Jake Hoeppner

[Speech From The Throne, November 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, how did this lady respond to the help that she finally got from this medical person? Could the hon. member fill us in on that, please.

[Speech From The Throne, November 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments of the hon. member.

The previous Liberal government tried to control inflation with 24 per cent interest rates. That now seems to have been the wrong approach. Has the Prime Minister drastically changed his definition of what is right and what is wrong?

I heard this morning that our gross domestic product has only increased by 1.1 per cent in the last year. With the low interest rates, how can he make the comment that the government is on the right track? To me it seems that the gross domestic product has to increase by more than 1.1 per cent.

[Administrative Tribunals (Remedial And Disciplinary Measures) Act, October 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to address Bill C-49. We have recently seen an increase in attention paid to Liberal patronage practices so it is appropriate to look at the bill at this time.

The Reform Party opposes the bill because it does not go far enough to reduce patronage. It does not affect cabinet's power to make appointments. It can still appoint whomever it wants.

There are still 2,225 appointments available to the cabinet. Considering the way the Liberal government does business, that is probably a guarantee that patronage will continue until the end of the session.

The Liberals claim the bill will standardize remedial and disciplinary measures for administrative tribunals. The power of this minister to interfere with the measures is increased. The minister will decide whether or not a member should be disciplined. As a member of the agriculture and agri-food committee I have seen the Liberals draft bills with provisions that allow them to continue patronage.

Bill C-60, currently before the House, will create a new food inspection agency. Provisions in that bill create an environment for empire building and patronage. It states that the governor in council shall appoint a president and an executive vice-president to the new agency. These individuals will be responsible for the day to day operations of the agency and will provide advice to the minister on matters relating to the mandate of the agency. There is no mention of the qualifications required by these people. This type of situation opens itself up to more pork barrel politics.

Bill C-60 states that the president and the executive vice-president shall be paid such remuneration as fixed by the governor in council. We do not even know the salaries of these two positions. I wonder why there is not an advertising program for positions like these. It requires expertise to take over these boards and tribunals.

In the private sector usually advertisements go out and qualifications have to be presented. Not only that, usually the remuneration or wages are said to be negotiable. This seems to be the direction in which the government should go to get more accountability into these boards and tribunals.

First, we could become more efficient by negotiating better wages or wages that represent the qualifications. Second, if we could by advertising encourage the expertise to come forward and run the boards, it would be more efficient and accountable in the long run.

The bill also states that each member of the advisory board shall be paid such fees for his or her services as are required by the minister. Again we cannot tell Canadian taxpayers how much that will be because we have not seen the amount. This shows the Liberal way of doing business. There is no accountability and only Liberals need apply.

The Liberals have had a busy summer filling patronage appointments. We have seen the reorganization of the National Transportation Agency with the appointments of several well connected Liberals. Recent appointments to the bench include a cabinet minister's sister, a former Liberal Party president and an ex-Ontario MPP. They must have been carrying Liberal cards. If they did not, they were very fortunate.

The government has named Liberals to appointments within Petro-Canada, the Bank of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada and the Senate. The brand new Canada information office will be staffed with some Liberal cronies or political people and will be cranking out Liberal propaganda at taxpayers' expense.

The main criterion these individuals must have is some sort of Liberal tie. No other factor seems to be important. Probably the most cited example of Liberal patronage is the National Parole Board where incompetence and outright blunders have resulted in

dangerous criminals going free to commit their horrible crimes all over again.

I have spoken a number of times on the issue of crime. It is sad to see that political interference can have an effect on how the parole system or the justice system is working. The Liberals would rather put rewarding political friends ahead of ensuring the safety of Canadians.

This is the party that promised to take steps to ensure that the confidence of Canadians in their government institutions would be restored. The last couple of days we have been involved in a debate concerning the appointment of a deputy chair. This was a promise that could have been kept so easily without any financial burden to the taxpayers. It would have improved the independence of the Chair and shown the country that we are determined to increase democracy on the Hill.

The Liberal Party promised in the red book to take steps to ensure that Canadians' confidence in government institutions would be restored. The red book promise stated that open government would be the watchword of the Liberal program. These words ring very hollow now, contrary to the promise on the campaign trail.

