Allan Kerpan

[Oceans Act, September 26th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite and his remarks. The question I would have for him if I were allowed to give one would be: What about the issue of MPs pensions? Were the people consulted on that?

When I look at things such as this bill we are talking about today and the gun registration bill which was mentioned earlier today, I would ask the member opposite if he really, truly and sincerely believes that full consultation went on throughout all departments with this government. Perhaps he should go out on the street-and I would be happy to accompany him-and ask the people if they have been consulted on Bill C-98, on Bill C-68 and on Bill C-85. I rest my case.

[Oceans Act, September 26th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, this government always amazes me. I remember very well right after the 1993 election one of the highlights mentioned throughout the media was that this government would be more open to consulting people involved in any particular industry when it was building policy.

There is case after case. For example when agriculture policy is made no farmers are consulted. When justice policy is made no policemen are consulted. The Minister of Justice talks well and long about how he consulted with the chiefs of police. That is a very small group. I am wondering why this government which talked a good game at the beginning of 1994 has suddenly gone back on those initial words.

I see the very same thing in this department. The parliamentary secretary talks about consulting the people. I have just come back from a trip to St. John's, Newfoundland. I had the opportunity to speak to some fisher people, as the politically correct term would be. I asked them exactly those questions. I found during my visit that the two biggest concerns the fish industry has are that there is far too much government, far too much bureaucracy, far too much red tape and that the ordinary common every day fisherperson is not consulted on policy making.

[Oceans Act, September 26th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, for two years now the Liberal government has presented legislation it says will make government more streamlined, more responsive and more responsible to Canadians. Its comments have been merely smoke and mirrors. I am sad to say Bill C-98, an act respecting the oceans of Canada, is another example of the government's saying one thing and doing another.

The government told Canadians its changes to the Young Offenders Act would raise ultra-violent youth to adult court and that this action would give 16 and 17-year old cold blooded murderers sentences equal to their heinous crimes. The government's statements were not equal to the realities of the bill.

The government has made numerous statements that Bill C-98 will end duplication, bring control of Canada's traditional fishing grounds on the open sea into Parliament and ensure the success of fisheries. Again we have statements which do not match the realities of the legislation.

How can the fisheries be successful when the government intends to tax them to death? The government tells Canadians we on this side of the House do not understand the problems of the east coast. We understand all problems facing Canadians better than the government.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans bored himself a place at the trough by accepting his gold plated, self-imposed pension. Now the minister wants to pay for his pension on the backs of the fisheries, an area where it is impossible for those Canadians to bear the brunt of an already unbearable tax burden.

The Liberal government claims the bill will end duplication and provide efficient operation through the oceans management strategy. Again we have a catch phrase for media consumption which has no bearing on the realities of the bill.

Bill C-98 suggests all government bodies co-ordinate their activities relating to the oceans surrounding Canada. Nowhere in the bill does it state that all government bodies dealing with oceans must co-ordinate their functions. There are no penalties, consequences or even government scrutiny for any departments which refuse to end duplication.

In effect, the bill will create even more bureaucracy. How does the government intend to pay for this new bureaucratic nightmare? The government will raise licensing fees for fishermen. That is the tax I have been talking about. Not only that, it will increase the fees to such an extent that family oriented fishing boats or small fishing groups will be put out of business.

It is either absolute and utter ignorance of the reality on the east coast that the minister does not understand or it is total disregard for the east coast fishery, large and small.

To the minister it seems as long as his pockets are full and his future is assured he does not care about those he is supposed to be helping. The government gives itself all the power to set fees through orders in council.

Parliament is bypassed once more as the body that decides issues for Canadians. This proposed new tax will punish those who have finally achieved a harvest worthy of their effects.

Just as a previous Liberal government crippled the western Canadian economy by placing punitive taxes in place for the oil industry, this government now intends to place punitive taxes on fishermen who do not manage to get a decent catch.

If fishermen obtain a catch large enough to cover their bills, large enough to give them a decent living once again from the ocean, those members opposite intend to raise their fees to the point at which fishermen will be simply taxed out of business.

The east coast fishery has had enough hard luck and has had enough businesses driven to extinction through failed government management of the fisheries without having government finally drive the last nail in the coffin by higher and higher taxes. Of some

of these smaller and medium fishermen the government will demand tax increases as high as 400 per cent over current levels.

