Jake Hoeppner

[Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995, March 25th, 1995]

The red book. The right start but we need the green book to cover the red book.

I pointed out to these young people what our problems were when we discussed job description and what was taking place on the Hill. I said I was actually proud to be part of the 35th Parliament. One young student said her generation will also set a precedent and be recorded in history. She said for the first time in history her generation is going to be asked to take a reduced standard of living, a lower standard of living.

She is probably right with all the cuts coming, with all the social program cuts. I asked her how she felt about it. She said it hurts but they know it is reality and are willing to make that sacrifice if it will do something for their country.

I felt like saying send all the MPs home and let the kids run the country. They will make the decisions that have to be made. They are not interested in a multimillion dollar pension plan. They are interested in saving the country, bringing it back to what it was years ago.

We sit here throwing insults back and forth and we think we are doing our job. We are playing politics and politics is what has brought the country to where it is. I hope we realize that today, whether it is the Bloc, the Liberals or the Reform. The next generation is not going to be putting up with the politics we have seen in the 35th Parliament. The bright spot in our future is that we have kids willing to make sacrifices.

When I think of the first and second world wars, I see how many young people laid down their lives to protect this country and make it great. They left everything. They had no chance. What have we done in the last 25 years? We have put the country into debt by $550 billion. We have an unemployment rate of around 10 per cent.

What has politics done for the country? We have left our kids a legacy they will have to deal with. I hope and pray they have the guts to do it because my grandchildren and future great-grandchildren will not have the opportunities I have had.

I hope it is serious enough in the House today that instead of throwing insults at each other, we buckle down, go to work and finally form some type of legislation that will put the country back on the road to recovery and make it the great country it can be.

[Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995, March 25th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to speak to the bill today.

I have heard a few comments about the ability of members to count. I know they can go to five. I am wondering if they have ever read the story in the Old Testament about David and Goliath and what happened to the giant. I am very proud today to stand here and see the confidence our leader has that the five members here will handle the giants on both sides or all around us.

I have heard a lot of insults thrown around this morning. It is a little discouraging to hear some of them. This problem has been around for 25 years. It was not created in the last situation between labour and management.

Fifteen times governments have legislated people back to work and said they have solved the problem. We have never solved any problems and the simple reason is governments have been buying people to get elected.

I am pro labour. I am pro management. If I can get small business or large business, I will get a vote. I will go to the House and run the country. This is why were are here again today trying to resolve an issue.

I will tell the House a story about labour management relations and I hope members will listen. During the break I was asked to visit a plant in my riding which is a branch of a multinational corporation. I knew most of its products were shipped into the U.S. I felt that this was probably another situation where I would get the news that it was either going to downsize or close.

The news was it was going to expand by over $17 million. I said what is going on here, everybody is shutting down and this one is expanding. The plant manager said: "I started in this plant as a floor sweeper. I left home at 16 and had to fend for myself. I came back to get into the community. Now I am plant manager". I asked: "What did it to you? How did you show that kind of confidence to your superiors to get this job?"

"When I took over this plant were were operating in the red and it looked as if it were going to be shut down. I went over the books and said I am unionized, I am going to lose my job here if things do not turn around. I called in the people and told them we were going to have a different type of management. I am going to be supervisor and you are going to run this plant. I am setting up four committees, one is going to do the hiring and firing; one is going to look after efficiency; one is going to work on problems, labour relations".

"After a year you would not believe the increase in productivity in this plant. I have not hired a man. I have not fired a man. It is all done by the union. But I make sure when there is profit that my people get a fair wage increase. I know we are competing with the Americans and the head offices have given me the go ahead to increase production because this plant can survive".

That is labour management. That is how the country should be run, instead of the way it is right now. We had an opportunity a week ago to do something that would have set us in that direction. The House defeated Bill C-262, the motion of my hon. colleague. I do not think I will ever have an experience again such as I had this week when I sat with the forum of young

Canadians at its dinner. Since we were busy working on this legislation and I was on House duty, I could not be there for first part of the dinner. I came back to the House for about 45 minutes and had to leave again. Our whip had not been able to stay there either.

We discussed this situation with the students. One asked me whether I get a little discouraged when I see all the problems and work from maybe 8.00 a.m. until 10.00 or 11.00 p.m. and accomplish very little.

