Leon Benoit

[Agriculture, May 10th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I have never been accused of speaking eloquently before. I appreciate that very much.

[Agriculture, May 10th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I would have been very surprised if the hon. member had not stood and made a comment or two. I appreciate his comments.

I see no contradiction in what I said about the cars sitting near Lloydminster. I have proposed in my speech that there should be a system of penalties and incentives in the system. Right now we have hopper cars that have been paid for by the taxpayers of Canada and by farmers directly through the Canadian Wheat Board. Yet there is no way the system can charge railway companies or shippers demurrage or some other kind of penalty for not using these cars properly. If we had that type of mechanism in place this absolute blatant abuse of the system would not happen.

[Agriculture, May 10th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for this open debate on agriculture, a debate which is truly needed.

I believe that government involvement in agriculture over the past 20 years has created one disaster after another. I say this with absolutely no intent to attach blame or to point a finger but rather to emphasize the need for well-focused changes in the direction and the relationship among government, farmers and agri-business.

I appreciate the minister's speech this morning and I agree with much of what he said. The real test of course is in the interpretation. It is my greatest hope that his interpretation is at least similar to mine.

We urgently need a change in the direction of our agriculture policy. We must all put aside partisan politics and old disagreements and work together toward policies which demonstrate that we have learned from the mistakes of the past and recognize the new realities of the future. When I say we, I mean everyone who has a stake in agriculture at all. This includes farmers, businesses which buy, sell or process farm products, government agencies and regulatory bodies and the various levels of government.

I must also stress the need for all members to really listen to the ideas presented by the members of the other political parties. One thing I know for sure is that we all have the best interests of farmers in mind as we go through this debate today. I have no doubt about that at all.

Because we are all sincere I believe we owe it to each other and to the people we represent to try not to distort the intent or the proposals and the ideas that each of us present here today.

Farmers tell me that they are frustrated with farming because they have little control over their business and have too few choices when it comes to buying and selling. They feel they have too little control over factors such as unfair restrictions and access to markets due to trade wars between Europe and the United States and unfair import restrictions into Japan and Korea; a grain handling and transportation system which fails them again and again and is much too expensive; safety net programs which do not work well and are ever-changing caus-

ing instability; and high taxes and high input costs which make it difficult to compete.

They feel they have too few choices because marketing systems restrict their options and because overregulation limits their ability to find alternatives to dysfunctioning programs. With these concerns in mind I will briefly outline the principles which guide Reform agriculture policy.

Canada's agriculture policy should focus on allowing a self-reliant, market driven industry to develop. Reformers believe that all sectors of agriculture can be competitive if given a fair environment in which to operate both within Canada and in the world marketplace.

The role of government in this market driven industry is twofold. First is to provide market responsive education and training, infrastructure and regulation which will allow farmers and the rest of the agriculture industry to become and remain self-reliant. Second is to support and defend farmers and agri-business against situations over which they have little control such as unfair foreign subsidies, trade distorting influences and certain natural hazards.

Government should not be a partner with farmers or agri-business because government has proven very clearly in the past that it is a partner that farmers cannot afford and one that cannot be trusted.

During my speech today I will present an overview of Reform agriculture policies under the headings of safety nets, marketing reforms, transportation and grain handling, research and market development, and creating a healthy business environment for agriculture.

As I present our policy I will point out specific examples of lessons we can learn from certain policy initiatives of the past 20 years. Emphasis will be placed on the need to reduce regulation and legislation which has a negative impact on the industry by limiting options.

Also there is a need to reduce overlap between federal departments that affect agriculture, between the federal government and other levels of government, and between government and industry. Removing regulations and reducing overlap will reduce the size of government and reduce costs. Removing these hurdles, barriers and red tape will also increase the bottom line for farmers and agri-business.

Increasing farmers' profit margins will reduce the draw on safety net programs. Government involvement in safety net programs may be necessary to support and defend farmers against the negative effects of circumstances over which they have little or no control. These situations arise from foreign subsidies and other trade distorting actions, natural hazards and to some extent market cycles which occur in the open market. Safety nets must be market neutral and available in an equitable way to all sectors of the industry.

