Derrek Konrad

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this standoff and shooting, the Bruce Starlight affair and the poverty on the Tsuu T'ina reserve are symptoms of ongoing problems that need a solution now.

My question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs. If she will not appoint a judge, what specific recommendations from the royal commission will be used to solve the current crisis facing people on the reserve? Will she act before the next tragedy occurs?

[Dehydration Industry, March 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, European subsidies are threatening Canadian jobs in the dehydration industry, in particular in my riding of Prince Albert where about two-thirds of Saskatchewan's capacity lies. This week I met with representatives of the Canadian Dehydrators Association who came to Ottawa because federal rail policies are killing their business.

Unfair subsidization by the European common market already creates problems for the industry. Our producers have already lost the European market due to its subsidies and now they stand to lose the Asian market as well.

In addition to the disadvantage caused by the subsidies, unreliable piecemeal rail service undermines Canada's best efforts to compete. They are not asking for subsidies, just for the freedom to compete. Canadian dehydrators want economic efficiencies to determine rail service in Canada and to ensure grains are not unduly favoured at the expense of their industry.

[Canadian Wheat Board, March 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, prairie farmers and producers will gather in Saskatoon on Thursday to tell their MPs what is wrong with the government's agricultural policies. At the Saskatchewan Forum on Agricultural Issues, hundreds of farmers will present the minister responsible for the wheat board with their grievances which include grain transportation and amendments to the wheat board act.

The Reform Party, speaking on behalf of grain farmers, has repeatedly protested the recent changes to the wheat board act, only to have our farmer driven amendments overruled. Farmers deserve a wheat board that is accountable through the Access to Information Act and is audited by the auditor general. These and other flaws in the Liberal agricultural strategy will be raised by the farmers themselves.

We invite the minister to hear these concerns as he is the only prairie based minister. We urge him to keep an open mind and to evaluate what he hears based on merit. We ask that he respond to this call for change to make the wheat board open, flexible and accountable.

[Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, March 11th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to once again speak on Bill C-6 which is of course the Mackenzie Valley land and water management act.

I would like to give a little illustration about how things are sometimes seen. A farmer observed two trains coming down one track and they ran head on into one another. It was a mighty train wreck. The investigator came out and asked him what he did about it. The farmer said that he could not do a thing about it but that he had thought about it. The investigator asked him what he had thought about. The farmer said he thought that it was a heck of a way to run a railroad.

It seems to me we have had this bill here before from the Tories and from the Liberals. It died on the Order Paper both times because it just did not seem to get the support it needed.

To state that the bill is called for everywhere and by everyone is to overstate the case. In committee we heard a lot of objections to this bill particularly from aboriginal groups who have not yet settled their land claims. The concern of the people I spoke with in the Yellowknife area was not one of water management but one of land claims negotiations. Therefore it really is not all that it seems to be.

We are opposed to the bill and have been since the beginning, even going back to its Mulroney Tory roots when it took the form of Bill C-16. We were concerned then about a growing and unaccountable bureaucracy which it creates and the set of regulations that would have arisen under it. We also planned to oppose it as Bill C-80 in the last Parliament. It was basically the same bill but it died on the Order Paper before the election.

Today more than any other reason, and there are a lot of reasons, there is one thing we disagree with. More than the big bureaucracy, which is making business developers in the north wary of investing there; more than the duplication of services that this bill would create; more than the possibility for interjurisdictional confusion; more than the opposition by the aboriginals who are still in the process of negotiating their land claims; more than the increase in the cost of compliance; more than the referral loop which many businesses are concerned they are going to get into, where it will be sent from the left side to the right side of the building, to across the street, to Ottawa, to everywhere else for referral, there is one thing we fundamentally disagree with.

What really gives us grounds to oppose the bill is that the simple amendments that were moved in committee to bring democracy into the bill were defeated by the government. We were not really asking for a great deal. We wanted to see a little democracy and accountability in the bill rather than the same old patronage system of which the old line parties are so fond.

The amendments we proposed were to provide for an election system to be put in place based on current election models to determine who would sit on the boards. In our view this was preferable to the board members being determined by the minister of Indian affairs based on criteria that are unknown and unspecified in the bill. It is interesting that many believe the unspoken criteria are linked to one's contribution, whether financial or other, to the government party.

Bill C-6 creates three new board levels: a five-member land use planning board in the Gwich'in and Sahtu settlement areas; a Mackenzie Valley land and water board, subject to the creation of additional panels which will have up to 17 members, including a five-member permanent regional panel in each of the settlement areas; and an eleven-member environmental impact review board for the entire Mackenzie Valley. Could it be any more simple and could it be any more bureaucratic?

