36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 61
CONTENTS
Tuesday, February 17, 1998
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1005
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRTC
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Emergency Personnel
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-4. Third reading
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
1010
1015
1020
1025
1030
1035
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1040
1045
1050
1055
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1100
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1105
1110
1115
1120
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1125
1130
1135
1140
1145
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
1150
1155
1200
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1205
1210
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1215
1220
1225
1230
1235
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
1240
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe McGuire |
1245
1250
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1255
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1300
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
1305
1310
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
1315
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1320
1325
1330
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Bonwick |
1335
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
1340
1345
1350
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1355
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | 1998 WINTER OLYMPICS
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. George Proud |
1400
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | LITERACY
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL UNITY
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Karen Redman |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Drouin |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
1405
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL UNITY
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Maud Debien |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRANSITIONAL JOB CREATION FUND
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Chatters |
1410
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Raymonde Folco |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MONIQUE VÉZINA
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Coderre |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL UNITY
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
1415
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Maloney |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1420
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
1425
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MIDDLE EAST
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1430
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
1435
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SENATE OF CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
1440
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BILL C-28
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Bonwick |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
1445
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL REVENUE
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CENSUS
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRADE
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sergio Marchi |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BILL C-28
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
1450
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEMP
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Finlay |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joseph Volpe |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN BLOOD BANK CORPORATION
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Fred Mifflin |
1455
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MULTILATERAL INVESTMENT AGREEMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Benoît Sauvageau |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sergio Marchi |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUEBEC
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BANKING
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Alex Shepherd |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jim Peterson |
1500
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE BUDGET
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRESENCE IN GALLERY
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVILEGE
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Health
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
1505
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Question Period
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | House of Commons
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1510
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-4. Third reading
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
1515
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chris Axworthy |
1520
1525
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1530
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Larry McCormick |
1535
1540
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1545
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel |
1550
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz |
1555
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1600
1605
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1610
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz |
1615
1620
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
1625
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Harvard |
1630
1635
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1640
1645
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
1650
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Darrel Stinson |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1655
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Allan Kerpan |
1700
1705
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan |
1710
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1715
1750
(Division 87)
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Amendment negatived
|
1800
(Division 88)
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CRIMINAL CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-247. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
1805
1810
1815
1820
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
1825
1830
1835
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
1840
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
1845
1850
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
1855
1900
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joseph Volpe |
1905
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Airbus
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1910
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Banking
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1915
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Education
|
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
1920
![V](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert D. Nault |
1925
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 61
![](/web/20061116194833im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, February 17, 1998
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1005
[English]
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to
table on behalf of the government several order in council
appointments.
* * *
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to
table the government's response to some petitions.
* * *
[Translation]
INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the report of the Canadian section of the
International Assembly of French-Speaking Parliamentarians, as well
as the financial report of the meetings of the IAFSP executive,
held in Pointe-à-Pitre, Guadeloupe, December 14 and 15, 1997.
* * *
[English]
PETITIONS
CRTC
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition from residents in my riding of Eston,
Saskatchewan. They draw attention to the fact that the Canadian
Radio Television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, has
refused to license religious broadcasters but has at the same
time licensed the pornographic Playboy channel.
The petitioners beg parliament to review the mandate of the CRTC
and direct it to administer a new policy with respect to
religious broadcasting.
EMERGENCY PERSONNEL
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present a petition signed by a number of Canadians
including people from my riding of Mississauga South.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that police
officers and firefighters are required to place their lives at
risk on a daily basis, and that employment benefits for them do
not often provide sufficient compensation to the families of
those who are killed in the line of duty. Also, the public
mourns the loss of police officers and firefighters killed in the
line of duty and wishes to support them in a tangible way when
their families are in a time of need.
The petitioners therefore ask Parliament to consider the
establishment of a public safety officers compensation fund for
the benefit of families of public safety officers who are killed
in the line of duty.
* * *
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.) moved
that Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act and
to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the third
time and passed.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to open this third
reading debate on Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat
Board Act, a set of proposals which will bring about the biggest
changes in the Canadian Wheat Board in more than 50 years.
The great public debate about western grain marketing has been
ongoing across the prairies for at least 25 years. Some would
say even longer. It reached a high boil in the early years of
this decade after the Mulroney government attempted to diminish
the CWB through a combination of benign neglect, sabotage and
mandate reductions without parliamentary authorization and
without any meaningful consultation with farmers.
This was the situation that our government inherited when we came
to office at the end of 1993.
1010
Our first 18 months in government were devoted to successfully
defending Canadian grain trade against unwarranted attacks from
south of the boarder. Then in the summer of 1995 we set up the
western grain marketing panel to bring some focus to a prairie
grain marketing argument that was generating far more heat than
light.
This was the commencement of a consultative process which was
probably the most exhaustive and exhausting in the history of the
western grains industry. Countless meetings, hearings, seminars,
surveys, focus groups, questionnaires, votes, pamphlets,
petitions, faxes, e-mails, Internet messages, personal and public
letters and good old-fashioned phone calls. More people had more
opportunity to participate in this very public and transparent
process than ever before, and literally thousands did so.
All the advice we received was valuable, but much of it was
conflicting. The most vocal participants in the debate exposed
sharply polarized views among different groups of farmers with
little scope for consensus in between. What some would consider
basic marketing freedom others regarded as a policy
straight-jacket and vice versa.
The most extreme lobbyists typically argued for government to
listen only to them, that only their views were worthy of
consideration and all others should simply be ignored. But
government does not have that luxury.
Bill C-4 represents an honest attempt to find some reasonable
common ground. It safeguards our grain marketing strengths.
Strengths like the shear size and marketing clout to go toe to
toe with the biggest and toughest in 70 countries around the
world and to come out a winner for Canada. Strengths like being
a $6 billion enterprise, this country's fifth largest exporter
and Canada's biggest net earner of foreign exchange. Strengths
like the ability to transform our 6% or 7% of global wheat and
barley production into a global market share for Canada that is
close to 20%. Strengths like a reputation in the eyes of our
customers for being the very best in the world in terms of
intrinsic quality, cleanliness, consistency, technical support,
dependability, contract execution and customer service.
Strengths life verified price premiums in many markets and
operating costs as low as a nickel per bushel.
In aggregate terms, it is an operating structure that costs less
per year than the amount of money the Canadian Wheat Board earns
on its annual interest rate savings because its credit rating is
so strong.
Bill C-4 also responds to a strong desire among farmers for
Canadian Wheat Board modernization and change. It democratizes
the wheat board's governance. It deepens the wheat board's
accountability. It enhances the wheat board's flexibility,
creating more options and speeding up cash flows. It empowers
producers with greater control over what their marketing agency
does and does not do.
That is what Bill C-4 is all about, putting farmers in the
driver's seat like never before. It follows close to three years
of sincere effort to try to accommodate competing points of view.
The debate has been intense, and that is not surprising. It is
perfectly normal for farmers and farm organizations to hold
strong views about grain marketing legislation and to express
themselves vigorously. That is their right.
But it is regrettable that some totally extraneous lobby groups,
non-farmers in effect, have attempted to pervert the legitimate
debate about Bill C-4 with a grossly irresponsible disinformation
campaign. The worst has been the national citizens' coalition, a
non-farm group of well heeled right wingers led by a fallen
Reformer who wouldn't know a bushel of barley from a bucket of
rice.
It has spent tens of thousands of dollars disseminating false and
misleading propaganda.
1015
The NCC's latest ideological abuse has been an absolutely
indecent attempt to link the Canadian Wheat Board to the
internment of Japanese persons during the second world war. That
notion is utterly abhorrent. It betrays the NCC's true intent
and that of those who would associate with the NCC in a mindless
crusade, financed handsomely in secret to destroy the Canadian
Wheat Board and to settle for nothing less.
The NCC's tactics try to make a virtue of knee-jerk extremism
and intolerance. I have no intention of dignifying its
allegations with any reasoned response.
Where I do want to concentrate is on those legitimate questions
which come from genuine farmers who want to know what Bill C-4
will mean to them. I have compiled a list of such questions,
about 10 or so, to which I want to respond in full detail.
Question one: Will the Canadian Wheat Board become more
accountable to farmers? The answer is emphatically yes.
For the first time in its history the Canadian Wheat Board will
be run by a board of directors. There will be 15 directors in
total. Farmers will take control over their marketing agency by
directly electing 10 of those directors, a two-thirds majority.
The elected directors will reflect the views of farmers in CWB
decision making. They will be expected to demonstrate
accountability to producers because ultimately if producers are
not satisfied with what the CWB is doing, they can change those
directors in subsequent elections. That is what democracy is all
about.
Question two: Will the directors have real power? Again the
answer is yes.
As in any modern day corporation, all of the powers of the CWB
will be placed in the hands of its directors. They will carry a
heavy load of responsibility being in charge of a $6 billion
enterprise. The directors will select one of their own to be
chairperson. They will determine the salaries of the directors,
the chair and the president. They will oversee the Canadian
Wheat Board's management and they will control its strategic
direction.
If the directors are not satisfied with any aspect of CWB
operations, they will be able to make the necessary changes,
including the introduction of flexible new marketing tools such
as cash trading, expedited adjustment payments and early pool
cash outs. The directors will be in charge and they will decide,
not the babbling baboons in the Reform Party.
Question three: Will the directors have complete access to all
Canadian Wheat Board information? Again the answer is yes.
All directors will be entitled to complete disclosure of all
Canadian Wheat Board facts and figures, including but not limited
to fully audited financial statements. They will be able to
examine the prices at which grain is sold, the price premiums
achieved, all operating costs and whether the CWB is running
efficiently. With their full knowledge as directors about the
Canadian Wheat Board and its global competition the directors
would be in the best position to assess what information should
be made public and what for commercial reasons should remain
confidential.
Question four: Is the Canadian Wheat Board subject to a full
audit like any private sector company? The answer is yes.
The Canadian Wheat Board's duly appointed external auditor
chosen from the private sector is the well-respected accounting
firm of Deloitte & Touche. Fully audited financial statements
appear in every CWB annual report. Additionally under the new
law the producer controlled board of directors will have the
power to create their own internal audit committee just like any
private sector company.
The argument has been made by the Reform Party that the auditor
general should replace Deloitte & Touche as the CWB's auditor.
That is a bit of a strange twist since such an arrangement would
link the CWB closer to government, which is a complete
contradiction of the Reform Party's basic philosophy.
But let us examine why the wheat board is audited by an external
independent private sector firm.
1020
The CWB is obviously a commercial operation. As such it makes
reasonable sense for its auditor to be drawn from the private
sector. Also, where you can make a case for the auditor general
to scrutinize the accounts of government departments and agencies
which regularly spend public money appropriated by Parliament,
the Canadian Wheat Board does not represent a regular draw upon
the public purse. Its funds come from its grain sales and that
money belongs to farmers, not the government.
In auditing the wheat board's books, Deloitte & Touche applied
the same accounting standards and principles as would the auditor
general. Its reports are fully available publicly. The Canadian
Wheat Board provides more public disclosure than any of its
private sector counterparts.
All of that having been said, read the audit report filed by the
auditor general in relation to any government agency and compare
it to the report filed by Deloitte & Touche with respect to the
Canadian Wheat Board. You will find that the auditor's
certificate is virtually word for word identical.
Having said all of that, under the new democratic corporate
governance regime established by Bill C-4, if the Canadian Wheat
Board's new board of directors believe a change should be made in
how or by whom the Canadian Wheat Board is audited, they can make
that recommendation.
There is one final telling point. If opposition members are
truly concerned about something being amiss in the Canadian Wheat
Board's audit, they have the full authority to call the auditor,
Deloitte & Touche, before the House of Commons Standing Committee
on Agriculture and Agri-food for a full-scale hearing. They can
make their own inquiry in public right now. The committee has
that power. The fact that they have never even asked is at least
some indication that they are not really interested in fact
finding or financial probity. They just want another excuse to
attack the wheat board.
Question five: Is it necessary for the government to appoint
some directors and the president? The answer is yes for two
reasons.
First, Canadian taxpayers backstop the CWB with financial
guarantees totalling as much as $6 billion annually, covering not
only initial payments and credit sales but also, unlike any other
marketing agency, the Canadian Wheat Board's general borrowings.
Second, the wheat board is responsible for issuing all wheat and
barley export licences for all of Canada, not just the prairies.
Therefore it performs a national function.
The appointed directors, five in total, will have no special
power or status. They will be selected to bring additional
expertise to the board of directors which might not otherwise be
available internally. Such appointments are quite common in both
the public sector and the private sector. Ultimately the
appointed directors will be in a minority position with prairie
farmers controlling a two-thirds elected majority on the board of
directors.
Question six: Can the directors effectively demonstrate their
disapproval of a president? The answer again is yes.
The government can appoint a president only after it has
consulted with the directors. Once the president is appointed,
the directors have the regular power to review his or her
performance and to recommend dismissal if they believe that is
appropriate. Finally—and this is the real hammer—the directors
also control the president's salary.
Question seven: Does this new law shield Canadian Wheat Board
personnel from legal responsibility? The answer is emphatically
no.
No one is shielded from their responsibilities. In fact all
Canadian Wheat Board directors and officers will be under an
explicit obligation in the law to act honestly and in good faith,
exercising all reasonable care, diligence and skill.
In the event of legal proceedings against them they may be able
to claim compensation for certain legal expenses if and only if a
court is ultimately satisfied that the person in question acted
honestly and in good faith.
1025
In this connection, to be consistent with the standards that
apply in the private sector, the CWB law will mirror provisions
in the Canada Business Corporations Act which govern the conduct
of private companies in this regard.
Question eight: Does the Canadian Wheat Board need a
contingency fund? The answer is yes.
To provide more flexibility on how farmers are paid for their
grain and to speed up cash flows, the CWB's board of directors
will have the power to authorize cash purchases of wheat or
barley; to authorize adjustments to increase initial payments
quickly just as soon as market conditions warrant and without
waiting for government approval; and to authorize an option
allowing individuals to cash out of a marketing pool early before
the end of the crop year. The directors would implement these new
flexibility tools when in their good judgment it would be
beneficial to farmers to do so.
But as with all new innovations, there could be some new
financial risks. Like an insurance policy to serve as a
safeguard against any such unforeseen new risks, the directors
need the ability to develop a contingency fund. The law will
specify that such a fund could be used only in relation to the
three purposes mentioned above. It would then be up to the board
of directors, which includes a two-thirds majority elected by
farmers, to decide if, when and how to create it. In any event
the Government of Canada will continue to guarantee the CWB's
initial payments set at the start of the crop year, its credit
sales and its general borrowings.
Question nine is about exclusions. Can farmers get a crop
removed from the CWB's jurisdiction? The answer under Bill C-4
is yes.
The new law will contain an exclusion clause to allow any kind,
type, class or grade of wheat or barley to be removed in whole or
in part from the CWB's jurisdiction. To trigger it, the directors
would first have to vote in favour of the idea. Second, for
quality control reasons, a system would need to be in place to
prevent any mixing of the excluded grain with CWB grain. Third,
if the directors considered any proposed exclusion to be
significant, a democratic producer vote would be needed to
approve it.
Question ten is about inclusions. Can farmers get a crop added
to the CWB's jurisdiction if that is their will? The answer
again under Bill C-4 is yes.
As a matter of fairness and balance, just as there is an
exclusion clause, there will also be an inclusion clause in the
new law. The deciding factor in relation to both clauses will be
the majority preference of the actual producers of the grain in
question as expressed through a democratic vote of those
producers. They will be in control.
The existence of an inclusion clause does not by itself change
the CWB's mandate. It merely sets out a clear procedure for
doing so if and only if producers themselves, not politicians or
lobbyists, believe such a change is in their best interests. The
inclusion clause would be available only for crops that currently
come within the definition of grain in the existing CWB act.
Neither the government nor the CWB, nor any minority interest
group could trigger the process. Only the producers of the grain
in question could do so in the form of a written request from a
legitimate organization whose membership consists solely of the
producers of that grain.
The request would have to be advertised publicly, leaving at
least 120 days for the farm community and others to react. The
CWB's board of directors which includes a two-thirds majority
elected by farmers would then consider the request. The directors
would need to examine all of the implications of such a move,
including among other things the costs of an inclusion, trade or
commercial consequences and the public comments received.
1030
If the directors ultimately agreed with the request for an
inclusion, the whole matter would then have to be put to a
democratic vote among the producers of the grain in question for
their decision and ratification. The whole process, beginning,
middle and end, would be transparent and fully in the hands of
farmers. It would not be in the hands of politicians like the
mindless mouth that keeps babbling across the way, insulting the
intelligence of farmers. The authority would not be in hands
like that or in the hands of politicians. The authority and the
power would be in the hands of farmers where it belongs.
With respect to the inclusion clause, having said all that, the
government and the minister have tried to be as flexible and as
accommodating as possible in putting Bill C-4 into final form for
passage by the House.
Over this past weekend, in further consultations with
representatives of the canola industry we reviewed once again the
reality of what is accomplished by the inclusion and exclusion
clauses and the perception or misperception that such clauses
might be used as some thinly veiled excuse by our competitors,
perhaps the United States, to launch some form of trade
harassment.
The United States would have no legal, economic or trade policy
justification, but its conduct is often driven by very local U.S.
domestic politics. That has caused Canadian canola
representatives to be uncomfortable with the particular clauses,
even though they acknowledge that they would be in complete
control over whether these clauses ever get used.
To alleviate that worry, yesterday I proposed some final changes
to Bill C-4 to remove from the draft bill those detailed
provisions which deal with additions to or subtractions from the
current mandate of the Canadian Wheat Board. Instead, I proposed
the insertion of a simple, straightforward provision that would
ensure that no minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board
could attempt to change the wheat board's mandate, either to
enlarge it or to reduce it, without first having conducted a
democratic vote among the relevant producers and having consulted
with the wheat board's new board of directors.
Such a change would have eliminated the problematic clauses
while respecting and enshrining the fundamental principle of
democratic producer control. The opposition said no to that
proposition. It denied the clear opportunity to make that
change. The government offered and the opposition refused even
to let the matter come to a vote.
What does that tell us about the opposition? Is it really
interested in constructive change? Is it really interested in
the substance of the matter?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Rob Anders: We do not like dictators and people who
put farmers in jail. That is what we do not like.
The Deputy Speaker: I invite hon. members to restrain
themselves. The minister is making a speech and it would be
helpful if all hon. members could hear the speech. Sometimes the
interjections are so loud the Chair is having trouble hearing the
minister's speech. I am sure all hon. members want to hear the
minister's speech.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the House should know
that the most vocal bellower from the Reform Party is one who was
professionally engaged as a political saboteur in the United
States and was a disgrace not only to that country but to this
country. Here he continues with the same kind of conduct,
preferring obfuscation, preferring abuse, preferring diversion
rather than dealing with the real substance.
I was talking about the amendment I proposed yesterday, an
amendment to which members of the opposition said no. They
denied the clear opportunity to make that change. The government
offered and the opposition refused even to let it come to a vote.
Again I ask the question what does that tell us. Are members of
the opposition really interested in constructive change? Are
they really interested in the substance of the matter? Or, are
they only interested, as their conduct demonstrates in the House
today, in playing partisan politics with the livelihoods of
farmers?
Their conduct speaks for itself. They prevented the House from
even having a chance to vote on a provision which would have
ensured that farmers had the right to vote on fundamental changes
to their marketing system. The opposition clearly has a problem
with democracy.
1035
Tonight, at long last, Bill C-4 will come to a vote at third
reading. Its passage will signal an era of change for the
future. Its major themes are democracy, accountability,
flexibility and empowerment for farmers.
Farmers will take control. They will have it within their
authority to shape their marketing agency as they see fit. I
have complete confidence in the judgment of producers to exercise
their new authority with strength, wisdom and prudence to the
greater and greater success of the prairie farm economy and
prairie farmers most especially.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The minister claimed in his comments that the official opposition
denied permission. I was not in the House at the time but my
understanding is—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. It sounds very much
like a matter for argument. The minister made a statement that
the official opposition blocked consent in this case. If the
hon. member wishes to disagree, I am sure he will have ample
opportunity to do so in the course of his remarks.
This is a debate but I do not believe what the hon. member
raised is a point of order. It sounds like a matter of
disagreement with something that was said in the minister's
speech, which is not a point of order.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same
point of order. We are asking him on this point of order to
identify who objected because we did not object. We were not in
the House. We would like to know, when he makes an accusation
like that, to whom he is referring. That is a point of order.
The Deputy Speaker: With respect, it is not. Normally
when the Speaker puts a question to the House and asks if there
is consent, the fact that certain members say no or certain
members say yes is not normally recorded. The Speaker does not
normally say I hear a no from so and so. The Speaker says I hear
a no and there is therefore not consent.
For hon. members to make allegations as to who said it or make
statements as to who said it is a matter for debate. It is not a
point of order, with great respect.
The hon. member may disagree with the allegation, which is fair
game, but that is a matter of debate. I respectfully suggest
that we resume the debate, which is what this is about.
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I rise for the
purpose of clarification. Do I hear official opposition members
today saying that they are prepared to consent to the motion
going forward?
The Deputy Speaker: I am not sure we are getting
clarification, but is the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville
rising on this point? We are getting a little astray here.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, what motion? He has
not put a motion in front of us. That is ridiculous. I have not
seen anything. I ask him to show us the motion.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure the motion can be made
available and these discussions can continue off the floor.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, at the outset I would like to seek unanimous consent of
the House to split my time with the hon. member for Lakeland.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the House give its consent for
the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River to divide his time
with the hon. member for Lakeland?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: I presume that will be an equal split
without questions or comments.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I agree and I thank the House
for indulging me. I assume it is because hon. members do not
want to listen to me for 40 minutes.
I would like to clear up a potential misunderstanding. The hon.
minister said in his presentation that some of the people
involved in this debate did not know a bushel of barley from a
bucket of rice.
1040
I refer to that because part of the problem with the debate is
that the Reform Party or the official opposition has been subject
to allegations right from the beginning that somehow we are out
to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board, that we are the enemies of
the Canadian Wheat Board. I would like to elaborate on that
point for a couple of minutes.
Currently there are 59 members in the Reform Party caucus. About
half our caucus or 30 of them have farm backgrounds. They grew
up on farms. They have friends and family members actively
farming in western Canada. At least half of those, or 15 to 20
members, were actively farming before coming to this place. Some
of them were very large commercial farm operations and
enterprises.
It angers me when we are constantly bombarded from the
government benches that somehow we do not have any credibility,
that we are the enemies of the Canadian Wheat Board, that we want
to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board. This is the type of
nonsense that we listen to on a daily basis and have been
listening to for a year and a half.
I do not have time to go over each member's background but in
deference to them I would refer to just a few.
The hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain, a riding in
Saskatchewan for those who might be viewing the debate today in
TV land and do not know where that riding is, has been a grain
farmer for more than 30 years. He has 648 acres cultivated,
another 320 acres in pasture and another 320 acres of grazing
leased.
The hon. member for Lakeland, Alberta, who will be splitting my
time this morning, grew up on a farming ranch. He has been a
grain farmer for 28 years. He has 1,000 acres cultivated and now
crop shares because he does not have time to actively farm full
time because he is a member of Parliament.
The hon. member for Yellowhead, Alberta, grew up on a farm and
farm grained for 30 years. He has 1,000 acres cultivated and
still actively farms. His sons are increasingly involved in the
family operation.
The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville, Saskatchewan, who spoke
moments ago grew up on a farm. He has been a grain farmer for
seven years. He has 900 acres cultivated and 100 acres in
pasture. He currently leases out his farm but he still lives on
the farm.
The hon. member for Athabasca, Alberta, grew up on a farm. He
has been a grain and cattle farmer for 35 years. He has 1,000
acres cultivated, 500 acres in pasture and has currently leased
out his farm.
I grew up on a farm in British Columbia in Peace River country.
I farmed grain and grew grass seed and canola for 20 years full
time. My brother and I have 3,000 acres. We expanded the family
farm over a number of years to eventually have 3,000 acres under
cultivation. I recently sold my interest to my brother who still
farms that farming operation in B.C.
The member for Selkirk—Interlake, Manitoba, grew up on a farm
and has been a cattle rancher for 30 years. He has 250 acres
cultivated and 3,800 acres in pasture. He still actively farms
when he has time away from his MP duties.
The member for Portage—Lisgar, Manitoba, grew up on a farm and
for 35 years has had a mixed farming operation. He has 1,900
acres cultivated, 500 acres in pasture and currently leases out
his farm to family members.
The member for Wetaskiwin, Alberta, grew up on a farm and has
had a mixed farming-ranching operation for 30 years. He has 850
acres cultivated, 90 acres in pasture and currently leases out
his farm on a share basis.
The member for Peace River, my counterpart in the Alberta Peace
River area, grew up on a farm and has farmed for 30 years. He is
a grain farmer with 2,000 acres cultivated. He still actively
farms with his son. I could go on, but I picked those members at
random.
During report stage we were accused of saying that members
opposite should not be allowed to speak. We were trying to
encourage them to speak. They did not want to take part in the
debate. Only three or four of them rose the whole time we were
on report stage amendments.
We were not saying that because they come from Newfoundland or
New Brunswick or Toronto they should not be part of the debate.
We were trying to say that we have a bit of credibility on this
issue. That is what we were trying to say. Reform members have
a very serious interest in this issue. We have a lifetime of
experience talking about the Canadian Wheat Board.
We encourage fishermen, people with a background in business,
doctors, lawyers and Indian chiefs to be involved in the debate
and to put forward their opinions.
It is the same as when we put forward our opinions on other
issues that we might not have a personal background in.
1045
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Jay Hill: But we do have some credibility on this
issue and if the hon. parliamentary secretary across the way
would like to shut up for a minute, he might be interested in
learning something.
With this bill I would like to say that someone recently said to
me that the minister is taking care of western Canadian grain
farmers about like Alan Eagleson is taking care of hockey
players. It was not me who said that. That is a western Canadian
who has viewed this issue and this debate over the last year and
a half.
I would like to take the House and the viewing audience,
certainly western Canadian grain farmers watching this debate
today with interest, on a trip down memory lane. I believe it
will be time well spent for me to take the members of this House
step by step down this long dead-end road.
For many of my Reform colleagues this is a story with which we
are all too familiar. They have been listening to farmers,
processors and any other stakeholders in the grain industry.
Reformers have an intimate knowledge of the setback these
organizations and individuals are facing because of this dismal
piece of legislation.
However, for those Canadians who are new to the debate,
primarily those in eastern Canada who are fortunate enough to
fall beyond the reach of the almighty Canadian Wheat Board I have
an obligation to tell them this story detailing a lack of
accountability, misrepresentation and arrogance by this very
government.
I will not pick up the story where it actually began because
that date is hard to pinpoint. Discontent and frustration have
been brewing for many years among western grain farmers who are
forced to sell their wheat and barley through the Canadian Wheat
Board. The Canadian Wheat Board was formed in 1935 as an interim
measure to control pre-war inflation. It was not until 1943 that
the board was given monopoly powers by the government when
farmers refused to sell to the Canadian Wheat Board because they
were getting much better prices on the open market. So it was a
short term wartime inflation controlling measure. That is how the
monopoly came into existence.
In modern times many farmers have long felt that they are better
prepared and better equipped to market their grain outside the
board. Capability aside, many simply want the freedom to make
the attempt, willingly accepting any consequences that might
arise.
Under the wheat board farmers must blindly hand over the product
of their labour and accept the resulting payments that stem from
decisions by government appointees who have no accountability to
the prairie farmers.
After all, the Canadian Wheat Board is exempt from the Access to
Information Act and from audits by the Auditor General of Canada.
The minister referred to this during his speech. Both
these democratic mechanisms exist in any other federal body
in order that Canadian taxpayers can exercise their right to
question the use of their tax dollars. For western wheat and
barley growers not only are their tax dollars potentially at
stake but their entire livelihood.
Is the Canadian Wheat Board getting the best price for farmers'
grain? Is the Canadian Wheat Board performing responsibly in the
best interest of farmers and to ensure the viability and survival
of the grain industry? Is the Canadian Wheat Board acting
ethically in its domestic and international business? Is the
Canadian Wheat Board really the most cost effective and efficient
marketing agent for western Canadian grain?
These are the types of questions the auditor general would ask
and would analyse were he given the task of auditing the Canadian
Wheat Board. These are all simple and reasonable questions for
which the shareholders of any other organization could expect to
get a response.
This accountability blackout has prompted farmers to organize
mass protests and acts of civil disobedience. More serious
protest has come in the form of law breaking as some farmers take
desperate measures to carry their grain across the U.S. border to
access higher prices. Instead of taking actions to remedy this
dispute the federal government has pursued the harshest of fines
and jail sentences. Western grain farmers join rapists and drug
dealers in prison. In fact, it is worse than that. Farmers
languish in prison while rapists receive conditional sentencing
and get off with community service.
On the other side of this debate there are grain farmers who are
content with marketing their product through the Canadian Wheat
Board and we recognize that. They have every right to choose
that course.
Many are comfortable with the return on their grain received from
the Canadian Wheat Board. They enjoy the security and do not
wish to venture into marketing their own grain. These producers
are alarmed by the lobbying efforts of other farmers attempting
to gain the right to market outside the board.
1050
As a result there exists in western Canada a very divisive and
often emotional debate on the future of the CWB. This dispute
has caused rifts in normally close farming communities and even
amid families themselves.
One thing that all sides agree on is that something substantial
must be done. That includes compromise for both sides and a view
to other domestic and international pressures which are coming
into play.
Way back in 1994 western grain farmers thought they had actually
caught a glimpse of leadership when the minister responsible for
the Canadian Wheat Board, then the agriculture minister, hinted
publicly at a sweeping review and consultative process to help
find solutions to this controversy.
It was a fleeting glimpse indeed. The minister dithered and
delayed and promised and made excuses until finally, just when
farmers were beginning to give up, he at long last announced the
establishment of the western grain marketing panel in July 1995.
It was a long wait indeed.
The usefulness of the panel was at first questioned by some
because of the significant number of government appointees on the
nine person panel. In addition, the panel was not to begin its
work until January 1996. But there were some good choices on the
panel and many felt that, criticism aside, the panel was indeed a
good idea. It meant hope for change, even if it had to come
nearly two years after the minister's first promise of action.
The western grain marketing panel was not to report its findings
until June 1996.
The mandate of the panel was indeed encouraging. It was to
explore the issue of single desk selling versus dual marketing,
CWB accountability to farmers and realistic planning in light of
international pressures to name but a few.
The panel held 15 workshops across Manitoba, Saskatchewan and
Alberta in January 1996. It conducted 13 days of formal public
hearings and received 150 oral and written submissions.
On July 9, 1996 the western grain marketing panel released its
recommendations on the reform of the Canadian Wheat Board. Key
recommendations in the report addressed the underlying issue of
freedom of choice and CWB powers.
The panel unequivocally rejected proposals that the current
powers of the CWB be preserved and that the board's jurisdiction
be expanded. It rejected those proposals.
It called for a removal of feed barley export sales from the
board monopoly as soon as possible. The report concluded that
farmers should have the freedom to choose to remove at least 25%
of their sales from the pool and ask for forward cash prices from
the board.
Organic grain was to be removed from the board. The report
clearly stated that the jurisdiction of the wheat board not be
expanded to other grains, oilseeds or special crops.
These recommendations all had one central theme, reduce the
jurisdiction of the CWB and under no circumstances allow it to
meddle in other grains.
Reaction to the panel's report was fairly positive. Legal
challenges to the CWB were being rethought as many expected,
incorrectly as it turns out, that the minister would table
legislation to enact the panel's recommendations.
Since the election of 1994 one of the biggest issues the
minister encountered was the demand for a plebiscite to determine
whether barley should remain under the CWB monopoly. Once again,
true to form, the minister dithered, delayed, promised and made
excuses.
Meanwhile the province of Alberta got tired of waiting for the
federal Canadian Wheat Board minister to take action. On
December 6, 1995 the Alberta government held its own plebiscite
on the CWB. Of Alberta's 15,000 grain farmers who voted, 62%
voted in favour of marketing their wheat outside the CWB. Fully
two-thirds or 66% voted in favour of selling their barley to any
buyer, including the wheat board.
Alberta grain farmers voted for the freedom to choose. They
voted to control their own destiny.
The two questions on the voting ballots were direct. There was
the real question of choice, did farmers wish to sell their grain
to any buyer, including the wheat board. It outlined choices
which included the Canadian Wheat Board.
The minister continued to procrastinate. He even attempted to
deter the Alberta government from holding its plebiscite. This
is what he had to say about the results of the Alberta
plebiscite, which were nothing short of astounding.
The minister said the results were interesting from an academic
point of view.
1055
I do not believe the Alberta farmers who took the time and
effort to exercise their democratic privilege of voting in that
plebiscite thought of it as academic. We could only hope that the
minister's election to the House of Commons was academic. Grain
farmers might not be in this unfortunate position today.
Let us fast forward to the months following the release of the
western grain marketing panel's report. By October it had become
clear that the panel had not told the minister what he wanted to
hear, so he intended to ignore many of its recommendations. For
the minister it became a matter of having tried that but, not
liking the answer, he was going to try something else where he
had more control over the answer. That is how the minister
finally decided to hold the long awaited plebiscite on the
Canadian Wheat Board.
However, the vote was limited to the marketing of barley. More
important, the question was designed to get the minister the
outcome he wanted. Unlike the Alberta plebiscite, the federal
vote gave barley growers just two choices, either they were for
the Canadian Wheat Board or they were against it. Barley was to
be either in or out, no in between. It was a simple question,
simply deceitful.
The minister and everyone else involved in or knowledgeable
about the Canadian grain industry knows that asking this question
was missing the point entirely. The reality is that most farmers
do not wish for the complete elimination of the Canadian Wheat
Board from the grain business. They just want the monopoly to be
removed.
The barley question entirely missed the point and has been the
focus of the controversy for several years. It was just one more
example of feigned consultation by this government.
The barley vote results were announced on March 25, 1996. Given
no alternatives and no choice, 62.9% voted to keep the barley
under the Canadian Wheat Board. Imagine what the result would
have been if the question had been properly asked. Had they been
offered more options, many farmers would have easily voted
differently. After the results became known, Canadian Wheat
Board supporters hoped for a truce in the wheat board dispute.
It did not come. Discontent was even more inflamed due to the
injustice of the minister's barley question. Any hope for
progress in the controversy through the legislative avenues
available were dashed when on December 3, 1996 Bill C-72, an act
to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, was introduced in the
House. This bill was the predecessor to the bill we are debating
today, Bill C-4. None of the recommendations by the western
Canadian grain marketing panel I outlined earlier was contained
in Bill C-72.
I see I only have one minute left. I could go on and on about
the dismal history of this bill and how it came to be. However,
in the closing minute I have I want to refer to the fact that the
minister reportedly said that we on this side of the House had
put forward an amendment at report stage to have the Canadian
Wheat Board adhere to the Auditor General of Canada.
The fact is this minister has been constantly holding up that
the existing auditor does exactly the same job as the Auditor
General of Canada. That is simply false. It is not accurate.
In light of that, I would like to move the following motion:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the
word “That” and substituting the following therefor:
“Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board and to make
consequential amendments to other acts, be not now read a third
time but be referred back to the standing committee on
agriculture for the purpose of reconsidering clause 8 in section
9 to ensure that the board show such particulars and furnish such
information as requested for the purpose of an audit by the
auditor general; and provide such records and information as
requested under the Access to Information Act in so far as the
records and information requested have been in the process or
under the control of the corporation for at least three years
before the day on which the request is received by the
corporation and that the corporation shall continue to be a
government institution within the meaning of the Access to
Information Act”.
