Jake Hoeppner

[Agriculture, October 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I find this ironic. Every time I bring up a question to this minister in the House on issues like car allocation or non-performance of railways he says: "I have consulted all players".

Does this minister consider farmers non-players? Why is he not listening to them today?

[Agriculture, October 20th, 1994]

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

Today in his hometown a rally is being conducted by farmers who want more options on how they market their grain. Could the minister please explain to this House why he has decided not to be present to listen to these farmers?

[Department Of Agriculture Act, October 19th, 1994]

Let me get to it. I am trying to get there. This was a tremendous experience. My hair stood on end. I was furious that I had been really duped into buying this machine. When that cylinder got some straw in it, it bounced around and almost left the ground. What were the results of this? I got very little work done all day.

It reminds me of this Liberal government. I have heard noises. I have heard: "Boy, we are going to do something for agriculture". Boy, we have accomplished very little. That cylinder I see in front, which I call the cabinet for comparison, I hear one member say "cut", the other one says "spend" and the agriculture minister says: "Hold it members. Let us not do too much. We could be accused of doing something".

I was a little enthused the other night when all of a sudden I saw one of the standing committee members on that side making amendments that would make this bill of some value. He tried to balance that cylinder so it would run a little smoother. What did the majority of the members do? They shot him down, 90 per cent. The Bloc agreed and the Reform agreed. Finally we had an amendment that would have made this bill of some value.

What was the result of this? It was the same as with my combine. I got very little done. We have been two days on this bill and we still have not passed it.

It amazes me that people do not realize that when you put in a long day and only get little done the fuel tank still gets emptied. That is all we have received out of this debate so far. We have an empty fuel tank and when that happens we are going to be in big trouble.

Grain that should be in the bin is not in the bin. Grain that should be in the tank is mostly chaff and straw. It has no substance. Why do we pass bills like this when we should be talking about problems like provincial trade barriers and value added? Instead we are talking about building swimming pools and maybe adding a sports arena somewhere. We are forgetting that we may be hungry some day. Why are we even going through the motions here?

I would like to compare the tremendous amount of effort we have put into this bill to my tremendously efficient combine that went so slow that when I turned the corner I was usually lost in the dust and I could not find the next swath. People around me wondered if there was a driver in the machine. I get the same impression from this Liberal government. When we as a standing committee make suggestions to the government they just get shot down or forgotten. Ask me why.

When we told the agriculture minister to stop the back-tracking and change the car allocation system, what did the government do? This was recommended by every member on that standing committee. The government did nothing. Is the Liberal government running this by remote control? Are the railways, or the grain companies or the unions running the government? Who is running it? Sometimes I wonder.

This bill reminds me of a lot of other bills. When we should have been addressing problems what did we do? We did the same thing as that old, faded out red combine did for me. It put the grain over the walkers back on to the ground and we are going to see it sprout and be ruined.

That is what Parliament has done as far as agriculture is concerned. It makes me wonder when I see a bill which contains a clause like clause 6 which says that the agriculture minister can appoint any person to inspect any product, to control any act that he has anything to do with.

I will tell members why that bothers me. The government previous to this government and the agriculture minister tied the hands of the customs and revenue people and allowed unlicensed grain into the country. He set at risk the quality of our wheat. He set at risk the reputation that farmers had built up of growing a superior quality of grain. Not that he listened to farmers, he listened to a few individuals or self-interest groups.

This agriculture minister is going after illegal exports of grain, for which I must commend him, but why does he not prosecute those farmers under the wheat board act? Why does he have to enlist customs and revenue when they have nothing to do with it? Customs and revenue are there to prevent imports, not exports.

This is the type of bill I will not support. That is why I think clause 6 should not be in the bill.

I see I have taken my 10 minutes or so. I always like to end on a positive note. There is hope. One of these days we will have a green machine on that side. Then as farmers we will say when we see a green machine on the fields, it runs like a deer and we will see a government that runs slick, smooth and swift and we will get things done.

[Department Of Agriculture Act, October 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to address this bill as a politician and also as a farmer. I appreciated the comments of the last two hon. members because as a farmer I am a little hard of hearing. Finally I could understand the debate and it made my day a little

happier. I do not want to comment on the remarks. I do not know how valuable they were but I could understand them.

