Leon Benoit

[Supply, April 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to respond to the Bloc motion on the fairness of cuts in agriculture.

I will do this by first outlining the cuts in agriculture spending and making some general comments on the cuts. Second, I will ask some questions of the minister regarding the WGTA and the payout under the WGTA and other questions on efficiencies in the rail system and so on. Third, I will talk about the cuts to supply management and how they compare to cuts in other areas of agriculture. Finally, I will discuss some of the general shortcomings in the budget that impact on every Canadian and will impact heavily on farmers if more action is not taken by this government to get to a balanced budget within a definite targeted time frame.

The Bloc motion reads:

That this House denounce the government for reducing the general budget of the department of agriculture by 19 percent and milk subsidies by 30 per cent and for converting grain transportation subsidies into direct subsidies to western farmers, thereby enabling the latter to diversify and enjoy an unfair competitive advantage over farmers in eastern Canada.

This motion demonstrates that members of the Bloc are not evaluating this budget fairly particularly in regard to agriculture. I will outline the cuts in agriculture and then speak about some of the comparisons.

The budget clearly demonstrates that farmers have been asked to share an unfair amount of the burden of the cuts that were made by the Liberal government. I am not saying that the cuts should have been distributed evenly in terms of percentages in the different sectors of spending. I am saying that any way the cuts in agriculture are evaluated, they are unfair when compared to cuts in other areas of federal spending and they are unfair when compared to cuts in the agriculture department itself. I will demonstrate that by going through some of the numbers.

The overall cuts in the agriculture department spending amount to roughly 20 per cent over the next three years. The total funds available for 1994-95 were approximately $2.1 billion. A 20 per cent cut means that under the Liberal budget $445 million will be cut from the agriculture department.

Just to summarize the cuts, there will be an approximate cut of 30 per cent in safety net funding. Safety net funding is spread right across Canada. The safety net money provided by the federal government is spent in western Canada, central Canada and the maritimes. There will be an increase in the amount of user pay fees which will be spread right across Canada.

The subsidy for dairy farmers of about $217 million a year will be cut by 15 per cent over two years, which is a cut of approximately 30 per cent. It will be cut to about $160 million after the third year. Research has been cut substantially by the budget. Of course, research spending in agriculture is spread across the country.

Another major area of spending was cut by the budget which is not in the agriculture department but is a spending cut to farmers and agriculture. That is the end of the $560 million a year Crow benefit. That is the largest single cut made to agriculture in this budget. Along with that there was about a $99 million cut to the Atlantic Feed Freight Assistance Act and the

Maritime Freight Rates Act. Those cuts were originally scheduled to end on July 1, 1995 but have been extended.

Looking at the summary of agriculture cuts we see about $660 million in cuts to agriculture coming from the transport department through the cuts in the WGTA benefit, the old Crow benefit, the Atlantic Feed Freight Assistance Act and the Maritime Freight Rates Act. In addition there will be $445 million in spending cuts in the agriculture department. That makes a total of $1.1 billion which will be cut from agriculture by the budget.

I listened to the agriculture minister explain earlier that the cuts in agriculture have been in line with cuts in other sectors of federal spending. That is absolutely untrue. In fact, the cuts have been weighed very heavily to agriculture. My concern is that if similar cuts had been made to other sectors of federal spending, a balanced budget would have been presented in February. We would have had along with that all the benefits that come with a definite target for arriving at a balanced budget.

When the cuts for agriculture and transport are put together it comes to about a 40 per cent cut in total agricultural spending. That is totally disproportionate when compared to other sectors of federal agricultural spending. It is almost a 50 per cent cut in direct payments to farmers.

How did the cuts to farmers, as outlined in the budget, compare to the cuts in the agriculture department itself? This is a valid point that the Bloc member has brought up today. He points out that farmers have been cut by almost 50 per cent when direct payments and payments on behalf of the farmers to the railways, through the WGTA and the feed freight assistance and so on are taken into consideration. When those payments are put together it works out to a 50 per cent cut to farmers compared to about a 20 per cent cut in the department itself.

Farmers in my constituency and farmers across Canada say that is not right. Farmers are generally saying they know they have to accept the cuts that were made because of the mess the finances of the country are in. They accept their share of the responsibility but they do not accept the fact that these cuts have not been balanced between spending for farmers and spending in the department. A 20 per cent cut in the department compared to about a 50 per cent cut in payments to farmers is not balanced.