I said not really. At times I feel like going home but I think the 35th Parliament will go down in history as the turning point in our country, that finally it will make some decisions that will benefit the country, not destroy it.

[Access To Information, March 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few remarks to make on this bill. It is a pleasure to speak in support of the motion of my colleague, the member for Red Deer. His motion states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the Parliament and crown agencies should be subject to scrutiny under the Access to Information Act.

This is a very appropriate motion as it would make these agencies more accountable to Canadians. If one thing was made clear by the results of the last election, it was that Canadians demand accountability from their governments and their institutions. They are no longer willing to accept governments and institutions that help themselves to the public purse. They are demanding value for their money instead of governments and institutions that take hard earned tax dollars for granted and make their deals behind closed doors.

One of the best mechanisms currently in place to give Canadians some control over these institutions is the Access to Information Act. This act lets Canadians take a look at government books for themselves. This is only fair. In Canada we pay a very high amount of tax and we have every right to know how the government is spending the money.

In this respect the Access to Information Act serves as a useful tool to keep an eye on the appropriateness of government spending. All members in the House can show they support this right of Canadians by supporting this motion. It would be a gesture very much appreciated by Canadians.

As a farmer, I would like to use the example of the Canadian Wheat Board in speaking in support of this motion. I was shocked recently when I requested information on the pension plans and wages for Canadian Wheat Board commissioners and staff. Regarding the pension plans, I asked for a breakdown on employer versus government contributions as well as the age at which the commissioners and staff are eligible to receive benefits. My request was denied by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada on the basis that the Canadian Wheat Board does not fall under the terms of the Access to Information Act.

As a grain farmer and a member of Parliament I was appalled that I was refused information regarding pensions which I am responsible for funding. I can inform the House that the level of secrecy under which the Canadian Wheat Board operates is increasingly viewed with resentment by western farmers.

It further makes me wonder why the Canadian Wheat Board is so insistent on secrecy when a notice that compensation figures for executives and managers of Canada's major banks was recently released, presumably with no danger to the future operation of these banks.

Financial figures are available for the upper levels of just about every other corporation in the country and yet the Canadian Wheat Board insists on keeping its financial data a mystery. If banks can release this information, it shoots down the argument that the wheat board needs secrecy to remain a competitive player in the marketplace.

I wrote to the wheat board urging them to reconsider its policy. At that time I stressed this would go a long way in re-establishing the trust and confidence of other grain farmers in dealing with the wheat board. In turn, I was contacted by the wheat board. It provided me with some general salary information, but not in the detail I originally requested. Moreover, I was

told that the general information is only available to wheat board permit holders.

This experience shows how frustrating it can be for Canadians if they are trying to get financial information about a government agency that is not covered under the Access to Information Act.

I am not alone in my frustration with the wheat board. Recently a publication called the Prairie Agricultural Digest featured an article that asked why things at the wheat board are so secretive. This newspaper wondered what makes the wheat board so different from virtually any other privately traded or government corporation. The only answer they could come up with is that the people running the wheat board are either arrogant or out of touch.

The newspaper has embarked on a campaign to make the wheat board more accountable. Grain farmers can fill out a card directed to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. The card states: "I am very opposed to the secrecy of the Canadian Wheat Board, and the board's consistent refusal to answer questions regarding the salaries, pensions and other benefits the wheat board commissioners and other employees receive. I oppose the Canadian Wheat Board being exempt from the freedom of information act".

Apparently these clippings have been flooding into the newspaper office. This sends a clear message that farmers are fed up with the secrecy, but it is a sad comment that they have to take this drastic action in order to try and get accountability from an agency that is supposed to serve them.

The wheat board has advertised a position described as fitness instructor. How much sense does it make to have a fitness instructor on staff but not have an access to information officer that could answer questions about how the board spends its money.

The issue of accountability also becomes important when we look at the pasta industry in the country. Pasta producers in western Canada came to see me around the middle of November claiming heavily subsidized pasta from Italy was coming into the country and they could not afford to operate any more.

When I showed my facts and figures to the prairie pools, they had no answers. The Canadian Wheat Board sells durum wheat to the Americans for the pasta industry and we also sell it to Italy.

