Jay Hill

[Farm Debt Mediation Act, April 17th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question and the comments from my colleague from Lisgar-Marquette.

Farmers in the riding of Prince George-Peace River and farmers across the country are quite frankly appalled by the performance of the Liberal government in doling out money to corporate friends. However, when farmers in Quebec or western Canada, Nova Scotia or Ontario get into trouble, it turns a deaf ear. "There is no money. We are cutting to the bone. We are trying to get the deficit under control".

Nobody understands the problem of deficit and debt better than the members Reform Party. We were the ones who highlighted this problem for the Liberal government before there was even a Mulroney government. We know what nine years of Tory government did to the country. The debt was doubled. We are well aware of the problem of deficit spending.

We have been saying for years and years that it has to be prioritized. I do not see how giving a handout to a corporation that is already making millions of dollars is a good or wise investment of Canadian tax dollars.

But when farmers with their backs to the wall turn to the government and ask not for a handout but for an interest free loan to tide them over the short term, recognizing the thousands and thousands of people who owe their livelihood to the agricultural sector and farmers in the country, the government says "no. You are not a priority. Sorry". A priority is a boccie court in a minister's riding or a canoe museum in Shawinigan.

I want to say that the farmers and the people of Canada are fed up with this kind of attitude from the government.

[Farm Debt Mediation Act, April 17th, 1997]

Exactly. What democracy. How is a person supposed to represent their constituents accurately?

I did not want to dilute the results of the survey by sending out a larger mailing which would include people who would not have the same interest in Bill C-72 because it would not affect their livelihood.

I mailed it out to a larger mailing list that I was able to obtain. I had 124 responses, which is fairly comprehensive for an area as small as the Peace River agricultural area. I do not know exactly how many permit book holders there are in my area because the wheat board will not tell me. I have heard that there are somewhere in the neighbourhood of 450 to 500 permit book holders. So a return of 124 is substantial.

Unfortunately I do not have the time to go into all the survey questions asked, but I would like to explain the first question. The question I asked the producers was the following: "There has been a lot of discussion on the future of the Canadian Wheat Board. Overall, how would you describe your attitude toward the Canadian Wheat Board?" Then I gave them the choices: "Eliminate. Major overhaul is needed. Minor overhaul. Unsure. Should the wheat board include other crops? Keep it as it is".

While 9 per cent of the respondents wanted to completely eliminate the Canadian Wheat Board, 70 per cent indicated they wanted a major or minor overhaul. I believe this indicates that farmers want to retain the Canadian Wheat Board but they want to see some substantive changes. They want choice.

Unfortunately, as with so many pieces of legislation, the government simply does not get the message that the farm community is trying to send it.

The minister did a mail ballot on the other legislation. I do not know how much it cost the taxpayers. Basically it was an all or nothing question: "Do you believe that barley should be included as it is now under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board or do you think that the Canadian Wheat Board should get out of it altogether?" There were no other options for farmers to choose.

What we saw, what we told the minister and what farm groups and individual farmers were telling him-I am sure they were because they were telling us this-was that it was a status quo question. It did not solve anything.

The fact is that farmers are still being sent to jail for trying to market their own product. This does not solve anything. Farmers recognize that. Likewise, Bill C-38 is not the answer. That is why we proposed four amendments to Bill C-38.

We proposed that the bill be amended to allow the standing committee on agriculture to review the appointment of the administrators. What would be wrong with that? Would not the farm community support that? Obviously the committee would be the place. It has the expertise and knowledge and witnesses could be called, if necessary, to look at who was being appointed as administrators.

We proposed an amendment to insert a new clause in the bill to make the government develop regulations or guidelines on performance evaluations for administrators and mediators. What could possibly be wrong with an amendment like that? It strikes to the heart of accountability.

If there is one thing that members have heard Reformers repeat day after day, speech after speech, whether on justice, spending, defence, agriculture, health or aboriginal affairs, name the department, over the past three years it is that we have constantly used the word "accountability". The people at the top must be held accountable. Members heard it about the Somali inquiry. That was why we are so concerned about what appears to be a cover-up at the highest levels. Members have heard it about so many other departments that unfortunately for Canadians have been tainted by scandal and by suspicion of patronage and those types of things. We have insisted on accountability.

We proposed a minor amendment that the government develop regulations on performance evaluations to hold the administrators and mediators accountable, and it is voted down. It is ruled that it is not appropriate by the Liberal majority.

The third amendment we proposed was to clause 15. It reads:

That clause 15 be amended to allow the standing committee on agriculture to review the minister's appointments to the appeal boards.