I am not saying that these cuts should not have been made. Rather I am saying there should have been a better balance between cuts to farmers, cuts within the department and a better balance across the country.

The motion of the Bloc states that cuts have been unfair and that some of the compensation packages given have been unfairly weighed in favour of western Canada. I am going to talk a bit about that and explain that the cuts have been unfairly harsh to western Canada. I am not getting into a struggle between western Canada and central Canada. I am just explaining what has happened in the budget. A little bit later I am going to talk about some of the real difficulties that the supply managed industry faces. They have very tough times ahead of them. I have concerns for farmers in the supply managed sectors but I will deal with that later.

One of my biggest concerns about the way the cuts were made is that the transition time farmers needed was not provided, particularly in regard to the Western Grain Transportation Act subsidy, the Crow benefit. For example, for farmers who rent or lease land the subsidy is cut off overnight. They will not have the approximately $15 a tonne freight rate benefit paid to the railways on their behalf as of this year's crop seeding.

Over the next two months, those farmers who will be seeding their land will be asked to shoulder anywhere up to $35 an acre in additional costs. The $35 an acre is an extremely high figure. Normally the extra cost will be about $15 an acre. That is an awful lot to ask farmers to shoulder with no transition time and no compensation package. For farmers who lease or rent land there is no compensation package in the budget.

The compensation package that has been presented is available only to land owners, except for farmers who rent or lease land from the Farm Credit Corporation. Those payments will be passed on to them. However, generally speaking, land owners have additional costs to shoulder immediately and no compensation.

I would like to ask the members of the Bloc if this sounds like an unfair situation weighed in favour of western Canada? Some of my other concerns were not so much with the way the cuts were made but with some of the things that were not done to allow the system to become more efficient.

A limited amount of branch line abandonment will be allowed. We are very uncertain exactly which branch lines will be abandoned.

The agriculture and transport ministers have stated that the present car allocation system, based on historic car allocation, will be kept in place, at least for now. Keeping the old allocation levels in place will not allow for the changes needed to make the rail system work more efficiently.

The government will still be fully in charge and will fully control the Canadian Wheat Board. For years I have been arguing that Canadian farmers should be given control of the operation of the Canadian Wheat Board. Canadian farmers pay all the operating costs of the board. Why on earth does the federal government still control the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board? The answer is it should not. Canadian farmers should gain complete control of the wheat board. Then they could decide what they want the wheat board to be like, what they want the organization to be in the future. That was not provided for in the legislation.

Another thing that was not provided for that is extremely important is legislation that will prevent work stoppages in the area of grain handling and transportation. I have seen a lot of fingers pointed, even this morning, on this issue. I saw the agriculture minister point a finger at the Bloc and the NDP saying that they are responsible for the stoppage in the rail system.

I see it a little differently. I recognize that the Bloc and the NDP did stall the back to work legislation. It is beyond me to understand why. I do not understand why. They should not have, but they did. Let us take another step back from this. If the Liberals had done their job, we would never have had a stoppage in the grain handling and transportation system.

Since the debate that ended the lockout of grain handlers last February, Reform has called-and I personally have called-for legislation which would end the stoppages in the grain handling and transportation system. That is more than one year ago.

Over that year, again and again Reformers said not to let stoppages occur. It was evident there would be stoppages this year. There was no contract in place for several groups, unions and management, including rail transportation. No contract was signed. It was predictable there would be a stoppage.

When the Liberals blame the Bloc and NDP for the stoppage, they are only really telling half the truth. The other half of the truth is that the Liberals could have prevented this. Reform pushed them to prevent it and they just ignored our pressure. I encourage Canadians to recognize where the blame for this disruption really should lie.

I would like to talk now about how payments provided for in the budget will be made to the WGTA, dairy, et cetera. First, the $1.6 billion compensation package seems to be the area the Bloc has targeted in its motion. Its members feel that is unfair. The farmers had the Crow benefit, which became the WGTA benefit, which subsidized rail freight to port position. It has been around for almost 100 years. At times the subsidy has actually been $900 million a year. It is an incredibly large subsidy. Recently that has been reduced to approximately $550 million a year, based on last year. The compensation payment is $1.6 billion.

