Jake Hoeppner

[Farm Debt Mediation Act, June 17th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to make a few comments on Bill C-38, the debt mediation act.

When I think back, only twice in history have farmers had to use this type of vehicle to stay solvent. The one vehicle I can barely remember as a child was called the debt adjustment board, something the government implemented shortly after the great depression.

The debt adjustment board was designed to keep farmers on the land. It gave them a chance to restructure. It took the clout of creditors away. They could not foreclose for a certain amount of time. It gave farmers a chance to get back on their feet.

Bill C-38, the farm debt mediation act, is probably a quick end to ending the misery of a farmer already in financial problems. The 120-day period of grace for a farmer with serious financial problems is not even a glimpse of hope.

When we look at the Canadian Wheat Board taking at least a year and six months to sell grain and to pay out final payments, how is a farmer supposed to reorganize his financial house in 120 days or a third of the crop year?

We have to look back at what created this big problem. I have heard many kind comments about the present Liberal government. I wish the past Liberal governments of the seventies and early eighties had been just as kind. They were the governments that allowed inflation to creep up to 15 per cent and 18 per cent, and interest rates up to 24 per cent. Bankers, accountants and financial planners told farmers they had to specialize and to redesign their farming operations so that they milked 100 cows instead of 25 cows and raised 10 pigs and some chickens. They had all the answers for farmers. They were supposed to have a better livelihood.

All of a sudden in 1981-82 when the crunch really hit interest rates rose to 24 per cent and it was only people like Mr. Gordon Sinclair who said there was no crisis or debt problem. Those people raked in huge profits and farmers suffered. They could not dig themselves out of their debt load.

If it had not been for the Conservatives coming through in 1986 with a number of huge payments to farmers, there probably would not be a farmer left in western Canada today. If it were not for FSAM I and FSAM II which doled out billions of dollars, not millions, farmers would not have survived to this point.

Because the Conservatives organized the debt review board which helped a lot of farmers to restructure, the kind Liberal government is now trying to say that it will get the few guys still left in misery out in a hurry; in 120 days it will be over for them. I do not see the kindness from the government I have been hearing about tonight.

Why should a farmer who has suffered for 10 years have the final bell rung? Why should he be told in another 120 days the game will be over? Is that the nice, compassionate government we see in the House? Or, is it just another way of more or less getting into the type of farming system we see in communist countries?

It bothers me when I have heard financial advisers and planners tell us for 10 years what we have to do and suddenly in the middle of the course they pull the plug and say we have to do something else.

I wonder why farmers are put in jail or are fined thousands of dollars for trying to market their grain at a better price. I cannot see the kindness of the Liberal government.

I will read a couple of words of a writer in the Glenboro Gazette in the centre of my riding: ``I don't care if you think the wheat board is a gift from God. If they are not held accountable they are going to go on filling their own pockets with the hard earned dollars of the farmer. And no government official deserves to live a better life than the people that elected him or her''.

If that is the case, why not give farmers in financial problems a million dollar pension plan like the one members in the House are getting? That is the way to solve their problems. It would be a lot easier to farm from there on. The people who were elected to the House are now telling them the game will be over in 120 days. That does not seem to be a kind and rational solution.

I will read a few lines from another article: "Illegal grain exports earned farmers $302,000". Two farmers who sold their own grain earned an $302,000. The Liberals are trying to tell me that the marketing system they think is more or less a godsend or a gift is keeping these farmers on the land. It is throwing them off. The $302,000 would pay a lot of debt.

Mr. Brooks says the loss could have been bigger because some of the barley graded as feed sold as malt barley. What is happening? Do we have a Canadian Grain Commission that does not know how to grade grain? Why do the Liberals not restructure the Canadian Grain Commission so we can at least have grain graded properly?

It seems strange where the kindness I have heard about this evening is coming from and going. It further amazes me when I read: "Rebel farmers' plight against wheat board may not yet be over". Mr. Sawatzky won his case. The judge said that there was no breaking of the law and that the Customs Act had not been violated. The kind Liberal government will take him for another ride.

A wheat board counsellor said: "An appeal is necessary because the order in council wouldn't apply to anyone charged before the loophole was closed. There are a significant number of charges still out there". Why not fix those farmers, those poor farmers the Liberal government is going to give another 120 days to end it all? It seems to me the kindness I have heard about this afternoon is probably the kindness of putting them out of misery. The quicker the better. It is selective Liberal justice.

When I look at a number of bills in the House they remind me of a flock of sheep. When a flock of sheep becomes discontented it runs around in the pasture looking for a better spot to graze. The sheep are not quite sure whether they should stop to graze or whether they should break out of the pasture and maybe get into an alfalfa field and kill themselves. This is what these bills seem to do.

