I know there was a very big debate about the Crow rate. It think a prop of a crow being hung was brought into the House at that time. There was quite a bit of confrontation here. There was talk that governments were willing to bail out western farmers with the crow to a tune of $15 billion. That was its values then.

Some farm organizations were stubborn and did not realize how critical the issue was. They felt that it was not enough, was a very bad deal for western farmers and refused it. Fifteen billion dollars in 1978 or 1979 compared to $1.5 billion today is just a Mickey Mouse amount, peanuts. Big mistakes made in western Canada.

When we look at the grain transportation system we see that we did something in the House in the last year. We bought out the crow with $1.5 billion and did not have the transportation system in place that should have been there.

We heard from our colleagues from Peace River and Vegreville that farmers are in dire straits today because of the grain in their bins or out in the fields. Bill C-38 will be used probably more than ever before to liquidate farmers.

This is a sad situation. In such a desperate situation some special provisions should be made like we see in many big businesses instead of only having good consultation services available. They ask for bankruptcy protection for a certain time to see whether

things can be ironed out. They do not have the financial assets to protect themselves.

As the Bloc member pointed out, food is number one. If we cannot protect our food supply industry or our producers, sooner or later the country will fold. That is one point I have always appreciated. Even if we do not agree with a lot of the philosophy of Bloc members on the agriculture committee, this is one point we agree on. Agriculture is most important. A trip to a Third World country or an eastern bloc countries makes one realize the value of food very soon.

I met a young lady who was in Canada with a Chinese trade delegation shortly after I was elected. I asked her what she liked best about Canada after having seen some of it. She said the thing she liked best was our cheap food. I asked her what she meant by cheap food. I had no idea what that meant for the Chinese. She gave an example of a McDonald's in the city where she lived that charged exactly double in Chinese dollars what she would pay for the same hamburger in Ottawa.

I asked her how the amount of money spent on food compared to the earning power in China. She indicated that a high wage earner in China spent about 30 per cent to 50 per cent of his wages on food. We have a food basket cost that is about 11 per cent to 12 per cent of our earning power. That helps us see what kind of a blessing we have in Canada.

As was pointed out by another member, when we talk of farmers being subsidized to produce a product it is a subsidization for the consumer to get a cheaper and better product. They are the beneficiaries.

Let us look at the net income of farmers today. I am using Statistics Canada figures. They indicate that 48 per cent of net farm income comes from off farm jobs. We see what is happening to our food production system. If we do not change the system to a market driven, viable food production one, other systems will collapse along with it.

It is very important to realize that we have gone from a system of specialization. It did not work. Then farmers were told they had to become more efficient. Now we have a system that says we have to diversify. How much can they diversify when 48 per cent of their net farm income comes from off farm jobs?

We also hear that there must be value added industries. When farmers are financially strapped they do not have money to invest in value added industries. Somebody else will do it.

To make the farm economy viable again we must take some strong measures. After the next election I hope we will have a Reform government that is interested in making the system efficient, viable and self-reliant. That will transfer into other industries and we will have a country that does not need higher taxes or government support. That is the direction the country must go in.

At the Forum of Young Canadians banquet yesterday I saw their energy, interest and dedication to making the country work. They need a system that will look after some of the huge debt put on their shoulders by the government. They could make the country as viable as it should be.

We have the natural, renewable and human resources to do it. We need some expertise that we have not seen in the last 25 or 30 years of Conservative and Liberal governments. They have been directing our industry and have failed us every time.

It is imperative the electorate in the next election looks at the platform of the Reform Party. It proposes huge changes that will give provinces the right direction to do what they do best and will give the federal government the tools to do what it should do to reduce taxes, to bring down the deficit and to make the country a better place to live. We have heard our leader say a number of times that we could provide a better Canada and a better future for Canadian youngsters, for future generations.