To this end, Reform has proposed three safety net programs: first, a trade distortion adjustment program; second, an income stabilization program; and third, an improved crop insurance program. We also propose keeping the Advance Payments for Crop Act to reduce the cash crunch induced selling in the fall, and vigorously enforcing countervail duties where dumping can be demonstrated.

The trade distortion adjustment program would compensate farmers from all sectors for damage done by subsidies in other countries, or limited access to markets through unfair import tariffs and the like. The program would include automatic triggering mechanisms based on the historic volume of exported products. It will not require producer premiums and will compensate farmers for a predetermined percentage of damage done by a subsidy on a competing commodity, or by unfair restrictions to market access.

It is our sincere hope that future GATT agreements will eventually reduce the amount of funding needed under this safety net program.

The Reform income stabilization program would shelter farmers in all sectors from the impact of market cycles which occur in an open market environment. This program could use NISA as its base, but would be modified and expanded in the following ways.

It would apply to all commodities in all sectors, that is, it would involve the whole farm approach. Supply managed sectors will have access to this program as tariff levels are reduced enough that the uncertainty and the instability of the marketplace creep into their pricing system.

Contributions would be based on gross margins in a way which would apply fairly across all sectors. The 3 per cent interest bonus would be replaced by tax deductible contributions.

The total level of government matched and unmatched funds will be subject to a regenerative cap which will be equitably applied across all sectors. There will be no limit on the level of contribution per farm unit so we would not discriminate based on size.

Upon a farmer's retirement these funds may be transferable to an RRSP or a RRIF.

The Reform Party also proposes as a part of the safety net package an improved crop insurance program to protect against some of the damage caused by natural hazards. The requirements of this program are: getting enough farmers involved in a particular area to make it administratively sound; maintaining present federal-provincial farmer funding arrangements and being actuarially sound within that arrangement; providing all risk yield loss protection; and a nationally consistent design across all sectors.

In implementing these or similar programs there are some important lessons we can learn from past and present programs.

Take GRIP, please. I have heard this a lot over the past few weeks from my constituents. There are more holes in GRIP than there are gopher holes in Saskatchewan, and that is a substantial number.

I could spend the rest of my time complaining about the flaws and problems with GRIP, but I know that most members already understand these problems and see the flaws. Besides, it would definitely ruin my day, probably everyone's day. Let us not get into finger pointing, but let us make sure we learn the lessons that have to be learned from programs like GRIP.

That is a brief summary of our safety net proposals. As for marketing reforms, we believe they are required to allow farmers to build more profitable, self-reliant industry. The Reform Party supports the right of farmers to form and operate co-operatives, commissions and marketing boards, as long as these bodies receive their direction from the farmers they serve. Farmers must be free to build a viable, self-reliant, market driven industry in which they can make their own decisions about how products are marketed. Government need only provide the basic rules and minimum scrutiny of these groups.

Most of the farm organizations and marketing boards in place could continue to operate under the policy we are proposing. Some organizations will however need substantial changes to make them work well in the world marketplace. Two examples are the Canadian Wheat Board and supply management.

There is substantial support across the prairies for major reform of the Canadian Wheat Board. Farmers feel stifled and unfairly limited by the monopolistic powers of the board. While there is considerable support for maintaining some aspects of the Canadian Wheat Board, farmers want the ability to bypass the board when they feel it is not doing a good job of marketing or when they see better opportunities which they can access either directly or through a grain company.

The Canadian Wheat Board then should be reformed in the following ways. First, farmers should control the board. A board of directors should be elected by farmers and replace the appointed commissioners. This board of directors could choose to keep all or some of the commissioners. Those who argue that the wheat board advisory committee already gives farmers some control over the Canadian Wheat Board are wrong because the wheat board advisory committee has absolutely no power.

Second, the mandate of the Canadian Wheat Board should be expanded to include any grains, oilseeds or specialty crops that it chooses to handle, but farmers must be allowed to compete with the board through grain companies or directly.

