Howard Hilstrom

[Supply, November 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the government went into the 1993 election and into the 1997 election and never told the Canadian public what it would do.

It ended up gutting health care. It gutted education funding. It hit the Canadian Coast Guard in Manitoba. Icebreaker fees are rising. The other day the government gave $500,000 to professional hockey in Canada.

This is all on record. The government's record of slashing, burning and cutting into Canadians' economic well-being is well documented. Every Canadian knows what it is. I ask the member to list for us the dollar figure of the total cuts that have happened since the 1995 budget. How much was cut out of these departments by the hon. member's government?

[Supply, November 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, with the limited resources of any economy we have to use the resources available to us in the wisest fashion.

Things such as excessive numbers of employees, starting programs simply to have a program in a given area, to get votes in that area and to make everybody feel good have to be cut.

We heard today in committee a suggestion that a task force be created to address the very issue of wasted, misguided spending by various departments.

The industry believes that a lot of money can be found for agriculture in the existing budget. That is the challenge for the government.

[Supply, November 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, he certainly seemed to have the agreement of a lot of members in the House after his speech.

The crisis that we are talking about has to have a two-pronged solution, both for the short term and the long term. Simply throwing money at the problem is not going to solve it in the long term. That is what the budget is for in February and that is where the government has to move.

We have to wait until all of the industry players have had a chance to put their solutions forward. At that time, through the committee on agriculture, we will be able to put forward reports with recommendations that will have a viable, long term solution for the government to follow. We are going to get that done in time for the February budget.

I take great pride in the fact that Reform has been the party pushing this issue forward the most at this point.

[Supply, November 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the crisis that is facing us today has a long history and a long track record. It goes way back to the previous government of which the questioner was a member.

We have raised this issue and brought it to the attention of the government along with many industry players and representatives.

The industry and the opposition parties do not have control of the budget that will be coming down in February. We do not know how much has been committed to other programs that are not related to agriculture. We do not know where the government will be able to get that money by repriorizing its spending. Heaven knows, it may even raise taxes. Who knows what it will do?

The fact is that no one can tell the government what to do in its next budget. We can suggest, but it is up to the government to come up with solutions in its budget and to repriorize its spending toward agriculture.

[Supply, November 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time.

As the chief critic for the Reform Party on agriculture I find it a pleasure to be here today to speak on this Reform supply day motion dealing with the income crisis currently occurring in Canada.

We found it necessary to bring this supply motion forward and to bring a motion forward in the agriculture standing committee to move the government along on this issue and recognize there is a problem today and that it will be even worse in the future. There is every indication that the government was not prepared to take any immediate action to deal with this problem and was looking down the road that maybe it would solve itself.

I would like to make a correction to what has been going on in the House. A number of members on the government side have repeatedly stated that we have raised this issue simply as a western crisis. We well know that when one sector of the agriculture economy goes into a crisis situation on the income side that it is not too long until a major portion of the Canadian economy follows suit.

I refer directly back to the comments by the member for Calgary Southwest. He said we recognize that there is a Canadian income crisis which is why we have raised this debate today. Politics has to take a back seat to the issue facing people today.

Many farmers even when they are making a profit are not in the rich and wealthy category. We have heard the same story today as we have heard in the House in past weeks, the same reasons why the government feels it did not have to really do anything. It was kind of along the idea that the global market has failed us, the farm income crisis is due to the Asian flu or the Russian economy going down the tubes. It is just a cycle.

Also we have heard that NISA and crop insurance will address all the problems. That is just not the case and I have noted the government is moving along the road to admitting that there is a major problem and that something has to be done. Tomorrow the agriculture ministers are appearing in Ottawa from across the country and that will help move this issue along further.

If the government is sincere about ensuring the future of agriculture it will have to take the actions required so that a farmer does not need two or three jobs off the farm. The minister of agriculture has made comments to the effect that the farm economy goes up and down and suggested that farmers look for some outside source of income. A viable agriculture operator and his family cannot be put under greater stress by getting a job to supplement his farm income when it is not sufficient for him to make a living.

That suggestion is fine for the small farmer who maybe has only a few acres or is only part time farmer at best, but it certainly cannot be applied to our commercial farmers. The government has to create an environment which producers can make an adequate living from farming. I believe that we are debating this issue today because the government has failed to do its job over the past 30 years without going into a long history of 100 years ago.

A government needs the foresight to look down the road and have in place programs and policies that enable a vital industry like agriculture to continue through the good and bad times that are always coming along. I do not just fault the Liberal government on this. The Conservative government shared in that past.

I remember back in 1970 when wheat was $1 a bushel in Interlake and Manitoba.

The few people who would buy it tried putting it through livestock and that soon went down the tubes also.

We have had this before and somehow, someday a government has to put in place programs and policies that will ensure farmers carry through when the next downturn comes along. That opportunity is now available to this government and that is where the farming industry is looking for solutions.

The priorities of this government also need to be examined. Education and health are major issues and major programs that have to be fully funded and cared for. These should be at the top level of this government's next budget. In addition, agriculture should be added as a top level area to be addressed in the next budget.

Some of the examples of misguided priorities have probably been examined here today. They include the spending with regard to the Firearms Act. I would be surprised if my friend from Yorkton—Melville did not mention that. But $330 million going into a program that will not do any good shows a misguided attempt to priorize government spending to an area that will buy votes in some sectors of the country, big cities perhaps, but it will not do anything effective for the country.

There is a lot of money in many parts of government departments similar to that wasteful spending that could be marshalled to be used to deal with the crisis before us.