I believe it is in order. If this motion is agreed to and the
bill is referred back to the committee then the hon. minister
could introduce any amendment—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member's time has expired.
1100
The debate is on the amendment.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): 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.
1105
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.
1110
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.
1115
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.
An hon. member: Keep on going.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: 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.
1120
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.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
if I may, I would like to give a brief historical overview of the
Canadian Wheat Board.
First of all, we must remember the good old days, or perhaps
the bad old days, of the famous 1929 depression. In the mid-1930s,
when the western grain producers were breaking their backs to raise
crops they could sell for only a pittance, the government of the
day created a board to organize sales of western grain.
At that time, membership in the Canadian Wheat Board was
optional. There was no monopoly.
Only around the middle of the second world war, or near the end, in
1943, did the Canadian Wheat Board become a monopoly.
Since then, the Canadian Wheat Board has undergone only slight
changes. More than two years ago now, we in this House began to
look at a certain bill, Bill C-72, which died on the Order Paper
because the government decided to call an early election. Hundreds
and hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent on examining Bill
C-72, and then the House had to start all over again with the
Minister of Natural Resources, who in the former Parliament was
responsible for the Wheat Board in his capacity as Minister of
Agriculture.
He now wears another hat, but the Prime Minister has also
given him the additional responsibility for the Canadian Wheat
Board, thus taking it away from the new Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food. And why?
I will leave that up to your imagination.
The Minister of Natural Resources, who is responsible for the
Canadian Wheat Board, revived Bill C-72, this time calling it C-4.
It is a wide-ranging bill, since it affects three western provinces
in their entirety, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, as well as
part of British Columbia.
1125
It is very important, and because of its importance, they are
setting a time limit. This is not the end of a session, and the
government's legislative menu is quite slim. We have nothing to
sink our teeth into. We had Bill C-4, which was reasonably
important, and then bang, down comes the guillotine. Third reading
starts at 10 a.m. and voting is at 5:30 p.m.
Bill C-4 will change the Canadian Wheat Board from a
conventional crown corporation into a private group.
However the government is keeping its foot in the door, because it
can democratically elect ten members to the board of directors,
which, with the help of the governor in council, can make five
appointments, including, most importantly, that of the president,
whom it can also dismiss.
I criticize these appointments day in and day out in this
House. They become a sort of cancer when the time comes to make
these prestigious and weighty appointments. Patronage appointments
will be made. And when you know the government's system in
Parliament, you can predict who is going to be appointed president
of the Canadian Wheat Board. It will no doubt be a Liberal, who
will be well paid and a good friend of the Minister of Natural
Resources.
It will also serve to free up a riding, as in the case of the
riding of Beauce, or to compensate various members from Nova Scotia
who were defeated in the last election and give them something to
put in their mouth and on their toast in the morning. They will be
appointed to the office of the Minister of Natural Resources or the
Boston office. We need only think of André Ouellet, who used to be
here, or David Berger, who of course became Canada's ambassador to
Israel.
If it is a private business, if the Canadian Wheat Board is an
independent company, why impose a president, who will essentially
be running the entire Canadian Wheat Board?
Worse yet, because it will no longer be a crown corporation, it will
escape the scrutiny of our good auditor general, Denis Desautels, who
makes all of government shake when he tables his report, because, with
his extremely well-structured team, he can examine this type of
corporation and its operation to determine if it is truly efficient and
whether it puts the producers or certain patronage recipients first.
Instead, Deloitte & Touche will have the huge responsibility of
auditing the books of the Canadian Wheat Board. Did this same accounting
firm not make a substantial contribution to the coffers of the Liberal
Party of Canada in the last general election? Do you recall? Perhaps
someone could check on Deloitte & Touche.
This government takes good care of those who show their gratitude.
In the interest of transparency, we in the Bloc Quebecois would like to
see Denis Desautels, the Auditor General of Canada, and his team audit
the books of the Canadian Wheat Board.
1130
The figures are well-known, but let me remind you that, in 1998-99,
total sales will exceed $7 billion. Even a one-thousandth of one percent
error would represent a significant amount of money. If the goal is to
work in the interest of grain producers, we should have no hesitation in
ensuring that its administration is as transparent as possible.
I can recall that, last spring, my colleague from the riding next
to mine, the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska, pointed a finger at
the Prime Minister and the Minister of Natural Resources, as well as the
Minister of Human Resources Development, because a bagman would show up
two weeks after the minister to collect.
He can be named, since we have immunity here. It was Mr. Corbeil,
if memory serves, who trailed around after the minister and
collected funds.
In the interests of transparency, we should not be afraid to
have the books examined closely by qualified individuals, who will
do the job for less than Deloitte & Touche. Finally, on this same
topic, since it is no longer an ordinary crown corporation, the
good old Access to Information Act will put a stop to any further
questions. Grain producers will not be entitled to find out about
hidden defects, about resolutions or decisions that have been taken
on their behalf, but that the information commissioner cannot
investigate for them.
Transparency is all but non-existent in Bill C-4.
That reminds
me of when western Canada was given an advantage—my colleague,
the member for Lévis reminded me of this just a few minutes
ago—in the form of the well known Western Grain Transportation
Act, commonly known as the Crow rate. Every year, it was costing
us close to $1 billion in direct subsidies for grain
transportation.
Obviously, some people turned this Western Grain
Transportation Act to their personal advantage, and were no longer
paying a red cent. They even made money by having boxcars go to
Thunder Bay and return to Vancouver with the same wheat.
Because the government was abolishing a privilege that was
apparently their permanent due, western grain producers were given
almost $3 billion free of provincial and federal taxes. As my
colleague, the member for Lévis, reminded me, some producers used
this $3 billion to diversify their production.
Instead of paying to ship their grain, they decided to keep it for
local use.
They could not turn to dairy, poultry, chicken or egg
production, because of the quota system. What was left that did
not have a quota? Pork.
Two things happened. In Brandon, a gigantic slaughterhouse
that could handle over 35,000 hogs a week is being built. Multiply
35,000 by 52 and you have quite a year. That is one thing.
The second is that the price of pork has gone way down. Our
pork producers in Quebec are losing money daily, as we speak.
Mr. Antoine Dubé: Below cost.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Below cost, of course. We lose money on each
pig that comes out of the hog house.
This is how the Liberal government of the member for Saint-Maurice
manages our affairs.
1135
The distinguished Reform Party member who spoke before me was right
when he said that Bill C-4 has the effect of uniting grain producers,
not in support of the legislation, but against it.
I received hundreds of letters. Even yesterday evening, before the
vote, I received telephone calls from Manitoba grain producers who urged
me to vote against Bill C-4. They asked me to go and talk to some
Liberal members and tell them to abstain from voting if they did not
have the courage to oppose the legislation. The arguments against Bill
C-4 were different, but grain producers were united in their opposition.
If the Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for
the Canadian Wheat Board truly intends to co-operate with producers, he
should leave Ottawa and visit farms in western Canada, in Manitoba,
Alberta, Saskatchewan and Peace River. He would see what producers think
of his bill. The minister is out of touch with reality.
Some object to the inclusion provisions. Others to the exclusion
clauses. Others still to the reserve fund or the appointment process.
Some would even like another election as soon as possible.
I know of very few people who agree with the bill in its present
form.
If the good minister intends to work on behalf of the grain
producers, he ought to call a halt to Bill C-4, possibly returning
it to the Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food with the definite
intention of making major changes.
I would like to review some of the amendments we in the Bloc
Quebecois proposed. First of all, as I pointed out, the appointed
president will, to all intents and purposes, be the one directing
the Canadian Wheat Board. Our proposal was that his appointment go
through the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. That
was rejected, because the minister told his MPs, whose time in
committee is often wasted: “Vote against it. You have no business
being involved in this”.
Who will make the appointment? The governor in council. And
who is the governor in council?
In this case, it will be the minister responsible, and he will tell
his cabinet buddies: “You will appoint Mr. or Ms. X.” The salary
will be $144,000 plus a few odds and ends. And that is how it will
take place.
I asked some of my Liberal colleagues who sat on this
committee with us “Why did you vote against it? You are not acting
in your own best interests. For once, the agriculture committee
would have had a role to play. You would have gained back some
self-esteem”. Anyway, it is a known fact that the chair of each
committee is a Liberal. There are eight Liberals, and six
opposition members, and then sometimes even the opposition is
divided, since there are four recognized parties.
So, had they had a bit of gumption to stick to their guns,
they could still have appointed their protégé, but at least there
would have been an opportunity to ask that protégé some questions.
I have even seen some appointments where a person who knew
absolutely nothing, someone who could not tell wheat from oats or
barley, was appointed to a position as important as this one. The
prerequisite was to be of the right colour politically.
1140
I am talking about the Liberals. However, when the Progressive
Conservative Party formed the government before the Liberals,
things were not much better, as we well know. On the subject of
appointments, was it not the Liberal Party that appointed the
famous Senator Thompson? He was good at the time. He headed the
Liberal Party in Ontario. He led his troops to electoral disaster.
In appreciation of his work, they appointed him at a very young age
to the other House with a salary of $64,000 and $10,000 in
allowances. Today he is the embarrassment of all the other
senators. He was expelled from the Liberal Party for trying to
boost the family fortunes. Now they are trying various ways to
expel him from the Senate.
When we put the question to the Prime Minister in the House,
he says we have to change the Constitution, because
he was appointed to age 75. How many of my constituents have
wondered why we do not abolish the Senate? They say the $45
million we would save could go to maple producers, whose sugar
bushes were destroyed.
I had another proposal concerning access to information
relating to the Canadian Wheat Board. I told you that sales for
1998-99 will be over $7 billion. Not $7 million but $7 billion.
That is a lot of money. This $7 billion must at all costs be
administered by and for grain producers.
In 1935, when the Canadian Wheat Board was created, there were
a lot of bankruptcies. Eight out of ten people lost their farms.
Some torched their crops. It was more profitable to burn them than
to harvest them.
It was less costly not to harvest their crops. At the time, the Canadian
Wheat Board helped a fair number of producers get out of trouble.
Earlier, an hon. member said that some producers are thrown in
jail for bypassing the board. As you know—and as the member
for Trois-Rivières reminded me earlier—some producers located
close to the border load their grain on big trucks and deliver it
directly to American buyers. This way, they get up to 12% more
than what the Canadian Wheat Board can offer them.
Whenever one of these producers gets caught, he is charged and
taken to court, because the law says there is a monopoly and grain can
only be sold through the CWB. The producer ends up in jail.
The hon. member may have exaggerated somewhat when he said that the
producer was thrown in the same cell as a rapist or a drug addict,
adding that, unlike rapists and drug addicts who are often paroled, the
producer could not enjoy such treatment.
I will end by giving you a scoop and telling you that, primarily
because the auditor general will not be able to go and audit the books,
that responsibility will be given to a private accounting firm. This is
worrisome; it stinks. One thing is for sure: the process will definitely
lack transparency. We have some doubt, because neither the producer nor
anyone else will be able to check the information. The public interest
is not protected, and this puts another doubt in our mind.
1145
Since the whole issue seems to create a lot of uncertainty and
discontent among grain producers, the Bloc Quebecois will vote against
Bill C-4 at third reading.
[English]
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to participate at this third reading stage debate on Bill
C-4, the amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board.
Following the initial debate last September, this bill was sent
off to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. As a
then new member of this Chamber, I was optimistic that we would
be able to, in a collegial committee atmosphere, make
improvements to the bill. That obviously turned out not to be
the case.
I found the committee experience to be a hollow exercise, by and
large. The Liberals on the committee were not really interested
in any give and take and the committee's deliberations were
unduly rushed. As I said last week on second reading, the proof
of that particular pudding was that even before the Canadian
Wheat Board official could come before the standing committee,
the opposition parties were informed by the standing committee
that we had to have our amendments in for final deliberation.
There clearly was a rush to judgment on this. Now we have time
allocation to contend with as well, when everyone knows that there
will not be a vote on the new board until after this fall's
harvest.
New Democrats have always supported the Canadian Wheat Board
because we believe that it has worked in the best interests of
farmers. However, we believe that Bill C-4 is a badly flawed
piece of legislation which will undermine the board. I want to
make it clear that our caucus will oppose Bill C-4 because we
believe it to be faulty legislation.
In our judgment the test must be whether Bill C-4 will make the
Canadian Wheat Board weaker or stronger. It is our contention,
sadly, that this will weaken the Canadian Wheat Board.
As I said, we tried to fix this at the committee stage but the
Liberals said no. Therefore we have no alternative but to
oppose.
History shows that the wheat board has had for more than six
decades overwhelming support from farmers. It was the farmers in
the first place who demanded the Canadian Wheat Board. They
supported it six decades ago and still support it now. The
proof, which is a matter of public record, is that as recently as
one year ago 63% of barley growers voted to have the board
continue marketing that crop.
Why do farmers support the wheat board? Quite simply it is
because the CWB has 60 years of international experience and is
recognized as one of the top grain marketing organizations in the
world. The western grain marketing panel asked representatives
of grain marketing countries to rank their major grain exporters.
What it found is that the CWB in Canada ranked number one in the
world for marketing the highest quality of wheat at the best
price.
Farmers, therefore, by and large support the wheat board. The
New Democrats join them in that support. However, Bill C-4 is a
badly flawed piece of legislation that will serve to undermine
the board, which is why we are opposing these changes.
How does it undermine the board? For one thing, Bill C-4 will
propose cash buying. We believe that this will undermine a
fundamental pillar of the wheat board and thereby undermine
farmer confidence in it. There are essentially three pillars of
the Canadian Wheat Board, price pooling, government guarantees
and single desk selling. We believe that two of these are at
risk, price pooling and government guarantees. If we adopted
some of the Reform motions the third pillar would be gone or
severely restricted as well, the single desk selling aspect.
1150
Under the terms of Bill C-4 the wheat board will be able to buy
grains from anyone, anywhere, at any time and at any price. This
disrupts the board's long practice of buying grain from farmers
at announced prices and distributing profits to all on an
equitable basis.
Second, Bill C-4 proposes a contingency fund which could cost
farmers as much as $570 million in check-offs. The fund is not
needed. Farmers cannot afford it. They do not generally
understand that this is going to impact on them and they sure as
heck are not going to like it when they find out that it does
impact on them.
This proposal on the contingency fund flows from the provision
for cash buying. A contingency fund would not be necessary if
Ottawa continued to provide financial guarantees to the board as
it has always done. We want the Canadian government to continue
to provide guarantees beyond the initial purchase for the
Canadian Wheat Board rather than passing this buck to farmers,
and that is the gist of an NDP amendment that was voted down last
night by the silent Liberal majority.
Finally there is the question of governance. For 60 years the
wheat board, as a crown agency, has done an admirable job for
farmers. Now the government is suggesting that the board cease to
be a crown agency and it says that Bill C-4 will put farmers in
control of the wheat board's destiny.
Bill C-4 proposes a 15 member board of directors, 10 elected by
producers and 5 appointed by Ottawa. If there is to be a board of
directors, we have no problem with the government's naming some
members to that board. Because the government is to have
considerable financial exposure it is only reasonable and logical
that it have some window into the board's operation. That, too,
was reflected on how we voted last night.
However, under Bill C-4 the minister goes the extra mile by
retaining the authority to pick the president of the board of
directors, a person who will also double as the chief executive
officer of the CWB, and our caucus is opposed to this.
It was interesting to hear the minister responsible for the
wheat board talk glowingly this morning about how this bill was
to put farmers firmly in the driver's seat. We think that this
provision will firmly put them in the back seat, not the driver's
seat.
We believe this gives the government too much control over a
board of directors that should really be accountable to farmers
and it gives the government too much control over the daily
operations of the wheat board.
We believe the board of directors should have the authority to
choose the president and CEO and we urged the minister to make
this amendment, again unfortunately to no avail.
If the wheat board is to have a board of directors, elections
must be fair, open and transparent. These should be elections by
and for farmers without any interference from vested corporate
interest or anyone else for that matter.
The amendments we put forward propose such a measure of fair
elections, meaning one producer and one vote. Fair elections mean
a limit as well on the campaign spending of candidates, just as
there are in federal and provincial elections, so that wealthy
individuals or wealthy corporations do not have an unfair
advantage.
The wheat board is a $6 billion industry in this country and
certain corporate interests would love to get their hot little
hands on it. We do not want them using their deep pockets to
influence unduly elections to the board of directors.
Turning to the inclusion clause, it is one of the things which a
number of farmers generally support, to make provision for the
inclusion of addition grains under wheat board jurisdiction.
Under Bill C-72 the wheat board was given the ability to exclude
grains from the board's authority, so it is only fair and
reasonable again that farmers or producers could vote to add
extra grains as well. Such an inclusion would occur only after a
vote of producers. It would be democratic. Our caucus strongly
supports the inclusion clause but there is much concern about how
a vote to include an additional grain would be actually
triggered.
1155
We proposed this specific amendment. It stipulated that the
process for inclusion be the same as excluding a grain; namely,
the board of directors of the wheat board ask for it and the
farmers, the producers of the commodity, would then vote on it.
These are sensible and moderate propositions in sharp contrast to
some of the venom which has been spread in recent months by the
coalition against Bill C-4. I will come back to that in a few
moments.
The activities of this coalition really are nothing more than a
frontal attack on the Canadian Wheat Board, an attempt to do
through the back door what it was unable to do through the front
door in the plebiscite on barely in 1997. One of the big
objections to the coalition against Bill C-4 is the insistence
that the inclusion clause be dropped.
We say that the debate about the wheat board is a debate for
farmers and not for corporate greed and self-interest. We ask
those, including members of the Reform Party and the
agri-business lobby, why they are worried about a possible
producer vote to include a grain. Why are they afraid of a vote
by producers? Why not simply let the farmers decided on what
they want to include or exclude?
We were somewhat taken aback yesterday when the minister
responsible for the wheat board proposed a death bed repentance,
an 11th hour amendment that would do away with both the inclusion
and exclusion clause. This is exactly what this coalition
lobby against Bill C-4 has demanded. The amendment would have
allowed the minister responsible for the wheat board to choose
when there would be a vote to either include or exclude a grain.
We said no because we think the intent of this bill is to give
more power to the board of directors, then immediately the
proposal from the minister responsible will be for him to take
that authority back. It was an attempt to grab power back from
the board of directors even before it was handed over. We do not
believe in that. That is why we voted as we did last evening.
We think the Liberals cannot be trusted on the Canadian Wheat
Board. We are dealing with the Minister responsible for the
Canadian Wheat Board, the same minister who in the 35th
Parliament managed to do away with the Crow benefit at great cost
to western Canadian grain farmers. There are those who sincerely
believe that Bill C-4 will be used by the government to privatize
the wheat board down the road or to do away with it entirely in
future rounds of trade negotiations. We understand the World
Trade Organization will begin deliberations late in 1999.
We know only too well that the free trade agreement and NAFTA
have restricted the ability of our governments to act in our
national public interest. We know too that the United States
routinely attacks the wheat board's activities, not to mention
its attacks on other Canadian agricultural marketing agencies. We
expect the assault to continue at the negotiations of the World
Trade Organization.
Let me turn to Reform's stand on the Canadian Wheat Board.
It is our contention that Reform members, many of whom
managed to talk out of both sides of their mouths on this issue,
say they support the wheat board but they also support dual
marketing.
I listened with great interest to the Reform member for Prince
George—Peace River, who has been leading his party's position on
this. He said at the outset of his speech this morning that his
party does not oppose the Canadian Wheat Board, and then he
mentioned eastern Canadians do not have the misfortune of being
under the Canadian Wheat Board. This is the kind of double speak
we hear regularly from the members of this party. I do not think
there is any question they would like to see the Canadian Wheat
Board disappear as quickly as possible.
It is our contention that dual marketing cannot exist with
single desk selling. It would quickly destroy the Canadian Wheat
Board.
1200
The Reform Party never wants to talk about the reference by Mr.
Justice Muldoon in Alberta on the Alberta charter challenge
against the board's authority as a single desk marketer of
barley. Justice Muldoon said that dual marketing would do away
with the wheat board and would simply be a transition to an open
market.
That is something Reformers refuse to acknowledge. However it
is a fact and we would like to hear them talk about it in some
detail. In fact Reformers are fundamentally opposed to the wheat
board and do everything possible to attack it in their blind
ideology and extremist rhetoric.
I would like to speak to the Reform amendment we are technically
debating. Reformers say the wheat board is a dark and secretive
institution because its books are not open to the auditor general
and access to information laws.
Let us deal with some of the facts. The CWB is a $6 billion a
year operation. Parliament requires that an external independent
auditor scrutinize the wheat board's books on an annual basis.
The auditor is Deloitte & Touche. Each year a report is filed
with parliament where it can be examined and questioned at any
length. I have looked through the Deloitte & Touche annual
report. The last one was issued in 1996. The auditors
pronounced the wheat board to be in good shape.
It is true that the wheat board is exempt from provisions of the
Access to Information Act. We have delved into this matter and
are satisfied that the overriding reason for it is the question
of customer confidentiality with respect to the conduct of the
wheat board's commercial activities. If customers, big and
small, cannot be assured that their business dealings with the
wheat board will be held in confidence, they will obviously go
elsewhere to do their business.
It is interesting that Reformers and the same groups that
frequently claim the wheat board does not maximize returns to
producers would by this amendment undercut the board's ability to
do just that. I am certain the Canadian Wheat Board provides
more accountability than the other grain marketers operating in
the country at the present time.
We in the NDP caucus say to those detractors of the Canadian
Wheat Board that it is accountable to the people of Canada
through parliament and through a public, external audit which is
available to anyone who requires it. The Canadian Wheat Board is
a far more open process and is far more open to scrutiny than the
corporations that bankroll the Reform Party or the coalition
against Bill C-4.
I was interested in the comments of the somewhat leather-lunged
member from Calgary West this morning, a former employee of the
National Citizens' Coalition. Clause 27 of the NCC's official
bylaw expressly forbids any member involvement in the
organization. It states:
Public members shall not be entitled to receive notice of or to
attend any meeting of the members of the corporation and shall
not be entitled to vote at any such meeting.
So much for openness, transparency and accountability.
New Democrats have always supported the Canadian Wheat Board. We
believe it is in the best interest of farmers. However, Bill
C-4, as I have tried to indicate in my remarks, is badly flawed
legislation. It weakens two of the three pillars of the board
and will serve to undermine farmers' confidence in it.
Our caucus has endeavoured to improve the bill but the truly
silent Liberal majority has refused to accept any of our
amendments. Therefore we reluctantly oppose Bill C-4.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to pose a couple of
question to the hon. member for Palliser.
The member said that Reformers are against the board. That is
blatantly false. Let us look at the amendments I have proposed
to protect the board.
One of the amendments would provide farmers with the opportunity
to opt out of the board, if they so chose, for a period of five
years and to serve two years notice if they want to opt back in.
1205
That would protect the board from court cases, even those court
cases going on right now involving property rights. It would
also protect the board against international agreements that
would destroy the board. The present position the minister has
put forth with Bill C-4 and with the board will destroy the
board.
Would the member for Palliser comment on the opt out clause that
would allow farmers not to sell their barley or wheat or both to
the board, if they do not wish to? Does he see that as dual
marketing?
In relation to that question, if farmers want that option what
would he then say? The reason I ask is that I went back to my
constituency, a constituency that used to have an NDP
representing it but no longer does because of this concern. My
constituents gave me a very clear indication of where they stand
on the issue. We had from 83% to 87% support for the amendment,
the compromise between dual marketing and the monopoly that
presently exists.
For the member for Palliser to say that we are against the board
is blatantly false. We are representing farmers. This is what
farmers want. It is false for the government to have the
arrogant attitude that it knows what is best, that it will
protect farmers and so on. That member is lining up with the
government with regard to this and that is wrong. What does he
say when 83% to 87% of farmers want that option? Is the
government not obligated to carry that out?
Also I want to refer to property rights. The hon. member made
comments about the National Citizens' Coalition and so did the
minister. The minister said that the National Citizens'
Coalition indicated that the issue of Japanese internment, the
confiscation of Japanese property and so on, was a very similar
issue. The Canadian Wheat Board minister indicated that issue
was raised by the NCC. That was false. The government used the
argument that the confiscation of Japanese property was justified
during the war and so is the Canadian Wheat Board confiscation of
farmers' property.
Does the member believe that farmers should turn over their
wheat and barley and then buy it back in order to gain control
over it? Does he feel that property rights in Canada should be
strengthened? Does he feel it is right for the board to take
the property farmers have worked for, sweated over and took all
the risk for and simply give it to the government to do anything
with or to buy it back from the government? Does he agree with
either of those two statements.
Mr. Dick Proctor: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the opt-in,
opt-out provisions the member for Yorkton—Melville asked about,
we believe fundamentally that it would lead very quickly to the
dual marketing I endeavoured to talk about in my remarks.
That is what Alberta Justice Muldoon said. That is what the
Reform Party refuses to discuss. We do not think that option can
or will work.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: What if farmers want it?
Mr. Dick Proctor: There are provisions to include and
exclude grains. If farmers want it, as the member for
Yorkton—Melville is saying, they can vote according to their
wishes.
I simply do not believe in the 83% to 87%. Which is it? Is it
83% or 87%? Is it 53% or 43%?
1210
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to listen to the debate. If the hon.
member for Palliser believes so strongly in a monopoly, why
should we not create a housing monopoly so that everybody would
live in houses owned by the government and would pay it for that?
That is the way some communist countries have gone. Would the
member agree that is the way to go? If one monopoly is so good
for one sector, why not have them all under monopolies? If it is
good for me it should be good for the next guy. What is good for
the goose is good for the gander. How would the member for
Palliser deal with that issue?
Maybe we should have a monopoly on cars. The government could
own all the cars as the government did in the Soviet Union. We
know what happened over there. They are all on a junk pile right
now. That is how good that monopoly was.
Why not a monopoly on lawyer services or teachers? Why not turn
the country into something that is prosperous like we have seen
communist countries become? Are they right on the world scene
today? If it were not for capitalists like us they would all be
starving to death. Is that the kind of system the member wants?
Mr. Dick Proctor: No, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with interest to some of the rather absurd
comments of the member for Palliser. He said that Reform members
were speaking out of both sides of their mouths. That is
absolutely, blatantly false. My colleagues brought him up short
on that comment.
If the member for Palliser is so interested in monopolies, why
did the NDP government in Saskatchewan get rid of the hog board
monopoly and hang on to the wheat board monopoly?
Mr. Dick Proctor: Mr. Speaker, it is an oranges and
apples question. Alberta and Manitoba opted out of a hog
marketing arrangement some time before. I am not a member of the
Saskatchewan government but I certainly support it. It felt that
it made the best economic sense for hog farmers to cease the hog
marketing operation in that province.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a question
to put to the member that might clear up the last point of
argument. The member opposite said that it was basically a
communist proposal and asked why we do not turn everything over
to the government.
Would the hon. member agree, whether it is hog marketing or
grain producing, that producers have clearly shown that their
choice is to market their product in this fashion? They have
shown that time and time again.
What is happening over there is all smoke and mirrors. Farmers
have clearly shown time and time again that they want this system
of marketing, that they want the Canadian Wheat Board, that it is
a paramount marketing agency. Would the member for Palliser
agree?
Mr. Dick Proctor: Mr. Speaker, I agree very much. That
was the thrust of my remarks.
Farmers agreed as recently as last year that they wanted the
Canadian Wheat Board to retain the authority to market barley. If
at some future date they do not want the board to market
anything, they will have the ability to make that decision
democratically among themselves.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, It
is with some pleasure and some trepidation that I rise to speak
at third reading—
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: With pleasure? It was closure.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: It is with trepidation that I speak to
Bill C-4 perhaps for the last time, unless the government in its
wisdom allows the legislation to go back to committee for further
debate.
1215
Quite frankly the legislation before us at the present time is
not what I and certainly a number of my constituents would
consider to be a good piece of legislation which deals with and
resolves the issues of the Canadian Wheat Board. I say that to
my colleagues on the Liberal benches and plead with them not to
stop the ongoing debate that is happening currently with Bill
C-4.
I would like to speak on a number of issues in a number of
areas. First, I am not a producer. I am not a farmer. A number
of my relatives gain their living from agriculture and in certain
cases grow a substantial amount of wheat and other products
including products which are not included in the Canadian Wheat
Board. Also, I represent a community that with great pride
announces itself as the wheat city. It has been known as that
particular city since its inception in 1982. The wheat in the
wheat city is the backbone of our economy and is reflected in the
Canadian Wheat Board legislation.
I want to talk about my philosophy, that of my party and the
reason I ran for this party. Our philosophy is fairly simple.
We believe in free enterprise. We believe in choice. We
believe in a free market system, as was seen by the NAFTA
legislation which was brought forward by the last Progressive
Conservative government. We believe in less government and less
government control. We believe in more individual freedom for
people and people's responsibility for themselves. I say that
because I can make the connection between that philosophy and the
philosophy of producers in the Canadian Wheat Board.
For those people who are listening I would like to make an
analogy. There has been a lot of ranting and raving, rhetoric,
flailing of hands and gnashing of teeth over this particular
issue. The fact is this is a very important issue for producers
in western Canada. I would like to make the comparison as to what
we are talking about here.
A farmer, a producer, an agriculturalist or whatever we want to
call that individual is in fact a small business. In lots of
cases it is more than simply a small business and is a very large
business. The producer capitalizes and buys land, a substantial
amount of land in some cases because the more land he has,
obviously the more he can produce. There is a large capital cost
for that.
The producer then accesses what is referred to as inputs. He
accesses pesticides, herbicides, seed and fertilizer. He plants
the seed in the land which he has purchased with in some cases
substantial capital. He then nurtures that seed until it grows
and it produces and then it is harvested. When he harvests the
crop and he puts it in his bin, he has produced the product.
Unfortunately while the crop is in that bin, if it is wheat or
barley, that producer does not have control or ownership of that
product. He must be at the whim and unfortunately the nature of
the Canadian Wheat Board. The Canadian Wheat Board will tell
that producer what price he can sell his product for and to whom
he can sell it. And he can only sell it to one purchaser, the
Canadian Wheat Board and no one else.
When the producer puts that seed in the ground he is given an
initial payment based on what his cash flows are going to be over
the next crop year. Sometimes those initial payments change and
sometimes they do not. There are adjustments. The fact is he
can only sell to one purchaser and that purchaser is the Canadian
Wheat Board. If he does not sell it to the board, that crop will
sit in that bin forever or until it rots because he cannot sell
it to anyone else.
I will use the analogy of a manufacturer whether he is in
Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick or Newfoundland.
The manufacturer makes a product, controls the capital to produce
that product and controls the inputs. When he has that final
finished product in his hands he can sell it to whomever he
wants.
1220
If it is below the cost of production, the manufacturer will not
be making that product very much longer. If he does not have
competition here in Canada to purchase his product, he can sell
it internationally. He can sell it to the United States or to
Europe. When the manufacturer makes the product, he has the
option to sell it to whomever he wishes.
Very simply, that is the free market system, being in business
and selling to whomever one wants. Unfortunately today with
wheat and barley the producer does not have the same options.
Let us talk a little bit about the history of this which is very
important. I will get into my philosophical beliefs with respect
to the Canadian Wheat Board. The Canadian Wheat Board is a very
good institution, make no mistake about that. The problem is
that it is not prepared to deal with the 21st century, nor is
government today prepared to deal with the 21st century. Let us
talk about history.
There is a reason the Canadian Wheat Board came into being a
number of years ago. In the early part of the 20th century a lot
of producers who were growing that crop I talked about felt they
were not getting a fair return for the product they were
producing. They voluntarily, and I stress the term voluntarily,
got together and said they would have a much better opportunity
to sell their product at a higher price if they pooled it. They
felt that if they put it all together it would be a bigger
commodity and they would be able to go out and sell it to the
best buyer.
This was done on a voluntary basis with the Saskatchewan Wheat
Pool, the Alberta Wheat Pool and the Manitoba Wheat Pool back in
the early 1920s. It worked because they felt they were being
taken advantage of by the corporations.
Unfortunately in 1943 the voluntary sale of that product to a
pooling system was made mandatory. Now the producers had no
choice. When it was voluntary they could do what they wanted.
They could pool it with their neighbours or they could go
somewhere else and sell it. In 1943 for any number of reasons
and probably very good reasons for the times, it was made
mandatory. Make no mistake about that, it was probably done for
the right reasons in 1943. I was not around as I was not even
born yet. However, it was probably for the right reasons and
probably was the right thing to do at that time.
An hon. member: I wasn't born yet either.
An hon. member: I was.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: I obviously made a mistake by giving
my age away here. Anyway, I am giving a passionate speech here.
In 1943 the right decision was made. However between 1943 and
1998 a number of changes occurred not only in farming techniques
as we have seen, and I could get into a five hour debate on that,
but also in marketing techniques. The CWB has not kept up with
the final marketing techniques.
As was mentioned earlier, we recognize that the Canadian Wheat
Board in 1943 brought three pillars to the Canadian farmer. It
brought a pooling system where at that time all farmers in wheat,
oats and barley would pool their crops and would sell them as a
single desk seller. It brought in what was known as a government
guarantee. The farmer would have an initial payment which would
be the lowest amount the farmer would ever get for his commodity.
Usually it was lower than what the market would pay but it was
guaranteed. It also brought a single desk seller. The farmer
could not sell it to anybody else and that individual or
corporation would go out and sell it to the marketplace.
Those pillars are still in place at the present time but times
have changed. It reminds me of an adage I have heard many times,
that it is much better to manage change than to have change
manage you. Unfortunately the government with this legislation
is not managing change. The change is managing the government
and it is not going to work.
I would also like to talk about the process. As members are
well aware, I have not had the opportunity of being in this House
very long. It has been about a six or seven month period. The
first piece of legislation that was thrown on the table was that
of the Canadian Wheat Board, my area of responsibility as critic.
I wanted to follow the process of this legislation.
Like my colleague in the New Democratic Party, I was perhaps a
little naive to say the least because I felt very honestly that
in the committee forum we would be able to have input.
I thought the federal government would listen to well thought out
logical concerns about this legislation.
1225
I have always said I will be constructive in my comments. I will
give the government some constructive opportunities and
alternatives to what it has put forward as this piece of
legislation.
In my estimation the process in this legislation was flawed.
Bill C-4 went from this House to the committee. We were told
that the minister would listen not only to the people who would
make presentations before the committee, but also to the other
members on the committee, particularly those from the opposition.
The process was rushed. It was flawed. Everybody who talked to
us, the witnesses, had concerns, opinions and problems with the
legislation. None of those concerns and problems was dealt with
at committee stage, when the legislation came back to this House,
or at this third reading stage.
It should not work that way. I like the committee. It is an
opportunity to share with not only members of government, but
other opposition members. It should be the venue where we can
work out our differences, where we can put forward some of the
more positive alternatives than what have been presented by
government.
Nobody has a lock on the best possible legislation. There is
always a chance for improvement and we had that. We had it with
some amendments that were put forward but unfortunately the
government would not do that.
Not only that, but in talking about the process, the bill came
back here from committee. We asked to have the minister
responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board come back to the
committee so we could tell him what we had heard. We were told
that the minister could not be there, that this legislation had
to go through and it had to go through then. It had to go through
before the Christmas recess. Unfortunately it is now February. It
did not go through before Christmas. Why could we not have talked
to the minister once again and told him what we had heard at that
committee session?
Why could we not have heard from the Ontario Wheat Board which
is a parallel organization? It could have explained to us what
is good and what is bad about that organization so we could try
to implement the good into the Canadian Wheat Board. Why could we
not have heard from it? Because we did not have time in
committee. Unfortunately we had the time but the government did
not want to give us the time.