When the bill was first proposed to the House we were briefed on it. I found it almost unbelievable that a new government would pick up on a suggestion that more or less was put to us by the previous government under Prime Minister Kim Campbell to reorganize this department. I felt that the bill would have at least contained some improvements to make the department more efficient or in some way give the Department of Agriculture a stronger voice in the House. I do not see anything of that. That is the point I would like to raise at this time.

If I as a farmer had not reorganized every year before I put the crop in, if I had not updated my machinery or improved my seed varieties, I do not think I could have survived. If I had gone out and purchased a different machine in a different colour and it had no more performance and did not do the job any better, although I had just spent a bunch of money, my neighbours would have thought me a little queer and I am sure I would not have survived very long.

The government reminds me a little of the first self-propelled combine I owned. It had all the parts. It looked like a beautiful machine. I was so proud of that machine I was just dreaming of the day I could take it into the fields. By coincidence that machine was a faded red colour.

When I started up that machine there was noise. Boy, it really performed out in the yard. I said: "If this machine works like this in the fields I will get my crops off in half the time". However that is about where my joy ended.

When I put the combine in the field and pulled into the swath there were noises; loose chains, loose bearings, walkers banging. The worst part was that the cylinder was out of balance.

[Canada Grain Act, October 4th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I must thank the hon. member for that speech. I do agree with him once in a while on certain areas.

I know he is a very good and efficient operator and does probably employ people and pay their wages. Does he not think that when I as a farmer pay 92 per cent of the grain commission's wages I should have some input into who these people are? I would feel a lot more comfortable if I as a farmer had some input into who these people were and how they were working. The people employed on an operation are really the backbone of the operation because management depends on them. I wonder whether the hon. member would respond to that.

[Canada Grain Act, October 4th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am wondering if the hon. member for Provencher would comment on the pools going toward public companies or corporations. UGG is finished with them. They are public corporations now. The shareholders do the voting and the directing.

It is of interest to me that one director of the Manitoba pool was very upset that the Canadian Grain Commission lacked the support of an independent inquiry into the Winnipeg Grain Exchange, the commodity markets. The Canadian Grain Commission is supposed to regulate the commodity exchange. Why has the government not supported an independent inquiry into the operation of the commodity exchange?

[Canada Grain Act, October 4th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed that speech very much. It sure makes me feel better to know how good things are on the farm.

I would ask the hon. member whether he is aware that under the free trade agreement article 705(5) clearly stipulates that there cannot be a cap put on imports unless there is excessive production by new farm programs. This was very well known by the Liberal government in the free trade agreement it signed.

About a week before this wheat deal was signed I heard someone on that side say, I think it was the hon. minister of agriculture, that no deal is badder than a bad deal. I wonder if he would comment on those statements.

Also, could he give us an indication on the action taken on the transportation problems, such as back-tracking, if that is the rate of movement we will see from this government, whether it is going to resolve problems as fast as it has up to now because it is sure encouraging?

[Canada Grain Act, October 4th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of both members this morning. I will address this bill on the basis that I agree with some points and feel very negative about others.

The Canada Grain Act is administered by the Canadian Grain Commission which is the agency mandated to establish and maintain grain quality and regulate the Canadian grain handling system.

I can support the main intentions of this bill as it aims at making our grain industry more competitive. We all want to see Canada build on its reputation as a producer and supplier of quality grain to the world.

It is important to remember that there are many important components that make up the grain industry and we should be sure that they are all working in top form to ensure the health and viability of this sector.

For example, last year we had problems caused by disruptions in the grain transportation system. This year it looks like we are going to experience some of the same problems which are disastrous and detrimental to our industry. Clearly we have to learn to start taking problems for what they are and try to solve them from past experiences without jeopardizing the future or the well-being of the industry.

Turning to the bill, I will outline some of its provisions. The Canadian Grain Commission will no longer be required to set maximum tariffs charged by grain elevators. Over time it is hoped that this will allow elevator operators to be more flexible and competitive in pricing their services while encouraging capital investment. This will also give grain buyers more authority to penalize people who put grain into terminals but do not move it quickly enough.

This amendment may solve a problem that was evident last year when the Canadian Wheat Board plugged elevators with grain for which there was not immediate buyers.

With the current legislation, terminals do not have to wait for boards to sell. They can legislate increased premiums or tariffs. This will probably have a positive effect on the system. Cabinet through governor in council will have the power to reverse these amendments. It remains to be seen whether this amendment will give terminals any real power or whether the Canadian Wheat Board will continue to be protected by the government through the undemocratic governor in council process.