The Americans bring in 40 million kilograms of pasta for a value of approximately $84 million. This pasta costs about $2 per kilogram. The Italians ship 17 million kilograms of pasta at $19 million, which is about half the price the Americans are charging for their pasta in this country.

I asked the prairie pools if they could explain how we could sell durum wheat to Italy, ship it over there, have it manufactured and brought back into this country for half the price. Is it not subsidized? They could not give me a reasonable explanation.

It makes you wonder what is going on when you do a little digging and come up with some of these figures. It creates a stronger argument for openness and accountability at every turn.

The Winnipeg Commodity Exchange is a totally open process. A public gallery allows you to actually watch the trading. That is the type of openness the Canadian Wheat Board should be trying to achieve, otherwise we are left wondering to whom it is accountable.

It is not just Canadians who are upset with wheat board secrecy. American farmers are getting very upset with having to compete with this bureaucracy. It is not the Canadian farmers they do not want to compete with, it is the large, secret dealing wheat board they see as an unfair competitor.

I am not advocating the dismantling of the wheat board, but this illustrates how, when when operating with a shroud of secrecy, people automatically suspect that you are not playing above the board. By dropping this shroud of secrecy the wheat board could avoid many of these problems.

When the wheat board came into being, it was a dual marketing system. That is what farmers want again. The time has come for the government to give Canadians the accountability it promised in its red book, and put an end to the secret dealings of government organizations like the wheat board.

The Reform Party has always stressed the need to be more accountable and responsible to the people who elected us. We have always stated clearly that the common sense of the common people should be respected. They have the right to be consulted on public policy matters. They have the right to govern themselves through truly representative and responsive institutions.

In the Liberal government's red book it states: "People are disappointed by and irritated with the poor quality of service provided by many public institutions, given the cost of government and the taxes the government are taking out of citizens' pockets. A Liberal government will take a series of initiatives to restore confidence in these institutions of government. Open government will be the watchword of the Liberal program".

We have been waiting for evidence of that open government, but so far it has been lacking. Canadians have watched in frustration as billions of dollars were funnelled through crown agencies such as the CBC, Canada Post and the wheat board, and they are waiting for action.

The time for that action is now. This non-partisan motion can be supported by all members of the House because it goes beyond party politics and achieves a purpose that is equally important to Canadians from coast to coast.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96, March 20th, 1995]

We will see. I think there will be some changes made. Who knows what can happen?

I would like to clear up a few misconceptions this afternoon-if I have the time but it could take more than I have-that farmers have been getting all these transportation subsidies. I have learned a few things since I have come to sit on the transportation committee. I hope the hon. members from Quebec are listening.

I really love Thunder Bay port because while I was farming, every time I turned on the combine it went on strike. You can see my love for that nice little port. In testimony before us at Thunder Bay, as the witnesses came before us, I was astounded I had never heard about some of these things.

Do you know that a pilot who gets on a ship at Montreal and takes that ship through the locks and the lakes up to Thunder Bay charges just approximately $2.65 a tonne for his services? This is 15 per cent of the total freight cost from Thunder Bay to northern Europe. These pilots-I call them pirates, not pilots-charge a range of from $3,800 to $5,000 a day. That is where grain transportation subsidies are going. No farmer, no manufacturer, no producer or processor ever can expect wages like that. That is not the whole side of that story.

This pilot association is run by a federal crown corporation which over the last 20 years has cost the taxpayer $50 million. This year, that corporation is going to be in debt to the tune of $5 to $7 million. Are you surprised why we have to continue borrowing? This borrowing disease, this spending-itis is going to bankrupt this country one of these days. I am wondering what labour unions will say then.

Another few interesting facts I found out, usually when we talk of $500 million in transportation subsidies to farmers, that is all somewhere in the farmer's pocket or bankbook. I will throw in a few more figures and tell you what fair treatment we do get by some of our terminals.

In Thunder Bay, Cargill Grain pays $1.002 million in property taxes. A couple of hundred kilometres down the road at Duluth, $64,000 is paid. Then we wonder why farmers are looking south of the border to try to move some grain.

I will give some stats I received at these hearings. They are based on tonnages of storage and property tax per tonne. At Vancouver it costs $6.27 per tonne of storage for property taxes. At Thunder Bay it costs $8.03 per tonne of storage for a terminal. At Duluth it costs the American farmer 27 cents. AGP, Inc., another grain terminal, is paying 15 cents. And we as farmers are being accused of taking subsidies. These subsidies are going to taxes that have been developed by overspending, mismanagement and corruption.

