Howard Hilstrom

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, certainly the federal excise tax of four cents is on Canadian farm fuel. The hon. member asked about the G-8 countries. The farm subsidies in the G-8 countries are much higher and as a result, the cost of their fuel is incorporated into those subsidies whereas ours is not. We need to eliminate the four cents.

In regard to regulating fuel, I think the member is going back to the old days of Pierre Trudeau and the wage and price controls. We remember the fiasco that caused. The big government of the Pierre Trudeau era is not the kind of regulation we want in this country, a controlled economy which does not work.

[The Budget, March 27th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the budgetary policy of the government.

I note that many members today have said that Canada's growth in regard to the other G-7 countries is very good, in the neighbourhood of the third best I believe. I certainly agree that the economy is doing well. I would probably disagree with the government as to how much is a direct result of its actions. Let us look at this growth and what the government does with the money that comes to it which is to be used for programs and other things in Canada.

Let us start with health care. It is my understanding that health care is funded at about a 1994-95 level. Thousands and thousands of Canadians are left standing in waiting lines because there is no MRI machine, bed or some other facility for them to receive the medical treatment they need. Education also seems to be underfunded. Why?

On a first nations reserve in my riding of Selkirk—Interlake, the Fairford Indian reserve, why are hundreds of people living in construction trailers? We could fly out there today and see people living in construction trailers with no bathrooms, at eight or ten degrees below zero. If there is money in the government and it is running massive surpluses, why are people living in construction trailers? I do not understand it.

This may be part of the answer to my second question. The Corbière decision referred to off reserve aboriginal people having the right to vote in reserve elections. Why is the money going to the assembly of chiefs to look at this issue instead of the very people that are off the reserves and need the funding in order to exercise that franchise on the reserves?

It shows that the spending is wasteful and the government has its priorities wrong. That first nation which I spoke of is a real sad situation. Church services are currently being held in a small building because the original church burned down.

Those are sad commentaries on how the government is handling its budget. I will now go on with some straightforward suggestions and programs it could be utilizing.

Agriculture has some real bright spots but it also has some problems. It is the government's responsibility in dealing with the budget to deal with problems. The 2000 budget certainly did not offer any long term plan for the future of farming in Canada. There was an announcement of $400 million between the federal government and the provinces for Manitoba and Saskatchewan. That had been announced previous to the budget but it was announced again so the government could get double mileage out of it.

The government left out every other province and farmers are hurting in the other provinces as well. At least Alberta had the backbone and common sense to say that it could not leave its farmers unprotected from foreign subsidies. In place of the federal government taking some action regarding the farmers, the Alberta government said it was going to pay out $4.29 an acre and give the farmers some help. This was done in time for spring seeding. The money is already on the way.

The budget failed to do a number of things. It failed to provide meaningful or timely emergency compensation to farmers that were suffering from other countries' trade distorting subsidies. That is something that could have been done.

Of the previous money the government had already made out under AIDA, that was a fine, good program in the that it had money in it but the delivery has been a disaster. Around 25% or 26% of that money has been delivered when the promise was that for 1998-99 it would all be delivered in time for seeding in the previous year and this spring. We still have not seen that.

The ongoing scandal at the federal human resources department is another example that the government does not know how to deliver program money. When it wants to use money for political purposes, it can simply shovel the money out the door.

The government has an opportunity in a budget to reduce taxes. In regard to agriculture, the federal excise tax on gasoline could have been reduced. It is four cents. Farms particularly in western Canada but also in other parts of the country have large fuel bills. Fuel is one of their major expenses.

In Ontario just south of here the Oxford County Federation of Agriculture has estimated that farmers will pay between 48% and 50% more on their fuel costs than they did a year ago. In my riding of Selkirk—Interlake we were buying fuel at approximately 28 cents to 29 cents a litre. When I last looked at a bill a few weeks ago it is up in the range of 40 cents to 45 cents. The hurt that is being felt in Oxford county is being felt right across the country.

