Leon Benoit

[Supply, February 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about the cuts proposed in governor in council appointments and mentioned a figure with regard to that. It is very interesting that Bill C-51, which was before the House before Christmas, adds governor in council appointments and Bill C-61, which just passed second reading yesterday, adds governor in council appointments.

I would like to know if this figure the hon. member presented was net of the new appointments that have been added or is this more Liberal doublespeak?

[Supply, February 14th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I cannot believe what I am hearing here today from this member

of the Bloc. I think it is time he became accountable to this House, to the people in his constituency and to the people across the country because he is not being accountable.

This member has said that spending on social programs has not played a part and has not been the reason that we have a deficit in this country. I would like him to answer some very direct questions.

Total federal spending was about $163 billion last year. About $40 billion of that was interest payments on the debt. You are not going to make interest payments on the debt? About $80 billion was in the area of social program spending. About $43 billion was for all other government spending, including the cost of government, defence, Indian affairs and so.

Reform put out a detailed plan to cut $10 billion from that $43 billion and presented it to the finance minister and to the finance committee. I never heard members of the Bloc saying that they would cut more from that area. They complained they would not make the cuts that Reform has proposed to make out of that area. That means the Bloc is prepared to cut more out of this $80 billion in social program spending because there is no other place to make the cuts. That is reality.

I would like this member to start talking about reality. I want to ask him directly how he would propose to balance the budget using some fact without making cuts in the area of social program spending. I would like him to answer this in a way that will be believable to the people in his constituency and across the country.

[Supply, February 14th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member for Willowdale.

The hon. member talked about this government's commitment to balancing the budget and he talked about the target of its very weak goal of 3 per cent of GDP in three years.

The interesting thing about that is it is a moving target. It has been much more rapidly moving than economic growth. The government started out talking about $22 billion. Lately the talk has been of $25 billion. It is a rapidly moving target.

The hon. member talked about economic growth and how it has been much higher than what was forecast. The interesting thing is that although economic growth has been much higher than forecasts I have not seen an acceleration in the reduction of the deficit to correspond with this income which was not anticipated.

I would like to ask the hon. member why there has not been a reduction in the three year target to correspond with the unexpected increase in growth.

[Western Grain Transportation Act, February 13th, 1995]

Thunder Bay.

[Western Grain Transportation Act, February 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for the hon. member opposite.

I congratulate the transport minister for bringing these changes forward. We have been pushing for these exact changes since we started meeting in the agriculture committee and in the House. Of course we will support these measures but we would have supported them a year ago more happily.

How does the hon. member see the demurrage charges and the storage charges that are allowed now under the second clause in this bill used? There certainly is a need for this measure, but how is this government going to use them? Is it going to use them? The powers are there in the WGTA right now and they are not used. Will they be used now?

Mr. Speaker, I suppose you are not going to let me ask my questions about the Canadian Wheat Board. Are are going to rule them irrelevant? I will not ask those then.

[Western Grain Transportation Act, February 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, clause 2 of this very short bill deals with the issue of allowing under the WGTA for demurrage and storage charges for grain that is being stored on rail cars to be levied against the railway. How does the hon. member opposite see this being implemented? Will it be used? If so, how often?

We know that rail cars are used for storage in many cases and certainly the system is not efficient. There is an average turnaround time of 20 days or more, the same as 80 years ago. How does the hon. member see this part of the bill being used to ensure quicker turnaround and more efficiency in the rail system?

[Western Grain Transportation Act, February 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a question. It has to do with the Canadian Wheat Board again.

The first question was whether the hon. member favours an elected board of directors to replace the appointed commissioners. Second, following the election of a board of directors would the hon. member favour the use of direct democracy plebiscite, and it can be controlled, as a mechanism for determining what the wheat board would be in the future?

[Western Grain Transportation Act, February 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments and questions for the hon. member for Brandon-Souris.

The first one is to ask the hon. member what impact removing the WGTA subsidy on shipments to Mexico will have. What kind of an impact will it be? How many tonnes or how many dollars are we talking about in that regard?

Second, I would like to ask the same questions I asked the last speaker from that side of the House concerning the Canadian Wheat Board. It fits in with the WGTA because of the restriction that comes into play due to the Canadian Wheat Board Act. There are two things in particular. Does the hon. member opposite favour replacing the appointed commissioners who now control the Canadian Wheat Board with a board of directors that would be elected by farmers? Would the hon. member favour a plebiscite which would allow farmers to determine exactly what the wheat board would be and how it would work?

[Western Grain Transportation Act, February 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I also have a few comments and a question for the member.

The member was talking about the proposed changes to the WGTA. I would like to ask a broader question with regard to future reform of the WGTA. In particular I would like to ask the member if he believes when the National Transportation Act replaces the WGTA that reform is necessary to the National Transportation Act to make it work in the grain business.

As the WGTA has changed there are other restrictions that will have to be removed to make the whole transportation grain handling industry work, particularly the Canadian Wheat Board.

I would like to ask two questions with regard to the Canadian Wheat Board. First, does the member favour a board of directors elected by farmers to replace the appointed commissioners? Second, does the member support the use of a plebiscite to allow farmers to decide what they want the Canadian Wheat Board to be in the future?

[Agriculture And Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act, February 13th, 1995]

Some members opposite are referring to recall. I would just like to remind them that the hon. member for Beaver River in early November introduced the recall bill into this House. Had the members opposite voted for that recall bill instead of against it, people in my constituency would have had the right to invoke a recall petition. Therefore, I encourage them to bring this bill up on their own to show that they really do believe in direct democracy. I would be more than happy to honour that recall legislation.

I have outlined what this bill attempts to achieve. I have discussed my three main areas of concern with this bill and I have outlined what I consider to be the most positive aspects of this bill.

I have one final comment on this bill. Achieving the best balance between which details should actually be included in legislation and which should be left up to ministerial discretion is often difficult. By adding more detail, which is often covered by regulation rather than in the legislation itself, a bill can limit the flexibility of implementation. This can be positive or negative. The more detail added to the legislation the less discretion the minister has in implementing the legislation. Less discretion means less power.

I believe this legislation needs more details. If it sounds like I do not trust government and bureaucracy, that is true. It has been well demonstrated in the past that it is wise to view government with a certain level of distrust. Governments have earned this reputation. This was very apparent to me this last weekend as I canvassed for the Reform candidates in Ottawa-Vanier and Saint-Henri-Westmount. Many people I talked to expressed a high level of distrust of both present and past governments.

Because I am leery of giving the government too much flexibility in implementing legislation, I will be looking for more detail to be added in third reading. I look forward to getting the answers to the questions that I have presented to the minister today and I look forward to discussing Bill C-61 in committee and in further debate in this House.