Garry Breitkreuz

[Supply, November 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the support that I am getting with regard to the motion we have put forward.

I reiterate what I said in my speech in case people missed it. First we have to acknowledge that there is a crisis. The minister has yet to do that. We cannot begin to solve the problem if we do not first acknowledge that there is a crisis. That is where we should begin. If we are to solve that crisis we have to go to the root of the problem.

Farmers know the root of the problem. For us to sit in the House and try to dictate what the solution is to the farmers in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta, Nova Scotia, Ontario or wherever a crisis is being experienced, will not work. The bureaucrats here have mucked it up so badly that they will not do a better job, in my estimation, if we continue along this way.

I saw statistics a short time ago where if we took the salaries of all the bureaucrats—there is one bureaucrat for every 5.7 farmers and they do not work for peanuts—and divided it among farmers, we would probably not have a crisis.

We have to look at the big picture. We have to look at what farmers are telling us. If the solution comes from Ottawa it will distort the market even more. We need to have the solution coming from farmers. We have to do it soon. The crisis is here. We have to address it right now. That is where we begin.

[Supply, November 3rd, 1998]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should move immediately to defend the interests of Canadian farmers from the unfair subsidies and unfair trading practices by foreign countries, which have changed the problem of stagnant farm incomes to a full-blown farm income crisis, and in the event no immediate progress is made on this front, introduce emergency measures to provide tax relief, lower input costs, reduce user fees and address the inadequacies of the farm safety-net programs.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the Leader of the Official Opposition. Reformers will be splitting their time throughout the day.

I will begin by reading some headlines as they have been appearing in the papers out west. Since the minister of agriculture has been denying there is a farm income crisis, I can only surmise he is only reading the newspapers from Toronto.

Here is what the newspapers are saying. From the Calgary Herald on October 31, “Outlook cloudy for agriculture sector”. From the Regina Leader Post on October 30, “Farm crunch looms”. From Agri-Week on October 26, “No government aid for farm income crunch”. From the Winnipeg Free Press on October 30, “Farmers turn up heat on Ottawa as farm income plummets”. From the Saskatoon Star Phoenix on October 22, “Subsidy wars killing farmers”. From the Western Producer on October 22, “Net farm income needs attention” and “Prairie pools demand feds respond to farm crisis”.

Need I go on? Do the Liberals read the papers outside Toronto? Apparently not. The minister of agriculture has been responding to opposition questions about the farm income crisis since September 24 and has yet to acknowledge there is a real problem. On September 24 the minister said:

The disaster relief program and the farm safety net program for Canadian farmers are already in place.

On October 28 the minister repeated his mantra by saying:

We have one of the strongest safety nets in the world.

On behalf of thousands of farmers in Canada, if Canada has one of the strongest safety net systems in the world, why are we having a farm income crisis? Why are so many farmers in trouble? I ask the minister to acknowledge at least that NISA is totally inadequate in helping farmers compete with unfair foreign subsidies.

I want the minister of agriculture to listen to the words of just one of the many farmers coming into my office and phoning me. I spoke to this gentleman last week. He has been farming for 33 years. Here are his own words:

I feel so terrible. I can't even put money on the offering plate Sunday morning. I'm probably worth more than most people in Canada—I farm seven quarters, fifty head of beef cattle, I got seventy bushels of barley and 35 of wheat per acre. An average calf crop. Productivity is good, but prices aren't. I haven't replaced my equipment in seven years and it wasn't new then. I'm repairing and patching but I can't anymore. Farming is not like other businesses—we don't want to make a lot of money, but we can't keep going, and we have no alternatives. We have no alternatives! Farmers have something to offer the country—it's being eroded—it's not just dollars and cents. It's a sin that raw food has no value in exchange for goods and services. Why does our nation have a different view from the Europeans on this?