[Agricultural Marketing Programs Act, April 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

As the House probably knows, I have been a critic of the Canadian Wheat Board, not because it is the Canadian Wheat Board and that it has a job to do, but because it is such a closed shop. It does not give farmers the right to direct its affairs. It does not give farmers the right to really look into its books to see what is going on.

I would like to point out to my colleague that about a year and a half ago, when I was serving on the subcommittee on transportation, we had the advisory board appear before us. At that time barley was being shipped to Thunder Bay, put in boxcars and shipped to California to fulfil some prearranged contract sales. It was very foolish to ship it all the way to Thunder Bay and then by rail to California instead of going through Vancouver and down the coastline. A lot of money could have been saved for the Canadian farmer.

I saw the article and phoned the Canadian Wheat Board after the advisory board was before us. It mentioned that boxcars were going from Thunder Bay to California. According to our transportation policy boxcars were supposed to be going to Churchill and not to Thunder Bay. The hopper cars were supposed to be going to Thunder Bay.

I had my researcher contact the Canadian Wheat Board on the issue. I wanted to find out how many boxcars were being tied up in shipping grain to California instead of going to Churchill where there was a need for them. My researcher was informed that the information was not to be divulged to the public. It was none of my business. As a member of Parliament I was trying to reorganize the transportation system and trying to make government agencies such as the wheat board accountable to the producers, the people who really depend on it. I was told that the information was not for my perusal. It could indicate something was going on that should not be going on.

The port of Churchill was in desperate need of grain. We could ship grain through that port for $35 a tonne cheaper than we could do it through Thunder Bay. That is the way the ball bounces for farmers. I am getting disturbed over those issues. They will be looked at in the next election.

We have had 25 or 30 years of Tory and Liberal governments that have neglected farm organizations and farmers. They have more or less directed their focus on eastern interests. The St. Lawrence seaway cannot function without grain going through it. There is no interest on the part of the government to produce the grain as efficiently as it can or transport it out of the country as cost effectively as it can to compete on the world market. All it is interested in is buying votes for the next election. I think that will change. I thank my colleague for the question.

[Agricultural Marketing Programs Act, April 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today and address this issue. We have looked at different types of legislation and I know that a lot of the farm problems are not just in one or two of the bills. The problems we have tried to address are in at least six, seven or eight acts that the minister of agriculture has jurisdiction over. We have to take into account that just by addressing a few of the acts does not resolve the problems that farmers have.

The parliamentary secretary mentioned this act more or less amalgamates three acts, the Advance Payments for Crops Act, the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act and the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act. Amalgamating these four programs is going in the right direction. There is no doubt about that. If we can take the bureaucracy out of farm acts or out of farm legislation it is only going to be a benefit for farmers.

The Reform Party is very much in favour of reducing the costs of administration, reducing the bureaucracy and the red tape that farmers have to deal with when they conduct their business. I think I made it clear yesterday in committee that harmonization of chemical registration and food inspection is a very important issue as well as these acts.

It is only fair to show how unfair sometimes our legislation deals with farmers. When I look at the millers' testimony before the standing committee here just a few days ago they were allowed to import U.S. grain without wheat board control and as far as milling or processing their product was concerned. But when farmers find a market for their American unlicensed grains they are growing in the U.S. at $2 a bushel higher than in Canada, they are thrown in jail.

That is not a fair way to treat one sector of our economy. We allow one thing to happen that is beneficial to the value added industry but then the producers of the raw product who are trying to capture the market are denied access to that market. Those are things that farmers object to and those are things that farmers will take into consideration when they go to the polls in the next election.

We support maintaining the advanced payments for crop programs since they are shown to be a stabilizing influence on the marketplace while maintaining an acceptable level of default

exposure for taxpayers. Farmers are pretty honest generally and try to do their very best to keep their end of the bargain.

We see that the Liberal government is very short on keeping promises. It is very easy to make quick promises but to implement them is a little harder to do. One of those promises was there would be a spring cash advance which should be interest free. I know the member for Malpeque argued for it strongly but being a Liberal backbencher he does not seem to have that much clout in having his own government listen to him.