I vividly remember when the Conservatives defeated the Liberals in the 1984 election and Mr. Mulroney pointed a finger at the then prime minister, Mr. Turner, as he said: "You did not have to make those appointments. You had an option. We will be different".

What happened once the Conservatives took over in 1984? Patronage appointments continued to escalate. It became even more important at that time. The Senate was stacked with Conservatives so the GST legislation could be passed. We know how controversial the GST legislation has become. It could not have passed if the Conservatives had not had the power to stack the Senate with eight extra Senators.

It is important that this system be changed and that it be changed very shortly. This country cannot afford these appointments, programs or the decisions that have been made by this type of politics.

When we look at the $600 billion debt it is easy to see some very unwise decisions have been made and future generations will have to absorb and correct them. I do not think it will be done by politicians. It will take men and women in this House with superb intelligence, character and honesty. The first place we can improve is with the disbandment of political patronage appointments.

It scares me sometimes to think that we have come so close, not just to bankruptcy, but to splitting the country and dividing us to such an extent that we cannot co-exist.

When I look at the news of the last day or two and I see what is happening in Zaire and Rwanda, it is scary to see brothers fighting brothers. That is something I do not think we ever want to see in this country. We would rather give up politics than become so divisive that we have to take stronger action than just at the voting box or the ballot.

If we do not try to change the system within this Parliament how can we be sure that we can do it in the next one? Clearly the Liberals are trying to cash in on the disgust that Canadians had for the Mulroney Tories. I sure do not blame the government for addressing that issue with some vehemence. There was tremendous abuse heaped on this Parliament by that government.

We know political appointments reached new heights during that period of government. We do not have to believe that two wrongs will make a right. We have to start addressing the issues that are facing us and that are-

[Administrative Tribunals (Remedial And Disciplinary Measures) Act, October 31st, 1996]

Madam Speaker, what does the hon. member feel should be added to the bill? What kind of an amendment could be made to make political patronage more or less vanish or disappear? That is something that must happen.

[Committee Of The Whole, October 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is a little confusing sometimes. After the exciting question period we had today, we kind of wonder whether we are following proper procedure.

What I am going to talk about this afternoon is what is a promise. What is it, really? A promise is sometimes defined as something that one person makes. But I have found during my lifetime that usually if I made a promise there was somebody else involved. The consequences sometimes bore more strongly on the person to whom the promise was made than on me when I made the promise.

There are promises which are made verbally. In my experience I have also made a lot of promises that were signed. When I went to banks to borrow money, to dealerships to buy implements, I usually had to make a promise that if I took delivery of the implement I would also have to pay for it and also service it properly if I wanted a guarantee or warranty on it.

One of the most important promises I made in my life was to a beautiful young girl whom I tried to convince she had no better man to look for than me. That was not so easy. I spent quite a bit of time at that. In the end I did have to sign my name to really fulfil a promise and to convince her that I would do what I promised.

After 35 years, sometimes I do not think I have totally kept my promises because there have been a few harsh words between us, although I promised there would never be because I was the perfect gentlemen and would be the perfect husband.

We sometimes do not quite fulfil our promises. As we have heard over the last couple of days sometimes these promises go back to Scripture. I listened to an interview with Mrs. Billy Graham on the issue of divorce. She had made a promise to her husband, saying that she should stay with him through thick or thin, health and sickness, richness and poverty. She was asked if she ever intended to break that promise, that she would not say with her husband until death did they part. She said: "No, I never thought of reneging on that promise, but a lot of times I have thought of speeding up the process that he would leave me sooner than later".

We do have to honour our promises even if sometimes we do not want to fulfil them in the context that we agreed to.

What does a signed promise mean? A signed promise means that if we do not abide by the contract or the promise, somebody will probably bear some very severe consequences, not just the person who made the promise but the other party to the promise.