The problem with these boards is that although the bill clearly establishes them, it fails to spell out criteria to be used in determining who actually sits on the boards. The whole process is closed to the people of the Mackenzie Valley which creates a big problem. When we tried to solve this problem with the democratic amendments put forward to the committee by the Reform Party they were defeated. This is unbelievable. This is a democracy. How can anybody stand up in this House and speak against any form of democracy?

Consider that time and time again we have seen problems that come out of such a system. I am not talking about democracy. I am talking about its antithesis, one person making appointments. We do not need to look very far from this Chamber to find a great example of how flawed this patronage system is. Everyone here knows what I am referring to. A supreme example of patronage in this country is the Senate.

Last June the people of Canada went to the polls after they heard what the candidates for Parliament had to say. They went to the polls and elected members to this House, which constitutes half of the Government of Canada, just half. Millions of Canadians exercise their democratic right to elect just half of Parliament. In contrast, there is one man, the Prime Minister, who appoints the entire other half. We just saw that happen.

Who gets there and what has been the result? With respect to those senators who do serve with good motives and intentions, how well have Canadians been represented by our non-elected friends such as Andrew Thompson? These people vote the party line because they are appointed by one man, the head of the governing party. How dedicated to the people do you have to be when you are not accountable to the electorate but are only accountable to the person who appointed you? It must be quite something. I do not think any of us here could imagine such a thing, since we are not accountable to one person, we are accountable to our constituents.

Why do we allow it to go on? Why do we implement new ways of promoting this old and ineffective way of doing things as we are doing with Bill C-6? That is what I would like to know. I am sure that is what Canadians would like to know and I am sure that is what many people in the Northwest Territories still want to know. The way I see it, the boards being created under Bill C-6 are nothing but mini senates, except that these boards are appointed by the minister of Indian affairs instead of the Prime Minister.

The other negative effect that comes out of this system is that it may create racial tensions in the Mackenzie Valley. Will the members the minister appoints to the board fit into specific categories of people? It seems they would either have to be natives or government officials.

What about the other residents of the Mackenzie Valley? Will they not have a say? We think this is wrong and that it could have been solved through free elections for these boards.

We are not opposed to the goals of this legislation. On the contrary, we think the intentions of Bill C-6 are good. We do need to protect the environment. It is just that this is such an awkward way to try to achieve it. Bill C-6 was originally supposed to simplify a land claim settlement agreement. It was not a land and water management act. That is why there is such a concern.

In light of what I have said here today and in light of the understanding of myself and the Reform Party of democratic accountability, I am opposed to this legislation.

[Canada-Yukon Oil And Gas Accord Implementation Act, March 11th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to speak to this bill which is an important piece of legislation particularly to the development of the Yukon Territory and its people. It is also a pleasure to have a piece of legislation before the House that we can support and not have to amend greatly.

I will explain why the Reform Party is supporting this bill and the few flaws we see with it. Although we support the general direction of this bill, it remains far from what really needs to be done in the territories.

As we know, northern Canada and Yukon are areas of our land where there is high unemployment and poverty which is a big problem not only there but to Canada as a whole. For these regions control over oil and gas exploration is the key to economic well-being. Therefore Bill C-8 is important for the economic future of the Yukon Territory.

Bill C-8 gives the Yukon Territory administrative and legislative control over oil and gas in the Yukon Territory. In other words, this is a devolution of powers from the federal government to the Yukon government, and that is a good thing.

The Reform Party believes those powers are best exercised in the hands of the government nearest to the people instead of in the hands of some bureaucrats in Ottawa who are far removed from the consequences of the decisions they make.

We can generally say that the Reform Party believes that any move toward devolution of powers from the federal government to the provinces or territories is a positive development.

We are opposed to big, heavy bureaucratic central government and would eventually like to see the territories as full participants in Confederation with province like status.

The Reform Party also believes that the territories should have the same powers as the provinces and that all provinces should have equal powers with no special status for any.

We all know this is clearly not the case at this time, but we are committed to this important and fundamental principle of equality.

Therefore on the grounds of devolution of power which brings the government closer to the people and moving toward giving Yukon the right to achieve full province status, we are supporting this bill.

We also support Bill C-8 because it has the support of the people of Yukon. Consultation on the bill was done and Yukoners stated they wanted control of their oil and gas.

Because of those consultations and the universal support for devolution of powers expressed we are in support. The people of the Yukon Territory have made an important step forward in the development into a province with this bill. The Reform Party supports them in this effort.

While we are supportive of this legislation, there are a few provisions in the bill that we remain concerned with. First of all, in this bill the government has the right to take back administrative and legislative powers that it gives to Yukon in the event of a national emergency or in the case of an aboriginal land claim settlement.

This House hardly needs to be reminded of what occurred in the west the last time there was a so-called national emergency with respect to natural gas and petroleum. We had the national energy program and the petroleum gas and revenue tax.

