Jake Hoeppner

[Western Grain Transportation Act, February 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I was kind of blind-sided here today. I did not realize Bill C-66 was coming up for debate so I have been-

[Agriculture And Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act, February 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House this afternoon to address this bill.

I was looking at my notes and I realize they were written last October. We do not work very fast. I will try to refresh my memory as I speak from my notes.

I will outline the concerns I have with this bill and how I see it affecting farmers in my region. When I am talking to farmers and tell them the fines will be $100,000 to $250,000 for non-compliance, they throw up their hands and say: "Hey, we've never had money like that. How are we ever supposed to pay a fine?" I always reassure them. "Look at the positive side because you haven't had to pay the fine. At the speed this government works the Canadians dollar will probably be worth less than a Mexican peso, so it won't amount to too much". That reassures them things are not going to go too fast.

For instance, if the fine exceeds $2,000, the person named in the notice of violation can request a compliance agreement. The minister may request a security payment as a guarantee that the person will comply with the agreement. It will be returned when the minister deems the person has satisfactorily complied with the agreement.

It really does not matter whether the violator feels he has complied. The minister will make the decision. That worries me somewhat.

If the minister subsequently decides the person who has entered into the compliance agreement has not complied with the agreement, the minister can impose a penalty of twice the original amount and can retain any security given by the person who is deemed to be in violation. That is a very powerful tool. I cannot see how that can be accomplished in this bill or why it should be unless there is an agreement between the violator and the board that he did not comply.

The board of arbitration appointed by the minister and the review tribunal appointed by the Governor in Council will settle disputes between buyers and sellers. The tribunal hears reviews of the minister's decision at the request of a person who has been deemed to be in violation of the act. I think that is a good procedure and could probably work, but I am very worried about when compliance is deemed to have been carried out and when not.

Bill C-61 greatly increases some of the fines for offences. These should not be confused with violations which will be dealt with through the agriculture monetary penalty contained in various agriculture acts. For example, it amends the Feeds Act to increase fines for an indictable offence from $1,000 to $250,000. That seems to be a huge increase and I hope I never have to pay one of these penalties because it would break me. It is intended to discourage someone from committing a contravention that would likely be pursued as an offence.

One of the main areas of contention seems to be the board of arbitration and the review tribunals. Each of these bodies currently consists of between three to five members but Bill C-61 removes the limit to the number of board members. I feel this is a very grave error. It should have a cap on it because it can create another bureaucracy and could go to 20 or 30 members. We know what the costs would be for operating a board or a tribunal of that size. It also makes it very possible that we could have some more political appointments for people with close

political ties who are out of jobs. It would be a nice place to find another job for them. I do not think we need that.

The selection process does nothing to dissuade the patronage appointments. I believe that has been stressed this afternoon.

A great deal of power is given to the minister. He can decide whether to pursue a contravention as a violation or as an offence and has leeway in setting or reducing or increasing fines. There is not much accountability built into this legislation.

It really worries me when I see this kind of power given to a board or to a minister. The court system does not seem to be able to deal with some of these matters in a very efficient manner and it is a lengthy debate sometimes whether it is a violation that is serious or whether it is a violation that is moderate or maybe just a minor one.

Clause 23, which is an amendment we proposed, would at least retain the violations to a 10-year period. I think it is of major importance that this amendment be passed if this bill does pass.

Clause 28 is an amendment to remove the ceiling on the number of members on the board of arbitration. The amendment would propose to retain this ceiling. I support the amendment that there be a ceiling because we do not want another board or another review tribunal with about 30 people who we find are very expensive to maintain.

An amendment proposed that would disqualify a public servant from being a member of the board of arbitration is a must. When a public servant ruled on an arbitration or sat on a tribunal board I would hesitate to go before a tribunal because the violator has very poor chance of getting a fair hearing.

