36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 58
CONTENTS
Thursday, February 12, 1998
1005
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINT OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill S-4—Speaker's Ruling
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
1010
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROGRAM
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INCOME TAX ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-315. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1015
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INCOME TAX ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-316. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joe Fontana |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INCOME TAX ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-317. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EXCISE TAX ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-318. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Public Accounts
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Williams |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-4—Time allocation motion
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
1020
1105
(Division 72)
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion agreed to
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Report Stage
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-4.
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
1110
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
1115
1120
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1125
1130
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
1135
1140
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Larry McCormick |
1145
1150
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Ritz |
1155
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | (Divisions deemed demanded and deferred)
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motions Nos. 35 and 36
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 37
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 38
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 39
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 40
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1200
1205
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
1210
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1215
1220
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1225
1230
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dale Johnston |
1235
1240
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1245
1250
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1255
1300
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
1305
1310
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1315
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | (Divisions deemed requested and deferred)
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 42
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 43
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 44
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 46
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion No. 48
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1320
1325
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
1330
1335
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
1340
1345
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Bonwick |
1350
1355
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL FLAG DAY
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADOPTION
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Gouk |
1400
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CITIZENSHIP AND HERITAGE WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jean Augustine |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SUICIDE PREVENTION
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Maud Debien |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA-QUEBEC RELATIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy St-Julien |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CITIZENSHIP AND HERITAGE WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Carolyn Bennett |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATE OF ISRAEL
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
1405
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JACQUES CHIRAC'S STATEMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert Bertrand |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | SENATE OF CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PAY EQUITY
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RAILWAYS
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chris Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | WEI JINGSHENG
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Colleen Beaumier |
1410
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RUSSELL MACLELLAN
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HERITAGE
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRIBUTE TO SISTER THÉODORA BERNIER
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Guimond |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
1420
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | 1982 CONSTITUTION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YVES FORTIER
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
1425
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Bellehumeur |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IRAQ
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1430
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | OLYMPICS
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Hedy Fry |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Hedy Fry |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BILL C-28
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1435
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Penson |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sergio Marchi |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Penson |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sergio Marchi |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
1440
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Anderson |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IRAQ
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Monique Guay |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
1445
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ALGERIAN SITUATION
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Marlene Jennings |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Mike Scott |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRADE
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sergio Marchi |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sergio Marchi |
1450
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IRAQ
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. André Bachand |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ICE STORM
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eugène Bellemare |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
1455
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ASBESTOS
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre de Savoye |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sergio Marchi |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRANSPORT
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Keyes |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IRAQ
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Matthews |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Alex Shepherd |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. John Manley |
1500
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bernard Patry |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chris Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVILEGE
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | House of Commons
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1505
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-4. Report stage
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1510
1515
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Iftody |
1520
1525
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
1530
1535
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Penson |
1540
1545
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
1550
1555
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
1600
1605
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chris Axworthy |
1610
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Byrne |
1615
1620
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
1625
1630
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
1635
1640
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gerry Ritz |
1645
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
1650
1655
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted White |
1700
1705
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Murray Calder |
1710
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
1715
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
1720
1725
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1730
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Divisions deemed requested and deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Division deferred
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-208. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
1735
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
1740
1745
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
1750
1755
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
1800
1805
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Keith Martin |
1810
1815
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Proctor |
1820
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Casey |
1825
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Keyes |
1830
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Transport
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Casey |
1835
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Keyes |
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Fisheries
|
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1840
![V](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Robert D. Nault |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 58
![](/web/20061116182013im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, February 12, 1998
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
1005
[English]
POINT OF ORDER
BILL S-4—SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: My colleagues, I am now prepared to rule
on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Cypress
Hills—Grasslands on February 4, 1998 concerning Bill S-4, an act
to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
[Translation]
Before I begin, I would like to thank all the members who
participated in the discussion on this matter: the hon. member for
Elk Island, the hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni and the Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons.
I would especially like to commend the hon. member for Cypress
Hills—Grasslands for having raised his point of order in such an
articulate way that demonstrated thorough research and concise
argumentation.
The hon. member argued that Bill S-4 violates Standing Order
80 because it substantially increases the limits of liability upon
the government, thereby infringing on the financial privileges of
the House of Commons.
He concluded by requesting that Bill S-4 be removed from the Order
Paper.
[English]
I wish to remind all hon. members of citation 619 of
Beauchesne's sixth edition which states in part:
Under Standing Order 80, the House of Commons claims that all
aids and supplies are the sole gift of the House of Commons and
are not alterable by the Senate.
In other words the House of Commons claims pre-eminence in
financial matters, that is, public expenditure and taxation.
Public expenditure is sometimes referred to as charges upon the
public revenue, and taxation as charges upon the people.
Therefore, all legislation that entails charges upon the public
revenue or upon the people must originate in the House.
[Translation]
To determine if Bill S-4 is properly before the House, the
Chair must ascertain whether or not it does in fact constitute a
charge upon public funds.
[English]
Before doing so, I want to say a few words regarding one of the
precedents cited by the hon. member for Cypress
Hills—Grasslands.
In support of his claim that Bill S-4 breached the financial
privileges of the House, the hon. member made reference to a
decision given by Speaker Lamoureux on June 12, 1973 concerning
the then Bill S-5, an act to amend the Farm Improvement Loans
Act.
At that time Speaker Lamoureux ruled that Bill S-5, while not
proposing a direct expenditure did involve substantial additional
liabilities on public moneys and therefore infringed on the
financial privileges of the House. Obviously Speaker Lamoureux
could find no financial authority to cover such liabilities and
consequently ordered that notice for first reading of Bill S-5 be
removed from the Order Paper.
While looking at the elements of the case before us I have
discovered that there exists very few decisions in the area of
liabilities and how these relate to the financial privileges of
the House.
For those reasons I have relied on the well-established
principles described in the 21st edition of Erskine May under the
subheading “Tests used to determine whether expenditure involves
a charge”. In deciding if a proposal for expenditure actually
imposes a charge, May stipulates that a charge must be new and
distinct. This is explained at page 712 where it is stated:
The question may arise whether a proposal for expenditure or for
increased expenditure is not already covered by some general
authorization. The test for determining this question in the
case of a substantive proposal, that is a provision in a bill, as
introduced, is a comparison with existing law.
The comparison of provisions in a bill with the law on the
subject, as it exists, may show that, while such provisions
undoubtedly involve expenditure, the power to incur such
expenditure is covered by general powers conferred by statute.
My colleagues, I would point out to you that these are very
technical matters, so I would ask that you give them some
attention.
1010
My understanding of the procedural implications of Bill S-4 is
the following. The increased limits of liability are set out in
the proposed amendments to the Canada Shipping Act but the actual
compensation available to claimants is subject to the Crown
Liability and Proceedings Act, more specifically section 30(1) of
this act which states:
On receipt of a certificate of judgment against the crown issued
pursuant to the regulations, the Minister of Finance shall
authorize the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund of any
money awarded by the judgment to any person against the crown.
To further quote from Erskine May, it is stated at page 717:
Where sufficient statutory authority already exists for payments
to which bills relate, no further resolution and recommendation
is required.
There follows a list of cases not requiring further
authorization, one of them being case No. 2 which is “Liability,
to pay damages, covered by existing law”.
What this says is that in the case of the Canada Shipping Act,
provisions are made for changes to liabilities which, as the hon.
member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands says, will create a charge
upon the public revenue. However as Erskine May explains, where
there is an act already in force to pay damages, no royal
recommendation is required.
I conclude that there is already statutory authority under the
Crown Liability and Proceedings Act to make the payments that
Bill S-4 outlines. Therefore I would rule that Bill S-4 is in
proper form and that it should remain on the Order Paper.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT OF EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PROGRAM
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 3(3) of the
Employment Insurance Act, I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, two copies of the first monitoring and
assessment report on the employment insurance program, the 1997
report.
* * *
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to four petitions.
* * *
[English]
INCOME TAX ACT
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-315, an act to amend the Income Tax Act
(deductibility of expense of tools provided as a requirement of
employment).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to allow
employees to deduct the cost of providing tools for their
employment if they are required to do so by their employer as a
condition of employment.
The deduction includes an allowance in respect to the capital
cost of tools and rental, maintenance and insurance expenses.
Regulations would set the appropriate depreciation rates
applicable to the capital cost of various types of tools.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1015
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-316, an act to amend the Income Tax Act
(interest on student loans).
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce this
private member's bill to amend the Income Tax Act, a bill which
acknowledges that student loans are an investment in the future.
The purpose of the bill is to decrease the student loan debt
load and facilitate access to post-secondary education by
allowing students or their co-signers to deduct their annual
interest payments on student loans from their annual taxable
income.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-317, an act to amend the Income Tax Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, my private member's bill is quite short
and simple. It is to delete paragraph 81(1)(n) of the Income Tax
Act which grants an exemption of tax to the governor general.
We feel that should not be appropriate any more.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
EXCISE TAX ACT
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-318, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, again I have a short bill to repeal
section 1 of part II of schedule III and section 1 of part VIII
of schedule VI of the act which removes the GST exemption for the
governor general.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
Mr. John Williams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I was unavoidably delayed in getting here this morning. I
was wondering if you could seek unanimous consent to return to
tabling of reports.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to revert
to presentation of reports from committees?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present the fifth report of the Standing Committee
on Public Accounts. The report deals with Health Canada and our
investigation into Health Canada's performance of delivery of
services to first nations across the country.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons, the
committee requests the government to table a comprehensive
response to this report.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I suggest
that all questions be allowed to stand.
[English]
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday during Routine Proceedings I withdrew
order paper Question No. 6 which stood in my name. That was an
error, given that I wanted to withdraw P-3, a notice of motion
for the production of papers.
This was an oversight given that both Q-6 and P-3 are on the
same subject matter. May I reinstate Q-6 and withdraw P-3 at
this time?
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House agreeable to the
suggestion of the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall all questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
BILL C-4—TIME ALLOCATION MOTION
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.) moved:
That in relation to Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Canadian Wheat
Board Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, not
more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the
consideration of the report stage at second reading of the bill
and one sitting day shall be allotted to the third reading stage
of the said bill and, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the
time provided for government business on the day allotted to the
consideration of the report stage and on the day allotted to the
third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the
House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this
Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of
the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put
forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.
1020
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the
motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say
nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
1105
(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
| Bertrand
|
Blondin - Andrew
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Collenette
| Copps
| Cullen
| DeVillers
|
Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
| Dromisky
|
Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finestone
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
|
Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Guarnieri
| Harb
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jordan
| Karetak - Lindell
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lee
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marchi
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
|
Massé
| McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
Speller
| St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Volpe
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 136
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bigras
| Borotsik
|
Brien
| Brison
| Canuel
| Casey
|
Casson
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Davies
|
de Savoye
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
Doyle
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Elley
| Epp
|
Fournier
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Grewal
| Guay
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Hardy
| Harris
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
|
Hilstrom
| Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Konrad
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lefebvre
| Loubier
| Lunn
| Mancini
|
Manning
| Marceau
| Martin
(Esquimalt – Juan de Fuca)
| Matthews
|
Mayfield
| McDonough
| Ménard
| Mercier
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Muise
| Nystrom
|
Obhrai
| Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Price
| Proctor
| Ramsay
|
Reynolds
| Ritz
| Rocheleau
| Sauvageau
|
Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
|
St - Hilaire
| Stinson
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
|
Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| Tremblay
(Lac - Saint - Jean)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Vellacott
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
|
White
(North Vancouver)
| Williams – 102
|
PAIRED
Members
Dalphond - Guiral
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Finlay
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
|
Ur
| Venne
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Mr. Jim Gouk: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I did not
arrive for the actual reading of the question, so I did not vote.
Had I been here, I would have voted against the undemocratic
action of stifling debate.
REPORT STAGE
The House resumed from February 9 consideration of Bill C-4, an
act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act and to make
consequential amendments to other acts, as reported (with
amendment) from the committee; and of Motions Nos. 20 to 30, 32
to 34, 45 and 47.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there has been consultation
among all parties in the House and I believe you would find
unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That any divisions requested during consideration of the report
stage of Bill C-4 be deferred to the time of the conclusion of
consideration of Government Orders on Monday, February 16, 1998.
(Motion agreed to)
1110
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it gives me
great pleasure to stand and speak but I must admit that every
time the government uses closure it makes me extremely annoyed. I
think of what my electorate thinks of this kind of procedure. It
is so disgusting and so despicable. This is one of the reasons
the Reform Party was formed and why we believe we have to make
changes to this place. This is such a disgusting act. We all
realize how detrimental it is to the democratic process and to
any kind of respect we might have for a place like this.
The amendments in Group No. 5 probably fit well with what the
government has just done. It is denying the auditor general
authority to audit this public agency and it is refusing access
to information concerning this organization. The government
members do this and then say they believe in democracy.
There are three aspects of Bill C-4 that are undemocratic. The
government is slapping the western Canadian agricultural
community in the face. That will be remembered. The government
should look at the number of western Canadian members it has to
get an idea of what western Canadians think of this lack of
democracy.
Let us talk briefly about this bill in the time we have. Let us
first talk about the supposed elections it refers to. Farmers
will elect 10 members and the government 5 members and the
president. The farmers are the shareholders of this corporation
and should elect all members. They should be electing the
president and the members of this organization. If you believe in
true democracy, you believe in elections by the people who have a
stake.
In Chile and Argentina senators are elected to their senates.
Most countries in the world have elections. Elections mean
democracy. This is an undemocratic act and we should make that
public. This is an insult to the people and the farmers of
western Canada.
I read an example of this kind of slap in the face in my
newspaper last night. The editorial discusses the disposal of
bases. When militaire Saint-Jean was shut down $25 million plus
donation of the property was given. When the base in Toronto was
given up, 380 acres were donated, plus $22 million. When the
base in Calgary was given up nothing was given and no land was
given by the federal government. That is typical of how this
government abuses western Canada.
What about public information? I am a farmer in part. I
received a letter from the wheat board in my mail last week. This
letter is an insult to the intelligence of the farming community.
This letter talks about how democratic this board will be. It
talks about the real power of the farmer. It talks about
complete accessibility. This is an insult to the people of the
farming community.
If the Liberals cannot allow access to information, what are
they trying to hide?
What are they covering up?
1115
When I read this letter I say that it is a cover-up. What are
they trying to hide? What are they doing? Are they out selling
grain for the farmers of western Canada or are they sitting on
their duffs in some fancy office some place?
I want to know what kind of prices they are getting for grain.
It is my grain. It is our grain. What kind of prices are they
getting? They say that will destroy competition. Give me a
break. If they release the prices they got for grain in 1996-97
that will not destroy competition. I challenge this government
on the ability of the Canadian Wheat Board to be the only
marketing agency.
This is about democracy. Let farmers choose. Let farmers
decide whether they want to have the Canadian Wheat Board.
That is not the issue. The issue is the abuse that is going on.
We should be able to access the information. It should be opened
up so the auditor general can ensure accountability.
Rumours are created because of this sort of thing. What are the
people in the Canadian Wheat Board being paid? What kind of
bonuses do they get at the end of the year? What kind of perks
do they get? How can they justify keeping all that secret from
the farmers whose grain they are supposed to be selling?
I want to speak about competition. In my area of foreign
affairs I often talk to trade delegations. I hear them say “Do
you guys still grow grain over there? Do you still have grain
for sale? We never see anybody coming to sell it”.
We hear about the problems of ships sitting for 30 days or 45
days because they cannot take delivery. The Canadian Wheat Board
is blowing the marketing of grain. It needs to be accountable.
It needs to be examined. It needs to be subject to the scrutiny
of its membership, the farmers.
They are talking about putting more crops under the control of
the Canadian Wheat Board. That is a pretty scary thought. What
about canola? What about feed barley? Will those crops be
included? Will the wheat board inefficiently try to market an
increased range of grain products? That is not good news for
farmers anywhere.
This is about freedom of choice. A farmer has to decide what he
should grow. A farmer has to decide what kind of fertilizers he
should use. He has to decide when to spray and what to spray. He
has to decide whether to insure against hail and all the other
problems. He has to decide when to swath and when to harvest. He
has to make all those decisions and worry about quality. The most
important part is the paycheque that he gets for doing all that.
The most important thing is the marketing of the product he
produces. He controls everything else but he does not have any
control over the people he should be electing to do his
marketing.
Those people should be accountable. How much do they get paid?
What do they do? How aggressive are they? He has a right, as a
farmer, to know those answers.
We need to know we are getting the highest price possible. We
need to know what this secret monopoly, which is filled possibly
by patronage appointments, is all about. I hear the words
accessibility and accountability. That is really what it comes
down to.
We can look back to when this board was formed. Many of the
farmers in my constituency have told me that they needed it at
the time. I do not think we are talking about that. The issue
of whether we should have it is not the question. The question
concerns accountability. It needs to be open to the auditor
general. It needs to be open to access to information. The
people affected by this need to have access to it.
1120
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
here we are after a vote to gag the opposition as we consider Bill
C-4. The government has used its majority to gag us.
However, we in the Bloc Quebecois will use the time we have
left to point out the failings of the bill, as has been our
practice since our arrival in this House, put forward constructive
amendments and hope that the government majority will agree.
The Canadian Wheat Board, it will be remembered, will have
sales of between $6 billion and $7 billion annually. This is not
peanuts.
We in the Bloc have a very constructive proposal, Motion No. 20,
and I would like to take a few minutes to read it. I would invite
you, Mr. Speaker, to pay careful attention, because this is
important. It is vitally important as a moral issue and to give
grain producers confidence in the Canadian Wheat Board.
You already know that the Board, although its prime objective
is praiseworthy, has lost a lot of credibility among the main
stakeholders, the grain producers.
Motion No. 20 reads as follows:
That Bill C-4, in Clause 4, be amended by adding after
line 37 on page 7 the following:
“(4) Notwithstanding subsection (2), a department
within the meaning of the Financial Administration Act
includes the Board for the purposes of the Auditor
General Act”.
What does that mean exactly? It means, currently and once
Bill C-4 on the Canada Wheat Board is passed, the books will be
audited once a year to see whether the people appointed by the
government, primarily the president, are working for the benefit of
producers or for their own benefit.
The company of Deloitte and Touche will do the audit. I will
not ask how much that means a year for this firm, which is a
willing contributor to the Liberal Party campaign fund.
In the interests of transparency, we in the Bloc Quebecois are
proposing not only that the auditor general be the one to audit
transactions, but that he also be allowed to audit the Canadian
Wheat Board's operations. The accounting firm will audit only the
statement of income and outgo. You know how it works. An
accounting firm prepares the following sort of letter: “On the
basis of the figures supplied to us, we have audited a few invoices
and everything seems to be in order”.
There is always this traditional phrase relieving the private
auditor of all responsibility in the event of fraud. Whereas the
credibility of Denis Desautels, who plays an extremely important
role, is above all suspicion and he could also, as I was saying
earlier, audit the Canadian Wheat Board's operations.
Let us take the sales figure of $7 billion. A mere 1% adds up
to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Funds could be
misappropriated.
1125
Obviously, the president and the four other individuals
appointed by the Liberal Party could be above all suspicion, but
the absence of suspicion could later turn into slight doubts.
Take Senator Andrew Thompson, for example. He was a good
Liberal who headed up the Ontario Liberal Party. He was appointed
to the Senate by a Liberal government. Today, he has fallen from
favour. But the Constitution tells us he was appointed until age
75. We are stuck with him. That was a Liberal appointment.
We are proposing that appointments be examined and approved by
the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, something the
government party is unfortunately rejecting as well.
For the good of grain producers, I am asking the Liberal majority to
seriously consider and approve—this is nothing to be ashamed of—the
Bloc Quebecois' proposal, which seeks to give more transparency to
the Canadian Wheat Board. If the idea has to come from the Liberal
Party, then let us remove my name and put the name of a Liberal member
on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. I can certainly
live with that. As you know, the Canadian Wheat Board provides excellent
services and is a necessary corporation. Still, only 60% of farmers are
willing to rely on it. This is not normal.
I will use the rest of my time to look at Motion No. 21, moved by
the Conservative member from Manitoba. The hon. member proposes to add
a heading, but I am almost certain that Liberals will vote against it.
Let me give an idea of how narrow-minded the Liberals are when it comes
to helping farmers. This motion makes sense. I cannot see why the
Liberals will reject it. It reads, in part:
5. The Corporation is incorporated with the object of marketing
grain grown in Canada in the best interests of farmers—
The motion states that the corporation works in the best interests
of farmers. Does this not make sense? Is the CWB's raison d'être not to
maximize grain producers' returns? Its role is to help and support our
grain producers, not make them poorer.
Based on what Liberal members on the Standing Committee on
Agriculture and Agri-Food said, the Liberals will vote against Motion
No. 21, moved by the hon. member for Brandon—Souris. Again, all this is
not very transparent.
Let me go back to the financial interests that the Liberal Party
may have in passing Bill C-4. Given the refusal to have the books of the
Canadian Wheat Board audited by a private accounting firm, and given the
refusal to let Denis Desautels, the auditor general, take a look, we are
justifiably concerned about the transparency of the Canadian Wheat
Board.
Let us not forget that 15 directors will sit on the CWB's board of
directors, 10 of whom will be elected by the producers themselves.
1130
There are five others, including the president, who, to all
intents and purposes—and we might as well be honest about it—will
run the board of directors. He will run the Canadian Wheat
Board. This very important person will be appointed by the
governor in council and there will be no way to have the auditor
general audit his books. That is unacceptable.
I launch an appeal, in closing. I appeal to my colleagues
opposite to work for the benefit of farmers and not for their own
personal benefit.
[English]
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my first
words this morning have to be ones of condemnation as well toward
the government for introducing closure on Bill C-4. I remind the
House, especially those who do not sit on the Standing Committee
for Agriculture and Agri-food, that the bill was rushed through
the House last fall. At that time the excuse was that the
government wanted to have the bill through before Christmas.
I recall that even before the Canadian Wheat Board made its
presentation on Bill C-4 opposition and government members on the
committee were to have their amendments in. This is yet another
example of this rush to judgment. A couple of more days to have
concluded all this would not have been beyond the pale.
We are dealing this morning with Group No. 5 in which there are
14 or 15 amendments. In a broad brush way they include the
auditor general, which my colleague for Frontenac—Mégantic spoke
about it at some length; maximizing returns to farmers-producers
and I will come back to that; the contingency fund; how any
profits from the new wheat board will be consolidated; and the
questions of lower then normal price, best returns, overtime and
the accountability of directors.
I want to zero in during my remarks this morning on the
contingency funds. For us this proposal is perhaps the worst
feature of Bill C-4.
Bill C-4 does not reflect the wishes of western Canadian
farmers. Despite objections from numerous farmers and farm
groups section 39(1) remains in the bill. That section would
allow for cash buying and thus undermine price pooling.
Bill C-4 also terminates the government's guarantee of adjusted
initial prices. These two changes together would necessitate the
creation of the contingency fund which has been estimated could
cost farmers as much as $5.45 a tonne every year for five years
on every tonne sold through the Canadian Wheat Board. That is a
total of $27 per tonne marketed.
This is based on Mr. Hehn's estimate of a contingency fund that
would be in the neighbourhood of $575 million or $580 million.
Again we have no indication from the government about how big or
how small that contingency fund will be. One assumes that the
$580 million comes loosely on a 10% contingency fund for the
annual marketing of the Canadian Wheat Board, which is in the
neighbourhood of $6 billion.
The contingency fund could cost wheat and barely growers almost
as much money as they received under the Crow payout scheme of
two or three years ago.
Canadian Wheat Board supporters are not only being asked to
accept legislation that fundamentally damages the board, but
through the contingency they could be asked to pay thousands of
dollars each if Bill C-4 changes are implemented. The bill
ignores and repudiates the clearly articulated will of the vast
majority of western Canadian farmers and is therefore totally
unacceptable in its present form.
The minister responsible for the wheat board has been able to
achieve the almost impossible. He has all the opposition parties
united against the bill, admittedly for very different reasons
but nonetheless in total opposition to what we have in front of
us.
It seemed to be unthinkable at the time but the impossible has
been achieve.
1135
Let me make it crystal clear that our caucus and our party
oppose the bill because we do not believe that what is here
unamended will improve the Canadian Wheat Board. Rather it will
significantly weaken the Canadian Wheat Board.
The fundamental question that needs to be answered is whether
the bill will or will not be an improvement over what we have
now, particularly the three pillars of the current wheat board.
The conclusion, as I have said, is that what is before us is a
significant diminution of the wheat board which has been a
critical factor in western Canada for the past 63 years.
There are three pillars of the wheat board. We believe two of
them are at risk in the bill as we see it, price pooling and
government guarantees. If the Reform amendments were adopted
the third pillar would disappear as well, single desk selling.
As we all know, Reform wants to do away with the wheat board.
They want a voluntary board or to do marketing which would
effectively kill the wheat board. The notion of a voluntary
board is a total fraudulent idea. It is a scam, as was noted by
the Alberta Judge Muldoon who said that a duel market was simply
a quick transition to an open market. This is something Reform
critics and commentators never acknowledge.
I want to say how refreshing it was to hear the agriculture
critic for the Conservative Party when he rose on Monday to speak
to the bill and specifically to some of the resolutions, instead
of the pathetic bleating and ranting of many but not all in the
Reform Party.
One Reform Party speaker told us how many speakers from his
party had risen to speak in this debate. Let me say as an
interested observer that there was a heck of a lot more chaff
than wheat in most of the content we heard on Monday afternoon.
Particularly abysmal was the performance of the member for
Saskatoon—Humboldt. I would encourage any fair minded person to
go back and read his contribution to Monday's debate.
Western Canadian wheat growers have a policy that I do not agree
with. They have a lengthy paper on duel marketing. They are the
ideological soul mates of many Reformers. They must be somewhat
embarrassed when they hear what is said many times on the floor
of the House.
On the contingency fund, we would propose specifically under
Motion No. 25 to delete all references to the contingency fund.
Let me underline that we believe the fund is, as I have said
before, the single worst feature of the bill. The idea of
establishing such a fund follows from provisions in the bill for
cash buying. That is the logic behind it. The contingency fund
is unnecessary if Ottawa would continue to provide financial
guarantees to the board as it has done for the past six decades,
guarantees, I might add, that are seldom used and as a result
cost taxpayers next to nothing.
Furthermore, the government is either unwilling or unable to
indicate how large of fund is required. I have alluded to that.
The assumptions are somewhere between $350 million and as much as
$575 million to establish the fund.
I note in passing that the parliamentary secretary to the
minister of agriculture rose in his place while we were debating
the bill last November and said that nobody could pinpoint
exactly how large the contingency fund would be. It is another
dilemma in our position on the bill.
We believe the government could make an important concession by
guaranteeing federal finances that have seldom been required over
the past six decades to support the wheat board.
It would mean that the kind of money we are talking about would
not be required to be produced by farmers but instead would have
some genesis and some real assistance from the Canadian
government.
1140
Motion No. 30 simply reinforces the federal guarantee to the
Canadian Wheat Board. It is in Group No. 5 as well.
Before I close I want to refer to one of the amendments before
us. It was somewhat startling to hear what the member for
Yorkton—Melville said on this grouping. Subsection 1 shall not
be interpreted to prevent the corporation from making a contract
to sell a type of grain at a price that is lower than normal in
order to secure other sales of the same type of grain that will
result in the best return to producers of that type over a period
of time.
That amendment sticks out because it is totally hypocritical.
That party has been chastising the wheat board over many years
because it fails to get the best return. Now it is suggesting
that we should do it as an order of business.
I close by saying that this party opposes any notion of a
contingency fund and we want to see the continuation of
government guarantees in Bill C-4.
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the
opportunity to speak to this very popular Bill C-4, an act to
amend the Canadian Wheat Board.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Larry McCormick: Politics are alive and well in the
Chamber. People are laughing about the popularity of the wheat
board bill, but the standing committee on agriculture in the
previous year listened to all groups involved in the production
and the sale of wheat. They spent days and even weeks on the
road listening and consulting with people.
Since that time the ministry has sent out hundreds of thousands
of forms and letters of information to all growers in western
Canada, all growers of all commodities. Growers have been happy
with the Canadian Wheat Board. It has been one of the most
successful bodies in the country.
The Reform Party is guilty of twisting the facts. We are not
surprised about that, but it is unfair to the majority of the
people who produce and grow wheat, the people whom I respect very
much.
The bill, according to one of my colleagues, has been rushed to
judgment. Again I repeat that my colleagues spent months on it.
Since that time we have heard from representatives of all
commodity groups at committee. Who would represent some of those
groups? The growers cannot decide themselves who should
represent those groups.
The Reform Party wants a voluntary wheat board. It wants its
cake and to eat it too. It wants to do a flip-flop, jump in,
jump out, and have it both ways.
The area of one of my colleagues opposite who sits on the
standing committee has been dealt very severe blows by Mother
Nature. In the Peace River area the people do not deserve what
they have had in the way of weather. I know this hard working
member has raised the concerns of these growers. Yet how do we
address them? There are programs in place to help these people.
We survived the 1998 ice storm. It was the most severe natural
disaster in the history of the country. There may be a
difference between a major natural disaster and something we can
insure against.
1145
In this case the Reform Party wants the people who had no
insurance to receive money for the buildings that burned down.
They want the best of all of this. The members of the Reform
Party want the auditor general. They are doubting the words of
one of the most professional auditing firms in Canada. They tell
us that this auditing company does not give them a transparent
report.
Mr. Jay Hill: All they do is check the numbers.
Mr. Larry McCormick: They check the numbers. I
understand that a professional auditing firm does check numbers
and if it produced a report I would accept it. One of my
colleagues in the standing committee has asked members of the
Reform Party if they would give us an audited statement of the
finances of their party and we are still waiting for that.
I just want members opposite to recognize the fact that the
government, our party and the committee have not heard at all
from the majority of the growers in western Canada. The majority
of the growers are satisfied with the status quo. They have
faith in the Canadian Wheat Board.
The members of the Reform Party are asking that the Canadian
Wheat Board be subject to audits by the auditor general.
Mr. Darrel Stinson: What is wrong with that?
Mr. Larry McCormick: What is wrong with that.
Making the Canadian Wheat Board subject to the Access to
Information Act would force it to reveal far more information
about its activities than any of its competitors. The release of
company information would put the Canadian Wheat Board at a
disadvantage when it negotiates sales with international buyers.
This would not help their constituents.
I also ask members opposite to listen not just to the members of
their own political party but to meet with their constituents in
general. We cannot pay attention just to the letters we get from
a few people. We have asked the members of these groups to come
before us at the committee. They do not represent a majority of
the people in this country. They do not represent the majority
of the growers in western Canada.
A member opposite said that this party here does not represent
the voices of the growers in western Canada with regard to the
Canadian Wheat Board because these growers have not replied with
the forms that were sent to them. The members of the Reform
Party talk about the board of directors and that the growers have
no control with this new Canadian Wheat Board.
I thought that when the growers had the opportunity to appoint
10 directors out of 15 they would have a majority. They will
have the power to do what they want to do. They will have total
control. What amount of money could they pay this director? If
they do not like the director they could lower the pay. They
have the majority.
I do not think this is a laughing matter. This is something I
would like to see discussed fully in the House.
I have listened to groups from across the different prairie
provinces and I welcomed the opportunity to learn from them.
However the biggest thing I have seen from all these groups is
that everybody wants to protect their turf. Everybody wants to
say that they are representative of the groups. I do not think
we can have 14 different marketing groups within some
commodities. There has to be an umbrella to cover all of these
groups.
The Canadian Wheat Board has been one of the most successful
bodies in the history of this country. The amount of money and
the quality of a great Canadian wheat product will make for
increased sales in the future. We have to have control over a
product like this. What more control can we have than 10
directors who represent the growers who produce this product?
1150
The member from the NDP said that all parties are against this
bill. The member also said it was for various reasons. They are
not all in support of the Reform policy and the Reform
amendments. I would like to bring attention to that.
Yesterday we saw history being made in this House when we saw
the PC party vote with the Bloc. I believe the NDP voted with
its brothers too.
In this case the farmers of western Canada are watching the
Reform Party, not just letting the Reform Party lead them. A
group of these Reformers have taken out ads on the Ottawa radio
stations to tell us in Ottawa how we should vote. We should not
listen to the producers. We should go by a paid radio
announcement. I heard these ads on the radio and I do not think
some radio advertisement is the way to go. I would rather that
the same groups made use of the standing committee which is open
to the groups.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter. I look
forward to standing in the House and speaking on the next reading
of the bill.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to speak to the
Group No. 5 amendments on Bill C-4.
Motion No. 23, securing the best financial return for the
producers is a unique concept. We have a farm crisis in western
Canada and a lot of it comes down to the fact that the bottom
line is in the red and not in the black.
On October 28, 1997 the minister responsible for the wheat board
said in this House in a query to my compatriot for
Yorkton—Melville “I can assure him however that the Canadian
Wheat Board in every market in the world extracts the very best
price it can possibly get for the farmers of Canada”. I will
repeat that, the very best price it can possibly get.
All these amendments do is change the object of the Canadian
Wheat Board Act so that it matches more exactly what that
minister is telling us in the House and telling Canadians the
purpose of the act is. If the minister honestly believes that
the Canadian Wheat Board extracts the very best possible price,
then he should wholeheartedly support these amendments.