We from the west understand the social disintegration and punitive taxation imposed by an uncaring federal government and what that can create. We from the west know how punitive taxation can cause breakdowns of marriages, losses of homes and an increase in alcoholism, suicide, bankruptcies and affect many other social programs. If the bill is passed the east coast will experience the same.

U-Hauls behind cars driven by grim faced drivers will proceed like caravans down east coast highways as those forced from their homes seek employment in other areas of the country.

As Canadians trying desperately to keep their families and homes together on the east coast know, times are hard enough without the government making it worse.

I oppose the bill not because of what the government says it does but because it does not do what it says it will. The bill will give cabinet dictatorial powers and remove the elected representatives chosen by the people of Canada from that decision making process. The bill will continue a policy adopted by the Prime Minister that elected representatives must not be responsible for their constituents.

The Prime Minister stated that members of his party who support their constituents and not decrees from the top will not get their nomination papers signed or will be punished in other ways.

We have already seen these threats in practice when some members who followed constituent wishes were removed from their committee posts. The bill will give the cabinet even more power to punish the east coast representatives of its party who vote the wishes of their constituents and not the wishes of the ministers' inner circle.

The bill will not consolidate the operations of various government departments related to the fisheries or oceans but instead will allow another level of bureaucracy to be formed.

It is very clear the government has no desire to reduce the taxation load on all Canadians by bringing in efficiencies in any department. The minister is probably the worst offender.

Canadians are tired of larger and larger government taking more and more money from their pockets. The justice minister recently appointed 11 supporters, failed candidates and fundraisers to taxpayer funded posts within his department.

Liberals love larger bureaucracy because that gives them places to appoint people at taxpayers' expense, while this bill will create another bureaucracy for the government to fill patronage appointment positions.

We agree fisheries and oceans should have jurisdiction over the coast guard and marine science but only if it will save money by ending duplication. The bill simply will not do that.

We agree that small and medium size fisheries are the lifeblood of many east coast families. The bill will create punitive taxation that will destroy their very livelihood which the government states it will defend.

Under those circumstances the members opposite elected to represent constituents dependant on the fishery to survive absolutely must vote no. All decisions on future actions, be they fee increases or regulation, will be enacted by special interest participation with cabinet and not Parliament.

Special interests will dominate environment discussions relating to fisheries or oceans and paralyse realistic growth or use of fishery or development of ocean related industry. Just as they have with issues relating to realistic and safe development within Canada's borders, special interests will again have the ear of the minister.

Here is an example of how special interests have held up needed expansion in the country. I am thinking of the TransCanada highway through Banff that had been planned and put off for years even though study after study said the twinning of the highway could be done with more than adequate concern for large animals ranging throughout Banff. Thankfully this type of process has come to an end and that twinning will commence. However, many serious injuries and possibly needless deaths of motorists have occurred because government would not listen to the voice of reason and preferred to hear the voices of special interest groups.

Even a study by Parks Canada officials said the improvements could be done on this stretch of road without harm to the environment. However, it was not until the government lost two frivolous court cases that were only instituted to appeal the special interests having the government's ear did the harassment stop.

How long will needed projects, realistic economic development and opportunities to enhance the lives of those living near the oceans be delayed? The bill would impose a duty on the minister to collaborate with all interested persons.

I cannot support the bill. With all honesty I do not see how any member whose constituents depend on the ocean for their livelihood can support the bill. I am certain those members opposite will be told they must vote according to the decree of the few and not according to the wishes of many. That is the saddest point of all.

[Petitions, June 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 51 constituents in full support of the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly powers with relation to marketing wheat and barley for export.

[Petitions, June 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have a further petition signed by 200 constituents who pray that Parliament target for all gun control in the Criminal Code of Canada the criminals who are either a danger to the safety of the public or those who have a criminal intent, not law-abiding, responsible firearms owners.

[Petitions, June 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I also table the wishes of 96 people who humbly pray that Parliament not amend the human rights code to include in the prohibitive grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.

[Petitions, June 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have five petitions to present today.

The first two petitions are signed by 77 people who 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.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, June 8th, 1995]

It is the very same with organic grain.

I think about these examples and wonder where the common sense is in this organization. I see none. Those are the things that have to change if we are going to move into the next century.

