Jake Hoeppner

[Lobbyists Registration Act, April 25th, 1995]

What about if you used the lobbyists for input. What if the government wants the input from the lobbyists?

[Lobbyists Registration Act, April 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to speak on Bill C-43 and to support my colleagues in the House.

Rebuild trust in government, is that not a familiar term? In Manitoba last month I heard these words repeated because it is having a provincial election today. Mr. Mulroney in 1983 when he defeated the Liberal government of the day said we have to do away with corruption, rebuild trust in government, lobbyists are overdoing it, ripping us off.

The hon. member for St. Albert mentioned a 747 flying through a loop. The "Fifth Estate" about a month ago showed how two lobbyists flew 34 airbuses through the loops the Conservatives had put out. A couple of lobbyists have received $20 million. They can be identified by their accounts in Swiss banks. When I heard that I assumed we were to have a government that would crack down on stuff like this and we would be debating it in the House the next day. I have heard nothing about it.

Why do we want to pass the bill if we never want to do something about it by cleaning up the corruption? In Manitoba over the last month I heard about the terrible mess the Conservatives made of the health care system. They paid $4 million to an American lobbyist to tell them how to fix their health care system and they do not have one.

Why are we debating this bill? Why do we not have some action? We have had rules and regulations before. One very good example took place about a year ago in the subcommittee on transport. Every member, Liberal, Bloc and Reform, said to stop the backtracking. The backtracking issue over the last two years has cost us $60 million. We had total support from the committee to stop it. Who was lobbying the agriculture minister and the transport minister to continue with this? I talked with the railways and they said there was no way they had lobbied for it because they would be shipping grain regardless.

I talked to the wheat board people. They said they did not export grain and that it was the registered grain companies that did that. I talked to the grain companies and they told me it was the wheat board that insisted they do it.

I looked at the facts and found that we do not sell grain delivered to a foreign country. It is Appleby, Thunder Bay or Appleby, Vancouver. This backtracking has cost us $60 million. Are the American lobbyists lobbying our government to give them money to backtrack the grain so they can have it a little cheaper? This concerns me.

We are passing bills. We are passing rules and regulations but nobody seems to want to enforce them. What good are we in Parliament when we all agree on doing something and then have lobbyists change the system? Now the WGTA will correct it. However, we have allowed it to go on for two years and we knew about it.

I am beginning to wonder whether we should all stay at home and leave these lobbyists instead of sitting in Parliament day after day trying to pass regulations. I am sure we have laws on the books that would prosecute these people for ripping off the taxpayers, the only lobbyists we should be listening to.

On the last day in the House on the gun legislation, what happened to the three members who finally listened to the lobbyists in their constituencies and had the guts to stand up in the House and vote no? They have been muzzled, shut up. When that hit Manitoba there was a backlash which I believe blew the election for the Liberals. Why would we elect people who are not even allowed to get up in the House to speak their minds and represent their constituents?

They are some of the best backbenchers the Liberals have. I have worked with them.

It is very sad when we have to witness this day after day and our country is deeper and deeper in debt.

People who have the guts to get up and say something are not allowed to say it. It is time we realize that when there are amendments made that will be beneficial to taking corruption out of the system we should support them, not because they are made by the Reform Party or the Bloc, but because they are good for the country.

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question.

I have always been very supportive of the 4-H program. The Reform Party is very supportive as well of that program and also very supportive of any R and D in agriculture. Those two things probably go together.

When it comes to protecting and promoting agriculture, I am never in the backbenches; I am always in the front seat. I will continue that way, and I appreciate having that opportunity.

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate those remarks, and they are probably very accurate.

I am very concerned that we do not have an environmental catastrophe in Quebec. Because of all the tears that I have seen being shed in Quebec lately, their fresh drinking water might turn into salt water. What are we going to do then? I would hate to see that.

I agree with some of these comments. I would also like to point out that when we look at the total budget of agriculture, which is around 2 per cent, or perhaps even less, of the whole budget, agriculture at least brings back 8 per cent of the gross national product. We provide 15 per cent of the jobs in agriculture. It is a very important sector that we have probably been neglecting, whether it is Quebec or western Canada. I would sure appreciate the Bloc's help rather than criticism in trying to rectify this.