I want to tell the Liberal members from the west coast when the transport minister talks of becoming a market economy and becoming more efficient, the farmers with some government help did build the Prince Rupert high throughput elevator so that we could move grain faster. But what has happened there? Because we can move it faster than Vancouver, we are not paying $6.27 per tonne. We are paying $16.43 per tonne for property taxes. Now tell me, how do you think the producer can stay alive with those types of inconsistencies and discrimination?

The story does not end at Thunder Bay. Manitoba Pool Elevators testified and pointed out that for the same type of operation in Thunder Bay, it also paid $110,196 in corporation taxes. In British Columbia $18,615 was paid for the same amount of operations.

After hearing these figures when the labour unions came before us I could hardly sit still. I told those gentlemen that I knew a lot of times we in the west were being downtrodden but I never thought it was that bad. I said that when I went home I would tell every grain farmer not to ship one more bushel of grain through Thunder Bay because I am fed up with it. If I have to, I will take every bushel of grain to Churchill by dogsled before I will ship a bushel to Thunder Bay. Something people have to start realizing is that things have to change or there will be no producers left.

If they want to realize why we have to borrow because of this WGTA, which I called the vulture, in testimony before the standing committee on agriculture Ted Allen said that they have not rationalized the rail system or the elevator system in a very significant way or as significantly as they should have for about

10 years because the Western Grain Transportation Act encouraged them not to make those changes.

Now we have a system that is 10 years behind the American system. This Liberal government is throwing the whole mess on the farmers' backs saying: "Fix it. We got you into the mess. Here it is. Help yourselves". It astounds me that politicians cannot see that if they do not have producers or manufacturers they do not need a rail system. One of these days we will smarten up and realize that.

How inefficient is this system? I would like to read a few statements made by Ted Allen. Last summer he said: "We moved two vessels seven times to different terminals for a load of barley. It took a long time. Every time one of these vessels moved one way, it cost $18,000". Now you are trying to tell me that is the farmers' way of doing business?

A 25,000 tonne vessel went to Mexico in November 1994 on which there was loaded 9,000 tonnes of No. 1 Red, 5,000 tonnes of No. 2 Red and the balance, less than half, was No. 3 Red. Who do you think paid for that? The western farmer.

This government tries to tell us that Mexico is dictating to us telling us to take the subsidies off grain transportation or it will not buy. Something is wrong in this country when a government that has a $2.5 billion trade surplus with us tells us what we have to do.

I have raised four children and four grandsons. When I see my wife giving an equal number of crayons to the youngsters to play with and one of them says: "My colour is not right, I want yours," and the other child does not ask for one in return, very soon one of the kids is without crayons. That is exactly what has happened to our agriculture policy. Everybody has taken our crayons and now we have nothing left to colour with. It is sad but it is a fact.

There are a few other statements I would like to read. I was pleased last December when the transport minister acknowledged that labour on the Canadian railways was 64 per cent as efficient as the U.S. We were losing about 40 per cent efficiency in the labour force on the train system.

Using simple mathematics, I have used 50 per cent, giving them the benefit of the doubt. If 50 per cent of the labour costs are wasted, out of the 22 million tonnes of grain we export and the $10 million we ship internally farmers lose $220 million. That sounds as if the farmers are getting rich on transportation subsidies.

Not only that, there is good reason to wonder why the grain elevator system tariffs are as high as they are. When we compare the results of shipping through the U.S. on terminal and primary elevator tariffs, we lose roughly another $360 million. There is over $500 million gone right there. Where are farmers putting the money into their pockets? I hope someday we become honest enough to look at these problems and address them so we can resolve them.

It is always encouraging to see some people trying to solve these problems. I am impressed with some of the statements we have heard from members on the opposite side. I think if they would really buckle down and do what they are saying, a lot of things would get resolved.

Verbal agreements or promotions of some things are not as good as the real thing. I was not surprised by some of the statistics in the papers when Team Canada went off to Europe. It was to really promote some industries and get some extra business for this country.