What could possibly be wrong with that? What does the minister want to hide, that his appointments should not be reviewed?

The fourth and final amendment that we proposed was:

That clause 28 be amended to allow the standing committee on agriculture to conduct a three year review of this act.

That was also voted down also.

When I start getting on to some of these issues I do not know where time goes. It just flies by. At any rate, I will sum up what I have in the little time remaining.

As a former farmer, whose family is still involved in the farming business back home and as a person who used to be active in farm groups, I am fortunate to have a lot of friends and supporters in the agricultural community in the riding that I am honoured to represent in this House. I can tell the House that the majority of

farmers in my area are thinking about trying to get last year's crop salvaged from under the snow. They are looking forward to trying to get that crop off or do something with it even if they have to burn it, accepting the huge loss that they are going to suffer and then try as hard as they can, weather permitting, to get this year's crop seeded.

One thing that galls me to no end is that there does not seem to be a lot of recognition from the people on that side of the House of the struggles and travails facing the farming communities. I get pretty upset when people say we do this for the farmers and that for the farmers and why do we treat them so special?

A lot of Canadians forget where the food comes from and how many people owe their livelihood to the farmer who is struggling to get his crop off. They forget the person who sells the herbicides for spraying, or the people who owe their living to transporting grain, whether it is the man running the locomotive or others involved in the transportation of grain. They forget the people who sell the farm equipment, the person at the store who sells building supplies to build a new granary. They forget the hundreds of thousands of people who owe their livelihood directly and indirectly to the sustainability of agriculture.

It is high time we had a government in the country, a Reform government, that puts some emphasis on agriculture.

[Farm Debt Mediation Act, April 17th, 1997]

Especially the backbenchers. All members in this place come up with good ideas from time to time, some good policy suggestions. Some good amendments to legislation are brought forward by people from all political persuasions at committee and in the House of Commons.

It is unfortunate when we see time after time that the cabinet or the applicable minister cracks the whip and gets the amendments, either at the committee stage or in the House, defeated for purely partisan reasons.

It does not matter that the amendment makes sense. The only reason is that if Reform suggests it, for example, in some cases the Bloc or the other independents, then it is automatically ruled that it does not make sense and it is voted down. "We have the majority on the committees. We have the majority in the House of Commons. We will vote that amendment down". Then they stand in the House of Commons and say "those darn Reformers vote against everything we try to do and every good idea that we bring into this place, those Reformers vote against it".

Is it any wonder? It seems every time we try to introduce amendments to legislation they are voted down. They are ruled out of hand. It is ruled that they are not good amendments simply because they come from Reformers. That is a tragedy to the democratic process and I believe that it puts paid to the red book promise of restoring more free votes and more true democracy to this place. We have seen the exact opposite happen during this 35th Parliament.

The Reform Party is supportive of the intent of Bill C-38. If there is sufficient time before the Liberals decide to go to an election, the bill will be passed because the Liberals have the majority, despite any amendments we bring forward which would be voted down.

The bill is an act to repeal the Farm Debt Review Act, a decade old farm debt review board system with debt mediation service for farmers facing seizure of their property by creditors. As a farmer I was fortunate that I never had to go through that process but I have had many friends and neighbours who during the tough times of the last 15 to 20 years in agriculture unfortunately had to face that situation.

Although they varied from region to region and province to province, the farm debt review boards did a lot of good work and certainly helped some farmers through some tough times with their creditors. They helped farmers as much as possible to meet their financial obligations. It is certainly a worthy and good intention that this bill is being brought forward to replace that old act.

The new act provides for a review of the farmer's financial affairs, for mediation between the farmer and the farmer's creditors for the purpose of reaching a mutually acceptable arrangement and in order to temporarily suspend the rights of creditors to take or to continue proceedings against the farmer's assets if the farmer were to request it.

Some concerns were brought forward not only by Reformers but also by a number of organizations and individuals who appeared before the standing committee when Bill C-38 was before the committee. I will run down the list to indicate to the viewing public that many witnesses came forward with concerns about this bill. They suggested possible amendments at the committee stage.

Included were the Alberta farm debt review board, the Canadian Bankers Association, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the National Farmers Union, the Ontario farm debt review board, the Quebec farm debt review board and the Saskatchewan farm debt review board. A number of submissions were made and a number of concerns were raised at the committee stage about the content of the bill. My colleagues from Vegreville and Lisgar-Marquette raised some concerns as well.