I share this with the House of Commons because this farmer expressed better than I the real pressures farmers are feeling on a daily basis. It takes a special kind of person to be a farmer. It is not an easy life. They only want to make a living. The minister should come with me to the restaurants in my riding and listen or take some of the calls I get into my office.

No matter how one calculates farm income, total net income or net cash income or realized net income, farm incomes have been flat on the prairies for at least 20 years. These farmers have managed to survive year by year in spite of stagnant incomes, but they are in no position to withstand a real income crisis such as we are experiencing today.

The indications of the crisis are varied. It is taking its toll on farmers. Record numbers of Saskatchewan farmers are calling the farm stress line this year. In September the stress line received 147 calls. The program co-ordinator for the line said:

There's been twice as many calls in September compared to other months. The hope is going. If you don't have hope you don't have much to look forward to. You can only struggle for so long.

Last Friday the Debt Mediation Service said that inquiries for help were already up 22% over last year in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. It estimates that 600 producers will use its service this year alone. These are real people behind the statistics that the minister of agriculture is ignoring. These are not the only people the minister is ignoring.

The Canadian Federation of Agriculture says farm income is likely to drop by more than 40% this year, due largely to the collapse of the Asian market. Wheat prices have fallen by more than 40% over the last 12 months while another hard hit sector, hog farming, has seen a price decline of 28%. Meanwhile total federal funding for agriculture sits at $670 million, down from $2.5 billion a decade ago.

Saskatchewan agriculture minister Eric Upshall said:

We have about a 10% subsidy according to the OECD analysis, the U.S. has roughly 30% and the Europeans are at 36 to 37%. So there's a tremendous difference. We're caught in the squeeze. We've been the good guys on the block. We've cut our subsidy.

The world market has been hit from two sides. On the one hand there is a huge grain crop this year made larger because heavily subsidized European farmers decided to produce more wheat. On the other hand the booming Asian market is one big bust.

According to Statistics Canada, Canadian farm cash receipts in the first half of 1998 were 5.1% lower than the same period last year. In Saskatchewan they dropped 8.9% and 12.5% in some areas of Manitoba, blamed largely on a decline in wheat prices brought about by record world-wide production and dampened demand.

Canadian wheat, barley and livestock revenues were all down during the first six months of the year. Some Saskatchewan hog producers say that they are losing between $30 and $40 on every hog they sell. They are asking the province for a bailout.

The price of finished cattle, animals that have been fattened at the feedlot, is dismal as well. Saskatchewan farmers will likely see their realized net cash income less depreciation drop by more than 60% this year to less than $300 million. Meanwhile there has been no dropoff in freight rates or the cost of chemicals, fertilizer and farm machinery. There has been no dropoff in fuel and debt servicing.

From 1995 to 1997 gross operating expenses for Saskatchewan farmers have risen from $3.9 billion to $4.36 billion according to the province. The total debt held by farmers has risen from $4.48 billion in 1993 to $5.11 billion in 1997. Last year farm debt jumped 7% alone.

Finally last week Agri-Week reported:

Never before have prices of almost every major commodity class been down at the same time. This is the first time that the agricultural economy has been on its own through the down phase of an economic cycle.

The prairie pools are calling for an elimination of foreign subsidies, a reduction or elimination of cost recovery programs which the pools say cost farmers $138 million in 1998, and the development of a national disaster assistance program. Why is the minister not listening?

What can we conclude from all this? Our farmers could compete if only our government had not mismanaged affairs so badly. Our tax burden makes input costs for farmers very high. Some have estimated that for some items the farmer must purchase the input costs may be almost 50% tax.

The responsibility for the mismanagement of the agricultural portfolio rests squarely on the shoulders of the government and the last two ministers of agriculture. If the Liberal government and the bureaucrats were doing their job, agriculture would not be in this crisis. With the big bucks that are being poured into the department of agriculture bureaucracy, they should have been on top of this situation and had it solved before it became a crisis. Other countries did.