I could not believe some of the results that came back from that meeting. I had been talking in the House about the agriculture subsidies, the boneless beef coming into Canada and how the GATT had more or less set quotas of 75,000 tonnes. Then I saw the trade minister in Australia and New Zealand promoting more offshore beef into this country while we were being told at the same time to diversify by increasing beef and pork production.

I have seen them over import 30-some thousand tonnes of boneless beef which was more than the GATT organizations had set for a quota; 30,000 tonnes went straight from Canada into the U.S. It reminds me very much of the cap that was put on our wheat because of our wheat board and grain companies dumping grain.

The problem here again is that Australia and New Zealand have a $300 million trade surplus with us. We are borrowing this money. What are we paying for interest? What is it costing us for jobs? Five jobs are lost for every boner cow exported to the U.S. instead of doing it ourselves. Is this job creation?

It really took the cake when Xcan, which I imagine was a member of the Team Canada approach, went to China and probably started looking at investment opportunities. There was a news release on March 2. This astounds me: "Pools pull out of China project".

The three prairie wheat pools have decided to drop out of a malting barley plant development in China. The pools, along with the ITI world investment group, were negotiating with the Chinese to build a $58.8 million malting plant in Quingdao, China. Barley would be sourced in Canada and Chinese beer would be brought back into this country. That is diversification. That is the type of support we get from our own agriculture community. Where do we go next?

I would like to dwell for a few minutes on an issue that has been very near and dear to my heart, the inquiry I asked the justice minister to make into the dumping of Canadian wheat into the U.S. I provided the facts I had from farmers who had taken samples and had given me the information. I acquired the documents from the U.S. customs people on what had happened. When I found out that $3.50 a bushel of wheat was being exported into the U.S. by Sask-Pool at $2.02 to $2.05, I could not believe it. For every bushel of grain that we are exporting at

that price into the U.S. we are hurting our own economy because we are losing millions of dollars that could be running our country and promoting more industry.

When this hit the news the co-operator phoned Lorne Hehn, the chief commissioner for the Canadian Wheat Board. Mr. Hehn said: "Sales of 1992 wheat to American companies could have lowered prices or plugged individual elevators, but I don't believe our sales into those areas really impacted on the price in a negative way". One can dump grain at lower prices and plug elevators and it is still not impacting in a negative way. This is his reason: "We were very careful about that factor. Prices for feed wheat rose during the year, while large Canadian sales were being made so that proves that price pressure was not there".

When in an up market we can dump grain into the U.S. at half price and the market continues to go up, how is that helping our country? Can members see why American farmers are furious? I do not blame them one bit. It is unbelievable but those are the words of Mr. Hehn.

What do we do about it? I have waited for two months now to see what is going to happen and so far nothing has happened. I made a challenge under that news release on behalf of the pasta producers in western Canada. They came to see me around the middle of November, claiming this heavily subsidized pasta from Italy was coming into our country and they could not afford to process at that price any more.

When I showed my facts and figures to the prairie pools which were a little upset about my claims, I do not know what happened. They all of a sudden sat back and had no answers. This is what is happening in our pasta industry today.

We sell durum wheat to the Americans for the pasta industry. We sell it to the Italians. The Americans bring back into this country on a yearly basis about 40.896 million kilograms of pasta for a value of $84 million. This pasta is costing us about $2 per kilogram. The Italians ship in 17 million kilograms of pasta at $19 million, about half the price the Americans are putting their pasta into this country for.

I asked representatives at the prairie pools if they could explain how we can sell durum wheat to Italy, ship it over there, have it manufactured and bring it back into this country for half the price. It is not subsidized. They just shook their heads and said they have no explanation.

Do we know what that means in Canadian dollars? I wish somebody would figure it out. Italy has a $982 million trade surplus with Canada. We are borrowing almost a billion dollars to have the Italians process pasta and then ship it back into our country and we pay the interest. That is supposed to build a country? That is supposed to help us diversify? I wonder how. I hope somebody can explain that to me.

We have heard so much about R and D, about where the money is really coming from. The Reform Party has said time and time again that R and D is one of the most important things and we will never cut that back.

Here is a statement a Liberal member made in Manitoba. I feel these people do have a grip on things but they are afraid to stand up for what they believe in. The government member needs to focus on the fact that dollars spent on research and development are returned 10:1 in the livestock field and 40:1 in grain. He said currently only 17 per cent of government spending on agriculture goes to R and D. What an enlightening statement from an hon. Liberal member.