Illegal and undeclared importation of plant products, meat or meat products is a serious concern because the introduction of plant or animal diseases into Canada could cost millions of dollars for control or elimination. We had a very good example of what could happen when the Grandin issue come before the courts or before the government. When Grandin wheat was brought illegally into this country, for some reason the Department of Agriculture overstepped its bounds and took away the responsibility from excise and customs officers and allowed it to continue. That was a very serious violation of what the Customs Act should have been doing. It is an example that shows us very vividly how a minister or a department with too much power overrides issues and makes bad decisions.

The current process involves prosecution in courts of law and has not been all that effective. There are limited alternatives in the current system to enforce compliance with the law outside of criminal prosecution which involves court costs and delays.

The bill proposes implementation of a ticketing procedure at ports of entry into Canada in the hope of increasing efficiency and effectiveness in dealing with this problem.

When the courts cannot address this issue effectively how will a ticketing process by this act resolve the problem? Penalties will be imposed, fines and offences under eight related acts. This will be a tremendous burden for the minister or the department to administer.

When I see under the Fertilizers Act a fine going from $500 to $50,000 and for an indictable offence to $250,000, it scares me. I am wondering who will be falling under the compliance act. It cannot be farmers because it will break them. It will have to be somebody with the multinationals or huge corporations who can really be addressed through this act.

Overall streamlining of the regulatory process is a worthy goal as it is reducing court costs and the associated regulatory burden. But will this extra power of a minister be exercised fairly? That is a concern I have about this act. If the minister, the department or the tribunal favour large violators, multinationals or large corporations as opposed to individuals, we are going to be addressing a huge problem of unfairness and probably discrimination.

It is only fair that we look at this act very seriously and address some of the issues which have been pointed out today concerning the setting up of a tribunal and also the arbitration board.

Examples of contraventions likely to be treated as violations include unsanitary facilities in a meat processing establishment. This raises another issue which we talked somewhat of this morning. Is it a provincial or a federal jurisdiction? We could find that we have a dispute between this act and some of the provincial regulatory processes or bodies. Mislabelling of agriculture products is very simple. It is more or less a major federal jurisdiction, but the other one could cause us some problems.

Taking an animal out of quarantine and marketing it and thereby endangering the health of consumers and maybe the health of certain industries is another grave concern. This is becoming more and more of a concern when we see new enterprises springing up in wildlife animal farming or bringing in ostriches, emus or whatever specialty enterprise is considered.

The main goal of compliance instead of punishment seems to be agreeable. I would however warn that we do not make compliance too easy because it can just become a matter of paying an extra few dollars in fines and continuing with the non-compliance.

Transport Canada and employment and immigration use this type of process. I do not think it has been very responsive to some of the issues, especially if we look at the Western Grain Transportation Act.

The powers granted to this minister are extensive. The minister may make regulations, not just enforce them. When we have an act where we can change regulations and the compliance during the life of the act I think it becomes very suspect.

That decisions can be either designated as a violation or an offence is another thing I am worried about. Whether it is a minor, a serious or a very serious offence or non-compliance is also given to the minister or the boards. These things seem to set up a system with which we could have more problems than solutions. I do not think that is what we want.

The minister is given the power to decide whether it is a contravention or whether it should be treated as a violation. That is totally wrong. We need a better guideline, a better system of defining what is an offence or non-compliance.

I would warn this House very strongly that we do not want to pass an act or regulations that will more or less give the individual fewer powers or less of a chance to be heard than the corporations or multinationals. We see that too much today already.

The railways had a non-performance clause in the Western Grain Transportation Act. It provided for monetary penalties. That act has been in force for over 10 years. There has never been a monetary penalty assessed to any railway for non-compliance of the act.

This points out very strongly why we in this House should be very cautious about passing this bill before we make some definite amendments to it. It is almost as if we are trying to do away with democracy and trying to enlist a sort of dictatorship.

I have said in my speeches in the House before that sometimes when I look at the agriculture policies we are making it seems that this Liberal government is lost in the dust. It cannot really see what the results will be, how it will affect the farmers or the producers.