I found out early in my life that if I wanted to have credibility it did not really matter whether it was a promise made verbally or a signed promise. In the end it had the same results if I reneged on it or partially fulfilled it. I think one of the most pleasant experiences I had in keeping a promise was to my two youngest grandsons. As it happened, we had been given by our daughter and son-in-law the privilege of looking after the boys for the weekend while they went on a short holiday. Since grandpa wants to impress his grandsons, I made a commitment to take them to McDonald's on Saturday night. This was in the middle of winter and I had forgotten that weather conditions could change drastically from Friday to Saturday.

About 2.30 in the afternoon my wife said "you know, grandpa, I think you will have to break your promise because that storm is just to bad and you cannot take your grandsons out on the road". We had about 12 miles to travel.

When I suggested to my grandsons that there might be a little problem with the weather they found all kinds of excuses to throw at me, saying that it was not that bad outside: "We have been with dad through a lot worse storms than this. You have the old 4x4 and we have the cell phone. There are all kinds of way we can get back and forth".

Finally I realized that I probably could not wiggle out of this promise. At 35 degrees below zero we decided to take the old 4x4 and head 10 miles down the road to McDonald's about six o'clock in the afternoon. There were not many people in that McDonald's. When I walked in with my wife and the two little grandchildren they kind of looked at me as if to say "hey, is this man a little sick? Why is he taking those two little kids out on a night like this?" When I explained to them that I had made a promise, my grandsons looked at me and said "grandpa, he can do it. We'll get home. He can keep that promise".

I was the proudest grandpa that day because I was the only one with two little children there, stupid and foolish as it seemed, but I did keep my promise. I gained a lot of respect from my grandsons, even if I would have rather had it the other way.

Sometimes a broken promise can be very hurtful. To me, it really worked the other way and I gained a lot of respect. It cost me a little extra caution, to drive more carefully and to be a bit more cautious on the road, but we did get home safely and I felt very good about keeping that promise.

When I look at some of the tragedies that we see in the world today where promises were not kept, it is sad to see that we probably do not give enough attention to what a promise is.

In the olden days I heard my dad and my grandfather say that the handshake was a promise and it was a deal and that was enough. Today that does not seem to be true any more. We have to have things legally drawn up and we have to abide by the guidelines.

What has it cost this government to break a number of promises? One of them is the promise of the GST. We have seen that promise broken. We have seen that now it will cost other taxpayers about roughly $1 billion. I do not know how this government is going to face the electorate next time, especially in the west where this $1 billion is going to come from.

The other thing I would like to touch on is the Canadian Wheat Board. We know that this government promised during the election that it would hold a referendum especially on barley marketing. That promise has not been honoured. It may be honoured yet before this Parliament is over, but it has caused a lot of hard feelings. It has more or less developed a lot of tension between different farmers, different families even and different communities.

Is it really worth breaking a promise which creates this tension and distress in the farming community? If I had been the agriculture minister that is one of the first things that I would have honoured, holding a plebiscite. That is what democracy is about. It is to let individuals decide what is best for them in their businesses, in their homes and in their governments.

About a year ago I saw news stories where Mr. Beswick did resign over the friction inside the wheat board on which type of marketing was better. He stated that the bungling of the wheat board had cost barley producers $180 million that year. We can understand why there is friction between farmers and why they would like this to be resolved.

That gives us a small idea not just that the $180 million was gone but that there was confusion and friction in the agriculture community. What did that do to that community? It pitted farmer against farmer. It also pitted business against farmers. When a farmer loses a dollar business loses just as much or more.

I have recently been approached by a number of business people who were very upset that this has gone to the point where some farmers have been charged horrendous penalties through monetary forfeitures. One of the farmers is in jail and it looks like there may be another one in jail very shortly because he is going to refuse to pay some of his fines. I am wondering where it is going to end.

We do not need this type of friction or tension in the community especially today when I see grain prices drifting lower and lower every day.

Why are we debating this issue about promises when I ponder some of the statements that have been made and look at what the four members of Parliament did to establish a task force minority report on the independence of the Chair or the Speaker of the House? I wonder how these four members, at that time being in opposition, could now just ignore what they said.