The Liberal government does not quite get it and its individual members of parliament do not understand. Last Sunday the member for Oxford was quoted as saying that a reduction in fuel taxes would do little to help farmers so just leave the taxes on. I do not know how that rationale applies, “We cannot help you very much so we will not help you at all”. It is time to say give me a break because the government should be doing everything possible, even the little things, to help farmers, aboriginal people and people with low incomes. There are thousands of places where the government could be doing a much better job.

The government continues to charge user fees. The auditor general has indicated time and time again that he is not sure who the beneficiary is or who should actually be charged a user fee. In the cases of the ones being applied against agriculture, they are not being reduced. They are continuing to be applied and that further reduces the income of farmers who are having a tough time.

Fighting high foreign subsidies is also something the government could be doing. In our trade with France for instance, it has a surplus of about $2.5 billion over what Canada exports to that country. It would seem to me that is a fairly strong negotiating tool that we could use in our negotiations with the European Union and France to get them to lower their subsidies.

The standing committee on agriculture had an interesting presentation from the National Farmers Union. Its economic theory sounded a lot like that of the New Democratic Party. It does not believe that subsidies have any effect on the amount of grain that would be produced by a farmer. I do not think even Liberal members believe that economic theory. It was a pretty interesting presentation.

I can only sum up by saying that the government does not seem to be listening to farmers. I will conclude by saying what farmers do want. They want a voluntary Canadian Wheat Board. They want a commercial contracts based grain transportation system. They want simple, predictable long term safety net disaster programs. They want good health care and good education. They want a future for their children in agriculture.

Farmers do not want the Firearms Act, Bill C-68 of years ago. They do not want the Canadian Wheat Board allocating rail cars causing inefficiencies. They do not want the Liberal government ruining trade relations with the United States thereby driving down their incomes even further.

As a Canadian Alliance member, I am really pleased to be in the House serving the constituents of Selkirk—Interlake.

[Petitions, March 24th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from the Saskatchewan Farm Income Coalition group containing around 10,000 signatures.

The Saskatchewan farm families are among the most competitive farmers in the whole world. They are finding it very difficult to compete against foreign subsidies, primarily in the United States and Europe.

These thousands of Saskatchewan farm families are asking parliament to support them by immediately providing an additional $1 billion in agricultural trade equalization payments to Saskatchewan farmers.

Parliament should take note of this and make a special effort to help Saskatchewan in its time of need.

[Agriculture, March 24th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the government has no problem funnelling HRDC cash to companies with friends of the Prime Minister on their boards. At the same time only 26% of AIDA money that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food promised to farmers in December 1998 has made it to them. As a result the agriculture minister is guilty of financial mismanagement.

Why does the government find it so easy to shovel money to its rich friends and cannot get emergency help to farmers who need it?

[Citizenship Of Canada Act, March 23rd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, there were a couple of incidents in my riding concerning immigration which the hon. member might wish to comment on.

The first incident happened in the last two weeks. A medical doctor was returning to Canada. He was not yet a citizen. The immigration department, for some reason, was unable to quickly process his entry visa to allow him to continue working. He had been working in Canada for three years. As a result, the town went for over a week without the services of that doctor. It finally took the intervention of outside sources, including MPs like myself, to move it along.

I would like to know if the hon. member has a comment with respect to how the system is working when it comes to work visas.

The second thing is that in our riding we have quite a few dairy farms. It is difficult to find people who will work all day, from 5.30 in the morning, or who will work a broken shift. I know of one big dairy farm which requires labourers. The owner happens to know of people in Switzerland, persons experienced in dairy, who would come to Manitoba to work.

They are having many problems within the immigration department to get him moved along to allow him to immigrate and work. There does not seem to be anybody in our area to fill that particular job. Does the member have any comments with regard to how the immigration system is working?

[Supply, March 22nd, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I just wish to make a couple of comments in regard to ports and rail transportation in Manitoba. The port of Churchill in Manitoba is one of the most direct routes into the heart of the prairies. It is the most efficient and cost effective way of moving grain out of the central prairies.

I would like to point out to the House that when Omnitrax Corporation took over the rail line and the operation of the port, it did things that CN Rail said could not be done. It used regular hopper cars, the new large style, that supposedly could not be used by CN Rail. It also shipped feed peas out and brought copper ore in.