Currently section 5 states “The board is incorporated with the
object of marketing in an orderly manner in interprovincial and
export trade, grain grown in Canada”, let me repeat that one
portion “grain grown in Canada”. I find it odd that the act
gives the board authority to market grain grown in all of Canada
but only imposes its monopoly powers in the prairie provinces.
Why is the government monopoly good for grain grown in the west
but not good enough to force on farmers in the rest of Canada?
Could it be they do not really want it? Are we not as smart or as
capable to handle our affairs in the west? Do we not have a
stake in our own marketing? We grow it, we take the risks, we
like to have a share of the gravy at the other end.
If this government monopoly is supposedly serving farmers'
marketing needs in the west so well, I find it odd that farmers
in the other provinces are not demanding that the wheat board
take over their marketing too. The fact that it is not happening
illustrates why western wheat and barley producers are so
frustrated. They are being discriminated against. They are
being forced to sell their grain to the government controlled
monopoly while farmers in the rest of the areas in Canada can
sell to whomever they wish.
At least these amendments would make sure that the prairie
farmers are getting the best return that a government operated
monopoly can get for them. As the wheat board act is worded, all
they are guaranteed is orderly marketing, not good marketing.
These amendments would improve on the existing wording by saying
the purpose of the Canadian Wheat Board in the orderly and
co-ordinated marketing of grain is to maximize, and I underline
maximize, the financial return to the producers it serves.
The first amendment, Motion No. 1, adds a preamble to the act to
clarify the reasons why we have a Canadian Wheat Board and that
the first priority of that board should be to secure the best
financial return to producers. People from all political stripes
can identify with that one. The board must be accountable to
those farmers for that performance.
The second amendment, Motion No. 23, changes the wording of
section 5 of the act to state “The object of the corporation is
to secure the best financial return to producers of grain in
Canada by marketing grain in an orderly and co-ordinated
manner”. It also adds to section 5 that the board carries out
this marketing activity “on behalf of the producers of the
grain”. Put their interests first.
1155
It is a sad day that my colleague from Yorkton—Melville has had
to draft such an obvious amendment to put the best interests of
the producers ahead of the rights of this marketing board.
This change in the object or purpose of the act resulted in
three consequential amendments.
The first amendment, Motion No. 28, concerns clause 7 of the
bill. Section 7 of the act is being amended to ensure that grain
sold or disposed of is not only sold for a price the board
considers reasonable, but that it must be done in order to fulfil
the new objective of maximizing the financial return to farmers.
What a concept that is.
The second consequential amendment, Motion No. 29, also concerns
clause 7. It directs any profits from the sale of grain back to
the producers rather than have the profits paid into the
government's consolidated revenue fund which is kind of like
putting them in a sinkhole.
The third consequential amendment, Motion No. 39, concerns
clause 22 which is found at pages 16 and 17 of Bill C-4. It
would ensure that undistributed balances would be paid back to
the producers who are entitled to the payment rather than just
being designated to the government's vague term “for the benefit
of all”.
Motion No. 45 would insert a sunset clause. The last amendment
is what is commonly referred to as a sunset clause. It would
require the auditor general to examine the wheat board's
operation over the five year period ending December 31, 2002 to
determine if the board had met its first priority as described in
the new amended section, namely to secure the best financial
return to the producers by marketing grain in an orderly and
co-ordinated manner.
At this point the auditor general is not allowed to have a peek
at the books, but he is allowed to look at other areas, like
defence, CSIS and the RCMP, which are also highly political and
could lead to problems. Why can he not look at the wheat board?
The auditor general's report on the wheat board's operation
would have to be delivered to the minister no later than
September, 2003. The minister would have to table the report in
the House and in the Senate where it would be referred to a
committee of the whole. This sunset clause would repeal the
Canadian Wheat Board Act if it had not lived up to its mandate
over that five year period.
This is another accountability measure. If the people who are
running the wheat board, whether elected or appointed, know that
their performance will be measured independently by the auditor
general after that timeframe, they will make absolutely sure they
are securing the best financial return for the producers. Their
jobs are in the balance. Some accountability exists.
The real benefit of a sunset clause is that it forces the board,
the government and Parliament to revisit this legislation every
five years to make sure it is still needed and that it is
achieving the objectives established by Parliament.
No producers have a problem with a marketing agency, a monopoly
in this case, which is transparent and accountable to them
serving their best interests. If the Canadian Wheat Board was
truly accountable to the producers, we would not be having this
debate today, nor will the debate stop after the government rams
through this legislation.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to agreement made Wednesday,
November 19, 1997, all questions on the motions in Group No. 5
are deemed put and the recorded divisions are deemed requested
and deemed deferred.
The House will now proceed to the debate on the motions in Group
No. 6.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP) moved:
That Bill C-4, in Clause 17, be
amended by replacing lines 16 to 19 on page 12 with the
following:
That Bill C-4, in Clause 18, be
amended by replacing line 2 on page 13 with the following:
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC) moved:
That Bill C-4, in Clause 19, be
amended by adding after line 31 on page 15 the following:
“(5) Section 33 of the Act is amended by adding the
following after subsection (5):
(6) The Corporation may enter into an agreement with a
producer, at the beginning of a crop year, authorizing the
producer to market independently of the Corporation, a specified
percentage of the wheat or barley produced by that producer in
that crop year.”
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-4, in Clause 22,
be amended
(a) by replacing line 36 on page 16 with the following:
“39. If producers of any grain sold and,”
(b) by replacing line 12 on page 17 with the following:
“separate account, and distribute to them in an equitable manner
any balance remaining in the separate account after such payments
have been made.”
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP) moved:
That Bill C-4, in Clause 22, be
amended by deleting lines 20 to 27 on page 17.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-4, in Clause 22,
be amended by adding after line 27 on page 17 the following:
“39.2 (1) The Corporation shall establish a plan for wheat
pricing which shall have the following features:
(a) a producer will be able to hedge a specified portion of his
or her wheat on a recognized grain exchange in Canada or in
another country;
(b) the quantity of wheat hedged by the producer under paragraph
(a) will be delivered to the Corporation prior to the maturation
of the futures contract entered into by the producer under the
hedge;
(c) the Corporation will assume ownership and responsibility for
the hedged position upon delivery of the wheat to the
Corporation.
(2) The Corporation shall establish, annually, the portion
of each producer's wheat which each individual producer will be
allowed to hedge under this program.
(3) The Corporation shall establish the terms and conditions
under which the hedge position of the producer is to be assumed
by the Corporation.”
He said: Mr. Speaker, I cannot let this opportunity pass
without making reference to the fact that the government has
brought in time allocation. The way in which the government has
treated this very important legislation has been absolutely
reprehensible right from the very beginning.
In my speech at third reading, which will probably be next
Tuesday, I will outline for the House, for the viewing public and
most important for the western Canadian farmers exactly what has
transpired over the last year and a half and how the minister
responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and the government have
handled this very important issue.
In debate on the last group of motions the hon. member for
Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington made some absolutely
outrageous statements which cannot go unnoticed. He said that
the majority of growers are satisfied with the status quo.
1200
That was the statement he made which clearly shows the fantasy
world Liberal members live in when it comes to the Canadian Wheat
Board and how it affects the livelihoods of western Canadian
grain farmers.
I will now discuss the motions in Group No. 6. There are six
motions listed under Group No. 6, Motions Nos. 35 to 40,
inclusive. I will primarily address Motion No. 40 which I put
forward and which was supported by my colleague from the
progressive Conservative Party.
One of the unique things about this is that the Minister
responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board has accomplished the
near impossible. This was referred to during the November debate
of this bill at report stage. It was also referred to this
morning by an NDP member. The minister has alienated almost
every western farm group with the way he has bungled this issue
from the very beginning. It is no small accomplishment to get
everybody in western Canada angry with you, but he has managed to
accomplish that.
I would like to pay some tribute to the farm organizations, some
of which have banded together to form an ad hoc group called the
coalition to fight Bill C-4. That is the level of intensity
springing up across western Canada as farmers are trying to get
this government to reconsider. I thank those groups for the
time, energy and considerable expense they incurred to bring
forth proposed amendments to Bill C-4.
It is unfortunate the government does not respect this
contribution. This is obvious because these groups that
represent the majority of grain producers were not consulted when
legislation was drafted in the first place and because the
Liberals rammed the legislation through committee, allowing
minimal time for witnesses to testify. Then today they invoked
time allocation to limit MPs' opportunity to properly debate
these substantive amendments.
I assure those groups from both sides of the debate, those
content with the status quo in the Canadian Wheat Board and those
calling for significant change, that their efforts have been
valuable and very much appreciated by me and my Reform
colleagues. Their submissions and input have guided us in our
approach to Bill C-4. I thank every last organization and
individual who made submissions to the Standing Committee on
Agriculture and Agri-Food, wrote letters to MPs and called to
express their views on this important legislation.
One of these groups came up with an ingenious amendment that
seeks to meet the needs of all parties involved with the Canadian
Wheat Board. This amendment provides voluntary opportunity for
risk management. It allows other producers to maintain their
exclusive use of the Canadian Wheat Board to market their grain.
I was so impressed with the amendment proposed by the Western
Canadian Wheat Growers Association that I thought all MPs should
have the opportunity to debate it as an amendment to Bill C-4 in
the House of Commons. It is known as the cash pricing option. I
will guide members through it as outlined by the Western Canadian
Wheat Growers Association in the brief it submitted.
The proposed amendment to the Canadian Wheat Board Act would
allow producers to forward price 25% of their wheat production.
They would use the same recognized futures exchange used by the
wheat board for pricing and hedging of prairie wheat, that is
Minneapolis for spring wheat and Chicago or Kansas City for hard,
red winter wheat.
The option would work in this manner. The producer would first
commit to a deferred delivery contract or sell a futures contract
for part or all of his 25% allotment. Sometime before the
futures contract month becomes a cash month, the producer would
deliver his wheat either to an agent of the board at a country
elevator or to a landed basis location, that being a terminal or
a processor.
Upon delivery of the wheat, the grain company holding the
deferred delivery contract would give its futures contract to the
Canadian Wheat Board. The Canadian Wheat Board would then buy
back the futures contract and execute the cash side, that is sell
the cash wheat to any customer it desires. The producer's
settlement would be the futures price adjusted for exchange rate
minus basis deduction from the Canadian Wheat Board.
As well, the producer's settlement would be adjusted from base
grade specs of the futures contract for grade, protein, moisture,
and so on.
1205
This cash pricing option would allow farmers to trade one
quarter of their wheat in exactly the same way in which they
presently trade canola, flax, rye and oats.
Under this proposal every farmer would have an equal opportunity
to participate. Farmers who would forward price the maximum 25%
are also taking on the risk that they may not get the best price.
No one hits the market highs all the time. But farmers would have
better ability to manage price risk and manage cashflow,
especially in years when the initial price is set extremely low,
like this year.
Farmers would gain assurance that they are getting the world
price, and that is important for farmers who have become
accustomed to dealing with the secretive Canadian Wheat Board.
Many farmers are suspicious that the Canadian Wheat Board system
does not deliver the world price.
The cash pricing option would have a number of other
consequential benefits that the Liberals, if they would bother to
pay attention, would find very attractive. The threat of border
runs and civil disobedience that we have seen frequently would be
reduced by allowing farmers access to the better prices they can
see in the U.S. market.
As the Liberals struggle to put out fires in trade skirmishes
with the U.S., this amendment would reduce trade irritants for
the federal government by showing that Canadian grain coming into
the U.S. is at world price.
All these advantages would be found, while at the same time
single desk selling is maintained, reassuring those who favour
this approach.
This amendment embodies the true spirit of compromise. It is a
step in the right direction that boldly yet wisely seeks to
progressively develop the western Canadian grain marketing
system. Yet it also provides security to those who believe single
desk selling is in their best interests.
I believe it is obvious that this amendment is worthy of serious
consideration by all MPs in this House. While the opposition to
the government's version of Bill C-4 has been loud and prolific
from all sides of the issue, a group of Canadians has brought to
us a mechanism with which to resolve a dispute. Producers are
willing to give it a try. Members of this House should ensure
they get that opportunity.
I have just enough time to wrap up by saying how appalled I am
on behalf of all opposition MPs, as the agriculture critic for
the official opposition in the House of Commons today, that this
government would move to bring in time allocation again, as we
saw it do so often in the 35th Parliament.
I cannot let it go without saying that I think western Canadian
farmers are going to be watching this debate. I am sure they have
watched with intense interest up until today. I think the move
today to shut down debate with one day of debate for report stage
remaining today and one day only for debate at third reading is
absolutely reprehensible, and this government should certainly be
embarrassed, if nothing else.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we are
dealing with group 6 amendments to the Canadian Wheat
Board Act and there are a total of six amendments here. Our party
has proposed three of them and I would like to deal with them in
some detail in the few minutes I have.
Amendment 35, regarding the pooling period, maintains the wheat
board's pool account for the entire year, rather than having it
broken down into shorter periods of time which is one of the
proposals in Bill C-4.
The proposal, we believe, to shorten the pooling period is
linked to cash buying, that is obvious, and other tools which are
alleged by the minister responsible to make the board more
flexible. We do not believe it would make the board more
flexible, but we are sure that the long run result will be to
undermine farmer confidence in the board and thus weaken the
board in the long run.
Amendment 36 concerns the federal government guarantees.
1210
This amendment, in the spirit of an earlier one, serves to
maintain the government as the guarantor for the board rather
than having the board set up a contingency fund to perform that
task. I referred to that earlier when we were dealing with group
5 amendments.
Motion No. 39 is our other amendment regarding cash buying. I
would like to spend a little more time going through what our
hopes and expectations are in that regard.
Motion No. 39 is the amendment that would remove the current
proposal in Bill C-4 to have the wheat board make cash purchases
of grain. Bill C-4 does many things to undermine, we believe,
the Canadian Wheat Board but nothing in the bill is more damaging
than the proposal for cash buying. The wheat board has long had
a practice of buying grain from farmers at announced prices and
distributing profits to all producers on an equitable basis.
Now, under the proposals before us, in the brief time that has
been allotted by the government, the wheat board will be able to
buy grain from anyone, anywhere, at any time and at any price.
We are absolutely convinced that this will totally destroy a
fundamental pillar of the wheat board and it will undermine
farmer confidence in it forever.
The proposals for cash buying are linked to other damaging
proposals in Bill C-4. The contingency fund is one and the
proposal to shorten the pooling period or have several pooling
periods on a 12 month basis, which has been talked about before,
is another.
As I noted, the Reform Party would have us go beyond even the
weakening of these two pillars by attempting to destroy the third
pillar which is the single desk selling via the dual marketing
proposal.
Who is opposed to cash buying? The previous speaker was saying
how many people have become involved in this and come together.
The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool does not think that cash buying makes
a lot of sense in this plan. I remind viewers and members that
the wheat pool in Saskatchewan is the largest grain buying
organization in Canada. The sister pools in Manitoba and Alberta
are also opposed. They are joined by many other groups,
including the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities
and the National Farmers Union.
Those are our comments on group 6. We want to leave the
indelible impression that we are very much opposed and say no to
cash buying.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
do not know why you should be so lucky or have the luck of the
draw to be able to listen to my pearls of wisdom on this bill,
but it seems you are always in the House when I get up to speak.
Congratulations, Mr. Speaker.
I am extremely disappointed with the motion passed earlier today
effectively stopping the democratic voice of not only
parliamentarians but the numbers of producers this legislation
will affect.
When I came to this House a raw rookie not that many months ago
I expected that I would have the opportunity to put forward the
views of not only my constituents but constituents who are
affected by this legislation. Now I find that the government has
decided that the voices of parliamentarians should not be heard
and that the voices of western Canadian producers should not be
heard. It seems there is an obvious move afoot to have a piece
of legislation put through this House without forethought and,
quite frankly, the understanding as to how the clauses in this
legislation will affect those very producers we represent.
I have put forward an amendment in Group No. 6. Before I go
through the amendment, I would like to say that there are a
number of excellent amendments that have been put forward to the
House but unfortunately they are not being listened to by the
drafters of that legislation, the government of this country.
In fact, if the government would listen, if it would understand
the need for these amendments, I am sure it would appreciate that
they should be implemented into this legislation.
1215
On Group No. 6, I have put forward an amendment. I will read
the amendment. It states that the corporation may enter into
agreements with a producer at the beginning of the crop year
authorizing the producer to market independently of the
corporation a specified percentage of the wheat or barley
produced by that producer in one crop year.
That speaks to options. It speaks to choice. I would like to
emphatically state at this point that we are not opposed to the
Canadian Wheat Board. That is not what the speakers before me or
after me have said. I believe sincerely that the Canadian Wheat
Board can compete effectively with other competition that is now
in the marketplace.
As examples of that I put up the deregulation of utilities which
has happened across this great country of ours in the past
numbers of months, the deregulation of gas utilities, the
deregulation of telephone utilities. I will give a brief glimpse
into the future, the deregulation of hydro or the electricity
industry that is going to come to this country. Those
corporations did not wither and blow away into the wind. They
worked harder to compete for the customer they were serving and
have done so in a very efficient manner. It has produced
efficiencies for the consumer or in this case it would produce
efficiencies for the producer.
That is all we are saying. They can and should compete on the
open market. The Canadian Wheat Board in my conservations with
it will not even consider this particular tenet of what it should
be looking at for the next number of years. Its head is stuck
firmly in the sand and firmly with a monopoly situation. It is
not going to happen.
With international trade, with the fact that the producers are
not going to accept this piece of legislation, they are not going
to be satisfied with what is put forward, there is still going to
be substantial opposition to this legislation and to the Canadian
Wheat Board.
Please, if there is one thing I can plead with the government
and with the Canadian Wheat Board, it is put into place now what
is necessary for the next year, two years or three years to make
choices and options available.
My motion speaks specifically to that. It is a nice little
segue into what is going to happen into the future. Let
producers have a particular percentage of their product they can
now sell on the open market on a cash basis, on a hedge basis,
can go to the Chicago exchange and can hedge the type of cashflow
they require in order to run their operations. A number of the
amendments in this group speak to that very thing which does
speak to choice.
Not all the producers, and I accept that, necessarily want to
have that choice. But what they would have is the ability still
to go to the Canadian Wheat Board under the pillars they are
still guaranteed under the Canadian Wheat Board. They then could
pool their grain. They could get their initial payments the way
they would like to and plan their future in their farming
businesses from year to year.
Quite frankly, when it happened in the other utilities a number
of those customers stayed with the original utility because there
was loyalty, because they wanted to, because it was convenient,
because it was simple. If those are the reasons why producers
wish to remain with the Canadian Wheat Board, so be it, and let
the Canadian Wheat Board compete on that basis.
By the way, I would suggest at that time that the Canadian Wheat
Board be able to compete on other commodities, not simply barley
and wheat. Let it openly compete with the other commodities at
that time, the canola, the flax, the rye and the oats. That is
fair. Fair competition is fair for everybody. Let it have that
ability. Do not simply have a monopoly for two crops.
The motion put forward by the Reform Party speaks basically to
the same amendment I have put forward, perhaps a bit more
detailed. It does speak to certain percentages of hedging
available to it but in essence what we are simply saying is
please allow for the options to be made to the producer.
1220
I would like to speak to NDP Motion No. 39. This motion is to
delete the one clause I suppose that gives a little opportunity
to producers in this piece of legislation, the cash purchases.
Cash purchases have been in place for quite a substantial amount
of time, have been used for barley in the past and have been very
successful.
I would like to mention a couple of points with respect to my
motion once again. There are countless examples of how marketing
outside of a monopoly is good for economic efficiency. In the
November 13 issue of the Western Producer, the Canadian
Wheat Board's chief commissioner, Mr. Lorne Hehn, said: “The
growing domestic feed demand and increasing production of malting
quality barley probably means that within five to ten years there
will not be enough surplus feed barley to operate a predictable
export program under the Canadian Wheat Board”.
What is that saying? What it says is that barley is not even
going to be needed to be marketed under the Canadian Wheat Board
in five to ten years. By the way, I take exception to the five
to ten years. I think it will be sooner than that. If Mr. Hehn
thinks it is five to ten, he is again sadly mistaken in his
forecasting for the Canadian Wheat Board. It is sooner than
that. No longer will barley be required to be marketed under the
board because there will not be any need to market barley. It is
going to be used domestically and only here in Canada for feed.
In March 1996 there was a study on the economics of single desk
selling of western Canadian grains by two Ph.D ag-economists, Mr.
Carter and Mr. Lyons. They state that a driving force for much
of the Canadian Wheat Board activity is equity in treatment of
producers rather than economic efficiency among producers. This
is self-explanatory.
When oats and barley were removed from the Canadian Wheat Board
jurisdiction, the volume of barley and oats exports to the United
States increased dramatically. Is this merely a fluke or a
strong sign of the Canadian Wheat Board's inefficient marketing
practices? Make the choice. If someone wants to market through
the board they can. If they want to market on the open market
they should be able to.
The truth is that following the removal of oats from the
Canadian Wheat Board in 1989 farm gate prices for oats have risen
relative to world market levels and marketing costs have fallen
by about one-third. When oats were taken off the Canadian Wheat
Board prices went up. People still market it through the private
sector and their marketing costs have reduced.
I have talked to the people who grow this. I have talked to the
people who have oats. They say they would not want to go back
into that system.
The motion put forward by me with respect to some options,
fairness and choice has to be listened to by this government
because that is what the producers are saying. If they do not
get it in this legislation they will get it in the next
legislation that will be coming not too far in the distant
future.
I do hope some of the amendments are listened to honestly,
logically and openly by the government.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I live in a great farming community, as I am sure you know.
I am pleased to share some of the comments from the government
side with regard to particularly the amendments in group 6 but
some other comments as well.
First, I find it interesting that members opposite would stand
and complain about what they referred to as closure. They know
full well that time allocation is a necessary tool that any
government uses.
An hon. member: Rubbish.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: This is not rubbish at all. I have
experienced the kinds of delays and filibustering that can occur
with members standing in their place in a democratic legislature
reading a telephone book or some other kind of nonsense simply to
stall the government's program.
I want to share and put on the record some of the time, when we
talk about time allocation, that Bill C-4 has enjoyed. Its
predecessor was Bill C-72. At second reading there were over two
hours of debate in this place.
1225
There were over 39 hours in committee. There was more time at
report stage and an additional three and a half hours in the
House. That was the predecessor to the bill which we are
debating today. There was quite a bit of discussion on
essentially the same bill and the same issue.
This bill was debated for over three hours at second reading. We
should bear in mind that the predecessor to this bill was debated
for 19 and three-quarter hours in committee in addition to the 39
hours. It was debated for several hours at report stage. There
were over 11 and a half hours of debate in the House.
This bill is not about rocket science. This bill is
fundamentally about democracy and the governance of special
purpose bodies. I think the number of hours of debate in this
place alone have been sufficient.
I categorically reject the comments by members opposite that
there is heavy handedness or closure intended. Indeed we are
allowing the opposition parties to put forth amendments. There
has been substantial debate. Public hearings were held right
across Canada, notably in western Canada where this legislation
will have the greatest impact. The farmers will benefit
dramatically from the changes which are being made to the
governance of this body.
The changes which are being made to the governance will turn
what is a cumbersome, old crown corporation, which we know has
had some difficulty, into a mixed, modern type of system which
will allow the farmers to appoint two-thirds of the directors to
the board. How could it be more democratic?
If members opposite do not want western farmers to have that
kind of democratic participation, maybe they should say so. I
have some difficulty understanding how they could justify that
position.
Indeed the government has listened to the farmers in western
Canada. This has been an extremely democratic process. A lot of
time has been spent on this issue both in the communities and in
the House of Commons.
The amendments in Group No. 6 would lead to a reduction in the
operating flexibility of the Canadian Wheat Board. That is
exactly what this bill attempts to do. It will create
flexibility in a new board. It will be able to elect its own
chair, who will be elected by the farmers. It allows for
democratic votes to take place in the farming community when
certain products are being deleted or added. This is one of the
most democratic processes I have ever seen in government.
Two of the proposed amendments would remove flexibility tools,
namely shorter pool periods and cash buying authority. I cannot
imagine why the Reform Party would want that to happen.
Other amendments would deny the wheat board the power to make
adjustments to initial payments on its own authority. That is
extremely important. It would reduce the ability of the wheat
board to use funds from uncashed cheques for the benefit of all
producers and to engage in cash trading.
Again I would ask members opposite why in the world they would
want to restrict the wheat board. As many of them represent
farmers in those communities, why would they not embrace this
legislation? They should see it as an opportunity for democracy
to occur in a special purpose body.
We have several of those bodies. We recently had a debate about
changes to the ports legislation. Once again it is the same
concept. It allows more local democracy. The principle is that
the government which is closest to the people is the most
efficient and best government. That is exactly what this bill
will accomplish.
For those reasons we clearly cannot support these amendments.
The new flexibility tools are important provisions which must
remain in the bill. These tools would allow the wheat board to
offer producers alternative means of receiving payment. Again,
why would we not want to offer those alternative means?
1230
They would speed up cash flows, which is extremely important in
any business, while retaining the benefits to producers of the
CWB being a single desk seller. They would also allow the board
to better manage its own risk. That is where we have seen the
government trying to go in many areas to get better risk
management in the hands of the operators on the ground and
actually doing the work. We believe that would do exactly that.
The initiatives we are talking about are all enabling
initiatives. They will or will not be used at the sole
discretion of the board of directors. I remind members opposite
once again that two-thirds of the board of directors will be
appointed by farmers locally and five out of the fifteen will be
established by the government.
It is important that the board be able to adjust initial
payments quickly when market conditions make it appropriate to do
so. That is one of the reasons flexibility is so important. It
will help to get money in the hands of the producers as quickly
as possible to attract deliveries of grain in a rising market.
It is a bit of the just in time mentality we see in business
today. These modern changes will help them respond to those
issues. If we were to adopt those amendments it will result in a
slower process for getting money into the pockets of western
Canadian grain producers.
What we are talking about and what they are trying to change is
modernization of a system that will see—
Mr. Dale Johnston: Rubbish.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: It is not rubbish. The gentleman
opposite says it is. I would like him to defend why he would be
against local autonomy, why he would be against grain farmers
having the authority and the responsibility to run the wheat
board, which has not happened under a crown corporation.
Without these changes we will leave farmers in western Canada
working with an antiquated system that will restrict their cash
flow, will restrict their ability to do business in the modern
world and will restrict their flexibility to adjust to changing
conditions.
I am sure it will be no surprise to members opposite that the
government will not be supporting these amendments. It is not
because we did not hear them. We heard them but we categorically
reject them because we think they are bad for the farmers of
western Canada.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to add my voice of condemnation to the move taken by
the government today to stifle debate on the bill.
I take exception to the last speaker who said that this was not
closure but was simply time allocation and that we have had a lot
of time to discuss the bill. That is rubbish. It is a real
flip-flop for him and his party to take that stance when a few
short years ago they stood on this side and condemned the
Conservatives over and over again for invoking closure.
When you and I were boys, Mr. Speaker, a period that many people
would refer to as the old days, a mythical character rode the
western plains on a white horse and shot silver bullets. Known
as the Lone Ranger, this relentless crime buster divided his time
between rescuing damsels in distress and bringing bad guys to
justice.
Today another mythical character roams the Canadian plains.
Known in Saskatchewan as the lone Liberal, his mission is to
round up farmers who think they have the right to sell their own
grain. Along with his trusty sidekick for comic relief, the
Canadian Wheat Board, he brings to justice villainous farmers who
think that if they can grow it they can sell it.
With the lone Liberal and the CWB in hot pursuit these criminals
are dealt with, with due dispatch and without delay, while lesser
law breakers like rapists and murderers are sternly admonished
and sent home.
Prairie farmers beware. The lone Liberal rides again and he
knows where they live. He also knows where they park their
trucks.
1235
If the lone Liberal wonders why he is the only Liberal from
Saskatchewan, all he has to do is look at his sidekick, the
Canadian Wheat Board. By pushing the CWB agenda and not standing
up for farmers, his compatriots were trounced in June. The heavy
handed approach favoured by the lone Liberal will only mean that
he will be the last Liberal from Saskatchewan.
Farmers are frustrated. They are fed up with the paternalistic
approach of the government. Its primary goal is to control all
facets of the lives of farmers. If anyone wonders why these
farmers resort to border busting, the reason is that the
government has made sure there is no option to the Canadian Wheat
Board; it is the only game in town.
Farmers are self-employed only in the eyes of the tax man. In
reality they are public servants without the benefits, without
the salary and without the pension. The wheat board is like big
brother, directing farmers on when to deliver the product and how
much they will be paid: “Just bring it to us. It is none of
your business what we get for it”.
Nowhere is the government's control fetish more evident than in
its attempt to keep western farmers in line. For decades
Liberals have been inventing ways to control the western economy.
They did it in the national energy program. They are dying now
to impose a carbon tax but in the interim they will settle for
depriving western farmers of their property rights.
The bill even expands the board's control over wheat and barley
to other grains, and to think the wheat board was set up as a
temporary measure. Did we not hear that about income tax and the
GST?
Failure to comply with this old soviet style state run monopoly
results in a jail sentence. Farmers whose only crime is to try
to get a fair price for their product are relentlessly pursued by
the wheat police and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law
by the government.
To make matters even worse, the board is now paying farmers less
than the world price for grain. Compounding the problem is the
fact that the board is so shrouded in secrecy that farmers cannot
even determine how much less than the world price they are
receiving.
Canadian taxpayers are on the hook for a $7 billion liability
through the board, but the Canadian Wheat Board is not
accountable to farmers or Canadian taxpayers. It is an
unbelievable situation.
The advance billing for Bill C-4 predicted an enhanced
accountability to farmers. Instead what we have before us today
is a badly flawed initiative in which the Canadian Wheat Board is
accountable only to its master, the minister, the lone Liberal.
The legislation continues to promote secrecy over accountability
by ensuring the board escapes the scrutiny of the auditor general
and exempts it, believe it or not, from the Access to Information
Act.
Nobody is advocating that the wheat board should negotiate
contracts in the media or in the public. We admit that. There
has to be some secrecy to present day negotiations. The notion
of commercial confidentiality may have some validity on current
negotiations. But why is the government so opposed to releasing
historic information? The only reason I can think of is that it
may be trying to hide extravagant spending, bungling and
mismanagement.
We know the Liberals love to brag. If they were proud of their
record they would certainly want to tell us all about it. It
appears that we will never know because the bill stifles the
ability of the elected directors to represent the farmers who
elected them.
1240
How can directors act freely if they are bound by secrecy? By
denying board members liability protection they will not be able
to speak out and act on behalf of their farmer constituents. If
the government thinks its problems will be over once Bill C-4
becomes law it is sadly mistaken. In fact the Canadian Wheat
Board will become a target in international trade negotiations.
The changes to the Canadian Wheat Board Act before us today will
not satisfy our trading competitors that the board is independent
from the federal government. It will be nothing less than a
monumental challenge to convince protectionist U.S. Congress
members that the board does not have an unfair trading advantage.
If the government and the lone Liberal from Saskatchewan really
want to empower farmers, they will accept the amendments proposed
by my colleagues, the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River
and the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville. It is high time for
the Canadian Wheat Board to act in the best interest of farmers,
not just of government.
I would certainly endorse Motion No. 37 in Group No. 6. It is
not exactly what we had in mind, but it is a step in the correct
direction. It would authorize a producer to market outside the
Canadian Wheat Board a percentage of the wheat and barley
produced by the producer in a crop year. This is the sort of
thing we have been advocating all along.
Some people who like to spread misinformation about members of
the Reform Party saying that it is the party that wants to knock
the wheat board on the head; they want to kill it and do away
with it completely. That is absolute rubbish. We have never
advocated that. We have always advocated a dual marketing
system. If the Canadian Wheat Board cannot operate without its
state run monopoly, it must be as very poor organization.
Every one of us has to compete in our business life and in our
political life. I think competition is good and so should the
Canadian Wheat Board.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I rise with considerable interest to speak to Group No. 6. The aim
of these amendments for the most part is to improve Bill C-4,
which, we must admit, is a step in the right direction toward
improving the Canadian Wheat Board.
When the Canadian Wheat Board was set up, its underlying
principles were valid. At that time, we were in a period of full
economic crisis, and grain producers were working hard for next to
nothing. The wheat board was founded then, when it was needed. The
effect of this was to raise prices and stabilize incomes, which
were then very, very low. Times were tough.
While the bill is a step in the right direction, it could be
a big step. It is a little step, because the three to five members
on the previous board of directors were political appointments.
When the Liberals were in government, they appointed their friends
with very little regard, as we know, for the quality of their work.
When we changed vehicles, from red to blue, the friends of the
Conservatives were appointed. Here too, the appointments were very
dubious.
This morning I drew a parallel with Senator Thompson who, a
few years ago, was an excellent Liberal, but today is the shame of
his party. They want to kick him out of the Senate as they did out
of the Liberal caucus. Since he was appointed to age 75, they are
stuck with their choice. That is what the Constitution says.
1245
The bill is, then, a small step in the right direction, but it
could be a medium step or a giant step. The opposition parties
have brought in several motions, highly constructive suggestions
for the most part.
My party, the Bloc Quebecois, for which I am the spokesperson
on agricultural matters, proposed Motion No. 46, which would
require the Canadian Wheat Board to give access to information.