The Liberals are not really sure how they should handle it, but they are running around in the pasture trying to divert attention so that if they find a hole in the fence to get through nobody will notice. Eventually they will probably overeat, bloat and die. That is how I see the last two bills the Liberals have introduced.

Every year it astounds me when I see the statistics and there are fewer farmers, not more. It is said that if government helps the farmer once, he can survive; if it helps him the second time, he is in big trouble; but if it helps him the third time, he is finished for sure.

I wonder what the third bill will be. We have seen two here today. Probably the other one is that whenever a farmer grows a bushel of wheat, he should not have any control over it at all. He should not even be able to market it to the cattle producers or the hog producers. Maybe the government should take that away too, like it used to be.

We have to start realizing that farmers are some of the best managers in the world, but the government still insists that it knows better and that it can help them. The only thing it can help them with is emptying their pocketbooks. After that has happened, usually then there are problems and the government gives them another kick in the butt and says: "Here it is, 120 days and the game is over".

Maybe we should have another bill or something to complement these bills. Then we could do it all in one swipe. Bills C-34 and C-38 are doing a good job. The kindness of the Liberals will be well remembered into the future, as was the kindness of the Liberals in the 1970s and 1980s. Those days will be remembered as long as history stands: 24 per cent interest and inflation at 18 to 20 per cent.

I appreciated the opportunity to speak on this bill. It has been a pleasure. I can see the Liberals were listening from the expressions on their faces. They paid attention.

[Canadian Wheat Board, June 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice and it is not on the Airbus.

About two weeks ago there was a report that western Canadian barley producers lost about $180 million probably because of the bungling of the Canadian Wheat Board's sales and irregularities.

I asked the minister to do a judicial inquiry into that. I was wondering if he could inform the House whether he has become informed on the issue and what action he has taken.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, June 11th, 1996]

moved that Bill C-212, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act (audit), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on my private member's Bill C-212, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act with respect to audits. The bill proposes to require that accounts and records of the Canadian Wheat Board be audited annually by the Auditor General of Canada. Currently the audit is conducted by the private sector firm of Deloitte & Touche which was chosen by the wheat board.

The bill will not represent an extra cost to the taxpayer since the cost of the audit could be transferred to the auditor general's office from the Canadian Wheat Board. It is almost unbelievable the auditor general has to sign the wheat board audit without so much as a glimpse at the actual figures. There is no way he can verify the debt load or the operating costs.

I will give some background on the role of the auditor general in holding government institutions accountable.

The auditor general has given Canadians some very interesting reading. The horrors and the ridiculous can be overwhelming to a taxpayer's mind. The people's right to control how their taxes are spent is one of the cornerstones of democratic government. Canadian taxpayers are telling their elected representatives that they want the best possible value for the tax dollars they send to the federal government.

The auditor general has gained the respect of Canadians and has been instrumental in pinpointing waste and mismanagement to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Over the years a process has developed. The government submits to the House of Commons its spending plans for each department; reports on the past year's activities; and provides the public accounts that show all federal spending, borrowing and taxing. One more link in the accountability process is required: an independent assessment of that information.

Members of Parliament need this impartial evaluation so they can effectively question or criticize the government on its performance. This is where the auditor general provides a valuable service. This service would be effective in looking at all operations of the Canadian Wheat Board to make it more accountable. Farmers would not have to doubt whether these figures are actual or manufactured, especially if the information act would apply to the CWB.

The job of the auditor general is to help find out if value is being obtained by the federal government. The auditor general conducts independent audits and examinations and encourages accountability and improvements in government operations. Citizens will only have confidence in their government institutions if they believe that their tax dollars are spent wisely and effectively. Confidence in our national government depends upon clear and timely accountability by the government and its crown corporations and proper accounting methods.

I will touch on the Canadian Wheat Board situation. The board has sole jurisdiction for marketing western Canadian wheat and barley. This monopoly position results in a financial summary that features some astronomical figures: not millions or hundreds of millions but billions of dollars. It makes one wonder why a government would allow some private accounting firm to audit these books and not even have the right to double check figures at its discretion.

In 1993-94 the board's assets were $8.86 billion and loans from the private sector were $7.78 billion. There was no mention of what the loans were for or what term they carried. Board revenues were $3.87 billion and the surplus in operation was listed as $669.5 million.

