Leon Benoit

[National Defence, February 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in fact this recent ad appeared in the Plainsman and it reads:

Request and appeal to all military personnel at 15 Wing who presently hold combat shirts and trousers that are not being used for Operational reasons to please return to Clothing Stores so that these items may go back into the system to properly kit Roto 2 of OP Palladium.

Does the minister think it is good for morale to turn the Canadian army into the Salvation Army?

[National Defence, February 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in 1996 this Liberal defence minister announced a $500 million emergency campaign to clothe our soldiers.

Yet recently an advertisement appeared in the Plainsman newspaper requesting forces personnel to return all combat shirts and pants which are not being used to the clothing stores so that they could be redistributed to the second rotation of soldiers going to Bosnia.

Will the Minister of National Defence explain to the men and women in our forces why $500 million cannot even buy them proper pants? Why is the government turning the Canadian army into the Salvation Army?

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 17th, 1998]

An hon. member is saying “Keep on going”. These letters are available for anyone who would like to read them.

The opposition is not just coming from me or my Reform colleagues. The opposition is not just coming from groups that want to end the board's monopoly and make it a voluntary board. The opposition is coming from farmers and farm groups across western Canada.

The next issue I would like to talk about is the government's handling of the bill. It is important for Canadians, not just farmers, to think about the way the bill has been handled.

In spite of disagreement from all the groups I have referred to, in spite of what the grain marketing panel recommended, the government seems absolutely determined to push the bill ahead. In fact it invoked closure on the bill. We only have one day to debate third reading of the bill. We will vote on it tonight and the government, with its majority, will force it through. Its members will stand up one after another tonight to pass the bill.

As I look at those members standing, one by one by one tonight, I will think of how passing the bill affects their lives. It does not. Not directly. However the bill will affect the livelihoods of western Canadian grain farmers.

As the previous speaker indicated, about 30 Reform MPs have a strong agricultural background. Many are still involved in farming as I am. My farm is rented out on a crop share. I have wheat and barley to market. I am limited by the board's monopoly just like my neighbours and others across the country.

As members opposite stand one by one to support the bill, who are they speaking for? Are they speaking for western Canadian farmers? I think not. Western Canadian farmers have spoken out against the bill. Who are they speaking for?

With the inclusion clause they are speaking for the hon. member for Malpeque who is the sole reason the clause was included in the bill. It is a hare-brained idea he came forward with. His government picked it up and will ram it through against widespread opposition from western Canada.

The government's handling of this issue has been all wrong. It ignored the polls, including a poll in Saskatchewan which showed that it should be ending the monopoly. It has ignored the democratic process. It has ignored the submissions to committee. The bill should have been canned a long time ago. We should have started from scratch.

Where to from here? Does the bill put to rest the issues of wheat board monopoly, lack of accountability, lack of openness and of whose grain it is? No, it does not.

In one way the bill has united farmers. It has united them against Bill C-4. That is the only way it has united farmers and not in a positive way.

The legislation will continue the rift in western Canada between those who want the board monopoly and those who want a voluntary board. The issue again is not whether we want the wheat board but what type of board we want. It will further split farmers. We see debate on the issue increasing. The minister will find added pressure and will pay the political price for the divisiveness that he has put out to the rural communities in western Canada. That is sad.

I look forward to the debate from hon. members of all parties in the House.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members from all parties for allowing me to share the time of the member for Peace River on the British Columbia side.

Any initiative to reform the Canadian Wheat Board should be a good thing. Certainly there is a need for some reform of the Canadian Wheat Board. I think there would be no argument from the grain farmers in western Canada on this issue. They all recognize that. They certainly have different ideas as to what kind of change is needed but any initiative should be a good thing.

In my speech I will try to answer the question, is Bill C-4 really the legislation that is needed to provide the needed reform of the Canadian Wheat Board? I will do this under four headings. The first is, what is the real debate, what should the real debate be with regard to the Canadian Wheat Board. The second regards the opposition to Bill C-4 coming from the farming community. In fact, the opposition is really against every part of Bill C-4. Third is the government's handling of the whole process of changing the wheat board, in particular the handling through Bill C-4 and the process which led up to that. Finally, I will talk about where we go from here.