Those mainly responsible for the existence of this Canadian Wheat
Board, the producers, could thus, using the very founding
principles of the Access to Information Commission, verify whether
the Board was being administered very well, well, badly or very
badly.
I would remind the House that, year in and year out, wheat
sales hover around the $6 billion mark, and are coming up to $7
billion.
I have just been doing the math, for the fun of it. If, for
example, the board makes a one one-hundredth of one percent
error—one-hundredth of a percentage point is very little, one-hundredth
of a penny is so little compared to a dollar, and we do not even
bother to bend over to pick up a penny—that still represents a
$600,000 error. That is significant. If the error is one one-thousandth,
that represents $60,000.
The ten directors elected by the producers and the five
appointed by the governor in council will, presumably, be highly
competent of course. The CEO, who will be the only full time
person, the one who will obviously call the tune for the Canadian
Wheat Board, will be appointed by the Liberal Party. Let us face
it, they are the ones in power today. So the CEO will certainly be
a good Liberal, let me tell you, and will draw a nice comfortable
salary, needless to say.
If this president or CEO is out by a fraction as small as 1%, huge
sums would be involved.
In the interests of transparency, we in the Bloc Quebecois are
suggesting that grain producers or anyone, I or my neighbours in
the riding, should be able to request an audit in order to have
this board release documents.
I would remind you that, in Group No. 5, we learned that the
auditor general would not have the opportunity or the right to go
and audit the books and find out how well or badly the Canadian
Wheat Board was being run. Sometimes I honestly wonder whether the
Liberal government headed by the member for Saint-Maurice does not
have some things it is trying to hide from grain producers. It is
a question I ask myself, and I hope that a member of the government
party will give me an answer after I have finished.
The trust of grain producers must be restored at all costs.
This is essential. It is terrible the number of telephone calls,
letters and faxes my office has received from western farmers, from
western groups working tirelessly for the defence of grain
producers. Unfortunately, as soon as it looks like farmers are
going to get any control, the government hesitates, although
farmers themselves are the ones who know how it should be run.
As an example—I am digressing briefly—there will be 15
members on the board of directors. In that sense, it is an
improvement. Before, there were three, four or five at most, and
they were all partisan appointments. People were told “We are
sending you there”.
1250
For example, if a prime minister wanted to get rid of a member of
Parliament, he would appoint him to the Canadian Wheat Board, where that
person would get a good salary and nice perks. A byelection would
follow, and some friend of the prime minister would get elected and get
a cabinet post or some other big job. It would now be a good thing to
change things, restore the producers' trust.
This is a step in the right direction, since 10 of the 15 directors
will be elected by farmers, who will vote by region. For example, grain
producers in the Peace River area will vote for Mr. Y, who will become
their representative. If he does not do a good job, he will be replaced
the next time.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Or Mrs. Y.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Or Mrs. Y, of course.
The problem is with the position of chairperson.
I will conclude by discussing another motion, moved by the hon.
member for Prince-George—Peace River, who is making a very interesting
suggestion.
The bill currently provides that the already existing advisory
committee may—it may, but all this is not clear—continue to exist.
Motion No. 48 moved by the Reform Party member proposes to clearly state
that the existing advisory committee will be dissolved.
The board will have 15 directors, compared to the three members
currently sitting on the advisory committee. We agree with the Reform
Party that having a board with 10 elected and five appointed directors
would be enough. This is not to say we necessarily approve of the number
10 for elected directors.
Personally, I would have proposed that all members be direct
representatives of grain producers, and that they be elected through a
general vote.
If the chairperson does not do a proper job, he will be let go at
the end of his mandate, as was the case with the Conservative Party, in
1993, when only two board members were kept.
Mr. Speaker, I would like you, as Speaker of the House, to ask the
Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture or, rather, the Minister
responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, namely the Minister of Natural
Resources, to take a close look at the many motions before us. These
motions do not seek to weaken Bill C-4, but to improve it. After all,
this legislation deals with sales of between $6 and $7 billion.
[English]
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, what
we are debating now is group 6, a grouping of amendments
including three very progressive amendments moved by my colleague
and next door neighbour, the member for Palliser.
I want to make very clear at the outset that I too object to the
government's imposing closure on this very important piece of
legislation for western Canadian farmers and indeed for all the
country.
I am sure the government House leader understands that the
Canadian Wheat Board is a very important institution, doing about
$6 billion worth of business every year on behalf of western
Canadian farmers. That $6 billion worth of business every year
provides a tremendous spin-off to not just western Canadian
farmers or western Canadians but to the nation as a whole. That
is why this legislation should not be forced through the House
with closure but that this House should be more receptive to
accepting some of the progressive amendments that have been moved
by members on the opposition side of the House.
I want to be very clear at the outset that our party has stood
historically behind the concept of the Canadian Wheat Board.
1255
We have had the wheat board now for roughly 60 years in this
country. There was a real struggle back in the 1930s and the
1940s to fight for the creation of a Canadian wheat board that
would market things collectively and operate as a single desk
marketing agency for the farmers of western Canada.
I can remember the days when I was a kid and my grandfather
telling about the struggles that people of his generation had in
the 1920s, 1930s and early 1940s against the Winnipeg grain
exchange and the Chicago futures market in terms of getting a
decent price for the grain they were marketing to different parts
of the world. After a long struggle and through all kinds of
prairie popular movements, the creation of the Canadian Wheat
Board occurred some 60 odd years ago.
Today there is a fight on the prairies once again about the very
survival of the Canadian Wheat Board. Our party is firmly behind
the wheat board. We want it democratized and as open and
accountable to farmers as possible, but we want the wheat board
to be expanded to include more grains so that it can market those
grains for the farmers of western Canada.
What is the option? The option is to open up the market and
allow the big grain companies like Cargill and others to market
grain and reap the profits of the farmers of western Canada. That
is the position taken by the Reform Party. It is trying to
disguise that by saying it wants a dual marketing system, a
double marketing system in this country.
Mr. Myron Thompson: That's what farmers are saying.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: The farmers are not saying that. When
there was a vote in western Canada on barley and the wheat board,
the farmers said very clearly they wanted to maintain barley in
the Canadian Wheat Board by about a 65% to 66% vote.
The Reform Party says it believes in democracy and a referenda.
There was a referendum on that issue. The Alberta government
intervened on the side of the open marketers I think with about a
million dollars and, despite that, the producers turned it down
almost two to one going into the open market. Has democracy
spoken? Reform Party members should be listening to democracy,
listening to their constituents and listening to their farmers if
they believe in what they are saying to the people of this
country.
I am sure that the member for Wild Rose, being a populist, would
agree that we should listen to the farmers of western Canada and
listen to the democratic choice those farmers have made in
western Canada. He should come around to our ridings and hear
what people are saying about keeping the Canadian Wheat Board.
Instead, what we are hearing from the Reform Party—and western
Canadians watching should be aware of this—the member for
Cypress Hills—Grasslands said in the House a while back that the
Canadian Wheat Board in this country compares to the old Soviet
Union. What kind of extremism is that? Here is a party that is
so extreme that it compares the Canadian Wheat Board, which is
supported by Canadian farmers, the people in my riding, to the
kind of institutions in the old Soviet Union. That is what the
Reform Party is saying and it is on the record here in
Hansard.
What does the member for Wild Rose say about that? Why does he
not go wild on that one? That is what the Reform Party is
saying.
If that was not enough, the member for Skeena, that great grain
producing riding of Skeena, compared the Canadian Wheat Board to
a police state. It has been a long time since I have heard that
kind of extremism in the House of Commons.
The members of the Reform Party are getting very excited. I am
afraid they are going to start rushing me. I have not had much
training in boxing recently, but I hear those extreme voices
being raised once again about jailing farmers. There are some
farmers in a movement called farmers for just us who broke the
Canadian law. They were found guilty by the courts in this
country and here are the members of the Reform Party saying they
want to stand up on behalf of law breakers. Again, the extremism
in that party ought to be noted by ordinary people in this
country. It is about time they were called to task on that.
Some of the farmers in farmers for just us have broken the law
and members of the Reform Party stands four square behind them.
An important part of any parliamentary democracy is to listen to
the people, and the people of western Canada have spoken very
clearly, very succinctly and often on the need to keep the
Canadian Wheat Board and single desk marketing and have that as
an institution of economic good for the people of western Canada.
1300
There was a referendum on that as it pertains to barley. The
Reform Party lost that referendum. They pretended it did not
exist. They do not listen to their constituents. In fact some of
them should be recalled on this issue.
I would like to have a Reform Party member get up and tell us
why they do not want to listen to the people. I believe the whip
of the Reform Party is hanging his head in shame up there at the
Chair because the Reform Party was not listening to the people of
this country when they spoke so clearly in the barley referendum.
I would like to have a Reform Party member get up and explain
how they can do this, how they can not listen to what the people
are saying.
The wheat board is a very important institution. The wheat
board sells about $6 billion a year of grain. The profits are
returned to the farmers, not to private investors. The wheat
board is accountable to Parliament. The wheat board has its
books audited independently by Deloitte & Touche. The wheat
board is accountable. It is open. It is there for the farmers
of western Canada yet the Reform Party is opposing the Canadian
Wheat Board. I wonder why.
Let us look at who funds the Reform Party. Conrad Black. I do
not know if he contributed to your campaign, Mr. Speaker, but he
did not contribute to mine. He contributes to the Reform Party.
Imasco, some of the big banks and believe it or not, the CPR.
That is why the Reform Party is in opposition to the Canadian
Wheat Board.
Just like the fights which occurred in the 1930s and 1940s with
the far right in western Canada as they opposed orderly
marketing, those fights are occurring again by these new radicals
and new extremists who are taking a stand against orderly
marketing in Canada.
The whip of the Reform Party is so ashamed, he is now across the
House and is sitting with the Liberals. A few minutes ago he was
hanging his head in shame, but now he is sitting with the
Liberals, dissociating himself from the Reform caucus.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The member has this problem with staying on course and
relevancy. He got beaten in Yorkton—Melville badly for not
listening to his people. As a result, he does not stay on the
subject.
The Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. member is discussing
the Canadian Wheat Board Act which is what we have been debating
here all day. He has some minutes remaining in his speech.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have been representing
farmers in this House for some 26 years. I know what the farmers
are saying in my riding and around Saskatchewan and around
western Canada. They want a strong Canadian Wheat Board. They
want Parliament to support that Canadian Wheat Board. Yes, they
want it to be more accountable, they want it to be more
democratic, but they want to keep the Canadian Wheat Board.
The real debate is whether or not that wheat board continues to
exist. The Reform Party will destroy the Canadian Wheat Board.
They will set up a dual marketing system. They will destroy the
Canadian Wheat Board.
They have had members in this House that have compared the
Canadian Wheat Board to a police state. The member for Skeena did
that. The member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands was comparing the
wheat board to the old Soviet Union. These are extremist
statements. But that is exactly where the Reform Party stands.
They are also not listening to the democratic will of western
Canadians who voted very clearly to keep barley within the
context of the Canadian Wheat Board.
So I say to them, why do they not listen to their constituents?
Why do they not listen to what people are saying? If they did
that, we would have a strong wheat board for the farmers of
western Canada.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is absolutely astonishing to listen to that member
from Saskatchewan rant and rave about how he is the great
protector of the rights of Canadian farmers. Here is a member
who fled from the rural ridings of Saskatchewan because his
support was non existent.
He fled to an urban riding to seek re-election. What did he care
about the farmers? He wanted to go to the city so he could get
himself another job.
1305
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order and it is a legitimate one. The member from the Reform
Party is geographically challenged. The riding of Qu'Appelle is
one-half rural and one-half in the city.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure all hon. members are happy
to learn the demographics of the hon. member's riding, but I am
afraid it is not a point of order.
Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, it is quite likely the hon.
member's thinking is one-half in the mud and one-half in the
sand. There is no doubt about that.
We have heard the member talk about this glorious wheat board, a
wheat board that is determined to shackle the efforts of Canadian
farmers. That is the philosophy of communism where the state is
in control of everything. I am not surprised that it is coming
from that member from Saskatchewan, a disciple of the socialist
communist philosophy.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I rise
on a point of order. There are times when members get carried
away. I would like to ask the member to withdraw that. He said
I am a disciple of the communist philosophy. I am not. I never
have been. I have always been critical of that. I would like
him to withdraw that comment.
The Deputy Speaker: I am not sure that what the hon.
member said or what is objected to is necessarily
unparliamentary. I am unaware of a precedent that would rule it
is an unparliamentary term. If the hon. member could assist the
Chair later with that, I would be glad to do it.
I know that hon. members generally would prefer to continue
their remarks in a temperate vein and I would urge that.
Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, the member is not listening
to what the Reform Party has said because he chooses not to. He
chooses to keep his head in the sand and not listen to a new way
of doing things.
It is a way of doing things which we believe would free the
farmers from the oppressiveness of the Canadian Wheat Board. It
would free the farmers from the dictatorship of the Canadian
Wheat Board. It would free the farmers from the corruptness of
the Canadian Wheat Board, free the farmers from the mismanagement
of the Canadian Wheat Board and free the farmers from the
influence of the Liberal friends of the Canadian Wheat Board.
An hon. member: What corruptness?
Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, they ask what
corruptness. There has been allegation after allegation by
Canadian farmers who have sought to take this issue to court only
to find that the Canadian Wheat Board and this Liberal government
do everything they can to keep the issues out of court.
When one Canadian farmer wants to try to do something for
himself to improve his standard of living, to expand the best
possible market for the product that through his toils he grew
out of the ground, what do they do? They throw him in jail
because he will not be guided by the dictatorial powers of the
Canadian Wheat Board.
It is a sad day in this House when the Liberal government brings
in closure on an issue so important as this. This is an issue
that takes away the rights of Canadian farmers. It is a bill
that serves to increase the secrecy of the Canadian Wheat Board.
It is a bill that serves to cloak more in secrecy the goings on,
the financial dealings and how they are doing business so that
ordinary Canadian farmers and members of the opposition cannot
get access to find out where the mismanagement is occurring,
where the corruption is occurring, where the sleight of hand is
occurring in the Canadian Wheat Board.
Who could we expect in advance to support the government on this
oppressive bill? None other than the New Democratic Party
members. We could have bet a day's wages that they were going to
jump on board with the Liberals on this bill.
The only type of authority they understand is a state authority.
1310
That goes back to the roots of this member's philosophy when he
talks about big brother looking after everything and not letting
any individual initiative come to the surface, not rewarding
individual efforts. That is not the style or the philosophy of
the NDP. It wants a collective state where everyone works for
the state. They get little in return and they pay into the big
brother government.
No wonder the NDP member fled his rural riding after the 1993
election and sought refuge in the city where he could find some
new fields on which to sow his socialist philosophy. It is
unfortunate that he did and we have him back in the House.
The Liberals have put forward an oppressive bill. It oppresses
the right of farmers to work hard, to succeed and to try to make
life a little better for themselves. It places them under the
thumb of a wheat board that does not want to open its books to
Parliament. They would not even let the Auditor General of
Canada look at the books.
What are the Liberals trying to hide by putting in a bill like
this? They do not want the Auditor General of Canada, the
watchdog for Canadian taxpayers including the western farmers, to
look at their operation. Why? Because it would expose the
mismanagement, the nepotism and yes, the corruption in the
Canadian Wheat Board. There is that word again. It comes up all
the time when I think of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Mr. Darrel Stinson: The arrogance.
Mr. Dick Harris: The arrogance. Good word. Have we got
some more here? We could go on and on. I should have a
thesaurus here. We could have a lot of fun here today.
The Reform Party supports the freedom of choice for farmers.
The Reform Party supports the individual initiative of Canadian
farmers. The Reform Party supports that that initiative can be
rewarded by getting the best price possible for their products.
If they can do it themselves, then we want to let them.
We cannot support this bill or any of the amendments put forward
by the Liberal Party or the NDP. I rest my case. This is a
terrible bill in the history of farming in Canada. It cannot be
supported in this House.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, for 60
years the wheat board as a crown agency has done an admirable job
for farmers, for all farmers, those with small farms, those with
large farms. Studies show that each year farmers make $265
million more selling wheat through the wheat board than they
would selling to the private grain trade.
It is the best grain marketing organization in the world. The
wheat board has been able to get good prices and returns the
profit to farmers rather than having it line the pockets of
private grain graders. The wheat board is a $6 billion industry
and certain corporate interests would love to get their hands on
it. It is because of that that we see the Reform Party and its
business friends trying to abolish the wheat board.
The Reform, like the Liberals, want a winner take all economy
and they want to get there a whole lot faster. To this end we
have seen the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the
Winnipeg Commodity Exchange and Cargill rally behind the position
or more likely lobby that position. We see the National
Citizens' Coalition attacking the integrity of the wheat board.
It is no surprise that a former Reform MP, Stephen Harper, is
leading that charge.
Producers support the wheat board. It has ensured stability in
their interest. Statements made in the past by Reform members
compared life in Canada under the wheat board to life in the
former Soviet Union. They call Canada a police state because we
have a wheat board. These remarks only prove that Reform members
are capable of writing for the tabloids.
These remarks only prove that Reform is capable of writing for
the tabloids. These remarks are extremist rhetoric and we have
listened to a whole lot of it. They do not accurately reflect
the work and actions of the wheat board.
1315
The Reform Party's agriculture critic in the last Parliament is
not with us today. He came from the riding of
Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar which is a fairly large farming area.
I suggest his party's stance on the wheat board is one of the
main reasons he is not here. The majority of the farmers do not
support Reform's position on the wheat board.
There is no question that producers are not happy with the
government's amendments to the act. There is no question that
more accountability and transparency are wanted. The producers,
however, do not want to throw the baby out with the bath water.
They want the Canadian Wheat Board. If this government seriously
wants support for the changes it must ensure access to
information and it must ensure that there is accountability. Its
failure to do this again leaves people questioning high paid
appointments and patronage. This only taints the Canadian Wheat
Board.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to the agreement reached
Wednesday, November 19, 1997, all of the motions in Group No. 6 are
deemed to have been put to the House, and the recorded divisions
are deemed to have been requested and deferred.
[English]
The House will now proceed to the debate on the motions in Group
No. 7. This group contains Motions Nos. 42, 43, 44, 46 and 48.
Pursuant to agreement made on Wednesday, November 19, 1997 all
motions in Group No. 7 are deemed proposed and seconded.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-4 be amended by
adding after line 16, on page 18, the following:
“24.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after
section 45:
45.1 (1) A producer may, in the form prescribed by the
regulations, elect to be excluded, with respect to one or more
types of grain, from the operation of this Part, for a period of
not less than five years.
(2) An election under this subsection may be terminated only
by two years notice in the form prescribed by the regulations.
(3) The Corporation shall establish procedures to preserve
the identity of grain from producers who have made an election
under subsection (1) and to prevent co-mingling of grain from
producers who have made such an election.”
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC) moved:
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP) moved:
That Bill C-4, in
Clause 26, be amended by deleting lines 30 to 34 on page 19.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-4 be amended by adding before
line 1 and the heading “Agricultural Marketing Program Act” on
page 22 the following:
“Access to Information Act
30.1 Schedule I to the Access to Information Act is amended
by adding the following in alphabetical order under the heading
“Other Government Institutions”:
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-4, in Clause 36,
be amended by replacing lines 22 to 27 on page 24 with the
following:
“(5) Section 9 of this Act comes into force on the date on
which the first directors elected assume office pursuant to
section 3.08 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, as enacted by
section 3 of this Act.”
He said: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that the government might lead
off debate, especially on this group of amendments. It is so
typical of the government's arrogant attitude and how it has
approached debate on this bill that it will not put members
forward to debate these amendments. It is absolutely despicable.
I hope and pray that the western Canadian farmers who are
following this debate are taking note of the complete disdain
with which the government has treated this debate over the last
number of days. There are hardly any Liberal members in the
House. The few in the House have not even addressed the issue.
They are not interested in having an honest, open and proper
debate on the 48 amendments which have been put forward, and they
are very substantive amendments.
I notice the member for Malpeque, a Prince Edward Island
potato farmer.
The big issue in this set of amendments is contained in Motion
No. 43 which was put forward by my colleague from the Progressive
Conservative Party to remove the inclusion clause. If there is
one clause in Bill C-4 which has raised the ire across the board
of western Canadian farmers it is the inclusion clause. The
government knows it. There were many submissions and
presentations made to the government in committee and across the
land against the inclusion clause, and yet the government and the
hon. member for Malpeque will not stand to defend it.
The reality is that people from coast to coast in this country
who are involved in the farming communities know that the member
for Malpeque should be down at the other end of the House. He
should be in the NDP caucus. The only reason he is not is he
knew he could never run for the NDP in Prince Edward Island and
have a hope of getting to the House of Commons, so he decided to
run as a Liberal.
As a past president of the National Farmers Union we know where
his thinking is. We know that he wants more state control of
agriculture in Canada. He wants expanded control of the Canadian
Wheat Board. He wants more control, just as the hon. member from
Regina just said.
They want more crops brought in under the Canadian Wheat Board,
more farmers in jail, I would assume.
1320
Let us have a look at what witnesses, the few we had time to
hear from, said about the inclusion clause when they appeared
before the standing committee on agriculture last fall.
The prairie pools sent a written request to the minister by
association which can demonstrate that it is the predominant
organization which exists solely to represent the producers of
that commodity in the designated area. They want it very clearly
defined who is going to initiate including more commodities under
the control of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Even the prairie pools have some serious concerns about this
inclusion clause. United grain growers say no to the inclusion
clause. Western Canadian wheat growers say no. Canadian canola
growers, no; flax growers of Western Canada, no; the Canadian
Federation of Independent Business, no; oat producers of Alberta,
no. The list goes on and on. Virtually every group of witnesses,
every farm organization that appeared before the committee said
no to the inclusion clause and yet does it make any difference?
Are they listening over there? They are still there.
I would like to remark on what has happened over the last little
while with this bill, the reality. I spoke on Monday. I raised a
question of privilege on this very issue, because what we have
seen is this government and this minister, the Minister
responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, showing complete
disdain, a lack of respect for this institution. That is the
reality of what has happened. He is just proceeding as though
this bill is law to the extent that because we have so many
western Canadian farmers in the caucus of the official opposition
in this House who wanted to speak to this bill, wanted to
properly debate the amendments, actually brought in closure today
to shut down debate. They do not want to hear from western
Canadian farmers.
There is a group that has grown up from grassroots western
Canadian farm organizations specifically to fight this bill. The
thing that unifies it is the inclusion clause. That is the one
thing that unified all these groups under a common umbrella. They
said no, we certainly do not want that. Yes, we want to see
change with the Canadian Wheat Board, but we certainly do not
want to see it expanding its already mandatory powers over wheat
and barley to other commodities such as canola or flax, things
marketed on the free market right now.
Let us look at the organizations that make up this coalition
against Bill C-4. Included are the Alberta Canola Producers
Commission, the Alberta Winter Wheat Producers Commission, the
B.C. Grain Producers Association, an organization that I was very
proud to be the president of for a number of years when I was
actively farming. I probably shovelled more grain that ended up
in Canadian Wheat Board cars than most members on the opposite
side have ever seen in their lives.
Also included are the Canadian Canola Growers Association, the
Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Canadian Oil
Seed Processors Association, the Flax Growers of Western Canada,
the Manitoba Canola Growers Association, the Oat Producers
Association of Alberta, the Ontario Canola Growers Association.
Even Ontario canola growers are in on it because they are
concerned about this. Others are the Western Barley Growers
Association, the Saskatchewan Canola Growers Association, the
Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association and the Winnipeg
commodity exchange. They all joined together to try to fight Bill
C-4, largely because of this inclusion clause.
I would add that this meeting I referred to in my point of
privilege last week, the meeting that the hon. minister for the
Canadian Wheat Board held in Regina on January 21, some of those
organizations I just read out were invited to attend that
meeting. And what happened at that meeting?
1325
The majority of those organizations invited urged the minister
to drop the inclusion clause brought forward because of one
member, the hon. member for Malpeque who joined the House and
perhaps will join in the debate. We welcome him and we would
like to hear from him in this debate later on. Those
organizations walked out in complete disgust. They wanted to
discuss the bill and the ramifications of this bill on western
Canadian farmers. The reality was the minister was there to
discuss how to hold the elections. We had not even voted on how
many directors there would be.
There is an amendment that has been put forward by me on behalf
of the Reform Party to have all 15 directors elected. We are not
going to vote on that until next Monday evening. Yet the
minister holds a meeting in Regina and invites farm groups to
discuss how to go about holding these elections, as though this
bill were already law. We wonder why the Parliament of Canada
has become irrelevant in the minds of so many Canadian citizens.
It is because of the arrogant attitude of ministers like that.
What happened at this meeting? The majority of those groups
walked out in complete disgust. It is interesting that both the
premier of Alberta and the premier of Manitoba wrote to the Prime
Minister about this inclusion clause. I have copies of the
letters. They wrote scathing criticism of this inclusion clause
that the socialists obviously support judging by the heckling
coming from that end. They join their other Liberal brothers in
trying to support this state run commodity organization.
Unfortunately my time has expired. I would like to go on for
considerable length discussing this, but that's life.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, just an
observation at the outset. While we very much in this corner of
the House oppose what the government has done today by invoking
time allocation, it is interesting to note how quickly the debate
is now going through once time allocation has been proceeded
with.
We have been dealing with these groups of amendments for several
days. It seems, by my calculation, to be taking slightly over a
day to get through one group. We started at group 5 a couple of
hours ago and now we are in the seventh and final group. It
seems the Reform Party, which put up 19 or 20 speakers, is able
to rush out and say look, the government forced us into time
allocation and are they not a horrible group of people. Reform
has the thing through. It won what it thinks it will be able to
carry out to the farmers. It is a sham and a shame.
Group 7, the one we want to zero in on this afternoon, is the
inclusion the clause. As the previous speaker indicated, our
caucus does support the inclusion clause. We want to explain why
we support the clause.
The previous bill allowed farmers to decide in a vote to remove
or exclude grains from the board's authority. It seems to us
that it is only fair, normal and natural that farmers can also
vote to add additional grains. I stress that such an inclusion
of a grain besides wheat and barley would occur only after a vote
of farmers and/or producers. That is democracy in its truest
form.
There has been a great deal of concern how a vote to include a
grain would be actually triggered.
1330
As the legislation stands a farm group would have to seek
conclusion. The minister would then decide if the group was
sufficiently representative of producers of the commodity in
question. Only then would a vote occur.
Our proposal in Motion No. 44 was actually suggested by the
minister of agriculture for the province of Saskatchewan when he
appeared before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and
Agri-Food last fall. We proposed that the process to include a
grain be exactly the same as that of excluding a grain; that the
board of directors of the wheat board ask for it; and that, if
they do, farmers would then vote on it. This would streamline
the process for the inclusion of a new grain and make it less
divisive than we think the legislation before us now proposes.
We believe these are sensible and moderate propositions quite in
contrast to the venom which has been spread in recent months by
the so-called coalition against Bill C-4. The activities of this
coalition are nothing more than an undisguised frontal attack on
the Canadian Wheat Board. The coalition is trying to do through
the back door what it failed to do through the democratic
process.
I just want to run through its demands. The coalition continues
to insist that barley be dropped from the wheat board's
jurisdiction. As my colleague from Regina indicated a few
minutes ago, farmers voted on that question in 1997. Some 63% of
them voted in favour of keeping barley under the board's
jurisdiction, notwithstanding the $1 million the Alberta
government put up in paid advertising to try to ensure the vote
would go against keeping barley within the CWB.
The coalition is also demanding cash buying and dual marketing
as has been noted earlier. In our humble opinion and in the
opinion of Judge Muldoon from Alberta that is nothing more than a
prescription for doing away with the wheat board. It is
something that farmers have rejected as recently as 11 months
ago.
The coalition and its Reform partners are demanding that the
inclusion clause for grains be dropped altogether from the bill.
Who is it who wants barley out from the wheat board jurisdiction
in the inclusion clause? We heard the previous speaker, the
Reform agriculture critic, talk about some of those groups. I do
not think he mentioned all of them. I just want to make sure we
get them all in. Most of the faxes that arrived in my office
carried the identification of the Canadian Federation of
Independent Business, a well known farm group.
What other bona fide farm organizations belong to this unholy
coalition? The Winnipeg Commodity Exchange. I do not think I
heard the member make reference to the Winnipeg Commodity
Exchange. The Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce has big farmers out
there. The oilseed producers which includes Cargill and
unofficially the Reform Party.
We say to these corporate interests and to the Reform Party that
a debate about the wheat board is a debate for farmers and not a
vote for corporations.
Let us compare the coalition to one group that supports the
inclusion clause, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture,
arguably the largest farm organization in Canada and an
organization that has the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool as a member.
Other supporters of the inclusion clause include Wild Rose
Agricultural Producers from Alberta, not the member for Wild Rose
but the agricultural producers of Wild Rose; the Saskatchewan
Association of Rural Municipalities, which represents more than
200,000 rural taxpayers; and the Government of Saskatchewan. The
previous speaker noted that Premiers Klein and Filmon had written
to the minister responsible for the wheat board. Let the record
show that the premier of Saskatchewan has recently written,
urging that the inclusion clause remain in the bill.
We ask the Reform Party and the agribusiness lobby why they are
worried about a possible producer vote to include grain, a party
that talks constantly about plebiscites and referendums? Let the
farmers decide. New Democrats have always supported the wheat
board because it works in the best interest of farmers. That is
why we support the inclusion clause.
Just before I take my place, I want to respond to something that
was said by the member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley who
assured the House that the NDP would be supporting Bill C-4.
I want the record to show, as I said during debate on Group No.
5, that the minister responsible for the wheat board has done the
impossible. He has all opposition parties offside on this
legislation.
1335
At this point in time we will be voting against Bill C-4 as it
now stands.
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, some day in the future there will be a dual market
because every farmer in the country cannot be kept under a
monopoly. That will change. I have no about it. When it happens
I hope the government of the day apologizes to farmers and pays
compensation. I will be waiting to see the day. I am sure it
will happen in my lifetime, God willing.
I am sure the hon. member for Palliser voted against the time
allocation motion, having the debate shortened, but he seemed to
support it in his speech. I cannot imagine why he would do that
when we are trying to get all the facts on the table. We are
trying to present them to the government that is bringing forward
the bill so that it can learn to change its ways and change the
bill to reflect what is best for Canada and for farmers.
I would like to bring NDP members up to date. They talk about
survival of the Canadian Wheat Board as do the Liberals and Bloc
members. It is paramount in their minds. Everyone should be
talking about the survival of Canadian farmers in western Canada.
I will describe a typical farm in western Canadian. We are not
talking about a quarter section or a half section any more. We
are talking about investment dollars in the millions, just under
a million dollars to run a decent sized grain farm. We are
talking about a significant business.
It is foolish to talk about marketing grain as it was done 60
years ago or to say that is the way it should be done nowadays.
The cosmetic changes the Liberals are putting forward in the bill
do nothing with regard to true price discovery. They do nothing
with regard to freedom for individuals to produce a product and
sell it on their own as they see fit. The bill is a recipe for
disaster for western Canada.
I would like to talk for a minute about what would happen if the
wheat board went to a dual market or allowed farmers to sell on
their own. Who would then market the grain? One of the biggest
marketers would be the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool.
I lived in Saskatchewan before I moved to Manitoba. There was a
lot support for Sask Pool. Many of my old CCF relatives, current
NDP relatives and others in Saskatchewan support the Saskatchewan
Wheat Pool. The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool is a top grain marketing
co-op in the world. The pool placed 23rd overall. It was the
largest grain marketing co-op. Those that ranked above it were
involved in dairy, meat and sugar.
If a farmer were allowed to sell his grain outside the wheat
board, he might choose to sell it to the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool.
The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, with its size in the world economy,
especially in the agricultural sector, could very well find out
what is a good price.
It could compete against the wheat board. It could compete
against Cargill, UGG and ADM. At that point the farmer would
have the choice. He would say that he got a real good price from
Sask Pool and that is where he would like to sell his grain. If
Sask Pool suddenly decided to shaft the farmer for a few years
and to start giving grain away for political reasons or doing
something foolish to cause the price paid to the farmer to go
down, we would soon see the farmer selling to an alternative
buyer.
1340
Sask Pool has made an alliance with an eastern European country
with regard to the possibility of changes in the future grain
marketing system in Canada. UGG has formed a strategic alliance
with a Japanese company, Marubeni. I read from a report:
Industry sources said the alliance is also part of a long term
strategy by Marubeni as it is watching for deregulation of
Canada's wheat and barley markets.
What do they think Saskatchewan Wheat Pool is doing? It knows a
deregulated market for marketing grain is coming down the pipes.
Everybody in the House should know it by now. There is enough
information around. For some reason the Liberal government is
sticking its head in the sand. Instead of trying to make changes
today it will keep western Canadian farmers in this straitjacket
monopoly for the next 10 years to 15 years. Maybe this
straitjacket will only last until the next election, with any
luck.
I would like to speak for a moment to price discovery. This
deals with the inclusion clause, Motion No. 43. The proposed
inclusion clause would allow the mechanism to fundamentally
change the price discovery process and reduce the relevance of
the grain purchasing price setting mechanism. I will use canola
as an example. It has been raised in the House and everyone is
familiar with that product.