Then the bill came to this House. This was the opportunity to
talk to the House, to the government, to the opposition, to the
minister and put up our amendments to the legislation. Good
amendments in some cases, not so good in other cases.
Then the government decided that too much debate was going on in
this House on C-4, so it implemented closure. Closure is not a
good term. No, no, it was not closure. I am told it was time
allocation. I accept the argument of the government that it was
time allocation, semantics. The government said “We no longer
want you to talk about this legislation because we do not like
what you are saying, we do not care what you are saying and we
are going to stop the debate”. So the government stopped the
debate.
That was the process I had the opportunity of taking part in for
the very first time. I hope beyond hope the next time a piece of
legislation is presented by government that we do not follow the
same process. I hope it will be much more open, that it will be
much more honest and that we will have the opportunity to put
forward what we consider to be good, solid, well thought out
changes to a flawed piece of legislation.
Let me go on to some of the areas which we still have concerns
with. I said there were some good things in the legislation, and
I mean that sincerely. The Canadian Wheat Board right now under
its form of management and governance does not work well. But do
not forget, this was put into place in 1943 so there should be
some changes. A commissioner form of governance does not work as
management.
1230
Anybody who has any dealing with the private sector, with
private business, knows that a single CEO or manager or owner is
the best and only management for a corporation. Instead of
having a commissioner form of government where there are up to
five commissioners making the law or rules for the board, the
government said it will have one individual to be the CEO, a very
good move. Unfortunately it did not go far enough because it
said it would appoint that CEO. It was the wrong thing to do.
The government was almost there, but it did not go far enough. We
now have a chief executive officer of the Canadian Wheat Board to
be appointed by government.
Then we go to the board of directors. The government was almost
there. It said very emphatically and passionately that this
board is to be controlled by the farmers, the producers. It is a
farmer-producer board. But it did not go far enough. There are
15 members on the board, 10 elected and 5 appointed by
government. If the government really believes in what it says
all 15 members should have been elected and the CEO should have
been appointed by the board. Then it would have been truly
accountable to the producers it is supposed to be working for.
There was an amendment I cannot believe the government turned
down. It came from the Reform Party and me. It said simply that
the corporation should be working for the farmers. The
corporation will be working for the producers. The government
turned it down. The corporation is working for the corporation,
not for those producers the government says it wants it to
represent. I cannot believe it turned that amendment down.
Let us talk about accountability and access to information. If
it is true that the government believes that this is for the
producers why not be open to the producers, the same people who
own the corporation? Let them have access to the corporation,
its books and its operations. There was an internal report done
in 1992, some six years ago, and the producers cannot get access
to it. What if the corporation is not working in their best
interests? They should have access to information.
We talk about choice. There were some amendments put forward
that would allow producers a choice with respect to opt-in,
opt-out and hedging. The government would not accept those as
well.
The last one is the one I have the most serious concern with,
the inclusion clause. That clause was never in place in Bill
C-72 when it came before this House, before the last election.
Now all of a sudden it rears its head. It is the clause that has
to be put into this legislation, Bill C-4. It means to include
other commodities on a single desk selling basis, a monopoly
basis. Quite frankly I have not found anybody who wants that
clause. I have not found anybody who says give us the inclusion
clause. I am very disappointed.
We have been dealing with this for six months. I have been
dealing with it for six months and others have been dealing with
it for much longer. The inclusion clause has always been an
issue. Yesterday, three hours before the final vote on the
amendments, we were approached by the minister who said we are
prepared to talk about some minor amendments to the inclusion
clause. Where was the minister and where was the government six
months ago when we talked about this? It cannot be done three
hours before the amendment is going to be voted on.
The only way we can deal with this logically and legitimately is
to have this government send this legislation back to committee
and let us talk just about the inclusion clause. Let us talk
about some amendments to that clause that are going to be
accepted by everybody in the House, including the opposition.
I see that my time is up. It has been a very interesting
process, to say the least. It has been an interesting piece of
legislation. When it is passed today it is still not going to
solve the problem. The government has not managed the change.
1235
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Madam Speaker, we have heard a
fairly slanted view of history from the hon. member.
I would like to answer one question he raised at the end of his
speech. He said where was the government the last six months.
The government has been consulting, listening and meeting with
producers on this issue since 1993. I happened to be on the last
committee which held hearings in western Canada. That is where
some of the changes came from.
The hon. member for Brandon—Souris began his remarks by talking
about free enterprise. He believes in free enterprise and he
believes in choice. Let me submit to him that if he believes in
choice, why is he opposing the inclusion clause? That gives
producers a choice other than the Winnipeg commodity exchange and
the open market.
The fact is the Canadian Wheat Board is making the free
enterprise system work to the advantage of Canadian producers.
It is collective selling. In any market the lowest seller sets
the price. The Canadian Wheat Board is ensuring that Canadian
producers do not compete against each other in the international
marketplace. As a result, the returns are pooled and the
maximized returns are given to the producers. That is good
marketing management. I am surprised that members opposite do
not support good marketing management.
The member also talked about marketing techniques which the
Canadian Wheat Board has not kept up. Nothing could be further
from the truth. He lives in Alberta, but I do not know if he has
ever been in the offices of the Canadian Wheat Board. It is
marketing intelligence and marketing at its best.
Study after study has been done. The wheat board report talked
about the additional $265 million per year in wheat revenue which
the Canadian Wheat Board obtained for producers because of
collective selling over what the open market would have brought
in. That is good marketing. It is using techniques. It is
using a war room in terms of marketing, finding out what its
customers are doing and maximizing the returns to producers.
Would the member not agree that this bill, improved as a result
of consultations and discussions, offers choice, both in terms of
excluding and including crops? It offers the choice which he
claims to support.
Does he also not agree that this bill puts producers in charge
of their own destiny and in charge of their own industry?
Those are the kinds of improvements which came about as a result
of committee hearings. If we look at the original Bill C-72 and
compare it to Bill C-4 and its conclusions we will see that
producers are now in charge when previously they were not. Would
he not agree?
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Madam Speaker, there were some
wonderful questions in that rhetoric.
First I should point out that my hon. colleague is, without
question, the strongest defender of not only the Canadian Wheat
Board but, obviously, of monopoly selling, single desk selling
and the inclusion clause. He was the author of the inclusion
clause which is in Bill C-4.
I learned a long time ago that philosophically I differ with
some people on certain issues. This is one of those cases. I
have learned that as much as I argue my position I will never
convince that individual of my position, nor, conversely, will
the hon. member in his arguments convince me to think his way. So
we agree to disagree.
I will answer his questions. Yes, I said that there have been
some changes made to the Canadian Wheat Board Act by Bill C-4
which are positive. I said that governance has been changed and
I like the governance. The fact that producers can cash buy now
as opposed to pooling is a positive change, but the government
did not go far enough. It did not manage change into the 21st
century.
The hon. member, who probably wants to be minister responsible
for the Canadian Wheat Board, talked about the best marketer
ever.
1240
If that is the case, and it may well be, then what is the
concern of the Canadian Wheat Board to open itself to the
competition?
If it is the best marketer ever and if it gets the best price
ever, every producer will continue to be a customer of the
Canadian Wheat Board. What is the member afraid of? If it is
that good, it should be able to compete.
I made a comment in this House not long ago. It happened with
other utilities that were afraid to compete. They were opened to
competition, telephones, electric and gas. They are now open to
competition and those monopoly utilities are just as good now if
not better than they were as a monopoly.
Why is the Canadian Wheat Board afraid to compete on that basis
if it is the best marketer of that commodity?
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is always a pleasure to listen to the lone Tory from
out west. It is really encouraging that he is trying to
encourage the eastern members of his party to come on side, to
Reform's position on the Canadian Wheat Board and we certainly
support his efforts in that regard.
My question revolves around the fact that this minister, as the
hon. member so eloquently put it, came into this House with an
11th hour amendment at the last point. He has had a year and a
half with this legislation. We had it at committee. We have had
the travelling road show during the last Parliament and yet he
comes in at the 11th hour and accuses the opposition of trying to
somehow not better the bill by some opposition members denying
unanimous consent to put forward this amendment.
I had some consultation, as did the hon. member, with the
minister a couple of hours before he proceeded to bring into the
House his last minute amendment. Is his understanding the same
as mine that it would not substantively change the
inclusion-exclusion process, merely put it into a different part
of the act?
Second, will the fifth party be supporting my amendment to send
this back to committee? At that time the hon. minister, like all
other members of this House, will have ample opportunity to put
forward whatever amendments he sees fit once the bill is back in
committee.
Mr. Rick Borotsik: Madam Speaker, first of all I would
like to introduce the Reform members to some of my colleagues
from Atlantic Canada. They do not have any Atlantic Canada
representatives. I have one from Ontario as well. We truly are
representative across Canada. We have a national party. We will
get that out of the way first of all.
Second, the hon. member had indicated whether we would support
the amendment of the Reform Party. I told him before and I will
make it public now that we will support the amendment to have
this legislation sent back to the committee for the very simple
reason, as the minister did in a last minute attempt, to massage
the inclusion clause.
Unfortunately it did not change it substantively. It took the
trigger point of the inclusion from a representative of a
producer group to the minister.
I have some faith in that minister, that he would not trigger
the inclusion clause. But there are other people opposite who, if
they ever became minister of that board, I would have very
serious concerns about, having the kind of power to trigger an
inclusion clause.
I believe the minister is on the right track. I believe the
minister should have this clause rethought, looked at again. The
best way to do that is to take it back to committee. Therefore we
will be supporting the amendment to go to committee.
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I too have
had a very interesting experience dealing with this piece of
legislation. My experience may be as interesting as that of the
member for Brandon—Souris, as both of us entered into this
debate probably two years after the debate started on the changes
to the wheat board.
1245
Given the various opinions that exist in the western provinces
with regard to the role and function of the wheat board, the
legislation struck the right changes to satisfy most producers
affected in the Canadian west.
As previous speakers have said, western Canadian farmers need
every possible advantage to tackle head on the challenges
inherent in the changing global economy. We have heard that said
over and over. The Canadian Wheat Board gives them an advantage
that makes them the envy of farmers around the world.
Farmers have said clearly that they want the Canadian Wheat
Board, but they want it to be more democratic, more responsive
and more accountable, and this legislation does that. It would
maintain the single desk system of selling grain that allows the
wheat board to command premium prices from its customers around
the world. It is a system that the majority of western farmers
appreciates and wants.
The legislation fundamentally changes how the wheat board would
be run. Farmers would be empowered to direct their own wheat
board. While government would continue to be a partner, it would
play a much smaller role in the new modernized Canadian Wheat
Board.
Bill C-4 would not only change who runs the wheat board but how
it would be run. The bottom line in Bill C-4 is that farmers
through a majority elected board of directors would decide their
own future. Directors elected by farmers would assess the
performance of the Canadian Wheat Board and of senior management.
They would be able to make changes if performance were not up to
expectations.
Farmers quite rightly would make these important decisions about
their own destinies through the board of directors which they
would control through their two-thirds majority. If this is not
democratic, if this is not transparent and if this is not fair
and appropriate, I do not know what is.
With the passage of Bill C-4 the wheat board's future would not
be determined by the government or by members of the House. Bill
C-4 will come as a great relief to tens of thousands of farmers
whose livelihoods are linked to the Canadian Wheat Board. They
deserve to have the power to design their own futures.
I emphasize the support which exists outside the Chamber for
this legislation. The precursor of this bill, Bill C-72, was
widely debated. The agriculture and agri-food committee held
about 40 hours of hearings on it in Ottawa and more critically in
Winnipeg, Regina, Saskatoon, Calgary and Grande Prairie. The
committee heard from more than 40 groups and 40 individuals. Many
more people supported the legislation than opposed it.
There were concerns. The government listened and the committee
took action. After these hearings the standing committee made
more than 20 amendments to the bill. Those amendments are
reflected in Bill C-4.
Under Bill C-4 the system by which the Canadian Wheat Board is
currently run, that is by government appointed commissioners,
would end and be replaced by a 15 member board of directors. The
majority of directors, 10 out of 15, would be elected directly by
farmers themselves.
Could anyone in the House of Commons name another $6 billion
corporation that would be run by a board of directors, most of
whom are elected by the clients they serve? This is more than
unique. It is unprecedented.
The directors would have real power to direct all the business
affairs of a modernized Canadian Wheat Board. They would have
the power to review all Canadian Wheat Board sales and financial
data, bar none. They would have the power to select their
chairperson, set their own salaries as well as those of the chair
and the president and, if necessary, recommend that the president
be fired.
As farmer elected representatives, the directors would be as
responsible to their electorate as we are. They will listen and
respond to the needs of producers. If they do not they would
likely not gain re-election. That is accountability.
We have heard a number of calls in the House for farmers to
elect all members of the Canadian Wheat Board to the board of
directors. Usually those calls point to the Ontario Wheat
Producers' Marketing Board as an example of a grain marketing
agency with a fully elected board. The question that usually
follows is why the same cannot be done for the Canadian Wheat
Board.
1250
There is a number of quite valid reasons for treating the
Canadian Wheat Board differently from the situation for grain
marketing currently found in Ontario. The Ontario Wheat
Producers' Marketing Board does not benefit from the same
government guarantees as does the Canadian Wheat Board. The
government does not guarantee the borrowings of the Ontario board
while it does guarantee Canadian Wheat Board borrowings of more
than $6 billion.
The situation is also different with respect to export credit
guarantees. The Ontario board does not have its own export
credit program. Rather it obtains export credit from the Export
Development Corporation, an organization with a board of
directors appointed entirely by government.
The Canadian Wheat Board operates its own credit grain sales
program which benefits from a government guarantee. This is
another reason for having the government appoint at least some
members of the Canadian Wheat Board board of directors.
The financial implications of decisions made by the Canadian
Wheat Board are much larger than those associated with the
Ontario board. On average the Ontario Wheat Producers' Marketing
Board markets about 900,000 tonnes of wheat per year mainly in
Canada and the United States, while the Canadian Wheat Board
markets an average of 25 million tonnes of wheat and barley per
year in more than 70 countries.
The Canadian Wheat Board would continue to exercise certain
public powers conferred by parliament such as the issuing of
export licences for wheat and barley for all areas of the
country. The Ontario board does not have such powers. For
example, it must obtain export licences from the Canadian Wheat
Board.
The government's role in Canadian Wheat Board operations would
change from one of paternalism to one of partnership. The
government would guarantee to provide financial guarantees to the
wheat board. As these guarantees are worth billions of dollars,
the government would need to continue to ensure the guarantees
did not become a drain on the public treasury, as is only
prudent.
The government would appoint five directors but the directors
would be in a minority. The majority elected by farmers would
clearly hold sway. Farmers in the Canadian Wheat Board have also
asked for more options in how grain is marketed and paid for. As
I mentioned earlier the Canadian Wheat Board is envied around the
world for its size, its clout and its success. Of course it
comes under attack by our trading competitors. Its high rating
among global buyers clearly makes it a threat to our competitors.
The governor of North Dakota recently said that farmers from
both countries should work together. He suggested that as a
first step North Dakota farmers should be able to sell their
grain to the Canadian Wheat Board. At the same time the United
States bashes the Canadian Wheat Board.
If it were not doing a good job for Canadian farmers, would the
U.S. government give a tinker's damn about the Canadian Wheat
Board? I think not.
With Bill C-4 we are doing the right thing. We are positioning
the Canadian Wheat Board for the new millennium and giving
farmers the power to steer their own future. Bill C-4 deserves
the full support of all members of the House.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have a couple of very simple questions for the
chairman of the agriculture committee.
How much opposition would there have to be to Bill C-4 before
the government would withdraw the bill and send it back to
committee? Does it matter what producers on the prairies think,
or is the government going to simply ram it through?
The reason I ask is that by accident it was delayed over the
Christmas break and I was allowed to go back and consult with the
producers of wheat and barley. They told me clearly what they
thought about it. I have ample evidence, which I have already
talked about, that clearly points out they do not want Bill C-4.
How high does the level of opposition have to be before the
government would withdraw it? Would it have to simply be 35%?
Would it have to be 50%? Would it have to be 75%, or would it
have to be over 80%?
The reason I ask is that it is over 80%. We have taken surveys.
We have checked with people on both sides of the debate and they
do not want Bill C-4.
What do they want? They want some of the amendments we have put
forward.
I know how they feel. I gave them ample opportunity to examine
the amendments. Ninety-seven per cent of them want a preamble to
the bill to change the mandate of the board. Yesterday the
government nixed all 48 of the amendments put forward.
1255
How many wanted an opt out clause: 83%. How many wanted a
sunset clause and the auditor general to check it: 86%. How
much opposition does there have to be?
The second question ties in with the first one. So far the
government has not allowed the auditor general to measure the
performance of the board against its mandate. It continues not
to allow it. It says that it allows an auditor to look at the
books, but the government well knows that auditor does not do
what the Auditor General of Canada does, that is measure whether
it is meeting its mandate.
Why does the government hide the fact that some employees get a
$120,800 annual salary, a $110,635 annual salary, a $119,113
annual salary, a $129,999 annual salary or a $115,000 annual
salary? The Auditor General of Canada would expose that kind of
stuff. Why is the government hiding that information from
farmers?
Mr. Joe McGuire: Madam Speaker, to accuse the government
of ramming through the legislation is going beyond the credible
stage. We have been at this for three years. At some time all
good things must come to an end. In this case the debate over
the Canadian Wheat Board has gone on long enough. Farmers in the
western provinces would agree that the debate has gone on long
enough and that it is time to make a decision and get on with
life.
Everything in the bill is not etched in stone forever and ever.
If there comes such a time that the changes do not work then the
appropriate measures will be taken. However, to accuse the
government of ramming through the legislation with time
allocation is stretching credulity.
If 10 of the 15 members of the new farmer board want to hide
things from their fellow farmers who elected them, I suppose that
is up to them. If Canadian wheat farmers who elected the
majority of members are not satisfied with the auditing
procedures of the people who were hired by the board, I have no
doubt the members would change it and institute measures that
would be more acceptable to the people who elected them.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have a comment for the member opposite. Not only did
my colleague from Yorkton—Melville give some statistics of what
happened during the Christmas break. I too could give some that
are very similar to his. This is not making up something. These
are real and actual.
Does the minister realize that every MP elected to the House
whose majority of constituents come from the rural wheat
producing area, with the exception of one, will be voting against
the bill? Does that not make any difference to the government
opposite?
We have listened to our constituents say no way and the
government does not even listen to that.
Mr. Joe McGuire: Madam Speaker, the hon. member forgets
that the minister responsible for the wheat board also lives in
Saskatchewan. The member was not the only one who was home
during the Christmas holidays. The minister was there taking the
pulse of the producers out west. He came back and offered an
olive branch to members opposite which they rejected to a man.
They will not consider any other option but the destruction of
the wheat board.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): On questions and
comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans.
1300
Mr. Jay Hill: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. The
hon. member who just spoke is from the government side. Normally
the process is for the questions and comments to come from the
opposition.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The rule is usually
that we go from one side of the House to the other.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Madam Speaker, obviously with
the questions coming from the other side, those members have not
listened to what the chair of the committee and the hon. member
for Egmont have said. Clearly they have not listened. If the
rhetoric we hear from the other side in this debate is the same
as they are telling producers, it is no wonder they are confused.
I have been fortunate enough to have followed this debate in the
first hearings. We held hearings in western Canada. I was very
fortunate to have attended those hearings. At them we had support
for this bill, in particular the inclusion clause, from Canadian
organic certification co-operatives, Canadian registered organic
producers marketing, the Saskatchewan Catholic rural life
ministry, the National Farmers' Union, the Canadian Wheat Board
advisory committee, the Saskatchewan women's agriculture network,
pro-Canadian Wheat Board campaign, the sustainable agricultural
association, the Government of Saskatchewan, quite a list of
individual presentations in support of the inclusion clause.
My question, because obviously the members opposite were not
listening—
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, on a point of order, some of the things the member is
citing are blatantly false. We are talking about Bill C-4. Those
people are not in support of it. The Government of Saskatchewan
does not support Bill C-4.
Mr. Wayne Easter: Maybe the hon. member did not hear me
correctly. These are groups and individuals calling for or
supporting an inclusion clause during hearings of the House of
Commons committee on agriculture. That is what we were talking
about.
Maybe the member for Egmont could summarize what he said by
explaining again, because they never heard him the first time,
how he sees the board being more accountable under this new
system under Bill C-4.
Mr. Joe McGuire: Madam Speaker, I believe members
opposite know the amount of consultation that has gone into this
piece of legislation. As I said earlier, there are a lot of
different of opinions being expressed in the wheat producing
provinces with regard to the wheat board and what should or
should not be done there.
I think the minister has struck a proper level here in
consulting and listening to the people who are affected by the
wheat board.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it has been an interesting morning. I would like to
announce that my colleague from Yorkton—Melville will split the
time with me.
I heard the question asked today why are farmers against ten
elected directors. I will tell members exactly why they are
against it. They have had over a dozen elected advisory board
members and they have never represented the farmers who elected
them, to work for them and to try and promote things that make
the board more transparent and accountable to farmers.
They would not even come out and support the board when the
courts ruled that it had no mandate to act on behalf of farmers
but rather on government.
1305
What has happened recently is that it is not just the farmers
who do not want the board anymore, the people working for the
board are concerned that their jobs are going down the road if
the board does not become transparent and accountable.
I got a document from the wheat board last weekend showing how
much management deadwood is on that board. Out of 454 employees,
there are 130 some with management titles. I can list them,
every single one, if members want to know. There are 131
management people who are probably eligible for a huge pension
and a severance package. If the hon. member for Malpeque wants
to look in the book and turn to compensation, it says there is
$21.991 million in wages. Out of that there is another $5.139
million in benefits, like EI, pension, group insurance and
medical; 24.5% per cent are benefits out of a $21 million wage
package.
That is better than being a Liberal MP. They should start
running to be elected to the wheat board. That is where the big
bucks are. The farmers starve but the wheat board lives pretty
well. That is why farmers are getting disgusted. That is why
they are going to change the system. It will not take a
government to change it. They will do it themselves. Farmers
have done it before and they will do it again.
Why are farmers so dead set against a marketing system that did
work for them? Because of the secrecy and suspicion in it.
Nobody trusts the wheat board anymore. Why do they not trust it?
In 1994 when we had the fusarium wheat in southern Manitoba,
the wheat board said we could not sell that wheat because there
was no market. The farmers could dump it, burn it, do anything
they wanted.
David Sawatzky found a market for it. He exported I do not know
how many millions of dollars worth. What did he get for it?
Wheat that was worthless. He got thrown in jail. What did he
do? He went to the law books and he started studying law. He
won the case. The government was not happy with that so it
appealed it. He beat it again. That is why farmers are upset.
That is why farmers are going to beat this lousy system. That is
corrupt.
I hope I am not getting too loud because I do get excited. Mr.
Speaker's nerves are a little better, so I can start going ahead.
Mr. Speaker, you can turn your ear this way because the Liberal
government's hearing is kind of bad, but the Speaker sometimes
does hear things that he should not. We will forgive you for
that.
That is one example. I want to point out another example.
Andy McMechan was another one of those farmers who trucked
over a couple of million bushels of fusarium rotten wheat. What
did they do to him? The minister changed the Customs Act as soon
as Sawatzky was declared innocent.
An hon. member: By order in council.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: By order in council. What did they
do? They through thousands of dollars of forfeitures against
him. They took his truck. In 1995 all of a sudden they figured
they could not beat this little farmer either. What did they do?
They got farm credit to put a collection agency on him to collect
the bill of $27 that was overdue for a year. That is how this
Liberal government treats farmers.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on a point of order.
Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, it is a quite an
allegation when the member claims that the government asks FCC to
send a bill—
1310
The Deputy Speaker: This is debate, not a point of order.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: If the hon. member would like the
documents, I can show them to him. I have them all in my office.
When they could not shut him down that way, what did they do?
They caught him taking a load of barley across with his old
trailer and a tractor. Because he had to have some income, he
took a tractor and a trailer. When he came back, the government
said “You cannot get $6 for that barley in the U.S. when the
wheat board only wants to give you $2. That is criminal”.
The Liberals were going to stick a forfeiture on the tractor and
he said “I am sorry, sir, I have to use the front end loader of
that tractor to feed my cattle or they will starve. I cannot do
it all by fork”. Do you know what the crown prosecutor did to
this man, Mr. Speaker? He gave him six months in jail for taking
his tractor home to feed his cattle. Six months in shackles.
An hon. member: That is not Canada, is it?
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: That is Canada. That is the
Canadian Wheat Board. That is the Liberal government. That is the
Canada we live in.
What did the judge do? He gave him a $2,000 fine and the crown
prosecutor said hold it a minute, that is not tough enough, not
for this terrible criminal. That is not enough, we have to
increase that to $20,000, and that is what he did. So
they got rid of one more farmer.
That is why farmers are mad today and why they are not going to
sit by and look at legislation like this and leave it go. They
are going to change it and they are going to make that wheat
board accountable and they are going to make it transparent.
It happened before that farmers had to take the bull by the
horns and do something, and they will do it this time. There is
no rule, no law in this country that dictates that kind of
treatment. Rapists and murderers are allowed to run loose on the
streets and a farmer is thrown in jail for selling his grain at a
proper price. That is Canada. That is the Liberal government.
When the minister is asked just to put a preamble into that bill
that will say we have to be accountable to the farmer and sell
the grain for the best price, he cannot do it. That is not
democracy. Why not make a bill that spells out clearly what that
bill should be doing? Oh no, I know what I have spent to get the
wheat board to say finally we have absolutely no authority or
responsibility or duty to a farmer. That bill is there for the
government and the corporation. That is there and if hon.
members want to change it, they can.
Tonight hon. members can be men and women who stand up for
democracy and defeat this bill, because that is what every farmer
in western Canada has said so far. Tear it up, start all over
again because we need a wheat board that is accountable and that
is going to work for us, not just for us but for this country,
something that will protect democracy and will protect the rights
of individuals.
If this bill is implemented the way it is, it sets at risk every
marketing scheme in this country. It sets at risk every RRSP
plan. It sets at risk every pension plan. Everything can be
confiscated if this is the type of bill we are going to pass in
this House.
I hope the Liberals take it to heart tonight and show that they
are men and women who work for this country. Stand up and vote
against the government. They will go down in history just like
Andy McMechan some day will probably have his face carved on
those snow carvings, being a real hero just like Louis Riel.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I tried to get up
on a point of order and I might even have been out of order.
I do seriously believe that the allegation the member made is
very serious and very wrong. I believe his heart is certainly in
the right place in terms of fighting for farmers in the farm
community, and I think he sees some good points in the Canadian
Wheat Board as well. Probably he is not as in favour of it as I
am, but he knows there are some very good points.
1315
To accuse the Government of Canada of asking the Farm Credit
Corporation, a crown corporation which operates with its own
mandate, to push a farmer against the wall financially is a wrong
allegation. I would ask the member if he has information to back
up that allegation to table it. He is seriously wrong on that
point.
The member raised the issue of salaries. The Canadian Wheat
Board is a major $6 billion operation. It maximizes returns to
producers. It is the paramount selling agency for producers
around the world. It is a model which we should be emulating in
other industries. I would ask the member what he sees as a
legitimate level for administration expenses, including the
salaries of board members.
The fact of the matter is that in 1995-96 in the pool accounts
the administration expenses of the Canadian Wheat Board on $5.8
billion worth of sales were only .7%. That is a very efficiently
run operation. To pull out figures like he is doing is
absolutely going with the kind of rhetoric which Reform tends to
go with.
What level does the member see as being efficient?
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: Mr. Speaker, I would like to
address the first question about this government not being
capable of doing what I said. I will go a little further than
that.
When I asked in this House how the minister could throw one
farmer into jail for selling his grain at the best price when
another farmer was rewarded for getting $54 a tonne outside the
pooling system, the minister said he did not know what the wheat
board act said. He had to get Richard Klassen, the wheat board
commissioner, to interpret it. And what did he say? He said “We
have no mandate to sell that wheat for the best price. Those
kinds of bonuses are legal outside the system”.
When the RCMP looked into it they said “He is right”. What
can we do?
Mr. Wayne Easter: Read this report.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: Mr. Speaker, I can read all the
reports I want, but I have the facts in black and white.
Not only that, when the customs and revenue people laid $165,000
worth of forfeitures against the farmer who received $250,000 in
bonuses for selling outside the pooling system, he filed a
complaint against customs and revenue. Customs and revenue have
not filed a defence to date. It is shocking. They admitted they
were wrong.
What is the government doing? It prosecutes one farmer and
throws him into shackles and it gives another farmer $250,000 in
bonuses for selling outside the pooling system. Is the government
just working for the rich or is it working for the farm family
which tries to maintain and keep ownership of their land? Which
way does it want it? It is in black and white.
This book says there were $42 million in costs to operate the
board. But what did we lose as far as getting a reasonable price
when the judge said there is no mandate to sell at the best
price? Mr. McMechan could have made $6 if he had hauled his
barley 25 miles from his home and he got $2 from the wheat board.
How much did it cost him to operate the wheat board? I do not
think he made too much money on that deal. If I am right, he
lost his farm.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I might as well be in Mexico. I might as well join the
senator down there. Mr. Speaker, you are the only one who is
really listening to what I have to say. The government is not
listening. We are essentially talking to ourselves in this
place, so I might as well be in Mexico. It would do as much
good.
There were 48 amendments proposed to this bill and not one was
accepted. That is very significant.
Has the minister answered any of our questions?
Has he been here to listen to the debate and to answer any of our
questions? Not one. Therefore I went to some other avenues. I
wrote him public letters and I never got a single answer. I might
as well be in Mexico. I have worked very hard on this issue for
a long time.
1320
Mr. Gerry Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I believe the Speaker will agree with me that it is not the
conduct of this House to make reference to the presence or
absence of members in this Chamber.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member is correct. It is
not proper to refer to the presence or absence of hon. members in
the Chamber. The member came very close, and since he switched
topics quickly, I did not interrupt him. I know he will not do
that again.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I
referred to the convenient absence of the minister.
I asked the minister and I asked the chairman of the committee
how much opposition to Bill C-4 there would have to be before the
government would withdraw the bill. They never answered that
question.
The opposition out there in the three prairie provinces is
horrific. I have already stated that and I will not go into it.
During the Christmas break and before, I asked farmers what they
would like to see done. The minister has given the impression
that there are two sides in this debate and they cannot be
brought together. That is blatantly false. I went to the farmers
and the farmers talked among themselves.
The farmers discussed the issue and came back to me with
suggestions. Members know what I did with those suggestions.
There was quite an internal kerfuffle in this House for me to get
them drawn up and not simply have them sent to clerks. I went
through all that and I had those amendments properly drawn up,
which the majority of farmers agreed on.
I took the amendments back to the farmers and gave them several
weeks to consider them. They went over them and I have already
related the support there was for those amendments.
For the mandate of the board to be to maximize profits rather
than orderly marketing, there was 97% support. And the minister
said that they really do not know what they are thinking, that
they do not know what they are talking about, that they are just
farmers off in the prairies. How arrogant, how undemocratic can
someone be, to ignore what these farmers want? The farmers were
willing to allow for a five year opt out clause. In fact the
support was 83%.
The minister said that both sides could not be brought together.
How come I could do it? How come when I consulted widely I was
able to do that in my constituency? How come when the farmers
asked for an auditor general to examine the books of the board, I
got 86% support for that?
Something is not ringing true in what the minister is saying.
He is giving the impression that both sides cannot be brought
together. That is blatantly false.
What good has it been for me to work hard and to bring farmers
together and to get them to agree? What good has it done?
Nothing. I might as well have taken a holiday in Mexico. It
would have done as much good because the minister did not listen.
The Canadian Wheat Board minister said that this issue cannot be
agreed on. I have proven him wrong. He will not answer the
question about who is supporting him. There is virtually nobody.
Look at the facts. Producers are opposed to this. But it is not
just producers. Public letters from the Canadian Wheat Board
Advisory Committee have been put in all papers on the prairies.
The Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee is elected by
producers to sit on the Canadian Wheat Board and they are opposed
to this. What level of opposition is needed? Here there are
people who are in the know, who are on the inside of the Canadian
Wheat Board structure saying that they do not want Bill C-4. Is
it not abhorrent? We might as well all take a vacation in Mexico
the way this government listens. It is absolutely ridiculous.
I have a half hour speech that this government is forcing me to
make in 10 minutes so I have to go through things very quickly.
1325
Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. It was a proposal by the opposition members that they
split their time 10 minutes a piece. It is not the government
that did that.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure we could have an
interesting discussion about the length of the speech but the
fact is the hon. member has the floor. I do not believe that is
a point of order. It is a matter for debate.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, can my time be
extended when they interrupt with these frivolous comments?
The Deputy Speaker: Yes.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Thank you.
This bill will create even more inequities. That is the point I
am trying to make. I do not understand why this government does
not trust farmers to make their own decisions and manage their
own affairs.
The minister keeps saying the amendments put forward will put
the Canadian Wheat Board at risk. If farmers who have to live
with it want these amendments, why does the government not
approve them? It is their money. It is their property, is it
not?
That brings me to the second main point I would like to make in
this small length of time the government has given me to talk. My
question is: Whose grain is it? Who has taken the risks to grow
it?
Mr. Speaker, you may not be aware, but I have introduced a bill
in Parliament to strengthen property rights. I feel that is a
fundamental issue and it is going to be the thing that is going
to eventually destroy this board because of Bill C-4. Farmers
are getting tired of having to hand their grain over to the board
and then if they want it they have to buy it back. That is
happening in Canada. Mr. Speaker, you look at little doubtful
about that. It is happening in this country. Really it is.
The farmers take all the risks. They grow the grain, they have
all the input costs and when they harvest the grain they cannot
own it. They have to turn it over to the board if it is wheat
and barley and is grown in one of the three provinces. If it is
grown in Saskatchewan, Alberta or Manitoba they do not own that
grain. If it was grown someplace else, in certain regions of
British Columbia, they could own it. But they cannot own it if it
is grown in certain districts.
The farmers cannot own their own grain. They have to turn it
over to the board and if they want it they have to buy it back.
Of course they cannot buy it back for the same price. They have
to pay a much higher price because the board does not want them
to make that profit.
Section 1(a) of the Canadian Bill of Rights says every
individual, including prairie farmers, has the right to life,
liberty, security of the person and the enjoyment of property and
the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of
law. This government is breaking that right. It is removing it
from farmers. It is depriving them of the enjoyment of their
property.
It is not just on wheat and barley. Because farmers cannot
control that, it devalues their land. I will not go into the
explanation of how it does that but if you are growing a product
and you cannot reap the full benefits of that product, you
actually devalue the land on which it is being produced. That is
happening in the prairies today.
The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights article
17 says everyone has the right to own property alone as well as
in association with others and no one shall be arbitrarily
deprived of his property. It is wrong for this government to
arbitrarily deprive farmers in only three provinces of their
property and only in a narrow area.
I have heard members opposite argue that they do not have to
grow wheat and barley. What a display of ignorance. You have to
know what the economy of the prairies is. You have to know
something about crop rotation. You have to know that the options
these farmers have are very limited and they have no choice. And
this government takes away even the choice that they do have and
would like to have. Even the United Nations says it is wrong. It
is despicable that the federal government used lawyers and its
power to override property rights on the prairies.
In this last minute I would like to appeal to the people of
Canada, our city cousins who may be listening to this and do not
understand the problems that are being experienced by a few
people on the prairies and how this government is running
roughshod. These farmers are not crying for separation. They
are not saying “We do not want to be part of Canada”. All they
are saying is “We want to control our property”. That is what
they are asking for.
