Allan Kerpan

[Department Of Agriculture Act, October 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give my full support to the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Malpeque. When I first saw Bill C-49, that clause was certainly one of my big concerns.

Since we Reformers have come to Ottawa, we have talked a lot about accountability. Any move away from accountability would in my opinion be a mistake.

If you look at the costs of annual reports, certainly there is some increased cost. However any time you have the opportunity to hold any department, minister or any government for that matter accountable, as members of the House we should take that opportunity. We have discussed this among ourselves at the committee level. It is an amendment that we are pleased to support at this time.

[Department Of Agriculture Act, October 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find unanimous consent in the House, at report stage of this bill, for me to

propose an amendment to clause 7 of Bill C-49, an act to amend the Department of Agriculture Act.

[Agriculture, October 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, regardless of who caused the problem or whose problem it addressed, the details of this program were promised by the end of July. It is now October.

Why will the minister not stand up for farmers in his home province? Will the minister give this House today a real date for the release of this program?

[Agriculture, October 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food and his Saskatchewan counterpart agreed this past July to a new farm safety net program that would be developed to replace the GRIP.

The premier of Saskatchewan has written twice to the Prime Minister and has also telephoned him about this. When will the minister from Saskatchewan who is supposed to represent the interests of his province at the cabinet table announce the changes to this new program?

[Canada Labour Code, October 4th, 1994]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-280, an act to prevent the interruption by labour disputes of the orderly progress of grain from the farm gate to export and to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act in consequence thereof.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to seek leave to introduce a private members' bill entitled an act to prevent the interruption by labour disputes of the orderly progress of grain from the farm gate to export and to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act in consequence thereof.

The purpose of the bill is to prevent work stoppages affecting the transportation of grain from the producer to the point of export by establishing a system of arbitration of disputes by final offer selection, a mechanism that is very consistent with the collective bargaining process.

I am very pleased that several of my colleagues have formally indicated to me their support of this bill. They are the members for Lisgar-Marquette, Vegreville, Okanagan-Shuswap, Prince George-Peace River, Yorkton-Melville and Kindersley-Lloydminster.

Theirs and other members' support is greatly appreciated and will be duly and officially recognized through the proceedings of the House as it deals with the bill.

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

[Department Of Agriculture Act, September 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to that question and I thank you for the time.

Very briefly, certainly we are in what I perceive to be a global market. There is no question about it. The role of people at the committee level is that we have to develop within our own boundaries part of that policy. Certainly part of that planning has to be a developmental policy that will lead us into an even larger global economy than what we are now involved in.

It appears to me from where I sit as a member from Saskatchewan and knowing most about my home province, that farmers are telling me that without starting at square one, the grassroots, we cannot develop the global policy.

The minister probably said it best. In his opening comments he said that without a solid foundation everything else falls down. In my experience that is in fact the case. One cannot build a building with a poor foundation; it just will not stand.

It is my opinion that we have to look at an agricultural policy as if there were none at this point in time. We have to start from step one, build it within our borders, and then expand globally and internationally.

[Department Of Agriculture Act, September 23rd, 1994]

This is the direction in which the government should be going.

The third component of our vision is that we must redefine the role of the federal government, the provinces and industry in agriculture. There must be a more clear, more precise division of responsibilities.

Our party went on record in May during debate in the House on what we feel the new arrangements should be. We are doing more work on this. Experts have told us that a brand new arrangement could be made without any opening up of the Constitution. We would need to talk to each other as players and negotiate a new and better relationship but we must streamline and stop the overlap and duplication.

We propose that the provinces have the regulatory responsibility for the management of the physical resources; land, water, crops, livestock and the training and education of human resources, youth, farmers, processors, et cetera, all the players in the system. The federal government would have responsibility for trading relationships, fiscal and monetary policy and support programs that will agree with our trading agreements. The industry would be left alone to make the vast majority of decisions related to production, processing, marketing and transportation.

This arrangement needs to be fleshed out in a lot of detail. However, I sense a real momentum and a desire building in the country to get into this. I would suggest that we take the agriculture sector and work in this direction.

I want to point out to the minister of agriculture that I appreciated his opening comments and his remarks with regard to this bill. He mentioned a five point vision. I talked about a three point vision. In many ways both of those visions have a lot of similarities.

He talked about the cross-country consultation that is being planned. I ask the question: How do you do this? How do you go to the farmers in this country and get a reading of their feelings and ask their direction? It is very difficult.

I want to encourage the minister today to become involved. There is no other way that consultation like this can work without the full co-operation and the full involvement of the minister and his complete department.

The last thing that farmers need is another consultation process with a report that gets put on someone's desk, never to be looked at. In the last few months I have had the opportunity to look at such reports. Many of them were very well done. Many of them laid out plans and policies that should and could have been implemented by all governments but they were never looked at. We cannot afford that type of consultation process any more.