Anybody who believes this legislation is going to put an end to the issue of changing the wheat board is foolish. The debate will become more and more vociferous. It will increase across western Canada, in particular. I believe it will also expand to central Canada as people in central Canada see how unfairly western grain farmers are treated.

First, what is the real debate? There are four main areas that debate should be focused on regarding change to the wheat board. One is monopoly.

As the hon. member who just spoke said, often Reform has been accused of being against the wheat board. That is completely untrue. We have been desperately trying to change the wheat board so that it does not become a completely obsolete body, so that it does not become a body that really has no value at all to western Canadian farmers.

The wheat board provides a valuable service to western Canadian farmers. I would believe that every member of our party, and I cannot speak for all of them but I have certainly talked to them, believes the wheat board provides a useful service to western Canadian farmers. Therefore that is not the issue.

Reform is trying to change the wheat board so that it is a much more useful body to Canadian farmers, the people it really concerns. Western Canadian farmers are the only farmers who are affected to any great extent by the Canadian Wheat Board Act. They are in fact the farmers who pay for the operation of the wheat board.

Again, the real debate revolves around the monopoly of the wheat board. It revolves around accountability or lack of accountability of the wheat board. It revolves around the openness or lack of openness of the wheat board and around the very basic question of whose grain is it anyway.

That is a question that more and more western Canadian farmers are asking. Whose grain is it? If it is our grain, then why on earth are we not given a chance to market that grain in the way we see fit? That can be done, just to be clear, with the wheat board playing a very important role in marketing grain.

First I will talk a bit about the monopoly. Of course, that is probably the most important issue in regard to the Canadian Wheat Board. Most western Canadian farmers certainly support the board, but as we have seen from poll results, a majority do not support the monopoly. We have seen the poll in Alberta on barley which showed that 67%, two-thirds of farmers, do not support the monopoly. On wheat, 62% do not support the monopoly. In my constituency it is up to close to 90% who do not support the monopoly. The issue is not whether we support the wheat board or not but whether we want to give farmers a choice as to how they sell their grain.

The second and third issues which I believe should be what the real debate is focused on concern accountability and openness. In terms of accountability, the minister argued that this legislation would somehow improve the accountability of the wheat board. It is arguable that it might to some small degree. It is also arguable that it will not improve it at all.

What happens in that regard will depend on what the board of directors decides to some extent, and also on who is elected to the board of directors. An important issue which has yet to be dealt with is who will be eligible to vote and how will the directors be elected. In any case, the degree of accountability resulting from this bill will be very small and certainly not what farmers have called for.

Farmers have called for openness in the wheat board. This issue is so important to farmers that we have had a group established, a coalition. Such is unusual in western Canadian agriculture particularly in grain farming, but a coalition is working and is focused strictly on more accountability in the wheat board and in opening up the wheat board.

The second and third points, the accountability and openness of the wheat board, should be the focus of a debate on the wheat board.

Fourth is the issue of whose grain it is. Groups have formed just to deal with that issue. It is a property rights issue. I am sure other members later in this debate will talk about that issue.

Clearly at least in a democratic society, we would expect that the private citizen who produces a commodity would have a right to market that commodity in the way they see fit. If we look at the marketplace in Canada, in North America and around the world, in most cases with most commodities that is the case.

General Motors, Ford and the small companies operating in our local communities have the right to sell their commodities on an open market in a way they see fit. Why is it that of all groups, grain farmers in western Canada, not even across the country, but grain farmers in western Canada, are restricted from selling their commodities in the way they see fit? That question is certainly not answered by this bill.

Those are the issues that should be debated. Unfortunately this bill does very little to add to the debate in those areas.

I will discuss this legislation in terms of the opposition in the farming community to all parts of this bill. Anyone who has followed this bill and who has received letters from farm groups and individual farmers would know that is the case. Every significant part of this bill is opposed by at least one farm group and often by many groups.

A coalition has been organized strictly to go against Bill C-4. The coalition has focused on the inclusion clause. It is concerned that other commodities such as canola and peas which are important to its members may be put under the control of the wheat board. They were so concerned that they formed a coalition. They have been lobbying as hard as possible to get the inclusion clause and other changes in Bill C-4 thrown out because they think they are counterproductive and will make things worse.