Farmers must be allowed to decide on the purchase of wheat and other grains on either a cash basis or a pooled initial final price basis, implementing special opting out provisions for entrepreneurs interested in developing niche export markets. Again, I relate to what I said before about the small town flour mills and also extending fixed price and guaranteed delivery producer contracts.

The second principle on which we must build our new marketing system is transportation reform. Canadian agricultural products should move to market by any expeditious mode, on any route and in any form or state of processing based exclusive-

ly on the principle of cost effectiveness and with the best interests of the customer in mind.

As I mentioned at the outset of my remarks, there has been some debate in this Chamber today about labour problems, labour tie-ups and transportation problems of all types for agricultural products certainly from my province of Saskatchewan. I think back to alternate methods of transportation and routes. If there are the types of labour disputes and tie-ups we have seen over the past number of years and if it is feasible in a cost effective way, what is wrong with hauling our products somewhere else, perhaps through the United States?

We believe major reforms are still needed in the Canadian Wheat Board system of marketing our very most valuable product, food. Bill C-92 does not go anywhere near far enough. Comparative advantage must be the primary principle behind decisions about what farmers produce, how they market and how they transport.

I assure members we on this side of the House will keep working toward this end.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, June 8th, 1995]

I use the term loosely. That is absolutely right.

My colleague from Saskatoon-Dundurn has indicated on numerous occasions that Reformers were not in the House on that particular Sunday to vote. Whether or not that is the truth is irrelevant. Less than a week before that, we had put before this House private members' legislation that would have prevented this. There would have been no need for anyone to be here on that Sunday. It is ludicrous. It is a ridiculous argument and I am ashamed that someone would bring that up before this House.

I want to get to the business before the House today, Bill C-92, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act. It aims to change the pooling system of the Canadian Wheat Board in order to respond to new market conditions.

Rapidly changing market conditions is the greatest factor affecting the agricultural sector today. There is no question about that. The reality is we live in a modern knowledge based, technologically equipped and economically linked world. This presents many new opportunities for farmers and agri-businesses. It presents opportunities for policy makers and legislators. It presents opportunities for grain companies, farm groups and transportation companies as well. Coupled with the rapidly changing new world of markets, there are two other factors.

The agriculture industry is unique in that we produce a basic and unchanging product for which there will always be a demand, that is food. With a growing world population that is expected to reach 10 billion people by the year 2050, the demand for our products will expand tremendously. This commodity of food that we produce is essential to the life and health of all of us. Our daily bread is the most basic need we have. We have a product for which there will always be a market.

The agriculture industry therefore is a primary resource industry in full transition attempting to keep up with an expanding market and hoping to take full advantage of the opportunities that it presents. We have a good product and we have a market. We must adjust to and take full advantage of these new opportunities. We must be prepared to do this quickly. We must learn to anticipate what the future holds for us and seek to prepare ourselves for it.

All of the stakeholders, the farmers, the processors, the transporters, the marketers, the policy makers, must work in a co-operative way to ensure that we make the transition from the old realities to the new realities in as an effective and efficient way as is humanly possible.

I am pleased this bill is before us today. It is essentially tabled as a response to an expanding and changing market. We will no doubt get into the details of this bill but basically the bill is in response to the fact that our grain products are moving to new markets. When this happens, we need to change our system and our policies in order to respond to those new markets.

More specifically, this bill responds to the fact that in recent times our grain has become more in demand in the Pacific rim countries; more is therefore having to be transported across the Pacific instead of the Atlantic. This change in international market patterns has a direct effect upon our internal shipping ports and our internal transportation system.

Historically western Canadian grain producers have shared some of the costs of shipping grain to our ports. We call this a pooling system. It was established as a simple attempt to distribute the benefits and the costs of our grain industry as equally as possible among all the producers. I want to comment on this principle of benefit and cost sharing in a moment but first, let me speak briefly about the changes in our current pooling system that the new world of markets is causing.

The ports western grain farmers have traditionally used for overseas shipments are Vancouver and Thunder Bay. This is because the world market value of grain in store at these two locations, one going east and the other going west, was effectively the very same. The market demand on the other side of both oceans was about equal, but with larger markets emerging on the other side of the Pacific Ocean, the world market value of grain in Vancouver has increased beyond that which is in Thunder Bay.