We in the Reform Party were supporters of that issue, saying it should be increased at least to $50,000 and included in the other advance programs so that farmers were treated equally. There are some Liberal backbenchers who do get the right idea sometimes but because there is not a democracy on the government side of the House they have very little clout or impact.

We saw that happen on the backtracking issue when every member on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food said that it should be stopped and it was costing us millions and millions of dollars. We wasted something like $60 million of taxpayer money by backtracking grain before it finally was done away with by scrapping the western grain transportation act.

Those are things that farmers would appreciate action being taken on when brought before the House, and not just a quick promise before the next election that we will look at this in the September sitting of the House or in the new Parliament, which is what I heard yesterday when I was talking about the pilotage fees that were charged to grain transportation.

The Reform Party proposed some amendments to this bill which would have ensured a more responsible implementation of the bill. One dealt with regulations made by governor in council that dealt with government contingency liability in the legislation. We see that it is the direction this government seems to want to take, that more things should be done by order in council rather than by the House itself. This is a very bad direction in which we are going. In the next election taxpayers and voters will make that message very clear to this government.

We wanted to have the regulations presented to the House of Commons, but no one would listen. No one seems to care. The attitude is "we are the government and we do as we please".

We wanted farmers to have access to that emergency advance but no, as we heard, the government would not allow it. We wanted the government to eliminate the purchases program and treat all agriculture organizations equally.

When I look at certain issues that have come before the House it astounds me that at times we just look at one of the industries and forget that it is affecting the other industries.

When we saw offshore beef coming here a year or so ago, increased from the GATT allocations of something like 75,000 tonnes to 115,000 tonnes, we forgot how many jobs that took away. Our farmers had to export their cows into the U.S. to get them slaughtered. That took away at least three jobs to every one we created by bringing in this extra offshore beef.

Not only that, the countries that were shipping this beef into our country have an export balance that is positive. We had to borrow that money to finance these imports. To me that is not the way to run a business or a country.

When we look at running this country, it should be run on the basis of a business. If it is not going to show a bottom line that is in the positive then we should scrap it.

Also one of the Reform amendments was voted down because it was not really very advantageous politically at that time. It may be different now.

This shows that the Liberal red book promise to give MPs a greater role in drafting legislation is a hollow promise and one more broken promise that Liberals will have to explain to the electorate.

We wanted to have the committee become more democratic. We wanted to have the committee read the red book and then implement the promises. The record is there. It will be of real advantage to us on the campaign trail to once in a while wave it and say here are the promises, see how they were kept.

It will be a pleasure to have the back-up material that we will really need in this next election. Sometimes these promises, if they are put down in writing, have a disadvantage for people later.

I have to admire my colleague from Yorkton-Melville when he started mentioning a few things on the wheat board issue. We see again that in the last six months or so we have a real problem in getting our grain moved.

The wheat board blames it on the railways. The railways blame it on the weather and the Liberals probably blame it on God, the last one who seems to get blamed by this government when there is no other excuse.

Where we will wind up, who will take the responsibility remains to be seen. It was astounding that in the last year, in the spring of 1996, the Canadian Wheat Board cancelled the C quota on barley because it said that there was a shortage of grain, that there was nothing to sell.

We had thousands of hopper cars sitting empty on sidings, not knowing what to do with them. All of a sudden when a new crop comes in we find out we have a record carry over of feed grains, a record carry over of durum. We have had all these empty hopper cars sitting around doing nothing and nobody taking any action.

We were promised when the WGTA was done away with that the Liberals would guarantee our grain would be moved. They would keep track of the situation and they would put on certain regulations or rules that the railways would comply with.

It has not happened. Reading the latest report from one of the railway companies, it says that in the last month it shipped around or backtracked 2,000 empty hopper cars from terminals that were never loaded in the first place.

We can see what a mess the whole transportation system really is in. This government is failing to correct it. We are trying to correct some of the problems with these bills. We will have a partial success but I do not think it is nearly what farmers desire or what is needed in the industry.