The current Canadian Wheat Board Act allows the wheat board to appoint a firm of chartered accountants for the purpose of auditing records and accounts and certifying reports of the board. There were 49 crown corporations in Canada in 1994-95. The wheat board is one of seven corporations exempted from part X of the Financial Administrations Act which allows for a private auditor rather than the auditor general. Even among these exempted crown corporations only the Canadian Wheat Board and the Bank of Canada do not have the auditor general audit their accounts and records.

The Office of the Auditor General could be more effective because it can maintain its objectivity when conducting audits. It is not subject to any restrictions that may occur when a private firm audits a government agency.

For example, private auditors usually include a disclaimer to the effect that they can only ensure the accuracy of the audit based on the information they were given. Private auditors simply do not have the authority to ensure they have all the necessary information. Moreover the auditor general reports directly to the House of Commons, not to the agency or the crown corporation in question.

Bill C-212 will also require that the board submit a report to the minister each month that would detail its purchases and sales for the month, as well as the quantities of grain held by it. The report would be certified by the Auditor General of Canada.

If the auditor general has a monthly opportunity to certify the report, the overall grain transportation system could be made more efficient. Grain car shortages could be avoided because the grain trade would know what the future commitments were. Similar bottlenecks in the system could be smoothed out if we knew that the monthly operations of the board were closely tracked by the auditor general.

Right now in western Canada there is a debate raging about the role of the Canadian Wheat Board. I do not think there has been a time in the history of the board when its future has been the subject of so much discussion.

Back in the 1993 election campaign the agriculture minister and the Prime Minister promised a plebiscite on the marketing of wheat and barley through the Canadian Board Board. It would now appear they have completely backed away from their promise of allowing producers to decide the issue. Broken Liberal promises seem to be the order of the day and more bountiful than the days of the month. When will this finally stop? Not as long as there is a Liberal government.

To add to the farmers' frustration over the broken promise of a plebiscite is the justified perception that the wheat board is an organization shrouded in secrecy. The wheat board is one of the most secretive government agencies in Canada. It is a crown agency the government set up to exclusively handle the sale of wheat and barley for western Canada. While the government does not fund the board it does guarantee its debt.

Another current concern about the board is that it is not subject to the Access to Information Act. I propose to change this fact in another private member's bill. Hopefully at some time the bill will be drawn and the House can deliberate its merits.

The exemption ties into Bill C-212 however. By being exempt from the Access to Information Act, the board does not have to answer individual requests for information on how it is being run. If the auditor general did the annual audit of the board surely there would be more information available to the public eye.

Farmers pick up the tab for the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board. They should be able to find whether or not their money is being spent wisely but they cannot. A recent cause for concern has been the rapid increase in administration expenses at the wheat board. They have risen dramatically from $26.8 million for fiscal year 1987 to $35.3 million in 1992 and to $41.3 million in 1994. This was an increase of 54 per cent in seven years.

While the cost had a hefty increase, the amount of wheat and barley produced in western Canada did not increase accordingly. In 1987 there were 37.6 million tonnes and in 1992 there were 37.9 million tonnes. That is an increase of only 1 per cent. When it comes to jacking up costs obviously the wheat board is in a class by itself.

Unfortunately the bill is paid by grain farmers. They have watched the steady increase in costs with absolutely no option to review them to see where their money was being spent. This is a real injustice. It makes one wonder whether farmers grow wheat and barley just to keep the Canadian Wheat Board functioning or whether the wheat board should have to answer to farmers instead of farmers to the wheat board.

In November 1994 I asked the board to give a breakdown of information on pension plans and wages for Canadian Wheat Board commissioners and staff. Regarding the pension plans I requested a breakdown of employer versus government contributions and the age at which the commissioners and staff were eligible to receive pension benefits. My request was denied by Agriculture Canada on the basis that the Canadian Wheat Board does not fall under the terms of the Access to Information Act.

Numerous other farmers and taxpayer organizations have tried to find this information but they have also been stonewalled because of the wheat board secrecy. The only person it has to answer to is the agriculture minister.

Does the agriculture minister own the wheat that farmers grow or should the farmers have entitlement to the products they produce?

A private researcher revealed that the board or the minister had given severance packages of about $300,000 to former commissioners. They also received privileges such as eight-week vacations per year. At the time this information was made available I was still waiting for an answer to my request.

The government quickly scaled back the packages after an uproar in the farming community but only for the new commissioners. Since the commissioners are not accountable to farmers they were seemingly able to fill their pockets at will.

The Liberal government has failed to correct this injustice. This is a damning reminder of the gold plated MP pension plan all over again.

It is important to note the minister of agriculture is responsible for the operation of the Canadian Wheat Board. Should he not also be accountable to farmers? Why is he trying to restrict farmers from earning the same return for their labour as the wheat board commissioners?

