Elwin Hermanson

[Young Offenders Act, May 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, there are specific changes which could be made quickly and easily to the Young Offenders Act. For example, the age parameters of the act could be reduced from the current 12 to 18 years to a proposed 10 to 16 years.

My colleague from New Westminister-Burnaby recently put this proposal forward in the form of an opposition motion but it was defeated by both the government and the Official Opposition.

Why is the minister reluctant to respond decisively to the demands of Canadians by immediately introducing specific amendments to the Young Offenders Act which after consultation with the House leaders could be passed before the summer recess?

[Young Offenders Act, May 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. The minister has stated on numerous occasions that amendments to the Young Offenders Act will be introduced before the summer recess. Including today, there are 21 legislative days left in this session.

Will the minister tell the House precisely when these amendments will be introduced and, even more important, when the minister expects to see them actually passed into law?

[Budget Implementation Act, May 26th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, just for clarification, if a member has spoken on unemployment insurance, would that member again be able to speak on unemployment insurance when that grouping comes before the House?

[Budget Implementation Act, May 26th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would you also clarify whether I am correct in understanding that a member may speak once to each of these areas and then not speak again? In this case would the hon. member be able to speak on compensation later on, or is he entitled to speak again to unemployment insurance, so that we are not having two swings at the same ball here?

[Budget Implementation Act, May 26th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like confirmation that we are still on part I, public sector compensation, and not on part V, unemployment insurance.

[Canada Communication Group, May 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, these comments are totally unfounded. We have an agreement with the government that it will provide us with minister's statements in a reasonable time, which is more than 90 minutes. We have had an ongoing problem with having those statements received as agreed on previously.

It is the minister's problem. It is not our problem.

[Federal Election, April 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Reformers have been telling the government for months that it is possible to do more with less.

This morning several Canadian newspapers reported how much each party paid for its seats in this House. It should come as no surprise to anyone that the party that sank the nation so deeply into a sea of red ink was the Conservatives, spending well over $10 million for two seats. That is over $5 million per seat. The NDP was also extremely wasteful, spending more than $825,000 per seat. The governing Liberals fared a little better, spending $56,000 per seat.

If the government wants to see how real fiscal responsibility is practised it should take note of the party that spent less than $1.5 million for 52 seats. That party is Reform which kept the cost per seat down to only $28,000, half of what the government spent and miles ahead of the others.

Canadian taxpayers are very concerned that much of their tax money is wasted. Federal party spending in the last election illustrates that the Reform Party would be the best stewards of taxpayers' money because the party also completed the election campaign in the black.

[Supply, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, politics is a funny business. If the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell were sitting in the opposition, I am sure his comments would be very similar to those of the hon. member from the Bloc who has been speaking on agricultural issues. It seems like the government has quite a different view now of what has happened with regard to the GATT negotiations it was involved in.

I tell the hon. member and the House that Reform reviewed the GATT situation two years ago. The same sources should have been available to the hon. member. It became very clear that article XI would become indefensible. We were quite frank and honest in admitting that.

At the same time hon. members on the other side had not done a reality check. They were trying to tell supply managed industries that article XI was safe and could be preserved, and that they would be the agent that would preserve article XI. Reform on the other hand said it was obvious that article XI would be gone and that tariffs would have to be put in its place.

Because of that attitude supply managed industries undertook a very expensive advertising campaign involving millions of dollars to try to speak to political parties and politicians and to encourage them to take a strong position in defence of article XI which was a hopeless cause. I would hope some members on the other side would apologize for that action because these dollars were hard earned and should not have been spent on useless advertising campaigns.

[Supply, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond to the hon. member for Malpeque. I feel some affinity knowing that he also has provided for his livelihood. He also chews gum like I do and he forgets to do up his jacket like I do. I do feel some affinity for the hon. member.

I am also very happy to respond to his question because I think living in western Canada I am closer to some of the issues that he is talking about. I would like to just remind the hon. member that you cannot have it both ways. I know that his government was committed to a referendum or a producer vote of whether there should be a continental barley market. I favoured that when he favoured it. That was before the decision was made that there not be a continental barley market.

The hon. member and his government have changed their minds since the court ruling has been reversed. In fact, the continental barley market was ruled illegal. I have not changed my mind. Neither has my party. We still believe that producers should be in the driver's seat and make these decisions.

The hon. member on the other side is saying that as long as things are going the way my personal philosophy dictates, I am happy to put producers in the driver's seat. But as soon as my own views and the views of producers begin to differ, then I want to have control. I want to politicize this thing. I do not want to let go of the administrative control of the Canadian Wheat Board.

I am saying to the hon. member that he cannot have it both ways. You are either going to trust producers or you are not going to trust them.

I would also tell the hon. member that I spoke recently to an organization with which I know he is quite well acquainted, the local chapter of the National Farmers Union. We discussed the advisory council and it was of the same opinion as I am. In fact, this advisory board is a rather useless organization because it has no impact whatsoever as long as the wheat board is controlled by the Government of Canada and the political process rather than the producer, grassroots, bottom up process.

I thank the hon. member for his questions. I hope I have shed a little light on where we are coming from on this side of the House in trying to solve the problems of producers by trusting them rather than taking over the decision making process from them.

[Supply, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and a very great interest of mine to be involved in a discussion in this House on agricultural issues.

Coming from the riding of Kindersley-Lloydminster where most of us make our livelihood either directly or indirectly from agriculture, myself included, I feel it is a very important issue and I appreciate the chance to speak to it. I have chosen to address the problems that many farmers face in the marketing of their produce and the federal agency responsible for prairie grain marketing, the Canadian Wheat Board.