I appeal to the people in all the other constituencies in Canada
to listen to this debate today and help us out. We cannot do
anything because we do not have representatives in government.
We do not have the power to change this and so we need the help
of the Canadian people.
1330
I have much more that needs to be said about the property rights
issue. Could I get unanimous consent to finish my speech? I
realize the government has imposed time allocation.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member have unanimous
consent of the House to conclude his remarks?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member has run out of time.
He will have a chance in reply to questions and comments, which I
now invite.
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, some
comments have been made here today that are exaggerated beyond
belief. My goodness, unsubstantiated accusations and statements,
false truths. It is unbelievable.
I have heard statements like 97% of farmers recently polled want
this and 86% of farmers want that. Yet they do not table these
documents. They simply throw out numbers and say they ran this
survey or that survey back in their ridings. They throw these
numbers out with absolute callous disregard.
They have made statements such as the government cut back their
allotted time from 30 minutes to 10 minutes. The fact is that
this member chose to split his 20 minutes with another Reform
member. The government had nothing to do with him splitting his
time. It was an untrue statement, a false accusation.
If he is making false accusations and untrue statements in the
House debating an important bill like Bill C-4, what do we think
he is telling his constituents back home? Should they believe
anything he says? I suggest not. We in this House should be
sitting here telling the truth and giving clear messages, not
these false statements. Shame on you.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member will address his
remarks to the Chair, not to the hon. member. I urge him to be
prudent in his choice of language. All hon. members, I am sure,
are expressing the truth perhaps as they see it.
Mr. Paul Bonwick: I apologize, Mr. Speaker, for directing
my comments across the floor, but when I hear members heckling,
laughing and not taking seriously this bill, I get a bit
emotional about it.
This is a $6 billion industry. It is important to all
Canadians, not just those few Reformers across the floor who have
very selective memories and believe they are telling the truth. I
suggest they take a long look at themselves when they are making
false statements like the government instructed farm credit to
foreclose or to take legal action on somebody. This is
absolutely untrue and they should be ashamed of themselves.
I would like one question answered by the member. We sent out
over 200,000 questionnaires or letters of information to farmers,
not a specific 600 here or 200 Reformers there. As of the last
response, a little over 1,200 farmers were opposed to certain
parts of Bill C-4.
Would the hon. member like to respond to why less than 1% of
those polled or surveyed responded in a negative way? Could he
explain how he got his number of 97% being opposed if they are
not prepared to respond?
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I need one
clarification. How many responses were returned?
Mr. Paul Bonwick: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is having
difficulty hearing the question because of the heckling. I would
suggest that if he listens with clarity he might have an
opportunity to answer the question.
The question was fairly simple. Less than 1% of the responses
we received back were opposed in the last polling that was sent
out. Of over 200,000 letters less than 1,200 came back adamantly
opposed. If that is fact then why—
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, what I want to know is
how many responses did he get out of the 200,000.
Mr. Paul Bonwick: Mr. Speaker, is it question and answer
back and forth? I have put a question to the member and—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
1335
The Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. member for
Yorkton-Melville will have to make do with the question he has
perceived.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I hit a nerve. He
will not reveal to us how many responses he gets. Out of those
200,000 he will not tell us how many responses he got.
I will tell you what happened in my riding. He says why do I
not table this information. It has been published in the paper.
Mr. Paul Bonwick: I rise on a point of order, Mr.
Speaker. The reason why I requested the point of order and was
adamant on it is the member is making a false statement about
myself.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. We are clearly into a
bit of a debate here. I do not think there is not a point of
order. There is a disagreement about what was said. That is not
a point of order.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, it is very
interesting. I wonder if this member is a lawyer. He told us
that there were 1,200 that were opposed but he never told us how
many were in favour of Bill C-4. We know on the prairies how
many are in favour.
With regard to his second point, he talked about the $6 billion
industry. If that is in fact the case, is it not worth
continuing?
Mr. John Herron: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I think we can probably receive unanimous consent of the House
for the hon. member to actually address the question that was put
forth in terms of the number of responses he actually received.
The Deputy Speaker: With respect, I think it is unfair to
interrupt the hon. member who has the floor. If there is going
to be consent to extend the question and answer period, the Chair
is prepared to entertain that. Is there consent to extend the
period for questions and comments?
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is no consent.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, let the record show
that government members would not allow this question period to
be extended so that they could answer that question. They have
not tabled anything in the House. They have not told us how many
people were in support of it.
On the second point, why we are limited to 10 minutes, it is
because they invoke closure. They do not allow open debate. They
talk about it being a $6 billion industry. If that is the case,
why are they not debating it?
We who represent the farmers, the producers on the prairies,
have no other option but to split our time so that we can speak
up on behalf of our constituents because the government is
limiting our time.
The Deputy Speaker: The Speaker is going to limit
further. I am afraid we have to move on with debate.
Mr. Allan Kerpan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. In the last few minutes we have had a member from across
the way who has given a half part of information that is critical
to this debate. The member asked—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Questions and
comments and disagreements about what is said in debate are
commonplace in the House, as the hon. member for Blackstrap
knows.
Hon. members interrupting other members' speeches with points of
order that are not points of order is not really fair to the
member who has the floor. It is disruptive to one's train of
thought even if the train of thought is one with which the other
member disagrees.
In the circumstances I think we should resume debate.
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am confident and
assured that all members of the House will be keenly attuned and
attentive to what I have to say. I know they want to hear
members of the House speak common sense. I am sure it will be
refreshing for them to hear it for a change because they
certainly have not been practising it.
I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-4, an act to amend the
Canadian Wheat Board Act. Faced with increased competition in
ever evolving markets and bottom line pressures, western Canadian
grain farmers are ready for important change. They have said
clearly they want the Canadian Wheat Board, but they want it to
be more democratic, more responsive and more accountable to them.
The Government of Canada is delivering on that request. Bill
C-4 represents the biggest changes in western Canadian grain
marketing in more than 50 years. Allow me to explain what these
changes are.
For the first time ever, western Canadian grain producers will
be responsible for directing the operations of the Canadian Wheat
Board, a $6 billion corporation doing business in more than 70
countries around the world, one of the top 10 Canadian exporters
and our country's biggest single earner of foreign exchange.
1340
Under Bill C-4 the system by which the Canadian Wheat Board is
currently run by government appointed commissioners will end. It
will be replaced—
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon.
member.
Mr. Lee Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I think the hon. parliamentary secretary has the wrong
speech. That is the one the minister gave this morning.
The Deputy Speaker: I wish the hon. member would heed my
admonition about points of order.
Mr. Gerry Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise on a
point of privilege and ask the Speaker to review this charade
that members of the Reform Party are conducting. We are trying
to conduct debate in the House. They are reciting false standing
orders. This is not parliamentary procedure.
Why do members of the Reform Party not want to stand to debate
the bill? Why do they insist on heckling? Why do they insist on
interrupting the proceedings of the House? Why do they engage in
such frivolous, irresponsible behaviour? This is my speech.
The Deputy Speaker: We will hear it in a moment.
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. This is a very important bill for the government, or so
it says, yet I only see five members in the House and would call
for a quorum.
The Deputy Speaker: There is clearly a quorum. The
Speaker can see a quorum. The hon. member knows it is improper
to make reference to members who are present or not present in
the House.
A lot of spurious points of order are being raised. There is a
bill before the House for debate. The hon. parliamentary
secretary has the floor and should be permitted to make his
remarks.
Mr. Gerry Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your
intervention to try to provide some order in the House. It is
certainly an arduous task.
Reform members opposite hold 57 seats. However only eight of
them are currently filled. The question arises as to whether
they are truly in tune with and feel that the bill is important.
We do.
As farmer elected representatives the directors will be
responsible to their electorate. They will listen and respond to
the needs of producers. If they do not, they will not likely
gain re-election. That is something to which Reform members
should pay attention as they will be facing that reality.
That is the essence of accountability. The directors will have
real power to direct all the business and affairs of a new and
reformed Canadian Wheat Board. The directors will have the power
to review all the Canadian Wheat Board sales and financial data,
bar none. They will have the power to select their chairperson.
They will have the power to set their own salaries, as well as
those of the chair and the president. If necessary, they will
have the power to recommend that the president be fired if he is
not doing a satisfactory job.
The government's role in Canadian Wheat Board operations will
change from one of paternalism to one of partnership. It will
continue to provide financial guarantees. It will continue to
ensure that those guarantees do not become a drain on the public
treasury, something with which Reform members, given their
position on fiscal restraint and accountability of government,
would agree.
Farmers in the Canadian Wheat Board have also asked for more
options in how grain is marketed and paid for. Bill C-4 will
provide the Canadian Wheat Board with ways to operate more
flexibly.
Subject to the approval of the new board of directors, which
will be a majority of farmers and producers, the Canadian Wheat
Board would be able to make cash purchases of wheat and/or
barley, adjust initial payments whenever market conditions
warrant, close and pay out pool accounts at any time, issue
negotiable producer certificates, provide an early pool cash-out
option, fully use modern risk management tools, make payments to
producers for their grain storage and/or carrying costs,
facilitate deliveries to condo storage systems and receive grain
through on farm mobile elevators.
Under Bill C-4 farmers will be empowered to decide whether any
grain should be added to or removed from the Canadian Wheat
Board's marketing mandate.
Let me stress that if farmers want to remove a grain from the
Canadian Wheat Board's existing mandate it can be done, subject
to three conditions. First, the directors recommend it. Second,
the Canadian Grain Commission approves an identity preservation
system to protect quality standards. Third, if the exclusion is
considered by the directors to be significant, there must be a
vote among farmers to approve it.
1345
Balancing the exclusion clause is an inclusion clause. To add a
grain certain conditions must be met. The government must
receive a written request from an association, all of whose
members are producers of the grain in question and which
represents the producers of that grain throughout the designated
area. The request would be made public. Interested parties
would have 120 days to comment to the minister responsible for
the Canadian Wheat Board.
The board of directors must then consider the addition. If
producers approve of the idea, there must be a vote among
producers of that grain to ratify it. The point is that farmers
themselves, not the politicians, will decide if the Canadian
Wheat Board's marketing mandate is enlarged or reduced.
With the passage of Bill C-4 the future of the Canadian Wheat
Board will truly be in the hands of western farmers. For that
very reason, this bill deserves full support of all members in
this House.
I wish to take a few moments to further discuss the issue which
has generated quite a bit of media attention. That is the calls
from some groups for the Canadian Wheat Board to disclose
detailed information about its operations and have the Canadian
Wheat Board subject to the provisions of the Access to
Information Act.
On the surface such a request would seem to be one which every
Canadian would probably have little difficulty in supporting.
However, if we look at it from the farmers' point of view, as
with most issues, careful examination reveals that there is more
to this question than simply catching a headline in the
newspaper, which is what the Reform party is all about. I will
address these issues one at a time.
First I wish to make it clear that the Canadian Wheat Board is
not presently subject to the provisions of the Access to
Information Act. This is a fact and one which the government
will not dispute. I would point out that entities such as the
Export Development Corporation and Canada Post are also not
covered by the Access to Information Act. However the reasons
for this situation are logical and well founded, contrary to the
allegations that some groups have been making to the media lately
about this particular issue.
The Canadian Wheat Board was not included in the schedule of the
Access to Information Act so that the wheat board operations and
records would not be subject to significantly greater levels of
public access and scrutiny, not from the farmers, but from the
private sector grain companies against which it must compete.
Information in the hands of competitors can be quite dangerous.
Information in the hands of farmers, which is what it will be
when the board of directors is elected by the farmers, is quite
helpful. That is a good change.
This is not to say that the Canadian Wheat Board is an entirely
closed shop. The Canadian Wheat Board is audited every year by
one of the country's largest and most respected private sector
accounting firms. This is a requirement placed on the Canadian
Wheat Board by Parliament. The audited financial statements must
be tabled with Parliament by March 31 every year.
The results of this audit can be found in the Canadian Wheat
Board's annual report. It is not a closed shop secret. This
annual report is public and is freely available to anyone who
asks for it. These audited financial statements are also filed
with the Auditor General of Canada.
Although this audited financial report does not provide details
on salaries for specific employees, overall figures for salaries
are included. This is consistent with common practice in both
public and private sectors. The information provided through the
annual report would also permit producers and others to calculate
what percentage of the overall Canadian Wheat Board marketing
costs are attributed to salaries.
The question of whether salaries of individual employees should
be made public has been an issue not only with the Canadian Wheat
Board, but with many other Canadian and U.S. companies. In
arriving at a solution to this question it is necessary to weigh
an individual's right to privacy. However, while there are no
specific salary figures given, the salary ranges for all
employees are available to farmers on request.
In addition, under the provisions of Bill C-4 the 15 member
board of directors would be entitled to complete disclosure of
all CWB facts and figures. With their full knowledge of the
Canadian Wheat Board and its global competition, as well as the
interests of grain producers in obtaining additional information,
the directors would be in the best position to assess what
information should be made public and what for commercial reasons
should remain confidential.
A substantial amount of information about the Canadian Wheat
Board's recent performance is also available to any interested
individual through grain days, the annual series of 12
information meetings which the Canadian Wheat Board holds across
western Canada.
I note this year's series of meetings kicked off on January 19 in
Hussar, Alberta and wrapped up on February 5 in Humboldt
Saskatchewan.
1350
Some groups have criticized the fact that the office of the
auditor general does not examine the Canadian Wheat Board's
books. These groups would have us believe that the Government of
Canada or the Canadian Wheat Board is trying to hide something.
As usual, nothing could be further from the truth than what the
Reform is saying.
As already noted the Canadian Wheat Board currently retains an
independent firm of chartered accountants to audit its
operations. As such the Canadian Wheat Board is audited with the
same rigour as any other commercial organization, private or
public, and probably with more rigour than is the Reform Party as
a national institution and organization.
It is worth pointing out that the Canadian Wheat Board audit is
conducted in accordance with the standards established by the
accounting profession which are the same criteria used by the
auditor general in reviewing the public accounts of Canada.
There are a number of factors that support continuing the
practice of retaining a private firm to audit the Canadian Wheat
Board's operations.
Under Bill C-4, the Canadian Wheat Board would cease to be an
agent of Her Majesty and a crown corporation, both of which would
reduce the justification for involving the office of the auditor
general whose traditional mandate is to audit public
institutions.
It is worth noting that the Canadian Wheat Board does not
receive any direct financial appropriations from Parliament. Loan
guarantees provided to the Canadian Wheat Board are approved by
the Minister of Finance and as such are audited by the auditor
general when the accounts of the Department of Finance are
audited. Thus the auditor general is in a position to evaluate
and provide commentary on any current or potential consequential
effects of the Canadian Wheat Board operations on the CRF.
Some private sector users of financial reports take comfort in
the fact that the private sector auditors, unlike the office of
the auditor general, are liable under law for negligence and
professional misconduct. This consideration would surely be of
interest to any of my hon. friends across the way who are always
interested in ensuring that people are liable for their actions
under law.
Hon. members opposite have made the suggestion that we need to
understand the process of auditing. It is obvious they do not
understand it. A suggestion has come forward from this side of
the House, unlike that side of the House which has provided no
commentary whatsoever. They just crack for the sake of cracking
like little barking dogs.
Let us bring the auditors of the Canadian Wheat Board to
committee. Let us find out what the chartered accountants who
audit the Canadian Wheat Board are all about. That positive idea
comes from this side of the House. Let us talk about what the
chartered accountant profession is all about. Let us talk about
a professional organization. Let us talk about the great job
those accountants do for the Canadian Wheat Board.
It is worth getting into the topic instead of just sniping and
sniping and sniping like the barking cranky little dogs we know
they are. We are prepared to put our money where our mouth is
and let us get to work.
The new board of directors would be able to direct the Canadian
Wheat Board's private sector auditor to conduct special audits
just as the auditor general may choose to do. There would be no
advantage to having the auditor general doing this job. In view
of the commercial environment within which the Canadian Wheat
Board operates, it is more appropriate that the audit be
performed by a professional chartered accounting firm.
On closer examination, the best solution is to place
responsibility for accountability with a board comprised of a
majority of democratically elected farmers.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, farmers are becoming aware of what some of those
salaries are. They are becoming aware that some of those people
are being paid $120,800, $110,635, $119,000, $113,000. When I
looked through the list I could not find many under $50,000 and
most of them were over $60,000. The average farmer earns much
much less than that. That is what concerns them. They want the
auditor general to look at the books.
Did the member see the information his colleague referred to
when he questioned me just before his speech?
Did he see that information? If that information is being hidden
from us, why? We have a right to know.
1355
I would like to make this point in conclusion. There is a way to
solve the dilemma this government is in. Government members are
saying that the support we say we have for our amendments is not
there, that the opposition to Bill C-4 is not there.
Put Bill C-4 to the test. Put it before farmers. Let them vote
on it. There is no need to rush this through. We have until the
fall before the directors will be put in place. Support our
Reform amendment and let farmers tell this government directly
what they think of Bill C-4. Why not do that? Is it not a good
thing to do? It affects them.
Mr. Gerry Byrne: Mr. Speaker, 200,000 pieces of
correspondence were sent out by the minister responsible for the
Canadian Wheat Board. I did not sign each and every letter but I
certainly did have a good thorough analysis, a solid briefing on
exactly what the results were.
I will point to some of the hon. member's comments. The hon.
member made specific statements regarding 87% and 92%. Numbers
were being thrown out wildly.
I remember not very long ago that the deputy House leader I
think it was from the Reform Party stood in this House and what
was basically said by the hon. member was that public opinion
polling had to be done in a scientific, qualitative way and it
had to be accountable and the results exposed.
We have heard a plethora of numbers that have come from members
opposite in this Chamber. They cannot explain what those numbers
mean. They have not tabled any documents.
I could stand here and say that I saw 101% of all the letters
that were received from farmers. The truth is that I only saw
100%.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I was at a Weyburn meeting I think it was on January 20.
There was a guest book with the signatures of some 600 people and
I imagine they were all farmers.
The question was asked how many people would support single desk
selling. Out of some 600 people, not one hand went up. When it
was asked how many of those farmers wanted dual marketing, 85% to
90% of the hands went up. I am not saying that there was not one
or two people or maybe a dozen who would have supported single
desk selling. They were a little cautious in putting their hands
up, but I thought that was a pretty good poll.
When I went to Alberta, I had the same experience meeting after
meeting. There were 75% to 80% of the people who wanted a
marketing choice. If that is not pretty good polling, I do not
know what else to do.
The people were there physically. They took the opportunity to
come out, to give their ideas and to put up their hands. That is
what we do here in the House when we stand up. That is pretty
good polling I would say.
Mr. Gerry Byrne: Mr. Speaker, hands up for those in this
House who feel that the Reform Party does not represent its
constituents. I am sure we would get a very high percentage.
Quite frankly we have to use scientific polling. We have a
majority in this House. The question that is being asked here is
whether this is a reasonable expectation to just have a show of
hands on a very single issue. There is more to this issue.
The Speaker: My colleagues, it being 2 p.m. we still have
a few minutes of questions and answers. We will take these right
at the end of question period, but right now we will go to
Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
1998 WINTER OLYMPICS
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, over
the weekend one of P.E.I.'s most famous and most loved athletes
struck gold in Nagano, Japan.
Dave MacEachern, Eli as he is known to islanders, and his
teammate Pierre Lueders from Edmonton entered their names in the
history books when they tied for gold with Italy in the two-man
bobsled competition. After four runs both teams had the exact
accumulated time. Although a tie is rare, it is not the first
time.
1400
However, the importance of this medal is not missed by Canadians.
This is the first gold in 34 years for Canadian bobsledders and
Eli is the first islander ever to win an Olympic gold medal.
Just to show how supportive islanders are to their athletes,
last week over 17,000 islanders put their signatures on a 400
page fax sent to Dave in Nagano.
On behalf of all islanders I want to congratulate Eli for his
outstanding performance. At the same time I want to wish him and
his team mates the best of luck in the four man bobsled scheduled
for this coming week. Good show, Dave.
* * *
THE SENATE
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a
member in the upper house indicated, upon appointment, that
reforming the upper chamber would be a chief priority. This
member, Senator Carstairs, a former leader of the Liberal Party
of Manitoba, said: “I think the Senate should be an elected
institution”. She criticized Mr. Mulroney's appointment of one
of his fundraisers in 1993.
We hope Senator Sharon Carstairs will take a principled stand
and insist that she will go down in history as the last Manitoba
Senator to be appointed, not elected. We hope Senator Carstairs
will take a giant step toward reforming the upper chamber, that
she will insist that Manitoba elect a Senator for the next
vacancy.
The next vacancy will occur May 6, 1998, the date her Tory
colleague is scheduled to retire.
* * *
LITERACY
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Thursday is literacy day and Canada's literacy
challenge is enormous.
According to a recent international adult literacy survey,
almost half of Canada's adult population is functioning at the
two lowest levels of literacy defined by the survey. That is
about 10 million people from the age of 16 and up.
What it means is that these people are likely struggling in our
knowledge based society. If you cannot read well, how do you
help your kids with their homework? If you cannot read and write
well, how do you get a good job?
I call on fellow members in the House to take our literacy
problem very seriously. Our economy, our kids and our future as
a country all hinge on building up our literacy skills.
* * *
NATIONAL UNITY
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in the midst of this year's ice storm and the devastation there
was also great beauty. Canadians demonstrated a unifying sense
of community that embraces the expanse of this great country.
In light of the initiatives during the ice storm and the current
media focus on national unity it is essential that Canadians and
Quebeckers have this context in mind when dealing with the future
of our country.
Unity requires the ongoing effort of all Canadians, for my
constituents of Kitchener Centre here in Ontario, the people of
British Columbia, Manitoba and Newfoundland to reach out to the
hearts of Quebeckers, to make a connection on a personal level as
we saw during the ice storm aftermath.
The future of this country cannot be seen as a clash of titans,
as a tug of war between governments. It should not be depicted
as a political issue, as some are trying to do.
This is a people issue. It is an issue of the Canadian people.
* * *
[Translation]
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
share with the members of this House some excellent news for the Beauce
region.
On January 30, the Hon. Secretary of State for the Federal Office
of Regional Development announced a $360,000 repayable contribution to
Metubec Inc. of Saint-Jules de Beauce.
This investment by the Government of Canada will ensure the
establishment of the only automated plant specializing in the
manufacture of metal handles in Canada. It will use advanced technology
developed in Italy.
Our government is proud to be associated with this project through
the Gatiq-Technorégion Québec—Chaudière-Appalaches fund, because not
only is this an innovative project but it will also result in the
creation of approximately 15 jobs in Saint-Jules.
This is another excellent example of the importance we in Canada
attach to the economic development of Quebec regions.
Congratulations to the two main developers, Marcel Paré and René
Beaupré.
* * *
[English]
THE SENATE
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in British Columbia I have done random testing and most
British Columbians can name only one of our six senators, Pat
Carney.
It goes without saying that if facing elections five of our six
might as well not even file. We are in danger of becoming the
only western democracy sleep walking into the 21st century
without an elected Senate.
1405
Recently I spent some time with some American senators and
congressmen. They were very interested in the workings of the
Canadian Parliament and in some of the democratic reforms which
the Reform Party promotes.
I had a simple response to their questions about the Canadian
Senate. Canadians understand that in the United States if one
wants to become a senator one has to win an election, but in
Canada one has to lose an election.
When is the government going to fix this dysfunctional setup?
* * *
[Translation]
REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, today Quebec
artists conveyed to the Supreme Court of Canada the message that the
Quebec people will not agree to be bound by a decision made on the basis
of the Constitution Act, 1982, an act that was never recognized by the
Quebec National Assembly.
Because they believe in democratic values, artists have continued
to think and create freely, in spite of the Minister of National
Heritage, who wanted to use them as Canadian flag bearers.
It is therefore with pride that I quote Pierre Graveline, who
recently wrote: “While our existence and freedom are once again being
challenged by the Canadian government, we assert today that Quebeckers
are a free people with a legitimate right to self-determination that no
court can take away. Our destiny does not belong to anyone but
ourselves. It is not up to the Supreme Court but to us and us alone to
decide our future”.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the British Columbia panel on national unity, appointed by
Premier Glen Clark and including MPs from the three federal
parties now holding seats from B.C., has just reported on its
province-wide hearings on the nine provincial premiers' recent
Calgary declaration.
The panel has found that British Columbians, by a very large
majority, support constitutional recognition of the status of the
French civil law, the French language and the French culture
within Quebec. British Columbians' constitutional recognition of
Quebec as a unique society within our federal system flowed
logically and inevitably from that by an equally large majority.
British Columbians have accepted Quebec as a unique society
without demanding any constitutional quid pro quo or recognition
of any B.C. special historical constitutional claims. They have
made a unilateral gesture of goodwill to Quebec in an expression
of faith in the future of a plural Canadian society within a
plural Canadian federal system.
After 30 years it may be time now to close the constitutional
files.
* * *
[Translation]
REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday men
and women from all regions of Quebec demonstrated unanimously in
front of the supreme court, proclaiming for all to hear their pride
and deep sense of belonging to Quebec and reaffirming that only
Quebeckers have the right to decide their own future.
On Monday, Quebeckers of all ages reiterated their
disagreement with, and declared illegitimate, null and void, any
attempt to have a court of law overrule the sovereign will of a
people.
Quebec's democrats, sovereigntists and federalists alike,
whatever their political affiliation, are calling on people to join
forces against this unprecedented attack on Quebec's democratic
institutions, and against the use of the supreme court for
political and partisan ends.
At this crossroads, it is clear which direction we must take:
the people of Quebec will follow the way of democracy pure and
simple.
* * *
TRANSITIONAL JOB CREATION FUND
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Montreal
has suffered greatly, from an economic point of view in particular,
as a result of the political and economic instability brought about
by the propaganda of the separatist government in Quebec.
In order to provide assistance to small and medium size
businesses, the federal government has created the transitional job
creation fund.
[English]
Since September, this fund has created 366 new jobs and provided
$1.5 million for many textile manufacturers in my riding of
Ahuntsic; to name a few, Tricot Giorgio, Tricot Terrytex and
Christina Canada, all of which have used these funds to purchase
new high tech equipment and export their Canadian products to new
markets.
[Translation]
This is another good example of the importance this government
attaches to job creation and to the development of a dynamic
economy in Montreal.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
truly a sad day for western Canadian farmers. Today this
government is ending debate on changes to the Canadian Wheat
Board by invoking closure. Even worse, in spite of ample and
verifiable evidence that the government has long used the wheat
board as a foreign policy tool at a cost of billions of dollars
to Canadian grain producers, wheat board lawyers even went as far
as to argue before the courts that the wheat board had no
obligation to prairie farmers.
1410
In spite of this, both the minister of agriculture and the wheat
board minister last night voted against an amendment proposed to
make the primary legal responsibility of the wheat board to act
in the best interests of wheat and barley producers.
All other arguments aside, is it not reasonable that the
producers of the grain should be able to expect their marketing
agent to act primarily in their interest? Truly a sad day for
democracy and property rights.
* * *
[Translation]
THE ECONOMY
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our Prime
Minister issued a vigorous call today at noon before the members of
the Canadian Club inviting Canadians to join him in facing the
vital economic challenges arising at the dawn of the year 2000.
These challenges will involve ensuring sustained economic growth,
as we have since 1993, for our children and future generations.
This is what vision is about.
Vision, for most Canadians, means taking advantage of the
incredible opportunity to live in Canada.
The Prime Minister made the commitment today to give young
Canadians the opportunity to take part in improving the quality of
our life.
Our government finds solutions for the problems facing us.
The sovereignists would do well to note this speech expressing
common sense and the realities of our country.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this
government has downsized the Department of National Defence,
hurting both civilian and military employees. Since 1993
the civilian work force has been cut by over 11,000.
The threat now facing DND employees is the government's
alternative service delivery which will be used to cut another
3,800 workers; 600 to 800 job losses in the Halifax area alone.
The government argues the ASD process will find workers who
can provide support service for the best price. Yet when civilian
military workers successfully beat the ASD contract bids of
private companies, the government changed the rules in favour of
the large corporations. What is the real agenda here, an
efficient military or a privatized military?
The devastation of the ASD is evident at CFB Goose Bay in
Newfoundland where support services were recently privatized to a
foreign corporation which is now slashing jobs and reducing the
leftover wages by 20% to 30%. The impacts on the community have
been dire, with everyone from DND workers to the local chamber of
commerce denouncing the privatization deal.
* * *
[Translation]
MONIQUE VÉZINA
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a number of
separatists switch sides over the years. They call that
progressing, except that in certain instances, there is a certain
lack of subtlety.
For example, a former minister in the Conservative government
of Brian Mulroney and a friend of the current Conservative leader,
Monique Vézina, yesterday said she never had been a federalist. So
what was she doing in the Conservative government? What was she
doing in a party that was promising to bring Quebec back into the
constitutional fold with honour, as former Prime Minister Brian
Mulroney put it? Was Ms. Vézina a separatist while she was
representing the Conservative government as part of her duties
abroad?
That is the essence of the separatist coalition, which
comprises individuals who will try to obliterate their past to make
way for their proposal to separate Quebec from the rest of Canada.
If that is democracy, I far prefer commitments by people who speak
frankly, coherently, with their past—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Sherbrooke.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL UNITY
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to speak to the issue of the supreme court reference.
I have opposed this initiative for these reasons. Every national
political party and its leader in this House agrees that this
matter, the future of Canada, is ultimately a political decision.
A court ruling cannot be a substitute for the common will of
Canadians to live together and share the same destiny.
We should not kid ourselves on the ultimate effect this strategy
will have. The separatists can only rejoice in the fact that this
keeps their issue on the top of the national agenda. The
discussion now revolves around how the country can be broken up
as opposed to how we can make it work better.
At every turn and every moment of my political life, I have
fought for my belief in Canada. Canadians deserve leaders able to
see beyond the next horizon, to do what is right instead of
succumbing to what is easy. I will never give up my fight for
Canada.
* * *
1415
JUSTICE
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate the Ontario Court of Appeal on its insight while
ruling on the “no means no” rape shield law.
When the new amendments were introduced and became more commonly
known as the “no means no” rape shield law, defence lawyers and
civil libertarians predicted the new rules would be found
unconstitutional.
This provision restricts the ability of defence lawyers to
question sexual assault complainants about their previous sexual
history, even with that of the accused.
In a major decision the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the
rape shield provision does not violate the charter of rights and
freedoms.
Regarding the constitutionality of the new provision, the three
judge panel decided: “The admission of evidence of the prior
sexual activity of a complainant clearly infringes the
complainant's privacy interests and these should be protected to
the fullest extent possible while maintaining an accused's right
to make full answer and defence”.
This decision is a sound and sensible precedent. It makes good
law.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, earlier today the Prime Minister announced that much of
the fiscal dividend will go toward his millennium scholarship
fund. His fund is full of lofty promises, but it will not
replace the $7 billion the Liberals have slashed in payments to
the provinces for health and education. It will not help
students graduating this year with $30,000 of debt. It will not
help the 17% of our young people currently out of work.
Instead of this millennium band-aid, why does the government not
reward Canadians with tax relief, the real way to a brighter
future for all?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I find it difficult to understand why the Leader of the
Opposition would oppose the millennium fund. What better way is
there, as the Prime Minister said in this House, to celebrate the
millennium than by investing in the education of young Canadians,
by investing in the future of young Canadians, by investing in
the intellectual capacity of this country so that we can succeed
in the modern economy?
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am surprised that the would-be prime minister would
defend the speech of the current Prime Minister when it did not
contain a single word about debt reduction or tax relief.
If the Prime Minister wants to help children in Brandon, as he
says, why does he load every child with $20,000 worth of debt on
the day it is born?
If the Prime Minister wants to help the single mother in
Brandon, why does he tax $1,300 out of her pocket every year?
Instead of getting out the chequebook, why does the government
not reward Canadians with debt reduction and tax relief?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister has on numerous occasions talked
about debt reduction and its need. The Prime Minister has spoken
about the need for tax reduction.
The difference between the Prime Minister and the leader of the
Reform Party is that the Prime Minister is also capable of
talking about the kind of vision, the kind of country we want to
build. He is capable of talking about investing in Canadians. He
is capable of talking about the needs of young people and the
needs of seniors.
This country is not a balance sheet. This country is made up of
human beings who believe in their country. That is what the
Prime Minister has spoken about.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, that is the problem, the Prime Minister talks and that
is it. He does not do anything.
Since the Liberals came to power the take home pay of the
average Canadian family has dropped by $3,000. Tuition is up 45%
for the students the government is so passionately concerned
about. Student debt has tripled and unemployment for young
people is at record levels.
Instead of creating another band-aid for publicity purposes, why
does the Prime Minister not stabilize health and education
funding and give Canadians debt reduction and tax relief?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister inherited a deficit of $42 billion.
It is going down.
The Prime Minister inherited a country which had interest rates
200 to 300 basis points above the Americans and now they are 200
basis points below.
The Prime Minister inherited a country where productivity was
declining. Now it is on the rise.
If the leader of the Reform Party wants to talk about tax cuts,
why is he prepared to cut taxes and pay for that by cutting
health care, education, old age pensions and equalization
payments?
Why is the leader of the Reform Party prepared to cut taxes for
the rich on the backs—
1420
The Speaker: The hon. member for Medicine Hat.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that
answer was slightly ironic, coming from the finance minister who
cut health care transfers by 35% or $7 billion.
Today's prebudget speech told Canadians they could expect
exactly zip-a-de-doo-dah in terms of tax relief for Canadians in
next week's budget. Absolutely nothing. Not a single word about
tax relief or about debt reduction.
Why is the government insisting on repeating the same mistakes
of the past 30 years, continuing down the same track of high
spending and more debt for Canadians?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that is the Reform version of the full monty.
The hon. member can rest assured that we will continue on the
path we set out in 1994. We will reduce the deficit and we will
reduce the debt the same way. We will bring taxes down and we
will invest in the future of Canadians because that is what
Canadians want their government to do.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister made it abundantly clear today that his vision for
Canada means more big government programs from Ottawa. That is
his vision for Canada. He made it abundantly clear in his speech
today.
My question is for the finance minister. Is the Liberal vision
for Canada a bunch of higher taxes for Canadians? Is it their
vision that Canadian families should be paying $6,000 a year in
taxes just for the interest on the debt? Is it their vision that
we should see disposable incomes falling by $3,000 since the
government came to power? Is that their vision for Canada? Is
that what the Liberals are all about?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when Canadians read the Prime Minister's speech they
will understand what he was talking about and they will
understand what Reformers are objecting to.
They are objecting to investment in young Canadians. They are
objecting to great national projects. They are objecting to the
country facing the modern economy. They are objecting to the
country saying that globalization will not dominate our economy
but that we will take charge.
The issue really is, and the line in the sand has been drawn,
why the Reform Party thinks that the only responsibility of
government is to cut debt. Does it not understand that there is
also a human deficit and that the government will make sure that
disappears?
* * *
[Translation]
REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the government is digging itself in deeper with the Supreme Court
reference, as we learn that the Minister of Justice has taken a
position completely at odds with that of the government lawyer,
Yves Fortier.
Can the Minister of Justice tell us which is the government's
real position in this reference, the position that she expressed
and that appeared in yesterday's Toronto Star, or the one argued by
Yves Fortier, yesterday as well, before the Supreme Court?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously this case is being
argued before the court today. Therefore we are all limited in
that which we should say because this case is not to be argued
outside the court.