We now have a situation where the transportation system is not working. Canadian farmers who are within trucking distance of the U.S. could have a viable market opportunity there but it is denied them because we have a monopoly that does not want to co-operate when certain situations are run into or when market conditions develop during the year.

I know for a fact there is a tremendous demand for our feed grains in the U.S. In my little area of Morden-Winkler, over 200,000 bushels have gone into the U.S. by truck in the last week or two because of a market that was found by a few farmers. They have developed that market to a point where it is becoming quite lucrative.

This is the type of farm policy we need, where farmers take control of the situation and direct the government to provide through regulation the guidelines that make it fair to everyone. That has not been happening. Again I point to the witness we heard from just recently, the millers. They can import their grains from the U.S. without any restrictions while farmers do not have that freedom because they have to go through the buyback program. As we heard at the standing committee hearings, the buyback program is not what farmers want. It is not fair to all farmers and should be changed.

It is really sad how much farmers distrust government and bureaucrats. It is very hard for them to believe what is happening in the House. A very humourous incident happened on April 1. I do not know if the House has heard about the story in Grainews which stated that the the agriculture minister had announced a new bio-diesel initiative and created a government crown corporation called Petro Canola.

I received a number of calls from my constituents wondering whether this could have really happened in Ottawa. When I first heard about it I thought it had to be crazy. I wondered why anybody would even believe something like that.

I will read a few comments from that article so members have an idea how the farm community feels about Ottawa and how much trust they have in politicians. The article states that the Prime Minister has a better plan than the old national energy program from the early 1980s. "We are setting up refineries near Ottawa on both sides of the Ontario and Quebec border to provide a balanced industry. The western farmers get the benefit of growing canola and eastern Canadians get the value added benefit of a new industry. It is an everybody win situation".

It really sounds like it could be something that is viable, something some bureaucrat or politician dreamed up. The article then goes on to say: "The PCB"-which is this new Petro Canola crown corporation-"will buy canola from western Canadian farmers at an average of 15 per cent below the world price but they will have the benefit of a guaranteed market". I guess after having been tied to a monopoly under the Canadian Wheat Board farmers really believe that they will be asked to sell their products under lower than world market prices.

I could see them maybe falling for that bit of bait but the article then goes on to state: "The board will then ship the canola east at the subsidized magpie rate, refine it and sell it back to western farmers and other users of diesel fuel". On reading that everyone should have realized that it just could not happen and, if it did, I am sure that we would have more provinces wanting to separate.

However, this is the kind of problem that we as farmers have been living with for a lot of years. I just want to make it clear to the parliamentary secretary and to members in western Canada especially that the farming industry is still the industry that drives the whole economy.

Once we lose the farmers and the farming industry there will not be much left to save in the western provinces, or probably in the whole country. That is why it is very important that we start to work as a unit in the House to protect farmers, food processors and marketing agencies in a manner which will put more money into the pockets of farmers.

The cash advance program, as far as interest free loans on certain amounts are concerned, in my opinion, is the right direction. But when a farmer has a disaster and is probably in dire need of some cash in the spring, to make him pay interest on the first $50,000 to me is totally ridiculous. I do not think that is what farmers really want or that it will benefit the farming industry as a whole.

The Reform Party is very strong on making agriculture a very viable, market driven industry and farmers should be paid for their labour and should get a fair price for what they produce.

When I see the cost of producing a bushel of grain today and I see how much more efficient farmers have become and how their production has increased every year and their increased capability of feeding the world population and then they get hammered at every corner by government or by regulations, things must change.

One example I brought forward yesterday was past management and the harmonization of rules and regulations between the U.S. and Canada. Last year I noticed an article in one the farm papers which said that Ontario farmers illegally brought into the country about $11 million worth of chemicals to use on their corn production and a blind eye was turned to that. It did not seem to bother law enforcement officers or government officials that this was happening.