The Winnipeg Commodity Exchange canola contract provides a price
reference and an effective hedging tool for producers, grain
merchandisers, exports, importers and processors both
domestically and internationally. They have a choice. They have
to decide when they market canola how they will do it.
Therefore the futures price for canola, and this could read
wheat or barley, either way, reflects the world price of canola.
This function of a commodity exchange provides for an effective
and efficient way to discover prices, to hedge those prices and
to transfer price risk.
What am I talking about? I am talking about a major Canadian
business, for example a $1 million farm or a $500,000 farm on the
prairies, making decisions in their corporate or personal best
interest. They need to maximize the profits they can make for
their farms.
The proposed inclusion clause, if used to grant authority over
canola, would allow for price discovery process supporting the
canola contract to change from an open market system to a closed
regulated system and eliminate the relevance of the contract as
an international pricing and risk marketing tool.
I ask members of the NDP and the Liberals whether this is what
they want. I think they do because this is the bill they have
put forward. They do not want a true price discovery mechanism
to be in place. By not having access to what actually is
happening in the Canadian Wheat Board as to pricing and so on, it
looks to me like they are trying to keep the whole thing kind of
hidden, kind of secret, so that the true price for grain is never
determined.
The farmer takes what he gets, according to what the wheat board
wants to give him.
1345
I could continue to speak about the wheat board and the impact
it has on demurrage costs and a lot of other things, but I think
I have made the basic points as to why farmers have to have
choice. It is their pocketbooks we are talking about. They
should be able to sell their grain to whom they want, whether
through the wheat board or privately.
I do not support Bill C-4. I support a wheat board for the
farmers who want to be in it.
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, prior
to dealing with Bill C-4 and some of the amendments which have
been proposed, I would like to respond to statements which have
been made by my Reform colleagues across the floor.
First, Reformers have suggested they are all knowing and
representative of the western prairie farmers simply because the
majority of Reformers come from the western provinces. They also
suggest that we on this side of the House and our Conservative
and NDP colleagues should not be speaking to this bill because
they are all knowing and they are the representatives. They
suggest that we should be listening and doing nothing else.
I am here to tell them that when we are dealing with an issue
which affects the entire country, when we are dealing with an
issue that represents $6 billion to $7 billion, guaranteed by
every man, woman and child in this country, I am going to speak
to it. It is my parliamentary privilege to do so, just as it is
for members from Quebec, the maritimes, B.C. and northern Canada.
Ninety per cent of my riding is agricultural. The people in the
agriculture community want to see a couple of clear things coming
from this House. They want clear questions, clear statements and
clear answers. They do not want to hear all the rhetoric,
misinformation and grandstanding which Reformers are throwing
out. Some of the statements with respect to Bill C-4 which have
been made today and in days gone by have been absolutely
ludicrous. We should be dealing with the straightforward points
the government is recommending with respect to Bill C-4.
Before I speak to those points I would like to mention a couple
of comments which appear in Hansard that my Reform
colleagues have made. Perhaps these members, when they see fit,
might apologize for the comments. Literally they have been
grandstanding. They have been creating anarchy on the western
plains. They should be ashamed of themselves. These are not my
words. These are their words.
The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands said: “This is
little more than a personal anecdote. Most of the 200 farmers
present were staunch supporters of the Canadian Wheat Board. I
might even say most of them were rabid supporters of the Canadian
Wheat Board”. I quote the word rabid. They are classifying
wheat board supporters.
I would like to give the House a dictionary definition of the
word rabid. This is how they are classifying western wheat
producers: “Rabid: furious, violent”. Is that the kind of
language we expect to hear in the House of Parliament? The
definition continues: “unreasoning; headstrong;
fanatical—affected with rabies”. That is what they have
branded the producers of the CWB. They have branded them as
rabid supporters. I suggest that the member should consider
apologizing for his absolutely outlandish comments. They are
completely unacceptable and something which I certainly would not
imagine coming from a parliamentarian.
What this bill is about and what we should be discussing today
are clear and precise facts such as are the wheat producers going
to have control of their wheat board. The answer is yes,
absolutely yes.
I would like to give my colleagues across the floor a little
definition of democracy. It is anything over 50%.
They like to throw out these referenda. If they do not have the
majority of support in the ridings they will step down from their
seat. Democracy is 50% of the vote, gentlemen. The grain
producers have 66% elected representatives on the wheat board.
That is a vast majority. Two-thirds of the directors will be
directly voted in by the wheat producers. So their myth is set
aside. No more fallacies, just simple truth. The farmers will
have control.
1350
With respect to government appointments, the government of this
country is backing the Canadian Wheat Board to the tune of $6
billion. Are Reformers suggesting this government should have
absolutely no role to play? Are they suggesting that we sign a
blank cheque every year and we have no control or mechanism in
place to make sure the money is being spent wisely? If that is
what the Reform Party is suggesting it would have this government
bankrupt in no time at all. I suggest the Reform Party should be
ashamed of itself.
We certainly would not be prepared to offer a corporation $6
billion in guarantees without having some control in this House.
I would like to speak to the farmers' involvement. We have
heard the Reform Party throw out many names and agencies of
people who have been opposed to this bill, most of whom are
somehow either directly or indirectly related to the Reform
Party.
I would like to take a minute and go over a chronology of
events, the consultations the hon. minister went through. This
is not something that we are bringing closure to in a matter of
one day. This has been ongoing for many months. Unlike my
colleagues across the floor, my opposition members in the NDP, in
the Conservative Party and in the Bloc chose to table some of
their amendments during committee, in front of the experts. They
felt they would stand the test and have good debate on them.
Not my Reform colleagues. They withdrew all their amendments at
committee. They said we are going to do it in the House where we
can grandstand, where we can do nothing more than support the
people who support us, the Reform members who were not elected
and decided to join various organizations that came forward to
present themselves. That is unacceptable.
I would like to take a minute and go through this chronology.
These are facts. A factual brochure on the grain marketing
system was distributed to over 200,000 farmers, not executives
and board members, but farmers, organizations and industry
representatives in December of 1995. There was series of 15 town
hall meetings held across the prairies in 1996 to provide farmers
and other individuals the opportunity to express their views.
Twelve days of public hearings were held in Winnipeg. There have
been many opportunities for the farmers to provide their comments
with respect to this bill.
The panel travelled across the country and it heard what the
farmers want. Not a couple of specific Reformers, those who are
all knowing, those who are wanting to yell across the floor or
act violently. They heard from common sense individuals, good
business people, farmers, grain producers.
This bill will do a good job for the Canadian wheat producer.
I will conclude with a couple of the principles behind the
Canadian Wheat Board and the acts mentioned therein. I will read
some notes I have made as I have gone along. I would encourage
my Reform colleagues to listen for a change. No more heckling,
no more laughing, no more grandstanding, but represent their
constituents the way they should and listen for one moment.
The changes in CWB governance and operation will enable the CBW
to function more effectively in carrying out its mandate to
market western wheat and barley for export and domestic
consumption on behalf of farmers. The current commissioner
structure of senior management will be replaced by a part time 15
member board of directors comprised of 10 producer elected
representatives and 5 government appointees, including a full
time president and chief executive officer who can only be
appointed with consultation with the rest of the board.
Not simply the minister's whim, but the rest of the board has to
be consulted in this. Further, the rest of the board is going to
decide his salary.
1355
No more grandstanding. The facts are out. The Canadian Wheat
Board bill, Bill C-4, is a good bill. It is a good bill for
Canadian wheat farmers and now they know the facts.
I think they will look a little differently on some of the
comments made over the last several days.
The Speaker: I see it is two minutes to the hour of two.
I am going to recognize the hon. member for Brandon—Souris. He
would be able to get a couple of minutes in, if he would like to
do that, and then continue after.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
take the opportunity to do at least two or three minutes prior to
the break because it is nice to have members of the committee
from the government side listen to some of the comments I am
about to make.
I know that when I give these comments and they are done in a
logical fashion, they will listen to logical arguments. I know
they will do that.
First of all I would like to state emphatically that this House
has introduced closure, even though they wish to say it is time
allocation. There are a number of issues, a number of things
that should well be said on behalf of our constituents by
individuals who are elected to this House, the parliamentarians,
to give forward their views and their thoughts on the amendments.
The hon. member who sits on the committee gave us his closing
arguments on Bill C-4.
We are dealing with group 7, the amendments that have been
tabled. We have dealt with groups 1 through 6 and there are a
number of good amendments.
This section is the one I have the most concern with. I have
said to the minister, to other members of the committee and to my
own constituents who do not like this legislation that, in fact,
if this particular clause were removed from the legislation I
would reluctantly consider looking at the whole legislation in
favour.
However, the inclusion clause is the clause that scares the
living daylights out of me. I should tell you why. The inclusion
clause was not in the original piece of legislation that was
tabled, Bill C-72, prior to the House adjourning for an election.
During the period of time from April to June 2, it seemed there
were literally hundreds and thousands of people who approached
government who wanted to include into this piece of legislation
an inclusion clause that would allow other commodities to be put
into the legislation to be on a monopoly single desk selling
basis.
The Speaker: Like many of my colleagues, I will look
forward to hearing from the hon. member after question period.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
NATIONAL FLAG DAY
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, national flag day provides all Canadians with an
opportunity to reflect on this great nation. On February 15 my
constituents in Brampton Centre will join millions of fellow
Canadians across every region to pay homage to the colours of our
flag and to celebrate what our flag represents to us.
The greatest enthusiasm will be exhibited by the children in the
schools in my riding. There will be drawings of flags, poems
about our flag, posters, paintings and skits all dedicated to the
celebration of the Canadian maple leaf.
Congratulations to tomorrow's leaders for showing their
patriotism toward the flag. Congratulations also to all
Canadians who will take the time to honour our flag and, by so
doing, to honour Canada and Canadians.
* * *
ADOPTION
Mr. Jim Gouk (West Kootenay—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, although birth is a joyful occasion, it can also be a
painful experience.
1400
Usually adoption relieves the pain, but when Arnold Hinke and
Catherine Locke of Nelson, B.C., decided to adopt a baby girl
from Nepal they had no idea of the real pain they would have to
endure: months spent in Nepal dealing with rigid regulations;
tens of thousands of dollars in expenses and lost wages;
completion of the adoption last December, only to have their new
daughter kidnapped as Mr. Hinke prepared to leave for Canada;
recovery of their daughter, only to have the adoption derailed by
police rulings without involving the court or government; and a
high risk that the baby may be turned over to her kidnapper who
claimed without proof to be the birth mother who abandoned her at
birth and did not attempt to reclaim her.
The situation was looking more and more hopeless, but justice
eventually prevailed and Mr. Hinke was finally allowed to bring
his new daughter home. In fact he is arriving home today.
I want to thank my colleague from Red Deer, the Department of
Foreign Affairs, and Michelle Cadieux and her staff at the
Canadian Co-operation Office in Katmandu for all their help.
I welcome Robyn Marie Locke-Hinke to her new home in Canada. She
is one very lucky little girl.
* * *
CITIZENSHIP AND HERITAGE WEEK
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, February 9 to February 15 is citizenship week. The
purpose of citizenship week is to provide Canadians with an
opportunity to reflect on and celebrate the privileges and
responsibilities of Canadian citizenship.
This week the Department of Citizenship and Immigration will be
recognizing Elizabeth Saveta Milojevic, a constituent in my
riding, for her outstanding work in providing assistance to
refugees on their arrival in Canada. Ms. Milojevic's work
exemplifies the humanitarian and generous spirit of Canadians.
On behalf of the constituents of Etobicoke—Lakeshore I
congratulate her for upholding the values of Canadian
citizenship.
* * *
[Translation]
SUICIDE PREVENTION
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on the
occasion of Quebec's suicide prevention week, the Bloc Quebecois
would like to draw attention to the efforts by the Government of
Quebec to stabilize and lower the suicide rate in Quebec.
Suicide is the primary cause of death among young men between
15 and 29 and has been on the rise since 1990. More women than men
attempt suicide.
This is a complex phenomenon if ever there was one, and the risk
factors involved in suicide are many: psychological problems, drug
or alcohol dependency, dysfunctional families, difficult economic
circumstances, job loss, social isolation.
The federal government's cuts in transfer payments to the
provinces have forced them to cut health and social services.
Furthermore, the empty job creation promises of the Liberal
government are not helping anyone in difficulty to see the light at
the end of the tunnel.
By giving the provinces their due, the Liberal government will
be helping to prevent suicide. We encourage it to do so.
* * *
CANADA-QUEBEC RELATIONS
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday a
group of political science experts released a working document
which attempted to identify some potential solutions for settling
the problem of Canada-Quebec relations.
Those experts included Prof. Guy Laforest, well-known across
Canada and a staunch member of the Yes side during the last
referendum campaign. According to him, one of the weakness of the
Government of Quebec was its inability to demonstrate the validity
of the sovereignist project.
Such an expert opinion is worth its weight in gold. It
confirms that the people of Quebec made the right choice in the two
Quebec referendums in 1980 and 1995, namely to opt in favour of
keeping Quebec within Canada.
* * *
[English]
CITIZENSHIP AND HERITAGE WEEK
Ms. Carolyn Bennett (St. Paul's, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday evening I had the opportunity to attend a special
session of the Court of Canadian Citizenship in my riding. I
would like to thank the minister of immigration for attending. I
would also like to thank the Kiwanis Club of Casa Loma for
hosting the ceremonies.
In this Citizenship and Heritage Week I would especially like to
thank the presiding judge, Judge Pamela Appelt, whose warmth,
empathy for our new Canadians and pride in our country were truly
inspirational.
The highlight of the evening was the swearing in of Ms. Kim
Fouk. Many people feel that the famous photo of Ms. Fouk fleeing
her village in Vietnam exemplified to the whole world the horror
of war.
It was an honour for me to meet Ms. Nancy Pocock who was there
supporting Ms. Fouk. At 87, Ms. Pocock remains as an effective
activist and pacifist as she was against the Vietnam war. For
her work in the refugee communities in Canada she has been
recognized by receipt of the Order of Canada.
It is important that once a year we recognize the importance of
citizenship and heritage in this week long celebration. Events
such as last evening help us all to pause to recognize how proud
we are to be Canadian.
* * *
STATE OF ISRAEL
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this week marks the Jewish holiday of Tu B'Shvat, a
festival that the people of Israel and Jews around the world
celebrate by planting trees.
Over the past 50 years trees have had a very symbolic status in
Israel. Zionist settlers have planted literally millions of
trees, truly living up to the biblical passage about making the
desert bloom.
This year Tu B'Shvat is much more than just a celebration of
Arbour Day.
This time it marks the beginning of a year long celebration of
the jubilee of Israel's independence.
1405
Fifty years ago this spring the modern state of Israel was born,
ending thousands of years of exile for the Jewish people.
Yesterday marked the birthday of the Knesset, the Israeli
parliament, one of the few freely elected chambers of democratic
deliberation in the entire Middle East.
Happy birthday, Israel. Canadians salute 50 years of democracy.
We look forward to the development of peace and human rights
among all peoples of the Middle East.
* * *
[Translation]
JACQUES CHIRAC'S STATEMENT
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the sovereignists are using every means possible to
demonstrate that Canada is a divisible country. They often use the
example of other countries to prove their point.
They must have been surprised yesterday to hear the Canadian
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs quote a statement by French
President Jacques Chirac on this matter, as follows:
France is one country indivisible. It is indeed made up
of regions and provinces, each different from the other, each
with its own population, customs, history and sometimes
language. This is especially true of Corsica, whose identity
and uniqueness are recognized by all.
Under the circumstances, then, it is hard for the separatists
to pester France to back them up, as they did in the last
referendum.
* * *
[English]
SENATE OF CANADA
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday one of the Senate's own members called on the red
chamber to show some guts and expel absent Andy Thompson.
Who is this agent for accountability? He is Ron Ghitter, a red
Tory bag man, a Mulroney sycophant, appointed in the dying days
of the Tory chief's patronage orgy.
Who is this new found defender of the public interest? Last
year he cost Canadians more than 150,000 tax dollars including
$40,000 for travel alone.
Who is this model of excellence? Having shown up only 148 times
since 1993, his attendance record is a pathetic 55%. What
hypocrisy. Canadians simply do not buy this feigned outrage from
an unelected and unaccountable political hack.
At least absent Andy Thompson has the decency to stay in Mexico
and not pretend he is doing his job. As for Ron Ghitter, if this
Mulroney hangover is so concerned about accountability, why does
he not resign his seat so Albertans can elect their own senator?
The Speaker: I would encourage all members to temper
their remarks in this statement period.
* * *
PAY EQUITY
Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw (Moncton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise in the House today to address the issue of pay equity. On
January 23, 1998 I a met for the second time with the local
representatives of the Public Service Alliance of Canada
regarding pay equity. They have made me aware of their views and
are quite concerned about this issue.
This past fall I met with the President of the Treasury Board to
make him aware of the concerns of the PSAC representatives in the
greater Moncton area.
[Translation]
I can assure you that wage parity is of great concern, not
only to the Public Service Alliance, but also to the Government of
Canada.
The government has always given precedence to the option of a
negotiated settlement. That is why Treasury Board took the
initiative with the negotiations which began on April 15, 1997.
I would like to assure the Alliance and the government of my
interest in finding a prompt solution to this impasse.
* * *
[English]
RAILWAYS
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Transport told Canadians that
the government was proud of CN Rail, which is abandoning rail
lines, farm families and farm communities across Canada, because
it is now the fifth largest rail company in North America.
No doubt this deal is good for CN. It will be able to increase
its use of Chicago and the North-South Illinois Central line. So
long east-west rail links. Hello the Gulf of Mexico. That is
exactly what the NDP and other critics said would happen as a
result of the free trade agreement and NAFTA.
This is bad news for farmers and bad news for Canada because our
rail system will continue to go downhill and because the
government, the Reform Party and the Tories want it that way.
* * *
WEI JINGSHENG
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to welcome Chinese
dissident Wei Jingsheng to Canada and to the House of Commons.
Considered to be the father of the democratic movement in China,
Wei Jingsheng started the Xidan democracy wall movement in 1979
and was subsequently imprisoned for subversion.
1410
After spending most of the past 18 years in prison, Mr. Wei was
exiled on medical grounds to the U.S.A. last November, just six
months after the publication of his book, The Courage To Stand
Alone.
Mr. Wei will be appearing before the Standing Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade this afternoon. All are
welcome to attend.
As chair of the subcommittee on human rights and international
development, I am especially proud to have the opportunity of
meeting with the courageous Wei Jingsheng.
I welcome the hon. Wei Jingsheng.
* * *
RUSSELL MACLELLAN
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, after
being savaged by four painful years of Liberal government in Nova
Scotia, the Grits needed someone to turn their provincial
fortunes around. They found their Mr. Fixit in Ottawa in Russell
MacLellan.
As an MP, Russell voted to decrease cash transfers to Nova
Scotia from $638 million in 1994 down to $411 million by the year
2003. Nova Scotia needs a commitment from Ottawa to restore
adequate health care funding for Nova Scotia.
Will Russell MacLellan work with the federal Progressive
Conservatives in asking that the federal government restore the
CHST floor based on the provincial level and not on the federal
level, or will he continue to betray Nova Scotians as he has with
the BST promise and his toll highway pledges and allow Ottawa to
continue its massacre of Nova Scotia's health care system?
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last month the federal government took an historic step in
announcing Gathering Strength. This important initiative marks a
new era in developing a renewed partnership with aboriginal
people.
Inuit, Metis and First Nations have expressed support for
Gathering Strength, particularly for the statement of
reconciliation. Aboriginal Canadians who experienced atrocities
at residential schools have waited far too long to hear that the
government is deeply sorry.
The apology is not lip service. A $350 million healing
initiative that will help those affected by residential schools
is proof that the government is truly changing the way it does
business with aboriginal people.
I applaud the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development and the entire Liberal government for their sincere
apology to aboriginal Canadians. I look forward to seeing
firsthand the rebuilding and renewing of Canada's relationship
with aboriginal people.
* * *
HERITAGE
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
what is going on at the Department of Canadian Heritage? It is
the department charged with the responsibility of preserving all
that is good, wonderful and Canadian.
It has lost its rudder. Under this minister it has produced a
calendar with Children's Television Day and even with Books and
Copyright Week. The only thing they missed was the Iranian
communist party and support of radical feminist objectives.
However, Easter and Christmas were excluded.
Now it has produced a quiz asking which act created
Confederation in 1867. The heritage department answer: an act of
union. Wrong, oh bated breath. It was the British North America
Act.
All is well. The minister has given Canadians a $20 million a
year Canada information office. I just have one question. What
kind of information is it disseminating?
* * *
[Translation]
TRIBUTE TO SISTER THÉODORA BERNIER
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to add my voice to that of all my constituents to
mark the 100th birthday of Sister Théodora Bernier.
In her 81 years of religious life, Sister Théodora worked as a
teacher in Quebec City, a nurse in Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupré, a director at
a community centre in Montreal, a director at a craft workshop in
Rigaud, and a commissioner for 25 years.
Year-round and in all kinds of weather, Sister Théodora travelled
the roads of Quebec, going from town to town and from door to door to
sell crafts hand-made by nuns and thus help the work of the
Franciscaines missionnaires de Marie in 77 countries throughout the
world. She gained the admiration and respect of those who had the
pleasure of meeting her.
Sister Théodora retired on October 30, 1995. She is an endearing
person who is witty and has a sense of humour. She recently said
“When
I turn 100, I want people to sing and dance”.
That is what we will do tomorrow. Happy birthday, Sister Théodora.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today the finance minister showed what is happening to
this year's budget surplus. His priority is not tax relief. It
is not debt reduction but more spending, pay raises for the top
3,300 government bureaucrats.
All Canadians would like a pay raise and the finance minister
could give it to them by simply giving Canadians broad based tax
relief.
Why does the finance minister think it is okay to leave his
bureaucrats with more money in their wallets but not Canadian
taxpayers?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let us be very clear. Since we have taken office we
have said that the payoff for deficit cleanup, for cleaning up
the balance sheet and for the tremendous effort of Canadians,
will in fact be lower taxes. It will in fact be greater security
for our social programs. We will continue on that vein.
The one thing I would say within that context is that it makes
very little sense to me, given the importance of the public
service and the tremendous dedication, that the Leader of the
Opposition should attempt to downgrade their efforts for the
country.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish the finance minister was as concerned about the
dedication of taxpayers as he is about the dedication of
bureaucrats.
This is just what Canadians were afraid of, that the finance
minister would spend any surplus on made in Ottawa projects, not
on tax relief for ordinary Canadians: pay raises for the top
bureaucrats, the $3 billion memorial fund for the Prime Minister,
a sop to this minister, a trinket to that minister.
After the finance minister is done with all these Liberal
spending projects how much money will be left for broad based tax
relief?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am surprised that a party that is supposed to be based on
market principles would refuse to recognize that the top
executives in the public service are absolutely necessary to the
nation. We need the highest possible quality.
When a lot of them are now going to the private sector because
the salaries are higher, I am surprised the Reform Party would
lack the foresight to be able to pay senior public servants that
we need the price they deserve in the market.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we recognize paying bureaucrats what they deserve, but
what we want is to pay taxpayers what they deserve.
We still do not have the answer to our question of what is
happening to the vanishing surplus. What worries Canadians is
the finance minister's reports say there is a surplus right now.
The spin doctors are now saying there will not be a surplus at
the time when the budget comes down, that in fact there will be a
$2 billion deficit.
Why are the finance minister's spokesmen predicting a deficit if
the books say surplus? What is his explanation for the vanishing
surplus?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can see the jealousy of the Reform leader because we
have been successful.
He is just trying to take away the credit of the Minister of
Finance because the Minister of Finance and the government have
been able to balance the books and now there will be money. Today
he is no longer interested in the reduction of the debt. Today it
is the reduction of taxes. Tomorrow what will it be?
For us it is very clear. Half the surplus is going for economic
and social programs because we have problems in Canada that need
attention, and the other half will be going for tax reduction and
debt reduction.
It is clear, Mr. Speaker, and I am sorry the Leader of the
Opposition—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Northeast.
* * *
CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
1996 CTV news exposed the Canadian forces vulnerability to
chemical and germ warfare.
An access to information document confirms this and I quote from
that document:
The Canadian forces lacks automated chemical and biological
detectors. The absence of such capability would result in mass
numbers of casualties should there be a direct attack or be
located downwind.
1420
This minister has had two years to correct the situation. How
dare he send our sailors into harm's way without adequate
protection.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there is adequate protection. We have
some of the best detection and protective equipment of any
country when it comes to dealing with chemical and biological
weaponry. Those people who are going into that area, the 340
personnel, are going to be properly equipped. They are already
properly trained. They will be inoculated. They will have all
the equipment necessary.
I think it is irresponsible for the hon. member to put such
scare tactics into the public eye, particularly for the families
and friends of the people who are going into the gulf area.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is fairly probable that the minister does not know
what is going on in his own department.
This document goes on to say:
Although [detection] systems are in place in the Canadian
forces, these are not sufficiently responsive to permit the
donning of protective equipment or [to] adopt protective postures
which would significantly reduce casualties.
Adequate equipment is not expected until the year 2000.
How will our sailors know if they have been exposed to
biological or chemical warfare agents? Is he hoping that the
wind will always blow the other way?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Speaking of wind, Mr. Speaker, we are hearing a lot of
it from across the aisle.
I think he said the document was about two years old. That
is about where his thinking is.
Our people have the best equipment. They are well prepared and
well trained to be able to deal with these circumstances. They
will be as best protected as they can be.
* * *
[Translation]
1982 CONSTITUTION ACT
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
it has now been 16 years since the 1982 Constitution was
unilaterally imposed against Quebec's wishes.
Next week, in a reference based on this same illegitimate
Constitution, the federal government and its Prime Minister want
the Supreme Court to deny the right of Quebeckers to decide their
own future.
Will the Prime Minister admit that, politically and I would go
so far as to say morally, the Constitution Act, 1982, does not
apply to Quebec and that those who claim otherwise are guilty of
constitutional heresy?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Canada's Constitution was perfectly valid for the Government of
Quebec when it asked us to amend it to allow a new school board
system in Quebec. We cannot use the Constitution when it suits us
and reject it when it does not. Here, as in France, the rule of
law must prevail.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I would remind members that the school board issue came under the
1867 Constitution. However, the words I quoted were the very words
used in 1987 during the Meech Lake accord hearings by Yves Fortier,
the federal government's lawyer for the Supreme Court reference.
Does the Prime Minister not think that the credibility of his
spokesperson, Yves Fortier, is seriously compromised by the fact of
his appearing before the Supreme Court to argue the exact opposite
of what he claimed in 1987?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Mr. Fortier was an ardent defender of the Meech Lake
accord. His remarks, if they are to be quoted fairly, should be
quoted in full.
Mr. Fortier described the 1982 Constitution as “an unfinished
work” and he added: “As a jurist, I view 1982 as a turning point
in Canada's constitutional history. It marks the patriation of our
country's Constitution, the approval of an amending formula and,
above all, the entrenchment in our Constitution of the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms”.
Whatever one may think of the Constitution Act, it is the law
that applies in Canada.
* * *
YVES FORTIER
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
In 1978, Yves Fortier, counsel for the federal in the
reference to the supreme court, praised the merits of a unilateral
declaration of independence as a solution to patriation, and I
quote “In our opinion, proclaiming our Constitution independently
of any other country would constitute a solemn declaration of
autonomy”.
Does the minister agree with the words of Mr. Fortier, who is
serving as his counsel in the reference to the Supreme Court of
Canada?
1425
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if this is a trick question it is not very difficult.
International law permits the unilateral elimination of any
colonial vestige. However, Quebeckers in Canada today are not
colonized, except in the heads of a few separatist leaders.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
does the minister endorse the remarks of his spiritual leader
Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who said and I quote “Should the British
refuse to patriate the Constitution of 1867, we would still have
the option of holding a massive demonstration of national will,
which would imply on our part a unilateral declaration of
independence”.
Does he agree with these words, yes or no?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member should have listened to the answer before
posing his second question. That would have saved my repeating the
fact that international law permits the unilateral elimination of
traces of colonial relations, but Quebeckers in Canada are not
colonized, except in the heads of members of a party which denies
the rule of law and democracy for all.
* * *
[English]
EMPLOYMENT
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
In the past six weeks more than 18,000 jobs have been wiped
out; the latest, 700 at Inco. No wonder young people are worried
about their future. No wonder when 48,000 fewer young people are
working than this time two years ago.
How can the Prime Minister find it acceptable that 48,000 fewer
young people are working today as a direct result of the Liberal
government's policy?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the reality is that when we formed the government four
years ago and a few months, there was 11.5 % unemployment in
Canada. It was down to 8.6% two months ago. There was a slight
increase last month because of the unfortunate incident in Quebec
and in eastern Ontario with the ice storm.
We have many programs to help young people in Canada. The basic
thing we have to do is restore the finances of Canada in a way
that we can be competitive and create jobs. That is why we have
done it and we have created in Canada more than a million new
jobs in the last four years.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, 48,000
fewer jobs for young people. Student protests in Quebec against
escalating education costs are the latest eruptions of
frustration and worry among Canada's youth. No wonder when
average student debt loads have climbed above $25,000. No wonder
when Liberal policies have caused tuition fees to jump 31% since
this government took office.
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge today that a national system
of grants must be at the heart of any serious commitment to
providing the educational opportunities young people need in the
new economy?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first I have to say that education is a primary
responsibility of the provinces. When I met with the first
ministers in December we discussed the problem of young people
finishing university with a difficult situation of debt they have
accumulated during the time.
We have decided to work with them. It is also why we have
decided with the millennium projects for Canada that the main one
will be to establish a millennium scholarship program to help the
young people of Canada to get the best education, because the
level of unemployment is much lower for young people with a
university degree than for those without.
* * *
IRAQ
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence. First I want
to assure the minister that we are not using scare tactics. This
is a very serious situation in Iraq and we have many unanswered
questions.
This government is undertaking a very serious responsibility
when it sends Canadians into what might turn into harm's way.
Since yesterday what measures has the Minister of National
Defence taken to ensure that the crew of the HMCS Toronto
will be inoculated against Saddam's anthrax?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there will be inoculations. An
anti-anthrax serum will be sent to the HMCS Toronto. It
will be docking in a few days in Crete.
1430
It is expected that the first of the inoculations will take
place at that time. There will also be antibiotics that will be
put on board. A medical doctor will go on board the ship to
ensure that every precaution is taken, even though there is a low
risk of being in contact with anthrax while that ship is in the
gulf. Nevertheless every precaution is being taken.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, we have
been in contact with the a company in Lansing, Michigan that
manufactures the anthrax vaccine. We had to go to the Americans
because the minister did not have the answers.
Is the minister not aware that it takes three injections and
four weeks for the vaccine to take effect? Saddam Hussein is not
going to sit on his butt for four weeks before he shoots the
first missile.
What is the minister going to do to protect our troops and why
are we sending our troops into danger unprepared?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yes it does take three inoculations and
three inoculations will be administered.
But the hon. member is wrong when she says that it does not have
some immediate effect even with the first inoculation. It does.
Even with the first inoculation, by and large, the serum will
take effect. Antibiotics are also put on board. Between the two
they will have the desired effect.
* * *
OLYMPICS
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr.Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Through a series of incompetent and unsettling events, Ross
Rebagliati was stripped of his gold medal by the international
Olympic committee. All Canadians who adhere to the spirit of
fair play and justice rejoiced today in the reinstatement of
Ross' gold medal.
Will the Prime Minister on behalf of all Canadians ask for an
apology from the international Olympic committee for this
unfortunate event which amounts to an insult to all Canadians?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status
of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fact that the appeals
council has voted to reinstate the medal is in itself an
indication it has realized that Mr. Rebagliati had done nothing
to infringe on the rules of the medical council of the Olympic
committee.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I again ask a question of the Prime Minister.
Will the Prime Minister request that the Canadian Olympic
committee begin, with the international Olympic committee, a
process of review of not so much this matter but make sure that
this unnecessary situation never happens again to our young
athletes going to Olympics?
Hon. Hedy Fry (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)(Status of
Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are some very clear rules in
which many countries, including Canada, have signed on with
regard to drug doping in sport.
Canada has the best record of any country in the world in
strengthening and adding to that kind of a set of requirements.
Mr. Rebagliati did not do anything to oppose or to infringe on
any of those requirements. We are dealing with a set of clear
indicators and clear regulations agreed on by everybody.
I would like to congratulate Mr. Rebagliati for his fantastic
performance.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-28
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, under
the current act, and in the opinion of a well-known tax consultant firm,
shipping companies incorporated abroad and administered from Canada are
protected from any challenge by Revenue Canada regarding their place of
business and, therefore, the taxes they might otherwise have to pay in
Canada.
However, the current legislation does not clearly protect holding
corporations engaged in international shipping activities, as do the
finance minister's companies. According to the explanatory notes, Bill
C-28 will correct this situation.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. By protecting holding
corporations in the Income Tax Act, by protecting his business, through
legislative provisions, from any possible challenge by Revenue Canada
regarding place of residence, is the minister not clearly and directly
putting himself in a conflict of interest?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
was mentioned on a number of occasions, but I will say it again.
Everyone knows the Minister of Finance was a very successful businessman
who left the corporate world to come to serve Canadians.