I also wonder if the government in the future will invoke governor in council provisions to give more power to the Canadian Wheat Board and further regulate the industry.

The legislation states that after the maximum tariffs are eliminated the role of the Canadian Grain Commission will be that of a conciliator in resolving tariff disputes. This raises the question that if there is a need to further define this role, how will this be accomplished? Will it be through legislation or through governor in council?

The legislation allows for free movement within the western jurisdiction and within the eastern jurisdiction but not between the two jurisdictions. I wonder why there are these restrictions on interprovincial trade within Canada. As hard as it may be to believe, there are more barriers to trade between provinces in Canada than there are between countries in the European community. I really question the rationale that says there should be restrictions for grain movement within Canada.

This summer we saw the first ministers sign an interprovincial trade agreement that actually did very little to promote free trade. It surprised me that when they had an opportunity to solve a problem that has to be resolved, they accomplished little, especially in the area of agriculture. This is all the more surprising when one considers that these restrictions are not imposed by us, by foreign governments or international regulations. These are pitfalls that we have set up for ourselves and which we have to be more determined to remove.

By eliminating internal trade barriers we can remove the distortions in our markets and ensure that producers in this country have more control in setting prices instead of having a system where internal trade barriers ensure that trade prices are artificially inflated.

This bill will also remove the requirement that only public carriers can transport grain interprovincially. This is a good idea that will hopefully allow producers to reduce their marketing costs by giving them more transportation options.

The amendments in Bill C-51 also attempt to provide increased protection for grain producers. These include giving the Canadian Grain Commission authority to act against companies which illegally use Canada Grain Act grade names; requiring licensed grain dealers to use Canada Grain Act grade names in all their transactions with producers; specifying the way in which grade, dockage and moisture content are determined and recorded at the county elevator; authorizing the Canadian Grain Commission to suspend the licences of primary elevators where overages exceed allowable limits, which is very preferable; confirming the authority of the Canadian Grain Commission to require operators to fully insure the grain in their elevators; and, requiring prospective licensees to provide specific financial data which demonstrates their financial viability.

Certainly increased protection for producers is something that should be pursued but there is always a danger that by adding more regulation the system is being weighed down more and more. We have to find ways to get protection for producers without getting into the way of how they conduct their businesses.

There are also aspects of these amendments that will hopefully result in increased protection for taxpayers. Under the bill producers will have 90 days to seek payment for their grain after delivery to a licensee. If producers do not seek payment within that time period they will not be eligible to be paid out of the licensee's posted security. Then the companies go bankrupt.

The farmer would also be required to inform the Canadian Grain Commission within 30 days of a failure to be paid by grain companies. The onus will be on farmers to determine if the companies they are dealing with are licensed by the Canadian Grain Commission.

Since licensed companies must post security with the Canadian Grain Commission, claims will not be valid if farmers are dealing with unlicensed companies. The Canadian Grain Commission will be limited on its liability to the amount of the security posted by the licensee. It is intended to be similar to the limits placed on what the government will guarantee depositors if a financial institution fails.

These are some of the bylaws I can support. As the House knows, I am no great friend of the Canadian Transportation Agency or the Canadian Grain Commission. Why is that so? I would like to remind the House that as a farmer and as a politician today I like to deal fairly with every individual.

In May of this year the Manitoba Co-Operator published an article that read: ``Double standard claimed. The Canadian Grain Commission, guardian of the quality control system that makes Canadian grain exports the best in the world, tells farmers to do one thing but one of its assistant commissioners has been practising another. This commissioner has grown unregistered wheat for a whole year before it was internally licensed''. If that is not a double standard, if that is protecting the Canadian farmer, I cannot agree with the bill.

When questioned one Domain area farmer said: "How political was the decision not to register Grandin grain or how political was the decision to bring it in?" When the wheat board commissioner, Mr. Murta, replied to it, he said: "It is an indication of a system that almost got ahead of itself and you can see the result".

We were to have a grain commission to protect the quality of our grain and what did it do? It illegally allowed one of its assistant commissioners to bring in grain.

When another farmer was asked how he felt about it, he replied: "Although the first Grandin wheat came into the prairies illegally, one of the first farmers to import it says Agri-Canada officials told us how to do the paperwork. They told us we didn't have to use variety name. We could use lot number".

Is this the type of grain commission we want? Not I, not as a farmer. It bothers me when I see there will be no limits on storage costs. Will it really increase competition or will it allow big grain companies to fill their terminals and then charge farmers through the wheat board for these costs? There is no incentive for the wheat board to move that grain because I pay the costs, not the wheat board.