Look at the way the compensation payment will be distributed. The phase out will only be available to farmers who own land, not those who are renting or leasing land. In essence, this provides a very short transition period for farmers who depend on this subsidy. Farmers will shoulder an immense extra costfor transporting grain to terminal positions as a result of thephase out.

Also provided is a $300 million transition fund. This is in place to help farmers deal with the termination of the subsidy. We do not know how the money will be spent and the uncertainty is very difficult for farmers to accept. It will be difficult not just for grain farmers, but alfalfa producers and processors that also used the subsidy.

Feed freight assistance will be eliminated entirely. The date was set back recently from that initially announced in the budget. Three hundred and twenty-six million dollars are available for an adjustment program regarding feed freight assistance. The compensation package will be available for farmers in the maritimes and in parts of Quebec, as will the $1.6 billion be available to farmers in western Canada.

How do these cutbacks in the WGTA and feed freight assistance compare to cuts in dairy? The dairy subsidy will be cut by 15 per cent per year for two years. This subsidy can be passed on to consumers. In fact it has been announced that the increased costs will be passed on. I have some concerns about that.

People in supply managed industries will have a difficult time dealing with the changes that are going to take place. These will be as a result of more competition coming in, perhaps from the United States. This is going to happen. I do not doubt that at all. I cannot say for sure when or how but it is going to happen.

With regard to supply management, Reform feels that farmers should have the right to operate together as they do under supply managed systems. I refer back to 1990 when I was on the Reform agriculture task force that developed the first Reform agriculture policy. At that time we noted that supply management is moving toward a more competitive system. We said that government should not hide this fact from dairy and other supply managed farmers. Back then we recognized the need for government to be very honest about this.

I found that over the past six or seven years governments have not been really honest with supply managed farmers regarding their systems and how they will be subject to more competition in the future. That is really providing a disservice to supply-managed farmers, governments not being honest and open. If the Bloc really has any doubt that there is this movement to more competition in the supply-managed industry then I want to point out a few things that I think will show that in fact supply-managed farmers will be subject to far more competition in the future.

I am not saying that I like the change I see. I know it is going to be very difficult for farmers in the supply-managed sectors.It is going to happen. I am not going to hide this fromdairy farmers and from other people in the supply-managedindustries.

We are headed for more GATT negotiations in the year 2000. Under the present tariff levels there is good protection for supply-managed farmers. We are going to see a rapid reduction in tariffs resulting from the new negotiations in GATT around the year 2000. As a result of these negotiations there will be far more open access to Canadian markets on the part of American dairy farmers and other supply-managed farmers.

However, there is a more pressing negotiation that is going to take place, which will lead the supply-managed sector to more competition. That is the new NAFTA negotiations. Bill Clinton and Jean Chrétien announced that within four years Chile will be in NAFTA. That means new NAFTA negotiations within four years.

I would like to ask the members of the Bloc if they feel there is a realistic probability, better than a 50 per cent probability, that these new NAFTA negotiations will not include more access to the Canadian market for American supply-managed farmers. I believe the answer is no. There will definitely be more access to the Canadian market by American supply-managed farmers.

I do not believe the Americans will sign a new NAFTA deal that will allow Chile into this NAFTA group unless they are given more access to Canadian markets. I am not saying this is what I want to see; I am saying this is what I believe will happen. There is an extremely high probability that this will happen.

Any politician who pretends this is not going to happen is really depriving the farmers involved of transition time that they desperately need to deal with this very difficult situation. It is indeed going to be very difficult for supply-managed farmers.

Instead of taking a day in this House to debate the relative unfairness of the cuts between east and west, between Quebec and the rest of Canada, it would be far more productive to spend our time talking about how we can help, if we can help at all, supply-managed farmers to move to a competitive market system. It is an issue that is too important for us to ignore in the House.

In the future I look forward to the Bloc using an opposition day to deal with this subject. I believe it would be of far more value to Quebec dairy farmers and other supply-managed farmers in Quebec than this type of motion.

[Western Grain Transportation Act, April 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, farmers get hit with the loss of the Crow benefit. Then they suffer more losses because of the rail strike and the other strikes. Now they cannot even be certain about which grains shipped in this crop year will be covered by the Crow benefit.