I would just like to read into the record exactly what was said. This is what they said about the independence of the Chair: "In order to enhance the independence of the Chair and in an effort to reduce the level of partisanship, when the Speaker is from the government party two of the junior Chair officers should be from the opposition so that the four presiding officer positions are shared equally by government and opposition". Further down in the statement they say: "If the Speaker were from the government party, the deputy speaker would be from the opposition, the next officer from the government-", and so forth.

I would say that is a tremendous statement. That goes to show that these four members, while sitting in opposition, were really determined and honest in analysing the partisanship that was happening in Parliament at that time.

I am wondering why it would be so hard to fulfil that little promise today. This promise is not going to cost them anything financially. It is not going to give them any more or less power in

this House. It would only, I would think, supplement their stature in the public that they honoured this small promise that was intimated to be made if they were elected.

I think it was probably important at that time to the government to add this to the appendix of the red book to show that this government wanted to democratize this Parliament the way it should be democratized, that it should be a House where there is equal opportunity, that it should be a House where the guidelines and partisanship were neutral or as neutral as they could hope it to be.

When we look at the debate we have been entering into for the last day and a half, it is astounding that this little promise could create such a partisan debate when I see that there has not been a single member from the Bloc or from the government really supporting this statement that was made in the last Parliament to reinforce the idea that this should be a House, through the Speaker, as impartial as possible.

We can see what it has done in the debate. It has kept us thinking, but the decision that we are going to make tonight will not be one that is going to be beneficial to the House unless something historic happens.

I wonder how the government would feel if the member for Kingston and the Islands decided to honour his commitment through the statement he made when he was in opposition. I wonder what the Liberal government would say if this member for Kingston and the Islands said: "I am going to stick by my statement of four years ago or so, walk the floor and join the Bloc or the Reform to honour the commitment that my nomination as deputy chairman could be held".

I would like to see what the Liberal government would say. That is the way he could honour his commitment. If he made that choice, I am sure not going to say that I would not honour his intentions. He could sit as an independent. He could join one of the other parties. That is the way this member could stay true to his commitment of four years ago.

It would be a tremendous credit to the House if this member fulfilled that commitment. I would really appreciate it and I think everybody would respect him more for it. It would probably be a pretty strong pill to swallow but I think it would be well accepted. Whether it would be accepted by the government is another issue. I am sure the opposition or the independents in the House would welcome another member on this side.

From what we have heard from the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, he is an honourable member and a very fair member on the committees he has served on. I would love to see this member make that final decision. It would be precedent setting. It would be something this House would remember for perpetuity. I do not think we would run into the situation ever again where that would have to be debated.

He made this commitment before an election and he knew the statement he made was correct; so much more power to the member to fulfil it.

How is this government going to face the electorate in the next election when it cannot keep this one little promise which did not cost this government a single nickel? All it would have done is made this House more democratic. It would have fulfilled some of the promises the Liberals made to be honourable, fair and to treat people equally. It would only be a plus to them.

If I had to go back and campaign on a little broken promise like this, I am sure my electorate would not believe any big promises I made during the campaign. If I was not true to the little promises, the teeny-weeny promises that were costly neither to government nor to opposition, then how would people ever believe me on the bigger promises like the GST, like the referendum on barley marketing, like a few others I should mention? I do not want to create too much hostility on the other side. At that point we could run into another lively debate like we had during the question and answer period.

I enjoy listening to the comments from members on the other side because I know they will try to distort the issues somewhat and there will be some political rhetoric. I can deal with a little of it but when it gets too thick and too foggy then at times it becomes difficult to sit quietly and seal my lips.

We know today that we cannot even dare blow a kiss to opposition members. They get too excited. It irritates them. I would not want to cause a riot in the House just because of a few comments I might make.

I would really like to see how some of the members on the other side are going to deal with the issue of breaking the promise to make the Speaker impartial and to make the Speaker as effective as possible in the House when they have not even tried to accomplish that in the vice-chairmanship of all the standing committees. We have seen how democracy operates there. We see the whip walking into the room, counting the heads and identifying the people who might all of a sudden vote against the government.

We have seen it happen a number of times that when someone voted against government policy they were demoted, taken off the committee and replaced by somebody else. I find it very hard to believe that is democracy. It is not keeping the promise to make the procedures of the House more democratic and to have more free votes.

