Allan Kerpan

[Canadian Wheat Board, September 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this week in question period the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food quoted both myself and the member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia.

He quoted the two of us from a CBC Radio report saying that calls to our offices showed a majority of callers wanted the CWB to retain its monopoly. That is true, but calls to one's office are hardly a scientific survey and are a country mile away from a plebiscite.

However they do indicate a high level of concern on both sides. That concern is that the minister is fiddling while the industry is

burning. He did not get the answers he wanted from his own grain marketing panel so now he is digging himself a hole like a gopher on the run.

Farmers on both sides of this issue are becoming agitated. I warn the minister that this inaction puts him at risk of losing all the good things about the CWB.

I also warn the minister of fence sitting. It is going to get hot on that part of the anatomy that meets the rail. At least Reformers are listening to what farmers are saying.

[Petitions, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present three petitions today on behalf of constituents of my riding as well as those in the province of Saskatchewan. The approximately 250 signators are opposed to term 17.

They pray and request that Parliament not amend the Constitution as requested by the Government of Newfoundland.

[Criminal Code, June 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I did not catch the entire portion of my colleague's speech. I wonder if he would tell the House the example of the gentleman from Alberta he was beginning to speak about. I think it is important that the House hear it.

[Petitions, April 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this morning I have the honour to present a petition from constituents of my riding of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre with some 225 signatures.

The petitioners humbly request that Parliament not increase the federal excise tax on gasoline in the next federal budget. Having said that, I received this petition obviously after the 1996 federal budget but I am sure they mean ever.

[Clifford Olson, April 24th, 1996]

Early release, Mr. Speaker, early release. Go out and kill 11 children, admit to it, and apply for early release under section 745 of the Criminal Code. No problem.

If the self-proclaimed beast of British Columbia or any others of his ilk ever get early release under section 745, then all Canadians will lay the blame at the feet of the Prime Minister, the justice minister and this Liberal government.

The member for Saskatoon-Dundurn who was the chairman of the justice committee and the member for Prince Albert-Churchill, who is the parliamentary secretary to the justice minister and who has Clifford Olson living in his riding, had better be prepared to answer to their constituents if Olson is released and goes on to commit another violent crime.

A final note. If Clifford Olson is released early, he will have served 1.36 years for each murder.

[Agriculture, April 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity, in the limited time we have left, to say a few words about this motion.

I have been listening for the last 50 minutes or thereabouts to what members opposite have been saying. I guess they did not understand the motion because we have been talking about two separate issues. Members opposite are talking about the merits of single desk selling versus the merits of dual marketing in the Canadian Wheat Board or some such thing. The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster simply states in his motion that the farmers, the producers, should have the right to make the decision on how they will market. We are not here to decide how it is to happen.

The member for Essex-Kent a few minutes ago questioned the ability of farmers to deal with such a complex question. As a farmer I am shocked and appalled that a member of Parliament would imply that farmers are too stupid to make a decision this important.

He says "I will make the decision for you. I know what is best for you". Farmers have been living under that system for far too long and they will no longer accept it.

Let us talk about democracy. Let us look at the history of the Canadian Wheat Board. It was established without a vote. The wheat board commissioners are appointed by government without a vote. The wheat board took barley out of the wheat board and brought it back in solely without a vote. Producers could only market their canola and other special crops outside the wheat board, without a vote.

In the 1993 election campaign the government claimed it would uphold the high principles of democracy. The minister of agriculture promised a plebiscite on barley. It is now two and a half years later and nothing has changed-without a vote.

There is no democracy in the Canadian Wheat Board. I believe there is a strong place for the Canadian Wheat Board, but by doing nothing, this producer funded board may well self-destruct from within without pressures from outside.

I support my colleague from Kindersley-Lloydminister on his motion. My only disappointment is that the government has deemed it should not be a votable motion. It has seen fit to stifle even further democracy by not allowing the House to vote on the motion, let alone allowing farmers to vote on an issue that has a tremendous impact on their destiny.

When will the government wake up and realize producers will no longer accept this kind of dictatorial attitude toward their industry?

A few weeks ago I was travelling to Moose Jaw and I heard a talk show on the radio featuring Nettie Wiebe, the president of the National Farmers Union, a strong supporter of single desk, orderly marketing. I have no problem with that.

She said this is a democracy and the majority of people should rule in a democracy. I fully support that. When has the majority had the opportunity to make a decision on these types of things?

I could go on and on about the importance. Let us keep in mind we are not talking about the value of single desk marketing versus dual marketing. We are talking only about the issue of producers having the opportunity.

[National Unity, December 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, during the 1993 election campaign the Prime Minister said: "I have the people and I have the plan". The unity debate and the Prime Minister's handling of it clearly show that he has no plan. Everything from constitutional vetoes to distinct society status has been a stumbling, fumbling exercise in futility.

The Prime Minister is telling Quebecers that his version of distinct society will make them unique and special, while at the same time he is telling the rest of Canada not to worry, that it does not really mean much. His performance reminds me of the movie "Batman Forever", with the Prime Minister playing the part of the infamous Two Face.

We must stop thinking of our country as two of this or two of that and start focusing on the truly distinct concept of equality for all Canadians.

After listening to the Prime Minister's plans to offer a constitutional veto to Quebec, then to four regions of Canada, and today to Quebec, three regions of Canada and British Columbia, he is beginning to sound more and more like The Riddler.

[Agriculture, November 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the minister and the general manager for the FCC are saying one thing and doing another. The minister has stated that the balance of the payment would be reflected in lower lease and sale agreements, yet documented cases in Saskatchewan show that FCC leases and asking prices have risen by as much as 20 per cent.

Will the minister finally take a stand on something and address this paradox before it is too late?

[Agriculture, November 23rd, 1995]

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

Last March the minister announced that he had instructed the Farm Credit Corporation to turn over the Crow payout to producers who lease land from the FCC. Last month the FCC stated that the minister's benevolent government corporation would increase the producer's share from a very generous 10 per cent up to a whopping 25 per cent.

Why did the FCC defy the minister's instructions? Farmers want to know who is in charge: the minister or his good Liberal friend and party contributor, Mr. Don Jackson?

[Agriculture, November 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, western Canadian farmers are frustrated by the manner in which the WGTA payout is being handled. The lack of direction in providing formulas for sharing of the payment by landowner and tenant producer has caused confusion, tension and in many cases bitterness at the farm gate. Farmers who have financial agreements with the Farm Credit Corporation are particularly upset with its handling of the WGTA payout.

The minister instructed the FCC in March 1995 to pass along the benefit to producers. That benefit has mysteriously shrunk over the last eight months to a whopping 25 per cent of the benefit. Their questionable rationale was that holding back 75 per cent of the benefit would result in lower lease and sale agreements. The fact is the Farm Credit Corporation lease agreements and buyback asking prices have actually increased by as much as 20 per cent.

Farmers are demanding that the agriculture minister and the Farm Credit Corporation honour their original commitment to the producers of prairie grain.