We live in a wonderful country. We all enjoy high quality food and a high standard of living. Farmers have contributed a great deal to it. We should hang our heads in shame for the little regard we have for them and the value they are to us.

[Marine Conservation Areas Act, November 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to make a very specific point and I appreciate the opportunity to ask this question of the member.

I have been listening to the points that the government has been making across the way. Hon. members are always using the word “consultation”. It is a word that we hear all the time in the House. “Just pass this legislation and we will consult with all of the provinces and the stakeholders” in whatever issue they are putting forward in parliament.

One of the things that this bill will do will be to enlarge the minister's jurisdiction. That should be of concern to all Canadians. Power is being taken away from the people of Canada, through their elected representatives, and it is being given it to a bureaucracy which will tell the minister what needs to be done.

To make my point I refer hon. members to something that I said previously. I asked some lawyers in the House of Commons to do some research for me with regard to a number of bills that were coming before the House. I asked them this simple question: “Which one of the current bills before the House of Commons takes power away from parliament and gives it to the bureaucracy?” I received a very shocking answer. They did research on six separate bills and every one of those bills took power away from parliament and gave it to the bureaucracy. In other words, the people of Canada are losing control of the agenda. That control is being concentrated in the hands of a very few.

As we look at this bill we see the same thing happening. We are losing control through this bill which seems to be so nice and so wonderful and so compassionate in expressing concern for the environment. It actually does not do anything like that.

When government members go about using the word “consultation”, we have found by experience that they do not really and truly consult. They may have a dog and pony show and go around the country making it appear as if they are, but they do not really listen. What they call consultation is putting on a show, but not really putting into place what the people of Canada genuinely want.

This bill gives the people behind the scenes more control over the agenda. I am wondering if the member does not have a concern about this. I realize she is not supporting Reform's amendment, but we are very concerned about what is going on. Giving bureaucracy more power and taking it away from the people of Canada is what is going on. Once this bill is passed, no matter what the government says about its consultations and its process, it is gone forever. The next thing government members say will be “Parliament passed this bill. We have the power to do this. What are you complaining about?”

I would like the member to comment on what I have just said.

[Calgary Declaration, November 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Since we have allotted the time until 12 o'clock in which to debate this motion and everyone will be sitting here doing nothing if we do not continue the debate until 12 o'clock, I would like to seek unanimous consent that we allow this motion to be further debated for the next 20 minutes and if necessary, the amendment be allowed.

[Calgary Declaration, November 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in a democracy in order for people to make decisions, they need information. For the member opposite to give the impression that the government is forthcoming and free in sharing that information is totally hypocritical and totally false. One of the biggest problems I face as an MP is the fact that I cannot get information in a timely fashion. It is a very serious matter which needs to be addressed by this House.

The main point is that if the elected representatives of the people of Canada are to be effective and make proper decisions in a democracy as we pretend to have here, we need to have that information. It needs to be forthcoming. I have had a lot of experience in the last five years where that information has not been forthcoming.

We have an issue here regarding the Calgary declaration, or separation, or the Quebec issue, whatever the label is, where that information is not forthcoming. This issue gravely affects the country and for the government not to be producing all of these things is very serious. The government pretends it is but it is not.

I have had information denied to me regarding positions that this country has taken at the United Nations and the government continues to stonewall. It continues to deny us the information as to what it is saying and doing internationally. I cannot understand why it does not share this information. The government shares it all over the world. It shares it with people from other countries, many of them dictators and people whom we may not even agree with. The government is more open with those people than it is with the people of Canada.

We have a very serious problem here, especially in parliament. When we are dealing with issues here we need information and I hope that information will be forthcoming.

Another example is my experience with questions on the Order Paper where we specifically ask the government for information in relation to a certain matter. The government is supposed to answer within 45 days. I have yet to have an instance in which it does answer within 45 days. We sometimes have to wait a year, even longer. This is unconscionable.