I wonder if there is anything the minister can tell farmers for sure. Is the minister telling me that he cannot give them a certain, definite date by which they must deliver grain in order to receive the Crow benefit?

[Western Grain Transportation Act, April 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in an article in the Western Producer the minister of agriculture is quoted as saying that farmers who have sold to the Canadian Wheat Board may have to pay the full freight rate for crops delivered before July 31.

The minister is telling farmers that the WGTA benefit is actually ending before the end of the crop year and not next year as promised in the budget. This is unfair.

Can the minister at least tell western Canadian farmers by what date they must deliver their grain to receive the Crow benefit?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, April 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, today I will deal with three aspects of the 1995 Liberal budget and Bill C-76, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget.

First, I will outline the cuts in agriculture spending and make some general comments on the cuts. Second, I will ask some questions on behalf of Canadian farmers about what will follow the WGTA. These questions and many others have been asked over the months since this budget was tabled in the House. Third, I will discuss how the shortcomings in the overall budget might affect farmers and the agri-food industry.

First, how do the cuts in agriculture spending compare to the cuts in other sectors of federal government spending? How do the cuts on payments to farmers compare to cuts in operating costs of the department itself?

Farmers have obviously been asked to shoulder an unfair portion of the spending cuts in this budget. I am not saying the cuts should have been the same percentage in all areas of government spending, but by any measure, agriculture was hit disproportionately hard. Had cuts been made in other sectors in a fair way, this would have produced a balanced budget and all the positives that go along with a balanced budget. To illustrate this point, I will give a brief summary of the cuts in agriculture spending.

In the agriculture department overall spending was cut by about 20 per cent. Total funds available for 1994-95 are $2.1 billion. There was a $445 million cut in spending in this budget to the agriculture department. These cuts came in safety net funding, subsidies to dairy farmers, research, and user pay fees for inspections and those types of things. As well, there were some cuts in the department itself.

There are also cuts in agriculture from the transport department. The Crow rate, $560 million a year, was the largest single cut to farmers and is effective July 31, 1995. The Atlantic Feed Freight Assistance Act and the Maritime Freight Rates Act will be eliminated by July 31, 1995. The cost for this subsidy was $99 million a year.

To summarize, the total cuts in agriculture spending from the transport department are approximately $660 million a year by the end of the third year. Total cuts to agriculture spending from the agriculture department itself are $445 million per year. Total cuts to agriculture spending in this year's budget are approximately $1.1 billion. By any measure, this is disproportionately weighted toward agriculture.

When the cuts in agriculture spending from transport and the agriculture department are combined, the reduced spending to farmers is 40 per cent in this budget. There is almost 50 per cent in cuts in payments when payments to the railways and direct payments to farmers are included.

How do the cuts to farmers outlined in this budget compare to the cuts in the operations of the agriculture department? The cuts in the agriculture department were 20 per cent compared to almost 50 per cent in cuts in the direct payments to farmers and the railways on the farmers' behalf. There is no balance when comparing those cuts.

I am not saying these cuts should not have been made. Rather, there should have been more balance across all sectors of government spending when compared to spending on the operations of the department itself. Later I will talk about the negative effects of the government not going far enough in this budget.

Farmers also needed a transition time to adjust to these cuts. For example, Reform proposed a trade distortion adjustment program nearly five years ago. This would have provided a gradual phase out of the WGTA benefit, putting the payment immediately to farmers so they could provide for the loss in the WGTA payment as was needed. It would have also provided for a fund to compensate farmers against unfair trade practices in other countries.

This transition time was desperately needed by farmers so farmers would have time to make the necessary changes in order to recoup the losses suffered as a result of this budget. Not only is there no transition time, but there are not enough substantial changes to allow farmers and agribusiness to become more efficient.

Some changes were made but they did not go far enough. For example, in branch line abandonment, the reductions that will be allowed are limited and uncertain. In car allocation, the method used will be based on historic allocation. That does not provide well for the changes which are needed to make this system more efficient. The Canadian Wheat Board will still be a government controlled body instead of a farmer controlled body which is what it should be and what farmers want it to be.