The list of member organizations which form this coalition is quite impressive. It includes Canadian Canola Growers Association, Manitoba Canola Growers Association, Flax Growers Western Canada, Alberta Winter Wheat Producers Commission, Western Barley Growers Association, Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Saskatchewan Canola Growers Association, Alberta Canola Producers Commission, Canadian Oilseed Processors Association, Winnipeg Commodity Exchange, and Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association. These are major western Canadian organizations. This issue was important enough for them to form a coalition against Bill C-4.

To be fair most of those groups are against the wheat board monopoly. They think farmers should have a choice to use the board or to market in some other way if they choose. That has been the main focus of their actions over the past years. However the opposition comes from all sides of this issue.

I will read three small parts of a letter from the wheat board advisory committee which is also against this legislation although it favours the monopoly: “We think change is necessary, but Bill C-4 closes doors on options and it should be withdrawn”. Even the wheat board advisory committee calls for the withdrawal of this legislation. That is how bad this legislation is. It goes on to say “The government has spent millions of dollars to arrive at this point and it is our clear view that these changes have the potential to very quickly destroy the Canadian Wheat Board”. This is from the advisory committee.

Is the intent of this minister to destroy the wheat board? Is the minister approaching this issue in an underhanded way to try to destroy the board? If we look at his actions and examine the recommendations made by the panel and by people who made presentations to the committee, he has missed the point on all counts. I wonder if that is his intent. Mr. Speaker, you may not think I am sincere on this but I am. The thought has occurred to me. I may be wrong but the thought has certainly occurred to me and to many other farmers across western Canada.

The final quote from the letter by the wheat board advisory committee refers to the election of the board of directors. The minister has argued that the board of directors makes this a very democratic organization that is very answerable to farmers: “I really cannot see how this elected board of directors puts farmers in the driver's seat”, said Wilfred Harder.

Also Mr. Harder from the Canadian Wheat Board advisory committee said that the minister could fire five directors including the chief executive officer at any time and the federal cabinet through regulation could override any policy of the board. He went on to say that the committee also had problems with cash buying, negotiable producer certificates, the loss of crown agency status and the creation of a contingency fund.

These issues are the key issues dealt with in Bill C-4. This came not from one of the groups that wants to end the monopoly but rather from the advisory committee to the Canadian Wheat Board which wants to maintain the monopoly.

I have a very strong personal opinion about the wheat board monopoly. I am very strongly against it. It is a very emotional issue for me because it involves my people. When I say my people I mean my family. I mean my friends and neighbours who are involved in grain farming. I mean the thousands of people in my constituency who are involved in grain farming. I mean people from across western Canada who are involved in grain farming.

We are not tinkering with some small aspect of their lives. We are dealing with their fundamental right to market their grain in the way they sit fit. We are talking about their very livelihoods.

I could refer to letters. I have a stack of them from groups that have spoken out against the bill: United Grain Growers, a very important grain marketing company in western Canada; Canadian Farm Enterprise Network; Saskatchewan Canola Growers; Western Stock Growers and others. I have a stack of letters but I do not have time to read them to the House.

[Small Business Loans Act, February 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the member has just spoken in favour of this bill and in favour of increasing the potential taxpayer liability of this bill.

I would like the hon. member to comment on what history has shown us about this type of lending. In particular, if he could think about the Farm Credit Corporation in Saskatchewan and the kind of liability that taxpayers took on so that farmers who could not otherwise get loans would be able to get loans.

There was an impact of that program on taxpayers through the amount of money they had to pay to support loans that were defaulted, which were unbelievable in proportion. Also there was an effect on agriculture.

When loans were defaulted on, the impact on agriculture in his province of Saskatchewan was indeed incredibly negative.

Therefore not only did the taxpayers take a huge hit with defaults on thousands of loans through the Farm Credit Corporation, but the agriculture industry was actually in worse shape than it was before the loans were made. A large portion of the farmers who took these loans that they apparently could not get from the banks, although in some cases that was not the case, were worse off than if they had never received the loans.

I would like the member to comment on that because the record in his province on this type of program is clear. The record is very poor and, in the case of a decline in the economy, we are setting ourselves up for a huge hit with this legislation as well. The expansion in this legislation will allow for an even larger liability on the part of taxpayers. I do not believe the demonstration of the benefit from this legislation, which has been talked about by other members in the House, is really there.