Without farmers there is no need for Canadian Wheat Board commissioners or an agriculture minister. The whole incident has led to producer scepticism and a loss of confidence in the board.

For over two years farmers have provided me with documents that suggested irregularities within the wheat board. Since January 1995, I have held four news conferences and have twice asked for an RCMP investigation into these irregularities.

I have also asked that the justice minister order a judicial inquiry into the $180 million loss barley producers suffered this past year according to the claims made by former wheat board commissioner Ken Beswick.

I have received information through the access to information office that confirms an RCMP inspector asked two RCMP detachments to start investigating farmer complaints.

When he was informed that customs officials at the port of Snowflake, Manitoba confirmed farmer suspicions of irregularities, he failed to communicate this to me. Instead he took it upon himself to declare there was no evidence of criminal intent and seemingly altered document dates, throwing further suspicion on the whole process.

During this period customs and revenue inspectors in conjunction with RCMP have brought charges against farmers for allegedly violating the Customs Act.

Two trials have received a lot of media attention in my constituency of Lisgar-Marquette involving David Sawatzky and Norman Desrochers.

In the David Sawatsky case, Judge Arnold Connor ruled that Sawatzky had not broken the Customs Act but probably violated the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Sawatzky was eventually acquitted of his charges.

I have two photo copies of sworn affidavits by farmers that an RCMP constable involved in prosecuting Sawatzky gave false information to access computer files at U.S. customs offices to start a criminal investigation. How far will the wheat board officials go to protect the secrecy of this operation?

It also shows how rigid the board is. Many polls have been conducted that show farmers want changes and more say in the wheat board's operations. A recent poll in Saskatchewan shows that 83 per cent of the responding farmers wanted more control of the Canadian Wheat Board. This sentiment has obviously been expressed in other prairie provinces as well.

These are examples of why farmers are calling for change. That is why I introduced Bill C-212. The demand for a more open and accountable board is clear.

Giving the auditor general the ability to do an audit would represent a good first step. Unfortunately we have a minister and government that embrace the status quo at the expense of ignoring constructive change.

Before I turn the debate over to my colleague, I ask the House for unanimous consent to support this bill and make it votable.

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 17th, 1996]

Regarding the 1992 Deloitte & Touche special examination and subsequent report on the Canadian Wheat Board, how exactly has the Canadian Wheat Board addressed the criticisms contained in that report alleging that: ( a ) there is no evidence of an ongoing formal Corporate strategic plan or process; ( b ) departmental planning resulting in annual operational plans generally does not exist; ( c ) senior management job descriptions are out of date, incomplete or non-existent; ( d ) no formal budgeting process does not exist for the Finance and Accounting expenditures department; ( e ) no formal strategic marketing plan exists; ( f ) the marketing function lacks focus and coordination; and ( g ) agents

emphasize that their relationship with the Canadian Wheat Board are not sound/positive business relationships?

[Employment Insurance Act, May 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my hon. colleague from Provencher would agree with my colleague from Peace River that there should be some kind of incentive to relocate if there are jobs available.

I had to relocate to start farming. If I had not relocated, my boys would not have been there to farm today. Therefore should we not have some kind of incentive to relocate if the possibility is there?

[Employment Insurance Act, May 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, being new to the House I have not had the experience the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing has had. I wonder if he would confirm or interpret the comments he made for me.

Are the Liberals now changing their philosophy compared with the previous Parliament when they were in opposition? Is he saying the Liberals and the Conservatives are really one animal? How does he explain that?

[Point Of Order, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to an S. O. 31.

I may wish to rise on a question of privilege tomorrow morning on the statement made by the member for Winnipeg South after I have reviewed Hansard .

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I did not really expect to say anything in the debate today. I thought I might at third reading. However, now I have the chance and I will add my comments.

I am a Reform member and I believe in equality for all citizens. That is why I ran for Reform. I have had experiences in another country where it said there was equality but I did not see it. I have said a number of times in my speeches that the visits I made to the Soviet Union it made me realize how important democracy is.

When I see the democracy in the House today it reminds me a lot of the manifesto of 1917 when there was freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to have property. It was freedom only for two or three people at the top. The rest were shut down or exterminated.

It sounded almost biased when I heard the government over the last couple of days making excuses that it could not fulfil its promises because of acts of God.

If we look back to the story of creation, God did create a husband and a wife. What do members think happened? The husband blamed God for his breaking the promise not to eat the fruit of life. He said it would not have happened if God had not given him that woman. That is where discrimination started.