As for the existence of a conflict of interest, the ethics
commissioner said that everything was done according to the rules. The
minister acted very responsibly. He made sure that the specific clause
in the omnibus bill would be under the responsibility of the secretary
of state, as is still the case.
I have absolute confidence in the finance minister's integrity and
honesty.
1435
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, let us
be clear. The current act provides tax savings for shipping companies,
but does not say that holding corporations in the shipping industry
enjoy the same treatment. Under Bill C-28, holding companies will now be
entitled to these tax savings.
Since the Minister of Finance owns such holding companies abroad,
how can he continue to claim, through the Prime Minister, that he is not
in a conflict of interest?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when
the finance minister took over his portfolio, a clear procedure was
established. Whenever some issues may result in a conflict of interest,
or in an apparent conflict of interest, the Minister of Finance always
makes sure the issues are dealt with by the Secretary of State for
Financial Institutions.
Everyone knows the rule. Again, the minister is an excellent
Minister of Finance and he is not in any way in a conflict of interest.
* * *
[English]
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
because the Minister for International Trade is not showing
leadership and informing Canadians about the MAI, he is bungling
this issue.
It is common knowledge that the trade minister was a big
opponent to trade and investment when he was in opposition. Let
us examine what he said in the free trade debate in 1992. He
said it is a shame we have to rely on newspapers to begin to
enlighten not only Canadians but elected Canadians.
What is clear is that this minister is not doing any better to
enlighten Canadians about the MAI. Is this because he does not
believe in free trade or is his heart not in it?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we welcome the member's second question
in four months. If that is to be a sign of interest then clearly
the questions about where people stand on trade, on investment
and on job creation are pointed at the Reform Party.
The member will know that as soon as I became trade minister I
wanted to engage in greater debate, not hide it. It was I who
requested the committee to look into the MAI. It was the
committee that made a report. We sent more information to the
members of Parliament and engaged NGOs.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
considering he has only had two questions in four months one
would think he would have a better answer.
If the minister would start listening to himself he might
recollect what he said in 1992. During the free trade debate in
1992 he said this House should condemn the government for its
failure to be completely open with Canadians about the principles
and objectives of the NAFTA. That is exactly what we are talking
about with the MAI.
Yesterday in the House when asked why he was not involving
Canadians, he said we put it out to committee for its
recommendation.
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in four months one would think he would
have prepared those two questions better or at least finished the
second question.
I am not sure what the member's complaint is. We have engaged
the Canadian public in a national debate. We want more debate
and more information. The question that should be asked is what
is the Reform Party doing. How many briefings has he had across
the country? As opposition critic, has he triggered a national
debate in this House? Has the Reform Party used opposition day
motions? No, it has not. It is its own insecurity that
motivates the two pathetic questions in the last four months.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources
Development promised a complete report on the effects on the public
of his EI reform. He tabled the report this morning.
How useful is this report, when the people surveyed were
unemployed in the summer of 1996, six months before the reform's
main amendments took effect?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are at the beginning of the
most important EI reform in 25 years, a reform designed to adapt
our system to the market economy we now live in.
As a government, we promised five reports and five there will
be. This morning, I tabled the first one, which evaluates the
impact of our reform on the clients we serve and on the Canadian
economy. I think that this report contains some information of
great importance for us.
1440
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, meanwhile, the unemployed are starving.
What sort of credibility can a minister who is constantly
claiming to be following the situation very closely have when in
fact, as we see today, he is relying on a worthless report?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the
opposition is interested exclusively in the report itself. Is it
because the report indeed shows that, on the basis of preliminary
data, the reform's effects are more positive than those he is busy
describing, in other words, people are not starving?
Perhaps he should take an interest in the fact that
unemployment is down in Canada since our government took office and
that our economic policies are perhaps the right ones. That may be
what the report is starting to show and that is why he is rejecting
it.
* * *
[English]
FISHERIES
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans said yesterday that Canadian
fishermen have access to foreign quotas. He said “It is only
when they choose not to fish that the offer is made to foreign
fleets”. How dare this minister accuse Canadian fishermen of
choosing not to fish. He knows that is not true. Will the
minister apologize to Canadian fishermen right now for his false
accusations?
The Speaker: Be very judicious. I will permit the
minister to answer that question.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, thank you for permitting me to answer a
question that is clearly out of order.
The fact is that on the east coast fishermen are offered to fish
various stocks. If it is not taken up by Canadian fishermen,
under international law we offer it to other nations who may wish
to fish that stock.
In addition, there are certain pelagic species such as bluefin
tuna where quotas are established for the whole of the ocean
because these fish move. Certain nations such as Japan fish in
our waters but they are fish that we would be unable to take
ourselves if the Japanese were not taking them.
We tried to interfere with the—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, let me tell the minister a few facts.
His own officials told the committee this morning that there are
presently 22 foreign factory freezer trawlers off the coast of
Canada. I have in my possession 21 letters from Canadian fish
companies asking for these quotas which they are being denied.
Will the minister now tell us that he will not renew any foreign
quotas to anyone until Canadian fishermen and Canadian plant
workers are back to work?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should not inflate
himself with indignation beyond the point where he can
conveniently contain it.
The fact is that in this instance on the east coast we offered
to Canadian fishermen the various quotas of various stocks. Only
in situations where they do not wish to fish for some reason or
another is it offered to others.
In addition to the mistake he is making, he is also saying in
effect that the foreign fleets that operate in that way and that
deliver to Canadian plants for Canadian shore workers to get work
from would not get that work. What is he trying to do? Is he
trying to deny Canadian—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Laurentides.
* * *
[Translation]
IRAQ
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
This morning we learned in the National Defence Committee that
any military confrontation with Iraq will result in heavy
casualties, particularly because of the Iraqi policy of using human
shields. This is one more argument in favour of a diplomatic
solution.
Does the minister believe that he has really contributed to
the search for a diplomatic solution by doing the rounds of the
Arab countries, as he did yesterday, merely in order to justify
Canada's support for the American position?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, if I may correct the record, I was in New York and
not in the Arab countries. I returned with the sense that there
is a possibility of working for an accommodation of the major
difficulties. But we still come down to the bottom line that
Saddam Hussein has to agree to live up to the rules of the United
Nations.
We are trying to defend the integrity of that organization and
to ensure there is a degree of rule of law around the world,
which the United Nations represents. We can continue to work and
use our good offices around the world to try to see that
accommodation but we must maintain the bottom line is that
people—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.
* * *
1445
[Translation]
ALGERIAN SITUATION
Ms. Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Canadians are horrified at the situation in Algeria, where
innocent victims have been dying in horrific massacres for months
now.
We want to know what our government is doing to express our
support to the people of Algeria, particularly the Algerian women
and children who have been the victims of numerous atrocities.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this morning a delegation of Canadian parliamentarians was
officially invited by the Algerian parliamentarians to visit
Algeria. The Minister of State and the Leader of the Government in
the House of Commons will head that delegation in the coming weeks,
and our parliamentarians will meet with their Algerian counterparts
and with representatives of the civilian community and of the
government in order to exchange views on the situation.
Canadians are in solidarity with the people of Algeria in
these difficult times, and I trust that we will have the support of
this entire Parliament.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Prime Minister.
Over a month ago we exposed the fact that a confidential letter
was leaked from the office of the minister of Indian affairs. The
minister says she is investigating this breach of confidentiality
but her actions indicate that she is not taking this matter very
seriously. Yesterday she could not even remember the name of the
investigator until the Deputy Prime Minister slipped her a note.
Can the Prime Minister assure this House that this
investigator's report will be tabled in its entirety in this
House?
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
response to the question by the hon. member, an investigation is
currently under way. When it is completed, the findings will be
sent to the Minister of Indian Affairs, and then we will see
exactly what the situation is. That could be done under the
Privacy and Access to Information legislation.
[English]
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we have the
ludicrous scenario of the minister investigating herself and then
reporting to herself.
The Prime Minister should know as a former minister of Indian
affairs that trust is very important to aboriginals and indeed to
all Canadians. There is a very real sense of betrayal on the part
of grassroots Indian people as a result of this unacceptable
breach of confidentiality.
Can the Prime Minister tell us what particular steps he will
take to restore the faith of grassroots aboriginal peoples in his
government?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have had the occasion to talk with some aboriginal
people. I think the work that the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development has done since she has been responsible for
that department has been outstanding. She has the confidence of
the government and of the native people.
* * *
TRADE
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, if this
government signs the MAI without a full cultural exemption, the
protection of Canadian culture is at risk. If there is no
protection we will be signing our cultural sovereignty over to
Blockbuster, Walt Disney and Ted Turner giving them the freedom
to strike down our cultural programs.
The Minister for International Trade will be making a MAI policy
statement to the Centre of Trade Policy and Law on Friday. Why
not tell us first? Will the minister tell Parliament today how
this government intends to protect Canadian culture under the
MAI?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we said very clearly at the outset of the
negotiations at the MAI that we would prefer a complete carve out
for culture, that it should not be on the table. If it is going
to be on the table we have said that we are going to move for an
exemption. If there is no exemption, there is no signature to
the MAI.
The only party in this Parliament that does not want an
exemption for culture is the Reform Party of Canada.
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
minister then is telling us there will be a complete carve out
for culture in the MAI or they will walk away from the table. Am
I hearing the minister correctly?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade,
Lib.): Yes, you are.
1450
The Speaker: I would ask hon. members to please address
the Chair when they are asking or answering questions.
* * *
[Translation]
IRAQ
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker,
since the beginning of this new Iraqi crisis we have had trouble
getting any information here in Parliament. The Government refuses
to inform the House properly.
Our role here as MPs is to be informed, but we have to get the
information from the Pentagon on what the situation really is as
far as the safety of our troops is concerned.
How can the Minister of Defence imagine that our troops, even
with an inoculation in Crete, will be protected, when he knows that
three injections, and four weeks, are required before they are
properly protected?
It is not true that they will have some protection. Is he going to
call up Saddam Hussein and ask him to wait four weeks until our
troops are prepared?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the defence committee had a briefing this
morning, so there is every bit of information flowing to hon.
members opposite.
The hon. member, just like his colleague, has it wrong in terms
of the three inoculations. It is a series of inoculations. The
protection starts with the very first one and builds with
subsequent inoculations. Meanwhile, until the last inoculation
has been given to them, they have antibiotics to cover the
situation.
Furthermore, on the ship they will have protective clothing,
masks and full outfits. They also have the ability to seal off
the ship if there is any exposure.
There is lots of protection.
[Translation]
Mr. André Bachand (Richmond—Arthabaska, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the Canadian troops going to Iraq are not prepared. That is clear.
Nor do I believe the minister is prepared to face up to the
situation.
There is talk of an anthrax vaccine, we are starting to get
information, but it is coming from the United States. It is like
the story of the helicopters.
Does the minister find it normal for helicopters to be sent to
Iraq that require 30 hours of maintenance after an hour of flight
time? Had the government been ready, we would have bought
helicopters ages ago and saved Canadian taxpayers $500 million in
the process.
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member, having not been
able to make his case about our Canadian troops, is now going
back to the helicopter issue.
Let me say this on the matter of our personnel. They are
properly protected. I have gone over this matter very carefully
with Canadian forces doctors within the last hour and every day
this week. I can tell the House they are properly protected. For
hon. members to suggest otherwise is scaremongering. It is
irresponsible.
* * *
[Translation]
ICE STORM
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton—Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, families and the owners of small business that were hard
hit by the recent brutal ice storm are now concerned about their
financial obligations.
Has the minister taken steps to convince financial
institutions to show some flexibility and understanding in dealing
with the problems of the victims of the storm, and if so with what
result?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
member's question is a very important one. I am pleased to inform
the House that I have spoken directly to the Canadian Bankers'
Association and the Insurance Bureau of Canada.
I asked both to be flexible and compassionate in this
exceptional and disastrous situation. Both indicated that was
their intention.
All those with problems in this regard I would ask to contact
us or their members of Parliament, because we wanat to monitor this
situation.
* * *
[English]
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it appears as though the Prime Minister and the government just
do not understand the seriousness of the breach of trust that
occurred in the ministry of Indian affairs.
If they really want an independent investigation, that person
must report directly to Parliament. What they are telling
aboriginal people and Canadians is that independence is not
important. It looks simply like damage control.
When will the investigator report to Parliament, not to the
minister?
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to inform the member that the report should be released
within the next 10 days to two weeks.
* * *
1455
ASBESTOS
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister for International Trade.
Representatives of the three unions for the asbestos workers
of Thetford Mines and Asbestos have just learned of the federal
government's intention to pursue diplomatic exchanges with France
instead of immediately filing a complaint with the WTO.
Does the minister not realize that his decision not to file a
complaint with the WTO only makes it harder and harder to stop the
movement to ban asbestos, which is gaining momentum in Europe?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister for International Trade, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the government has worked very hard and very seriously
on the asbestos issue. We want to submit the case to the WTO at
the right time.
The French government has now promised to send a
representative next month. At the same time, the Government of
Great Britain has also promised a consultation process. As an
initial position, we think that a negotiated agreement is very
advantageous for workers as an alternative possibility.
* * *
[English]
TRANSPORT
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Transport has asked for a review of the grain
handling and transportation system from farmer to port. If this
review is to have any credibility, producers must have all
options of grain transport available to them.
Will the Minister of Transport halt the elimination of one of
these options? Will he ensure that not one more kilometre of
track is torn up, allowing time for Judge Estey to report?
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon.
member for her question. It is an important issue to this
government, to her, and to constituents across Canada, especially
in western Canada.
The hon. member will know that the rail lines in this country
have to submit five year plans before they do anything with any
rail line anywhere in Canada. If the hon. member wants to
familiarize herself with the process, she will learn whether or
not a particular rail line will be closed down. Then when the
decision is made, if a decision is made, on a rail line
abandonment, that procedure, that process takes an entire
three-year period before that track is torn up.
* * *
IRAQ
Mr. Bill Matthews (Burin—St. George's, PC): Mr. Speaker,
last week the Minister of National Defence informed the House
that the Prime Minister and the government were waiting for
Saddam Hussein to come to his senses. I would suggest that the
revelations of the last couple of days require that the minister
come to his senses as well.
Anthrax is a biological weapons agent. Anthrax vaccine takes 28
days to take effect from the date of inoculation.
I want the minister to guarantee to members of this House and
guarantee to members of the Canadian public that the HMCS
Toronto will not be allowed within the anthrax danger zone
within 28 days of inoculation.
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the risk is low for the HMCS
Toronto in the gulf. However all precautions as I have
indicated to this House have and will be taken.
It is not true what hon. members are saying about these
inoculations. The first inoculation has in 85% of individuals an
effective factor and until the subsequent inoculations are taken
there are antibiotics that will cover the situation quite
adequately. The medical doctors of the Canadian forces and I
have discussed this matter. I am quite satisfied that our troops
are properly protected.
* * *
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry.
Granting councils like the Medical Research Council and NSERC
are the basic foundations of research in Canada. Their funds
have been reduced considerably over the last number of years.
What is the minister doing to strengthen the granting councils
to ensure Canada's competitiveness in a changing world?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have heard a lot recently from some of the granting
councils and their users about the crisis of funds.
I am pleased to point out that in last year's budget we
introduced the Canada Foundation for Innovation, an $800 million
fund to support research and development in Canada's universities
and teaching hospitals. We added $47 million per year to the
networks of centres of excellence, made it a permanent program.
We added money to IRAP, as we promised again in the red book.
There is no doubt of the important and essential role that
Canada's research granting councils are playing.
1500
I am confident that the Minister of Finance will find a way to
relieve some of their pressure in due course.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, very
slowly we are getting information from the aboriginal affairs
ministry about the type of investigation into the leak from the
department.
We now know who the investigator is. We now know that he will
report within 10 to 15 days. For the credibility of the
investigation, will the parliamentary secretary assure the House
that that report will be tabled in the House and not just to the
aboriginal affairs minister?
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would simply like to reassure the member that the report results
will once again be sent to the department, in accordance with the
Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act.
[English]
We are going to release it as soon as possible.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to ask the government House leader what the nature
of the business of the House is for the remainder of this week
and next week, seeing that we now know when the budget is due.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will complete
the report stage of Bill C-4. The divisions requested will be
deferred to the conclusion of Government Orders at 6.30 p.m. or
thereabouts on Monday.
Tomorrow will be an opposition day.
On Monday the business to be called will be second reading of
Bill C-21 respecting small business loans. This will be followed
by second reading of Bill C-20, the Competition Act amendments.
On Tuesday the House will consider third reading of Bill C-4,
the wheat board legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to designate next Wednesday as an
allotted day.
Next Thursday we will consider second reading of Bill C-19
respecting the Canada Labour Code. We will then complete any of
the previously mentioned bills that are still outstanding. We
will then proceed with several other second readings such as Bill
S-4, Bill C-6, Bill C-8, Bill C-12 and Bill S-3.
Finally, I expect to be asking next week to extend the regular
sitting time next Wednesday on the allotted day for the
convenience of the party whose motion we will be discussing on
that particular day.
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I wonder if the government House leader could indicate
whether it is in the government's plans in the next short while
for this House to have the opportunity to vote on Canada's
participation in the war in Iraq.
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know there is
no war in Iraq at the present time.
I wish to indicate to the House that this item was dealt with
last week pursuant to an order of the House. There is no further
business to be announced on that issue at this time.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, about an incident that
occurred shortly before question period.
I do not know whether it is a threat or some tasteless humour,
but after I spoke in the House before question period I received
a picture from an anonymous Reform MP. It is a picture of a mean
looking bird of prey chewing the head off another bird of prey
under which it says “how Reformers deal with the NDP”.
1505
I would like to ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to whether or
not that person could identify himself or herself or whether the
Leader of the Opposition could help me to identify that person.
It is one thing to have a debate in the House but it is another
thing to be tasteless and have this kind of a note sent across
the way.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Qu'Appelle
approached the Chair earlier and showed me a piece of paper on
which was the bird that he had referred to. There was no name on
the paper.
Colleagues, I understand that this paper was delivered by one of
our pages. Our pages should never, never be used to carry this
type of trash. I would hope, my colleagues, that in future this
would not occur. Quite frankly, in the name of our pages here
who are part of this House of Commons, I do not want them to be
used that way.
The hon. member has a grievance. He does not have a point of
privilege. I would hope this would not occur again.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-4, an act to amend the
Canadian Wheat Board and to make consequential amendments to
other acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee; and
of Motions Nos. 42, 43, 44, 46 and 48.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Brandon—Souris had the
floor. My colleague, you have eight minutes left in your
remarks.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate that leniency. I did not realize I had that much time
but I can certainly spend that much time speaking to this very
important piece of legislation.
It is nice to see members of the committee on the government
side still in the House, obviously listening to some of the more
proactive amendments that have gone forward.
As I mentioned on this particular group of motions, the major
issue that is being dealt with here is the inclusion clause that
has been put into this piece of legislation.
In Bill C-72, when it was tabled prior to the election, there
was no mention of any inclusion, the inclusion clause being that
of canola, flax, rye and oats. We were told in committee after
Bill C-4 came back and this inclusion clause appeared
mysteriously in the legislation, that when the committee went
throughout the country on Bill C-72 it had heard from hundreds
and hundreds people who wanted to come forward and have the
opportunity to include these other clauses as a single desk
seller on the Canadian Wheat Board.
Well, surprise, surprise. When we sat in committee and dealt
with Bill C-4, very few of those hundreds of individuals who
wanted inclusion came forward. As a matter of fact the majority
of the people who came forward to committee spoke totally in
opposition to this particular clause, that of inclusion.
There were some individuals who did suggest that inclusion was
fine, but almost all of those individuals and organizations who
came forward spoke totally in opposition to inclusion. Let me
give some names.
The canola growers. These are the same producers that this
government suggests it is going to represent, that the Canadian
Wheat Board represents the producers of western Canada. These
are the same producers that came forward and said emphatically
that they did not want to be part of the board with this
particular commodity. They said that canola should be out of the
board with no option at all of having it put in. These are the
same producers that this government says it is trying to
represent and have represented on the Canadian Wheat Board.
My most serious concern is with the loss of industrial
opportunities in this country because of this inclusion clause.
That comes specifically from the canola processors. They were in
front of the committee and they said again emphatically “If we
are to invest industrially in western Canada, why would we do it
when our raw material could be jeopardized?” Just the simple
fact that the word canola is in this particular legislation will
scare investment out of our country. That is not scaremongering,
it is fact.
1510
I have talked to the chief executive officers of these
corporations which I assume members of the government have not
done. B.C.O. said “Why would we invest tens of millions of
dollars into a commodity that we may not have access to if in
fact this legislation goes through?”
Our area of western Manitoba and western Canada depend on this
type of industrial job creation. If we do not have the ability to
develop our own markets and our own raw material, then we will
not develop those jobs.
The flax producers also came before the committee. They do not
want flax put in as an opportunity of inclusion into the
legislation. The same producers that this government says they
want to represent are saying “Do not represent us. Get it out of
the legislation”.
The oats producers also came forward. In fact oats used to be a
commodity under the Canadian Wheat Board. It was a single desk
seller. It was taken out of the wheat board's jurisdiction and
surprise, surprise, they do not want back in. They say that since
oats has been taken out, their value has increased in that
commodity, that in fact it has reached world markets, that in
fact its marketing costs have dropped by about a third from the
point when they were in the Canadian Wheat Board.
The same producers that this government says they want to
represent in the Canadian Wheat Board do not want to be
represented.
If the government is going to go forward and pass this
legislation with respect to the Canadian Wheat Board with wheat
and with barley, my plea if you will, is please do not extend
that to other commodities. We do not want it. The producers do
not want it. We do not know who wants it quite frankly, perhaps
with the exception of one hon. member on the government side who
is going to destroy the wheat board with this type of clause.
Another organization has some serious concerns and it came to
committee. That organization is the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange.
The Winnipeg Commodity Exchange deals in canola futures. If it
were a single desk seller, those canola futures would not be
available to the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange. That organization
has substantial employment in the province of Manitoba and
certainly develops a market for the canola product that is
produced by western Canadian farmers.
We are having an excellent debate, if I can just share that,
with the proponent of inclusion and everyone else who is opposed
to inclusion, but perhaps there could be order.
When I approached this government, this minister and these
individuals who are so bent on having the inclusion clause, the
answer they gave me for having the inclusion clause was, first of
all that everybody wants it, which they do not. Second was that
if you have exclusion, then you have to have inclusion. Guess
what. We would be more than happy to get rid of the exclusion
clause with the Canadian Wheat Board to in fact achieve getting
rid of the inclusion clause in this particular piece of
legislation. There are no more other answers.
There was one more which was really ridiculous but I will share
it. The other answer was, “Hon. member for Brandon—Souris, do
not worry about it. It is never going to be triggered, it is
never going to be enacted”. That was the answer I got back from
members of the committee, “Do not worry about it. Inclusion is
in the act but it is never going to happen”.
1515
Guess what. If it is never going to happen, get it out of
there. Do not leave the inclusion clause in. It is putting fear
into the marketplace. That fear in the marketplace is going to
have a dramatic impact on the industrial development not only of
the crop itself for the producers but also for jobs that we can
create in western Canada based on these crops, based on the value
added of these crops. Just having it in there is a very scary
situation.
I will pass my time on to others whom I know speak as
passionately as I to this particular clause. If there is one
amendment that the House listens to honestly, to all the people
who have spoken, this is it. Make no mistake. The inclusion
clause must be taken out of this legislation.
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is
my pleasure to rise today in the House and to join with my
colleagues on both sides of the House to discuss this important
piece of legislation.
I shared what I want to say with a couple of the Reform Party
members outside the House this afternoon when we were discussing
this. My interest in this bill of course is as a rural member in
Manitoba on behalf of the farmers there. It is also of
particular importance because I shared with them my own family
background where the Iftody family came to this country 100 years
ago. This year we will be celebrating 100 years of being in
Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
My ancestors came here as farmers. They were clearing the land
as grain farmers. Those good people and their successive
generations, like many immigrants from eastern Europe, cleared
that land and planted primarily grain. That evolved to a much
more sophisticated system but all of them will tell, if hon.
members will listen on both sides of the House, of the changes
that have occurred in the industry in the past 100 years.
They will tell, and some have told me, of the monopolies in the
1920s and 1930s of the large private grain companies that were
gouging the farmers, controlling that process.
I find it absolutely surprising, strange and odd indeed that
some of these members of Parliament are advocating a return to
that place where invariably with the break-up of the wheat board
we would have a companion, parallel process of monopolization
with one grain company buying the other and buying the other
until we are left with one or two large companies again in Canada
competing against the small farmer whom these folks ostensibly
are trying to protect.
That is the background to some of the comments I want to make on
this. First, in the small business sector, or perhaps a farmer
in a small farming operation, where would he or she today in the
free market find an underwriter for exporting their product
overseas? Some of the members have raised that question most
recently about moneys owed to Poland, Russia or Asia because they
need forward financing in order to buy the grain. Who would do
that? Would the farmers be expected to pay the premiums on that
and the risk of exporting in insurance as other manufacturers?
Who would cover that? We have not talked about that.
We have a guarantee of $6 billion by the Government of Canada
for the Canadian farmers. I think that is significant.
The Export Development Corporation, for example, does provide
insurance policies as well for farmers who are exporting. Even
in my own riding, if they are shipping overseas they do not know
whether that receipt will come back void, that the company has
shut down and they will lose that shipment. They need those
guarantees. They are well placed companies, some of them doing
$55 million or $100 million worth of exports. They need that
insurance. They seek that insurance. It is provided through
instruments of the Government of Canada.
1520
With respect to the democratic process of the election of the
board members, I cannot understand how it is, after the whole
history of the wheat board and talking to farmers in Manitoba,
grandfathers, sons and daughters who have farmed, that somebody
would argue that for the first time in history we would allow and
elect 66% of the members of that board, freely and duly elected,
by the farmers. This is the first time. Yet we have opposition
to that. We have members of parliament who will stand in this
House and vote against that democratic process and that
principle. I find that really puzzling and troubling. This is a
historic moment.
For the first time these farmers lobbying in the coffee shops in
my riding of Provencher, for example, will have the opportunity
to talk to their colleagues about their plans for the marketing
of grain in Canada, outside of Canada, to the U.S., to the Asian
markets, and they will seek the approval of their peers. They
will lobby and they will put their ideas forward in Alberta, in
Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
If they have the guarantee of those people and have the
confidence of their brother and sister farmers they will get that
vote. They will get that vote and they will become a board
member. How can anyone argue against that?
There is now emerging a charter challenge against the wheat
board under the rights and freedoms. The Prime Minister of
Canada, at that time the minister of justice, brought in the
charter of rights and freedoms. He argued for it in the House of
Commons. The very people now who want to use that were arguing
against the charter. They did not want the charter. They were
arguing for the notwithstanding clause in the charter which
eventually they got. The notwithstanding clause in the charter
generally says that any rights that may be abridged or abrogated
in the charter, notwithstanding the collective good, may be
overridden. What some of the members are forgetting to discuss
is the larger question of the collective good.
I found it curious that they would apply to the human rights
commission to invoke the charter of rights and freedoms to be
able to accomplish we do not know what, but a charter of rights
and freedoms that they attacked in 1980, in 1983 and that they
continue to attack today. I find that puzzling indeed.
There has been some discussion about the inclusion clause. I
too have some concerns about it. My bottom line for the farmers
in my riding of Provencher is that I want them to prosper, I want
them to do well, I want them to have a fuller say in the
marketing of their grain, but we look at it in the long term.
Everyone is talking about the spot market and rushing over the
border with a load of grain. We saw what happened in the Durham
wheat question when our farmers were bringing grain over into
Montana. There were almost fist fights at the local elevator
prompting them to go to their congressmen and senators. Then
they imposed an arbitrary cap on the kind and amount of wheat we
could send to the U.S. Is it not logical and clear to some of
the members in the House? How long do they think we will ship
our grain over with our trucks to the U.S. before the American
farmers are on the phone to their local politicians? Do we want
to be beholden to them? I do not think so.
I do not argue that we do not need changes to the wheat board.
We need some fundamental changes to the wheat board. It must be
responsive to Canadian farmers. I asked and requested it to be
responsive to the farmers in my riding. To suggest that we blow
it open and disband it and put it in the hands of a short term
interest is not wise and it is not prudent. Ultimately it would
hurt farmers.
I do have some concerns with the inclusion clause. I share some
of the views of my colleague from Brandon—Souris. I appreciate
his views. I too met with a number of people to discuss this.
1525
I met with canola growers. I met with western wheat growers
following their meeting with the hon. member I had mentioned.
They said to me that they would support the bill if the inclusion
clause were removed. They said they would support the bill.
I said I will meet you half way if you give me a letter stating
that is a public position of yours. I would take it to the
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and to the Prime Minister
and say look, we have some movement here. I am still waiting for
the letter. I was hoping to have received it today. I have not
received the letter and the member for Brandon—Souris said that
if there were some changes, he would support the bill.
I think there is still some area for discussion here. But the
bottom line is this. With the underpinning of the 66% of the
board and the members having control over that process, how would
it be possible that they would violate the will of the farmers
they are ostensibly elected to represent and they would include
something in the board, canola for example, without the approval
of those farmers? I think it is inconceivable. It cannot
happen.
The member was asking those rhetorical questions. Could it
happen? I think very unlikely. It is a safety measure, but you
cannot look at these structural changes in one year, three year.
We talk about five year and ten year corporate plans. In
something this important to western Canada, we need a 25 year
plan.
In summary, I think we can support the basic intent and spirit
of this bill, which is to bring a democratic reform to the
Canadian Wheat Board, that regular farmers, men and women, can
sit on that board and make long term decisions which are in their
best interests and in the best interests of their children.
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
it is sort of a miracle, in view of the fact that the government
over there has once again put time allocation on the free speech
of members of Parliament representing their constituents, that I
am able to speak at all. I like to participate in miracles. I
am glad to have this opportunity to speak.
I live on a dairy farm. It is not a western grain producing
farm but it depends very much on the free movement of western
produced grain. I have some idea of what farmers across western
Canada are facing.
It is a privilege to speak during this report stage of Bill C-4,
an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board.
I want to at least give the government a bit of credit for being
consistent. This legislation was flawed in the last session as
Bill C-72 and is still flawed. Perhaps one of the biggest
shortcomings is that the legislation will not bring about
voluntary participation in the Canadian Wheat Board. This means
farmers still will not have the freedom to choose how they want
to market their grain.
Bill C-4 gives Canadian wheat farmers no options. Thousands of
farmers have told the government they are not happy with the
Canadian Wheat Board monopoly. These farmers want the right to
market their product themselves and Bill C-4 simply ignores those
demands.
Like so many initiatives by this Liberal government, it is
window dressing. Bill C-4 is a poor attempt by the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food to make it appear as though it is
responding to farmer demands for change. By doing so and by
effectively doing nothing, it has dodged the real issue of
marketing options, and the minister's attempts to placate
producers with this legislation could backfire.
The Canadian Wheat Board's grip on the sale of wheat and barley
is an extremely controversial and divisive issue among Canadian
wheat farmers. Yet the government fails to recognize that this
controversy will not simply go away. As a result, farmers on
both sides of the issue are growing increasingly frustrated
because the minister will not deal with the situation.
The minister has adopted a zero sum approach in this matter, an
all or nothing attitude. Instead of establishing mechanisms
which would allow farmers to choose how their grain will be sold,
the exclusion and inclusion clauses in the bill leave no room for
compromise. These clauses mean that various grain producing
groups could eventually vote to have their product included in or
excluded from the Canadian Wheat Board. This means that a
particular grain product is either in or out.
There is no middle ground for farmers who are on the losing end
of a vote concerning the inclusion or exclusion of a particular
grain product. Far from preserving the Canadian Wheat Board,
this situation could ultimately destroy it as one producer group
after another chooses to get out from under its thumb.
1530
These concerns are not new to the Liberals. Nor are they
without merit. In fact the government ignored recommendations
from its own western grain marketing panel. In July 1996, after
a year long study, the panel told the government that the
Canadian Wheat Board should operate more like a private company.
It went on to say that the board's monopoly on the sale of wheat
should be reduced and that its monopoly on export feed barley
should be ended. Yet, with an all or nothing display, the
plebiscite that the minister finally permitted for barley growers
early this year gave farmers little choice.
Basically they were asked “Do you want to go or stay with the
Canadian Wheat Board?” There was nothing in between. What kind
of choice is that? The plebiscite charade has left farmers more
frustrated than ever.
We know how dangerous it is for governments or government
agencies to try to settle issues by wording questions that
influence the outcome. We saw that in the latest of Quebec's
never ending referenda. The point here is that attempting to
influence the outcome never helps to settle the issue. It just
makes it worse.
Bill C-4 would allow for the election of 10 members to the new
board of directors. However, this is not enough, as a fully
elected board of directors is necessary if the voice of farmers
is truly to be heard.
For example, if just three elected directors were to shift their
vote to align with the five government appointed members of the
board, the majority of directors elected by the farmers would
find themselves outvoted. So much for democracy.
The ability of the directors to represent the farmers who
elected them is in doubt. That is one of the reasons I fully
support Motions Nos. 42 and 43 to this flawed bill.
Just like CSIS, Canada's secretive spy agency, the Canadian
Wheat Board does not have to answer to the Access to Information
Act. It cannot be audited by the auditor general. How can the
directors act freely if they are bound by this secrecy?