Let me, however, make it very plain. We believe that we the
Government of Canada put three fundamental questions before the
court. Mr. Fortier argued yesterday that the court should answer
those three fundamental questions. There may well be other
questions that in the future need to be addressed, but those are
not questions before the court. I am in complete agreement
with—
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
the minister tells us we should not speak about it, but she goes
ahead anyway. She spoke about it two seconds ago; she speaks about
it in the Toronto Star. So, we might as well keep right on.
The Minister of Justice said that Quebec's sovereignty created
such a special situation that the Constitution would be of no help.
1425
How does she square this statement with Mr. Fortier's position
that Quebec's sovereignty is subject to the Canadian Constitution,
because it seems that Mr. Fortier is speaking on her behalf?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what Mr. Fortier said
yesterday on behalf of the Government of Canada is completely
consistent with what I and some of my colleagues have said.
We have always made the argument that we must proceed on the
basis of the rule of law. That is what Mr. Fortier said
yesterday. That is what the government is going to do.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister does not see any contradiction. Let me give her another
example.
How can the Minister of Justice state that the court should rule on
the rights of Aboriginal people in the event of secession when,
yesterday, her own counsel, Yves Fortier, explicitly asked the court not
to rule on the rights of Aboriginal people should Quebec secede?
That is a contradiction, is it not, Madam?
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, questions must always be put to the
Chair.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there are numerous legal implications to secession. There are the
Aboriginal people, to whom the Government of Canada has a fiduciary
responsibility. There is the issue of the territories. There is the
issue of the charter of rights. And the list goes on.
The Government of Canada asked what it felt were the most
fundamental questions regarding the legality of a unilateral declaration
of independence, and that is what we have asked the court to rule on.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
government across the way has a big problem on its hands. In her
statements, the minister contradicts not only her counsel but also Mr.
Canada, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
How can the minister explain, on the one hand, her contention that
the Constitution would be of no use in the event of a yes vote for
sovereignty in Quebec and, on the other hand, the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs' old refrain that Quebec separation would be
subject to the terms of the Constitution Act, 1982?
Is that not yet another contradiction?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me clarify for hon.
members across the way that there is absolutely no contradiction
between the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and me. Nor is
there any contradiction between what we believe and what our
counsel is arguing in the supreme court today.
Let me make it absolutely clear for everybody in the House that
the government's fundamental position is that we must proceed
only on the basis of the rule of law and respect for the law.
* * *
MIDDLE EAST
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
United States representative on the security council has refused
to sanction the diplomatic mission to Bagdhad by UN Secretary
General Kofi Annan.
Will the foreign affairs minister ensure that the Prime Minister
picks up the phone immediately and asks President Clinton to
remove U.S. obstacles to the United Nations brokered diplomatic
proposal to allow weapons inspections and prevent the bombing of
Iraq?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to report to the House that over
the last three or four days the Prime Minister has undertaken a
number of phone calls. We have had a number of connections with
other ministers and my counterparts. There is some momentum
being developed for initiatives coming out of the United Nations.
The secretary general has taken control of a series of
proposals. We and other countries have been working very closely
with him. Rather than asking uninformed questions about the
status, the hon. member should be trying to support the
diplomatic initiatives that are under way.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we are
asking the U.S. to do it and they are blocking those initiatives.
Former key United States allies Bahrain, Qatar and Oman have
joined Saudi Arabia and declared their airfields off limits to
U.S. forces.
Will this declaration give the government cause to rethink its
hasty support for bombing? Will the Prime Minister now call
President Clinton to remove the U.S. veto that is crippling the
secretary general's mission to Iraq?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not correctly informed.
Countries in the gulf like Oman and Bahrain have offered to
provide support for the coalition task force.
1430
As well the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Poland and Denmark
have all indicated that they are prepared to support the effort
to stop Saddam Hussein from using weapons of mass destruction
that could really threaten the security of the entire world.
* * *
[Translation]
REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, as the
Prime Minister has handed over his responsibilities to the Supreme
Court and its justices on the subject of Canadian unity, I would
like to know today whether the Prime Minister and the government
intend to ask the justices to campaign in the unfortunate event of
another referendum.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on a number of occasions, the Conservative leader has said
that, in an ambiguous situation, the federal and provincial
governments should no doubt prevent Quebeckers from destroying
Canada. This is the opposite of the remarks by the Bloc Quebecois
and the Quebec premier, who are saying that they have the right to
proclaim Quebec's independence unilaterally.
There is a fundamental question of law here. So who is right
in legal terms, the leader of the Conservatives or the leader of
the Bloc Quebecois?
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, this is
not a legal question, but a political one.
[English]
I want to offer the government an opportunity to inform
Canadians about its plans. Today I would like to know in a
straightforward manner what the government's plan is once the
supreme court ruling is rendered. What will be the next step?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can tell the House one thing. Unlike the leader of
the Conservative Party we will not be campaigning with Monique
Vézina with whom he sat in the House of Commons for nine years
even though she was not a federalist.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois and the federal Conservatives are in
bed together on the supreme court rhetoric. They both argue that
the rule of law has no place in settling the issue of Quebec's
secession, only the democratic will of the Quebec people.
If the government's position is that it is necessary to respect
both the rule of law and democratic consent in this matter, will
the government answer this question? How does it believe the
democratic will of Quebeckers should be respected on this matter?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it has been said many times that what will be
necessary is a clear expression that Quebeckers do not want to be
Canadian any more.
We think Quebeckers would never say that unless the question was
confused or the process was confused. We want to make sure that
this will not happen.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in its presentation to the supreme court the federal
government is quite clear on what it means with respect to the
rule of law on this issue, but when it comes to what the federal
government thinks about respecting the democratic will of
Quebeckers on this question, the Prime Minister's position has
been weak and unclear. This plays into the hands of the
separatists and their new found friends.
When it comes to respecting the democratic will, does the
government mean that if a majority of Quebeckers were to vote yes
to a fair question in a fair process it would respect that
decision, or does it mean something else?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, with a very clear question, a clear majority and
after proper negotiations within the legal framework, the country
could break up.
We do not believe in that. We strongly believe that Quebeckers
and other Canadians will stay together, united.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Justice.
Yesterday, the Minister said that, if there were a yes to
sovereignty, the circumstances would be so extraordinary that they
could not be accommodated by the constitutional framework. Yet
Yves Fortier is arguing the opposite.
Also, in connection with the aboriginal people, she stated
that the court ought to decide on their right to secede, while Yves
Fortier is arguing the exact opposite.
My question is very simple: Where does Mr. Fortier's mandate
come from?
1435
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I just said, the threat of secession raises many very
serious issues, a huge number of issues, including the aboriginal
question, including the statements by my counterpart, Minister
Brassard, that he would use the police to keep people within an
independent Quebec against their will. These are serious matters.
The first question, the most essential one, is this: Does the
PQ government have the right to proclaim itself the government of
an independent state, or does it not? We believe it does not. The
leader of the Conservatives describes this as a black hole, but we
shall see what the court has to say.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
supplemental question is for the Minister of Justice.
When she says that the constitutional framework could not
accommodate a circumstance such as the sovereignty of Quebec, if
she really believes that, what is the government doing before the
supreme court?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Government of Canada has stated on a number of
occasions that the purpose of the reference is not to hold
Quebeckers in Canada against their will, and that if secession were
to be negotiated, this could be done within the framework of the
law.
Yesterday my counterpart, Mr. Brassard, again said that
international law gave them the right to proclaim themselves the
government of a state. We need to know if this is true or false.
If this is a wrong theory, we will all find this out, including the
Conservative leader, who will learn it is no black hole.
International law does not give the right to secession within a
democracy.
* * *
[English]
SENATE OF CANADA
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
today, Ontario MPP Jim Brown unveiled a bill that would bring
true democracy to Canada's decrepit Senate. The Ontario Senate
selection act would allow ordinary Ontarians to chose their
senators in a democratic vote. This would be a real millennium
project, bringing the Senate into the 21st century.
Will the Prime Minister honour Ontario's choice to replace
Senator Andrew Thompson with an elected senator?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it would be interesting to see what happens to Mr.
Brown's bill. The hon. member said it was simply tabled in the
House. Will it be supported by the Ontario Tory government? Will
it die on the order paper? We do not know.
One thing I do want to say is that the Prime Minister has
constitutional responsibilities that he has to carry out. Unless
and until the constitution is changed, that is the position.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the minister talks about it dying on the order paper. We do not
have any say over what happens in the Ontario legislature but we
do have a say over what happens here. Whether it dies here or
not, I think it is certainly something we need to ask about.
The Prime Minister has said how he dearly wished he could throw
Senator Andrew Thompson out, but he also gave a million excuses
to defend the same man.
When Ontarians choose to elect a senator, will the government
and the Prime Minister send him to the Senate, or will he just
yammer on about the dead Charlottetown accord?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, when the government proposes an amendment to create an
elected Senate, elected truly by the people, will the Reform
Party vote against it as it did with the amendments to the
Charlottetown accord?
* * *
[Translation]
REFERENCE TO SUPREME COURT
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Intergovernmental Affairs seems to like answering other people's
questions. We will see if he answers his own.
The government is becoming increasingly mired in
contradictions. Not only does the Minister of Justice not agree
with her lawyer, or with her intergovernmental affairs colleague
but, what is more, the latter does not agree with the Prime
Minister.
Last week, he claimed that states always acted within the rule
of law. How does he explain the fact that, in 1970, as Minister of
Indian and Northern Affairs, the Prime Minister took unilateral
action to—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. The
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, international law may recognize innovative actions by
governments when states deem them beneficial and proper.
But, in the case of unilateral declarations of independence,
which have been tried on many occasions throughout the world,
states have almost always replied that that was not something they
would wish to encourage, and this did not enter into international
law, in our opinion, outside of colonial situations.
1440
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
troubling to hear him speak about international law, when the
government's Minister of Justice does not agree with her lawyer or
with the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, and the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs does not agree with the Prime Minister.
Does he not think he should try to clarify matters for the
benefit of everyone, instead of adding to the confusion?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday my counterpart in the Quebec government,
Minister Brassard, said “Quebec's efforts to achieve sovereignty
are consistent with the right of peoples to decide their own
future, as recognized by the international community. They are
therefore not subject to the Canadian Constitution”.
That is one legal theory. Is it right? Is it wrong? We are
submitting this legal opinion to the court.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the saga for
us in the department of Indian affairs continues. I have in my
possession an internal departmental memo in which one senior
Indian affairs bureaucrat instructs another not to release
information requested under access to information because it
might embarrass the department. Requested under access to
information and denied because it might embarrass the department.
Does the Indian affairs minister agree that this is nothing more
than a cover-up?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said on numerous
occasions in this House, we are working very hard to look at the
implications surrounding a particular letter with regard to
access to information.
The investigation I have asked for will make recommendations to
me not only about this letter but about other procedures and
policies in the department. From those recommendations we will
act.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that
investigator will have a full time job pretty quickly over there.
Let me quote from the internal memo: “It is suspected that the
requester plans to use the information in an attempt to embarrass
either the chief and council of the Gull Bay First Nation or the
department, or both. Particular diligence and review of the
information prior to its release is recommended”.
How can anybody have faith in the current investigation,
necessitated because of the department's breach of Bruce
Starlight's privacy, when we have evidence of such cover-ups?
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said time and
again, I take these issues very seriously. That is why I asked
for an outside investigator to come in to review the issues
facing us with regard to access to information and letters of
confidentiality.
I wish the opposition would let this process take its course and
let us deal with facts and recommendations by the investigator.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-28
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
this morning the government's ethics commissioner acknowledged that
the Minister of Finance did indeed sponsor Bill C-28 and he added
that the measures intended to eliminate any whisper of conflict of
interest were not implemented, contrary to the remarks of the Prime
Minister and Deputy Prime Minister.
Since the ethics commissioner has just destroyed the principal
argument in the defence of the Minister of Finance, does the Prime
Minister continue to deny so categorically any appearance of
conflict of interest with respect to the shipowner-legislator?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
personally spoke to the ethics commissioner, Mr. Wilson, just
before oral question period. He informed me there was no conflict
of interest and therefore no appearance of a conflict of interest.
* * *
[English]
EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry.
We as a government have made tremendous strides toward reducing
unemployment in this great country, but many of my constituents
in Simcoe—Grey still cannot find work. What strategy does the
minister have in place to ensure that we continue to see a
reduction in unemployment, in particular unemployment in rural
Canada and Simcoe—Grey?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the challenge of encouraging economic growth and jobs in
rural and remote communities largely lies with access issues,
access to financing. We have made major progress through changes
in the Business Development Bank of Canada and the Farm Credit
Corporation, access to markets with a network of international
trade agreements and Team Canada and access to technology.
1445
In communities as different and as remote as Otterville, Ontario
or Montague, Prince Edward Island, or even Rankin Inlet in the
Northwest Territories, the community access program has put these
communities on the mainstream of the information highway
providing opportunities for economic growth and job creation.
* * *
NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Minister of National Revenue denied that
John Thiessen's tax returns were released without authorization.
I have a letter from the RCMP confirming that Revenue Canada has
been told of this leak.
Does the minister want more black and white evidence or will he
tell us on what authority the tax returns of John Thiessen were
released?
Hon. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Minister of National Revenue,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said yesterday, confidential tax
information cannot be released outside of Revenue Canada unless
authorized by the client or by the law.
The matter of which the member speaks is with Manitoba Public
Insurance Corporation. Last year we looked at that particular
issue and we have cleared up any ambiguity that may have existed.
* * *
CENSUS
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, two
years ago StatsCanada asked Canadians who they were and being
Canadian was not an option. It is reassuring to note that over
8.6 million defied the bureaucrats at StatsCanada and wrote
“Canadian” as their heritage. Good for them.
Will the government stop conducting surveys which categorize us
racially rather than as Canadians?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I note that in the census results that have recently
been published virtually all persons who reported Canadian
origins had either English or French as a mother tongue and were
born in Canada.
I point out to the hon. member that the information Statistics
Canada tries to gather is important in order to provide a basis
for policy making. Members may not be interested in the answer
but I think they should be interested in the information that the
census generates.
* * *
TRADE
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on February
12 I asked the Minister for International Trade if I was correct
in saying that I had heard him state that unless he was able to
get a complete carve out for culture within the MAI he would walk
away from the table. He answered “Yes, you are”. The next day
he told the Centre for Trade Policy and Law that if the pursuit
of a total carve out was unsuccessful they would proceed by a
country specific reservation.
I would like to ask the minister yet again which is it? Is it
yes to a total carve out or depending on how the political winds
are blowing a country specific reservation? The people of Canada
want to know.
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously the NDP is very confused. What I
said to the member is that our first preference for Canadian
culture would be that it be off the MAI table. In fact a number
of countries would agree with us. Failing that we would take a
country specific exemption.
What the hon. lady does not understand is that for Canadian
culture the exact same thing is going to be applied. If you have
a country specific exemption or if the issue is off the table it
means that for Canadian culture MAI will have no impact.
* * *
BILL C-28
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Finance.
Before the Deputy Prime Minister says much more about the
finance committee's proceedings this morning, he should be aware
that the ethics counsellor indicated to the committee that
internal procedures normally used when the Minister of Finance's
corporate interests are involved were not followed in this case.
Therefore my question for the Minister of Finance is the
following. Recognizing that Bill C-28 has provisions that could
very directly relate financially to his major holding company,
does he believe it was appropriate that he introduced that
legislation, that he sponsored that legislation as opposed to
some other minister?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the counsellor on ethics made very clear that the
allegations against the Minister of Finance were without any
foundation. Therefore the Minister of Finance does not find
himself in any conflict of interest, nor any appearance of
conflict of interest.
1450
It is very interesting that the hon. member does not ask a
question about taxes. He does not ask a question about
unemployment. He does not ask a question about debt. The critic
for the NDP obviously is endorsing the policies of the Minister
of Finance by the very question he has asked today.
* * *
QUEBEC
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, on
the weekend the Minister of Justice gave several interviews. I
want to quote from one statement that she made. She said: “One
would probably acknowledge the extraordinary nature and determine
what process would be pursued at that point” in referring to the
secession of Quebec. I want to know whether this is the
government's position.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify one more
time for hon. members in this House. The government's position
is clear. The fundamental principle of the rule of law will
apply to any secession.
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am
glad the minister said that because that is my next question.
In the same interview the hon. minister said that this is not
comprehended, this scenario, within the existing constitutional
framework, that there is no rule in law.
I would like to know two things. Is this the government's
position? If it is the government's position, what is the point
of making reference to the supreme court?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is probably
aware, the rule of law is a fundamental principle enshrined in
the preamble to the Constitution of Canada.
This government's position has been absolutely clear throughout
this reference procedure. The rule of law is a primary principle
on which all processes in the future will be based. It is our
belief that any secession in the future must be based on respect
for the rule of law.
* * *
HEMP
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, farmers in
southwestern Ontario have been waiting for years for regulations
to permit the planting of industrial hemp. Why is the minister
stalling on this? Can farmers plan now to plant industrial hemp
this spring?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member will know that several
members on this side of the House approached the minister last
year. They asked him to present regulations to govern the
commercial growing of hemp. The minister met with these members
and listened to them. Subsequently he ordered his department to
move posthaste in developing regulations for such activity.
An interparliamentary committee was struck and presented draft
regulations. I am pleased to advise the House that on December
27, 1997 these were published in The Canada Gazette. Since
then there have been a series of meetings including—
The Speaker: The hon. member of Calgary West.
* * *
CANADIAN BLOOD BANK CORPORATION
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there
is another scandal at the Atlantic Canada Opportunities agency.
The Canadian Blood Bank Corporation received over a $1 million
from ACOA and HRD. This money went to fund Rolex watches and
expensive cars for the chief executives. Now the company is going
down, the executives have resigned and the taxpayer is left
holding the bag.
What is the minister going to do to get our money back?
Hon. Fred Mifflin (Minister of Veterans Affairs and Secretary
of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency), Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I find it difficult to understand the position of the
Reform Party, particularly on ACOA. I know that Reform members
are against TAGS and I know that they are against the
infrastructure program. I gather the hon. member does not like
TAGS. He does not like the infrastructure program and apparently
he does not like ACOA.
Let me tell hon. members what one of the Reform members said.
The hon. member for Medicine Hat, in the maritimes not long ago,
in referring to the delivery of programs in ACOA said that
spending money in this way is going to help Atlantic Canadians
much better than anything else.
* * *
1455
[Translation]
MULTILATERAL INVESTMENT AGREEMENT
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we will
try to dissipate the confusion somewhat.
On February 12, the Minister for International Trade assured
us in this House that Canada would not sign the MIA without the
cultural exemption clause. The next morning, this very minister
said that the clause would be preferable, but that, if it proved
impossible, Canada would be satisfied with a few stipulations.
My question is very simple: What is the minister saying in his
speech?
Is the cultural exemption clause an essential condition to the
signing of the agreement, yes or no?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes, there is no confusion.
What the Canadian position has advocated is that culture not
even be on the table. A number of countries support that.
Having said that, if some countries want it on the table, those
other countries including Canada have said that they will take a
country specific exemption. Therefore, the exemption for culture
for Canada is very much on. Given our preference that we would
rather not even have it debated, for Canadian culture either
position is the same. It will not be affected.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
Mr. Mac Campbell, former director general of management review
systems with DND in Goose Bay, has cashed in and is now working
for SERCO, the British firm now handling the contract for
alternative service delivery. It seems some people are getting
rich off ASD, but it is not the front line workers in Goose Bay
who will see their wages slashed from $13 to just over $6.
Will the government admit today that the savings from
alternative service delivery are coming on the backs of everyday
Canadians? Will it also admit that opportunities for Liberal
policies are only open to those with Liberal politics?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously no. I find this very puzzling.
For years the NDP has wanted to cut defence spending. Here is an
opportunity to save the taxpayers $20 million a year and it wants
the defence department to spend more money, not less.
We are out to save the taxpayers money, to provide support
services to the Canadian military in a more efficient and
effective way and to do it in a way that is fair and humane to
our employees. We intend to do that.
* * *
QUEBEC
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister yesterday said that he does not want to roll the
dice with the future of Canada. However that is exactly what his
government did in 1995. The Prime Minister and his advisers
threw together a plan at the last minute and it failed.
We deal with important issues in this House every day. The most
important issue we deal with right now is the future of this
country. It is my country.
After the legal opinion is given, what is the plan that this
government has in place to make sure that we will continue to
survive as a country?
[Translation]
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Conservative leader said the following, in English
naturally, on January 29, 1996, and I quote:
[English]
“If separatists have the right to dissent, they cannot deny the
right of dissent to others. It is far from being clear that
Quebec is not divisible. I think the Crees and Inuit would have
a very good case”.
My question to him is, is he speaking about the legal case, or
is it only the political case of anarchy? We need to know.
* * *
BANKING
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the secretary of state for financial
institutions.
With reference to the announced statement by President's Choice,
Loblaws will provide financial services throughout Canada. What
assurance can the secretary of state give this House that these
changes in services will be in the best interests of all
Canadians?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
thank the member for Durham not only for his question but also
for his leadership on economic and financial sector questions in
Parliament.
Banks with no service fees, free chequing and ready access are
certainly welcome and good for Canada. More competition means
more choices for consumers. Our government will continue to
welcome and encourage even more innovation and more competition
in the provision of financial services to Canadians.
* * *
1500
THE BUDGET
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the finance minister has stated that he will not announce whether
Canadians will have a balanced budget until budget day. The
heritage minister has already announced a $100 million, one year
extension for the cable production fund, yet he will not say
anything about health care, he will not tell us about research
and development and he will not talk about tax relief.
Why was this announcement more important than talking about
Canadians' health care—
The Speaker: The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the announcement in question is simply that of something
which is being renewed. It was already there.
The hon. member has given me the chance to remind him and the
House that the Minister of Finance had spoken in his last budget
and since then of the tax reductions given to post-secondary
students and their parents, the tax reductions given to disabled
people and the extra moneys for health care.
The hon. member is living in a state of blind ignorance if he
refuses to recognize what we have already done to reduce taxes.
He is afraid to look forward to the constructive—
The Speaker: My colleagues, that will bring to a close
our question period.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I wish to draw to members' attention the
presence in our gallery of Geraldine Fraser-Moleketi, Minister
for Welfare and Social Development of South Africa.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
The Speaker: I will entertain a question of privilege
from the hon. member for Charlotte. Then I will entertain a
point of order from the hon. member for Medicine Hat, as well as
a point of order from the hon. member for Calgary West.
HEALTH
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise on
a question of privilege which relates to the Minister of Health.
He is denying information to members, specifically to me in my
role as health critic for the Progressive Conservative Party.
I believe I am also speaking on behalf of other critics in the
health field.
What I am talking about specifically is that all ministers
routinely provide information to the critics in their legitimate
roles in order for them to be able to perform their duties as
critics.
Mr. Speaker, you are aware that this House has to operate on the
best information available and we are being denied some of that
information. For example, the Minister of Health has a budget of
$1.5 billion. He has 6,400 employees to provide him with the
best information.
He is not doing it for the critics.
1505
I am referring specifically to the clippings collected by
members of his department from coast to coast every single day.
We have always had the courtesy extended to us of having those
clippings in our possession each and every day in order to
perform in our roles as critics.
I will quote certain sections from Beauchesne's that relate
exactly to the point I am making. In chapter two under privilege
it states:
The privileges of Parliament are rights which are “absolutely
necessary for the due execution of powers”. They are enjoyed by
individual Members, because the House cannot perform its
functions without unimpeded use of the services of its Members;
and by each House for the protection of its members and the
vindication of it own authority and dignity—
The Speaker: My colleague, if I understand correctly the
papers to which you are alluding are newspaper clippings that
appear in newspapers across Canada. Perhaps it was a courtesy
that ministers in days gone by supplied these clippings but at
this point I would not see that as a question of privilege in
this House. I would hope the hon. minister would take that into
consideration. He could share that information if it would save
some money.
I am loathe to suggest another means of doing it, but if the
hon. member would consider a question on the Order Paper, the
question of privilege would be taken care of. This question of
privilege is finished.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
during question period the veteran's affairs minister quoted from
a document that was allegedly from me. I am not aware of this
document. Could the minister table that document so I can have a
look at exactly what he was quoting from?
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the
minister referred to a document but did not read from the
document. According to our rules, when a minister reads from a
document there is a compulsion to table it. If he has read from
a document other than the briefing notes of ministers, I will
endeavour to have the document tabled, provided it is not the
usual briefing notes ministers receive from cabinet.
The Speaker: We will wait to see what the minister will
say.
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday during the debate while I was absent there
were accusations that were totally untrue levelled against me in
this House. One of the hon. members from the NDP levelled the
accusation that I was a member of the Grant Devine government.
That is absolutely false. That member should stand in the House
and clarify that and apologize.
The Speaker: The hon. member will know that is probably
cause for debate. I am glad that he pointed out to the House
that he was not a member of the Devine government. That will
show on the record.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1510
[English]
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, an
act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act,
be read the third time and passed; and of the amendment.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary should read the Access
to Information Act before he starts making reference to it in the
House. He should know well that any commercially sensitive
information for it matters not what department or organization is
protected and privileged. If you put in an application for access
to information and it has any immediate commercial aspect, you
will get a bunch of blank papers or you will get papers with
whiteout. I have had this experience many times, so the hon.
parliamentary secretary should inform himself.
The other point I would like to raise with the parliamentary
secretary is that with respect to this vaunted consultation and
all this approval that farmers have for Bill C-4, I attended a
Grain Days meeting, and I would inform him that people who attend
Grain Days meetings are almost without exception strong
supporters of the Canadian Wheat Board.
A motion was proposed at that meeting asking that the government
withdraw Bill C-4 and it was passed unanimously. There is
something here that does not compute. Incidentally, the
instigator of the motion, he did not actually propose it, was our
local representative to the advisory council. So do not tell me
that the minister has the support of the producers or of wheat
board supporters. He does not.
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Madam Speaker, just on the point of
the Access to Information Act and release of documents, I think
it is important for all producers as well as all Canadians to
appreciate and understand, which I think they do when listening
to reasoned arguments, but this is very sensitive information
and I do not think, quite frankly, the producers would feel very
comfortable about foreign buyers, foreign markets, foreign
competitors, foreign companies having access to, very, very
sensitive information which could impact negatively upon the
Canadian Wheat Board's ability to market their grains abroad.
That is exactly what the Reform Party are asking for our
competitors. They are not asking for Canadians. They are asking
on behalf of competitors to the Canadian Wheat Board to open up
the books so that they can have all the information they need to
be able to help defeat Canadian wheat producers, and that is
something I will not stand for. We will protect the Canadian
Wheat Board. We will protect Canadian producers, and quite
frankly, we will have a more competitive environment.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): On a point of order,
the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Madam
Speaker, this is a red herring. That is not what farmers have
been asking for. Farmers want a wheat board that is accountable.
They want a wheat board that will allow the auditor general to
look at the books. For this minister to twist that—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): That is not a point
of order. Will you conclude very quickly.
Mr. Gerry Byrne: Madam Speaker, I will resume. It
provides me with an opportunity to once again reiterate the point
that the Canadian Wheat Board has proposed within C-4. It is an
elected body of 10 directors who will be installed into the
directorship of the Canadian Wheat Board. That provides a
majority position for producers, not for political appointees,
which I think is what the other members from the opposite side of
the House want. They want to be able to control the wheat board
by politicians. We want to put it in the hands of producers. That
is what this government states.
1515
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand again and discuss Bill C-4,
the wheat board bill. As members will know, the New Democratic
Party remains the only party in this House to stand four square
behind the board and behind farmers who support the board, which
is the vast majority of farmers, in total contradiction to what
the Reform Party tries to say.
We know from the barley plebiscite that 63 per cent of farmers
supported the board there. We know that whenever asked, farmers
will support the Canadian Wheat Board. That is because they are
rational economic actors. They support the wheat board because
the wheat board is being good to them. The wheat board has paid
them a premium year over year. As a consequence, because they
have benefited from the wheat board, farmers support the board.
There are those, of course, who will put common sense aside and
will argue they want to use the open market where they will make
less money than they would under the board. We should, of
course, not pay too much attention to those who are not acting
rationally in this regard. The Reform Party would rather pay
considerable attention to those few farmers who ignore common
sense, ignore reality, ignore the fact that the wheat board has
been of significant benefit to farmers. They want to destroy
something which has been critical to agriculture in Saskatchewan
and the rest of the prairies and remains critically important to
farming, to farmers and to farm families across the west.
As is clear, over and over the Reform Party chooses ideology
over common sense, ideology over what is good for farmers, but
farmers will not listen to that argument. Farmers across the
prairies, as we know, contrary to everything that the Reform
Party would want and contrary to what it says, support the board
whenever they are given the opportunity to be asked on that.
When farmers were asked about barley and the board, fully 63 per
cent supported the board. That is not a number that the Reform
Party likes and it is not a number it wants to accept, but the
truth of the matter is on that plebiscite farmers supported the
board because the board makes sense. The board makes sense over
and over again to farmers every time they are asked.
We know it is in the hundreds of millions of dollars a year that
the wheat board makes for farmers. Significant studies by the
very best agriculture economists here and in the United States
point out that farmers make around $265 million a year more by
selling wheat through the wheat board than they would by selling
through the private grain trade.
Why would the Reform Party be opposed to farmers making $265
million a year more than they would by using the private grain
trade? The Reform Party, being ideologues, being
neo-conservatives, wants to make sure the private grain traders
who support it so well and support it financially and support it
in its arguments with regard to the wheat board make more money,
rather than the farmers. We know that the wheat board ships that
profit that it makes back to the farmers.
It is not just wheat, it is in barley too. Studies show that
$72 million a year extra goes to barley farmers than would
otherwise be the case. Again, the Reform Party because of its
ideology, because of its distaste for any good government
program, any program that works, opposes barley farmers' getting
that extra $72 million a year.
When ideology does not work it should be discarded. This
ideology of the Reform Party should be discarded too.
There are problems with Bill C-4. We know that. We know and
farmers know that the Liberal government cannot be trusted with
the wheat board either. There are significant problems in Bill
C-4 which point that out. They support that rightful concern by
farmers.
1520
Bill C-4 proposes cash buying. This is a significant problem
and will undermine farmer confidence in the board. Regarding the
contingency fund, why does the government want to take $575
million or thereabouts in check-offs from farmers?
It would not be necessary to take that money from farmers were
the Liberal government to stand firmly behind the board in the
way in which the board was designed to be protected by the
federal government.
What about control? It is true that we will have farmers
elected to the board. Still, the government will choose the
chief executive officer, a critically important functionary, and
thereby take away a chunk of the control that farmers would
otherwise have.
I should point out, too, a point that I omitted with regard to
the support for the wheat board. Not only when asked in
plebiscites do farmers support the wheat board, but when asked to
elect wheat board advisory members farmers overwhelmingly choose
farmers who support the wheat board.
In other words, whenever asked, farmers have stood up for and
supported the wheat board. The Reform Party is simply not
supporting the views of its constituents when it wants to destroy
the very thing that, in short, farmers make the extra profit with
on a yearly basis.
What about the inclusion clause? The Reform Party goes on so
much about democracy. What could be more democratic than asking
farmers whether they would wish to add a grain, a commodity under
the wheat board jurisdiction? What would it have to be afraid of
if farmers make that decision on a free vote?
Why would it be opposed to that democratic decision making when
it goes on so much about democracy with regard to the wheat board
in general?
Let us look at who wants to get rid of the wheat board. It is
not Canadian farmers, as I have said, because they have
consistently supported the board. It is the kind of people, the
kind of big business, the kind of anti-farmer interest that
supports the Reform Party in all of its endeavours.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the commodity
exchange in Winnipeg, Cargill, these kinds of corporations stand
to gain by farmers' not having the wheat board on their side.
It is time the Reform Party put its ideology aside. It is time
those agribusiness organizations put their self-interests aside
and let farmers get a crack for once.
We have known all along that Reformers and Conservatives are
fundamentally opposed to the wheat board and will do everything
in their power to attack the wheat board and its credibility.
They will do everything in their power to enhance the profit
making abilities of the private grain trade and those who would
oppose the interests of farmers.
We even know that they are prepared to say that farmers are
opposed to the wheat board when they favour the wheat board.
Nothing is left to chance by the Reform Party. Its members will
say black is white in order to pursue their ideology.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar is indicating
that we brought forward Bill C-4. It is a government bill and
that is what he should be addressing.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): That is not a point
of order.
Mr. Chris Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I am glad that some
Reformer are listening. It is too bad that they do not change
their minds on any of these things. As I said, common sense is
not in great currency over there on the Reform Party benches.
The opponents will also talk about dual marketing as if this is
not the end of single desk selling and the end of the wheat
board. Not only Judge Muldoon but many others and all those who
look at this matter sensibly can see that this is the beginning
of the end for the board.
This is another tactic by the Reform Party. It has nothing to
do with wanting dual marketing. It is just a step along the way.
It wants to get rid of the wheat board and will do
anything it possibly can to ensure that.
I note the Liberals cannot be trusted on the wheat board either.
There has been very little in the last while to suggest this
government would stand up for farmers in a pinch.
1525
Word was mentioned of grain days. There was a grain day hearing
in Rosetown in my riding. From past experience many might feel
there would not be support for the wheat board although they
voted overwhelmingly in favour of the barley plebiscite. It was
a surprise to the local community that during that day not one
person spoke out against the wheat board.
There are problems with Bill C-4 but there are greater problems
with the approaches of the Reform Party and the Conservative
Party which would get rid of the wheat board altogether. We need
to look carefully and long and hard at the amendments that have
been made. We need to do what we can to make sure the wheat
board is there to support farmers into the future.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I listened to the rhetoric of the last few minutes with
great interest. During the campaign the member said “if
elected, we will hold the government accountable”. Yet every
single speech I have heard from him and other NDP members in this
House has mentioned the Reform Party. They are constantly
analysing Reform Party policies.
Could the member give some explanation of why he did not talk
about Bill C-4, the bill before the House? He should recognize
that farmers are supportive of the board but a vast majority of
farmers, over 80%, are opposed to Bill C-4. Not once in his
speech did he recognize that people of Saskatchewan, his rural
constituents, are opposed to Bill C-4. He did not express any of
their concerns with regard to this bill. I have many articles
from the Western Producer that he could read. They are
written by strong wheat board supporters who would like to have
the wheat board held accountable for its performance, for higher
returns, for more information, for more openness.
I do not understand why NDP MPs are not speaking up on behalf of
their constituents. The board should be accountable and these
NDP members should be accountable.
What is his position on Bill C-4?
Mr. Chris Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I should indicate that
the NDP has consistently opposed measures introduced by the
Liberal government that it deems undesirable to Canadians. There
has been no hesitation on our part in criticizing this government
on a whole range of questions. An example is the MAI. We remain
the only party in this House that is concerned about the MAI.
Reform Party members are a bunch of applauders to the Liberal
Party's decision to drive another stake in the heart of Canadian
jobs and the Canadian economy.
The NDP position on Bill C-4 is quite clear, as my position is
quite clear. I am opposed to the bill introduced by the Liberal
government for the reasons I gave in my speech and for the
reasons in the speeches of other members from my party. One thing
that distinguishes my position from the position of the member
for Yorkton—Melville is that I support the Canadian Wheat Board.
He does not.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I made it abundantly clear in my speech that I support
the board, and all the amendments that were introduced were to
support it.
Mr. Chris Axworthy: Madam Speaker, farmers in the west
will know full well the position of the member for
Yorkton—Melville.
1530
Mr. Gerry Byrne: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of
privilege.
To assist in the conduct of the affairs of the House could I ask
members to recite specifically under what standing orders they
are rising on a point of order?