I do not think that is the type of thing we want to reinforce, blaming God for our problems or making us do some things. We want to give him credit to show us and give us the wisdom to make the right kind of legislation.

When I look at this bill, it is a stepping stone to attacking the basic family unit. I cannot see it differently. If it is not, why would the government refuse to endorse the amendments made by my colleagues? They have been made to protect the basic institutions of marriage and family. If that is not acceptable, what is in the bill? Think about it.

The bill is a smoke screen. It is probably a way to get the door opened up a little wider to destroy the basic unit of the family. As we have heard in the House a number of times, when that happens, when the basic family unit becomes disintegrated, when it becomes non-functional, so does the country. That is something we have to look at very seriously in this legislation.

The communists in 1917 said they would be equal, that they would have freedom. They said families did not do a proper job of raising their children and they would take over. They said they do not really need marriage, the basic family unit. It was not many years later that Stalin took over the reigns and had a huge problem. He had so many orphans he did not know what to do with them.

If members want to read about history and some of the tragic stories before he got the system back on track, it is horrendous. In 1935 or 1936 Stalin passed legislation that gave the world the toughest divorce laws ever implemented. He could see the basic family unit was there for a reason. Even if he did not believe in God he could see it would not work otherwise.

I was amazed when yesterday or the day before I was watching "Newsworld". I saw the documentary on the Igor Gouzenko family. I remember when the Gouzenko family defected from the Russian spy system and asked for asylum in this country. Those people are still under protection today because the edict is out to kill them for what they did. They were warned when they discussed whether they would defect. Mr. Gouzenko said it means our family will die in Russia. What do we do? Can we afford to take that risk? They will be executed.

Their family told them if they ever got out of the country they had better not come back no matter what it meant to them. Today they are under strict security. They are hidden in this country. Nobody knows who they are. When they are on television they still must have their faces screened. What a life. What a penalty to pay. What a penalty the Soviet Union put on that family.

It took 50 million people, according to Mr. Gouzenko, to die because of what they believed before that system was overthrown. Solzhenitsyn wrote that 40 million people died. When I was in the Soviet Union in 1991 after the coups and the books were finally opened, the estimation was 60 million.

One old gentleman said "because of our mistakes, because our government tried to stamp out the religion that brought the earth into being, we will pay for it for centuries.

For five years of greatness in the second world war we propagated that and bragged about it for 70 years but never allowed the world to see what was happening our country".

According to that rate, he said it will take 970 years to write the horror stories that happened in that nation because it failed to look at the basic family unit, what it was set up for and what function it had.

Today we are debating this issue. Are we willing to bring that kind of a punishment on this nation? We have heard about the Roman Empire and other empires where the family unit became dysfunctional the nation finally did fall. If that is what we are trying to do we are on the right path.

I will not be part of that. I will vote against this legislation on third reading. I hope the Liberal government sees there can be no value in passing this legislation without ensuring those amendments are passed.

There is not one issue that has been debated in the House on which I have had so many phone calls, letters and petitions as those asking me not to support Bill C-41 and Bill C-33.

When we were voting on Bill C-68 we heard a comment from a senator that this was really not a bill to register guns or put guns under further restrictions. This was a social engineering project. This is exactly what happened in the Soviet Union. It outlawed capital punishment, then it implemented gun registration and implemented gun confiscation. Finally what did it have? It had a revolution. Only the people on the top had the guns. The poor people who did not have them died very violently by them.

If we do not want to believe what we read let us go back and look at history to see what has happened and what the examples are. If we want to look at what homosexuality and permissiveness have done to some countries let us look at Africa and the problems it has run into. There are guidelines laid down in this universe that we have to follow or we will pay the consequences.

What do we want? Do we want more freedom for a few years and then pay the consequences or do we want to follow what has been laid down for us in history, something that has worked for centuries? The family unit has built one country after the other. Once we have a country we have a government. Where are we going to go? Are we to destroy the family and destroy the government? Let us look at Liberia right now. Do we want that type of system? I do not.

It is a privilege and honour to say a few words on this subject. I hope we will take this seriously, look at the amendments and pass them with the bill because we all want equality.

[Agriculture, May 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, politics sure is a strange animal.

Immediately after the election, on November 13, the agriculture minister said at an annual meeting with Manitoba pool elevators with regard to plebiscites: "They are the most appropriate vehicle by which to determine what farmer preferences are". Does the minister still believe this or was that just a shot from the lip?

[Agriculture, May 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

On June 9, 1993, as opposition leader during a meeting with farm leaders, he stated: "A Liberal government would call a producer plebiscite on barley marketing issues". Would the Prime Minister still honour that result and call that question?