In addition, the directors would not hold ultimate authority
over the Canadian Wheat Board. That is because the agriculture
minister and the finance minister would.
In effect, the corporate plan, which includes all the businesses
and activities of the Canadian Wheat Board, as well as its annual
borrowing plan, would have to be approved by the Minister of
Finance. This means that even though the Canadian Wheat Board
would no longer officially be a crown corporation, the federal
government's grip would actually be tighter from a financial
point of view.
The directors could also be denied liability protection if they
were to speak and act freely on behalf of farmers. Directors
would only be covered for liability if they acted in the best
interest of the corporation. This creates an automatic conflict
of interest as any instructions given to the Canadian Wheat Board
by the federal government are defined as being in the best
interest of the corporation.
If a director does not follow government directives, will they
be held liable for not acting in the best interests of the
corporation? I would suggest that there are some serious
consequences which the government has failed to address in the
bill.
The bill would also mean that a province planning to make
changes demanded by a majority of its farmers is out of luck.
Bill C-4 is binding on the provinces. Because this is the case,
the federal government should have consulted with the provinces
on the reform of the Canadian Wheat Board. This was not done and
the Liberals charged ahead on their own. The message from the
federal government clearly says “Forget it. We are in charge
here”.
In addition, the Canadian Wheat Board is being left wide open as
a target in international trade negotiations. This legislation
will not satisfy our trading partners that the Canadian Wheat
Board is independent from the federal government. This is
significant because countries like the U.S. are pointing out that
the Canadian Wheat Board, with the large degree of involvement
and control by the federal government, gives Canada an unfair
trading advantage. This will make the Canadian Wheat Board a
target during the next round of trade negotiations at the World
Trade Organization.
Is this the best the Liberals could come up with? There are
approximately 110,000 grain farmers in the prairie provinces and
parts of British Columbia. The Canadian Wheat Board controls $5
billion in sales annually.
Even with the significance of these numbers it is hard to believe
that the government has simply introduced this recycled
legislation.
1535
It is not just Reform MPs who are opposed to the legislation. As
I mentioned earlier a majority of grain producer groups oppose
Bill C-4. In fact they have been busy since the House last
debated the legislation. The coalition against Bill C-4 has
continued to pressure the agriculture minister to take the
opposition amendments seriously. The list of member groups
opposed to the legislation includes, to name only a few, the
Canadian Canola Growers Association, the Flax Growers of Western
Canada, the Western Barley Growers Association, the Canadian
Federation of Independent Business and the Western Canadian Wheat
Growers Association. How much more does the government want?
As well, almost 100 witnesses stood before the Standing
Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food to comment on its
predecessor, Bill C-72. Virtually all farm groups appearing told
the committee that this was a fundamentally flawed piece of
legislation.
What has the government done? In one word, nothing. Like so
many other Liberal promises the government's legislation is
similar: long on style but short on substance.
In conclusion I want to serve notice that I will not be
supporting this piece of government legislation. I further urge
members on both sides of the House to vote against Bill C-4 at
third reading. It is clear the government has been consistently
wrong on how to best address the needs of Canadian wheat farmers,
and this bill is no exception.
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
am happy to take part in the debate today on Bill C-4 at report
stage, specifically on the matter of inclusion.
Before I start to address my remarks to that section, I want to
register as loudly as I can my very strong disapproval for the
government using closure or time allocation to kill debate on the
bill.
It is absolutely shameful the Liberals have done this. They
were the biggest group arguing against Brian Mulroney's use of
closure in the 34th parliament. It was shameful that Mulroney
used closure as much as he did. But guess what happens when the
Liberals are in power? They up the ante and even use it more
often.
On an item that is so important to the Canadian farmers we see
Liberals using closure to close down the debate which is very
consistent with the way the minister and the government have
handled the issue in the last number of years I have been in
parliament.
I think we need a bit of history about this debate. I want to
put on record that my family and I have a 2,000 acre grain farm
in Alberta. We are under the Canadian Wheat Board area, unlike
the member for Malpeque who has influenced the debate so much
with the inclusion clause. We are not growing potatoes in Prince
Edward Island. We are under the Canadian Wheat Board area so we
know firsthand what the effects are.
There has been a growing mood over the last 15 years or so for
people to want a choice on how they market their grain. I know
some constituents want to continue to use the Canadian Wheat
Board to average their prices and accept the pooling method. I
respect the choice that they want to make.
I am hearing more and more people saying that they do not want
to be part of that system. They want to market their own grain.
That rush of people is growing more and more as the government
mishandles this piece of legislation.
What is the debate all about? I believe it should be about a
matter of choice. It was interesting when the member for
Provencher talked about eastern Europeans who really settled the
land in Manitoba where he is from. A lot of people came to
Canada, farmed and opened up the west. What were they coming
here for? They were coming for new opportunity. They were coming
so they could have some choice in what they did, not to be under
the socialist system of eastern Europe.
Is it not ironic that the people who are trying to support the
idea of maintaining the Canadian Wheat Board and its monopoly are
largely coming from the board members themselves and the advisory
group? What does that tell us?
1540
At a time when eastern Europe went through dramatic changes
socialist countries with failed policy, especially in
agriculture, were breaking down the barriers, realizing that a
market economy was the way to go, and moving to a market economy.
At the same time a country like Canada with its Liberal
government is moving to strengthen its monopoly over more crops
grown by farmers for the Canadian Wheat Board.
Something happened. The communist countries and Canada passed
in the night a few years ago. It is a failed policy in Europe.
Why would it not be a failed policy here?
We have seen the special panel hand picked by the minister to
review what was happening in terms of what farmers wanted on
grain marketing. He did not do it willingly. There was a lot of
pressure on him to make changes. His response was to hand pick
this panel. I think his former campaign manager was the chair.
The panel members travelled across western Canada, determined
that they would hold on to the wheat board monopoly. The
evidence from farmers was compelling. They said “I do not want
that. It is fine if my neighbour does, but give us a choice”. I
attended some of those hearings and the percentage of people who
said that was overwhelming.
The panel had to write a report that reflected what it was
hearing across the country. Did the minister of agriculture at
the time listen to his own hand picked panel? He never even met
with the panel. After a year of study and travel around western
Canada and a couple of million dollars of taxpayers' money the
minister does not even read the report because he hears that the
panel is recommending that farmers want choice.
What kind of government do we have? A monopoly situation, state
controlled. Does that not remind us of something we used to hear
about in communist countries?
What did we hear from the farmers who attended the hearings? I
was at many of them. I heard that they wanted choice. I heard
that they are not able to plan properly. They have high input
costs. It is a big business these days. On our farm machinery
costs are probably half a million dollars. They need to know
what prices are for their product. The farmers who are doing
well are bypassing the Canadian Wheat Board because it is not
reflecting their concerns. They are bypassing the Canadian Wheat
Board because the board does not provide them with the options
they need.
Modern farmers are now growing crops which the board does not
handle. If this board is left in place I predict that the amount
of grain it will handle will continue to go down.
The special panel made a report which the minister did not like.
He took his own survey and said that there was overwhelming
support for the board. Then he instituted Bill C-72.
Then the agriculture committee travelled across the country and
listened to farmers. The member for Malpeque was a member of
that committee. I attended many of those hearings as well.
Farmers were saying that they wanted choice. Some farmers on the
other side of the issue wanted to keep the Canadian Wheat Board
in tact to market their grain. They said “Don't touch it. Leave
it as it is”. I respect that opinion.
Younger farmers said they wanted a choice. There were the
growing number of people who were making presentations. I never
heard anybody say they wanted more crops included under the
Canadian Wheat Board mandate.
When Bill C-72 died and the sphinx that rose from the ashes of
it became Bill C-4, all of a sudden there was an inclusion
clause. Crops were included that were not previously under the
board: flax, rye, canola and peas. They can now be included. It
was a red herring floated by the member for Malpeque, but it
suddenly took on a life of its own and now it is in Bill C-4.
Farmers are not happy. Farmers walked out on the Minister
responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board about three weeks ago at
hearings in Regina. They will not accept this.
We have to wonder who wants this monopoly power and why they
want the monopoly to include more items than before. I suggest
it is the Liberal government that needs to maintain control. I
suggest the Liberals are faltering. They realize that the only
way to keep this is to keep the lid on it and not give the
auditor general power to audit the books of the Canadian Wheat
Board, as we requested, and not to let us have access to
information in the Canadian Wheat Board.
Ninety-nine per cent of the Canadian economy runs on a market
economy. There are some exceptions such as power companies that
have control because they are the only supplier.
But then we put in things like public utilities boards to look
after the public's interest and have hearings before they can
have rate increases.
1545
On the other side for farmers, what do we have? We have the
Canadian Wheat Board and it says that any grain that is exported
from Canada in wheat and barley has to go through the Canadian
Wheat Board. Farmers cannot do it themselves. Supposedly they are
not smart enough, I guess.
Yet we are able to sell our canola, our flax, our rye, our oats,
our peas, our clover, our hay and livestock every day on the world
markets, and farmers are doing fine. So what kind of a piece of
legislation do we have here? It just does not make sense.
I do not see the member for Malpeque wanting the Canadian Wheat
Board for potatoes. Why does it not include potatoes? Why does it
not include Ontario? Why does it not include Quebec? No, western
Canadian grain farmers have to have big brother government do it
for them. Even worse, we are going to include more of your crops
so you are not going to have the flexibility to be able to
operate. It is absolutely shameful and it should be withdrawn.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I do welcome the
opportunity to speak on group 7 motions of Bill C-4.
This section of motions especially relating to the inclusion
clause seems to have provoked a lot of yelling from Reform
members. Sadly, their yelling is based on scare tactics and
misinformation. Their comments are generating a lot more heat
than light on the subject at hand, Bill C-4, and what it will do
for the farm community. In their efforts to mislead western
farmers, some members opposite have attacked me personally and
where I live and what I produce. They do so on the basis that
they believe I authored the so-called inclusion clause.
The fact is I did not author the inclusion clause. Western
Canadian farmers authored the inclusion clause through the
hearings that we held in western Canada last spring. That is who
authored the inclusion clause. They demanded choice in terms of
putting other products under the Canadian Wheat Board.
Members opposite talked about the member for Peace River. He
said he was at some hearings. Yes, I will admit I saw him at some
hearings. I was at them all. The members of the previous standing
committee on agriculture were at them all. We heard what
individual after individual farmer had to say to us in terms of
wanting to strengthen the Canadian Wheat Board by having the
opportunity through a democratic process to put more products
under it.
There is no question why the vast majority of farmers want to
see the Canadian Wheat Board strengthened and expanded. It is
easy to see why they have such great faith in the Canadian Wheat
Board, and I will turn to the study by Kraft, Furtan and
Tyrchniewicz on a performance evaluation of the Canadian Wheat
Board. They conclude in their study: “The results show that
Canadian Wheat Board marketing averaged an increase to the wheat
pool account of $13.35 per tonne, or $265 million per year for
the 14 year period over what would have been realized by multiple
sellers”. That is a pretty good performance, and that is what
farmers want to see more often.
They believe strongly in the Canadian Wheat Board principles,
single desk selling, price pooling, guarantee of prices and
guarantee on borrowings by the Government of Canada.
Contrary to what has been said, what the inclusion clause allows
is an opportunity for farmers with no choice currently but the
open market to look at another option, that of single desk
selling.
I was not surprised at all when the Winnipeg commodity exchange
came before the agriculture committee which I was at and attacked
this bill strenuously. Of course it would attack it, because when
the open market fails and the Winnipeg commodity exchange fails,
it does not want farmers to have a choice to go another approach
of marketing, which is single desk selling through the Canadian
Wheat Board. That is the reality.
1550
The member for Peace River has said this many times as did the
member from Prince George earlier. I quote the member for Peace
River: “There is a growing mood that people want choice”. He
talked about choice many times, and that is what the inclusion
clause does. It puts farmers in charge of their own destiny
through a democratic process. It gives them the choice of
another option in terms of marketing. That is what farmers
demanded during our committee hearings.
I have been called a potato producer so many times, although I
do not grow potatoes, because I happen to currently live in
Prince Edward Island. This impression they are trying to leave
is because I am a strong supporter of the Canadian Wheat Board.
Because I do not live out west they think I do not know anything
about it. I would like any Reform member opposite to stack up
against my list of staying at homes in western Canada over a 17
year period in community after community in Manitoba,
Saskatchewan, Alberta and B.C. and talking to farmers around the
kitchen table.
When I went out west, first as president and organizer of the
National Farmers Union, I to ask in my own mind why people so
strongly supported the Canadian Wheat Board. What was this
instrument that they had such great faith in? They talked about
the history of how the grain companies used to rip them off and
how the Canadian Wheat Board has been part of their salvation in
terms of being one of the paramount marketing institutions in the
world today since its beginning in 1935.
As a result of this, I studied that extensively. I spent time
in the Canadian Wheat Board offices. I spent time in farmers'
homes and I believe very strongly that there is very strong
support. Votes on the Canadian Wheat Board have shown that there
is strong support for the Canadian Wheat Board.
I am very proud to stand in the House, having served for 11
years as president of an organization mainly centred in
western Canada, in support of the inclusion clause going into
Bill C-4. That is what farmers demanded and when farmers demand
something this government tries to act on it and give them that
choice.
I want to speak on one other motion, Motion No. 46, the access
to information request. The amendment under Motion No. 46 would
require the Canadian Wheat Board to reveal far more information
about its business transactions than does any of its competitors.
The obligation to disclose commercially sensitive information
would place the Canadian Wheat Board at a disadvantage when it
negotiates contracts with international buyers.
Under this bill, the new board of directors will have access to
any and all information it wishes to see concerning the Canadian
Wheat Board operations and sales contracts.
There are other government operations that are not subject to
the Access to Information Act. The Export Development
Corporation, which is also involved in international trade, is an
example. Producer elected directors will be able to decide what
information could be released to producers without compromising
Canadian Wheat Board operations.
I would like to point out that the Canadian Wheat Board has not
been secretive. In fact, it has been very open. The Canadian
Wheat Board is currently engaged in its annual grain day meetings
where the commissionaires of the wheat board travel to towns
across western Canada to meet with and answer the questions of
farmers. The Canadian Wheat Board has a 1-800 service to answer
farmers' questions.
It issues a detailed audited annual report which is second to
none. In fact, I asked at committee if we could such see a
detailed audited annual report of the Reform Party. I have not
seen that come forward yet. It is one of the most open annual
reports of any organization. It has opened its books up
completely to independent academics so they could evaluate the
board's performance.
1555
The farmer elected advisory committee members also have access
to Canadian Wheat Board information.
An hon. member: Why do they not all support Bill C-4?
Mr. Wayne Easter: The member asks why all the wheat board
advisory members do not support Bill C-4. They all support the
inclusion clause. There is a little difference of opinion on the
advisory board in terms of whether some of the things in this
bill would weaken the board.
The bottom line is that this bill, with the election of a board
of directors and in offering more choice through the inclusion
clause, puts farmers in charge of their own destiny. The party
opposite should be supporting farmers' taking charge of their own
destiny.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I was
not going to speak on this bill today, but when I heard some of
the debate that was going on I felt implored to do so.
I used to work for the National Citizens Coalition. I talk to
the people at home, because I realized they may be the only ones
listening. I remember when Andy McMechan's wife would call us at
the National Citizens Coalition and tell us about how her husband
was in shackles and in jail because he tried to sell his wheat
independently.
As a result, they were facing financial hardship. They were
going to lose their family farm. She called in desperation to
David Somerville and the rest of us at the National Citizens
Coalition to ask us to help cover their bills. They faced
thousands of dollars in fines. Their tractors and their trucks
were seized. Her husband was in jail. She had no one to turn to
for help, simply because her husband wanted to market his grain
independently. There was no wheat board to turn to because the
wheat board was enforcing the monopoly.
I have heard members opposite say they do not like monopolies.
They think monopolies are bad. However, they support a monopoly
which is state sanctioned.
It is not just Andy McMechan. There are other farmers out there
who have had their properties seized. Their abilities to conduct
their business and to put food on the table for their families
have been restricted by these policies.
Members are standing in the House today to say they are proud of
this bill when they know that some of their constituents, people
on the prairies and grain marketers, are in jail, in shackles,
facing tens of thousands of dollars in fines.
Most of the time I am honoured to stand in this House to
represent the people of Calgary West. However, today we are
considering passing a bill which would entrench in law expanded
powers for the wheat board. Its new powers would go beyond the
control of wheat, to oats, barley, flax and other crops. I am
not proud of what this House is about to do. The government is
going to expand the powers of the wheat board and put more grains
under its control.
It boils down to free choice. Andy McMechan was not allowed the
free choice to market his grain independent of the wheat board.
As a result he was deprived of his ability to put food on the
table for his family. He was fighting for the right, as were the
other farmers who faced these restrictions, to have voluntary
compliance with the board. If they want to market their grain
through the wheat board, that is fine. But they had no other
option. They were put in jail and faced fines. Their wives and
their families were so desperate that they had to turn to
non-government organizations for help.
1600
It is unbelievable that we have that going on in this country.
That they will not allow for free competition, that they are
encouraging a legislated monopoly, and I heard another member say
it today, indicates just how poorly run this monopoly is.
They talk across the way about how, during the 1920s and 1930s,
there were private monopolies. No person who supports free
competition supports a monopoly of any kind, whether it be
government or private. For them to go ahead and support the idea
of a government monopoly that can put people in jail for wanting
to market their grain independently, I do not know how they can
sleep at night when they back something like that.
I think in many ways, and this is unfortunate, it speaks to the
arrogance, to the elitism and to just how out of touch how many
of the people who stand and represent constituents in this
Chamber are. They can support a bill that would jail their
fellow citizens for wanting to market their grain independently.
Like I say, it is not a proud day when I have to stand and speak
to this.
I implore the people across the way, because they are the only
ones who can really make changes at this stage. They have the
narrowest majority of any government during this century aside
from coalition governments. For those who may be watching in
their offices who represent rural constituencies and who know
that vast chunks of their electorate do not support a monopoly
bargaining on behalf of the Canada Wheat Board, please I implore
them, they have no better opportunity than in this bill here to
stand up for their constituents and to not merely read off of
ministerial talking points and to represent their constituents
and come clean on this. Otherwise they will have to go back to
face their electorate in the next election.
They have an opportunity here that few governments and few
backbenchers in governments are ever afforded and they have a
real opportunity to stand up and make a meaningful contribution.
If they do not take this opportunity, shame on them.
For the folks back home, expanding jurisdiction basically means
that the government wants to expand beyond the wheat board and be
able to go into things like canola and flax and oats and barley.
A government never asks for power unless it intends to exercise
it. This means it hopes to rule out competition on these
products like canola, flax, oats and barley. It intends to
expand this monopoly beyond wheat and take it to these other
grains. Therefore it will be impacting far more farmers than
what the wheat board already does.
Once again, they have an incredible opportunity here to help out
and to safeguard those farming operations across Canada. They
owe it to them to stand up and stand for freedom on this.
Some people across the way speak of democracy and yet they
forget about minority rights. Just because 50% plus 1 of people
decide they happen to be in favour on one particular plebiscite
does not speak to minority rights. The only time we must have a
democracy and where people must follow one rule is when you can
have only one rule.
It would not be fair, for instance, for one person to say they
have to pay only 10% tax and another person to say they thought
it was appropriate to pay 20% tax. You have to have something
that is straight across the board, an even keel for all.
Certainly in terms of a marketing organization for grain, you do
not need to have everybody within one board. They should be
allowed to have dissenting opinions.
For those farmers who wish to market through the Canadian Wheat
Board, God bless them in their pursuit, but how can others
legitimately say they wish to see their neighbour jailed, put
behind bars, their equipment seized, and fines of tens of
thousands of dollars placed against their operations because they
want to operate outside the board? I am not proud today, knowing
this type of legislation may pass in this House.
Also, I speak to the fact that the auditor general cannot have
access to audit the Canadian Wheat Board. If you add up all
these incriminations, that people are going to jail for wanting
to market their grain independently, that the auditor general
cannot look into the books, that they are encouraging a
government monopoly, all these things, I implore backbench MPs in
the Liberal Party, please, they have an opportunity to stand up
against this.
If only a handful were to take a stand in their caucus they could
seriously change and amend this legislation.
1605
[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 Cumberland—Colchester-transport; the hon. member for
Calgary—Nose Hill—fisheries.
[English]
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP):
Madam Speaker, what we have heard today from the Reform Party is
the triumph of ideology over common sense. I know Reformers do
not like the fact that an agency within the government purview
works and works for those for whom it is designed to work and is
one which is supported by the majority of those farmers who use
it because we know that it is supported by the majority of
farmers who use it, in spite of the continual denial of that by
the Reform Party.
It works, as has been made clear many times, indeed by every
credible study of the wheat board's activity. Mention has
already been made of the study by Kraft and Furtan, two of
Canada's most prominent agricultural economists. They point out
that each year farmers make $265 million more selling wheat
through the wheat board than they would selling it through the
private grain trade.
What do Reformers have against farmers being $265 million better
off each year selling their wheat than they would be through the
private grain trade? What possibly could be a problem with that,
except that the Reform Party does not want those farmers to make
those extra profits.
There was a study by another one of Canada's most prominent
agricultural economists. I know the Reform Party hates the fact
that these good economists say the wheat board is doing a good
job. Andy Schmitz who is known all over the world as one of the
most prominent agricultural economists also pointed out that the
wheat board increases the returns to barley producers by $72
million a year.
What would the Reform Party have against barley producers making
$72 million more a year than they would if they used the private
trade? Why would Reformers be opposed to that? Because their
ideology, their crazy right-wing, neo-Conservative ideology does
not want that to fit. They do not want that to work, but it does
work.
Last year there was a plebiscite by farmers across western
Canada, those who were interested in the barley trade.
Sixty-three per cent of those farmers, including the majority of
farmers in those areas represented by Reform Party MPs, voted in
favour of the Canadian Wheat Board and barley. It was even
difficult to get 63% of the population opposed to the GST, but
63% support the wheat board and barley.
Why will Reform Party members not listen to farmers who support
the wheat board in large measure? Sixty-three per cent support
the board.
It makes no sense to choose an ideology over common sense. Yet
that is what the Reform Party is doing.
We hear also some of the most peculiar, indeed almost crazy
statements by the Reform Party. The Reform Party member for
Cypress Hills—Grasslands, for example, compared life in Canada
with the wheat board to life in the former Soviet Union. He
recommended that we read the Gulag Archipelago if we want
to find a Soviet parallel to Canada with the wheat board. It is
at least extremism if not craziness.
They are all like that but only some of them speak out in these
terms. The Reform Party member for Skeena said that Canada is a
police state because we have the Canadian Wheat Board.
It really does make us wonder when this blind right-wing,
neo-Conservative ideology, this extremist rhetoric prevails over
common sense.
1610
Mr. Myron Thompson: You are absolutely wrong.
Mr. Chris Axworthy: Madam Speaker, the hon. member says I
am absolutely wrong. Do they think that I am wrong when all the
studies point out that the wheat board works for farmers?
Let us get to the question of inclusion. They have also made
crazy statements about this. What objections could anyone have
to farmers being asked to decide whether they want their product
to be marketed through the wheat board? How could that be
anything other than a genuine democratic vote, a genuine respect
for democracy? That is all this is doing, saying to farmers if
they want to use the wheat board to market their product, they
can do so.
I do not see anything unreasonable about that, yet Reform Party
members are going apoplectic about the possibility that people
should have the right to decide to use the wheat board. Why do
they get in that state? Because they just do not want the wheat
board.
They talked about dual marketing. That is just the code, a step
along the way, to getting rid of the wheat board, which is of
course exactly what they want to do. Why do they want to get rid
of the wheat board when it makes sense for farmers, when it
returns to farmers a premium year over year, hundreds of millions
of dollars more than without the wheat board? Because their
ideology does not like it. Ideology, common sense. Ideology
prevails.
It is time Reformers responded in a common sense way, gave up
their crazy opposition to things that work and supported things
that support Canadian farmers. Canadian farmers will continue to
support the wheat board. We have to make sure the Liberal
government continues to support the Canadian Wheat Board.
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Natural Resources, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to
stand to speak today to the debate on this group of motions put
forward.
I think it is very timely that we take into consideration
actually a group of motions, because that is exactly what
Reformers are trying to do. They are trying to lump in a whole
bunch of issues, cloud the entire issue so that they do not
understand it and they are hoping and praying that nobody else
will.
Categorically their attempts have failed to confuse those who do
not support the wheat board. They have failed to confuse those
who would try to follow in those particular paths.
We heard from the member for Calgary West who asked this House
to support a great Canadian institution by basically rendering it
immobile and ineffective through their motions. However, this
House will not do that. This House will protect a great Canadian
institution for the benefit of producers whom it serves, and that
is exactly what we intend to do.
Several members of the Reform Party suggested in this House that
what really will happen here is that this Canadian Wheat Board as
being an instrument of the federal government, as they declare,
will actually be under sanction, particularly under threat by
international forces, by international trade tribunals because it
is an overly effective trade mechanism for the farmers of western
Canada. That has basically been the allegation on the floor, that
the Canadian Wheat Board will be under threat by foreign players
because it is too effective an instrument in terms of
international trade. It has an unfair trading advantage.
Put this into perspective. We have heard from the hon. members
opposite that the Canadian Wheat Board is an ineffective
organization, that it does not work in the collective best
interests of farmers. Yet these same members say that the
Canadian Wheat Board will be under attack by international
interest because it is too effective a competitor in the
international marketplace. That just does not seem to make sense,
quite frankly.
I think the hon. member for Calgary West probably spent a little
too much time down in the United States of America following Mr.
Newt Gingrich's bandwagon, and I think he knows exactly what I am
talking about. When he starts to defend the United States of
America's ability to come in and try to dismantle a great
Canadian institution, probably for its benefit and not for the
benefit of western Canadian farmers, I am a little suspicious of
that.
I wonder exactly what is the intent. Quite frankly, I think the
Canadian Wheat Board has to be strengthened and should be
strengthened, which is what Bill C-4 is about to do.
1615
The official opposition and a number of 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 that was selected.
This is clearly not the case. I would like to indicate the
extent to which Bill C-4 reflects the recommendations of the
Western Grain Marketing Panel.
Many aspects of the bill, such as those providing more
flexibility payment options for farmers, would allow the Canadian
Wheat Board and its client producers to do many things it cannot
do today. However, the decisions to implement or not to
implement these services would rest where it should, with the
farmer controlled board of directors.
With respect to the panel's specific recommendations regarding
the Canadian Wheat Board, the first recommendation was that the
amendments should accommodate restructuring the governance of the
Canadian Wheat Board in accordance with a number of specific
guidelines.
Certainly Bill C-4 would restructure the Canadian Wheat Board
from being a crown corporation with five appointed commissioners
only, to a mixed enterprise where farmers would control the
majority of the board of directors. I will get to that a little
more when I talk about the specific recommendations of this
panel.
The panel's second recommendation was to permit the Canadian
Wheat Board to make cash purchases. That is in Bill C-4.
The third recommendation as to permit the Canadian Wheat Board
to make payments to farmers for grain storage and for carrying
costs. That is in Bill C-4.
The fourth recommendation was to allow deliveries to farmer
owned condo storage without regard to the delivery quotas or
contracts. That is in Bill C-4.
The fifth recommendation was to permit the Canadian Wheat Board
to purchase grain from other than an elevator rail car or from
other origins. That is in Bill C-4.
The sixth recommendation was to allow for pool accounts to be
terminated or paid out at any time following closure of that
pool. That is in Bill C-4.
The seventh recommendation was to allow for the assignment of
negotiable producer certificates. That is in Bill C-4.
The eighth recommendation was to clarify the board's authority
to utilize risk management tools including futures and auctions
in dealing with the farmers and customers. That is in Bill C-4.
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.
The panel recommended that the Canadian Wheat Board should be
governed by a board of directors of not less than 11 and not more
than 15 elected and appointed members. It 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 recommendation very closely. 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 a number of groups have expressed
concern about individuals with financial interests in the grain
trade being on the board. The government would appoint five
directors from within 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 Canadian Wheat 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. There would be a
chairperson of the board. The one difference is that the chief
executive officer would be a member of the board 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.
1620
This recommendation was in Bill C-72, but when that bill did not
pass it was decided that, in order to live up to the commitment
to have the board of directors with elected members in place by
the end of 1998, Bill C-4 could dispense with the interim board
of fully appointed members. That change in Bill 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 its term is up,
which is expected to be the same time as the new members of the
board of directors will be ready to take office.
Finally, there was a recommendation that a mechanism 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 that 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. In other cases it follows
them quite closely.
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
would 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 export control
provisions.
Let me just 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.
Let it never be said in the House that the government does not
listen to advice given by producers and those who are interested
in the Canadian wheat industry.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
hope the farmers in my riding are watching today. If they are,
after hearing the NDP socialists from that end of the House and
hearing the hon. member for P.E.I. they are probably wilder than
any wild rose that grows in that riding.
One thing was mentioned earlier. They were disgusted on that
side of the House and inferred that I would dare lead my farmers
to believe this and that. I have news for that group of people
across the way. In my riding the farmers lead me. I am here to
give their voice. I have gone to extensive efforts to find out
exactly what the people of Wild Rose would like for me to say
today. I am going to make every effort to represent them in that
regard.
Regardless of what they are saying across the House, Wild Rose
grain growers are not in favour of Bill C-4. They do not want
it. There are a lot of things about it that they do not like.
If they are going to amend it there are some things they would
want to see in it which obviously this group is not going to
include.
One thing that concerns farmers in Wild Rose is that the vote to
decide whether we have Bill C-4 will basically be that of the
Liberals. We know they support the entire bill because they have
been told to do so.
I do not imagine that have been many wheat board town hall
meetings in the city of Toronto lately. I am quite certain they
have not had very many in Montreal. Our Bloc friends would not
have a lot of wheat board meetings in any of their ridings. Yet,
all members of Parliament from those areas will not hear the
voice of the west. They will hear the voice of the leaders in
the front row who say to them “When you come to vote on Bill C-4
you will vote what I tell you to vote. That is the way it is in
the Liberal Party. You will vote the way you are told”.
I am thankful I belong to a party that gives me full privilege
to vote according to the way my constituents want me to. I know
how the farmers in Wild Rose want me to vote on this issue. I
will be representing them, even though no one else is willing to
listen to western farmers. After all, that is who we are talking
about: western farmers. That is who is being affected.
1625
I was talking to some of my colleagues across the way in the
street awhile ago. I mentioned that they should consider what is
being said in the west and not listen to the rhetoric or their
own caucus leaders. They should listen to what is being said in
the west and vote for those people because the bill affects them.
One member made an interesting comment. She said “No, this
wheat board. You are all in”. She said that it was like a
dental plan, that if we were to have a dental plan for Canadians
they would all be included. I asked if that would include
Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces. She said
“Absolutely”.
Then I said that all the farmers must be rushing from Ontario
and from Quebec to get to Winnipeg to sign up for the wheat board
because it is so great. I would like to see the repercussions if
the government were to announce that all grain growers throughout
the country, including Ontario and Quebec, were to immediately
come under the Canadian Wheat Board. I would love to see the
response.
Let us consider the opting out clause. The member for
Yorkton—Melville and the member for Portage—Lisgar would love
to be with us, but today they are in a courtroom with a farmer
who is also fighting for the right to sell his own product.
All the things we see around us, the paper on our desks, the
chairs, the books and whatever is made, are the product of hard
work. At the end of the day producers can market their goods the
best way they choose. However, a grain farmer in western Canada
cannot do that. The government tells them how to market their
barley and wheat because of these kinds of bills. Farmers simply
want the option to use the wheat board or to use some other
mechanism.
In 1993 the Conservative Party had the wisdom to open the
continental barley market. During those years farmers
flourished. Barley farmers phoned me in 1993 to tell me how well
they did. When we do some checking we also find that Canadian
Wheat Board marketers got off their backsides and worked hard
because they now had some competition and did better than they
had ever done. That is a good sign to me that competition is
healthy and that it ought to be considered.
Another farmer is being arrested because he tried to sell his
grain. I was at Andy McMechan's trial and I was at Bill Cairns'
trial. I watched them being chained and shackled and taken off
to jail. At the same time I saw a violent offender being given
community service. The policies and legislation of my colleagues
across the way makes that possible. Two rapists are walking free
because of the wonderful way socialists and Liberals think that a
rapist can walk free and get community service. However, a
farmer trying to demand the right to look after his own produce
goes to jail.
Not only that but I saw the farmers get consecutive sentencing.
I have been trying to get consecutive sentencing in the House for
a long time. Clifford Olson murdered 11 people and he got one
life sentence. Bill Cairns tried to sell his grain on two
occasions. He got 60 days and 90 days consecutively. “We will
show those rotten crooks, those mean people, those dangerous
offenders who dare try to sell their own produce”.
They worked hard. They sowed their grain. They planted it.
They hoped to get the right moisture. They worked hard to get it
into the bin, and suddenly it is not theirs any more. It belongs
to somebody else. They have no way of marketing their produce
without going through the government's Canadian Wheat Board. They
want the option.