[Supply, February 5th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, before I get directly into answering the question, I will say that when the Conservatives were in government they did some good things. They put in place the free trade agreement. I guess that is about it, but there must have been some other good things, such as the GST and the Airbus deal. Those are pretty good things too.

Unbelievably the member began by saying that his party also beat up on the deficit. The Conservatives beat it up to $43 billion a year, a record high. I do not know how that member can stand and somehow say that his government had anything to do with the fact that we at least have a balanced budget now. It is really hard to figure out.

The Conservatives talk about how they are caring and how they are not just concerned with those who have but also with those who have not. How have they shown that when they played a big role in driving that debt up to $600 billion? Over $45 billion is spent on interest payments on the debt alone. That is money that is not available to deal with those areas of concern to Canadians. We recognize there is a need out there. Therefore this is a little hard to understand.

Dealing with student debt is important. Having three children now in university and two more in about two or three years, it is important. The Liberals dealt with it by reducing transfers to the provinces for health and education by $6 billion to $7 billion a year as of this year and next year. That is how they dealt with it.

The first private member's bill the Leader of the Official Opposition tabled before this House was on how to deal with that student financing problem. It talked about things like making sure money is available, but making sure that it was going to be repaid, having income contingent repayment and so on. That is the importance we place on this issue. Our leader in his first private member's bill dealt with it. The member should read the bill.

[Supply, February 5th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley.

I am going to start by reading the motion again so that people who are commenting on the motion can really understand what motion is being debated today. The motion reads:

That this House condemns the government for imperilling the economic and social security of Canadians with their reckless commitment to dramatically increase spending, at a time when the average family's share of federal debt is approaching $80,000 and Canada has the highest personal income taxes in the G-7.

Some of the basic information in this motion has been refuted by members opposite. The information sources, in fact, mostly come from the government itself. It is kind of hard to understand why it is doing that. It is a little difficult indeed.

What I am going to do is talk about the four fiscal areas that have to be dealt with before this fiscal mess that we find ourselves in in this country can be dealt with.

The first is the deficit. The second is the chronically high levels of government spending. The third is the high level of debt that we have in this country. The fourth is the chronically high and increasing tax levels that we have. We have to deal with all four areas before we can solve the fiscal problems that we have.

Starting with the deficit, the balanced budget, we will have a balanced budget this year, no doubt. I think the Liberals should receive some credit for that. It is important we recognize that this government will be the first government in 25 years that has had a balanced budget. It deserves some credit for that. I am going to look a little bit later at how it arrived at this balanced budget. I think that is important.

I wonder what would have happened had we had the New Democratic Party as the opposition over the past four years. We would have had at least as high a deficit as was in place when the Liberals took government in 1993.

What if the Conservatives had been the opposition over these past four years? Then we would have had more of the same. If we look at the last 30 years, whether it was the Liberals governing with the Conservatives in opposition or the Conservatives governing with the Liberals in opposition, it really did not matter. We had ever growing deficits and we had this debt balloon to a level which is completely unmanageable.

It is really important to recognize that the real push for government to deal with the deficit came with the Reform Party as it was established first in 1987 and as we came to Ottawa in 1993. I give the government credit for being the government in place when the budget was balanced but it is important also to give Reform credit as being the force which nudged, prodded, pushed and cajoled this government into finally doing that.

Having a balanced budget only deals with one of the four key areas which have to be dealt with to solve this fiscal mess. The second is the high level of government spending, in fact overspending.

Interestingly enough, the Liberals have concentrated most of their speeches on how they are going to spend on all these very worthwhile causes. They are going to spend for this, spend for that. They have this program, they have that program. What about dealing with Canadians who really need help?

They are continuing. In fact they are returning to an increased pattern of overspending. That is pretty clear from what we have heard today. That is what is coming. Clearly the chronic overspending has not been dealt with.

The third area is the high level of debt, $600 billion. That probably does not mean much to a lot of people. My wife and I have five children. Our share of that debt is approximately $20,000 for each of us which amounts to $140,000 that we have to add to the mortgage on our house, the mortgage on our farm and the other payments we have to make. We have to make payments to pay down this $140,000 which is our portion of the debt. Because I earn probably higher than average income, our portion will be even higher than that.