I will point out what the government has done for R and D. While a budget background document cites a 11 per cent cut to agriculture research, almost half the total, 2,069, job cuts came in research; 779 research scientists will retire or join the UI fleet; 138 vacancies will not be filled. While the white coats may have been hit hard by the budget, the white collars survived relatively unscathed; 149 full time positions were removed from the corporate services. The fat in Ottawa continues while people in the rest of the country get cut.

I encourage members to not only stand up and make comments but provide action. History will record it, no matter how we joke about it. When I read in Hansard about what took place in the 1970s and 1980s, it is there forever, and that is exactly what is going to happen here.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96, March 20th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege and probably an honour to stand in the House and speak to this borrowing bill.

I have heard a number of comments from the Liberal side and also from the hon. Bloc people. During my speech I will point out that sometimes we in the west also feel that we are mistreated and we have some reasons to gripe about things.

By now we are probably all aware that Liberal governments of the past owned the patent on borrowing. It has become clear that they know how to borrow and they love to borrow.

My brother who is a medical doctor always tells me that when you have a problem with a patient and you cannot pinpoint what exactly his ailment is you should look back into the medical history of that person, a generation or two, and see what the family history tells of their previous problems. After looking at the Liberal government we start to realize that it has a borrowing problem, probably called spendingitis. It seems to be more or less the system that it used during the seventies and early eighties.

I would like to go back to a few comments on Liberal governments of the past so that we can put into context why we are having this problem.

When I came home from the Soviet Union in 1981, where I saw my $3.50 wheat was being sold for $20 a bushel to the citizens there so they could keep their livestock alive, it bothered me. What bothered me more was seeing in the local paper shortly after I got back that the Soviets were applying for credit from the western nations to a tune of $40 billion for a period of 30 years at 4 per cent.

I thought that sounded interesting. The Liberal government at that time in 1981 were trying to bring down inflation and we were saddled with 24 per cent interest rates in the farming community. I wondered how the Soviets could try to coerce us into borrowing money at that rate.

I thought it might be interesting to read through Hansard and see what really happened with that request. This is what I found. This is the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboia speaking on Bill C-130, an act to authorize continual financial assistance to be provided to certain international financial institutions. This is from Hansard , so it is recorded in history and will probably stay there for all time. It states: ``I have considerable experience with CIDA and foreign aid going back to 1975 when the Liberal government tried to conceal information regarding loans to Cuba. It provided public information that the loans were being made at an interest rate of 6 per cent and higher.

However, I obtained internal documents which showed that it was concealing the interest rate being charged on loans to Cuba which was zero and 3 per cent. Also we are well aware of the low interest rate loans to the Russians for the building of a gas pipeline.

The Liberal government is borrowing money at 17 and 18 per cent and lending it to the Russians at 12 per cent. This is a great loss to the Canadian people. In addition loans are being made for the building of statues in other countries.

In 1975 I presented a motion to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and and National Defence calling for a full scale investigation into foreign aid. I did this because of all the secret documentation which had come into my hands with regard to hidden loans, hidden percentages with regard to Cuba. This of course was defeated by the Liberal members on the committee. The last thing they wanted was an investigation into CIDA. I certainly commend you, Mr. Speaker, because you were the lone Liberal to vote with the Conservatives in the committee calling for a full scale investigation into CIDA".

Does that not remind us all of what we have been hearing in the House the last while? Spend more, borrow more, try to justify it by covering it up a bit.

When I hear the Bloc members today complaining about the bad treatment they have had in the east, I would like to remind them that during the Liberal regime of the seventies, which was called the just society, we very quickly learned in the west that it meant just the east, not the west. One hundred billion dollars of national energy money was siphoned from the west into the east. If that is mistreating the east, I cannot really say where that theory came from.

Not only was the Liberal government not too concerned about the west, but to give us a goodbye it aimed its guns at the Crow and killed it dead. However it felt a little regret so it gave us the WGTA, which I consider as the Liberal vulture of this century. What did this Liberal vulture do for us? It gave us subsidies that guaranteed railways a return on investment and also a return on operations, no matter how efficient they were. That is why today we have strikes like the one presently going on.