I still maintain that a country is only as strong as its agriculture. The sooner we learn to stand on our feet to take the problems and solve them together, and not through divisiveness, we will have a better country to live in, whether it is Quebec or western Canada. That is what I would really like to stress.

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

We are getting to them. Just give us another six months and who knows?

I was just going to address some of the unnecessary things that are happening in the farm community, which are hurting us. I would like to read part of a statement made by a witness who was before the Standing Committee on Transportation. He said: "Unnecessary costs should not be recovered from users. Industry has funded, through seaway tolls, close to $35 million in costs that reflect labour inefficiencies, including surplus personnel and termination benefits, double taxation brought about by large corporation taxes and costs associated with tunnels and bridges in the Beauharnois Canal."

I was never aware that grain farmers in western Canada were paying for some of the maintenance costs of some of the bridges across the St. Lawrence Seaway. I find it very hard to swallow that and say it is fair. It is there and it has to be addressed. What politicians and industry are going to do about it I do not know, but it has to be addressed if we want to keep shipping our products through the seaway.

I have another bit of information I would like to read as an example. In the fall of 1990, the Laurentian Pilotage Authority, after negotiations with the pilot association with which it has contracts, agreed to increases totalling 32.12 per cent and 29.6 per cent over three years. That is at least a 10 per cent increase per year.

On the farm during those three years we have seen prices of our products decrease probably by 30 per cent. It is a real hardship for us to absorb some of these costs.

Some of these pilots earn on average from $115,000 to $156,000 a year for about a nine-month year. Nobody in the farming industry has some type of labour contract or wages that come close to that. This is why I am saying that some of the transportation subsidies that have been directed toward transportation are not going to the farmers. They are going to some of the inefficiencies and the high-priced labour as compared to agriculture.

I was really astounded and kind of encouraged the other day when I saw one of the Bloc members ask the question about the unfairness of the 8.9 per cent that was collected by the pilotage authorities from shippers. They received a very bad answer from the minister, as far as I was concerned, because these costs are actually borne by the shippers and later passed on to the producers or the manufacturers who use the shipping lines.

The NTA recommended that there should be a zero increase. The NTA is supposed to regulate these costs. What did this Liberal government do? It overruled it and gave them another 8.9 per cent after the 30 per cent in the last three years. These are costs that we as grain farmers have to observe; not just in shipping our products, but we also have to pay part of the costs of all the steel and all the iron ore that is shipped in to produce equipment.

Those are some of the things that are unfair as far as farmers and shippers are concerned.

I have tried to warn the seaway authorities and especially some of the people on the other side that if things do not change, if they are not turned around, and we receive a fairer equity in transportation costs, the seaway will not see much of the grain in future years that is produced in Manitoba and west.

I would just like to read a little statement from the Winnipeg Free Press dated February 19. This is the agricultural writer and he states: ``Hello, Mississippi River. Goodbye, Thunder Bay.'' This is not a farmer saying this.

The famous American waterway may become the new route for shipping Manitoba grain when Ottawa tackles the grain transportation subsidy policy later this year.

Canadian Wheat Board studies already show that if the influence of Canadian grain transportation subsidies is removed, it's cheaper to ship grain down the Mississippi than through the St. Lawrence Seaway.

Selkirk farmer Rask Klagenberg says farmers will insist on access to the American river.

The House can see that this is not just what farmers are saying; this is something other people are reporting on, and it is a matter of fact. We have to address it.

One thing that really amazes me is why farm organizations have not pointed these issues out so we can address them before we get into such a predicament. I just happened to get a report from Manitoba Pool Elevators or Prairie Pools Inc. This is what they say in their brief: "In 1993 the property taxes paid by terminal elevator owners at the port of Vancouver were on an average five to six times higher than for similar sized terminals in the U.S. port of Seattle". That seems very high already and it seems disastrous as far as grain farmers are concerned.