Then another farm paper stated that farmers went to jail to try and get an extra dollar for a bushel of grain. Something is wrong in this country.

Bureaucrats and politicians have been doing this for a lot of years. In 1992, before I was elected to the House, I know Grandin wheat was being smuggled into the Canadian system. Some farmers were for it and others were against it, but a blind eye was turned to the breaking of the law.

When customs officers wanted to intervene and uphold the law because some farmers were not just breaking the law but probably making huge profits, they were told by Ag Canada and by other officials in government to just turn a blind eye to the issue. "We will not prosecute".

I came to the House to make sure that it was run in a fashion that upheld the laws of the country. When I see certain issues such as that one not being addressed and issues such as advanced payments again nailing the farmer who has had a disaster in his production cycle, we need a different government in Ottawa. Over the past 25 or 30 years we have discovered that Tories and Liberals are the same. They are only concerned about getting the bucks into the east. The west might as well disappear.

That is why 52 Reformers are here. The slogan was: "The west wants in". We are here and we are going to stay here.

[Agricultural Marketing Programs Act, April 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we saw that the pilotage issue was not addressed in the marine bill. I know farmers would have appreciated very much if that issue had been resolved and they could have expected lower costs in shipping their grain.

How does the parliamentary secretary feel about these exorbitant charges by pilots when they are really not needed these days with the global technology and the positioning technology that we have that can be used instead of them? It is still on the shoulders of farmers to pay $53,000 per trip, an average of $5,200 a day per pilot. Those are things that farmers would appreciate having resolved, giving them a break and reducing to some extent the costs of their shipping charges.

[Canada Marine Act, April 16th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's well thought out speech. Could he inform us on what has happened with the Laurentian Pilotage Authority? Is it being looked at under the bill or has it been scrapped?

[Waterhen Reserve, April 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Waterhen Reserve in Manitoba is dangerously divided. Tensions have been running high between two factions on this reserve for several years.

One faction broke from the chief after claiming it found misappropriation of federal funds in an independent audit of the band's records. It has held several blockades to draw attention to its complaints.

As a result, violence and distress have gripped this community. The latest blockade has resulted in criminal charges being laid. About 300 people had to move from the reserve and leave their homes and livelihood. The Liberal minister of aboriginal affairs promised to do something years ago but has done nothing.

We send troops overseas to protect the rights of people to return to their homes. Yet the government does nothing to protect the rights of 300 Manitobans who are afraid to return to their homes and their livelihoods.

[Criminal Code, April 8th, 1997]

I always like to hear some real good solid comments that can be recorded in Hansard because they will come in very handy when we get on the platform to debate these issues.

A stepfather in Manitoba took a baseball bat and violated the rights of his five-year old stepdaughter to the point that she died, and still it is only called manslaughter. When I see that I am disgusted and ashamed that this is the type of justice system we have. That is something that really shows what the past governments have been doing. They have been watching out for the rights of the criminals but they have never paid any attention to the rights of the victims. It is unbelievable but those are the facts. That has happened once too often and in the next election we will change the system and we will change the government.

I do not know what else I can say to the government and these hon. friends across the way. I would love to have them back but not the way they have been acting for the past three and a half years. Their constituents will make that decision and not me. When we look at the polls today we know exactly what they are saying.

I will still throw the challenge out to you, Mr. Speaker. If you want to come and be a Liberal candidate in Portage-Lisgar I would welcome that because that would show some quality for the Liberals in my riding.

[Criminal Code, April 8th, 1997]

When it comes to non-farmers telling me what people want concerning the wheat board it just shows me the arrogance of the Liberal MPs. They stood on a platform and said they would support the wheat board and bring in Bill C-72 which makes the wheat board looks like there is a criminal element running it by making legal things that have been happening for years. They are now trying to cover it up, just like the Somalia inquiry, the Krever commission and whatever else we have. The pudding will show what the colour of it is, and it is going to be disastrous as far as my hon. friends from the Liberal Party are concerned.