The third change to the Canadian Wheat Board would be that farmers have the right to choose between a pool price or a daily cash price. Some of the current wheat board powers should be maintained, for example the power to pay out advance payments on grain and the power to provide loan guarantees as long as other countries continue to use this practice.

I have received a few form letters from people worried that I am proposing the abolition of the Canadian Wheat Board. Of course that is not my intent or the intent of Reform. I want to take this time to assure them that I do not believe the wheat board should be abolished but rather improved to serve farmers better. Farmers want more choices and they must be given more choices.

I believe these changes to the Canadian Wheat Board will increase the price farmers get from the marketplace. This increase in market revenue will reduce payments needed for the safety net programs.

Since the first Reform task force met in 1990, of which I was a member, Reformers recognize that with new GATT deals supply managed sectors will need to adjust to freer trade within a global marketplace.

As a farmer it has been extremely difficult for me to watch as governments have pretended supply management can remain as it is. This stand has been taken mainly for political purposes and is a disservice to supply managed farmers. It is time for politicians to be open and honest with farmers from the supply managed sectors and help them prepare for the reality that as tariff levels drop they will be forced to compete especially with American producers.

On a positive note, a huge American market will open up to Canadian farmers. The extremely high tariff levels currently allowed under the GATT agreement will most likely be reduced at a faster rate than is projected right now. The free trade agreements, pressure from the Americans, and possibly new GATT agreements will cause this accelerated reduction in tariffs.

Canadian supply managed farmers can compete with anyone in the world if they are given the opportunity to do so. I encourage the government to do what is right instead of what is politically easy. I encourage the government to prepare supply managed farmers and to allow them to prepare themselves for the new challenges and opportunities ahead.

I would like to talk a bit now about what is wrong with the transportation and grain handling system. Simply put, it does not accomplish what needs to be done, that is move farmers' grain. It is one of the most heavily regulated parts of the agriculture industry. There is too much legislation and too many bodies involved to properly manage the system. There are no incentives or penalties in place to make it work better.

A few days ago there were about 1,000 cars of canola meal sitting near Lloydminster. Why, at a time when the industry desperately needs more cars to deal with the problems in moving grain, should there be 1,000 cars sitting on a siding near Lloydminster? I will bet a brand new pair of cowboy boots that if the system had the incentives and the penalties in place this 1,000 car mistake would have never happened. Or, if by chance it did, it certainly would have been dealt with very quickly. We need the incentives and the penalties.

At the joint agriculture and transportation subcommittee meetings on grain held last week there were two interesting proposals for dealing with this highly regulated and overadministered system.

The Grain Workers Union suggested that there be a czar who would be a type of overseer for the entire system. While the GTA was intended to be that czar it did not succeed partly because of interference from the Canadian Wheat Board. We tried the czar solution and it has not worked, at least so far.

The second proposal came from United Grain Growers. It suggested deregulating the industry and putting into place a system of initiatives and penalties to increase efficiency. However, when asked if a better solution would be to let railways take control of car allocations, the representative from UGG agreed.

With these changes guidance would come from the National Transportation Act as it does for others involved in transportation. To make this work it would be necessary to put the Crow benefit directly in the hands of farmers, either through our trade distortion adjustment program, a similar program or some type of pay the producer option. This would be a more viable solution to persistent grain transportation problems.

Reform's policy on transportation subsidy is to direct the Crow benefit into our trade distortion adjustment program. This takes care of the dilution problems that arise from some of the pay the producer options. Our policy will still provide for the benefits the pay the producer options provide by forcing the railways to become competitive. Furthermore, it will encourage more value added on the prairies through diversification and further processing. If the government were serious about jobs it would pursue a method of giving farmers control over the transportation dollars. That would create real jobs, long term jobs and productive jobs on the prairies.

Reformers believe that the grain handling industry should be deregulated, that railways should be responsible for car allocation, and that they should be administered through the National Transportation Act.