The comments of the member from British Columbia in regard to ports brought this to my mind. I would like to make sure that the transport minister recognizes that in fact commercial contract based business dealings can create greater wealth and move goods more efficiently than the old style command structure. That became evident at the port of Churchill last year through the operation of the private company Omnitrax.

[Supply, March 22nd, 2000]

Madam Speaker, we are debating tonight transportation issues in Canada and I would like to deal with the railway issue as it relates to grain transportation in western Canada.

All those involved in the western grain transportation handling system agree that the system is broken and that it needs to be fixed. This includes farmers, grain companies, grain handling terminals and the Canadian Wheat Board, along with the railways which move the grain.

The current system is rigid, unaccountable and does not efficiently serve the needs of these system participants, especially the farmer who pays all of the costs. That is an important part to remember in this debate.

Severe systemic breakdowns in the handling and transportation system which occur every few years are dramatic demonstrations of the need for grain transportation reform. More recently we saw the system fall apart during the winter of 1993-94 and again in the winter of 1996-97. These breakdowns cost millions of dollars in demurrage and operating costs and lost sales. No one in the system, including the grain companies, the railways or the Canadian Wheat Board, can be held accountable for systemic inefficiencies.

The entities are caught up in inefficiencies caused by government legislation, regulation and bureaucracy, including the Canadian Wheat Board Act.

This system does not cost farmers only when problems arise. It costs them money every day that the system remains unchanged. The inefficient use of our grain handling and transportation system means that farmers pay far too much to get their grain from the prairies to port position.

Because of the control which the Canadian Wheat Board exerts over the system, grain companies and railways cannot manage their own facilities and equipment in the most efficient manner.

For example, railways and grain companies have tried to set up regularly scheduled grain trains that would cycle between primary elevators on the prairies and terminal elevators at the ports. These types of dedicated trains would be able to bypass railway switching yards, make more efficient use of railway and grain company staff, allow grain companies to better plan the arrival of ships, and, in effect, save farmers millions of dollars. However, the Canadian Wheat Board, through the car allocation system, would not allow these types of increased efficiencies.

Since the beginning of November the official opposition has held 69 town hall meetings with over 3,000 farmers in B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario. Western grain farmers repeatedly pointed out that freight is one of their major costs; approximately one-third of their expenses in most cases. Over and over again farmers asked why they were the only commodity group in which the producer paid the freight and was responsible for the quality and any added costs for the product throughout the total shipping network; that is, the farmer carries virtually all of the risk from the time he puts the seed in the ground until it is loaded onto the export ship at port.

The Prairie Farm Commodity Coalition estimates that the reforms to the current grain handling and transportation system could save farmers over $300 million annually. Put another way, this would result in a cost reduction of over $15,000 per farm.

Paul Orsak, a Manitoba farmer, recently summarized the opinion of a vast majority of western farmers when he stated: “We are firmly convinced that reforming the grain handling and transportation system will lower transportation costs for Canadian farmers, increase competition and make Canada's grain delivery system more effective for our customers”.

How have the Liberals responded to this issue? The government does what it always does when it does not want to make a decision. It commissioned a study. After the debacle in the winter of 1997, former Justice Willard Estey was asked to review the western grain handling and transportation system and recommend changes to the government. Much to the government's surprise, he did exactly what it asked. He recommended changes which would in fact improve the system.

The underlying theme of Justice Estey's 15 different recommendations was the need for a more open, market based grain handling and transportation system.

I would like to point out for the big government socialists in the House who may not understand this commercial contract based system that it provides for penalties and incentives in the contracting out of any commercial contract between businesses and, in effect, brings about the very efficiencies that regulations cannot do by command structure from, for instance, parliament.

Two of the key recommendations from Justice Estey involved the role of the Canadian Wheat Board and a legislative cap on freight rates. First, Estey recommended that the role of the wheat board in the grain handling and transportation system be eliminated. This recommendation would move the Canadian Wheat Board's interest out to the ports.