It is better if we start clearing the dust, waving our hands around a bit and saying that the individual producer is the one who is going to be affected. Let us give him a break and let us see that he stays healthy and productive. Otherwise we do not have much of a chance in turning this country's monetary or financial situation around.

I hope the hon. minister has listened this afternoon and knows that the farmer is always dear to my heart. The farmers are the ones who put me here and the ones I am going to speak up for.

[Agriculture, December 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the minister knows very well that three prairie premiers insist that the Western Grain Transportation Act represents an inherent right promised to prairie provinces. They also insist that none of these moneys go into the east and that they stay in the west.

Is the minister prepared to put these funds into a safety net program that will offset the effects of U.S. and European subsidized products in the form of a trade distortion adjustment program?

[Agriculture, December 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

In 1983 the government implemented the Western Grain Transportation Act that gave railways guaranteed returns on investments and operating expenses. Not only was it a licence to print money. It also allowed railways to become inefficient and non-performing since they were paid regardless of how they moved prairie grain.

Is the minister now proposing to offload past Liberal mistakes on to farmers in the form of a cash buyout?

[Income Tax Act, December 14th, 1994]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-298, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction of interest on mortgage loans).

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House today and introduce my private member's bill entitled an act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction of interest on mortgage loans).

The bill proposes that subject to subsection (2) there may be deducted in computing a taxpayer's income for a taxation year an amount equal to the interest paid by the taxpayer in the year to a mortgage lender on the first $100,000 of a mortgage secured by an individual's qualifying home. Some conditions apply as outlined in this bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Government Of Canada, December 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on November 29 a Manitoba Liberal member of Parliament stated in the House that the Liberal government cares about Canadians and cares about the economy.

Let me tell you about this caring government. This caring government continues to support the gold-plated pension plan while denying Manitoba cattle producers fair compensation for their depopulated herds. They spend $45 million needlessly backtracking grain and deny an FSAM II payment to an eligible farmer due to a postal mix-up.

This government provides crown corporation executives with $300,000 interest free loans while the Farm Credit Corporation forces farmers into receivership due to compounded interest.

To top it off, this caring government is talking of increasing gasoline taxes and taxing lottery winnings.

Care indeed. My foot.

[Canada Grain Act, December 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I reiterate the statements made by my hon. colleague from Vegreville. He made a very good speech on what this change to the grain commission act really is. I will add a few comments.

As members of the standing committee on agriculture know very well, I am not a big friend of the Canadian Grain Commission. I was very close to the issue when Grandin wheat was smuggled into the country and put the reputation of our milling wheat at stake. The way the grain commission acted on the issue was really appalling. Not only did it not try to keep the grain out of the country but it more or less showed the smugglers, as I call them, how to get around the rules and regulations to bring it in and fill their pockets with wheat that was really not suited for our area.

It makes me wonder: I see a bill like this one that says deregulation and then I see it is probably open to loopholes whereby small players could be put out of business in a very short time.

When I look at small elevator companies with no terminals, I wonder how they will be able to compete with a very low tariff in the country. When grain is shipped to the terminals of larger

players they can be hammered with the tariffs and put out of business. That is not fair. The grain commission was put in place to see that everyone was treated equally, small players or big players.

Why would large grain companies be worried about exporting grain if their terminal charges were so high they actually made more money by keeping it there than moving it once or twice during the year? It is a deterrent to exporting grain outside the country.

We have small players in the grain industry like small seed cleaning plants. They are really the entrepreneurs in the special crops industry. They were the people who put at risk the bit of capital they had by experimenting with lentils and with peas. These small players are going to be licensed and regulated to a point where they cannot exist. I received a call from a small seed plant owner one day who said: "Jake, to enforce the new regulations in the act it will cost me $20,000 extra for doing my books". A chartered accountant will now do his books which were always done by him and his family.