Problems in the grain handling part of the system contribute to problems in grain movement. Frequent and unnecessary strikes and lockouts have cost Canadian farmers through lost sales, demurrage, et cetera. Strikes should not be allowed in the grain handling system. A mechanism must be put in place to deal with labour disputes before a contract expires. This solution will work well for grain handling companies, for workers and most important, for western Canadian grain farmers.

I would like to touch on two more areas in conclusion: research and development and creating a healthy business and trade environment. Research and development must be a top priority in any agriculture policy. Private industry depends on research and marketing agriculture products for its very existence. Therefore it is important that government work to co-ordinate its research with that of the private industry.

The auditor general's report stated that there are over 800 research projects funded by Agriculture Canada. These projects seem to be uncoordinated and improperly priorized. While Agriculture Canada has been moving in the direction of private industry guidelines, there is a need for more of the stimulus behind these research projects to come from the private sector.

Reformers strongly support and promote an open market system as a type of economic system within which business operates best. Reformers recognize that to make an open market system work well there must be some regulation. The government's role is important in dealing with certain situations, for example unfair trade practices on the part of other countries. That is why Reform proposes much tougher anti-combines and fair competition legislation and recognizes the need to enforce import control regulations when dumping occurs. We believe this type of system works much better than the heavily regulated system of substantial government involvement that we currently have.

In summary, having proposed these substantial agricultural reforms, my greatest concern is that the government has and will continue to make cuts in agriculture spending before it has released farmers from the burden of overregulation. For example, the government followed through with the 10 per cent cut to the Crow benefit which was implemented by the former government. This reduction in spending was not preceded by the necessary changes in regulation which would free up the transportation system and let farmers get around the heavily regulated system.

I cannot stress enough the importance of getting farmers and farm related businesses more choices through less regulation and better co-ordinated programs as funding in agriculture is decreased. Better targeted spending with fewer and more co-ordinated programs will allow for further spending cuts of between $150 million and $200 million with about the same amount of money going to farmers.

Once again, I thank the minister of agriculture for allowing this very important debate. I urge him to examine carefully the alternatives we present on this side of the House, as well as the alternatives from members of other political parties.

[Agriculture, May 10th, 1994]

I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker, to ask unanimous consent of the House to ask questions of the agriculture minister.

[Justice, May 9th, 1994]

Do you agree with the '71 change?

[Young Offenders Act, May 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, acts of violence across Canada have sparked further calls for a complete review of our justice system, in particular the Young Offenders Act. The slap on the wrist punishments handed down to young offenders are ineffective and far too lenient. Justice reform is needed desperately but Canadians have yet to see action from the government.

As a result of the federal government's inaction the province of Alberta has taken the unusual step of reviewing federal legislation. Five MLAs will gather the opinions and suggestions of Albertans on how to make the Young Offenders Act more effective and present their findings in a final report in September.

Justice rallies were held last weekend in Calgary and Edmonton with a turnout of approximately 5,000 people. It is frustrating to see what lengths honest law-abiding citizens and the Alberta government must go to in order to bring the government's attention to the fact that Canadians are deeply concerned about their safety.

For the sake of all Canadians I sincerely hope the government is listening to Albertans.

[Trade, April 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain why this government is so ineffective when it comes to protecting Canadian farmers against dumping by the Americans?

[Trade, April 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.

Canadian apple growers are looking to this government for action to protect them from wholesale dumping by the Americans, a blatant violation of the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement, of NAFTA and of GATT. The government asked for proof and the growers provided that proof. Truly time is of the essence in this matter. It has to be dealt with quickly.

Will the minister assure Canadian apple growers that this government will immediately initiate action to stop this dumping?

[Wheat Quotas, April 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, U.S. Senator Kent Conrad suggested that the American solution is to nuke Canada. Mickey Cantor says that he is ready for a dust-up with Canada. These are fighting words.

Wheat farmers want government to face this challenge head on. They demand assurance that the government will not cave in to the Americans and allow wheat quotas. Will the minister give farmers the assurance that he will not agree to quotas?

[Wheat Quotas, April 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. Why is the minister even considering agreeing to quotas on durum wheat shipments to the United States?