One concern is that the budget seems fairly substantial in the sense that the Saskatchewan farm debt review board is currently handling half of all the cases in Canada for a total of only about $700,000 whereas the estimated total mediation budget under this new legislation will exceed $2.2 million. This is clearly a case where the bureaucracy is looking after itself, ensuring it will have ample funds available, as we have seen in so many different departments and ministries, to ensure its longevity regardless of what happens in the upcoming election.

Another concern, which we have had with a lot of legislation that has passed through this place, is with potential patronage under this new act. For instance, the appeal boards are to be appointed by the minister without being reviewed or approved by Parliament or the standing committee.

As we saw with Bill C-72, which for some reason has been swallowed by a black hole, the wording in the legislation states that the minister would have the power to appoint the board of directors and that he in his infinite wisdom could hold an election for one or more of the board members.

I did a survey, which I referred to a few hours ago, on Bill C-34. I referred to the fact that the Canadian Wheat Board had refused to allow me access to the mailing list of the producers who reside in the riding which I am honoured to represent in the House of Commons. I felt that was a bit of a tragedy in the sense that MPs want to serve their people accurately. That is the guiding creed of the Reform Party of Canada, to represent constituents accurately where there is the ability to deduce what the majority view of a group in a riding is.

In this case I wanted to target permit book holders. They are the ones who will be the most affected by Bill C-72. I was unable to obtain the list. The Canadian Wheat Board even refused when I told it I would pay to have the labels printed. I said them I would send them the questionnaires. They could look at the questions. I was not trying to hide anything. It was not anti-wheat board propagan-

da. It was a straightforward questionnaire containing ten questions. I wanted to survey permit book holders. It refused.

[Farm Debt Mediation Act, April 17th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to join in the debate this afternoon on Bill C-38, the Farm Debt Mediation Act.

At the outset I would like to reply very briefly to the comment and question posed to my hon. colleague from Lisgar-Marquette from across the way a minute ago.

The hon. Liberal member referred to the fact that we have very cheap food in Canada. Certainly that is the case and all consumers are very thankful for that. Everyone has to eat and therefore I am sure everyone is thankful in a way.

I remind the member of something that MPs from rural ridings are constantly reminded of, that a cheap food policy is a two edged sword. For the consumers to gain by this type of policy, the producers of the food lose.

She went on to ask if Reform would repeal Bill C-38. At the time we form the next government, we certainly will take a look at all the legislation passed by this failure of a Liberal government from the 35th Parliament and perhaps amend it.

We suggested a number of amendments to Bill C-38, as we have to a lot of bills, most bills that were introduced in this place. Unfortunately those amendments, of which Reform had four, were defeated by the government. That is why we are opposed to this.

The preceding speakers from the Reform Party, the hon. member for Vegreville and the hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette, remarked that we are not opposed to the intent of this legislation. There is no party that has a monopoly on good intentions and good ideas.

As amazing as it sometimes seems, even the Liberal Party comes up with some good ideas once in a while.

[Employment, April 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the minister can huff and puff and bluff all he wants. He can talk about documents that are years old. We could go back to when the government was in opposition and see what it said when it was over on this side. That is the debate that will occur in the next election and I look forward to that.

In the past three and a half years the Liberals have done little to put Canadians back to work. The minister talked about programs. I guess there were not enough canoe museums, hotels and armouries to go around, only enough for Shawinigan. There are 1.4 million unemployed, two million to three million underemployed and one in four Canadians worried about losing the job they have today. That is the Liberal legacy.

In 1993 the Prime Minister said that he had the plan. Is his only plan in 1997 to have all the unemployed move to Shawinigan?

[Employment, April 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the country currently has the worst string of jobless numbers since the great depression. That is a fact and the government knows it. One would think the Liberals would be trying to come up with some new ways to put Canadians back to work, but the government is so void of ideas that it wants to call an election after only three and a half years in office.

Does the Prime Minister have anything new to offer unemployed Canadians or does he still believe, as he said during the CBC town hall meeting, that some are lucky, some are unlucky and that's just life?

[Employment, April 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it seems we have all been transported to the set of "Let's Make A Deal". It is like this country is suddenly being governed by Prime Minister Monty Hall. Pearson, salmon, cod, patronage appointments, government handouts galore. The only people who will not be walking away with a Liberal gift in the next little while are the 1.4 million unemployed Canadians.

Since the Prime Minister appears so preoccupied with passing out his pre-election goodies, what does he have to offer the 1.4 million unemployed Canadians in the country?