These types of things should not happen again in this country where one part of the country is expected to subsidize the rest of the nation over some situation like that. That seems somewhat counterproductive. Needless to say, it seems really counterproductive to have that in there.

There are still many first nations in Yukon that have not settled their land claim agreements yet, even though the government has been promising rapid conclusion of these land claims for years.

An investor planning to set up shop in Yukon knows that from one day to the next they could suffer a loss because this federal government might have to settle a land claim or take back resources, or that type of thing. How anxious would they be to make an investment there? I doubt whether they would be willing to put very much money in, certainly not the millions of dollars it takes to begin oil and gas exploration. They want guarantees of stability when they make investments.

I would like to take this opportunity to urge the government to resolve land claims as quickly as possible and to obtain the full and meaningful participation by the Yukon government. Do not exclude it. Get this done with so that there will be stability in Yukon.

In recognition of the unique situation in the north, I agree that it is important that this legislation respect aboriginal land claims and settlement rights. It is also important that the legislation does not diminish aboriginal treaty rights or conflict with existing wildlife, environmental and land management legislation under the Constitution Act, 1982.

The issue, however, is not so much the protection of aboriginal rights as it is an issue of heavy handed control by the federal government. If the government were to settle a land claim in any of the 10 provinces, the provincial government would certainly take an active role in the negotiating process.

If the government is committed to giving Yukon province like powers, as it seems to be attempting in this bill, it should also give the territory the same negotiating powers in the settlement of aboriginal land claims as the provinces have.

Why would the government withhold the same negotiating power from the Yukon government? It is a question to be considered by the government and by all members of this House.

While the federal government protects the interests of aboriginal people in Yukon, the territorial government would have the opportunity to protect the interests of all residents in the Yukon Territory, regardless of whether they were native or non-native.

On that note I would like to reiterate the Reform Party's commitment to equality. In order for Canada to function as a nation, the territories should have similar powers to the provinces and the provinces should have access to powers available to all others.

This Liberal government should be decreasing federal powers not only over Yukon oil and gas but also in other areas to work toward empowering territories.

[Saskatchewan Winter Games, February 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise with considerable pride to speak about a set of games that are taking place in my hometown of Nipawin, Saskatchewan.

Nipawin is hosting the Saskatchewan winter games with athletes from all over the province competing. What makes these games remarkable is the gold medal performance of Nipawin itself.

While Nipawin is a town of only 4,800 people, there are 1,800 athletes, trainers and managers in town for the games, and an incredible 2,100 volunteers from Nipawin and area working in all facets of the games.

We look forward to some of the athletes competing this week to step up to the Olympic standard and carry on in the great Saskatchewan tradition of gold medalists Sandra Schmirler and her team, Catriona LeMay Doan, and silver medalist coach Shannon Miller from Melfort which is in my riding.

Way to go Nipawin. Way to go Saskatchewan athletes. Go for the gold.

[Canada Labour Code, February 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will speak rather specifically and I do not know whether the member will want to respond.

Over the years a number of things have happened in the transportation industry. The statutory freight rate was dropped and rail line abandonments are taking place. All of this was supposed to help western diversification. People were supposed to begin processing agricultural products inland to reduce some shipping charges or things like that. These kinds of things now take place, but under the current regime the things that are protected at port are the unprocessed agricultural products like grain.

My riding happens to have a number of dehy plants. Their concern is that their products are not protected under legislation like this. They ship their products out to the coast. Grain shipments are protected but we are talking about all farm income, not just the grain portion of it.

This legislation is deficient in this regard. It does not really protect farmers' interests the way it is meant to. It protects the grain industry, but it does not necessarily protect the agricultural industry. Small shippers will be left vulnerable because the government would be under pressure to deal with the strike where grains are concerned but it would not be under any pressure to seek a resolution for the smaller shippers like agricultural dehy plants.

I would like to bring that to the attention of the House. Not everything fits into broad definitions. Consequently we need a mechanism that will protect everybody. I believe that the final offer arbitration selection process is the way to go, aside from having to have an exception or something written into every piece of legislation, such as the grain transportation act and things like that.

I would like to see the House seriously consider what our hon. member is proposing.

[Aboriginal Affairs, February 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's so-called investigation is starting to look a lot more like an exercise in damage control than a true fact finding mission. Indians on reserves everywhere want to know when this investigation will be completed.

Will she release a report in the House by the end of the week or will this drag on and be swept under the rug?

[Aboriginal Affairs, February 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, grassroots Indians need to know that they can write to their minister in confidence about problems they are having. By leaking Bruce Starlight's letter back to a chief with strong Liberal connections, the minister seriously eroded the trust between her office and grassroots Indians.