Payouts will be made to farmers under this budget. First, in regard to the WGTA there will be a $1.6 billion compensation package. The stated intent is to compensate farmers for a loss in land value which will result from the loss of this $560 million a year subsidy. When we examine this it allows for about a one and a half to a two year transition time for grain farmers. It is too short a transition time. There would also be a $300 million transition fund but we do not know where it will be spent and how it will be used. There is too much uncertainty.

In feed freight assistance the payment is eliminated entirely but there will be a $326 million transportation adjustment program. Again, it will be paid out over five years. The detail beyond that does not exist. The uncertainty is unacceptable.

Governments have talked a lot about trying to help stabilize the agriculture industry. It seems to me that they have caused a lot of uncertainty and instability. That is certainly the case with this budget. More questions have been left unanswered than have been answered.

I want to ask some of the questions which have been asked of me by western Canadian farmers over the past month. They concern the loss of the Crow benefit payment and how the payment will be made. Other questions concern the compensation and transition packages.

The stated purpose of the $1.6 billion WGTA payout is to compensate farmers for a loss in land value resulting from a loss of this benefit. If this is the intent, then why would the payment not be made on all farmland? If grain land loses its value, then would not other land lose its value as well?

Why did the minister call on owners and lenders to pass the payment on to renters and lessees? This seems inconsistent with the government's stated intent which was to compensate for the reduced land value. If the real intent on the other hand is to provide transition funding to grain farmers, then why is this not acknowledged and why is the payment not structured accordingly?

There is a second area of questions I will ask on behalf of farmers. Does the minister have any advice for renters or those leasing land and who are part way through a lease or rental agreement right now? These farmers will be caught paying up to $35 an acre more in freight costs for crops they will be seeding over the next two months. Because of crop rotations and herbicide planning, it will be difficult to make the appropriate adjustments in crop seeding to help reduce the added costs by changing to higher value, lower volume crops or indeed moving more into livestock and growing feed or providing pasture for livestock.

Does the minister feel it is reasonable to make a policy change which will have the magnitude of impact with virtually no transition time and no transition funding? That is the case for lessees and land renters. I am sure there are thousands of farmers renting land, and many in the minister's own riding I would suggest, who are looking for advice on how to deal with this unanticipated extra cost. I doubt very much they will be looking to the minister for this advice.

The third area of questions farmers have asked over the past month since the budget and indeed before it also has to do with the WGTA and the loss of that benefit. I have several questions to ask on behalf of western grain farmers regarding how the payment will be calculated and when the payment or payments will be made.

The budget implementation bill does state that payment will be based on 1994 acres seeded to grains and an adjustment will reflect historic productivity. This leaves many questions unanswered.

For example, how will historic productivity be determined? If the payment is based on 1994 grain acres, those who have been moving acres from forage to grain land in a rotation may be completely missed in terms of a payout. People who read the market signals and who made the appropriate moves could be completely missed by this payment through no fault of their own. The last question is when will farmers receive their payment or payments?

Another area is what measures will be taken to allow the system to become more efficient and to give farmers more flexibility in marketing. I have seen very little evidence this exists.

The Liberal government by not going far enough in the budget will make life for Canadian farmers very difficult. Cuts in agriculture are not matched in any way by cuts in other areas of federal spending. As well, changes which would allow farmers to make up for some of the losses in payments from government, or which would allow farmers to cut costs, are inadequate. Changes that would allow farmers more direct access to markets are non-existent.

The inadequacies in the budget will make the next few years very difficult for farmers. However, there is another overriding factor which if not dealt with quickly will make the future most difficult for farmers, other business people and all Canadians. This overriding factor is the continual increase in interest payments on the debt. Interest payments on the debt have increased from $39 billion a year, when the government took office, to $51 billion with the finance minister's own figures, an unacceptable increase in levels.

What this will mean to farmers is more cutbacks next year and beyond, higher than necessary interest rates, little hope of reducing input costs to help compensate for increased freight costs, losses in government payments and more uncertainty regarding the future of social programs. Farmers will face these extra costs and difficulties because the budget does not set a definite date for eliminating the deficit.

I have provided a summary of the cuts in agriculture. I have asked some of the yet unanswered questions regarding the WGTA payout. I have outlined the major, overriding factor, interest payments on the debt, which threatens farmers in so many ways.

Farmers need some answers in order to provide certainty in their lives. I am asking the government to give some answers which will allow certainty to replace the instability and uncertainty farmers will feel and have felt as a result of the budget.