Now listen to what they say about Thunder Bay: "Property taxes paid by terminal owners at Thunder Bay were more than 25 times higher than property taxes paid for similar sized terminals at the U.S. port of Duluth". How can we be competitive with those types of exorbitant taxes and over-pricing?

They go on further in their report to say: "Canada's two railways pay more than $640 million annually in fuel, sales and property taxes, while the U.S. rail system receives tax incentives to maintain rail services".

Those are some of problems we in the grain industry are fighting with. I hope we can resolve them and that we can keep the jobs in Canada before they are exported to the U.S., which we have seen with a lot of other industries.

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

I am always encouraged when I hear hon. members turning up the tempo a bit. Newborn babies have to scream a lot to exercise their lungs so that they become healthy and viable later. I always feel very glad that I can be of assistance to some of these members.

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

I agree fully with the hon. member but there was a Liberal government before that one that I would say was no good. This is a difference of opinion probably.

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that from now on my colleagues and I will be splitting our time.

It is always a pleasure to speak on agriculture, especially when the motion is introduced by the Bloc. I always enjoy the attitude its members take toward agriculture. They know how important it is. I appreciate that even if we do not always agree on certain issues. They know fundamentally that agriculture is the basis of Quebec as it is in western Canada. The Liberals will get educated. Some day they will listen. They are starting to listen already.

On the farm we always say that the pasture always looks greener on the other side of the fence. That is probably true in Quebec as well as in western Canada. Maybe it is time for Quebecers to take a rest from the milking industry, buy some farmland in western Canada and start grain farming. It would be a real pleasure to have them there working side by side. Then they would really appreciate some of the problems that the grain farmers have had in the last few years.

Their non-votable opposition motion says that grain farmers will be enabled to diversify. That is a little harsh or maybe not quite correct. Grain farmers will be forced to diversify. Not very many grain farmers today would love to jump into the dairy

industry or the beef industry and take some jobs and production away from people who are in that farming industry.

I have spoken with a number of dairy farmers in Manitoba during the last couple of weeks. They sometimes look very jealously toward Quebec and say: "Why can we not have some of that quota? They only have one-quarter of the population and have 48 per cent of the milk quota".

I have said to them: "Why do we not solve this whole problem of separation? Why do some of you people not go and buy up some of those dairy farms in Quebec and start farming?" If we could get some of the Quebec dairy farmers into western Canada, maybe the separation issue could be solved. Maybe we could understand each other a little better.

I would much rather have some of the Quebec people come into western Canada and buy some of the grain farms than the Europeans. I make this invitation to them.

The other thing I would like to address today is some of the unfairness that they are talking about. It is not due to the agriculture practices of the farmers. It is due to some of the previous governments' overspending and over taxation. That is causing us some of the problems.

I see some of the hon. members on the other side shaking their heads. They must agree with that. If we can agree on some of these problems, maybe we can find some of the solutions.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, March 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for a tremendous speech addressing the problems.

I would like to ask the member a question since he is the labour critic. Every time we see our economy picking up and we see a glimmer of hope that we can increase our revenues, management and labour seem to have a fight and we disrupt the economy with strikes or lockouts or whatever. I have a feeling with our being involved in transportation if we do not settle this issue very soon our transportation system will not be even able to deliver eggs to the provinces, never mind the chicken.

How would the member address this, because I think it has to be addressed?

[Firearms Act, March 28th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak in favour of the amendment proposed by my colleague, the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.

I have heard a lot of debate on the issue. I have heard a lot of statistics. We sometimes wonder what is being done with all the information. In Manitoba we register cars. There is insurance on them. If I am not a responsible driver pretty soon it costs me a lot more to drive the vehicle.

I heard that gun owners were very irresponsible, that there were many accidents in the home, that guns had to be locked up, and that something had to be done to prevent these things. I thought: Why not go to insurance companies to find out how they look at the issue? I want to read some statistics from Ontario and Manitoba. Maybe hon. members can put the figures together and match them against what has been said.

The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters offers a public liability to its members included in the membership fee. They get the umbrella coverage through Royal Insurance. The insurance premium is extremely cheap. It works out to about $3 or $4 per member per year. It provides $2 million for public liability. That is pretty cheap public liability insurance. The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters does not offer life insurance as part of its membership.