The minister stated in his opening remarks that the industry has changed in the last 25 years. I certainly agree with that. We need, as the minister pointed out, a common vision for farmers and consumers right across the country.

As a farmer I can remember many times my father telling me that you must be prepared. You must be ready for any eventuality and that you must leave your options open. It reminds me of going out to do a day's field work with the tractor and not having any fuel in the tractor. You may leave the yard with the best intentions in the world of doing a full day's work, but an hour later you run out of fuel and your mission cannot be accomplished. It is simply impossible.

We must drive into the next century and not be pulled into it by other market forces. We must take the initiative as government and as industry and drive ourselves into the next century with good policies created and established at the grassroots level.

In closing I go on record again as saying that the Reform Party is most happy, most ready and most willing to co-operate with the government to build that policy. Hopefully together we can develop a policy that is good, that is right, and that is something farmers want for the next century.

[Department Of Agriculture Act, September 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, at first glance one would look at this bill and pass it off merely as simple housekeeping. Certainly as a Reform member I am in favour of any bill that would streamline and make this department more efficient.

However a couple of aspects of this legislation give me some concern. First, there is a new section on inspection services. It states: "The minister may designate any person as an inspector for the purpose of providing the inspection services that the minister considers necessary for the enforcement of any act of which the minister has any powers, duties or functions".

I certainly have some questions about this. Does this create another level of inspection police in Canada? For example, will this give the minister, through an appointed inspector, the latitude to enforce any laws in his jurisdiction of agriculture?

The second aspect is the repeal of section 6 which currently states: "The minister shall cause to be laid before each House of Parliament not later than the fifth sitting day of that House after January 31 next, following the end of the fiscal year a report showing the operations of the department for that fiscal year".

The questions I have in that area are, first, how much will it save? If it could save significant dollars I would be the first to admit that I am in favour of that. Second, will the standing committee be able to examine fully the report given by the minister without it being laid on the table in the House?

Forces in the world today may radically change the way agri-business is carried on. New trade deals, safety nets, farm debt, to name but a few, will drastically alter agri-business over the next few years. We have a great opportunity here. Rather than just do a facelift on the department by giving it a new name, why does the government and the minister not sit down and do a major overhaul from the ground up?

We are prepared to help in this process but not in the fashion that has been suggested. Let all of us in the House, especially including the minister, go back to square one and develop policy that has been built from the grassroots.

I believe we must do more than just tinker with an agriculture bill and change the department's name. We are facing a crucial time of rapid change: on our farms, in our support business and in both levels of government and their responsibilities regarding agriculture. We are at a time of change, perhaps greater than the dominion land settlement and the emergency action taken during the great depression. We know what the current changes are. They are global trade arrangements. They are new markets. They are new biotechnology. They are less government money. They are greater worldwide food demand. They are the need to look after our environment.

In order to meet all these challenges we must do more than just tinker. We must look at what I refer to as a reconfederation of agriculture. This is our vision. I believe this vision should have three components to it.

First, as Canadians we must encourage each other to appreciate our safe and affordable food supply more. What is more important to our daily lives than food? Yet we take our abundance of supply so much for granted. Many people in other parts of the world have had massive natural disasters or destructive military conflicts that have created food shortages and famines. Thankfully we have never suffered that in Canada.

We must appreciate our food supply more. Surely we should not only see the agri-food department in terms of statistics and figures. While the industry is only 8 per cent of GDP, what is more important in our daily lives than our daily bread?

We as leaders should be talking to people about this. This is what the minister of agriculture should be doing. I would like to see him use this upcoming Thanksgiving season to give a speech to Canadians on the blessings and the importance of a safe and abundant food supply and then to encourage his fellow legislators at all levels to make sure that we protect the resource of farming and food production. This is the first element of a vision statement.

Second, we must realize how important it is to have good legislative policy for our farmers, those who produce and process our food. The basic thing we must strive toward is to make farming profitable again. Our policies must be geared toward this.

It is discouraging to know that farmers' real net market income in 1991 was only half of what it was in 1971. On top of that farmers as well as other Canadians have faced tremendous inflation in land prices, equipment prices, building prices, et cetera. Personal income and property taxes have gone up dramatically. How can farmers survive in this economic climate? Support programs have had to compensate.

Farmers want an economic and fiscal environment in which they can make an honest buck on their own. We do not want handouts. We do not want government as a senior business partner. Get out of our pockets and get off our backs, is what farmers are saying.

[Petitions, September 21st, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I table the wishes of persons in Moose Jaw-Lake Centre who humbly pray that Parliament not amend the human rights code concerning the undefined phrase sexual orientation.

I concur wholeheartedly with each of these petitions of my constituents.

[Petitions, September 21st, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am privileged to table in the House today duly certified petitions on behalf of the constituents of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.

The first two petitions ask Parliament to enforce the present provisions of the Criminal Code respecting assisted suicides and that no changes in the law be contemplated by Parliament.