[Petitions, March 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am delighted to present four petitions on behalf of 1,880 constituents of Vegreville constituency.

In all four petitions, it is recognized that public safety is the number one priority of the criminal justice system. It is also

recognized that the existing controls on law-abiding, responsible gun owners are more than enough.

The petitioners request that Parliament support laws which will severely punish all violent criminals that use weapons in the commission of a crime, support new Criminal Code firearms control provisions which recognize and protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to own and use recreational firearms, and request that Parliament support legislation that will repeal and modify existing gun control laws which do not improve public safety or have proven not to be cost effective or have proven to be overly complex so as to be ineffective and/or unenforceable.

[Supply, March 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member. Is culture in Quebec so fragile that it takes Radio-Canada to keep the culture together? I suggest the culture has not been built by a radio or television station or network. The culture has been built by centuries of people working, playing and living together.

After all those centuries is the culture so fragile that we need a government owned television and radio network to sustain it? That seems absurd to me. I would like the member to respond to the question.

[Supply, March 21st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary indicated that the CBC should be the body involved in defining our identity as Canadians.

I have heard that point before in the House from members opposite. I have had no calls from my constituents asking for anyone to define them as Canadians. I have heard of no calls from my colleagues' constituents to help them define themselves as Canadians. I certainly feel no need personally to have anyone define me as a Canadian. I am a Canadian and I am happy and proud to be one. I do not need anyone to define what a Canadian should be.

Has the hon. member had calls from her constituents for a definition of Canadians? Maybe the hon. member could refer to letters and petitions she may have received as well as calls about the definition of Canadians.

Furthermore, does the member feel that the CBC, a crown corporation, would be the body her constituents would go to for a definition of what a Canadian is? Going to a government organization to get a definition of what we should be as Canadians sounds a little strange to me. I would like the hon. member to respond to those questions.

[Agriculture, March 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Human Resources Development, the Minister of Transport and now the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, and from our different ministers we have had four different answers.

I would like an answer, please. Will this payment absolutely, for sure, be made to the landowner or as some of the other ministers have said possibly to the renters or lessors?

[Agriculture, March 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the government has waffled long enough on to whom the Crow benefit should be paid. Farmers need clarification from the agriculture minister now.

I ask the minister this very simple question: Is the final Crow payment intended to benefit the landowner or the actual producer?

[Grain Export Protection Act, March 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, today, March 20, 1995, marks a very troublesome day for those who depend on the railways and for those who must use the port of Montreal to get their products to customers.

Canadians are feeling the full effects of strikes and lockouts, and back to work legislation for the railways is in the works. We have been in this situation before. Last Wednesday we sat late debating Bill C-74, back to work legislation to settle the labour dispute on the west coast.

A little over a year ago we also debated back to work legislation with Bill C-10 to handle a similar dispute which lasted for 12 days.

Unfortunately these are not isolated incidents. Canadians have felt the effects of similar disruptions many times. I believe 13 have ended with back to work legislation in the past 30 years.

Unless both sides in the CP Rail dispute can reach an agreement some time very soon, we will be debating back to work legislation again today, tomorrow or soon.

I find it ironic that components of the grain handling and transportation system are consistently treated as essential services when work stoppages occur. I am here today to ask the government not to provide essential service legislation. I am asking the government to carefully consider the very positive impact of Bill C-262; the impact it would have in ameliorating recurring problems between labour and management.

Currently there is no effective collective bargaining taking place between labour and management. Both sides know they can depend on government to legislate them back to work. Let us not pretend we have productive collective bargaining taking place right now. We do not. Let us end the charade and do what Reformers called for in last year's emergency debate and what the hon. member for Lethbridge is currently calling for in his private member's bill, Bill C-262.

Bill C-262 provides a tool for both labour and management to prevent these disruptive and expensive work stoppages which affect people all across the country when they occur. The current work stoppage at CP Rail and at the Montreal port would not have happened if Bill C-262 were in place. These disruptions in grain handling and grain movement and in the movement of other goods must not be allowed to continue.

The collective bargaining process must be allowed to work where it can work. In the vast majority of cases, in situations between labour and management, they do reach agreement and the process works fairly well. In other cases the process does not work well. When this happens labour and management both lose. Unless an agreement is reached the operations will close down.