We have had several speakers from the different parties and I note that our friends to the left, the NDP, are singing along the lines of $1 billion here or $1 billion there. That is not the solution to this crisis or the long term crisis. The Conservative Party has been repeating some of the same things and I find that disappointing also.

The minister has stated this government has frozen user fees for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. What about eliminating that agency? What about a corresponding reduction in income taxes? What about the cost recovery programs of the Canadian grain commission? What about pilot fees on the Great Lakes? Will the minister commit to eliminating these costs today?

In short, we have to create an environment with a viable farming community and we must reduce the cost of government to enable us to do that.

I end with an analogy. We had the famous Prime Minister batter situation arise and I think the Prime Minister is really more of a pitcher. The pitcher is supposed to be the leader of the team. He has the ball in his hands and it is up to him to throw that ball and make the next action, address the issue in front of him.

If this pitcher, this little guy from Shawinigan, throws the next baseball into the dirt on this issue, the taxpaying farmers of Canada, along with many other taxpayers, will soon recall him from the team and probably bring in a reliever.

[Aboriginal Affairs, October 29th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to tell the House and the Canadian people about the beginnings of a new grassroots organization. The purpose of this organization is to enhance democracy, the cornerstone of any society where all members are treated equitably.

These people see their elected officials abusing their authority, conducting elections with serious irregularities and becoming wealthy on moneys that were meant to be equally shared in the community. I am talking about the First Nations Accountability Coalition of Manitoba which is associated with like organizations in Saskatchewan and Alberta.

On October 31 the coalition will be holding its first national grassroots accountability summit in Winnipeg, Manitoba. As host of this summit I invite everyone who is interested in aboriginal affairs to attend.

If this group is successful in effecting change, today's generation of aboriginal children along with future generations will be the main beneficiaries.

[Apec Inquiry, October 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister says that we are not listening to his answers over here. He says that the government has no control over this independent public complaints commission. His government appointed these people to the commission. If they are not doing their job, if they are prejudiced, it is up to him to get rid of these people and set up another inquiry.

The next commission will be headed by a judge and a judge cannot be fired once he is appointed. That is a person we want to have on the inquiry.

Will you now commit to bringing us an inquiry that is independent, headed by a judge of the Superior Court of Canada?

[Agriculture, October 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food appeared before the standing committee yesterday. This was an opportunity for him to begin to address the serious concerns of farmers today. He failed to do so.

The minister could offer no assurances to farmers that he will immediately deal with the current farm income crisis. Furthermore, he offered no guarantees to producers of grain or livestock that he has a plan to address our competitors' unfair subsidies.

The minister is looking the other way as the Europeans and Americans increase their subsidies. New subsidies further drive down world prices while ensuring that our competitors' farmers will survive the commodity price collapse.

The next budget must contain provisions that will help our farmers through the crisis. It is very disturbing that the minister has not offered assurances that he will stand up for them within cabinet. All the minister has to offer is more meetings and more talk.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, October 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I support the member for Portage—Lisgar in putting forward Bill C-283.

I would like to clarify the position of the Reform Party and myself with regard to the Canadian Wheat Board. We support the Canadian Wheat Board in its operation as a voluntary marketing agency. That should clarify NDP and Liberal statements which say that we are dead against it.

The member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia said that the Canadian Wheat Board is a competitor on the world stage. This competitor has to have the trust of the producers who supply it with product. That is where the current Canadian Wheat Board, with its single desk selling, falls down: basic trust.

The position of the Canadian Wheat Board, which is in essence the position of the current government due to the fact that it appoints so many people to the Canadian Wheat Board, is that it needs to keep prices, contracts and other assorted information secret. That may very well be true. Certainly Cargill, ADM, Sask Pool and the other big grain companies would also want to keep some of the information secret. The wheat board says that if it did not keep it secret it would not be able to extract premiums from the marketplace.

This is where the distrust comes in. How does the farmer know that in fact the premium is being extracted? This is where the socialist-type politicians represented by the NDP and the Liberals differ from myself and the Reform Party. We say that if the farmer wants to determine where the best price is, he goes to Cargill, he goes to the Canadian Wheat Board, he goes to UGG, he goes to Sask Pool and AgriCorp and they start giving him prices. “I will give you $4 for your wheat. I will give you $4.50. I will give you $4.75” and so on.

The farmer is no dummy. He is going to take the highest price. He does not need to know that the premium was extracted in Korea for instance. The point we have to make here is the information this bill would bring out would be a first step in attempting to get information so that farmers would trust the Canadian Wheat Board.

In the little time I have remaining I would like to comment on the Canadian Wheat Board elections that are coming up in a very short time. In the latest information we see that 33 of the 65 candidates are running on a voluntary wheat board platform. We will see that the vote will also reflect in an unofficial way a referendum on the support for a voluntary marketing board for Canadian wheat and barley. At the present time a price of 86 cents a bushel is being received in the west. That is clearly not good enough. Farmers need a choice.

With that I await the day when we have a voluntary wheat board and farmers can market their grain where they want.

[Agriculture, October 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, many Canadian farmers are worried that they will not be able to feed their families or keep their farms. Farm commodity prices have collapsed and many farmers' 1998 income will only be 25% of what it was two years ago. Yet the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and this government continue to say “Don't worry”.

This government refuses to acknowledge that there is a problem. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food continues to state that the net income stabilization account will be sufficient to address producers' concerns. The minister must know that NISA accounts will not even cover farm expenses. We must begin to discuss solutions to this emergency today. We cannot afford to wait until producers are forced off the land.

I call on the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to admit the problem and admit that his safety net program is inadequate to deal with this crisis. I call on this minister to sit down and discuss real solutions to the emergency. The minister can start tomorrow when we start considering international trade issues at the agriculture committee.