The Manitoba Wildlife Federation includes a $5,000 insurance on death or dismemberment at no extra cost. That is very cheap insurance for a very dangerous occupation, I would say. The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters does not offer it because it is no more difficult to get a personal life insurance package if one is a hunter than if one is not. Apparently a life insurance company will ask questions to determine if one is involved in high risk activity. It will ask if one sky dives or scuba dives but will not ask if one is a hunter.

Insurance people work on a profit margin. If terrible accidents were costing a lot in compensation or insurance, they would have increased premiums. In Ontario in the late 1950s there were about 40 to 50 hunting accidents per year. Now there are less than five per year because of the extra emphasis on hunter safety training courses provided by gun clubs and by hunting organizations. It a pretty efficient education.

According to the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters there is no question regarding gun ownership on home insurance policies. The Manitoba Wildlife Federation reports basically the same. It provides a $2 million third party supplementary liability policy with membership. It is meant to be supplementary and the homeowners policy would kick in first. The wildlife federation policy would cover the next $2 million. If there were no homeowners policy the wildlife federation policy would become the primary policy.

The Manitoba Wildlife Federation gets its insurance through Bolls and McMartin Insurance in Winnipeg. My assistant spoke with Bolls and McMartin Insurance this morning. There are no extra premiums for firearm owners on its homeowners policy. It is not a question they ask potential customers. Whether or not the person wanting insurance owns a firearm is not an issue. The number of firearm related accidents is so small that it is not of concern to the insurance companies. Why is it such a concern to Liberals?

Its homeowners policy is quite comprehensive and provides public liability for hunting accidents in the same way that it would provide for a chimney crumbling and damaging a neighbour's house or for a shingle blowing off the roof and hitting the postman. That about says how dangerous it is when it comes to gun ownership.

Prudential Insurance Company in Ottawa offers a home insurance policy that provides a $1 million liability. It covers a wide range of circumstances: accidents with a gun in the home or during hunting, someone slipping on a step or someone being hit by a brick falling off a chimney. They are all under one category. It does not ask specific questions regarding firearm ownership. It asks for the total value of goods in the home and guns are usually under the category of sporting goods.

When a home is broken into and the thieves want guns, they will also steal the guns that are stored and locked up. It is a matter of the criminal looking for whatever he needs. It is not the guns that are causing all the problems.

I would like to inform the House that there have been hunters in my family for five or six generations. My grandfather, whom I knew well, was an avid hunter, my father, myself and my youngest son. We have never had a hunting accident or a gun related accident. I have had the experience of my youngest son almost being killed by an attacker in a parking lot in the city. In one generation I have had that experience where five generations of hunting have never given me that experience.

Have these criminals been apprehended? No. It is impossible to catch them. Why? I would like to read a story and perhaps hon. members across the way will find out what our problem is. This is a Canadian Press story from Winnipeg of January 23:

The bodies of Rhonda, 22, and Roy Lavoie, 30, were found Friday in a van parked in a farmer's garage north of Gimli, Man. Police said they died of carbon monoxide poisoning.

Roy Lavoie had been charged on at least two separate occasions and released on bail both times.

"I don't know why Roy got out the second time," (a friend said) as a police chaplain helped family members break the news of the murder-suicide to the couple's sons, age 2, 3 and 6.

He was allowed to go free on bail after being charged with assaulting and abducting his wife in November.

(On testimony given in Queen's Court on January 11 this lady) described how her husband had driven her to a cabin against her will, tied her up inside the car and threatened to kill her with exhaust fumes from the vehicle.

She had to promise she would not release this to anyone.

There are laws to protect us from criminals but they are not being enforced. Until such time as we as members of Parliament make the police enforce these laws any gun registering will do nothing to deter crime.

It is evident to anyone who has ever had anything to do with criminal activity that it is not the gun or the club or the stone or whatever it is that he is using, it is the man using the weapon.

If we want to do something, let us go after the criminal. Let us divide the bill. We support the section dealing with the sentencing of criminals. I fully support the amendment of my colleague to divide the bill and I hope the rest of the House will too.