I wonder what the electorate will say in the next election, especially after some of the comments made in question period today about the way the government is trying to divert attention from the real issues. We are being called extremists. The government is reneging on a little promise to make the Chair more

impartial. How can we be the extremists? The extremism comes from the other side. That little democracy which could help the House-

[Liberal Party, October 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, after the weekend Liberal policy convention we now know how the government develops its policies. It consults empty chairs and empty rooms which pose no difficult questions, resulting in perfect harmony. For the real tough questions Liberals look to the Prime Minister's wife for answers.

A big problem with the Liberal government is that it has placed the wrong ministers in their respective portfolios. For example, the justice minister should be switched to agriculture. Then farmers would be out of prison farming and the real criminals might be behind bars. The heritage minister and the finance minister should reverse their roles so that the CBC could survive the cuts and report to the nation the moment the Liberal government has spent us into bankruptcy. When this happens, they will just look for the minister with the credit cards.

The Liberals swing to the left, they swing to the right and sooner or later they will swing out of sight.

[Reform Party Of Canada, October 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal 747 has hit turbulence. The seatbelt signs are flashing and the Prime Minister has called for an emergency landing.

The GST engine has backfired. The engine of accountability is sputtering and black smoke clouds the Prime Minister's vision. The gauges show that engine three is overheating with political rhetoric. Canadians fear the fourth engine will not be strong enough to

save them from a crash landing as experienced by the Tories in 1993.

It is therefore encouraging to see Canadians clamouring to board the Reform jumbo jet into the 21st century. It offers full service, prosperity and a clear vision of a new and better Canada. Reform's message of political accountability will ensure that all the engines on its jumbo jet operate at maximum efficiency and power.

Canadians who want to venture securely into the 21st century can now board with Reform at gate 97.

[Canadian Wheat Board, October 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the agriculture minister has yet again demonstrated that he has absolutely no direction for western Canadian grain farmers.

On the one hand he demonstrates solid support for the single desk monopoly of the Canadian Wheat Board by closing loopholes in the Customs Act while on the other allowing it to self-destruct by its lack of accountability and transparency.

This minister has shown he is prepared to prosecute farmers in order to prevent them from accessing niche markets that the board will not service. At the same time he allows the board to circumvent its own act by directing selected farmers to end users who pay huge bonuses outside the pooling system.

In my opinion, if a violation of the Canadian Wheat Board Act is punishable by jail for farmers, then so should the same punishment apply to wheat board officials.

But then, we have a Liberal government that protects criminals while ignoring the rights of its victims.

[Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act, October 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to make a few comments on this bill.

This is a bill which if passed will implement a food inspection agency that should be streamlined somewhat. What really scares me is that the agriculture minister is going to be in control of this agency. When I see that it has taken three years for the agriculture minister to decide that we are going to have a referendum on barley marketing and within those three years he still has not been able to come up with a proper question on what to ask farmers, I am just wondering how he is going to regulate this big agency and how cost effective it will be.

When the new agency comes into effect in 1997 it will become one of Ottawa's largest bureaucracies with 4,500 employees and a budget of $300 million. That is a lot of peanuts, $300 million for a regulatory body. When we look at deficit reduction and we look at the total debt in this country of $600 billion I guess it is the Liberals' idea that another $300 million is not that significant.

Federal officials contend that ending the interdepartmental overlap and duplication in such areas as enforcement, risk management, laboratory services, informatic systems and communications will save taxpayers $44 million annually starting in 1998-99. It always astounds me that whenever we see projections and they are somewhat down the road we can usually expect that somehow the manipulation of the system will be there so that they can come within that figure even when it means transferring costs to other agencies. However the detailed breakdown of this estimate has not yet been provided by the government. That is interesting.

Also, no decisions have been made on the staff reductions or details given on the new agency's surplus laboratories. There is a lot of money involved in those laboratories. What is going to happen to them is a big question. I hope the government finally realizes that if there is going to be disposable assets that it gets a fair market value for them.

Although the Reform Party supports consolidating and downsizing the operations of the federal government, we fear that this bill will accomplish little except to shuffle names and titles. Instead the government should be considering the advantages of privatizing a significant portion of Canada's food, plant and animal inspection services.