We are conducting debate here. It is very important that all
members have the opportunity to debate. I feel members are being
restricted by the frivolous, nonsensical, useless waste of time
in which Reformers continually engage.
If members could simply state the specific standing order under
which they are rising on a point of order it would facilitate
debate.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I take note of your
comments.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. If he raises a question of privilege I may comment on it.
What question of privilege did he raise and what particular
edition of Beauchesne's is he—-
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It is not privilege
at this point.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, listening to the hon. member in the party to my left,
the far left, I could not help but think how badly they feel
because they could not control in any way the rural vote in
Saskatchewan. The rural vote left them completely, even the hon.
member.
This is a sad day for the people of the prairies. Right now the
passage of the bill is as much concern to the people of the
prairies as what is going on in the supreme court this afternoon.
They are fearful of the passage of the bill.
If the bill passes tonight I will have an arm band ready because
it will mean the death of many industries in Saskatchewan which I
will point out.
The hon. member referred to a project conducted by the wheat
board which indicated that the majority of farmers gained more
money by selling to the wheat board. What did he expect?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry but the
time has expired.
Mr. Chris Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I fail to see the
concern the member voices with the barley plebiscite and with the
studies done by renowned, reputed economists that support the
wheat board.
Agricultural economists looked at the issue from the perspective
of their disciplines. They concluded in peer evaluated reviews
and studies time after time that the wheat board was good for
farmers. Why does the member not accept that?
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to
Bill C-4. The amendments contained in Bill C-4 are based on
nearly three years of extensive consultation and discussion with
western Canadian grain farmers to determine what kind of grain
marketing organization they wanted.
Western Canadian grain farmers have asked to retain the Canadian
Wheat Board, but they also wanted a more democratic, accountable
and responsive Canadian Wheat Board, one that was truly in their
hands, allowing them to shape the Canadian Wheat Board to meet
their needs. That is in fact what the proposed changes in Bill
C-4 provide for.
The proposed changes in Bill C-4 would put more power into the
hands of producers than they have ever had throughout the 63 year
history of the Canadian Wheat Board. The proposed changes would
modernize the governance of the Canadian Wheat Board. They would
improve its accountability to producers through the creation of a
producer elected majority board of directors.
The marketing changes proposed to Bill C-4 are enabling. They
would give farmers the tools and the power necessary to shape the
CWB's marketing structure to fit their present and future needs.
1535
I would like to address some of the questions that have been
raised and in so doing clear up some of the misconceptions that
have arisen around Bill C-4 and its proposed amendments to the
CWB.
Some farmers have asked if they would have more control under
the new system of CWB governance. The answer is yes. The 15
member board of directors would be comprised of 10 producer
elected directors and 5 federal appointees. In essence, farmer
elected directors would enjoy a two to one majority. Directors
would have effective control of the strategic direction of the
new CWB and would be able to reflect the views and the needs of
farmers in all future operational and marketing decisions.
These elected directors would not be subject to dismissal by the
minister responsible for the CWB. Only those who elected them
would be able to accomplish this through subsequent elections.
Under Bill C-4 all directors would be entitled to complete
disclosure of all CWB facts and figures, bar none. They would be
able to examine the prices at which grain is sold, the price
premiums achieved, all operating costs and whether the CWB is
operating effectively.
With their full knowledge of the CWB and its global competition,
the directors would be in the best position to assess what
information should be made public and what for commercial reasons
should remain confidential.
Why is the board of directors not 100 per cent producer elected?
Under the proposed legislation, the government would continue to
maintain a substantial financial commitment to the Canadian Wheat
Board. The government would continue to guarantee the Canadian
Wheat Board's initial payments, its borrowings and its credit
sales made under the credit grain sales program.
This represents a strong case for the government having a
continued role in appointing some of the members of the board of
directors. In addition, the CWB has public policy
responsibilities. For example, the CWB is charged with issuing
all wheat and barley export licences for all of Canada, not just
the prairies.
I have heard the question asked about why the Canadian wheat
board is not legally obliged to get the best price for farmers'
grain. The Canadian wheat board seeks to obtain the best price
possible as a matter of policy. However, making this the
corporation's legal objective would be difficult.
Because the CWB seeks to obtain the best price for producers
jointly through the pool accounts, it would almost always be
possible to show after the fact that somewhat higher returns
could have been realized for individual producers had a different
set of marketing decisions been made. Therefore, to make the CWB
legally responsible to achieve the best price for individual
farmer's grain would result in countless legal challenges
respecting the board's marketing decisions.
Looking to the future, the board of directors would be
responsible for ensuring that the sales program is well managed
and that the Canadian wheat board operates in the best interests
of producers. This would be preferable to taking a legalistic
approach.
Why does the Canadian wheat board need to establish a
contingency fund? What would this money be used for? A
contingency fund would be developed in order for the CWB to make
adjustments to initial payments during the crop year on its own
responsibility without the delays involved in getting government
approval to provide for potential losses in cash trading
operations and to provide for an early pool cash out.
The contingency fund would provide the CWB with the ability to
adjust initial payments and get money into farmers' hands more
quickly. Given the history of adjusted initial payments, the
related risk would be minimal and less than the related benefits
to farmers. It would be up to the board of directors with its
two-thirds producer elected majority to determine if, when and
how to create the contingency fund. The opposition asks why the
Auditor General of Canada cannot examine the CWB's books.
The Canadian Wheat Board currently retains an independent firm
of chartered accountants to audit its operations. Through its
pool accounts, the CWB is managing farmers' money and not
government appropriations. Therefore it has always made sense
that a private sector auditor rather than the auditor general
audit the books.
Under Bills C-4 the CWB would cease to be an agent of Her
Majesty and a crown corporation and become a mixed enterprise.
This reduces even further the justification for involving the
office of the auditor general.
1540
Finally, some private sector users of financial reports take
comfort in the fact that private sector auditors unlike the OAG
are liable under the law for negligence and other professional
misconduct.
The proposed changes in Bill C-4 are balanced and fair. The
government realizes the changes contained in Bill C-4 cannot hope
to satisfy all parties in what would have been a polarized debate
among western grain producers. The government feels nonetheless
that these proposed changes to the CWB would equip farmers with
the tools and the power to shape the CWB as they see fit so the
Canadian Wheat Board could meet the needs of farmers both today
and in the future.
I want to share my time with my hon. colleague from St.
Boniface.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the member opposite made some points with regard to the
election of the directors. Ten would be elected by farmers and
five by producers under Bill C-4.
The member is from Ontario. The Ontario wheat board is
completely controlled by farmers. Why would he have a different
standard in this regard? That is not my question. It is more of
a question I asked previously.
He referred to an export licence. Has he ever seen that export
licence? The export licence he is referring to, which the
Canadian Wheat Board has the power to veto or whatever, has a
blank on it. If you put three words in the blank you cannot
export your grain. What are those three words? I am wondering
if the hon. member knows. If you put Alberta, Saskatchewan or
Manitoba in the blank you have no control over their grain; you
do not own it.
The member is from Ontario. If you put Ontario in that blank,
there is not even a charge for it and away you go. You own the
grain and you can export it.
What does the member think about the form he referred to? Does
he think that export licence is a way to maintain equality in
this country? Is that fair? How is he representing his
constituents when he supports Bill C-4? I know that farmers on
the prairies see this as a big government, Ottawa controlled
wheat board.
Mr. Larry McCormick: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague
opposite for his question. As I started to make my remarks in
this Chamber, one of my hon. friends in the Reform Party—he is a
good friend and a fine gentleman—asked whether I had ever
handled wheat, whether I had ever been on a wheat farm. I may
have combined as much wheat and I am certain more than several
Reform Party members. I just thought I would answer that.
The hon. member from Yorkton asked about the board of directors
in his question. He compared it to Ontario. There is a
difference between the wheat board in Ontario and the wheat board
in western Canada.
The Ontario Producers' Marketing Board markets about 900,000
tonnes of wheat a year, mainly in Canada and the United States,
while the Canadian Wheat Board markets an average of 25 million
tonnes of wheat and barley per year to more than 70 countries. It
should be noted that the financial implications of the decision
by the Canadian Wheat Board are much larger than those associated
with the Ontario wheat board.
The bottom line is that the power has been given to the
directors. Ten out of fifteen of these directors will be elected
by the producers and two to one is a good majority.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the hon. member mentioned the export licence and the
permitting process in his speech. I do not know who wrote the
speech for him. Obviously he did not know anything about it. He
did not answer my hon. colleague's question about it.
My question is on a different issue—
1545
Mr. Larry McCormick: Madam Speaker, on a point of order.
I am going to take this opportunity to learn something about how
this Chamber works. I am not trying to get extra time. Madam
Speaker, you can kindly add the time on.
My colleague who just spoke said I did not answer that question.
I want to ask you, Madam Speaker, to look at the record on how
many times questions have been asked across the floor and did
they always answer those questions? I would be very glad to
speak to any part of this bill, but I do not think I want to
accept that from—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Would the hon. member
for Prince George—Peace River carry on with his question.
Mr. Jay Hill: Madam Speaker, obviously the hon. member
is responding quite defensively with good reason because he did
not answer the question. He had no intention of answering the
question.
My question, very quickly because I know time is of the essence,
the hon. member, as I am, is a member of the Standing Committee
on Agriculture and Agri-Foods. He sat in on the very shortened
period of time that we had to consider Bill C-4. As a committee
member, I would ask him to cite a list of those presenters who
appeared before that committee who actually supported Bill C-4
and the inclusion clause.
Mr. Larry McCormick: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for the question because I was very concerned about this.
I wanted to make sure that my colleagues and my friends in
western Canada were being represented well and not just by the
Reform Party. I went to the minister's office, I went to the
records office and I found that more than 100,000 letters have
been sent to the producers and only a very few hundred people
responded. I have talked to people from the west. Not all people
are represented by Reformers. I would like to put the facts on
the table.
[Translation]
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel (Secretary of State (Science, Research
and Development) (Western Economic Diversification), Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I must thank you for this opportunity to speak in favour
of Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act and to
make consequential amendments to other Acts.
Bill C-4 is an innovative bill, which will result in
fundamental changes to the relationship between western grain
producers and their single window marketing body, the Canadian
Wheat Board.
This bill, the result of consultations that were both
intensive and extensive, will give grain producers unprecedented
power.
Not only can they direct the activities of the Canadian Wheat
Board, but they can also determine the impact of its future role on
their lives. Under the scrutiny of the producers it serves, the
CWB will be more open, more responsible, and more attuned to the
needs of producers where marketing is concerned.
Under Bill C-4, the CWB will be directed, not as it is at
present by government-appointed board members, but by a board of
directors. At least 10 of the 15 directors will be directly chosen
by western producers. Since the government will continue to
provide substantial financial assistance to the Canadian Wheat
Board, it will appoint four directors, plus the president.
However, since this is a partnership between the government
and the western producers, the directors will set the president's
salary and will be entitled to evaluate his performance, and
recommend his dismissal if necessary. The directors will have
complete control over the activities of the Canadian Wheat Board.
1550
They will have access to complete information on the CWB's
sales and finances. In addition, the board of directors, two
thirds of whom will be elected by farmers, will decide which
information should not be made public for reasons of commercial
confidentiality.
Bill C-4 will also give the Canadian Wheat Board's board of
directors the authority to use new marketing tools. For example,
such tools could be used to offer farmers new grain payment methods
and to speed up fund transactions.
For instance, the Canadian Wheat Board could do the following:
pay cash for wheat and/or barley; rapidly increase initial
payments, if necessary, without having to obtain government
approval, as is now the case; and allow farmers to be paid for
their participation and for pooling before the end of the crop
year.
Some people have expressed the concern that cash purchases
will undermine the Canadian Wheat Board. It should be remembered,
however, that such measures come under the authority of the board
of directors, which is controlled by farmers, and that there is
thus a safety mechanism.
Under the exclusion and inclusion provisions of Bill C-4, a
democratic process gives farmers full authority regarding which
products the Canadian Wheat Board decides to market.
The exclusion clause would make it possible for any type or
category of wheat or barley to be withdrawn in whole or in part
from CWB jurisdiction. Any exclusion would have to be supported by
the board of directors, and there would have to be guarantees that
the grain would not get mixed with grain marketed by the CWB.
If the directors consider the exclusion to be significant, the
exemption should also be approved by the producers in a democratic
vote.
Under Bill C-4, the board of directors, controlled by the
producers, could make use of numerous innovations in the area of
marketing which have been looked at by producers in recent years,
voluntary pooling in particular.
Inclusion of a grain in the Board's mandate would not be even
contemplated without a request in writing from a legitimate body,
the entire membership of which are producers of the grain in
question.
When the board of directors has examined and approved
inclusion of a grain within the mandate of the CWB, the question
should also be submitted to the growers in a democratic vote.
As I have already said, Bill C-4 is the outcome of extensive
consultations in all parts of western Canada. Although a strong
majority of growers came out clearly in favour of the Canadian
Wheat Board, they still wish it to be more accessible and more
open, as well as more accountable to growers. Bill C-4 complies
fully with that wish.
The government is anxious to get the Canadian Wheat Board into
the hands of the producers.
For all of these reasons, I am asking all hon. members of this
House to support Bill C-4.
[English]
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I am sure the member from Manitoba who just spoke is familiar
with the tremendous diversification in the prairies, and probably
right across the country, that has been occurring for the last 20
years or more. The most recent I know of is in Alberta with the
production of hay for export, more specifically timothy and
alfalfa.
There is a tremendous amount of tonnage going to places around
the world, across the Pacific to Japan, Taiwan, the Middle East,
the United States, Britain and North Africa.
1555
Another one, of course, is canola, which the member would know
more about. In the last 20 years or so canola has really
bit into the Canadian acreage of what is sown in the spring. It
is a major commodity for many producers in western Canada.
Peas and lentils are pulse crops. Tremendous strides have been
made in developing these crops as well. Oats is another one.
Since oats have been taken off the wheat board, they have been processed
and shipped as pony oats right around the world, especially from
Alberta.
Once the regulations were gone, beef just went through the
ceiling. My home province of Alberta has over 50% of Canada's
beef which is exported to the south, whether alive or in boxes it
does not matter. There has been a tremendous growth in that
particular sector.
Hog products are the same, especially once the marketing boards
were gone. There are hog barns going all over the western
provinces taking advantage of that particular sector.
We then have wheat. Now these sectors have increased
phenomenally over the last number of years. They are not
controlled and do not come under the control of the board, and
the Canadian Wheat Board especially in terms of the grains.
However, what has happened to wheat? This statement is from the
wheat board. Its 10-year export forecast for wheat shows a
decline in market share.
Let me just read out exactly where the wheat board stands or
Canada stands in this particular situation on the increase in
wheat exports. The export of wheat from Argentina will increase
by 67% over the next 10 years. The export of wheat from
Australia shows a 39% increase. The export of wheat from the
European Union shows a 25% increase. Where is Canada? Canada is
at 15%, lagging behind most of the major wheat exporting
countries.
I am wondering how the member can reconcile the crops that are
not under the Canadian Wheat Board flourishing while the crops,
particularly the wheat, under the Canadian Wheat Board are
lagging behind with a dismal record. I would like the member to
respond to that.
[Translation]
Hon. Ronald J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, I appreciate my
colleague's question. First of all, it is obvious that he has
quite considerable knowledge in this area. While listening to him,
I found a considerable number of his comments very worthwhile. I
would like to answer him as follows.
[English]
It is rather interesting because my colleague obviously
demonstrates a significant knowledge of that sector, but at the
same time he falls into a trap, which is the suggestion that by
comparing gross rates in certain sectors in other countries with
respect to the same commodity that all of a sudden it is the
fault of the Canadian grain commission. It just does not follow.
One of the reasons why we wanted to do this, as I stated before,
is because the producers wanted to control, decide and carve out
that vision. They wanted to develop new instruments so that they
could be creative and increase their sales. However, I do not
accept the basic supposition that the statistics that were shared
are a result of the Canadian grain commission. It simply does
not follow and I think my colleague, upon reflection, will agree
that is a correct statement.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is very interesting on this day, which is a sad day,
as I mentioned earlier, for western Canada and especially sad for
the wheat board itself, that this instrument, this act and this
potential that we have to meet the demands of the new western
Canada simply is not being addressed.
The same old monopoly, the same old act which makes the people of
western Canada hewers of wood and drawers of water is still
there.
1600
It is a very sad day for the wheat board. There are no
fundamental changes. This bill will be passed in its present
form which will mean that the wheat board will self-destruct.
There is no question about it.
When the wheat board initiated a survey to see how it was doing,
it received the answer that it was doing very well. That was on
February 5. A former agriculture and economics professor at the
University of Manitoba said this: “There is no question that
producers will pocket more cash under a dual market system”.
Why do we never listen to economists outside the wheat board?
This same chap went on to say: “There is one world price out
there and I don't believe the board fetches a higher price, but I
do believe there is a lot of efficiencies associated with the
current arrangement”.
Every one of my Reform colleagues, in every speech we have made,
has attempted to save the fundamental principles of the wheat
board. Hon. members opposite are so devoted to destroying
something they will not even listen to one amendment.
It is a sad day for our farmers. Many of our young farmers want
to get into private enterprise so they can use the grain products
presently under the control of the board. They will not be
allowed to develop those businesses on the prairies under the
current arrangement.
I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Yellowhead;
however, I would like to make one further comment.
In my constituency we have three big projects going on. I want
to mention the largest one. There is a group of farmers who grow
the world's best durum. Naturally the best durum makes the best
pasta. They are taking thousands upon thousands of dollars from
their pockets to conduct a survey with respect to making
available a closed co-op. These durum producers are doing that
so they will be able to grow their own grain and deliver it to
their own plant. But, no, the long arm of the Ottawa wheat board
thinks that is a business which should be here in eastern Canada
and it will not allow them to do that.
I hope that the people of my constituency will see how this vote
goes tonight. If the bill is passed and the wheat board
maintains its current legal monopoly, it will have to stand very
soon and tell those people “No, you cannot proceed with that
because you do not own your grain”. It is an absolute farce. It
is a terrible thing to do.
I want these members to tell me and the people of the
Souris—Moose Mountain constituency that my farmers cannot go
into business for themselves growing their own grain. Let them
answer that question. Let them tell the people why, when they
want to mill organic grain, the wheat board reaches over and says
“No. You can do it. But we want this”. We cannot even have a
small mill in Saskatchewan to send the organically grown grain to
to be made into flour without the heavy hand of the wheat board.
This is 1998. It is time hon. members opposite said “Let's
free the west. Let's let them do what they are doing in eastern
Canada. Let them develop their own industries there with the
products they grow”.
Shame on this government if it prevents one of the potential
industries from being developed in my constituency. If the
government does that it will hear from more than just my
constituents' representative in this House.
It is a crying shame. It is totally out of date. We should
defeat this bill, take it back to the drawing board and make it
relevant to 1998.
1605
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have made one observation. Many of the members
opposite have not answered our questions. A couple of days ago
we asked a question with regard to the CEO of the Canadian Wheat
Board.
Many people watching probably do not realize that with Bill C-4
the minister has actually retained and increased his power to
manage the board. He has left the most important appointment,
the appointment of the chief executive officer, in his hands. He
has the power to appoint that person. With that power the chief
executive officer can make decisions from day to day in the
workings of the board that farmers have no control over.
The Canadian Wheat Board is not the biggest problem farmers
have. Farmers have huge problems with the transportation system
and with the heavy taxation this government imposes upon them.
Farmers pay an inordinate amount of tax. It is terrible.
In terms of the transportation problem, the chief executive
officer can continue to dictate where the grain will be sent. At
the present time in my riding farmers are very concerned that the
Canadian Wheat Board has been forcing them to ship their grain
through Thunder Bay and through Vancouver. They could save $25
to $30 a tonne by shipping it through Churchill. But they always
get the answer from all the people in the wheat board that for
one reason or another they cannot ship it through Churchill. If
the government is giving control to the farmers, it has refused
to answer why the farmers cannot appoint the CEO who would be
directly accountable to them.
Does this member have any comments on what I have just said?
This is a very critical question which the government has left
unanswered. I see no people over there ready to jump up and
answer it because I know they cannot. Just like all the other
questions we have asked, they cannot answer.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The member has made a statement that is wrong. I point to
paragraph 3.1 of the bill where it states that the decision and
operation and authority to act on the part of the chief executive
officer is subject to the resolution of the board.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am afraid this is
debate.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I said that the minister has the power to appoint the
chief executive officer. He said something completely different.
I said that the power rests within the minister to appoint the
chief executive officer and he is—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): We are on questions
and comments and the question is directed to the member for
Souris—Moose Mountain.
Mr. Roy Bailey: Madam Speaker, in reply to my colleague,
yes it is true. It is very true that from time to time all over
western Canada the chief executive officer of the wheat board and
the wheat board determine where the rail cars go and what the
allotment is. The farmer who grows the grain has no say
whatsoever as to where that grain will go, through what port it
will go and only the wheat board makes that decision.
We now have the opportunity with a new structure coming into the
Hudson's Bay area to double or triple the amount of grain going.
I have been told by these people that they can fill the terminals
more cheaply in Montreal, Saint John and Halifax by going that
route. If it is cheaper it should be done. Every time you can
save the western Canadian farmer a dollar you should. The farmer
should get the money and not the Canadian Wheat Board. The board
should not get the money if it is not acting in the best interest
of the farmer to bring about maximum returns, a statement you
would not put into the wheat board itself.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): There
are 25 seconds for a very quick question.
1610
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, 25 seconds. Is that calculating in the time that was
taken by the Liberals for a point of order that was not a point
of order?
I wonder if the hon. member would care to comment on what steps
he has taken to ascertain the feelings of his constituents, the
grain farmers who are actually going to be affected by this bill
in his riding.
Mr. Roy Bailey: Madam
Speaker, to give my colleague the answer to the question, in
order for an industry on the prairies to become viable, it first
must escape and not have to pay the freight rate because they do
not use any freight and they must escape the handling charges
because they do not use any handling charges.
The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool soon learned that they had to get
out from the long arm of the wheat board. If industries are going
to develop on the prairies, then the wheat board must recognize
it and free the farmers to establish their own industry.
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Madam Speaker, my
colleague who spoke just prior made the statement that it is a
sad day on the prairies with the passing, as it of course will,
of C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, and of
course it is.
In the 35th Parliament, we had Bill C-68, the gun control
legislation. It was a sad day then especially for Western Canada.
Of course, we know where that particular bill is now insofar as
four or five governments are concerned in taking the federal
government to court.
Already in this term with not even a year gone by, we have Bill
C-4, which is going to be disastrous to say the least for a lot
of Western Canadian producers, and it is going to do some harm.
I want to quote a little bit from a column in the Western
Producer. It is written by Reverend J.A. Davidson and this is
what he has to say when he quotes T.S. Eliot in the play, The
Cocktail Party:
Then of course Reilly, who is the psychiatrist in this play,
and I can see Reilly already being a psychiatrist and the
minister of the wheat board lying on the couch, further explains
that quote:
“They don`t mean to do harm—but the harm does not interest them.
Or they just do not see it, or they justify it because they are
absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves”.
Harm is done by a lot of people. Just what harm is being done
with the passing of Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat
Board Act? I suggest there are going to be a number of harms
done. In fact there were harms done to Canadian western farmers
away back in 1943 when the Canadian Wheat Board became a
monopoly.
Of course, the history goes back prior to that. The Canadian
Wheat Board was actually established in 1935, but it was a
voluntary wheat board up until 1943 when the government invoked
the War Measures Act and passed the Canadian Wheat Board Act and
made it a monopoly in Western Canada.
Already back then, more than 50 years ago, what happened was
this: the Canadian government made a deal with Great Britain—it
was during the war—to supply Great Britain with 600 million
bushels of wheat at a set price to be delivered over a four year
period. This wheat was all sold at below market price to Great
Britain, all 600 million bushels. The extent to which it was sold
under market price ranged between $1 and $1.50. In late 1940
dollars, $1 and $1.50 below market price, accumulating actually
almost $1 billion that western farmers lost in four years due to
the monopoly of the wheat board.
1615
Imagine those dollars in terms of today's dollars. There would
be tens of billions of dollars lost to their prairie economy
because of a control mongered government here in Ottawa. But it
does not stop there.
Economists right through the wheat board's history have come up
with this figure that over the 30, 40, 50 years, in addition to
these four years that I have just talked about, western Canadian
farmers have lost on average about a dollar a bushel on all the
grain they have sold over those years, and of course we cannot
get it. This is so ridiculous that we cannot know for sure
because of the nature of the Canadian Wheat Board. Nobody can
get into it. It operates in secrecy and this bill does nothing to
open it up at all. It is still in the control of the minister
and executive council.
We have over the 30 or 40 years hundreds of millions of bushels
a year, about a dollar a bushel, billions of dollars that the
centralist government here in Ottawa has taken out of the prairie
economy. Imagine where the western provinces would be today if
all those dollars could have been reinvested back in western
Canada. Imagine that.
So that is how they have lost. It was about a dollar a bushel
over all those years. There is going to be harm done
democratically as well. Not only will the wheat board be not
operating democratically, but also in the greater context the
other provinces are all bound to honour the Canadian Wheat Board
Act.
Alberta has voted to opt out, to set up a dual marketing
system. We cannot do that. Even though Alberta has voted to do
that, we cannot do that because of the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
It is undemocratic. It does not matter which way you slice it or
dice it. Regardless of this law, it is still undemocratic.
It will continue to be undemocratic in spite of the amendments.
The government would not accept our amendments, none of them.
Shame on the government.
It has already harmed a number of western farmers. It has made
criminals out of grain producers. The act has and I suggest it
probably will continue to make criminals out of western grain
producers. Already 219 charges have been laid against western
producing farmers. What did they do? They must have raped their
neighbour's wife or stolen or murdered. They must have done
something like that to be charged, some of them shackled and
thrown into jail.
What did these western producers do to warrant a trip to jail?
They did the absolute unpardonable, they sold their grain to the
Americans. Prairie farmers cannot sell grain to the Americans,
that is not acceptable. They pay way less in taxes down there.
You cannot sell grain into a country like that, a capitalist
system where they can move grain back and forth freely. Of
course they cannot into here but they can around the world.
They are charged under a law that is absolutely confusing. Some
are charged, some are not. Others are convicted. The charges are
stayed. You wonder really where we are at. I suggested already
that it is going to keep young people from going into active
farming in western Canada because of Bill C-4.
Why should young people go into wheat or barley production?
After they have invested all the money, went out in the spring,
did all the work, invested in fertilizer, in seed, machinery,
land, the sweat and the stress of putting the crop in, taking
care of it and of course harvesting it, why should they go into
that when the government is going to control it?
They do not even own it, really. If they want to export milling
wheat, they do not even own it. The government owns it, for
heaven's sake.
1620
Why should they go into a sector of our economy when it is the
only sector in Canada's economy where the producers do not have
control over where they market? It is absolutely a shame. This
is a sad day for western Canadian farmers.
I have already mentioned that it will hurt the western economy
because of the diversification that will not occur in so far as
the processing of wheat is concerned. If people who want to add
value to wheat have to buy it first, sell it to the Canadian
Wheat Board then buy it back at greater price, there is a good
chunk of their profit gone.
It is a bill that should be withdrawn. I plead with the members
across the way that they not support it in the vote tonight.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. Following discussion between the
parties I think you will find unanimous consent for two motions.
I will present one first and we will see if there is unanimous
consent. Then I will present the second.
The first motion has to do with the days of the national
conventions of some of the parties represented in the House. I
move:
That the House shall not sit on Friday, February 27, 1998,
Friday, March 20, 1998 and Friday, May 29, 1998, provided that,
for the purposes of Standing Order 28, the House shall be deemed
to have sat and adjourned on Friday, February 27, 1998.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the
second motion deals with the business of the House and the
representation of the opposition parties in the House. I move:
That, on Wednesday, February 18, 1998, the House shall sit until
8.30 p.m., provided that Private Members' Business shall be taken
up at 7.30 p.m., that no proceedings pursuant to Standing Order
38 shall be taken up that day and that any division requested
that day on any business pursuant to Standing Order 81 shall be
deferred to the time of expiry of the time for consideration for
Government Orders on Monday, February 23, 1998.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, and
act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, be read the third time
and passed; and of the amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Questions and
comments, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Natural
Resources.
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the hon. members
opposite have raised several issues which deserve comment and
question.
One of the points made by the hon. members opposite from the
Reform Party was that there are no net benefits gained through
single desk selling. Quite frankly, in other industries and
other agricultural sectors there are benefits that have accrued
above and beyond the wildest imaginations of producers upon the
suspension of regulatory marketing and other regulations
affecting the industries. The hog industry was used as an
example. Producers obtained unbelievable, unsurpassed profits.
One of the points which has to be made is that what the Reform
Party is advocating is a move to a complete market based system,
one that is in full competition with the Canadian Wheat Board,
one that is in full competition with the private sector and
operates almost under parallel circumstances to the private
sector. In other words, everybody sells to wherever they want.
This is a question that was raised to me while I was travelling
in Saskatoon—Humboldt not too long ago. It should have been
addressed to the Reform Party. The Canadian Wheat Board and
farmers benefit from financial guarantees provided by the
government.
They understood that the farmers and producers benefit from the
financial guarantees provided by government. These guarantees
currently cover initial payments, credit grain sales and the
Canadian Wheat Board's general borrowings.
1625
The Reform Party wants the Canadian Wheat Board to compete with
private trade. It wants it to act as though it were in the
private sector and basically wants farmers to compete 100% in the
private sector.
This is the question that was raised to me and I raise it to the
hon. member. Would the Reform Party view it as fair to have one
enterprise benefiting from special government guarantees
competing with the private sector companies which must risk their
own capital or would the Reform Party want to see the Canadian
Wheat Board and farmers no longer benefit from these guarantees?
That is a specific question and I would really appreciate a
specific answer. Does the Reform Party want the Canadian Wheat
Board to operate as a private sector enterprise and not have the
benefit from unfair competition by federal government guarantees
or does it support the Canadian Wheat Board and the federal
government's position?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member for
Yellowhead is not here to answer the question. Therefore we
will be resuming debate.
Mr. Gerry Byrne: I have taken time in this House to ask a
question to the hon. member who stood before and took time. Can
I please get—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): We will be resuming
debate.
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is my
pleasure to rise today to speak on Bill C-4.
I listened intently to the member of the Reform Party from
Alberta, the last speaker for the official opposition. After
listening to him, I really hope that no young Canadian boys and
girls were listening to this debate. I say that because I think
young people who listen to the debate and especially the
contributions made by the Reform Party would come away from this
debate believing that it is all right to distort the truth, that
it is all right to twist the facts, that when it comes to this
type of parliamentary debate, anything goes, there are no rules,
no honour in this debate.
They never want to listen to debate. I have never seen a
political party that is so afraid of the truth. Those members
quake in their boots every time a government member stands up.
This member from Alberta mentioned that at one time back in the
late thirties and in the forties the Canadian Wheat Board was a
voluntary board and it was not a monopolistic board. Somehow he
tried to leave the impression that it became a monopoly because
that is what the government of the day wanted.
The fact is that from day one farmers on the prairies wanted a
monopoly. They wanted single desk selling. If the truth were to
be told, it was the Liberal government of the day that was
reluctant to make it anything but a voluntary board. It was not
until the 1950s that it became what it is today.
The sentiment and opinions of prairie farmers have changed very
little. They do not want a voluntary board. They did not want a
voluntary board then and they do not want a voluntary board now,
despite anything the Reform Party says.
This Reform Party member who spoke a few moments ago talked
about the board's not being democratic and that whatever the
board would do under Bill C-4 somehow would be shoved down the
throats of prairie farmers.
1630
What is the fact of the matter? The fact is that Bill C-4 takes
away many of the powers the government now has and puts those
powers into the hands of farmers. The major mechanism of that is
through a board and most of its members will be elected by
farmers. On a 15 member board, there will be 10 elected by
farmers and 5 appointed by the government. It sounds to me that
it is going to be a board which reflects a democratic exercise.
A Reform Party member is saying just the opposite. This is why
I am concerned about boys and girls who might be listening to
this debate today. I do not want listeners especially the young
people to believe that an opposition party can come into this
House and just say whatever it likes. You cannot if you want to
be ethical, and if you are bound to the truth, you will stick to
the facts.
I want to touch on some other things. The official opposition
which happens to be the Reform Party, and a number of other
groups that oppose Bill C-4 have said that the federal government
has ignored the Western Grain Marketing Panel and its
recommendations. They have accused the government of not
listening to the panel which it selected. This is clearly not the
case and I will try to deal in facts.
I would like to indicate the extent to which Bill C-4 reflects
the recommendations of the Western Grain Marketing Panel. I
wonder if members of the Reform Party would like to listen to
some facts. We will see if they want to listen to facts.
It was worth noting that in introducing its recommendations, the
panel stated: “The principle behind these amendments would be
one of making the act a more enabling piece of legislation,
thereby giving the minister responsible more authority to make
changes by regulation rather than having to refer the act to
Parliament for amendment on each occasion”. This is lesson
number one for the Reform Party. This principle is clearly
embodied in Bill C-4.
Many aspects of the bill, such as those providing for more
flexible payment options for farmers, would allow the CWB to do
many things it cannot do today. However, the decision to
implement these new services or not would rest where it should
be, with the farmer controlled board of directors. I want to
remind the Reform Party members that if they have not read Bill
C-4, we are going to have a democratically controlled board of
directors.
Mr. Ken Epp: Do not mislead the children now, John.
Mr. John Harvard: Reform members do not want to listen. I
know the facts really grate on them. When someone is given to
ideology, it is very, very difficult to listen to facts. I
invite them, if they would just put aside the ideology for just
five minutes, maybe we could get through this.
With respect to the panel's specific recommendations regarding
the board, the first recommendation was that the amendments
should accommodate restructuring the governance of the Canadian
Wheat Board in accordance with a number of guidelines.
Certainly Bill C-4 would restructure the Canadian Wheat Board
from being a crown corporation with five appointed commissioners
to a mixed enterprise where farmers would control the majority of
the board of directors. I will get into that more when looking
at the specific recommendations of the panel.
The second panel recommendation was to permit the Canadian Wheat
Board to make cash purchases and that is in Bill C-4. The third
recommendation was to permit the Canadian Wheat Board to make
payments to farmers for grain storage and/or carrying costs. That
is in Bill C-4.
We are just trying to teach these little children a few things.
I know it is very difficult for the Reform Party. It is very
difficult but we on this side will not give up.
The fourth recommendation was to allow deliveries to farmer
owned condo storage without regard to the delivery quotas or
contracts.
That happens to be in Bill C-4.
1635
The fifth recommendation was to permit the Canadian Wheat Board
to purchase grain from other than an elevator, rail car or from
any other origin. That is in Bill C-4.
These are just some facts to see if we can help these poor
little members from the Reform Party.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I rise on
a point of order. I have tried to restrain myself here. The
member keeps demeaning other members of Parliament. That is
against the rules of this House. It destroys the decorum of this
House. I wish that you would request him to withdraw those
negative statements that he has made and to start treating us
like the fellow adults that we are.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I will try to be more
attentive to the debate. At this point I would like to request
to see the “blues”.
[Translation]
[English]
Mr. John Harvard: Madam Speaker, I will see if I can just
stick with the facts. I know it upsets the Reform Party but we
are just going to stick with the facts.
The sixth recommendation of the grain panel was to allow for
pool accounts to be terminated and paid out at any time following
closure of the pool. That is in Bill C-4. It is just another
fact.
The seventh recommendation of the panel was to allow for the
assignment of negotiable producer certificates. That is in Bill
C-4 which is just another little fact for the Reform Party
members. I know they have trouble listening.