The case of grain handling and shipping is unique. It is unique because the cost of a disruption can and will be borne by farmers in three ways. First, added costs cannot be passed on to the consumer because farmers are price takers in a very competitive marketplace. Second, there is a loss of revenue in present sales

and, more important, in future sales through the loss of long term customers. Third, farmers have no real alternative. They have no way to get around the system. They must ship through the rail transportation and grain handling systems currently in place. They cannot choose to use another system which is offered by someone else because it does not exist.

That is why work stoppages should not be allowed in the grain handling system. I hope the hon. member for Mercier will now understand why stoppages in the grain handling system are so important and why they are every bit as important as the welfare and health of members of labour unions. The welfare and health of farmers is directly affected by these work stoppages. This is coming from someone who has lived and worked in agricultural communities through these disruptions over the years.

The extra stress caused by farmers being deprived of income makes one of the most dangerous businesses in the country today even more dangerous. By allowing these disruptions to happen continually farmers' health and welfare is affected every bit as much as members of the labour unions. I hope the member will now understand that the concerns of farmers and the stress and the danger to their health are every bit as important as that of labour union members.

How do we deal with the situation in a way that is fair to labour, to management, to the all too forgotten party, grain farmers, and alfalfa shippers and other shippers? Bill C-262 provides a solution through final offer selection arbitration. This process is triggered upon request by one party if the parties concerned are unable to reach an agreement through the collective bargaining process. The key features of this process as outlined in Bill C-262 are as follows.

The trade union and employer are requested to provide the minister with the name of a person they jointly recommend as arbitrator. The trade union and employer are required to submit to the arbitrator a list of matters agreed on and a list of matters still under dispute. For disputed issues each party is required to submit a final offer for settlement.

The arbitrator then selects either the final offer submitted by the trade union or the final offer submitted by the employer. In the event that one party does not submit a final offer, the other party's offer is automatically accepted. The arbitrator's decision is binding on both parties.

As you can see, final offer selection arbitration does not prevent the collective bargaining process from following through to a conclusion. It simply speeds the process up. However, it does prevent the very few from doing unacceptable damage to so many.

There are the other workers and the loss of work and income for the other workers shut down by the stoppage. There are the other businesses involved in grain handling and movement. There is the damage done to business enterprises and Canada's now faltering reputation as a reliable grain exporter. There are the farmers who must shoulder most of the costs for short and long term damage resulting from lost markets. They have no way of passing those costs on to the consumer or of recouping those losses.

Legislation that provides a long term solution to this problem should have been passed years ago. In this regard I would like to pledge continued leadership by Reform members of Parliament in continuing to press for long term solutions to this and similar problems in the grain handling system.

We cannot afford to have disruptions continue in the grain handling and transportation systems. I am asking for support for Bill C-262. Indeed in the past, several members of the government side and others have provided support for final offer selection arbitration.

I do not have time to read all the quotes, but these quotes are from the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food himself, and the Minister of Human Resources Development, and from the chief commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board, Lorne Hehn. He stated that the grain industry cannot afford any more strikes and lockouts and said: "We cannot afford to shut down a multibillion dollar industry for the sake of a few people. I think that we have to do something about this situation".

Mr. Hehn went on to state that he would favour a first offer selection. "If an agreement could not be reached through the collective bargaining process," he said, "I think that would bring people to the table in a more honest fashion. We could settle these things without shutting the system down". I believe this first offer arbitration is much like the final selection process we are proposing here today.

The senior grain transportation committee voted on October 14, 1994 to support a system of final offer arbitration. It is down in black and white from members of this government.

The most effective way I can present the importance of stopping these disruptions in the future comes from farmers. My father lived through these disruptions in his farming career and each time I saw the stress and the pain. I know the hurt that caused him and his neighbours. As for myself, in my farming career I have lived through several of these disruptions. I know the pain and the loss these have caused my neighbours and myself.

Finally, I would like to stress that it is not only labour unions that are being tough on this issue. Farmers have threatened in the past-and there could come a time when this will happen-to take over the process of grain movement in any way they can on their own. Farmers will not let these disruptions continue indefinitely. They must stop. I encourage this government to

support Bill C-262 to ensure this is the end of these disruptions in grain handling and grain movement.