If this recommendation were implemented, the Canadian Wheat Board would contract the grain companies to move grain to the port through an auction process and the grain companies would be responsible for arranging freight with the railways. Producers would sign contracts with grain companies for delivery of the grain.

This recommendation is required if we are to replace the current centrally planned system with a contract driven accountable system. This would result in improved efficiencies and reduced producer costs. There does not seem to be too many people who do not agree with that position.

Justice Estey also recommended changes to the legislative cap on freight rates. He recommended that the rate cap be replaced with a revenue cap. The revenue cap would set the total revenue each railway could receive for moving grain, but would not set the individual rate at each delivery point, thereby allowing for individual incentive and pricing which would lower the cost overall.

The cap on railway revenues would allow market signals to flow through to railways, grain companies and producers and would reduce system deficiencies such as the under-utilization of the Port of Prince Rupert. The key to this is allowing market signals to have some influence on our grain transportation system.

Mr. Estey's recommendation would also have seen freight rates fall by approximately $6.6 million per year over the next six years. The report recommends that this reduction be guaranteed through legislation and the setting of this cap.

However, the Liberal government did not like the recommendations that would have softened the wheat board's ironclad hold on western grain farmers so it spent millions more on another study. Once again the government was surprised when its next study person, Mr. Kroeger, upheld Estey's conclusions and recommended that the wheat board's control over the grain handling transportation system be eliminated.

When he appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport, Mr. Kroeger stated “My conclusion was very much along the line of Justice Estey, that unless you went to a more commercial system you couldn't really achieve major improvements”.

Arthur Kroeger gave the federal government a progressive report that if implemented would be a step toward a more efficient commercially accountable system. He proposed a structure for the revenue cap that would ensure producers' freight costs fall. He went one step further and recommended that the initial rate cap be set at 12% below the revenues earned by the railways in 1998.

Implementation of Mr. Kroeger's recommendation for the rate cap meet the major criteria of the official opposition: farmers will benefit from the changes.

When he appeared before the transport committee on February 29, Mr. Kroeger was quick to point out that any reductions to railway revenues must not be excessive. Mr. Kroeger stated “My initial reaction when I wrote the report was be careful, don't overdo it. You cut too deep, it becomes attractive for investment decisions to be shifted to other commodities. Whether people like it or not, rail transportation has to be related to the rest of the economy of Canada, the United States and the world in that it has to operate on a commercial contract basis, and in fact respond to market signals”.

In spite of these two reports, we still have our Minister of Transport dithering. While he does, farmers in western Canada are suffering through one of the worst farm income crises in years. These savings of up to $300 million are not being achieved.

I will quote a couple of our members of parliament from the west, the member for Winnipeg South and certainly the foreign affairs minister, who are drastically fighting every change that is put forward to the cabinet and the Liberal government and hindering our transport minister who has stated publicly in the press that he recognizes the need to move toward a more accountable commercially based system.

In conclusion, I hope our transport minister hears these words, keeps his backbone strong and fights back against the kind of pressure that is against the best interests of farmers in western Canada.

[The Budget, February 29th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about where money might be coming from to help out with spending on high priorities in this country.

Last week Environment Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada made a big announcement that they are going to put up $600,000 to put a sign by a farmer's gate to acknowledge that the farmer is helping out on environmental issues by the way he farms. Does the member believe that that $600,000 should go toward that fence post in front of that farmer's yard or should it be going into health care which we really need and want?

[Committees Of The House, February 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, as vice-chair of the committee, I have a few comments to make with regard to the standing committee report that was tabled by the chairman, the member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia.

This report was a study of the effectiveness of long term national safety net programs. I commend the committee for travelling to the three western provinces plus one place in British Columbia. However, the committee voted down travelling to other parts of the country, in particular Ontario and the east. As a result, I would like the members of the House to know that the report is incomplete in the study of the national safety net effectiveness.

I hope that in the near future our committee will be travelling and talking to farmers in the rest of the country and in fact tabling a report that is national in scope.

[Committees Of The House, February 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. At the beginning of Routine Proceedings today when the chairman of the agriculture committee tabled his majority report there were minority reports attached to it, including the report of the official opposition, the Reform Party of Canada.