The eighth recommendation of the panel was to clarify the
board's authority to utilize risk management tools including
futures and options in dealing with the farmers and customers.
That is in Bill C-4. That is just another little fact for
members of the Reform Party. I know it is difficult for them to
absorb.
The recommendations that deal with the powers of the Canadian
Wheat Board that came from the Western Grain Marketing Panel are
all contained in Bill C-4.
Turning to the governance issue, the panel recommended that the
board should be governed by a board of directors of not less than
11 and not more than 15 elected and appointed members. The panel
went on to recommend that the board should be composed of a
majority of farmers, a minimum of three representatives from the
trade and a minimum of two representatives from the federal
government.
Bill C-4 follows that pretty closely I would say. There would
be 15 directors with a two-thirds majority elected by farmers.
There is no requirement in Bill C-4 that the trade be represented
on the board of directors as there are a number of groups who are
concerned with having individuals with financial interests in the
grain trade on the board. But the government would appoint five
directors and they could well come from the industry, the
financial sector, academia or other backgrounds.
Another recommendation of the panel on governance was that there
should be a modern corporate structure under which a chief
executive officer would be hired and would be responsible for the
overall operations of the board reporting to the board through
its chairperson. This recommendation has been largely fulfilled
in Bill C-4. There would be a chief executive officer responsible
for overall operations and there would be a chairperson of the
board. The one difference is that the chief executive officer
would be a member of the board of directors itself.
Another recommendation from the panel was to ensure a rapid and
smooth transition to the new governance structure. The panel
recommended that the first members of the board of directors
should be appointed.
1640
This recommendation was followed in C-72. However when the bill
did not pass, it was decided that in order to live up to the
commitment to have a board of directors with elected members in
place by the end of this year, Bill C-4 could dispense with that
interim board of fully appointed members. The change in C-4 has
been well received.
Another recommendation was that the Canadian Wheat Board
Advisory Committee should continue to function until all farmer
members of the board are elected. In Bill C-4 the Canadian Wheat
Board Advisory Committee would continue until their terms are up,
which is expected to be at the same time the new board members
would be ready to take office.
Finally there was a recommendation that a mechanism should be
established which makes it possible for the Canadian Wheat Board
to begin development of a capital base. Bill C-4 goes part way
in that direction in that there is a provision for a contingency
fund but it is limited to three uses. It could not be used to
make investments in facilities but the contingency fund partly
goes in the direction of this recommendation.
If we look objectively at the 13 recommendations that were made
by the panel with respect to the Canadian Wheat Board, Bill C-4
in many cases follows them exactly and in the other cases follows
them quite closely. Those are absolutely the facts. I dare any
member of the Reform Party to try to refute those facts.
Where Bill C-4 does not follow the recommendations of the panel
is with respect to the recommendations it made on feed barley
being placed under an open market system not precluding the
Canadian Wheat Board while malt barley would be marketed solely
through the Canadian Wheat Board. Another recommendation that was
not followed was that unregistered varieties of wheat should be
exempt from the jurisdiction of the wheat board.
Those recommendations were not followed up in C-4. The
government did not believe that those recommendations were
workable. In fact the panel itself had some doubts about the
workability of the recommendation on barley. Instead what is in
Bill C-4 is the mechanism for farmers to decide themselves,
through whom they elect to the board of directors or in some
cases through a vote of farmers, to what extent wheat and barley
could be covered under the Canadian Wheat Board or in an open
market system with or without the participation of the Canadian
Wheat Board.
As well there is a provision in the bill that provides a process
for farmers to add oats, canola, flax and rye to the jurisdiction
of the wheat board with or without the export control provisions.
Let me summarize. With respect to the organization and
operational tools of the Canadian Wheat Board, Bill C-4 follows
very closely the recommendations of the Western Grain Marketing
Panel. With respect to the panel's recommendations on
jurisdiction for wheat and barley marketing, the bill puts in
place a full democratic process for farmers to make those
decisions themselves, and I underline themselves.
As members can see, contrary to what the official opposition has
claimed, we have in fact followed the recommendations of the
Western Grain Marketing Panel very closely.
Madam Speaker, how much time do I have left?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): You have three
minutes.
An hon. member: You are done.
Mr. John Harvard: There goes the Reform Party again. It
really kills them to listen, does it not? It really kills them.
I want to pay tribute to all the prairie farmers who have
participated in this debate with regard to changing the wheat
board.
Prairie farmers are very democratically inclined. They take
their business very seriously. They take the wheat board very
seriously. They take the government seriously and they take
politics seriously. They have made an enormous contribution to
the debate which has been going on for a long, long time. I want
to pay tribute to all the farmers who have worked so hard in
trying to improve this bill as much as possible and who have
given us the benefit of their views.
1645
I know this is going to kill the Reform Party, but I would like
to pay tribute to the minister responsible for the wheat board.
If ever there was a minister who worked harder and who listened
more to the stakeholders I would like to know who that minister
is. This minister has bent over backward to find common ground,
balance, equilibrium and compromise so that everyone's
aspirations and desires would be reflected in the bill. The
minister has done a magnificent job.
Let us be absolutely frank. If you are on the fringe of this
debate, if you are a fanatic, you are not going to appreciate the
hard work of this minister.
I know that most prairie farmers are fair minded. They are
moderate people. They belong to the mainstream. What they want
is a workable bill. They want a bill which will work. They do
not expect that absolutely everything they desire will be in it.
That is simply not possible in this kind of world.
We would have to exclude the Reform Party because its members
live in some kind of ideological dream.
I wanted to put those remarks on the record for the sake of
facts.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It is my duty pursuant to
Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon.
member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, Airbus; the hon. member
for Qu'Appelle, banking; the hon. member for Vancouver East,
education.
[English]
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I will get to my question in a minute. First I would
like to say that the refusal of the Liberal government to address
the monopoly of the Canadian Wheat Board means that it will
continue to not be subject to competition. It will continue to
not have to get the best price for farmers' grain. Canadian
farmers will be forced to continue to accept far below world
market prices for the grain they grow.
I was raised on a farm. The reason I chose a career other than
farming is because there is no money in farming. I was forced to
embark on a career other than what I might have had simply for
economic reasons and simply because of the fact that the Canadian
Wheat Board has been keeping farmers poor and not giving them the
price for their grain which they deserve.
I resent eastern politicians and Ottawa lawyers telling my
family, my friends, my neighbours and the constituents I
represent “Here is how you must market your grain. You must
accept lower than market value because we are going to dictate
how you do it. But that does not apply to Ontario. It does not
apply to the people we represent, but you people out west have to
accept what we tell you”.
How dare they have the audacity and the contempt to force the
bill down the throats of western farmers.
Mr. John Harvard: Madam Speaker, I would be absolutely
delighted to answer that question.
First I would like to remind the hon. member from Saskatoon or
wherever he comes from—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. John Harvard: Two people can play that game. If the
hon. member thinks that he can tell eastern Canadians they are
off limits when it comes to debating the wheat board, there are
people who might want to say to members of the Reform Party “You
are from Saskatchewan” or “You are from Alberta” or “You are
from Manitoba and because of some residency clause you cannot
speak”. I think that members of the Reform Party would be
offended. If they were offended they would be right.
1650
When we come to the House we all enjoy equal rights. We do not
have a residency clause. We do not say to the people in the west
that they cannot talk about a problem in Quebec or in the
maritimes. We so not say to people in eastern Canada that they
cannot say anything about farm issues in the west. The Reform
Party simply does not get it.
I will address the member's question about monopoly. He seemed
to imply in his question that we did not address monopoly. I
have another small fact for the Reform Party. We did. We left
it in place because prairie farmers want single desk selling.
They want an agency. They want the Canadian Wheat Board to sell
their grain. Why do they want single desk selling? Because the
Canadian Wheat Board has proven over and over again that it is
the best in the marketplace. Nobody can touch it. That has been
shown.
When the Reform Party says that we have not addressed monopoly,
we have. We have addressed it because farmers want single desk
selling. If they want it, that is what they are going to have,
and they deserve it.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I sat here and listened to the member opposite give his
speech. Now I fully understand why out west the House in Ottawa
is called the bull capital of Canada. There is no doubt about
that.
The hon. member talked a lot about democracy. He mentioned
democracy in his speech. To me democracy is the understanding
that we have freedom of choice. Bill C-4 does not give us that
freedom of choice.
I have a very specific question for the member. What assurance
do the farmers on the prairies have that the people the
government will appoint to these boards will have farming or
marketing experience? What assurance is there in Bill C-4 of
that?
Mr. John Harvard: Madam Speaker, that is actually a
pretty good question coming from the Reform Party. He has
probably overshot his mark but it is a good question.
The answer goes something like this. We trust farmers. Farmers
know their business very well. They know whom to pick to
represent their best interests. I have absolutely no doubt in my
mind for a minute that they will pick outstanding representatives
of their interests to sit on the board.
The Reform Party has members from Saskatchewan. I suspect some
of these members may have heard of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, a
pretty successful organization. Would the member not agree? What
does it have? It has farmers who sit on its board through its
system of delegation and selection. They do a pretty darn good
job. Look at the growth of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. It has
done well.
If farmers can do a very good job of representing farmers'
interests on the board of directors of the Saskatchewan Wheat
Pool, I suspect they can do a job that is equally good or perhaps
even better on the Canadian Wheat Board.
In this whole thing we have to trust farmers. They have good
judgment, something the Reform Party does not seem to get.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the most accurate thing the hon. member for
Charleswood—Assiniboine said during his ramblings of the past 20
minutes was something to the effect that now he would try to
stick to the facts.
1655
I want to ask him the question I asked his hon. colleague from
Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington earlier in the debate.
I asked a very specific question, one that is very simple to
answer.
The hon. member is the parliamentary secretary to the minister
of agriculture. He sits from time to time on the standing
committee, as I do. He was present, I believe, during most of
the presentations that were made over the very shortened time
that we had Bill C-4 before the committee. I would like to know
how many presenters appearing before the standing committee—and
I would like him to identify who they would be—supported Bill
C-4. How many farm groups would there be?
Second, since he has such great faith in the Canadian farmer, as
I do, especially since I was one for about 20 years, would he be
willing to have the farmers decide the fate of Bill C-4 with a
straightforward plebiscite question?
Mr. John Harvard: Madam Speaker, on the question of
plebiscite, not too long ago, I guess about a year ago, we had a
plebiscite on the prairies regarding barley and it was approved
by farmers. They wanted barley to stay under the jurisdiction of
the board, something the Reform Party did not want.
The member from Prince George mentioned that I sit on the
Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. I am there all
the time, not occasionally. I am a full member. There is no
such thing as a part time member of the committee on agriculture.
He raised a question about how many groups showed up that were
opposed to the bill and how many were in support of the bill. Is
that the question?
Mr. Jay Hill: How many supported it.
Mr. John Harvard: Anybody who knows the committee process
knows full well it is those organizations that have a concern
about a bill that are put to the front of the queue. They are
the ones who are heard more than anyone else. Organizations,
individuals and in this case farmers who are happy with the bill
or just have some minor reservations about it do not seek to come
before the committee. So, yes, we had a number of organizations
concerned about the so-called exclusion clause and they were
allowed to come before the committee.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Blackstrap, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to rise at this late date to speak to
Bill C-4. I have a few comments to make. I would like to inform
the Chair that I will be sharing my time with the member for Elk
Island.
Two things I am going to open with and I am also going to close
with were mentioned just a couple of minutes ago by my colleague
from Prince George—Peace River. If the government is convinced
that farmers support Bill C-4 then put it to a binding
referendum, straight and simple. There is no question.
When we look at Bill C-4 and the farmers and farm groups I have
talked to about the bill over the last few months I do not see
anybody on either side of the debate who likes the bill. The
people who are solidly in support of single desk monopolies do
not like the bill. Neither do some of the other people who would
like the choice of a dual marketing system or any other type of
system.
When nobody likes a particular piece of legislation it kind of
reminds me of Bill C-68. We have a government which is saying
“This is what is good for you people. Do what we tell you to do
and be nice little children out in western Canada. Do as we say
and we will get along just fine”. It does not work. It cannot
work. It is the same type of arrogance we saw in Bill C-68 from
the government in the last parliament.
I remember particularly one day in June 1996 that we held a
debate on the wheat board in the House. That was in the last
parliament. I looked across the way and we counted 15 lawyers
who were Liberal members and 12 farmers on the Reform side in the
House at that time. It struck me as ironic that there would be
15 lawyers, most of whom had never been to a farm in
Saskatchewan, telling farmers from Saskatchewan, Manitoba and
Alberta how they should do their business.
I do not understand that kind of thinking. It is something that
I just cannot accept.
1700
I look at this bill and I see tinkering around the edges of the
wheat board. I think the minister knows full well that unless he
makes some changes, the wheat board will most likely explode from
within rather than from without. He knows of the tremendous
pressure from farmers and farm groups on the Canadian Wheat Board
and yet he has failed. He has a very good opportunity here to
make some changes that farmers can accept, yet he has failed to
do that.
The two things that farmers tell me most is that they would like
to have the opportunity to look at the books of the Canadian
Wheat Board. They also tell me that they would like to elect all
of the wheat board directors. Quite simple.
I think if you had those two basic fundamental steps, a lot of
the pressure on the wheat board would be taken off. There is no
question about it.
I think what Bill C-4 is about, almost as much as it is about
the right to market grain, is basic rights in this country.
Again, as I said before, we have seen over the past number of
years the inability of this Liberal government to recognize the
basic fundamental rights of Canadians on a lot of issues.
Another one that is before the Supreme Court is the right of
Quebec to decide its own future. Our government fails to
recognize the need for Canadians to have those particular rights
and the rights of property, as I mentioned before, Bill C-16, the
right to own a gun, the right to sell that bushel of wheat that
you grew on your farm, yet you have no right to sell it in your
own best interests.
A fellow came into my office when I was the member for Moose
Jaw—Lake Centre in the last parliament. He said he had a pile
of durum on his ground in his yard, about 10,000 bushels. He
said he could take that durum across the line and get $8 a bushel
for it. In Canada there was no market at that point in time to
sell that durum. He asked what he was supposed to do. He said
he was going broke, that if he did not sell the durum he would
most likely lose his farm. He asked if he should take it across
the line.
What is anyone in their right mind going to tell this man? You
have to tell him that he has to do the best that he thinks is
right for him. Nobody could argue that. I have no idea what the
man did but if it was me and it was my durum, I would be hauling
it across the line to save my farm. I would just do that.
I want to touch on the arrogance that we see from this
government. I have listened to the debate today about how
farmers support Bill C-4. I would like to ask the government how
many Liberal MPs have been to Saskatchewan, how many have been in
the communities of Dundurn, Val Marie or Smuts, gone to the
coffee shop and asked the farmers what they think about C-4.
I do not recall one Liberal MP being in Saskatchewan. Of
course, we have to remember there are very few Liberal MPs in
Saskatchewan. The parliamentary secretary said he believed
farmers were fairly intelligent people. They are. They did kick
out four Liberal MPs in the last election. Yes, I think they are
relatively intelligent.
The question is how can you make a statement saying that farmers
support this bill when you do not listen to the farmers in
British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. You cannot
have consensus unless you listen to people. They have not done
that. They have taken the advisory committee recommendations and
put half measures in place in many cases. The minister said they
acted on all the recommendations.
There was one. The advisory committee recommended that farmers
be allowed to sell a certain portion of their wheat off-board. I
do not recall the minister saying they acted on that one. Maybe
I was not in my chair at that time, but I do not think he
mentioned that.
It comes down to rights, to democracy and to the ability of any
government, whether it be this Liberal government or any other
government, to listen to the people, to let the farmers decide
how they want to run their business, within certain regulations
of course.
In Saskatchewan if you look at the state of agriculture, the NDP
provincial government will say that all is wonderful.
1705
That is a far cry from the truth. The fact is that there are
3,500 in my province who are in arrears to the Saskatchewan Crop
Insurance Corporation. More farmers will probably go bankrupt
this year then have in the last two or three years put together.
That is what I would consider the edge of disaster for
agriculture in Saskatchewan.
One of those concerns is the wheat board and one of those is
transportation. We have problems out there. If only this
government would take the simple time to listen to what the
people are saying, some of those problems could be avoided. Some
of those bankruptcies that will ultimately happen, and have
happened, in our province of Saskatchewan will rest on the
shoulders of this Liberal government. Indirectly, the blame for
those bankruptcies can go to this Liberal government. In my
opinion that is a shame.
I want to end by saying if this government has so much faith in
Bill C-4 and if they believe that the farmers in western Canada
who live under the Canadian Wheat Board support that bill by a
vast majority, as most of the government members will tell us,
then put your money where your mouth is. Let us put Bill C-4 to
the test, to a binding referendum among farmers. I tell you, Mr.
Speaker, if it comes back and the result is in favour of Bill
C-4, I will stand by that decision as well.
The Speaker: Questions and comments? I see two members
standing who are going to split the time.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am perplexed that when an
issue is before Parliament that is composed of members elected
from across the country and who are given a mandate to debate an
issue, all of a sudden the Reform will surrender that
responsibility to another election process, a referendum.
We have been given the mandate to debate. I recall three kinds
of politics articulated by Robert Bellah in his book “Habits of
the Heart”. He speaks about the politics of the community when
there is a consensus. That will be difficult to find in this
Chamber. Then there is the second kind of politics, the politics
of interest, that by definition there has to be competing and
sometimes conflicting interests. But then we, in Parliament,
must govern. We in Parliament must make a decision and not
relinquish that again to yet another process that will be costly
and time consuming.
I appeal to the Reform Party to make its decision known and to
give its votes, but let the politics of the nation prevail and
that of the majority. If you live in a democracy, when the
majority of this Chamber so wills, let it be done and not
surrender to yet another election process.
Mr. Allan Kerpan: Mr. Speaker, I can almost say after
this member has spoken, that I can rest my case. That is exactly
what I am saying. Let us have a full democratic process where
the people who are most affected by this legislation have the
opportunity to make a decision.
The member opposite was alluding to the fact that we are all
elected from across the country to make those decisions. He is
right. If there is a bill in this House on fisheries and oceans
in Atlantic Canada, I do not have much expertise in that. I like
fishing but that is as far as it goes. I am not going to be the
guy who stands up and says “this is what you should do in
Newfoundland” because I have no idea what the fishermen in
Newfoundland think.
On the flip side of that, there is no way on God's green earth
that an MP who probably has never travelled to central
Saskatchewan can say “this is what I want you to do farmer Jones
in Kedleston, Saskatchewan, because it is good for you”. It is
not because they are bad people, it is because they have no
ability. There is no possible way that they could know what that
farmer in central Saskatchewan faces.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt you
have one minute.
1710
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the hon. member for Blackstrap.
How does he tell his constituents or what does he say to the
farmers that he represents? How does he explain that Bill C-4
will apply only to farmers in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba,
but the restrictions that are placed upon them by the bill will
not affect farmers in other provinces? How does he explain that?
Mr. Allan Kerpan: Mr. Speaker, that is a very good
question from my colleague for Saskatoon—Humboldt.
What I tell the people in my riding or the farmers that I speak
with on a daily basis is that it is a very unusual type of
situation where we would have three prairie provinces which live
under different rules, forced rules from the government of
Canada, than farmers in other provinces.
I think that is part of the frustration that farmers see. They
see farmers in Ontario who do not live under the same rules. In
fact, I don't believe the name of the Canadian Wheat Board should
be the Canadian Wheat Board. It should be the “Western Canadian
Wheat Board” because it really only does apply to provinces in
western Canada. That is part of that whole frustration.
As I said in my speech, if we don't make big changes to the
wheat board, it is not the farmers or the Reform Party or the
Grain Growers Association who are going to erode and destroy the
wheat board. The wheat board is going to destroy itself.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
great honour to stand in the House of Commons in Ottawa, our
nation's capital, and speak on behalf of farmers.
I come from farming stock. My grandparents on both sides of my
family were pioneers in the west. They opened up some land.
They began farming. My dad who is now in his mid-eighties still
can't stay off of the farm. At seeding time and harvest, he goes
out there and he has to see what the boys are doing.
It just sort of gets into your blood. Once you have been
involved in growing grain, in producing food to feed not only
Canadians but also people around the world, it is much more than
a matter of just having a job and a livelihood. It is a matter
of great service.
My brother who has taken over our family farm has taught me a
lot in terms of patience and perseverance, as did my dad, farming
in the dirty thirties. I remember one bumper sticker that my
brother had on his half-ton that I think is very appropriate. It
said: When you complain about the farmers, don't talk with your
mouth full.
I think that is so important because it is the farmers who
produce our food and, without food, we die. Without food and the
export of food, our country's economy takes a huge beating
because so much of what we produce is for the export market.
I have a great honour to stand here and speak on behalf of
farmers, not only because of my family involvement in it, but
also because of the fact that I represent a rural constituency in
Alberta where people farm. To me, the essence of the debate is
the individual freedom of these farmers to manage their affairs.
We all know the difficulties under which farmers operate. They
have the vicissitudes of weather, the vagaries of government.
They have the high costs of machinery and input costs of other
kinds. It is a great affront to me when the very fundamental
freedom that they have to sell their own market, to sell their
own product, is taken away.
I know I have to cut myself short here because of the time. In
conclusion, I want to quote A. de Tocqueville, a great
philosopher, from his book Democracy in America. This is a
quotation that came to my mind. I looked it up this afternoon
because I wanted to get this into the record. I quote:
—after having thus successfully taken each member of the
community in its powerful grasp, and fashioned him at will, the
supreme power then extends its arms over the whole community. It
covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated
rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds
and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate to rise above
the crowd.
The will of man is not shattered but softened, bent and guided;
men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly
restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it
prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses,
enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation
is reduced to be nothing better than a flock of timid and
industrial animals, of which government is the shepherd.
1715
Mr. Speaker, I will not read to the end of it. I will just say
in conclusion I do not want to live in such a Canada. I do not
want to live in a country where some distant autocratic
government dictates to the people what they can and what they
cannot do. I want to live in a democracy where the will of those
people is reflected in the rules.
That is why I urge all members to vote in favour of the
amendment which is in front of us now, which is to hold this bill
for a short time while we examine it further and get it right.
[Translation]
The Speaker: It being 5.15 p.m., pursuant to order made
Thursday, February 12, 1998, the House will now proceed to the
taking of the deferred division on the motion at third reading of
Bill C-4.
The question is on the amendment.
[English]
As far as the recommittal of the bill, the hon. member for
Prince George—Peace River moved:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the
word “That” and substituting the following therefor:
“Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board—
Shall I dispense?
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: No.
—and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be not now
read a third time but be referred back to the Standing Committee
on Agriculture for the purpose of reconsidering clause 8 in
section 9 to ensure that the Board show such particulars and
furnish such information as requested for the purpose of an audit
by the Auditor General; and provide such records and information
as requested under Access to Information Act in so far as the
records and information requested have been in the process or
under the control of the Corporation for at least three years
before the day on which the request is received by the
Corporation and that the Corporation shall continue to be a
government institution within the meaning of the Access to
Information Act”.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
1750
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
| Bailey
|
Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
| Brison
| Cadman
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
|
Gouk
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guimond
|
Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lefebvre
| Loubier
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Matthews
|
McNally
| Mercier
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Obhrai
| Pankiw
| Penson
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Power
|
Price
| Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Ritz
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| St - Jacques
|
Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
|
Vellacott
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 100
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
|
Bonwick
| Boudria
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Cullen
| Davies
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
|
Dion
| Discepola
| Dockrill
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Earle
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guarnieri
| Harb
| Harvard
| Hubbard
|
Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
|
Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Karygiannis
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lincoln
| MacAulay
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Mancini
| Manley
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Massé
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McTeague
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proctor
|
Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
|
Riis
| Robillard
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| Solomon
| Speller
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
|
St - Julien
| Stoffer
| Szabo
| Thibeault
|
Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vautour
| Volpe
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Whelan
| Wilfert – 154
|
PAIRED
Members
Bradshaw
| Cannis
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Copps
|
Crête
| de Savoye
| Finestone
| Guay
|
Lalonde
| Marceau
| Ménard
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
Parrish
| Rock
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Telegdi
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
1800
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bevilacqua
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Caplan
| Carroll
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lavigne
|
Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marchi
| Marleau
| Massé
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McTeague
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Robillard
| Saada
| Scott
(Fredericton)
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| Speller
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
Szabo
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Volpe
| Wappel
|
Whelan
| Wilfert – 138
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Alarie
| Anders
|
Asselin
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bachand
(Saint - Jean)
|
Bailey
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brien
|
Brison
| Cadman
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Cummins
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| Dockrill
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
|
Earle
| Epp
| Forseth
| Fournier
|
Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guimond
| Hart
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
| Laliberte
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lefebvre
| Loubier
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mancini
| Manning
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Matthews
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Mercier
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Pankiw
| Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Power
| Price
| Proctor
|
Ramsay
| Reynolds
| Riis
| Ritz
|
Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| Solomon
| St - Hilaire
| Stinson
|
St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
|
Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Turp
| Vautour
| Vellacott
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 116
|
PAIRED
Members
Bradshaw
| Cannis
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Copps
|
Crête
| de Savoye
| Finestone
| Guay
|
Lalonde
| Marceau
| Ménard
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
Parrish
| Rock
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Telegdi
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Venne
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
The Speaker: The House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
Order Paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[Translation]
CRIMINAL CODE
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ) moved that Bill C-247, an
act to amend the Criminal Code (genetic manipulation), be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
She said: Madam Speaker, I was told I could have 15 minutes
to introduce this bill and that I could take five more minutes at
the end. I would like to know whether you would allow me 20
minutes right now, because I would take them right now.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): No. You have 15 minutes
now, and five minutes only—
An hon. member: No.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): In fact, I am told that
the member for Drummond may take her allotted 20 minutes right
away. But before she begins, I would like to ask her who seconds
the motion.
Mrs. Pauline Picard: The member for Laval Centre, Mrs.
Dalphond-Guiral, seconds the motion.
I am happy to take part in the debate on Bill C-247, the
purpose of which is to amend the Criminal Code. We are dealing
with genetic manipulation, but to be more precise, the purpose of
the bill is to have the Criminal Code prohibit cloning of human
beings.
1805
I am particularly proud because I sponsored Bill C-247. I
would also like to thank my colleague from Laval Centre for
seconding the motion.
Before I begin, I would like to read you an editorial by
Ginette Gagnon of the Nouvelliste, who said:
Less than a year ago, the world was astounded to learn
that a Scottish researcher had just produced the first adult
animal clone, the famous Dolly. It appeared unthinkable that
such genetic engineering could be used on humans. Now an
American physicist from Chicago, Dr. Richard Seed, would like
to defy scientific morals and open a lab to clone humans.
The doctor, described as mad, will likely succeed in carrying
out his project if the international community takes no action
to stop him and more specifically to prohibit this practice
throughout the world.
On February 27, the science magazine, Nature, published a
report in which the authors described how a team of researchers
succeeded for the first time in history in producing a healthy lamb
from breast tissue taken from an adult sheep. It was a first. The
main point was not the birth of the lamb, known as Dolly, it was
the fact that human cloning was a possibility.
I will define a clone for people. What is it? The popular
definition is that it is an organism, a person, an animal or a
plant that is a completely identical or nearly identical copy of
another organism in terms of appearance or function.
On the biological level, it refers to a population of organisms,
cells or genetically identical DNA molecules resulting from the
asexual reproduction of a single organism.
Shortly after the news of the cloning of Dolly, we in fact
learned that scientists in Oregon had cloned two monkeys from
embryonic cells, a first among primates. One way or another,
regardless of the techniques used, it is very easily imaginable
that, with the rapid progress of recent years, human cloning may be
commonplace before the end of the century.
People's concerns about the attempts to clone humans are
therefore totally justified, even if no one has as yet advanced one
single acceptable reason, from the ethical point of view, for
performing such a manipulation. This, then, is the context in
which I introduce Bill C-247.
By so doing, I have no delusions that I am putting an end to
the debate on medically assisted reproductive techniques. On the
contrary, I am aware that Bill C-247 does not offer a blanket
response to all questions, nor is it intended to. In fact, if
there is one lesson that can be learned from the evidence heard
during the committee examination of Bill C-47, which dealt with the
new reproductive techniques in general, it is that not all
techniques can be put in the same basket, and they cannot be
regulated as one whole. Each technique has its own specific
characteristics, and raises specific questions and reflections
which require different types of action.
I would like to review what has gone on in Canada in
connection with the new reproductive technologies. The first
government inquiry into the new reproductive technologies was the
1989 Baird Commission. Its mandate was to look into current and
foreseeable progress in science and medicine relating to
reproductive techniques, their repercussions on health and
research, their moral, social, economic and legal consequences, and
their impact on the general public, and to recommend policies and
protective measures to be adopted.
1810
Four years of studies, 40,000 witnesses and $28 million later,
the Baird Commission tabled its report in November 1993. The main
conclusions and recommendations were broadly similar to the foreign
studies on this topic, in particular the Warlock report done in
1980 by Great Britain.
The federal government was slow to follow up on the report,
preferring, unlike the Baird Commission, to extend the
consultations to provincial governments. The Bloc Quebecois asked
many questions in the House, in order to force the government to
table the bill, which would criminalize certain practices related
to the new reproductive technologies.
It was not until July 1995 that the government finally took
concrete action, imposing a voluntary moratorium prohibiting nine
reproductive techniques, including the cloning of human embryos.
The Bloc Quebecois, and a number of editorial writers, former
members of the Baird Commission, including Patricia Baird, media,
and interest groups, such as women's and religious groups, have
criticized the voluntary nature of the moratorium, since certain
physicians and clinics are continuing to perform techniques
prohibited by this moratorium.
In January 1996, the federal government announced that it was
creating a temporary advisory committee, with the mandate to
enforce the moratorium, follow the development of new reproductive
technologies and advise the minister.
As you might imagine, this purely voluntary moratorium has not
been enforced.
As an example, we could mention the advertisements that appeared in
the University of Toronto's Varsity, offering to buy ova from young
women for infertile couples.
In addition, some establishments continue to pay sperm donors,
and physicians say some patients still ask them to retrieve sperm
from their deceased husbands.
On June 14, 1996, the then federal Minister of Health, David
Dingwall, introduced Bill C-47, along with a statement of
principles setting out the federal government's proposed overall
policy on management of NRTs. Bill C-47 included the techniques
prohibited under the moratorium, and added certain others. It must
be made clear, however, that these techniques were not made
offences under the Criminal Code, and that as a result provincial
authorities would not have been responsible for enforcing the law.
The second phase the federal government hoped to accomplish
was to amend Bill C-47 to include a regulatory framework on all
techniques of reproduction and genetic manipulation.
A national control and monitoring agency for the new
reproductive technologies would have ensured application of the
legislation, issued permits, inspected clinics and enforced the
regulations. As well, that body would have monitored developments
in NRTs and advised the federal Minister of Health in this area.
The Bloc Quebecois, although it approved in principle of Bill
C-47, was vehemently opposed to the creation of a new national
agency, and objected to the fact that there was no provision being
added to the Criminal Code.
During the Standing Committee on Health, witnesses voiced a
number of misgivings about the content of Bill C-47; they felt that
it was too restrictive, too negative, that it was hindering
research and depriving infertile couples of their only remaining
option for having a child.
The most common comment made by witnesses was that it is
inappropriate to put assisted reproduction procedures and genetic
technologies in the same legal framework. These are, they said,
different fields requiring different frameworks. Despite all these
disagreements, however, there was one consensus: the necessity to
take the necessary steps as soon as possible to ban the cloning of
human beings.
1815
On this point in particular, everyone agrees that there is
not, at this time, any good justification for allowing the cloning
of human beings, whatever the procedure used.
When the federal election was called last April, Bill C-47
died on the Order Paper, just as it was about to come back to the
House for third reading. There is good reason to think the
government was not unhappy to see the bill expire.
In fact, numerous criticisms raised by the scientific
community with respect to the content and even the spirit of
several provisions of the federal bill would have forced the
government to make significant changes.
One of the results of the death of Bill C-47 is that all
research and experiments in Canada are still subject to the
voluntary moratorium introduced by the then Minister of Health, Ms.
Marleau, in July 1995. Need I mention that urgent action is
required?
In its final report, the Royal Commission on New Reproductive
Technologies concluded, and I quote: “We have judged that certain
activities conflict so sharply with the values espoused by
Canadians and by this Commission, and are so potentially harmful to
the interests of individuals and of society, that they must be
prohibited by the federal government under threat of criminal
sanction”.
These activities include human zygote/embryo research related
to ectogenesis, cloning, animal/human hybrids, the transfer of
zygotes to another species, and so on.
While the members of the international community seem
unanimous in their opposition to all forms of human cloning,
concerns over possible attempts at human cloning are justified. No
one has yet shown that this practice does not involve serious
ethical problems. Scientists, including the researchers who have
cloned Dolly, have indicated they have no intention of trying to
clone human beings.
However, there are a number of supporters of animal cloning.
According to some, it might be possible to create strains of
animals able to produce in their milk great quantities of proteins
that may be useful in treating human diseases.
Experiments like the one producing Dolly could also help
researchers better understand human reproduction and hereditary
illnesses, like cancer.
A clause in Bill C-47 prohibited human cloning. It is this
clause we have incorporated in Bill C-247. It criminalizes human
cloning, without however prohibiting scientific research in
genetics, which may be beneficial in a number of areas.
The main clause of Bill C-247 reads as follows:
1. The Criminal Code is amended by adding the following after
section 286:
286.1(1) No person shall knowingly
(a) manipulate an ovum, zygote or embryo for the purpose
of producing a zygote or embryo that contains the same genetic
information as a living or deceased human being or a zygote,
embryo or foetus, or implant in a woman a zygote or embryo so
produced; or
(b) alter the genetic structure of an ovum, human sperm,
zygote or embryo if the altered structure is capable of
transmission to a subsequent generation.
(2) No person shall offer to carry out any procedure
prohibited by subsection (1).
(3) No person shall offer consideration to any person for
carrying out any procedure prohibited by subsection (1).
1820
Since all known and imaginable cloning techniques will still
require either sperm or a human ovum, or both, banning modification
to their genetic structure and their manipulation for the purpose
of perpetuating genetic characteristics in other fetuses or
embryos, closes the door right from the start to the process of
manipulation which leads to human cloning.
Clauses 2 and 3 in the bill extend the penalties to any person
offering or requesting a deliberate human cloning experiment.
This also closes the door to the researchers of this world, the
likes of Richard Seed, who might be tempted to offer their services
in Canada, as well as to those who might be tempted to seek out
their services.
On numerous occasions, the Bloc Quebecois has called on the
federal government to intervene in order to forbid these practices
relating to the new reproductive technologies. Numerous questions
were asked in this House to spur the government into action.
We also issued two press releases in which we called for
criminalization of the sale of ova, embryos and fetal tissue. In
May 1994, Minister Allan Rock stated that the bill was slated for
introduction that fall. The very limited voluntary moratorium
followed only in the summer of 1995, while Bill C-47, which merely
transform the moratorium into law, was introduced in June 1996.
Now it is February 1998.
Nothing has been done yet, and it is very troubling.
Finally, and at another level, it must be emphasized that the
new reproductive technologies raise an extremely serious and
worrisome problem for the very future of our society as we know it.
While the birth rate is plummeting, genetic medicine and the
NRTs are evolving exponentially. The use of these technologies
challenges our values, because it involves the very definition of
the foundations of our society, our descendants.
Within the medical community itself, stakeholders do not agree
on the limits that should or should not be imposed. Within the
general public, there is even greater confusion because of a lack
of knowledge and information.