Four weeks ago the minister appointed a bureaucrat to look into the leak. We still have not heard back from the investigator and the minister will not even tell us who it is.

How can Indians trust her so-called investigator when they do not even know who it is? Why will the minister not tell us the name?

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak on the proposed amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act, Bill C-4. We are addressing today the Group No. 4 amendments intended to give farmers, the owners of the means of production, their land and machinery, and who would like to be the owners of the produce, an opportunity to control the only marketing organization available to them, the Canadian Wheat Board.

The government would have us believe that every farmer in western Canada is clamouring to get into the monopolistic Canadian Wheat Board organization and that farmers are all pleading for the Canadian Wheat Board to maintain total marketing control. It would also have this House believe that farmers want the federal government to maintain control of the wheat board through the appointment of the president and four of the directors. Farmers have not been heard on the issue of farmer control.

I would like to recount one farmer's story in this House so that members will know how some farmers view this legislation. Mr. Russ Torkelson from the Weyburn area has opted out in the only way he can opt out. He no longer grows any Canadian Wheat Board crops on his approximately 4,000 acre farm.

Why did Mr. Torkelson opt out of the Canadian What Board system? He is unable to manage his risk and his risk is significant. Nothing is known when a farmer puts a crop in the ground about the price they are going to get under the wheat board system, but they know all about the input costs. They range from $65 an acre to $100 or $105 an acre. It averages out at about $80 an acre. We can see what this means to a man who has 4,000 acres of farmland. The cash cost of his input is $80 an acre. That does not include the cost of machinery, buildings, taxes or maintenance. What it does cover are simple things like seed, fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides and fuel.

When the wheat board was operating as it should 30 or 40 years ago farmers did not need all the fertilizers they need now. The nutrients in the land have been depleted and farmers have to put it back in. It is an added input cost. It does not seem to have its way to the Canadian Wheat Board that these things need to be paid for, but the farmers are paying every time they put a crop in the ground.

What does a farmer yield? About 20 to 25 bushels an acre. They need a significant return on their investment. They cannot afford to have uncertainties beyond the things they cannot control, which ought not to include the price farmers get for wheat. The uncertainties should be the weather and infestations of pests and things of that nature. They certainly should not have the unknown of the price they can expect to get. What other business in Canada operates under those circumstances where a person provides a good or a service and has no idea what he will get in return? Farmers have precious little control over it in that the government says who is going to be on the board.

What does Mr. Torkelson do when he grows his non-Canadian Wheat Board crops, which include oats, canola, flax, lentils, canary seed and things of that nature? By the way, those crops are subject to be taken under the control of the Canadian Wheat Board which will give him even less control over his costs.

How does he market his crops when the Canadian Wheat Board is not involved? He spends his entire winter getting into the markets in Chicago and Winnipeg. He is fully wired in. He is on line. He spent the time from last fall when he took the crops off until now locking in next year's crops. That is the way he manages his risks.

Who knows what a wheat board which takes no risk is doing? If the risk belongs to the farmer, he must be able to manage it through an open and fully accountable board of directors. It should not be a board of directors which is set up by the government for the government.

When a farmer grows wheat he has no control over basis costs. These are set by the grain commission and frequently they have no basis in reality. What is a basis cost? It is the transportation cost after delivery. The crops may not ever have left the farm if the farmer is working with a buyback system, but basis costs apply. That does not make sense to Mr. Torkelson.

Working outside the Canadian Wheat Board, Mr. Torkelson is able to negotiate his own basis costs, which have been lower than Canadian Wheat Board crop basis costs. This year on flax alone his costs were one-tenth of those set by the Canadian Wheat Board. The rest goes into his pocket until the government taxes it back.

What else can he do outside the Canadian Wheat Board? He can lock a price in with a broker from Winnipeg or Chicago independently. There is a risk involved, but it is the owner's risk. He takes the chance. He already took a risk putting the crop in the ground. He is taking a risk selling it. It is his land, his machinery, his crop, his choice, his risk. He feels that if producers had control of the Canadian Wheat Board, as proposed by the Reform Party, it could be an effective selling agent for western farmers. However, as it is, he opts out.

Mr. Torkelson competes successfully in the North American grain market, in a global marketplace really, because he is on line. As it is, he and many other farmers feel that the Canadian Wheat Board and the proposed amendments fit the government and not the farmers whom the board is supposed to serve and benefit by getting the best price, not orderly marketing, whatever that is. These words are without much meaning, orderly marketing as opposed to getting a good price. The board does not care how it is sold but it is concerned about how much it can take to the bank.

I call on the government to adopt these Group No. 4 amendments under consideration here. Only then will farmers support the board and willingly participate in Canadian Wheat Board controlled crops.