The people of Canada ought to be aware of the fact that one of the biggest problems I face as a parliamentarian is the fact that I cannot get proper information in a timely fashion.

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, October 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Do I not get a chance to reply to that vociferous attack on Reform about—

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, October 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I did not think I would have a couple of minutes to address this topic. I do not have a lot to express, but I have had constituents come to me and I would like to raise a matter with the House.

The primary concern that people have had with the bill that is before the House and the regulations of the Internet and so on is that this is simply the tip of the iceberg. The concern is that these regulations are the beginning of an attempt to regulate commerce over the Internet in such a way as to discourage entrepreneurs in Canada. That is a key point.

People are really concerned that when we begin to meddle in this the intention may be good at the beginning, but these regulations will discourage entrepreneurs in Canada. It will somehow force those who want to do business over the Internet to establish themselves outside Canada.

We need the assurances of the government that it is not heading in this direction.

Furthermore, the other concern they express is that when we begin to regulate, at some point we may begin to tax. This may be the tip of the iceberg. There may be taxes coming down the pike that would tax the various transactions that are going to take place over the Internet, especially economic transactions. This is a concern of people and I have to raise that concern. I am glad I have had a few moments to do that.

I understand the debate is about to collapse, but my constituents would not want to see trade and commerce over the Internet hampered by what might be at this point an innocuous attempt to bring in a tax that would begin to discourage entrepreneurs from using the Internet to transact all kinds of transactions.

[An Act For The Recognition And Protection Of Human Rights And Fundamental Freedoms, October 30th, 1998]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-452, an act to amend an Act for the Recognition and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and to amend the Constitution Act, 1867.

On behalf of tens of thousands of Canadians who have written supporting my efforts, I have the pleasure of once again introducing my private member's bill to strengthen property rights in federal law.

Unfortunately, property rights were intentionally left out of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms leaving Canadians highly vulnerable to the arbitrary taking of property by government. My bill would fix this by making it more difficult for the government to override the property rights of its citizens by requiring a two-thirds majority vote of the House.

Nor does the Canadian bill of rights provide any protection of our right to be paid any compensation, let alone fair compensation for property taken by the government.

My bill strengthens the property rights provisions of the Canadian bill of rights by providing protection of our right to have compensation fixed impartially, protection of our right to receive fair and timely compensation, and guarantees every Canadian their right to apply to the courts when the government has violated their property rights.

Finally, approval of my amendments to the bill of rights would allow Canadians to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on December 10, 1998 knowing that we have finally provided the protection of property rights in federal law that the United Nations declaration called for so many decades ago.

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

[Agriculture, October 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the farm income crisis is taking its toll. Record numbers of Saskatchewan farmers are calling the farm stress line this year.

In September the stress line received 147 calls. The program co-ordinator for the line says “There has been twice as many calls in September compared to other months. The hope is going. If you don't have hope you don't have much to look forward to. You can only struggle for so long”.

The statement of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food that existing farm safety net programs are enough to deal with the farm income crisis is simply not giving these farmers hope.

The Minister knows that NISA is totally inadequate to help western producers fight unfair foreign subsidies by the United States, unfair trade practices by the European Union and the economic flu in Asia, all of which have resulted in loss of markets for Canadian grain and brutally low commodity prices.

When are farmers going to see some action out of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food instead of just more talk?

[Questions On The Order Paper, October 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on March 11, 1998 I placed Question No. Q-84 on the Order Paper, asking how many violent crimes had been investigated by the RCMP and how many had involved the use of registered and unregistered firearms. In accordance with Standing Order 39, I asked for a written answer within 45 days. My constituents have been waiting 231 days.

It is interesting that the commissioner of the RCMP wrote me a letter on July 6 referring to his answer to Question No. Q-84. The RCMP gave its response to the government 114 days ago. When is the government going to give my constituents the RCMP's answer to this important question? Why has this government been sitting on this answer for 114 days?