The accounting and the bonding are putting these small players out of business. Every farmer knows the reputation of the seed plants in their areas. They have been in business for years and have never defrauded anyone of a single dime. They are now going to be put out of business. That is wrong.

Another thing that is wrong is that grain commissioners are paid by farmers; 90 per cent of their wages are from farm receipts. However what input do they have in who the commissioners are? This is a point in our democracy that must be changed. When a player pays he should also have the right to know whom he is paying.

Clause 4 of the bill also bothers me. It would permit the Canadian Grain Commission rather than the governor in council to fix allowances paid to members of grain standards committees and grain appeal tribunals, removing the set of rules as far as payment is concerned one step further from the House. Before it was the governor in council and farmers who had some input. Now it is to be removed from the governor in council and given to commissioners to set wages for grain weighing tribunals or grading standards people.

This is not very effective nor what farmers want. I do not think it saves the taxpayer money. I would equate that to putting the fox into the chicken coop instead of outside the door. It is dangerous and should not be allowed to happen.

Clause 21 of the bill really bothers me. Under the clause process elevators, unlike primary elevators, would no longer have to perform weighovers to determine whether there is an overage or a shortage, a discrepancy between the amount a grain elevator has in store and the amount it really paid for. This is to recognize that process elevators are not required to account for grain delivered by producers.

Why should process elevators be treated any different from primary elevators? These are the elevators that are processing the special crops. These are the process elevators that really turn over the dollars, where the big bucks are. Very little overage or a shortage can increase their profit margins and it is all coming out of the pockets of farmers. It will open the door to more corruption and more lost revenue for farmers. If we want a bill that is fair to everyone, it should be on a basis where primary and processing elevators are treated exactly the same.

My colleague touched on another item I do not like. Public carriers will only be able to transport grain in the west, not into the east or vice versa. It is another regulation that will hinder value added processing companies.

Just this week a small miller in Manitoba tried to export to another province. He will be able to do so under this act into Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and B.C. However he cannot go into Ontario and compete with the bigger processors or the millers. The country should be shared by everyone. We have agreed to the establishment of the World Trade Organization but we do not have free trade in our own country.

There is so much to be said about the government that we could probably talk all day long. One of these days in the House, especially when we are not debating this bill, I will mention to hon. members what the old red combine did to my farming operation. We could probably debate a few matters outside this bill.

When I commented in the standing committee that there should be a revamping of the Canadian Grain Commission I was not very far off. Farmers will very much support that idea, just like they supported the idea that the Grain Transportation Agency should be done away with.

It amazes me that we can debate bills in the House and agree in committee 100 per cent, Liberals, Bloc and Reform, but legislation does not get passed. I would suggest very strongly to the House that if we want the farming industry to stay in business we will have to start making real deregulation, not superficial.

As far as I am concerned the bill is giving the grain handling system the chance to increase its revenue without considering what it will cost farmers. We will not have the free movement of grain we should have. The bill will give us competition, but the competition will be limited. The amount of tariff that can be charged will be set by larger players with no regulation. That really bothers me. We have to start realizing that the primary producer should be protected by bills like this one, not the major players, the processors or the grain handling system.

My colleague did a very good job on the other issue that is wrong with the bill. I wholeheartedly suggest to members across the way that if western Canada does not get a few fair shakes in some of these bills, maybe we will start seeing more grain moving to the south, which will be detrimental to the country.

I am a Canadian. I like rules and regulations that benefit Canadians, but my children and my neighbours' children who are farming need to survive and have a profit. If we do not start drawing up bills to protect the farming industry, we are in big trouble.

With that I will close my remarks and turn the debate over to someone else.

[Petitions, December 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, there are 127 names requesting that the port of Churchill be recognized as a permanent, major port facility.

I respectfully submit these petitions with my support.

[Petitions, December 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have 128 signatures opposing abortion.

[Petitions, December 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, there are 163 signatures opposing assisted suicide.