I will read from an article of which I am sure most people in
the House are aware. It concerns the Privacy Act and is entitled
“Canadian taxpayers hold $7 billion liability through Canadian
Wheat Board—high profile panel wants to end government
secrecy”:
Canadian taxpayers hold a $7 billion liability through the
Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) and have paid millions of dollars on
behalf of foreign grain purchasers in order to hold this
liability to its current level.
Although the CWB does produce an annual report which provides a
limited amount of information, its exemption from the federal
Access to Information Act means taxpayers and farmers are unable
to independently evaluate its operations and performance.
How much the CWB fitness instructor gets paid, details of
financial returns realized from the sale of wheat and barley in
the 1960s and 70s, and a breakdown of demurrage costs paid by
farmers over the years is just some of the information a high
profile agricultural committee wants the federal government to
disclose.
A detailed synopsis of the $7 billion taxpayer liability and the
transactions that led to this debt are also being requested. The
outstanding amount owed is equal to $1,000 for every family of
four in Canada.
1630
Maybe we should have some wheat board meetings in the cities of
Toronto and Montreal, but they are not very interested. They
might be interested in knowing that as taxpayers they are also
being burdened with the load.
This group of people want to put an end to the secrecy at the
Canadian Wheat Board but the government will not allow it. In
fact when these farmers came to Ottawa last week, the agriculture
minister, his secretary and no one else would meet with them.
They do not want it to become open.
The question that the farmers in Wild Rose are asking is, what
is it they do not want us to know?
One of those members had the gall to say to me one day “We must
keep a lot of things secret because most farmers do not really
know the proper method they should use to market their grain”.
He said that if some information were disclosed to the farmers
they would use it wrongly and it would not be helpful.
The Canadian Wheat Board is for the benefit of the government,
not for the benefit of Canada's producers.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Wanuskewin, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I find it rather hypocritical and want to read for the sake of
the record some of the comments which Liberals made with respect
to the matter of closure while they were in opposition.
I cite for the record today the now Liberal Minister of Foreign
Affairs who was reported in the Toronto Star as saying on
April 1, 1993 “It displays the utter disdain with which this
government treats the Canadian people”.
I quote from Hansard of November 16, 1992 when the now
Liberal government House leader said “I am shocked. This is
just terrible. This time we are talking about a major piece of
legislation. Shame on those Tories across the way”.
That is what was said by Liberals and today we have closure on
this bill.
The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, who is now the
Deputy Speaker, said “What we have here is an absolute scandal
in terms of the government's unwillingness to listen to the
representatives of the people in this House. Never before have
we had governments so reluctant to engage in public discussion on
the bills brought before this House”. How appropriate that is
for this occasion today.
As well, the same individual who is now the Deputy Speaker said
“I suggest that the government's approach to legislating is
frankly a disgrace. It cuts back the time the House is available
to sit and then applies closure to cut off the debate”.
Lastly, that same member from Kingston and the Islands said
“This is not the way to run Parliament. This is an abuse of the
process of the House”. That is exactly what is now being done
by the Liberal government this afternoon.
I was hoping that as a result of an amended Bill C-4 we would
have a viable, modern, democratized Canadian Wheat Board which
would allow some market choice, some voices of moderation and a
reasonable position.
1635
Instead in cynical fashion the Liberal government has, by its
bill, not respected the farmers as mature adults able to make
wise choices. They can make choices for themselves. It is not
like they are little kids and we need to do it for them because
they are not wise enough to do it for themselves.
This legislation will not bring about that voluntary
participation in the Canadian Wheat Board. Farmers will not have
that freedom to choose, to exercise their mature adult will.
This bill, as the minister knows, gives farmers no options of
that sort.
Thousands of grain farmers have told the government what they
are asking for and what they want. They want that choice. They
want the choice of marketing for themselves. It is not that
others would have to, but it is only if they wished to do this
they could do so. Bill C-4 simply ignores those farmers. It is
a feeble attempt by this Liberal government to appear as though
it is responding to farmers' demands for change. It is a kind of
charade, but it has dodged the real issue of marketing options
for farmers.
The minister attempts to placate producers with this legislation
but they are not fooled. It will backfire. The Canadian Wheat
Board's tight grip on the sale of wheat and barley has an
extremely divisive effect back in the constituencies in the west
among Canadian farmers. A much better approach could have been
taken by the minister responsible for the wheat board.
It is not a controversy that will simply go away. All farmers
are getting more and more frustrated because the minister will
not deal with the situation. The minister has taken an all or
nothing attitude instead of paving the way for farmers to choose
how to sell their grain.
The inclusion clauses in the bill leave no room for compromise.
It is unbending and a cruel joke. This means that a grain is
either in or out. Far from preserving the Canadian Wheat Board,
it ultimately will destroy it as one producer group after another
chooses to get out from under its thumb.
The government has ignored recommendations from its own Western
Grain Marketing Panel. We heard some selective quotes from the
member opposite about some of the things the government did
follow in some fashion but not citing those where it did not.
In July 1996 after a year long study the panel told the
government that the board's monopoly on the sale of wheat should
be reduced and that its monopoly on the export of feed barley
should end. That was one of the recommendations of the panel
which was not cited by the hon. member opposite.
With that all or nothing kind of display, the plebiscite that
the minister then fixed or rigged earlier this year permitting
barley growers gave them little choice. The question was did
they want to go or stay with the wheat board and nothing in
between. What kind of choice is that when there could have been
other options and a fairer way to word the question?
Farmers are more frustrated than ever. That barley vote was not
unlike the referendum in Quebec where they determined the outcome
by the wording of the question. Farmers were fully aware at the
very outset, from the wording of the question, what the
determination would be.
The election of 10 members to the board has been referred to
often here. That is not enough. A fully elected board of
directors is mandatory if the voice of farmers is truly to be
heard. This hybrid kind of board will be, as we have said before
in a speech in the Hansard record, like the offspring of a
donkey and a horse, a mule. It will be unproductive.
For example as has been cited, if just three directors shift
their vote to align with the five government appointed members,
the majority of farmer elected directors would find themselves
outvoted. That my friends is not a wise choice. It is not a
choice for farmers across our country.
The ability of those elected directors to represent the farmers
who elected them is also in doubt. Just like CSIS, Canada's
secretive spy agency, the Canadian Wheat Board does not have to
answer to the Access to Information Act.
I found it interesting to hear the member for
Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar citing these studies in terms of all
the benefits and all the extra dollars accrued to farmers by way
of the Canadian Wheat Board operations. I am not sure where
these studies all come from in that we do not have access to
information. Even 30 years afterward, why would anyone need to
withhold that information from us if there is nothing to hide? We
do not presently have a need to have the wheat board audited by
the auditor general. How can those directors act freely if they
are bound by some oath of secrecy?
I agree with the Bloc member's motion. It is a good one. Motion
No. 46 under this Group No. 7 would bring the wheat board under
the jurisdiction of the Access to Information Act which is good
for farmers.
I am also concerned that the directors could be denied liability
protection if they were to speak and act freely on behalf of
farmers, which is what one would think the wheat board is all
about and what it should be doing.
1640
Directors would only be covered it would seem for liability if
they act in the best interest of the corporation. Any
instructions given to the Canadian Wheat Board by the federal
government are defined as the best interest of the corporation.
If a director does not follow government directives, then they
may well be liable because they are not looking out for the
interest of the corporation. The mandate of the wheat board
should be to look out for the best interests of farmers.
The government as we know has also neglected to tackle the
Canadian Wheat Board's role in grain transportation in this bill.
There is an impending crisis in the system of grain
transportation and the Liberals are either unwilling or
unprepared to do anything about it. This is the very best as it
stands before us now unamended that the Liberals could come up
with.
There are approximately 110,000 grain farmers in the prairie
provinces and part of British Columbia and the Canadian Wheat
Board controls $5 billion in sales. Given the significance of
those numbers it is hard to believe that the government has
simply introduced this recycled legislation. I am for recycling
but not in this regard. We need some reformed legislation.
Almost 100 witnesses stood before that agriculture committee to
comment on the predecessor, Bill C-72. Virtually all of the farm
groups appearing told the committee that it was a fundamentally
flawed piece of legislation. We need reformed legislation.
In the report stage of this bill the Liberals rammed it through
committee in less than two weeks despite overwhelming objections
by producer groups. Witnesses were forced to present views in a
confusing round table format, providing MPs with little
opportunity to analyse thoroughly the legislation.
The presence of Reform MPs through the course of this debate has
really been quite tremendous. The Liberals were for the most
part conspicuous by their absence, at times not even present in
the House.
The wheat board minister obviously found little support in that
Regina meeting and was booed off the stage.
Grain producer groups opposed to Bill C-4, the coalition against
Bill C-4, have continued to press the minister to take the
opposition amendments seriously. Numbers of coalitions listed on
numerous occasions over these last days oppose this bill.
On January 21, and this is the case which was referred to
before, the minister discussed in a fairly contemptuous fashion
the matter of directors when in fact this has not yet been
passed. This shows a disregard for Parliament and really in my
view a contempt of Parliament. A number of those groups invited
to that Regina meeting walked out protesting the meeting. Again
that is a very graphic testimony to the fact that this Bill C-4
is a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation.
In closing, I would say the farmers I have talked to, although
not all agree, do want reformed legislation of the sort that
includes the amendments that the Reform Party has put forward.
Regrettably this bill instead of being known as the act to amend
the Canadian Wheat Board may tragically in history go down as the
act to end the Canadian Wheat Board. That will be a sad day.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I am happy once again to speak on behalf of my
constituents and all farmers across the west who are really after
only one thing in this debate: freedom of choice.
If it has not been made clear by all the members who have spoken
over the last days and months that the government still fails to
understand what is bothering thousands of farmers who attend
meetings to express their frustrations with this bill, then let
me make it absolutely clear. Western producers demand a say in
how the products of their labour are dealt with.
Members opposite will claim that this venue is being given to
them by this bill in the form of a semi-elected board. They do
not explain why this board cannot be completely elected. They
fail to make a logical case for why its president must be a
creature of the government or why it must continue as a western
Canadian monopoly that forces otherwise free citizens to hand
over their property with compensation based on arbitrary and
secretive business dealings.
My colleague from Yorkton—Melville has put forward an amendment
to allow farmers to opt in and out of the Canadian Wheat Board.
His amendment will put the freedom of choice into the hands of
the producers so that with proper notice they can decide to
participate in the board or seek a better deal elsewhere if that
is what seems in their best interests.
Some might argue if we have farmers opting in and out and
deciding one year to include a particular grain and a few years
later to take it elsewhere, that we will undermine the ability of
the board to conduct its business over the long term. But this
amendment prescribes certain limits. The farmer must opt out for
a minimum of fives years and give two years notice of opting back
in.
This is not a case of leaping in and out on a whim. This is a
case of letting well informed and self-motivated farmers decide
their own future.
1645
The member for Brandon—Souris earlier today made an excellent
case on the position of oat growers in western Canada since oats
have been taken out from under the board. Some might argue that
if everybody is acting independently this will undermine the
pooling concept and lead to chaos. Certainly our colleagues on
the left will throw up their hands and say that Reform is
advocating a return to the 1920s, just before the depression that
made some of these government organizations necessary.
They are the ones who are stuck in the early decades of this
century when farmers were lucky to have telephones. The modern
reality is that farmers have access to more knowledge in a few
seconds than some of our colleagues have obviously taken
advantage of in the last few years. The days of government
paternalism are gone. They have been swept away by the Internet
and the satellite dish. It is about time the government got the
message.
All those who support the Canadian Wheat Board are just as free
to continue to use its services as they are now. If the Canadian
Wheat Board is the great provider that they desire, obviously
they will be encouraged to continue to stay there. If large
numbers of farmers vote with their feet to find a better service
elsewhere, this should be a clear indication that changes are
called for in the board or even in the government's approach to
what it tries to do for these producers.
We have myriad examples of government departments believing that
it is in their best interest to keep information to themselves
rather than let private citizens make up their own minds about
what they want. The more compulsory a government action is, the
less it wants anybody to know what it is up to.
We have amendments before us to put the activities of the board
before the auditor general and to make it open to the Access to
Information Act, both of which the government rejects. Along
with today's motion to arbitrarily limit debate we cannot help
but believe the government and the wheat board have something to
hide.
Fearing possibility that farmers might truly have a democracy
and decide for themselves, the Reform Party does not want to see
destruction of the wheat board. We simply believe that it must
behave the way a public service should: voluntarily, openly and
with full accountability to the producers it is meant to serve.
If it is not strong enough to stand solidly on its own merit and
falls by the wayside, the producers have spoken.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP):
Madam Speaker, before I commence my debate with respect to this
issue I wish to raise a matter that arose in the House on Monday.
It pertains to the member for North Vancouver.
He made a comment in the House to which I responded from my
chair. The matter he raised was a suggestion that the whips
order their MPs how to vote. I wish to withdraw a comment I made
in respect to his comment on that.
I do not believe that is the case in every party, especially not
in the NDP, but at that time I used the word lie, and
Hansard picked it up. I wish to withdraw that word out of
respect for this institution, but I still maintain that his
comment was not accurate with respect to the NDP. I wanted to
get that on the record at this time.
The NDP at this point, as most people know, believes that Bill
C-4 before the House is flawed legislation. It undermines the
Canadian Wheat Board as we know it. The NDP tried to improve the
bill in committee, but the Liberal majority refused to accept our
amendments.
Bill C-4 proposes a number of issues which we do not support. As
a result of three or four key issues, we will not be voting for
the bill. I wish to take some time right now to inform the House
of why we will not support the bill, in particular the clauses we
are discussing right now.
First, the bill proposes a cash buying option. In our view this
will destroy a fundamental pillar of the wheat board. It will
undermine farmers' confidence in it. The wheat board would buy
grains under cash buying from anyone, anywhere, any time at any
price. We believe this disrupts the board's long practice of
buying grain from farmers at announced prices and distributing
profits to all on an equitable basis.
1650
The second reason we are opposed is that Bill C-4 proposes a
contingency fund which would cost farmers as much as $575 million
in check-offs. It is our view that is not needed at this time,
particularly because farmers cannot afford it. A contingency
fund is not necessary if Ottawa continues to provide financial
guarantees to the board, guarantees that have been seldom used.
My constituency of Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre has a
significant number of farmers. They are squeezed right now with
input costs. They have fuel cost crunches for spring seeding.
They have fertilizer cost crunches for their inputs affecting
this coming season. They are very concerned about the
transportation increased costs as well as a result of the
minister responsible for the wheat board doing away with the Crow
benefit, which has taken about $350 million to $375 million
dollars a year out of the Saskatchewan economy.
This was taken out of the economy after the bill which
established the railway to the west coast, passed by parliament
over a century ago, provided for a Crow benefit in perpetuity.
The reason they did that was not because they were shortsighted
in terms of their forecast for inflation or value of the dollar.
They gave the CPR billions and billions of dollars in alternating
sections of land across the western part of the country. They
gave the CPR the mineral rights to those lands so that in future
the revenues from the land and the minerals the mining and oil
companies produced would have provided more than adequate
compensation to the railways in a very generous way.
The Liberal government and its predecessors, the Tories, allowed
the CPR to hive off the land and sell it to Marathon Realty. The
profits have gone away. They have allowed, persuaded and
encouraged the CPR to take its Comincos, its mining companies,
its Pan Canadian oil company, the second largest oil company in
Canada, and hive them off into subsidiaries and not use those
revenues or profits to sustain the railways and the
transportation to western farmers, to our western population.
Literally billions and billions of dollars have been hived off.
All we have left is a stand alone branch line kind of railway
system in western Canada. The railways are now saying that they
are not sustainable on their own.
If the billions and billions of dollars in assets are returned
to the CPR there will be more than adequate transportation in
they country. That is where we have a problem. Canadians do not
understand the fact that Liberal and Tory governments in the last
100 years have allowed and encouraged assets to be removed from
the CPR which were meant for, intended and provided by the House
of Commons and the Parliament of Canada for the maintenance of
the railways and a transportation system for western Canada.
Now we see CNR going south and expanding in the United States at
the expense of what is happening in Canada. Billions and
billions of dollars were hived off into Marathon Realty, Pan
Canadian, Cominco, the shipping and airlines. They are all gone.
All the assets are gone and the poor old railway says it cannot
make a profit.
The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is now the minister in
charge of the wheat board from Saskatchewan. He encouraged all
this. He put the nail in the coffin in terms of some of the
transportation problems that western Canada now has. Farmers
will never forget that.
Another reason we oppose Bill C-4 is that it claims to put
farmers in control of the wheat board's destiny. The Liberal
government will continue to appoint the chief executive officer.
This makes talk of a farmer controlled board in our view a
travesty.
How can a farmer controlled board not have accountable to it its
chief executive officer? Anybody in business will know that the
chief executive officer has to be accountable to the board. The
board knows what is going on and the CEO reports to the board.
The government has made it a political issue. The minister who
has screwed farmers on the Crow rate will now screw them on this
matter with respect to the wheat board. I do not think farmers
will be very happy about that.
We support many parts of the bill. We support the provision for
a possible inclusion of more grains under the wheat board's
jurisdiction. This inclusion allows farmers to decide in a vote
to remove grains from the board's authority. It is only fair
that farmers can vote to include extra grains as well.
1655
Agribusiness and the Reform Party are a bit concerned about this
matter. The Reform Party embraced the referendum principle. It
should understand that if there is a referendum among producers
to exclude or include something perhaps the referendum decision
should be honoured.
Reform philosophy is always do as I say and not as I do.
Reformers say one thing to one part of the country and the
opposite to another part of the country.
One of the fundamental principles of Reformers is that they
believe in referenda. Yet, when it comes down to the inclusion
or exclusion referendum, they think it is bad. They only want
one as opposed to both. They want the exclusion referendum but
not the inclusion referendum. Reformers believe they know better
than farmers, that they know better than the 60,000 farm families
in Saskatchewan. I do not believe that for one second. Neither
do the 60,000 farm families in Saskatchewan nor the farm families
in Alberta or Manitoba.
We have a bit of a problem. The organizations that are opposing
the Canadian Wheat Board, a strong institution supported by our
party, are good farm organizations like the National Citizens'
Coalition. One Reform member used to work for the National
Citizens' Coalition. I challenge the member to name 10 citizens.
I will name a few citizens who belong to this organization:
Conrad Black, Imperial Oil and Pan Canadian that has just
plundered and raped our oil resources from railway system and
hived them off for its shareholders all over the world. These
are the real citizens of Canada that support the National
Citizens' Coalition which supports the Reform Party. Its chief
executive officer is Mr. Harper, former Reform member of
Parliament from Calgary. I have a great deal of respect for Mr.
Harper but his philosophical and ideological position is in
lockstep with the Reform Party.
That is one example but there are other significant examples.
The Winnipeg Commodity Exchange, the Winnipeg Chamber of
Commerce, oilseed producers or processors and Cargill are all
great people who support the abolition of the wheat board. They
want to see the wheat board totally dismantled so they can go in
there and finish the plundering of farmers that the CPR has
undertaken and the Liberals, the Tories and the Reformers are all
partners in.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
here we are in the final 20 minutes of debate on the bill under
closure. It is absolutely outrageous that we are facing closure
again in the House.
All through the last parliament we had closure, closure,
closure. The Liberal government has set a record for closure. In
the last parliament alone it moved closure more times than in the
entire Mulroney period prior to the Liberals. We thought that
was an outrageous record, but this government has demonstrated
itself to be totally incapable of understanding the principles of
democracy.
Here we are in the last 20 minutes of debate on an important
bill. When we look at the schedule through to June we have
February, March, April, May and June. We have five months in
which to be talking about important bills like this one, bills
that Canadians are interested in.
And what is happening? The government is moving closure on a
very controversial bill. When we look at the schedule we must
ask ourselves what is the rush. Over the next four months there
is nothing but a litany of boring, inconsequential, insignificant
and irrelevant nonsense on the schedule of what we have to debate
over the next few months. It is boring.
For the people in the real world it is boring and frustrating.
When they look at the schedule that is coming down the pike, they
wonder why we are not talking about the Young Offenders Act,
which they have been pleading with us for 20 years to do
something about.
What are we doing? We are moving closure on an important bill and
moving to boring insignificant stuff.
1700
They ask us why are you not talking, for goodness sake, about
the immigration and refugee problems we have in this country. We
cannot talk about that because, amazing but true, Liberals think
that immigrants to this country should not have to speak one of
the official languages. They are quite happy for anybody to come
here. They support the recommendations in the report that say
that international agencies overseas should pick our refugees for
us and send them here, even if they are incapable of settling
here.
When we look at things like this and the people in the real
world outside, the voters of Canada, want us to be debating these
things, what is happening? We are having our time cut short. We
are moving on to things that are technical in nature, technical
bills, boring bills, insignificant bills.
The speaker before me from the NDP mentioned that the Reform
Party believes in referenda and enacting the will of the people,
and we do. There was a plebiscite run for the farmers in
connection with this bill, not directly related but indirectly
related, but it was flawed in many ways. First of all, it was a
plebiscite, not a true referendum, and it had a carefully
engineered question. There was no discussion about how that
should be organized.
It really gave the barley farmers, who were the only ones
involved, an all or nothing option. It reminded me of that
advertisement on television right now where the man comes into
the office and says tell me about RRSPs, and the adviser says
yes, just put your head here between the vice and I will tighten
it a little. That was exactly what was happening to those barley
farmers. They had their heads put in a vice where they had no
option but to give the answer that the government wanted them to
give. When we look at Bill C-4, we have to ask what is the rush.
No wonder the Liberals did not want to write property rights
into the charter of rights and freedoms, because when you look at
what they are doing in this bill, they are preventing people from
selling their own property on a free market. What sort of way is
that for a civilized country to conduct itself?
An hon. member: It is a socialist way.
Mr. Ted White: It is a socialist way, as one of my
colleagues said. Fancy telling people they cannot sell their own
property on a free market, they have to be controlled by big
brother.
It is wrong and there are so many contentious issues in this
bill, we should have been able to properly discuss it, to spread
it out over a bit more time where there was an opportunity to get
full input that could make a difference to the bill. Instead of
that, we are faced with closure.
As I said, we will be moving on to some pretty boring stuff next
week. I was just looking for a list of some of the bills here,
and I see I do not have it with me, but just reading the names
alone is pretty shocking when, as I mentioned, we could be
talking about something like the Young Offenders Act, getting the
age lowered to 10, for example. Everybody out there for 20 years
has been asking for that, or publishing the names of young
offenders.
I went to a meeting in my riding a few weeks ago, a together
against violence group. They had a group of young people there
who had previously been young offenders, and we discussed the
issue of publishing names. Every one of them agreed that it would
have been a tremendous disincentive for them to continue to
commit crimes if they had their names published in the newspaper,
if they had the public embarrassment that they were violating the
rules of society.
These are things people want us to be talking about. They want
us to be talking about automatically upgrading to adult court
for serious crimes.
Next week we have, for example, Bills C-21, C-20, C-19, S-4,
C-6, C-8, C-12, S-3. That is a list of all the bills we are going
to be looking at. Unfortunately I do not have all the
descriptions here, but they are certainly not worthy of the rush
we are exhibiting with this closure on this bill here.
In closing I would just like to say that I am appalled that we
have once again run into this problem of closure where democracy
goes out the window and we get the Prime Minister sitting over
there with a silly smile on his face, happy that he is once again
forcing us to abandon debate on an important bill so that he can
rush through an agenda that suits the socialists at the other end
of this House.
1705
Mr. Murray Calder (Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of Bill
C-4.
The amendments contained in Bill C-4 are based on nearly three
years of extensive consultation and discussion with western grain
farmers to determine what kind of grain marketing organization
they want. Western Canadian grain farmers have asked to retain
the Canadian Wheat Board but they also want a more democratic,
accountable and responsive Canadian Wheat Board, one that is
truly in their hands, allowing them to shape the Canadian Wheat
Board to meet their needs.
That is what the proposed changes in Bill C-4 actually provide
for. The proposed changes in Bill C-4 would put more power into
the hands of producers than they have ever had before throughout
the Canadian Wheat Board's 63 year history.
The proposed changes would modernize the governance of the CWB.
They would improve the accountability to the producers and
through the creation of a producer elected majority board of
directors and, most important, the marketing changes proposed in
Bill C-4 are enabling. They would give the farmers the tools and
the power necessary to shape the CWB's marketing structure to fit
their present and their future needs.
I would like to address some of the questions that have been
raised to clear up some of the misconceptions that have arisen
around Bill C-4 and its proposed amendments to the CWB act.
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 the
farmer elected directors would enjoy a two to one majority on
this board. 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 future operational and
marketing decisions.
These elected directors would not be subject to dismissal by the
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Only those
who elected them would be able to accomplish this through a
subsequent election.
Under Bill C-4 all directors would be entitled to complete
disclosure of all CWB facts and figures, bar none. That is
transparency. They would be able to examine the prices at which
grain is sold and the premiums achieved and all the 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.
So why is the board of directors not 100% producer elected? That
was another question asked. Under the proposed legislation the
government would continue to maintain a substantial financial
commitment to the CWB. The government would continue to
guarantee the CWB's initial payments, its borrowing and its
credit sales made under the credit grain sales program.
This represents a strong case for the government's having a role
in appointing some of the members of the board of directors. In
addition, the CWB has the 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 why is the CWB not legally obliged to
get the best price for farmers' grain.
The CWB does seek to obtain the best prices possible. In fact,
it is a matter of policy.
1710
However, making this the corporation's legal objective would be
difficult because the CWB seeks to obtain the best price for
producers jointly through pool accounts. It is not always
possible to show, after the fact, if higher returns could have
been realized for individual producers because a different set of
marketing decisions may have been made. Therefore, to make the
CWB legally responsible to achieve the best price for individual
farmers would result in countless legal challenges being made to
the board's marketing decisions. It would sort of be like
dealing with it by 20:20 hindsight.
Looking to the future, the board of directors would be
responsible for ensuring that the sales programs would be well
managed and that the CWB operated in the best interests of the
producers. This would be preferable to taking a legalistic
approach.
Why does the CWB need to establish a contingency fund? What
would this money be used for? These are more questions which
have been asked.
A contingency fund would be developed in order for the CWB to
make adjustments to the initial payments during the crop year on
its own authority, 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 the initial payments and to get money into the farmers'
hands more quickly. I am a farmer. I know how important that
last statement is.
Given the history of adjusted initial payments the related risk
would be minimal. It would be 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 the contingency fund should be created. How it is set up
will be the responsibility of the board.
Why can the Auditor General of Canada not examine the CWB's
books? The CWB currently retains an independent firm of chartered
accountants to audit its operations. Through its pool accounts
the CWB is managing farmers' money, not government
appropriations. Therefore it has always made sense that a
private sector auditor, rather than the auditor general, audit
the CWB's books.
Under Bill C-4 the CWB would cease to be an agent of Her Majesty
and a crown corporation. It would become a mixed enterprise.
This would reduce even further the justification for involving
the office of the auditor general.
Finally, some of the private sector users of financial reports
take comfort in the fact that private sector auditors, unlike the
auditor general, are liable under the law for negligence and
other professional misconduct.
The proposed changes in Bill C-4 are balance and fair. The
government realizes that the changes contained in Bill C-4 cannot
hope to satisfy all parties. I think we have all heard that in
the House today in what has been a polarized debate among
representatives of the western grain producers.
The government, nonetheless, feels that the proposed changes to
the CWB would equip farmers with the tools and the power to shape
the CWB as they see fit so that it can meet the needs of the
farmers of today and the farmers of the future.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
understand that the time should now be expiring as a result of
the motion this morning.
Because there was a further deferral transferring the vote to
Monday, there is no need to have the 15 minute time period for
the bell.
1715
Therefore, I think if you would seek unanimous consent to add
back the 15 minutes to the time, or at least the time required
for the opposition House leader to make his speech up to a
maximum of the 15 minutes which should have been there to begin
with, we would be favourably disposed to that.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this is going to be tough with the Liberals here trying to shake
me loose.
There are two issues here for those of us who do not know a lot
about wheat farming, indeed who do not know much about farming at
all in this country and there are many who do not. The first
issue is one of democracy and how democracy works in this country
and the second issue is of law and order. I want to speak
briefly on both of those. I do not think I will take up the 15
minutes but one never knows. Perhaps I will give the House
leader of the government five minutes to sum up his side.
The issue of time allocation in a democracy is one which one
could consider takes a lot away from our democracy today and it
does. Time allocation or closure is about the right of an
individual to speak in the House of Commons. It is about the
rights of individuals to hear in the House of Commons not just
from one party but from all parties.
This case, Bill C-4 referring to the wheat board, is an issue we
think everybody, whether they are farmers, whether they live in
the city or wherever they live in this country, should be able to
hear about it. It is an issue of the right to speak for others.
We have farmers in our caucus and probably there are farmers in
all the caucuses here. Some of my colleagues are wheat farmers.
I think where they come from this is about the right to speak for
the farmers in their areas who are concerned about Bill C-4 and
about a monopoly of the wheat board. This bill is really about
the rights of farmers.
The government is again calling for time allocation or closure
on an important bill. This has only been done twice I believe in
this 36th Parliament, the other being on the Canada pension plan
bill, another major issue in this country. Minor bill after
minor bill comes through this House and we seem to find the time
to be able to debate those. But when an important issue comes
up, what the government does in effect is it restricts the right
to speak out, it restricts the right of people to hear, it
restricts the right to speak for others.
And it has certainly restricted the rights of farmers across
this nation. I guess I can understand why there are no elected
Liberals on the prairies because that is the feeling a farmer
would get: Where am I best represented? The results of elections
are obvious.
Members are now rating me. At least I got a one and someone
gave me a one and a half. When you rate somebody in this country
you have to have some standards upon which to rate.
When we are talking about standards and rating that is exactly
what the farmers do.
If we had the farmers rating who in this House best represented
them, we would see a 10 on this side and perhaps one-half a point
on that side.
1720
I want to talk about the second issue in this House as a
non-farmer, as an individual who depends on his colleagues for
comments about the true effect of Bill C-4. I want to talk about
law and order.
There is something dreadfully wrong in this country when we put
our farmers in jail for trying to sell their product and at the
same time I find myself fighting day and night to put bad guys,
real criminals in jail and find very little success at it.
I know there are rules that are given to farmers for selling
their product, but must the first option be to put a farmer in
prison because he does not live by a rule, that he wants to sell
his product, that he wants to be productive? Must that be the
Liberal way?
I want to draw an analogy here. For the Liberals who do not
know what an analogy is, I am going to draw a comparison,
something similar.
In my community a fellow by the name of Darren Ursel raped a
young lady. He went to court. The judge said “Well, it is your
first time and you said you were sorry. Well, I guess you will
not do it again. You do feel remorseful. And you were tender at
times”. He gave this fellow a conditional sentence, no time in
jail.
I really wonder what the wheat farmers across this country are
thinking when they compare that to what happens when one of their
own ends up in prison for trying to convince the government here
that there is another way to sell wheat. I just cannot imagine
how a farmer ends up in prison and a rapist ends up walking the
street. For a person like me who is not a farmer, I look at it
and I say there is something dreadfully wrong in this country.
There are two Reform members who are not here today, who are out
once again in court fighting for the rights of farmers. I think
it would be wise for members on the opposite side to get out
there a little bit, get into these communities in the prairies.
I know they will not get elected in the prairies, but it is not
bad to show up once in a while.
It would be a good idea to go out there and listen to what
happens in these court cases. I am absolutely certain that
members opposite would come back into this House and say the same
as we are saying. Listen to what is happening in this country.
They are throwing farmers in prison while they are leaving
rapists on the street. That says very little for a government.
This bill continues a monopoly that has existed for some time.
We will get outvoted in this House of Commons because there is a
majority government. It is a fact that the only time farmers
will get a restriction of a monopoly, get to act the way they
want to act, get to live the way they want to live, get justice
the way they want justice is to wait until we upset the Liberal
government in an election.
1725
For those farmers out there we know why we get their support. It
has been three days straight here that farmers, like the
gentleman behind me, have been fighting day and night in debate
to try to get things changed, while those on the opposite side
insist that the letter of the law is more important than the
right of a farmer. That is wrong. It is very wrong.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I welcome
the opportunity to speak briefly to what is happening in this
House because I am very concerned.
I am concerned because during a time when our country is being
torn at the seams and there are a lot of presumed regional
differences, we have the threat of a large region of our country
having its wishes and its aspirations ignored. The Liberals have
the power and we concede that. They won the election. They have
the majority of the seats. But it is unfortunate that they are
misguided in their evaluation. They keep coming back to this
statement that the farmers want what they are doing here.
Unfortunately it is based on incorrect data.
The reason it is based on incorrect data is because of a prior
strategy and a prior program that the minister and possibly the
bureaucrats had. Consequently when a question was asked of the
farmers, the question was not such that the farmers could respond
the way they wanted to. It is a question of asking is there a
will to solve the problem. Instead, they gave the farmers but
two choices: Do you want the wheat board or do you not?
The majority of the farmers want the wheat board. That is what
we are here representing. There is a majority, we believe, that
want the wheat board. But there are also a large number of
farmers who feel that the wheat board could do better for the
farmers that choose to use the wheat board if there would be some
competition. I do not believe that the monopoly of the wheat
board is a necessity nor is their health threatened if some small
number of farmers when opportunity presents itself choose to use
a different form of marketing their own products.