This is one of the big issues we have been debating for the last three years, harmonizing and privatizing. We know that each province has its own inspection services and there is always conflict between the two agencies. It is time we realized that harmonization has to happen or the conflict will increase and we will spend more dollars instead of less.

Only $40 million or 13.3 per cent of the agency's $300 million budget is currently cost recovered. The agency already plans to dramatically increase this amount to more than $70 million. We know who is going to bear these costs. It is going to be the taxpayer, the processor or the primary producer. It is tremendously important that we start downsizing and becoming more efficient and productive in these agencies as well as in our food processing and primary production.

Where the Reform Party supports user pay and cost recovery, the cost of the service must reflect the true costs of providing the service and not the added expense of maintaining the government bureaucracy. The bill should ensure that a greater priority is placed on cost avoidance and cost reduction. This is important as the agency created by this bill will be responsible for enforcing and administrating several federal statutes which regulate food, animal and plant health and related products. These include the Feed Act,

the Fertilizer Act, the Health of Animals Act, the Meat Inspection Act, the Plant Breeders Rights Act and the Seeds Act.

This bill will also continue to centralize authority for food inspection in the hands of the federal government. The Reform Party believes the government should acknowledge that since the provinces already provide many of these same inspection services, the emphasis should be on decentralization and encouraging common inspection standards.

For these reasons the Reform Party opposes the bill.

Turning to the bill itself, we have specific concerns. Provisions in the bill seem to create an environment for empire building.

Clause 5 of the bill states that the governor in council shall appoint a president and an executive vice-president to the new agency. These individuals will be responsible for the day to day operations of the agency and will provide advice to the minister on matters relating to the mandate of the agency. There is no mention of the qualifications which will be required by these people. This type of situation opens itself up to pork barrel politics.

Clause 8 of the bill states that the president and the executive vice-president shall be paid such remuneration as is fixed by the governor in council. We do not even know the salary amounts for these two positions.

Clause 10 states that each member of the advisory board shall be paid such fees for his or her services as are fixed by the minister. Again, we cannot tell Canadian taxpayers how much they will be paying for these salaries.

This is a very good example of what we are experiencing with the Canadian Wheat Board. We have appointed commissioners who have received severance packages. We do not know what those severance packages are. There are positions which have pension plans and nobody really knows what the cost is. When I look at this regulatory agency which is being set up very much like the Canadian Wheat Board, I find it to be scary.

I know also that the Manitoba food inspection agency is always in conflict with the federal agency. It is costing us jobs. It is costing us exports. For example, there is a small sausage manufacturing plant in my constituency. The manufacturer is allowed to sell his product all across Manitoba; however, he cannot sell it to federal agencies, such as CN or the military. I do not know why it would pose a health risk to the federal agencies; Manitobans eat the sausage and it is delicious. I am told that we could save almost a dollar a kilogram if people in the federal agencies ate the Manitoba sausage instead of importing sausages from federal agencies in a different province.

If we want to become efficient and if we want to harmonize, we do not have to harmonize just with foreign countries, we have to harmonize within our own boundaries. We have to make sure it is cost effective and that the taxpayer as well as the primary producer gets the benefit. We should also give a break to the processors. They are the people who are creating the jobs. It is the small businessmen and the entrepreneurs who really make this industrial machine work.

[Canadian Wheat Board, October 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food is expected to finally announce if the Liberal government will allow farmers to decide how to market their grain.

An Angus Reid poll commissioned by the minister's own department showed that a majority of farmers supported marketing reforms, including allowing feed barley for export sales to be marketed outside the board. However, in a clearly loaded question, the poll then asked farmers if they supported marketing reforms even if they resulted in a decline in the price they receive for their barley.

Farmers can only cross their fingers and hope that if the minister finally honours his election promise and calls a plebiscite he will frame the question in a manner that is clear, honest and democratic.

I know the minister has trouble making decisions. Let me help him out. The question to all barley growers should be: Do you agree or disagree that participation in the Canadian Wheat Board should be made voluntary?