One prime example is the situation at Churchill to date. As of Monday there were two ships sitting and waiting for grain. There is no grain available. Elevators in southern parts of the provinces are plugged. Boxcars are sitting idle. We do not need hopper cars to go to Churchill. Boxcars are sitting idle. Transportation costs to Churchill are from $10 to $20 per tonne cheaper than either to the west coast or to the east coast. There is no incentive for the grain companies to move grain to Churchill because the terminal is owned by the government.

Last July I went to investigate the port, to have a look at it. A ship was due for arrival that took on 40,000 tonnes. That terminal with the capacity to store five million bushels had 4,000 tonnes in it. Are those the regulations we are debating? Is that the type of system that is protecting farmers? I feel we are getting shafted.

Why should we be worried? I received a letter last week from a seed cleaning plant which does not come under the rules of the Canadian Grain Commission. Through its expertise and incentive it developed a market for special crops. The seed plant was notified that it would have to become a grain dealer or an elevator with a licence. It would have to put up bonds. It would have to put on insurance. There will be extra costs for the small seed cleaning plant, of which there are hundreds in rural parts of the prairies. The operator told me point blank: "If that is enforced upon me I will be shut down. There is no way I can compete with a UGG or a pool cleaning system. No way will I survive".

Is that increasing competition? I think it is decreasing it. Why are we doing it? Why are we continually allowing bureaucrats and government to enforce regulations or stipulations that hurt the small person?

I would like to go a little further. I noticed in his opening remarks the hon. minister indicated that they wanted to save taxpayers' money. That is one thing Reform is always pushing for. We could very easily do so by removing some wheat board commissioners who were politicians, are drawing a gold plated pension plan and are still drawing a wage more than that of an MP in the House. If that is looking after the small guy, I do not want to be looked after. These grain board commissioners are lifetime appointments.

I read in the new bill that the age limit will be removed. Why? Is 65 not old enough? Why would we want to increase the age until these grain commissioners finally die? That is the only way we will ever remove them and get people to represent farmers.

It is not only that. Further in the bill I read that we are going now to give the commissioners the authority to set their own wage scale. They will not have to go to the cabinet or use an order in council. If that is saving taxpayers' money, I do not think I want to support the bill.

How do I feel about the bill? It reminds me very much of a chicken farmer who is trying to protect his flock in the hen house. He is looking for a guard dog and finally somebody camouflages a fox and says: "Here is a good guard dog. Set him in front of your door". Not only are we being brainwashed or whitewashed with the guard dog; we are throwing him into the chicken coop and closing the door. The guard dog will have his meals any time; he will have any one of the chickens he desires. I cannot support legislation like this.

When I look at section 84 that deals with transportation of grain I see that it is to be deregulated. It will now require not only an export permit from the wheat board to move grain from province to province. It will also require documentation from the Canadian Grain Commission allowing farmers to transport their own grain. Does it make sense? To me it is more regulation, not deregulation.

As a farmer and a new politician I did not think I would see democracy at the point I see it this morning. When I am told as a member of the House that I must accept what the government wants to do and I had better like it or else I will have nothing to say, I get very upset.

I remind hon. members on the other side that come the next election this farmer-politician will not forget those kinds of actions. He will continually remind western farmers that this was how we were treated by hon. members across the way.

We are going to go to our graves physically healthy. We can spend millions and millions in building pools and supporting hockey rinks, but we cannot support a grain transportation system; we do not have the funds.

The other day I saw a news release stating that $4 million was to be spent in the city of Winnipeg for recreation by the government, but we cannot afford to upgrade the line to Churchill. We are going to starve healthy.

[Grain Transportation, September 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for that answer.

As the minister knows very well, last May the subcommittee on transportation recommended that back tracking of grain was illegal, disruptive and should be stopped. In June the minister guaranteed that action would be taken. Now he is delaying this action six months at a time.

Would the minister explain to the House who is running this country, the railways or the Liberal government?

[Grain Transportation, September 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food commented that farmers exporting grain to the U.S. must obey laws that are in place.

Under the Western Grain Transportation Act railways face financial penalties for non-performance. These railways have continually broken this law for years without consequences.

How can the minister fail to enforce this law against non-performing railways and at the same time encourage law enforcement against farmers selling their own grain at the best prices available?