I quote Louise Vandelac, a sociologist and specialist in this
field.
She wrote:
Through ignorance, indifference, naivete or defeatism, we
therefore leave up to the so-called specialists something
that, from the dawn of time, has ensured the survival of the
species and the network of family and social relationships,
procreation, filiation and their evolution, when what is at
stake is nothing less than our own and humanity's
transformation.
How should we react to the “dematernalization” of procreation?
At what point should we call a halt to the genetic manipulation
that some people would like to use to eliminate certain diseases,
but that others would like to use to improve humankind?
I will conclude. I would simply like to tell you that I am
deeply worried about the scientist I mentioned earlier who wants to
open human cloning clinics and who said that cloning and
reprogramming DNA is the first real step toward man taking his
place beside God.
If that is not blasphemy, I do not know what is. I therefore
ask all members in the House to give their support for Bill C-247.
Our society depends on it.
[English]
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to participate in today's debate.
1825
I begin by saying that I believe for one of the challenges of
technological innovation, particularly in the health field, we
must answer this question. Just because we can do something,
should we do it and should we permit it to be done.
That is the question for us here in the federal legislature. It
is also an issue that I dealt with in the provincial legislature
during my time there. One of the pieces of legislation I had the
privilege to introduce and carry through the Ontario legislature
was the independent health facilities legislation.
Most people here probably have never heard of it. However, one
of the public policy reasons for introducing that legislation was
that many things were happening outside the hospitals in Ontario
without the same kind of quality assurance and accountability
that we had in hospital.
The reason was that technology was permitting things to be done
in doctors' offices and in clinics outside the hospital that
traditionally had always had to take place in hospital.
This legislation was to provide a regulatory regime that would
provide public safety and quality assurance for the new
technologies that were permitting things to be done outside
hospital.
One of these new technologies was the whole area of reproductive
technology, in vitro fertilization and so forth. To my dismay,
following the passage of this legislation, the NDP government
deinsured the whole area of in vitro fertilization.
The legislation, the independent health facilities act
legislation, of course only applies to those services that are
insured.
Therefore there is the situation occurring in Ontario and in
most provinces across Canada with all the issues, ethical and
moral, of cloning, sex selection, genetic manipulation; of uses for
research purposes of the extra embryos, extra sperm; and sperm banks.
It is an entirely unregulated environment.
There are some things that the provinces could do today if they
wanted to deal with this issue as it related to uninsured
services. They could move to set up regulatory regimes to begin
that process.
I believe that federally we have a responsibility as well to
look at these emerging issues. Much work has already been done.
We know there was legislation previously tabled and I know the
federal Minister of Health is planning to table legislation that
will address many issues, including the issue of cloning the
member has brought forward today. I think she has done the House
a service in allowing us to begin this debate.
I want to make the point that I do not believe human cloning has a
place in Canada. We have an effective voluntary moratorium on
the use of many of these technologies. Those people with the
expertise to do these things have agreed collectively that they
should not do them outside a regulatory environment. It is not
happening and I do not believe it will happen because they know
there is legislation pending.
I say to the member and to all those who have an interest in
this topic, as I do, that it is my view the legislation should be
health legislation as opposed to Criminal Code. The reason I
believe it should be health legislation is that this is health
policy. It has to do with health issues.
Having said that, there are legal implications that I would like
to put forward, those that must be considered when this kind of
technology is considered.
In the test tube there is a sperm and an egg for the production
of an embryo that will become a fetus, which ultimately could
become a person, a baby. Who is the parent? That is one of the issues.
What inheritance rights would that child have?
1830
These issues are raised not only about that which could be
produced in a Petri dish or an incubator. They are also raised
because of the whole issue of surrogacy where an egg is taken
from one donor, sperm from another donor and then implanted in a
surrogate mother. Heaven knows what will happen in the future. We
have heard it might be possible to have them implanted in a male.
There could be a surrogate birth mother who is male. Does that
sound impossible? Is that science fiction? Given the rapid
changes in technology nothing is impossible.
We must contemplate the issues which face us in order to protect
our children in the future. These are societal issues. They must
be addressed comprehensively.
The issues of sex selection were dealt with in the previous
bill, Bill C-47. It stated very clearly that sex selection could
not be used in Canada, which I support, unless there is a very
good medical reason. Some exceptions and some reasons were
identified.
I know that in some cultures there is the desire to have one sex
over another. I personally find it offensive that anyone would
want to have a designer baby and would choose the sex of their
child in advance. It would not only disturb the laws of nature,
but there could also be very serious population problems on this
planet if that became the norm, so I want to express my concern.
Gene therapy needs to be highly regulated. In this world in
which we are living there may be in the future the opportunity to
eradicate disease through gene therapy. We may be able to say
that cancers can be beaten. We may be able to cure hereditary
diseases through gene therapy.
These are the debates we need to have. In a regulatory
environment we can do that. We need to discuss and debate these
things in the appropriate forum because when we discuss these
issues we also discuss our values and our beliefs. While we
would like to think that our values and our beliefs are Canadian
values and beliefs, we know there are some things we do not all
agree upon.
The overriding public policy consideration must be the
protection of those most vulnerable and the protection of our
children for the future.
Something else which was addressed in the previous bill had to
do with research. What kind of research are we going to permit
be done with the excess embryos which are produced as a result of
the extraction of eggs and the production of sperm in sperm
banks?
I believe we all agree that we must ban commercial surrogacy. We
must ban anyone from profiting in the trafficking of eggs and
sperm. We must state very clearly that human cloning has no place in
Canadian society.
We need comprehensive legislation. I know this government
intends to introduce legislation hopefully in the very near
future which will enhance Canadians' well-being by permitting
us to make choices about their involvement with reproductive
and genetic techniques. That is appropriate.
Many couples are desperate to have a child. We must understand
that people want access to this technology but it must be
appropriate. They must know that their choices will not include
the right to do anything which is unethical or harmful to their
health or to the health of their children.
I am particularly concerned that women have information about
what kind of results they can expect from the use of this
technology. We know that in some cases the results are
questionable. We need balance to protect the individual interests
of women and children.
1835
I look forward to the legislation that will be tabled. I thank
the member for bringing this debate to the House of Commons. I
am pleased that I had an opportunity to participate.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
it is my privilege to address this bill this evening. I thank my
colleague for bringing the bill forward. It is my privilege to
serve with her on the health committee. As with other members
opposite, we have a particularly keen interest in the subject
before us.
Some individuals would downplay the dangers of human cloning,
but some pretty valid concerns have already been expressed. I am
generally in agreement with this bill, but I would also make some
suggestions that I believe would strengthen the bill. Again, I do
commend the hon. member for Drummond for bringing the bill
forward this evening.
Some play down the dangers of human cloning. They say that human
beings already manipulate the natural order, so what is different
about this whole thing of human cloning. Some also say that a
human clone would simply be a delayed identical twin, delayed in
time and that one of the twins would be younger than the other,
so what it is the big deal, what is the difference here.
Some say that a clone would differ from the original subject due
to environment. Identical twins are not in fact identical in all
respects. Other factors such as environment and life experiences
and some of the choices they make all make for a different
individual over the course of the years.
Having said all that, the dangers are real. I want to highlight
and quickly mention some of what we understand to be health risks
to the would be clone.
The would be clone may be weaker, since cloning involves asexual
reproduction. Clones would not benefit from the new gene
combinations that result from sexual reproduction, those new gene
combinations that come along. As there is marriage, as there is
sexual liaison, that confers new strengths, a particularly
important one being resistance to disease. It is necessary for
the carrying on of human society. Therefore cloning could be
deliberately creating someone whose immune system is thereby
weaker and is inadequate. That I believe is wrong.
First then is that the clone would be weaker because of the lack
of these new gene combinations coming along conferring strength,
particularly that of being resistant to new diseases. That of
quicker aging also is a definite risk involved here. While
cloning might produce a “newborn”, the chromosomes in the
original cell taken from that adult, those cells would be as old
as the adult. That is why some who are involved in this area
suggest that persons produced in this way might age faster than
normal and may fall victim prematurely to the debilitating
diseases of old age.
As well, along the lines of health again, there would be this
need in this ongoing grotesque trial and error that might bring
us some fairly bizarre creations through trial and error to
perfect this technology on humans. The technology that produced
Dolly is far from perfect. It took hundreds of unsuccessful
attempts for that British team of scientists to produce Dolly.
Even if it could be perfected on non-human mammals, there are
differences in human cells that would require scientists to go
back again and again and work on a trial and error basis. Even if
it could be perfected in non-human mammals, there are differences
when it comes to reproducing a human clone.
Also there are some very considerable psychological and
emotional risks in the matter of human cloning. I believe cloning
would create a real perverse sense of ownership in both parties.
First, in the person who decided to have a clone made, whether
or not that person is the donor, there would be unusually
specific reasons behind the decision to clone a child. From the
very start that child would probably be viewed as existing for a
purpose. Usually the purpose is that of following in the
footsteps of the cloned adult.
Second, the clone might feel an obligation to fulfil some
purpose for which he or she was cloned. That would be a very
perverse kind of psychological and emotional risk to the
individual clone as well. There would be those kinds of
expectations. For example, a parent might want a child to turn
out a certain way, to be a super athlete, a movie star or
whatever. It is not healthy for the child.
We have read about some of the devastating consequences of such
expectations and how much more so when that is the very reason
for bringing the cloned individual into existence.
1840
Suppose someone who was a great athlete was cloned in order to
create another great athlete, a Wayne Gretzky or someone of that
sort. Should every human being not be free to pursue
intellectual challenges or a career in music or other
possibilities instead of being driven down a certain route by
parents who had that one clone made for such a purpose in life?
Suppose parents would like to clone one of their children who is
terminally ill. The child would be passing off this earthly
scene and they would clone another child to make up for it. That
cloned child would feel some very heavy obligation to act, behave
and speak just like his predecessor as a replacement for that
deceased child. It is a cruel and destructive environment in
which to grow up.
Those are some of the emotional and psychological risks we have
touched on briefly this evening.
If cloning were legal, then eugenics which we all disavow, and
discrimination would be unavoidable. That is another problem
with the issue of human cloning. There is no way to police
people's motives or to detect insincerity in their stated
motives.
I support the intention of this bill to ban human cloning. It
is a good piece of legislation to get us on the way in our
discussion of a total ban on human cloning. To date, 19 European
countries have signed an anti-cloning treaty. U.S. politicians
are proposing permanent bans on cloning.
I would offer for the record that this bill does not address the
extent to which human DNA can be used in producing animals with
human traits. There must be more discussion in greater detail
with expansion on this or some other bill. It is insufficient to
make human cloning illegal. There must be some detailed
regulations in this growing field, this edge field, that would
apply.
I have a constructive and helpful suggestion for the hon. member
for Drummond and other members who will be voting on this bill.
We should go further in penalizing those who would ignore the
law. It is not good enough to give a simple light slap on the
wrist or some fine. To me and others in the House the fine might
be significant but not to some.
PPL Therapeutics, the company that produced Dolly, estimates a
$1 billion market for itself early in the next decade. For
companies making that kind of money, fines in the order of
several hundreds of thousands of dollars will simply be a
nuisance. They would be like parking tickets instead of something
of real consequence or significance. We believe a fine is
inadequate. If companies start generating the kinds of revenues
in the billions that are indicated by that company, I believe
financial penalties will not provide a sufficient deterrent.
The threat of significant and serious prison time would be an
adequate deterrent for people who would attempt to break the ban
on cloning. If this bill passes, the justice committee should be
instructed to study what would be an appropriate prison term.
There should be a significant prison term for those who would
attempt to break the ban on human cloning if this bill were to
pass.
With those constructive suggestions I indicate my general
support for the bill. I will be trying to influence colleagues
and others to that end. Again, I offer my thanks for getting
this item on the agenda.
[Translation]
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take part in this debate, and
I would like to offer my support for the motion by the member for
Drummond to prohibit human cloning.
[English]
For members of Parliament who struggle on a day to day basis to
juggle the competing demands of this job, the idea of human
cloning certainly has some appeal.
1845
How many of us have actually said if only I had a clone? I know
my young sons Joe and Nick would love for me to be in two places
at once. It would help respond to constituents who wonder when I
am in Ottawa why I am not in Winnipeg, and when I am in Winnipeg
why I am not in Ottawa.
On the other hand the idea of there being two of me, or for that
matter there being two of anyone else, is darn scary. Imagine
cloning in the case of the Minister of Finance. Unlike the
chewing gum which promises to double your pleasure, double your
fun, we would have double the cutbacks, double the pain.
What would the world be like if we were able to clone two
leaders of the official opposition? Is the world big enough?
What would cloning do to the term double talk? What would it
all mean?
Carrying on this line of thinking, let me quote from an article
written by Patricia Williams that appeared a few days ago in the
Citizen. She wrote:
Imagine what the fashion industry could do with a clone with the
right bone structure. Like Barbie, you could style humanity so
that all the outfits finally fit. Mozart? Give his DNA a few
more codas. Bill Gates and Donald Trump? There will be lots of
them.
And we will need to clone more lawyers in a world where
compatible organs can be “farmed”. Will questions of “harvest
rights” be matters of custodial or property presumption in the
new litigation of micro-territorial imperative? I paid for that
kid, it is my DNA, hand over that kidney now.
It would be fun to pursue this line of argument, to follow
through with such fantasy and to continue musing about the
possibilities of cloning, if it were not for the fact that this
is fast becoming a very serious and a very real issue as
identified by the member for Drummond.
Ideas once confined to the realm of science fiction are now fast
entering the sphere of possibility. This is not a frivolous
issue. It is not a flight of fancy of some far off technology.
That point was made very clear many years ago.
It has been noted in the Chamber that this matter has been
before us in general terms for many years. The sponsoring of the
Royal Commission on Reproductive Technologies a decade ago or
more and its final report released in 1993 addressed the issue of
cloning of human embryos. This is not a new issue.
The issue before us today is what is taking so long and why is
Canada lagging so far behind. It has brought home the urgency of
the situation. It has been brought to bear in this Chamber by recent
developments, not to mention the sheep and we have all heard the
Dolly jokes.
It poses for us a serious situation, especially given the fact
that prior to the cloning of sheep in 1993 there were some clear
developments when Washington researchers announced the successful
cloning of human embryos by separating the cells of a parent
embryo. At that time countries responded by banning human
cloning based on the separation of human embryos. Certainly no
one at that time even fathomed the idea of cloning an adult human
cell. It was not thought to be on the horizon.
Today we know, based on scientific inroads in this whole area,
that we have a major issue to deal with.
1850
Time is running out. Today we heard from the Liberal member for
Thornhill on this general issue almost as if it was something new
before us. In fact we have had this debate in the Chamber many
times before.
We do not need to reinvent the wheel and start all over again by
questioning whether this matter should be in the Criminal Code or
whether it should be under some separate legislative authority.
The fact of the matter is this place, based on massive
consultation with Canadians across the country, has agreed that
we need legislation. We need to ban human cloning.
My point today is to make some appeal to the Liberal government
to act as quickly as possible to bring forward a redrafted
version of Bill C-47 which had very thorough debate and
discussion in the Chamber.
There may have been some problems with the bill. We have had
time to address those problems. The Minister of Health should
not back away from the serious issues before us. He should
rapidly consolidate his position, ensure that women's
organizations across the country have been informed of any
changes to that bill and bring forward a new piece of legislation
as soon as possible. We cannot afford inaction on this matter.
As a result of developments that have happened with the cloning
of sheep and with the impact of Dr. Seed's statement and claims
in the United States, many countries have taken action of late.
Some 19 countries in the European Union have moved to officially
ban human cloning.
This tells me again that we are late in bringing forward
legislation. We are behind the ball in terms of addressing some
very serious concerns. I would hope that we will be able to act
on that immediately, with the kind of incentive the House has
received from the member for Drummond to get on with this debate
and given my sense that there appears to be widespread consensus
in the Chamber for actually legislating an outright ban of human
cloning.
There are many questions to be addressed in this area. Let us
draw on the body of advice that was received during the royal
commission and in response to Bill C-47 and bring forward
comprehensive reproductive technologies legislation as soon as
possible. The framework is there. The general philosophical
approach is there and we need to act on it.
I conclude by suggesting that drawing on the background material
provided to all of us on Bill C-47 we have a comprehensive
management regime that could guide us for dealing with this
situation and all reproductive technology matters.
That legislation was based on three important principles, three
important factors that need to be taken into account. They are
the need to address the threat to human dignity, the risk to
human health and safety, and other serious social and ethical
issues; the dangers of commercialization of
human reproduction in particular for women and children; and finally
the need to ensure that the best interests of children affected by
such technologies and transactions are taken into account. We
have the basis. Let us act.
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Madam Speaker, it has
been an interesting day. I was on my feet earlier today on a
question of privilege. In preparing for that I went through some
debates that were held a few years ago in this place. I went
back to 1980 to do my research. There were familiar names of
people that I actually sat in the House with a few years ago. I
do not think in their wildest dreams they could imagine that we
would be debating an issue like this one.
I do not think they would believe that science and technology
could move as quickly as it has in the last number of years. That
is really what we are talking about.
1855
I listened to the members for Thornhill and Winnipeg North
Centre talk about major changes that are happening so quickly in
society that we cannot cope with them.
Going back just a very short number of years ago, who could
imagine that human eggs and sperm could now be manipulated to
create new life outside women's bodies? Just imagine.
Children, as we all well know, can be born of women who are not
their genetic mothers. Another example is prenatal diagnosis
which can detect genetic or other abnormalities in the embryo or
fetus before it is born.
Those are the type of things we are looking at: big changes in
technology that raise some pretty high moral and ethical
questions.
The government that I was part of in 1989 created the Royal
Commission on New Reproductive Technologies in response to some
of what members in the House have spoken about tonight. The
commission established in 1989 was charged with looking at some
of these issues. These issues were responded to by the
government in Bill C-47.
As has been mentioned, Bill C-47 died on the order paper with
the call of the election last spring. The member from Quebec who
introduced Bill C-247 has basically done so in response to the
death of Bill C-47. There is no question there are many
similarities between the two bills. It is a highly technical
bill. To be honest, I do not think any of us in the House are
capable of carrying that position forward as best we can in the
three short hours allocated to the member's bill.
Here are some of the concerns I have about the bill which have
been expressed by people from coast to coast. The commission
reported back with some recommendations that were basically based
on information the commission had picked up over a number of
years of listening to Canadians from one end of the country to
the other, many of whom were obviously experts.
We would like to see in the bill protection with regard to sex
selection for non-medical purposes. We would like to see
restrictions on the buying and selling of eggs, sperm and
embryos, including their exchange for goods, services or other
benefits but excluding the recovery expenses incurred in the
collection, storage and distribution of eggs, sperm and embryos
for persons other than a doctor. This prohibition should come
into force for a period of time to ease the transition from the
current commercial system to an altruistic system. Germ line
genetic alteration; ectogenesis which basically translates into
maintaining an embryo in an artificial womb; protection of and
consideration given to the cloning of human embryos; the creation
of animal-human hybrids, which I believe the Reform member has
just spoken on; and the retrieval of sperm or eggs from cadavers
or fetuses for fertilization and implantation or research
involving the maturation of sperm or eggs outside the human body
are other areas of concern.
1900
The member for Thornhill mentioned the moratorium that has been
in place for a number of years. There has been a lot of good
will and faith that this moratorium would work, but what we would
like to see, I guess, would be prohibitions that are not
contained in the moratorium. That would be the transfer of
embryos between humans and other species, the use of human sperm
eggs or embryos for assisted human reproduction procedures or for
medical research without the informed consent of the donors,
research in human embryos later than 14 days after conception,
the creation of embryos for research purposes only, and the offer
which almost sounds impossible, but it could happen, the offer to
provide or offer to pay for prohibited services.
The other thing that I think should happen is a management
regime or the development of a regulatory agency or, I should
say, component. This should be introduced in any bill that comes
before this House. Unfortunately, that is not part of Bill
C-247.
What we would like to see is basically an omnibus bill that
would take into consideration much of what we have spoken about
in this House. None of us are going to disagree with the member
who introduced this Private Member's Motion. I think it is time
that we raised the debate. It is time that we discussed this in
the House. It is time that we hold the minister's feet to the
fire in his desire—I wanted to use the word promise, but I will
not use it because I'm not sure it was a promise—to bring forth
a piece of legislation that we could support on this side of this
House.
What we are telling the minister is that we expect him to
introduce legislation that would fill the void created by the
death of Bill C-47 last year with some of the additions that I
have just mentioned. It is a debate that is worthy of
consideration. It is a debate that has to be carried out in this
place and, obviously, it is a debate where expert testimony in
some of these areas, you might say this cutting edge of
technology—in fact, it is moving so quickly that a great deal
has changed even in the last 12 months.
I believe there has to be an opportunity to discuss that, debate
that, but more important, there has to be an opportunity through
committee and through this House to bring in the expert testimony
that will be needed to confront this multifaceted problem.
We are hoping the minister will reintroduce the legislation,
allow this House to debate it and bring in the best testimony
that we can, from coast to coast, to debate what I consider one
of the most important issues facing Canada at this moment.
[Translation]
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Madam Speaker, do I have more than two minutes left?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): You have exactly two
minutes left.
[English]
Mr. Joseph Volpe: First of all, I have taken full note of the
debate this evening. I followed it from the lobby and in the
House. I am heartened by the fact that members on both sides of
the House have such a keen interest in pursuing this issue.
The member for Drummond who sat on the committee in the last
Parliament that dealt with C-47 has done a valuable service by
reintroducing this bill in the House because it has begun to
focus the attention of all members. In fact, she will know that
the minister and the department were already focused on the issue
again.
1905
Taking a look at it and the principles associated both in her
bill and with Bill C-47 which preceded it in the last Parliament,
it is I think the intention of all members in the House, of
course, with the minister and the department to ensure that the
bill which did not make it through the entire legislative process
in the last Parliament will be revisited again. This would take
into consideration at the same time all the changes that have
transpired in the interim.
While the member for Drummond introduces this as an amendment to
the Criminal Code, she will of course acknowledge, as I think she
has today and in the past, that this is a most important social
and health issue.
It will be dealt with as an issue that pertains essentially to
the health of Canadians everywhere, particularly as did Bill C-47
to women and children. They are much more the focus of Bill
C-47.
I think the member has done a service to the House by ensuring
that those of us who are new to the issue can come back, revisit
it in its principles, its details and in its particulars. I am
hoping that members will be as co-operative when the bill is
reintroduced in the House as they have been tonight.
I thank all members for intervening in the debate.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the
order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the
Order Paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
AIRBUS
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Madam Speaker, on November 17, 1997 I asked the government, in
light of the millions of dollars and the forced apology of the
Liberal government, who was responsible for the Airbus affair
scandal. Scandal is the appropriate word.
I also asked the government when it would withdraw the bogus
letter and accusations which were sent to the Swiss authorities.
It appears that the Liberals, when faced with the reality that
they have done something completely wrong and at a cost to
Canadians—needless to say this is not the first time nor the
last—they refuse to answer questions, and the word helicopters
comes to mind.
Canadians know better. Canadians know that the Airbus affair
was political revenge from the Liberals extracted upon a man from
whom they had been stealing ideas and programs since they were
elected in 1993. I mention free trade and GST as a few examples
there.
Canadians deserve answers when the cost is millions of dollars
from skulduggery. The former prime minister was recklessly and
falsely described as a criminal in a Canadian document which was
sent to a foreign state which obviously the CBC and the RCMP
bought hook, line and sinker.
The government acted on the fictional prose of Stevie Cameron
and the mysterious Mr. Pelossi. The Government of Canada
admitted that there was no basis for the conclusions, apologized
to Mr. Mulroney and paid his legal fees.
Yet, the letter falsely accusing him is still in circulation and
the government refuses to withdraw it. On top of that, the RCMP
say they are still investigating, incredibly and increasingly so
I am told.
Is this truly in the criminal investigating tradition? Is there
any likelihood of conviction? What are the reasonable and
probable grounds that will even bring this to a charge?
Many journalists last November said that this was an astonishing
expression of cruelty and personal attack on Mr. Mulroney by the
government. Sadly enough, this is only part of the continuing
scandal.
Corporal Mike Niedubek of the RCMP came out last November and
said something that people already knew, that was that the whole
thing was highly political and that the RCMP were being asked to
cover up a government mistake.
Staff Sergeant Fiegenwald, the designated fall guy, has
mysteriously disappeared from the scene, something that the
former Minister of Justice said that he lamented.
Here we are again. The government is faced with a very
important issue which relates directly to integrity and
accountability. It is all talk and no action.
I would like to pose some very serious questions that need
answering. Who among the cabinet knew and were responsible for
this scandal? Why is the government fighting so hard at the
supreme court level to retain the anonymous and arbitrary power
to exercise search warrants against Canadians abroad without
judicial review, something two courts have already ruled on?
When is the government going to withdraw the letter containing
the false allegations which they admitted were false? Why is the
RCMP still conducting this abortive, futile and ill-founded
investigation for which there has been no basis?
1910
Further, how many more resources—and I am talking about money
and manpower—will be sunk into this farcical witch-hunt? Who
speaks for Canadian taxpayers on this issue? When the
investigation grinds to its inevitable halt and no conclusions
are reached, who will be held accountable?
If they are really investigating, why has Mr. Mulroney never
been questioned?
Will the government do the right thing, clear the air on this
sordid affair and call a public inquiry into the Airbus scandal?
If the Prime Minister and the present Minister of Health had no
roles in this affair, surely there is nothing to hide. When this
happens, Canadians will be allowed to finally see the truth.
I have to ask the question: What is the government afraid of?
If the Prime Minister and his government really cared for this
country and the reputation of fairness and democracy, they would
themselves call for a public inquiry and present themselves as
witnesses.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
it is a pleasure to assist the hon. member one more time in
bringing forth the actual facts in the case and to familiarize
him with international assistance in legal and criminal matters.
Police agencies must follow a clearly established process to
seek the assistance of another country when carrying out an
investigation.
When a police force is conducting an investigation which takes
it outside Canadian borders, the police force's request must be
channelled through the international assistance group of the
Department of Justice.
This group is a Canadian authority administering incoming and
outgoing requests for assistance from and to other countries. The
group's main focus is to ensure that the requests for assistance
meet the legal requirements of the country receiving a particular
request or those of Canada in the case of incoming requests.
[Translation]
In the Airbus affair, the international assistance group sent
a request for mutual legal assistance to Swiss authorities on
behalf of the RCMP. The RCMP was and is responsible for this
investigation. It was always clear to both the Canadian and Swiss
authorities that the request for mutual legal assistance contained
allegations that were the very subject of the police investigation.
So that this would be perfectly clear, this point was repeated
several times. Certain turns of phrase wrongly left the
impression, however, that the conclusion had been reached that
there had been some form of embezzlement.
The Government of Canada apologized for this and reached an
out-of-court settlement with Mr. Mulroney.
[English]
In addition, changes were made to the mutual legal assistance
process in November 1995 to ensure that this does not happen
again. For example, counsel within the international assistance
group will now review all requests to consider whether they
contain conclusory statements or statements inconsistent with the
investigative nature of the request.
The statement reached by the parties, I repeat, in January 1997,
speaks clearly to the inappropriate language of the letter. It
specifies that the letter is part of an—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member for
Qu'Appelle.
BANKING
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Madam Speaker, on
the 22nd of October last I asked the Minister of Finance about
bank service charges and whether or not he would work toward
bringing down bank service charges on behalf of ordinary
Canadians.
Since then, of course, a lot has happened. We have had reports
of bank service charges being excessive. We all know they are
very regressive. They hit all Canadians in the same way. Whether
wealthy or poor, people pay the same for a particular
transaction. That is why these service charges should be
investigated, not just by the Minister of Finance, but by a
parliamentary committee of this House representing all five
Canadian parties which have been elected by the people of Canada.
These service charges are regressive. We should have a certain
number of service charges which are free of cost to every single
Canadian, like they have in some American states. After eight,
nine or ten charges there could be a fee. I think that a basic
life-line account such as that would be a very progressive step.
Since that time, of course, we have seen a number of other
things occur. We have seen the profit reports of the banks.
Their profits in the last year were the highest ever in the
history of this country. The profits amount to $7.5 billion.
Those are very high profits. Surely to goodness the banks can
afford to reduce their service fees for the ordinary and poor
people of this country. There is no excuse whatsoever for them
not to do that.
It is interesting to see the government across the way defending
the big banks, rather than saying to the big banks “Reduce your
service charges”.
Since then we have had the proposed mega-merger between the
largest bank in the country, the Royal Bank, and the third
largest bank, the Bank of Montreal. It is the largest proposed
merger in the history of the country in terms of corporate
Canada. The two banks are worth about $40 billion in terms of
their stock market value. They have assets under their control
totalling over $450 billion.
Yet the Minister of Finance will not give the Canadian people or
the Parliament of Canada a parliamentary committee to look into
the proposed mega merger until next fall. That is a real shame.
The people of this country deserve to make a decision on whether
or not this merger goes ahead.
1915
If this merger goes ahead it will set off a chain reaction.
There will be more mergers not only in banking but in other
financial institutions including the insurance industry. The
doors will also be open for more foreign banking into this
country. If our banks are going to be in other countries around
the world, then our doors will also be open to foreign banks
coming into Canada. Eventually we will have the foreign takeover
of the Canadian banking system and the establishment of financial
supermarkets across this country.
That is why we need a parliamentary committee with full hearings
into this merger, a parliamentary committee that would travel
around the country and allow the Canadian people to speak their
minds. I hope after we get that process going we can convince
the Minister of Finance to say no to this merger. This merger
should not go ahead. It is not good for Canada. It is not good
for the future of this country. We need a public forum to help
convince the Minister of Finance that is the way Canadians feel.
In my comments I wanted to wrap the merger issue and the bank
service charges issue into one. We need that parliamentary
committee with the power to travel the country, to hear
witnesses, to subpoena the banks, to provide a forum for ordinary
Canadians, to televise those hearings. That is what
parliamentary democracy is all about. It should be the
representatives who are elected to come here by the people of the
country who make very important decisions. It should not be the
Minister of Finance by himself.
The government must approve the mega merger. The competition
bureau has to approve the mega merger. A new bank licence has to
be issued, but that should be done only if it is approved by the
Parliament of Canada in a very transparent, open and democratic
way. That is what I am calling for in the House this evening.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the government recognizes the
importance of Canadians having access to a broad range of
services at reasonable prices. The government does not generally
regulate the prices that financial institutions charge for their
services. We believe consumers are best served in an environment
where financial institutions have to compete for business and
where consumers have access to sufficient information to make
educated choices.
For this reason our focus has been on promoting the clear and
thorough disclosure of information relating to service and
service charges on an ongoing basis. This helps reinforce the
legislative requirements for financial institutions to disclose
fee information when a deposit account is opened and when fees
are changed.
Consumers can shop around for the account or products that best
suit their needs. There are a number of competing financial
service providers to choose from which include Canadian foreign
banks, trust companies and co-operative credit associations. They
offer a wide variety of account packages ranging from low cost no
frills packages to specialty premium packages.
However, the government recognizes that on occasion consumers
find it difficult to compare charges across institutions. As a
result we are working with the banks and Industry Canada to
simplify and improve dissemination of fee information. The
government continues to monitor this issue to see if there are
additional areas in which we can help consumers.
The task force on the future of Canadian financial services will
also be examining the issue of interest to consumers of financial
services and is scheduled to report back to government in the
fall of 1998. At that time this government will instruct a
parliamentary committee to consult with Canadians. Unlike the
NDP, we will not allow banks to set government agenda. We are
firmly in control of this agenda. ATM does not stand for approve
the merger with respect to this government. It does stand for
approve the merger when it comes to the NDP.
As the minister has said on numerous occasions, we will consult
with Canadians at the appropriate time, and we certainly look
forward to the interventions by the hon. member at that time.
EDUCATION
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Madam Speaker,
the funding crisis affecting our colleges and universities
threatens more and more young Canadians every day. Tuition fees
are rising and federal funding is shrinking. The post-secondary
education institutions of this country are increasingly becoming
establishments for the rich and privileged.
The impact of federal cuts to post-secondary education are quite
clear. Reductions in federal transfers of over $2.29 billion
since 1993 have driven up tuition fees by 240% in the last 10
years.
1920
Average student debt is now $25,000. In 1980 Stats Canada
reported that tuition fees comprised 13% of university general
operating income. Tuition fees paid in 1995-96 accounted for an
average of almost 30% of general operating income and as high as
40% for universities in Nova Scotia.
Access to post-secondary education is being severely compromised
and there is no getting away from the fact that the Liberal
government is largely responsible.
It is shocking to hear the pious concern expressed by the
Liberal government while more and more students are graduating
into poverty. The recent national day of action organized by the
Canadian Federation of Students was a clear demonstration of how
students really feel about the hypocrisy and the cutbacks.
In a 1997 survey of high school students in the maritimes, 40%
of students not going to university said they were not going
because they could not afford it.
Young people are told how important it is to have a
post-secondary education but then they get hammered with huge
costs and debt. According to the CFS increases in tuition fees
are now one of the major causes of inflation. What is the
government's response? We have the announced millennium fund.
What a convenient name but it does not help students who
desperately needed assistance yesterday. They cannot wait for
the year 2000 to suit the Prime Minister's political timetable.
We in the NDP believe that urgent changes are needed now to deal
with the crisis of post-secondary education funding. Student aid
must be grounded in the following principles. Accessibility must
be a new national standard in higher education. Principles of
accessibility and affordability must guide any reforms. Student
aid must be based on need rather than on merit. A national
system for grants for post-secondary education must be a priority
with a tuition freeze.
Will the Liberal government admit that the millennium fund is a
misguided political exercise? We do not need yet another
scholarship program. Students need a national grants program now
based on financial need.
I challenge the federal government again to follow B.C.'s lead
and institute a national tuition freeze. It can be done if there
is political leadership and commitment to make post-secondary
education affordable and accessible. Students deserve nothing
less. Student debt must be reduced and tuition fees frozen,
combined with a national grants program. Does the government
have the guts to really stand up for young people and advance the
principle that post-secondary education is a right, not a
privilege to only those who can afford it?
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, let me
begin, as I have on a number of other occasions, by reminding the
hon. member that education, including the establishment of
tuition fees, is the responsibility of the provinces.
The Government of Canada cannot intervene directly in this
matter. That is not to say, however, that this government does
not recognize the financial difficulties of students. We do and
we are taking action. The Government of Canada has been
listening to concerns of young Canadians who are anxious about
job prospects and about the level of student debt.
In addition to supporting post-secondary education through
fiscal transfers, the Government of Canada provides support of
$1.4 billion to 340,000 post-secondary students through the
Canada student loans program.
In terms of student debt, the government took a number of
important measures in the last budget to help ease the debt
burden. One was the interest relief that was extended from 18
months to 30 months. Education credits have been enriched. The
registered education savings plan has been increased from $2,000
to $4,000 to help parents save for their children's education.
Students will also benefit from greater opportunities to pursue
research careers in Canada through the creation of the $800
million Canada Foundation for Innovation.
In the throne speech the government also promised to continue to
reduce barriers to post-secondary education through further
changes to the Canada student loans program, increased assistance
for students with dependants and new scholarships to encourage
excellence and to help low and moderate income Canadians attend
university or college.
On Tuesday the budget will be before the people of Canada.
Obviously we would not be talking in the Speech from the Throne
of ways of helping students if we had no intentions of following
through on our commitment. The member opposite should wait until
Tuesday to see where this government goes.
1925
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House
stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing
Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.25 p.m.)