What it means beyond that is that this government will spend more than $45 billion this year just to make the interest payments on the debt. The Liberals talk about caring and spending on social programs. I would like them to respond to how spending this $45 billion on interest payments is allowing more money for these important social programs.

It is a little difficult for me to understand. That $45 billion is not available for any social program. It only goes to pay the interest on the debt. Clearly that part of the fiscal puzzle, the high level of debt, has not been dealt with and as a result too much of our hard earned tax money is going toward interest payments.

The fourth area is the one which I want to concentrate on. I want to put it in personal terms. I only use my family as an example because they are the people I know best. I care about them and I talk with them more than anybody else, quite frankly, about these issues. This area concerns the chronically high tax levels in this country.

Disposable income under this government since 1994 has decreased by $3,000 for the average family. Yet the finance minister stands and with a straight face says “We have reduced taxes”. Liberal math is really hard to figure out. That is a well documented fact. This and various other tax increases, which I will refer to in a bit of detail in a few minutes, have an impact on my family.

As I mentioned, I have five children. My oldest daughter is 20 years old. She is taking business management and is in her third year of university. She has worked to earn money for university and she has taken on a loan to help pay her way through university.

I have two sons who have just turned 18. They are identical twins. The member for Crowfoot is not the only Reform member who can proudly say that he has twins. My sons are in their first year of engineering at university. They are very fortunate that they earned enough in the summer to pay for their education. They work hard. They have trained for years to gain the ability to earn their way through university.

They started their own business. The work they do amazes me. They rebuild combine headers. Farmers will understand what that is. They completely rebuild old headers, paint them to make them look nice, make sure they are in good working shape and they sell them. They carry on this business. More and more they are coming to me to talk about the high rate of taxes, how taxes are affecting them already and how they will be affected by them far more in the future.

The most recent tax issue which they brought to my attention was the Canada pension plan premiums. Because they run their own business and are self-employed, they pay both the employee and employer portions of the Canada pension plan premiums. That means as their business earnings increase, probably by the time they get to their fourth year of university they will be paying the full premium rates for the Canada pension plan.

Each one of them will be paying close to $3,300 in Canada pension plan premiums and for what? I have heard many Liberals say that it is for a secure retirement which will be guaranteed. The maximum amount they could ever hope to get out of that pension is $8,800 a year.

This tax increase and other tax increases have had an incredibly negative impact on my family and on families across this country. That part of the fiscal puzzle has to be solved and it cannot be solved until we start lowering taxes.

[Petitions, February 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased indeed to present a petition on behalf of the people of Lakeland constituency. This petition deals with sentencing guidelines for physical and sexual assault offences. They call for changes involving minimum sentence, that sentences when more than one crime has been committed to be served consecutively and for people who have been found guilty of this type of crime to be remanded to prison.

Again, I am very pleased to present this petition on their behalf.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, February 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have one point of clarification for the member opposite and for the member from the New Democratic Party who said that the Reform's position on health care is unclear.

It is very clear. We made it clear in the 1993 election campaign that we would make no cuts to health spending. In the last campaign we made it clear that we would add $4 billion in transfers to the provinces for health care and education. That is clear and that is our position.

I realize the member may not have been a member of Parliament in the last parliament, but did he support his government's cuts of 35% in transfers for health care? Yes or no.

[Ice Storm, February 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to publicly thank our military on behalf of the official opposition.

During the recent ice storm which devastated eastern Ontario and Quebec Canadian troops played a crucial role in repairing the damage and ensuring the health and safety of Canadians. Our soldiers enthusiastically assisted with whatever needed to be done, whether it was helping hydro crews to restore power, protecting powerless neighbourhoods from looting or transporting the sick to medical facilities.

The vital role played by our military yet again during another natural disaster brought the attention of Canadians to the importance of our armed forces. It is unfortunate however that we do not often enough acknowledge the hard work and vital contribution our regular forces and reserves make each day to our national security.

While it is good for us to recognize the important work that our troops did to help deal with this natural disaster, I thank the men and women of our forces every day for working so hard and risking so much to make me, my family and my country safe and secure.