To adjust to this new market reality and to keep our grain pooling system intact and fair, it is necessary to move the eastern point of departure from Thunder Bay to ports further east, those along the lower St. Lawrence River. In practical terms, this means that the farmers in Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan who ship their grain east to an export position at Thunder Bay will now have to absorb the cost of getting their grain to the further eastern ports along the lower St. Lawrence.

For years now farmers in the western prairies have seen the use of Thunder Bay as the Canadian Wheat Board's eastern point

of departure for export sales as adding unfairly to their share of the cost of pooling. Farmers in the eastern part of the prairies have recognized this. In other words, it has been apparent that there was some anomaly and some unfairness in the pooling system.

Eastern prairie farmers under Bill C-92 will now have to pay the higher costs of the movement of their grain to the further eastern ports. They have asked for transition assistance to offset these higher costs. The government announced that partial compensation will be provided to these farmers from the $300 million WGTA adjustment fund. It is meant to facilitate the transition to a deregulated system after August 1, 1995.

There are many specifics to be worked out regarding the changes in the pooling points proposed by the bill. My colleagues and I will be commenting on the specifics of those throughout committee debate, report stage and third reading debate.

How do we as farmers best respond to the changing marketplace? This has to be the basic question. Our markets are changing. Our systems that we set up to deal with old markets must be examined to see if they are adequate to take full advantage of the new markets. Are they helping or are they hindering farmers?

My colleagues and I maintain that when there are such dramatic and far reaching changes at the middle and end points of the industry process, we must go right back to the beginning of the process and examine the principles upon which we are building. This is the area of discussion that presents the most difficulty for large and old organizations such as government and government agencies. The Canadian Wheat Board definitely falls into that category.

Old governments, old parties, old agencies and institutions have difficulty with change. Large and old enterprises can become very inflexible. They take a long time to change, if they can ever change at all. Sometimes it is easier for an old institution to die rather than to change and to be reformed.

In the process of governing a country or managing a grain marketing process, that is why new parties and new institutions arise. If the older parties and institutions cannot change or are unwilling to change, if they are unwilling to re-examine themselves to see if they are doing things the best way, then they will be replaced by new enterprises and new ways of doing things. This has happened throughout the history of government in this country and in other institutions, as surely as day follows night and a new century follows an old one.

Reformers are saying that in order to meet the market challenges of a new world and a 21st century, we must talk about the underlying principles. There are two principles we believe should be the foundation for any changes that we make in our marketing and transportation systems.

Reformers believe that producer organizations, including marketing boards, commissions and co-operatives, should receive their direction from producers who should structure their organizations in any manner which they believe will best serve their interests. In consultation with producers, Reformers will seek to provide for a viable, self-reliant and market driven industry to create an environment in which producers make their own decisions as to how products are marketed.

Specifically this principle means there needs to be some changes to the Canadian Wheat Board. If we are to take full advantage of the new markets, if we are to adjust quickly to them, then we need to, we have to, it is imperative to allow for the democratization of the Canadian Wheat Board.

The present government appointment of Canadian Wheat Board commissioners must be changed to an elected board of directors chosen by producers in a fair and open election process. It is simply the only way we will move from these old dying institutions I talked about a few minutes ago to a new reformed system that is responsive to farmers, to transportation, to the markets and to the new way of doing things. At that point in time, grain producers will be asked to examine their organizational and jurisdictional options, including but not limited to introducing domestic market competition, permitting the Canadian Wheat Board to trade in grains and oilseeds currently excluded from its jurisdiction.

I can think of examples in my own riding. There is a small private flour mill. I was in to see the gentleman at Viscount about three months ago and asked him how his business was. He said it was terrible. He said he had to pay a buy back fee to the Canadian Wheat Board to buy wheat so he can make flour and sell it locally. He is not allowed to go to a neighbour or a friend to contract wheat on an individual basis. It is simply not allowed.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, June 8th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, obviously a discussion has arisen in debate in the House about some problems we have seen with regard to labour tie-ups, strikes and backups that have occurred in Canada over the past many years.

I can speak quite simply and quite plainly as a farmer. I have been involved in the farm business for some 15 to 18 years in Saskatchewan. I know firsthand the problems when there is a

labour disruption. The innocent third party always gets hurt. In this case it is the farmers, the shippers or the dehy plant people.

My colleague from Wild Rose hit the nail on the head when he said that we had a plan to prevent labour disruptions. The government across the way saw fit in its wisdom, if I may call it that, not to support the legislation.