During this era the railways siphoned off $7 billion in subsidies. These subsidies did not go into the pockets of farmers. They probably went toward purchasing rail lines in the U.S. Today they own more track in the U.S. than they do in Canada. The CN and the CP can deliver grain on their tracks all the way to Mexico.

The WGTA allowed the railways to enter into contracts with its workers where after eight years of work for the railway there was a lifetime guarantee of a job and pay. I wonder where the farmer has been considered and where these subsidies have gone.

During all these years of Liberal and Conservative governments, we borrowed and borrowed. That is what we are debating again today. As farmers in the west we had to contend with the dusty red grain beetle. Today another insect has entered our grain bins. I want to call it the red book worm.

This red book worm is not just eating up the grain, it has taken our bins, our machinery and our land. How we are going to exterminate it, I do not know. I do know we have to put up with it for at least another three years.

In 1984 when the Liberals turned their patent on borrowing over to the Conservatives, the national debt was $200 billion. During the nine years of Conservative government, it was increased to $450 billion.

It is interesting. I do not think the Liberal members in the House did too bad at that time. For their troubles and their efforts in the House, they somehow continued to build up MP pensions which today are worth $120 million, according to the National Citizens' Coalition.

Is it any wonder that we have to borrow and borrow instead of paying some back? It makes me wonder when the taxpayer is finally going to stand up and say: "This is enough". We heard quite a bit of that recently. Maybe it is sometimes wise to let a symptom grow until it finally busts a vein or kills the whole system. That is probably what we will experience in the next Parliament.

Last session this Parliament was controlled by a party that can now get into a Honda Civic. Soon we may have another one that only needs a table for one. It is almost enlightening to witness that.

During 1993 we in the west heard so much about this tremendous Liberal machine, this red book machine that was going to change things around just like the Mulroney government was going to do. The Liberals claimed they had the people, they had the plan: jobs, jobs, jobs. I wonder what those at the research station in Morden say after losing 40 per cent of their jobs and PSAC losing 45,000. The plan got sidetracked a little bit.

The Liberal ticket in 1993 was to jump on board; get on the Liberal train. "This is the train that is going to board at the land of opportunity and take you to the promised land of milk and honey," as the Quebec members would say. After two budgets, I think we should rename the train the Liberal train to ruination. Board at Fantasyland; pass through Hooterville and Never Never Land; final destination: Poverty Point, the land without milk, bread or money.

I had the pleasant experience of getting a phone call just before the break from the Manitoba dairy farmers and milk producers. They wanted to talk to me all of a sudden. During the election all I heard was to vote everything else but Reform. All of a sudden, these people wanted to talk to me.

I made the effort and said I would talk. I appreciate visiting. I asked them what was the concern. They said that during the election they heard the Liberals promising how they would

protect article XI and how they would support the dairy farmer, and how they would make this thing as golden as they could for all the dairy producers. I was told that the Liberal dairy policy kicked the farmer's milk bucket over into the gutter.

They have lost 30 per cent of their subsidies. That is protecting the dairy farmer. They told me I had warned them that subsidies would have go to, that they would have to go tariffication. It makes me feel pretty good that once in a while I do seem to side with the right people. It is not very often when you are a farmer, but in this instance I was right.

What the dairymen told me was astounding. They said they did not mind losing 30 per cent of their subsidies but the Liberal dairy policy took its dirty ugly tail and hit them another swipe right in the eyes. The Liberals did away with the funding for the genetic recording and milk allocation programs, while the United States increased the program by $600 million. This is the level playing ground that the Liberals are giving to the dairy policy.

I can assure you I think these people will make an x twice before the Liberals in the next election, striking out the name and not voting for it.

[Petitions, March 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the final petition contains 254 signatures from petitioners opposing increased taxes.

I respectfully submit these petitions.

[Petitions, March 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition contains 51 signatures opposing assisted suicide.

[Petitions, March 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a second petition bearing 550 names opposing amendments to the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to include consideration of same sex relationships.

[Petitions, March 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to present a petition to the House bearing 904 signatures opposing further gun control.

[Labour, March 16th, 1995]

Will the Prime Minister immediately ask for a mandatory mediation-arbitration process with binding final offer arbitration as a last resort?