[Agricultural Marketing Programs Act, April 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, that presentation by my hon. colleague from Vegreville was very informative. I cannot believe how much information he packed into a short 20 minute presentation to the House of Commons today.

I notice the rapt attention from the Liberal members opposite. I hope it was not just an act, that they were really paying attention and drawing in the expertise and the knowledge this hon. member has on these important topics.

As I indicated earlier, the reality is that in the Reform Party we have quite a number in our caucus who were actively farming and who know the difference between a bushel of wheat and a potato.

I am not sure that there are some on the other side who know the difference or even for that matter care that much about the difference. They try to talk about how much they care about the plight of the western farmer but I really do not see it being brought forward in any substantive legislation.

As my hon. colleagues have said, we are supporting this piece of legislation even though it does not go near even far enough to address the real issues that are out there in the farm community, the farm community in western Canada and the grain producers of western Canada specifically.

Since my colleague has gone to such trouble to very eloquently articulate his concerns not only about this piece of legislation but about the situation facing grain farmers in particular, I would certainly like to hear more.

He made some reference during his speech that he would not really want to imply why the government is bringing forward this legislation presumably at the 11th hour. He did remark that there are rumours rampant that we are going to go into an election when there is really no need to at this point.

The government has no pressing concern why we could not have extended the legislative agenda to ensure that all proper avenues were taken to properly debate and bring forward amendments on legislation and improve it. Instead it waits and waits and then just before an impending election it will rush ahead with this bill as well as with a few others.

I would ask my hon. colleague if he could expound a bit further on what he suspects are the possible motives for the government's inaction for so long. Now all of a sudden it has hurried its legislative agenda in the last week or two.

[Agricultural Marketing Programs Act, April 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's comments, as I always do. He is very knowledgeable about agriculture and the agriculture legislation that comes before this place.

Of the 50 Reform MPs that were elected this term, seven are still actively farming or were active farmers prior to being elected to this place. A number of Reform MPs speak with a certain amount of knowledge about agricultural issues and the hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette is one of them.

In the few minutes I have I would like to relay something which happened to me as the member of Parliament for Prince George-Peace River recently in connection with the Canadian Wheat Board. I will relate the story to my colleague and ask him to comment because I know he has done a lot of research and has taken some strong positions with respect to reform of the Canadian Wheat Board.

There was a bill before the House, which for some mysterious reason has not come back since the Easter break, called Bill C-72. I wanted to ascertain if there was a consensus of the farmers in my riding so that I could speak with authority in the House of Commons and vote accordingly.

I approached the Canadian Wheat Board. I had about 10 questions which I wanted to ask specifically about the bill. I wanted to ask those questions of Canadian Wheat Board permit book holders. Obviously, as anyone who has done polling or surveying will know, you do not want to dilute the results on an issue such as this by surveying ranchers or dairymen or other people who would not be in the business of exporting grain. It was key to having the most accurate results possible for my survey to target Canadian Wheat Board permit book holders.

I called the office of the Canadian Wheat Board in Winnipeg and explained to them that I wanted the mailing list for all Canadian Wheat Board permit book holders in the B.C. Peace region, for both north and south Peace. They explained to me that they could not give out the mailing list under any circumstances. It had to be kept secret.

I explained who I was. I faxed them a copy of my questionnaire. I was not trying to hide anything. I was not trying to ask loaded questions or anything like that. They still would not help me, as the elected member of the people of that region.

I then said: "Out of my member's operating budget I will send you the questionnaire, pre-sealed, in envelopes. All you have to do is print out the labels, put the labels on the envelopes and send them out. I will pay someone at the Canadian Wheat Board office in Winnipeg for however many hours it takes to print out the labels, affix them to the envelopes and mail them out". They still refused to provide that service, even if I was going to cover their costs. Therefore I could not accurately poll the permit book holders in my riding on the issue.

I find it very deeply troubling that an organization such as the Canadian Wheat Board, which is supposedly there for the betterment of farmers, would not allow a member of Parliament, regardless of political stripe, the opportunity to accurately survey constituents on such an important issue.

That is the story of one of my experiences with the Canadian Wheat Board. It is very secretive. It is well known that the

Canadian Wheat Board, like CSIS, does not have to comply with access to information requests. Farmers and Canadians are becoming increasingly troubled by that.

I want to ask my colleague if he has had the similar experience of running up against a brick wall with the Canadian Wheat Board and not being able to access a mailing list so that he could properly survey constituents.

[Canada Labour Code, April 15th, 1997]

And reject it.