The Canadian Wheat Board should more appropriately be called the prairie wheat board, as its mandate limits the board's activity to the three prairie provinces and a small part of British Columbia in the Peace River area. There is a similar organization in Ontario called the Ontario Wheat Board. I find it is one of the best kept secrets across the prairies that in fact the Canadian Wheat Board is not a national board but a regional board. Many producers I am finding in my part of the world did not even realize there was an Ontario Wheat Board.

This Ontario Wheat Board is rather interesting. It was established in 1958 by a vote of Ontario wheat producers. It operates under the authority of the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Act. There are 18,000 wheat producers in Ontario and the Ontario board is run by 10 directors who are elected by the producers. The board operates on a one producer, one vote system. Each of the 10 directors represents a geographic district within the province. Each district elects one delegate to the annual meeting for each 250 producers within that district. The directors are then elected from among those delegates.

The Canadian Wheat Board on the other hand has 137,000 producers or permit book holders, compared with the 18,000 farmers who control the Ontario board. Many opponents of a producer control system claim that the government will not guarantee initial prices for a depoliticized organization like the Ontario Wheat Board.

However, the realities are that the initial payments are guaranteed for both the Canadian Wheat Board and the Ontario Wheat Board.

The wheat board act limits the Canadian Wheat Board's activities to wheat and barley grown for human consumption. The Ontario Wheat Board is mandated by statute to limit its activities to wheat production and marketing within the province of Ontario. This demonstrates that there are some differences and some similarities in the scope and the influence of a

producer directed organization compared with one which is government run.

The single biggest difference between the two is that the Ontario Wheat Board is democratic and the Canadian Wheat Board is run by a panel of three to five commissioners who are appointed by the governor in council. This means that the minister is usually the one who recommends the names.

The Canadian Wheat Board is a crown corporation and its commissioners are political appointees. Nevertheless, producers pay for all of the operations of the board through the amount subtracted from the final payments for the producer's grain. In fact, most agriculture marketing agencies, including those in the supply managed sector, include producers in the decision making and managerial process. The Canadian Wheat Board is the odd man out, being a top down, government run corporation.

Many farmers in western Canada are not happy with the actions of the Canadian Wheat Board and the way it is run. Far too much time and energy is spent in all places, from the courts to the coffee shops, trying to determine what the powers of the board should be, what commodities should be added or left out of the wheat board's mandate, should farmers be selling their grain on a contract basis or under the quota system or both, and in that case what proportion for each.

There is much discussion about the board's monopoly power versus the principle of marketing options. Perhaps one of the biggest irritants today is the wheat board's involvement in grain car allocation. My hon. colleague from Lisgar-Marquette discussed that situation from the aspect of the western grain transportation authority as well. There are many fingers in the pot here. It seems like the end result is that the service is not very good.

What sticks in the craw of so many producers is that these complex issues to which there are no easy solutions require solutions, but the producers have no substantial say as to how these problems are to be solved.

Another great disadvantage to the Canadian Wheat Board being an arm of the government is the way that new wheat prices or final payments or price changes are announced. It was common in years past for ministers of agriculture to play politics with the announcement of either price increases or decreases. Farmers were used as pawns, waiting for the right kind of announcement so that the minister could get as much political mileage or minimize the political fallout from grain price announcements.

We as Reformers have been quite clear on the direction of marketing reforms. It is paramount that the Canadian Wheat Board be democratised. It must be accountable to the producers it serves and producers must have the ability to change or update the mandate of the board when they feel their interests could be better served.

Producers must have control over how their grain is marketed. We must remember that it is after all their grain. If producers decide through a democratic process that the mandate of the board should be expanded to cover other grains and oilseeds then the act should be changed to respect the wishes of producers. If this is done they may choose to provide opting out provisions for niche markets. The purchase of grains on a cash or pool basis might be considered to improve current marketing arrangements. We would like to see the expansion of producer contracts if farmers so desire.

Once the board is democratised the decision will be up to producers to make, but we feel that the Canadian Wheat Board should maintain its responsibility for initial payment shortfalls. Government loan guarantees for export sales should also be continued for as long as other nations do the same.

We have a responsibility to recognize that change is required because present realities in the agriculture industry are different from when the Canadian Wheat Board was brought into existence.

My father was a pioneer. When he first delivered his wheat he had to hitch up a wagon and a team of horses and haul that wheat 26 miles to a small community called Waldeck, Saskatchewan. When he got there he did not know what the price was going to be. He did not know what the grade of that grain was going to be. There was a requirement for change in the way our products were marketed and we saw improvements to the system which enabled him to have some protection in the marketing of his product.

Today's situation is different with modern transportation and modern communications. In fact, we cannot maintain a system that was intended for 30, 40, 50 years ago. We must be prepared to look to new and innovative means of marketing our products.

We know from the Ontario example that a producer controlled system is possible. That particular organizational model may or may not fit on the prairies, but I feel that the principle of a producer directed process does. If we give farmers the chance to design, control and continually update their marketing system a much more effective, fair and cost efficient Canadian Wheat Board would result. As legislators we would give it the freedom to act.

In conclusion, I would like to express my appreciation for this time being allotted for a discussion of agriculture. The government seems to have put a very low priority on agricultural issues. On behalf of all the farmers of Kindersley-Lloydminster and all of Saskatchewan, I am grateful for the opportunity to try and solve some of the very important issues facing rural Canada.