I spoke on another part of this bill the other day. I will
repeat what I said then. For example, a farmer raises his grain
totally at his own expense and with his own investments. He sees
one place where he can get $5 a bushel for a grain that the wheat
board is offering him $3 for, and the farmer can get the $5
immediately instead of waiting for those final payments from the
wheat board. It seems to me eminently reasonable, and most
prairie farmers agree with this, that the farmer on that
occasion, having found a market for his product, should have the
freedom in this country to market his product where he so
chooses. That would happen to be the one with the best price.
What we have is a majority government in this House, most of the
representatives of which come from areas where the Canadian Wheat
Board Act does not apply.
I am not saying they are not qualified to speak to this. I know
the other day there were some members of the Bloc who took
exception because they thought hey, we are Canadians. Absolutely
they can speak to it and yes, it is a Canadian question.
1730
At the same time the government errs by not hearing the people
who are most affected by the decision about to the taken. I am
going to right now incite a riot. I am going appeal to the
members oppose to just straight out defy their whip. They are
going to have a whipped vote on these amendments. I am going to
ask them to say instead of listening to our whip we are going to
do what is right on behalf of those constituents who live in
ridings that are not even our own. I appeal to them and urge them
to do that because that is what is right.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5.30 p.m., pursuant to order
made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings
and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the
report stage and second reading of the bill now before the House.
[Translation]
Pursuant to order adopted on Wednesday, November 19, 1997,
all motions in Group No. 7 are deemed to have been put and recorded
divisions are deemed to have been requested and deferred.
Pursuant to the order adopted earlier today, a recorded
division is again deferred until Monday, February 16, 1998, at the
end of the period provided for the consideration of government
orders.
It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
Order Paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
The House resumed from December 5, 1997, consideration of the
motion that Bill C-208, an act to amend the Access to Information
Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise to comment on Bill C-208 which would amend the Access to
Information Act to add an infraction to that act.
More specifically, the bill states that a person who with intent
to deny a right of access under this act destroys or alters a
record, or falsifies a record or makes a false entry in a record
or does not keep required records is guilty of an indictable
offence and may be imprisoned for up to five years or fined up to
$10,000 or both.
Let me begin my comments by stating clearly that I support the
general goal of this bill and I commend the hon. member for
Brampton West—Mississauga for having introduced it.
I have some experience with respect to access to information. I
dealt with the act in my former capacity as mayor of the
municipality, chairman of the hydro-electric commission for
Kitchener—Wilmot and especially as chairman of the Waterloo
regional police.
The act as it now stands makes an offence of obstructing the
work of the information officer and commissioner and provides a
penalty for that offence. The act also authorizes the
commissioner to disclose to the Attorney General of Canada
information relating to the commission of an offence against any
law of Canada by any officer or employee of a federal government
institution.
Certain events that occurred during the Somalia and the blood
inquiries have drawn public attention to the fact that the Access
to Information Act contains no penalty for this sort of action.
One can argue then that these events clearly illustrate and
underscore the need for an infraction in the Access to
Information Act.
There is a provision of general application in the Criminal
Code. Section 126 of the Criminal Code states:
Every one who, without lawful excuse, contravenes an act of
Parliament by willfully doing anything that it forbids or by
willfully omitting to do anything that is required to be done is,
unless a punishment is expressly provided by law, guilty of an
indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding two years.
It could be argued that section 126 of the Criminal Code might
apply to the situation of somebody deliberately destroying a
document in order to thwart the access act, in so far as a
destruction would result in the person willfully omitting to do
anything that the act in this case requires to be done.
This brings me to an interesting point which is also my main
concern with respect to Bill C-208.
1735
Section 126 creates an indictable offence, which is the most
serious type of offence in the Criminal Code. The section 126
offence carries a maximum penalty of two years. I believe that
the seriousness of an indictable offence in section 26 is one of
the reasons it might be necessary to add a specific offence to
the Access to Information Act.
In this cases, the specific offence of deliberately destroying
documents subject to the Access to Information Act should not be
quite as serious as an indictable offence with a maximum of two
years imprisonment.
This is not what Bill C-208 proposes. Rather, it proposes to
create a specific offence in the access act. But this specific
offence not only would not carry a lesser maximum penalty than
the one attached to the offence in section 126, it would in fact
carry a heavier penalty, a maximum penalty of five years.
It is important to outline that the Criminal Code provides
offences in three types, summary convictions, indictable offences
and hybrid offences that the crown can elect to prosecute either
as an indictable offence or as a summary conviction offence. The
summary conviction offence carries the lightest penalties and the
indictable offences, of course, carry the heaviest. With hybrid
offences the attached penalty depends on the procedure selected
by the crown.
An important point is that when an accused is prosecuted by
indictment he can choose to be tried before a judge and jury,
which can be a very slow process. In addition, the accused is
entitled to a preliminary inquiry when the offence is an
indictable one.
I understand the hon. member wants to mark the seriousness of
the offence by making it an indictable offence. However, it may
also be counterproductive if it results in the crown not
proceeding and prosecuting with that offence because in light of
the particular circumstances of the case it is felt that it would
not be worth the costs and efforts of the justice system, or when
they view the penalty as disproportionate to the crime, taking
into account the circumstances of the offence and the motives of
the offender.
I would also wonder how much benefit and how much additional
protection society would get from sending the offender in this
case to jail.
Let us look for a moment at the list of some of the Criminal
Code offences that are hybrid, and for which the penalty would be
lighter than a straight indictable offence when the crown
proceeds by summary conviction: for example, criminal harassment,
more commonly known as stalking, uttering threats, assault,
assault causing bodily harm, unlawfully causing bodily harm,
assaulting a police officer, and sexual assault.
These offences are serious offences, but making them hybrid
allows some discretion for adjusting the procedure and the
penalty to the circumstances of the offence.
I would argue that destroying documents, while undoubtedly
serious, is not more serious than assaulting a police officer.
I think a comparative study of Criminal Code offences should be
carried out in order to classify a specific offence of destroying
documents in the access act and determine an appropriate maximum
penalty in this case.
In conclusion, I view the creation of a penalty for deliberately
destroying documents to thwart the Access to Information Act is
an important issue to be looked at in the context of an overall
review of the access legislation.
I reiterate that I support the goal of Bill C-208, which is to
add to the access act the penalty for deliberately destroying
documents that are subject to that act.
The hon. member has worked hard on this, but I am unable to
support the proposal of Bill C-208, which is to create a penalty
that would be a straight indictable offence with a maximum
penalty of five years in jail. This, in my view, is simply too
heavy a penalty, and providing for such a serious offence might
be counterproductive in relation to the objectives.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a privilege to participate in the debate on Bill
C-208, an act to amend the Access and Information Act introduced
by my hon. colleague from Brampton West—Mississauga. I want to
commend her for her hard work in bringing this private member's
bill forward.
We in the Reform Party believe that government must be
accountable to the Canadian people. For too long governments have
been ignoring their constituents and, once elected, stop being
accountable to the very same people who elected.
The affairs of government are often done in complete secrecy.
1740
We in the Reform Party believe that Canadians have a stake in
government affairs as duly representatives and must ensure that
our actions are open to public scrutiny. The Access to
Information Act was introduced with just that intent, to ensure
that information collected for public purposes, paid for by the
taxpayers of Canada, remained accessible to them. I will speak
about that in a moment and give some specific examples.
However, that has not been the case. There are numerous
examples of the Liberal government taking it upon itself to
decide unilaterally what is good for Canadians without talking to
them. It decides what the public should know and what it should
not know. The Somalia inquiry is one example. We have talked
about that for a long time. The Krever inquiry is another
example which was mentioned by my colleague from Alberta today.
This is an example with which I am more familiar. It is a
recent example about which I have been questioning the Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans over the last two weeks. I have been
pushing the government to release the foreign observer reports
which the minister refuses to make public. We want to know what
he is hiding from the Canadian public.
These reports contain vital information pertaining to the
fisheries crisis, yet the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is
hiding behind the Access to Information Act, saying that he would
be breaking the law if he were to release them. That is what he
said, that he would be breaking the law.
I would like to read into the record the section of the act
which the minister is referring to, and he has done so in
writing: “Subject to this section, the head of the government
institution shall refuse to disclose any record requested under
this act that contains financial, commercial, scientific or
technical information”, and that is what I believe he is
referring to, “that is confidential information supplied to a
government institution by a third party and is treated
consistently in a confidential manner by a third party”. That
is what he is hiding behind. Yes, it sounds pretty reasonable. I
can decide what is good for the public and what should be allowed
to be released.
Let me go on. Subsection 6 states: “The head of the
government institution may disclose any record under
this act”—and he has received lots of written requests—“or
any part thereof that contains information described in
paragraphs 1(b), (c) or (d)”, which is what I have just read,
“if that disclosure is in the public interest”—and I do not
think that is too hard to defend—“and it relates to public
health, public safety or the protection of the environment”. Lo
and behold, the environment is being destroyed by the offshore
trawlers. It is well documented. Our resources are being
depleted. Yet this minister refuses to disclose the reports.
I again commend the hon. member for bringing forward this
private member's bill. Information is vital to members of
public. They pay for it. They have a right to it. Yet we have
a minister who wants to offer information in confidence. He
continues to say “I will give it to you in an in camera
session”. I want to emphasize that it is not me who wants this
information, it is the public. It not only wants it, it has a
right to it.
We have to move forward to make sure the public is allowed to
obtain this information. Even his own colleague, the hon. member
for Gander—Grand Falls, recognizes the vital importance of this
information and was condemning this minister for withholding
these documents from the Canadian public.
Yes, the minister has offered an in camera session. The
Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans is now drafting a
report. We will be making recommendations to the government on
the state of the east coast fisheries.
We are about to table the report. It is in its final stages.
The information is overwhelming with respect to the offshore
fishery. I think that will be well noted. That is why we are
after this. We are after this for the interests of Canadians and
fishermen. Nobody has a personal private agenda, which we have
been accused of. We are here to represent the people of Canada,
whose tax dollars paid to train these observers. They paid for
them yet they are not allowed to see what is going on. It is
absolutely appalling.
I have another example. I have a constituent who,
unfortunately, is the widow of one of our military personnel,
Master Corporal Rick Wheller, who was killed during a military
exercise in April 1992. It was a very sad accident. For over
five years since his death his widow Christina has attempted to
obtain truthful answers from DND regarding the circumstances and
the safety regulations. Again this has to do completely with
access to information.
She has made numerous requests and has been promised these
reports. The reports she has received had missing pages, blanked
out information, and the list goes on and on. I could go through
the dates she has been there and the promises. She was promised
a report last December by senior officials of the department.
They will not release it. To date, she has not received this
information. It is an absolute disgrace.
1745
This widow of one of our military people wants to know what
happened to her husband. It is five years later and the minister
will not release the information. She still does not have it.
It is an absolute disgrace.
Taxpayers want this information. It is access to information. I
commend the member for introducing legislation that, if anything,
will go further in making sure these records are not destroyed
and are protected. We have seen incidents where they have been
shredded or have gone missing. It is very important that the
public has access.
Those are just a few examples. Without all the facts we are not
able to provide solutions to this crisis. We are looking for
solutions. We are trying to stand up for the taxpayers. We want
a government that knows what is good for Canadians and their
children.
Bill C-208 proposes to amend the Access to Information Act. It
would provide sanctions against persons who destroy or falsify
government records.
I have just given two examples of this. I have been fighting
with the minister of fisheries to get a public document. He
wants to stand behind the very act we are talking about.
Shamefully he will not give us the information. I have spoken to
many people and they all agree it is in the public interest and
is destroying the environment. Now we have an act that is giving
the minister discretion.
It states that the minister may. I would like to amend it
further to state the minister must. Now we have an act that
gives the minister of fisheries and any other minister discretion
on what they would like to release.
At least this bill will ensure the information is not destroyed.
I hope all my colleagues are listening. This boils down to
information the public pays for and is entitled to. We should
ensure that the safeguard of this information is fundamental. We
should stand up and fight for people who have a right to what
they pay for.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased today to speak to Bill C-208, an act to amend the Access
to Information Act.
I would first like to point out that the entire matter of
access to information is of special interest to me. This is why I
eagerly accepted the invitation of my Bloc Quebecois colleagues to
speak to this bill.
On December 1 last year, I spoke in this House in favour of
another bill, Bill C-216, which was also intended to amend the
Access to Information Act by broadening its application to include
crown corporations.
At the time, I read a variety of documents on the application of
the Access to Information Act and I noted, like a number of us
today, that it requires certain amendments to ensure that it serves
the intentions of its authors.
I would like to let the member for Brampton West—Mississauga
know that the Bloc Quebecois supports the bill she introduced,
since it improves the Access to Information Act by providing severe
penalties for certain infractions. The act we are dealing with
today was passed in 1982, and it came into effect the following
year.
1750
It gives Quebeckers and Canadians the right to access
information recorded in any form whatsoever, for the most part
relating to government institutions with a few important exceptions
I have already listed, Crown corporations in particular.
Like our fellow citizens, we as members of Parliament
regularly make use of the Access to Information Act to obtain more
information on how our institutions operate. That act constitutes
an invaluable tool in our work and provides numerous answers for
our constituents.
Bill C-208 represents an interesting advance, an improvement
to the act, by penalizing severely anyone who attempts to destroy
or falsify documents, or neglects to retain them. The penalty for
such offences would be a maximum imprisonment of five years and/or
a maximum fine of $10,000.
You will agree with me that these are worthwhile amendments,
since they represent an unequivocal sanction of any person
attempting to flaunt the Access to Information Act.
It has been much said that the Access to Information Act is a
toothless piece of legislation that does not meet today's
requirements. None other than the present Privacy Commissioner,
John Grace, is among the critics.
The Privacy Commissioner has a variety of concerns, but where the
object of this bill is concerned, he has spoken out strongly
against the lax enforcement of the Access to Information Act.
After seven years of observation in his capacity as Privacy
Commissioner, Mr. Grace has drawn some very worthwhile conclusions
for the purposes of our examination. In particular, he points out
that it lacks effective enforcement mechanisms. In his 1995-96
annual report, he lists three serious incidents which serve as
typical examples of someone's blocking the right of access to
government documents by destroying or falsifying documents, or by
camouflaging them.
Three departments were involved: Transport Canada, National
Defence and Health Canada. In each case, public servants falsified
documents, or simply destroyed them.
I do not want to be a prophet of doom, but I think the
commissioner's discoveries are but the tip of the iceberg.
His 1996-97 annual report on the tainted blood scandal sounded
the alarm on a number of terrible cases. The general remarks of
the information commissioner on the act he applies are not,
therefore, surprising. Allow me to read you his remarks, which
summarize our position on the question, and I quote:
The access law has proved itself toothless to respond in
any punitive way beyond exposing the wrongdoing.
While exposure is far from being entirely ineffective, some
penalty provisions in the access law are overdue. Nothing
should focus the mind of any would-be record destroyer more
than one conviction or one penalty levied upon a public
official for such behaviour.
While we support the amendments to the Access to Information
Act in Bill C-208, I have to say they do not go far enough.
In his latest annual report, the information commission
revealed that a number of offences were the responsibility of
senior officials, who used their authority to have their
subordinates destroy or falsify documents. In all fairness, the
distinction should be made between the person doing the act and the
person making the decision, and this distinction is not provided
for in Bill C-208.
Furthermore, in addition to the destruction or falsification
of a document, provision should be made for the fact that ordering
destruction or falsification of a document or using the threat of
reprisal against a person who refuses to obey such orders
constitute offences.
1755
These are other situations not covered in the bill to which we
are giving our full attention today. The maximum sentence of five
years for an offence as provided for in the bill is consistent with
the recommendations made by the information commissioner in his
1996-97 annual report.
By making it a criminal offence for anyone to commit such an
act, we are adding a dissuasive force that should be enough to make
a number of potential offenders think twice.
Despite the good points raised in Bill C-208, broader
reflection is required if the necessary improvements are to be made
to the Access to Information Act.
To this end, we hope to have the opportunity eventually to
discuss Bill-286, which suggests a broader reform, with particular
attention to falsification and destruction of documents and to
access to confidences of the Privy Council, which is also
accountable to the people of Quebec and of Canada.
The Access to Information Act is like a jewel without a box.
As the information commissioner put it, legislation considered
toothless is rapidly depleted of content, if not totally cast
aside.
It is high time that we, as parliamentarians, take action
before it is too late. Let us not wait for several more reports
from the information commissioner before introducing the necessary
amendments to the Access to Information Act.
And the reason we must do this, even though all these amendments
will have no real impact without a stronger institutional will,
expressed at the highest echelons of the federal administration, is
so that the act as implemented will embody its underlying ideals.
I therefore urge all parliamentarians to support Bill C-208.
[English]
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
rise today to participate in the debate on Bill C-208, to amend
the Access to Information Act.
I begin by commending my colleague, the member for Brampton
West—Mississauga. She has done us all a great service in
raising this issue and bringing the bill before the House. By
all I mean not only the people in the House of Commons but the
people of Canada. It gives us an opportunity to talk about the
importance of access to information, access to information
legislation and having a access to information commissioner. The
flip side is the protection of personal privacy and the regime
that we put in place for making sure that we have openness and
transparency in government.
As a member of the Ontario legislature I was proud to be part of
a government which in 1985, as its very first piece of
legislation, brought forward the access to information and
protection of personal privacy legislation. It was a first for
the province of Ontario. From that experience I know that no
piece of legislation is ever perfect. The only thing that is
ever carved in stone, unlike the wonderful ice and snow
sculptures on our front lawn, are the gargoyles in this beautiful
Chamber.
Legislation is living and it must be reviewed from time to time.
My colleague has brought forward an important issue. The people
of Canada not only deserve and need to know what government is
doing, but government needs to know that it has an obligation to
give information. Government is not only the elected officials.
Government is those people who work in the bureaucracy and public
service. It has an obligation to ensure that the public is made
to know and has access to that which is in the public interest.
We know there have some problems. Certain events during the
Somalia and blood inquiry have drawn to the public attention the
fact the Access to Information Act contains no penalty for the
destruction of information.
That is what this piece of legislation is about. It proposes
that an infraction be added to the existing act.
1800
My own personal commitment to freedom of information and access
to information should be unquestioned. On September 30 I raised
the issue in a question to the President of the Treasury Board
who has responsibility for access to information in the Government of
Canada. I raised a question because of a report that had been
tabled by the access to information commissioner.
My concern was that in his report the access to information
commissioner also identified problems. One problem he identified
was the lack of timely access. It was taking too long to get the
information after a request was made.
Another thing that he identified was the concern that often it
was the identity of the requester which determined whether or not
the information was going to be given. In other words, who was
asking for the information was a part of the judgment in the
decision as to whether or not the information could be released
in the public interest.
I believe these are problems. I do not think it should matter
who is asking for the information. If it is possible to release
the information and protect the personal privacy requirements of
the legislation, the information should be made available
regardless of who is asking.
I would hope we see an amendment to the access to information
legislation as it exists today. It might be possible to amend
the bill to include the policy that already exists in the privy
council office where the identity of the requester, the identity
of the individual or the organization asking for the information,
is protected. It is not known in the minister's office or in the
senior bureaucratic offices who is asking for the information
when the decision is made about release of the information.
That is a very good policy. I hope we see it either transformed
into an actual part of the statute or a regulation that could
accompany the statute. However I certainly believe it should be
the policy of every government that it does not matter who is
requesting the information.
I also believe that timeliness is very important. Delayed
information should not be used as a way of limiting the public's
right to know those things. It has a legitimate right to have
that information.
I am also very strong on the protection of individual and
personal privacy. It is a value that I hold dear and that I believe
in. In the information technology age it is a challenge to have
access to the information we need to do the research we do at the
same time as protecting an individual's right to privacy.
I do not believe the right to privacy is absolute. Nothing in
this world or in the House is ever clearly black and white. I
have said often I think we live in a world where there are shades
of grey. Sometimes there is a legitimate public policy reason
why we should have the ability to determine available information.
For example, I had a call from a constituent who was very upset
because she had filled out a customs form and as a result had
been informed by the employment insurance office that she had
collected employment insurance illegally. She had left the
country on holiday for a few weeks. When she returned she was a
good citizen and filled in the customs form.
1805
I told her that the people of Canada believe people who are out
of the country on holiday should not be eligible to collect
employment insurance benefits. That is a correct policy. I also
think it is appropriate for the department of revenue to share
information about people who have left the country. In the name
of good practice and more than good practice but effective use of
the resources of individuals, taxpayers want to know the laws are
being obeyed and upheld. I believe it was appropriate for that
information to be shared between departments.
The bill before us today is supportable in principle but I have
a few problems with it. As I said, no piece of legislation is
ever perfect. I would like to offer one of the problems I have
with the bill.
Under the existing Criminal Code offences are defined by three
categories. There is a summary conviction offence which carries
the lightest penalty. Then there are indictable offences which
carry the heaviest penalty and allow a person to elect trial by
judge or jury. Then there is the hybrid offence.
In this piece of legislation the member has chosen the
indictable offence route. Given the state of the courts in the
provinces my concern is that with indictable offence we would see
our courts further clogged.
The access to information legislation is under review by the
Treasury Board and by the Department of Justice. I hope they take
into consideration as part of the review the issues I have raised
and most particularly the issue raised by my colleague from
Brampton West—Mississauga.
There should be an offence for the destruction of documents. As
a result of this debate and the support in principle I would
have for the legislation I hope we see changes to make our Access
to Information Act better so that the people of Canada and the
public interest could be well served. I compliment my colleague.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure today to speak to Bill C-216, an act to
amend the Access to Information Act and specifically crown
corporations. I certainly commend my colleague from
Nanaimo—Alberni who presented the bill to the House. He has
shown leadership. I also commend to Theresa Stele who has done
an enormous amount of work on the issue.
Bill C-216 is long overdue. Repeatedly in the House the issue
has come up. In fact it has been debated ad nauseam. But have
we found any changes? No, we have not. Why? Because this
government and government before it have repeatedly demonstrated
a lack of any political will and therefore integrity in their
desire to make crown corporations more transparent.
As we can see today from the widespread acceptance we have in
the House, the nature of the bill has found acceptance among
members of Parliament across party lines and among members of the
public. The public wants value for money in part by making sure
that the money it gives to government to spend on its behalf is
going where it should be going.
The bill will help to do that by ensuring that one will be able
to see behind the veil that surrounds crown corporations
currently and ensure that access to information exists.
The Access to Information Act applies to many other aspects of
government. It is a cornerstone of democracy. It is as
unfathomable to me as it is to other members of the House to know
why access to information has not been applied to crown
corporations.
1810
There are a litany of crown corporations, everything from Canada
Post Corporation to the Canadian Development and Investment
Corporation, the Canadian National Railway, the Export
Development Corporation—
Ms. Colleen Beaumier: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I would like some clarification. This debate is on Bill
C-208 and I heard the hon. member mention Bill C-216.
Could I have some clarification as it is not really germane to
Bill C-208?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): We will continue the
debate on Bill C-208.
Mr. Keith Martin: Bill C-208 it is, Madam Speaker. The
nature of the subject matter has not changed. Just the number of
the bill.
As I was saying, the public demands a window into crown
corporations. Some of them are operating efficiently. Some are
not. The public has a right to know which are and which are not.
Also the employees who work long and hard in these crown
corporations have a right to know that they are working in an
organization that can be as efficient as it can be. They have a
right to know that their organization can perhaps be operating
more efficiently and to know where waste is occurring.
If we bring that about, the government must clearly understand
that everybody will win. The public will win. The employees
will win. The House will win. We will be enabled to rectify
problems before they get out of hand and improve the efficiency
of these corporations. It begs the larger question as to why
some crown corporations are not privatized, but that we shall
leave for another day.
Access to information should also be occurring in a timely
fashion. According the rules of the House and the access to
information in our system, the government and the institution in
question have an obligation to answer within 30 days. However, I
would venture to say that if government members have the same
frustration we have the 30 days do not occur. In fact repeated
stonewalling takes place time and time again.
I will mention one particularly egregious situation within the
ministry of aboriginal affairs. Members from aboriginal
communities come to us as members of Parliament, asking us to
investigate situations on their reserves that at times are
extremely serious. We have an obligation and a desire to ensure
that moneys are spent where they are supposed to and that moneys
go to where they are intended, particularly in aboriginal
communities where moneys are allocated for counsellors, teachers,
health, medication and schools. Anybody in the public would want
to make sure moneys go where they are supposed to go.
When questions arise concerning moneys not going to where they
are supposed to go, aboriginal grassroots people come to us if
they are unable to get information from the leaderships in their
communities. We ask for information but the information is
rarely forthcoming in a timely fashion and sometimes does not get
to us at all.
Who pays the price, I would venture to say, to protect some
people? Who pays the price for the failure to investigate these
situations? It is the grassroots people who we are trying to
help, the people who are in need.
I cannot understand for a moment why ministers would fail to
answer a request for information made with the intent of trying
to help the people most in need. They should take it as a clue
that there may be problems and want to investigate it with the
most vigour they can.
1815
Instead of addressing these problems and investigating with the
greatest amount of vigour, we see subterfuge, we see obfuscation,
we see a lack of answers. This process is an injustice to the
people who need the answers. It is an injustice to this House
and the Canadian public.
I can only ask that this government for once demonstrate
leadership that other governments have failed to do on this
issue. In doing so it will clearly demonstrate to the Canadian
public a strong desire and commitment to improve crown
corporations, to make them more efficient, to show an intense
responsibility to the Canadian taxpayer and for the taxpayer's
money.
The government will win by adopting Bill C-208. It will
demonstrate to all members in this House a desire to finally
listen to the backbenchers, to finally listen to the good ideas
that come from members across this House and across party lines
that this country can be a better place for all Canadians.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in this important debate.
Bill C-208 is an act to amend the Access to Information Act.
Incidentally, it makes no reference to crown corporations. The
intent of these amendments is to provide sanctions against anyone
who improperly destroys or falsifies government records in an
attempt to deny access to information under the Access to
Information Act.
I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Brampton
West—Mississauga for her efforts in putting this bill forward.
This caucus agrees with the sentiments expressed in the bill.
The Access to Information Act was proclaimed 15 years ago. In
an earlier speech the hon. member for Brampton West—Mississauga
said “in the 14 years since its inception, government
bureaucracy has been sabotaging the intent of the act”.
As I reviewed the files in preparation for my remarks today, I
came across a yellowed document from 13 years ago. It is a copy
of a presentation made to a national forum on access to
information by Ken Rubin from Ottawa. He is extremely well known
for his efforts regarding access to information. An Order of
Canada should be struck for him someday because he has played a
very important role in the history of access to information. Mr.
Rubin worked to get the Access to Information Act which he has
used very well to ferret out information from government
departments.
In his remarks Mr. Rubin said “Users of access to information
must suffer for this rare privilege by being put through all
kinds of hurdles and rules that emphasize information hide and
seek”. I have other clippings that document the frustration that
our information commissioners have had in trying to pry public
information out of unwilling government departments and agencies.
These cases of departmental stonewalling and obstructions are
one thing but recently the situation has become more serious. It
is by now completely obvious that certain government departments
and agencies have both destroyed and falsified information
covered by the Access to Information Act.
Canadians know that defence department officials have altered
documents relating to the Somalia inquiry. We also know that
health officials have destroyed records on the tainted blood
tragedy. This is clearly intolerable in our democracy.
The current information officer, Mr. John Grace, has called on
the federal government to punish civil servants who intentionally
destroy documents to avoid telling the truth to the public. This
is the intention of the bill as we understand it.
I want to make it clear that I am not saying that many, most or
all civil servants have been involved in any kind of document
tampering or destruction. I also understand that in the Somalia
case this destruction of documents occurred because senior
officials ordered it done. But there certainly have been
incidents.
We must admit that information which is the property ultimately
of the people of Canada, information that they have paid for and
continue to pay for through their taxes, information that they
have the right to see has been wantonly destroyed.
1820
In conclusion, we wish to make it clear that this practice
should not be tolerated any further and that the hon. member's
bill is an important step in that direction.
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Madam
Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to rise today on the act to
amend the Access to Information Act, Bill C-208.
I am sure that this is one of the most important tools we have
to work with as members of Parliament to help us access
information which is not readily available in other
circumstances, not only us, but corporations and individuals
throughout the country. It is the key to the confidence in our
system and it also is the key to checks and balances which are so
important in a Parliament like this one where government does
have an awful lot of control over all information and can hold it
back should it decide to. This gives us access to it.
Speaking of access to information, I tried to find out to whom
the access to information officer reports and I could not get
access to the information. It was kind of interesting. I called
several offices and I could not find out to whom he answers.
Finally I did find out from the Library of Parliament and also a
very helpful official in the access to information office that
the access to information commissioner actually reports to the
President of the Treasury Board and then through the Speaker to
Parliament.
I was really concerned about that because recently I tried to
access information. I tried to use the services of the ethics
commissioner. When I went to a meeting with the ethics
commissioner, the first question I asked the commissioner was
“What is your term of office and how are you hired?” He said
“I am here at the pleasure of the Prime Minister”. I think the
results of his conclusions on the question that I asked put him
in a conflict of interest because he only keeps his job at the
pleasure of the Prime Minister.
I was pleased to learn that at least the access to information
commissioner is actually hired by Parliament and voted on. So it
is very helpful and gives me a great deal of confidence in the
commissioner, as opposed to perhaps the little less confidence I
have in the ethics commissioner.
Anyway, back to Bill C-208. It is the shortest bill I have ever
seen. The point is very simple. Up until now the access to
information bill has had no punishment, it has had no sanction.
It has had no way to punish people if they have destroyed, denied
access or altered documents or anything. There was no teeth.
There was no enforcement.
Bill C-208 provides that deterrent, that enforcement tool. It
makes denying information, destroying information or altering
information a criminal offence with a maximum penalty of five
years imprisonment or a $10,000 fine. That is a pretty serious
deterrent compared to what is there now. There is no deterrent if
an official destroys information or refuses access to someone.
There is no sanction. There is no punishment.
This is very timely. We can be sure that if somebody, as they
approach the shredder with the document that they should not be
shredding, thinks of the five years and the $10,000 penalty, they
will think twice about it. It is a very important tool. It does
provide us in Parliament with the tools to make sure that the
government is accountable, and it gives people confidence in
government.
A further amendment that we would like to see, although we are
supporting this in the Conservative Party, is an amendment that
gives at least limited access to documents of the Privy Council.
I realize there are some documents that should not be available
and we could not have total access to everything, but there are
documents that we would really think are appropriate to have
access to through the access to information office.
However, all things considered, the Progressive Conservative
Party strongly supports Bill C-208. We congratulate the drafters
of this bill. We hope those same people will now move over to the
code of ethics amendments and will draft amendments to ensure
that the ethics commissioner also has to answer to Parliament
instead of having his job at the pleasure of the Prime Minister.
I conclude my remarks by saying that the Conservative Party
supports this bill entirely and we will be voting in favour of
it.
1825
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I want to begin my comments
by stating that I clearly support the general goal of the bill. I
commend my colleague, the hon. member for Brampton
West—Mississauga, for introducing it but have a couple of
concerns about it.
I have a bit of concern for what the hon. member for
Cumberland—Colchester said. I admire him to a point, that point
being that he does a little research. He made a few calls.
Unfortunately the hon. member did not dig far enough.
He alleges that there are no penalties for this kind of action
when access to information documents are destroyed. He is
correct that there is certainly no argument that events, say
Somalia or the blood inquiry, have drawn public attention to the
fact that the Access to Information Act contains no penalty and
that there is clearly a need for an infraction in the Access to
Information Act.
However I went one step further than the hon. member for
Cumberland—Colchester. I went to the Criminal Code to find out
if anything could be done. I had a look at the Criminal Code,
specifically section 126, and this is what it states:
Everyone who, without lawful excuse, contravenes an Act of
Parliament by wilfully doing anything that it forbids or by
wilfully omitting to do anything that it requires to be done is,
unless a punishment is expressly provided by law, guilty of an
indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding two years.
In other words, section 126 of the Criminal Code might apply to
the situation of someone deliberately destroying a document in
order to thwart the Access to Information Act, in so far as the
destruction would result in the person “wilfully omitting to do
anything that it requires to be done”.
Let us have a look for a moment at what my colleague from
Brampton West—Mississauga is proposing in Bill C-208 which would
amend the Access to Information Act to add an infraction to the
act. Specifically the bill states that a person who, with the
intent to deny a right of access under this act, destroys or
alters a record, or falsifies a record, or makes a false entry in
a record, or does not keep required records is guilty of an
indictable offence and may be imprisoned for up to five years or
fined up to $10,000 or both.
That brings me to my main concern with respect to my colleague's
bill. Section 126 creates an indictable offence, which is the
most serious type of offence in the Criminal Code. Section 126
often carries a maximum penalty of two years. The seriousness of
an indictable offence in section 126 is one of the reasons it
might be necessary to add a specific offence to the Access to
Information Act. In this case the specific offence of
deliberately destroying documents subject to the Access to
Information Act should not be quite as serious as an indictable
offence with a maximum of two years imprisonment.
That is not what my colleague's bill proposes. It proposes to
create a specific offence in the Access to Information Act. This
specific offence not only would not carry a lesser maximum
penalty than the one attached to the offence in section 126 of
which I spoke. It would carry a heavier maximum penalty of five
years.
It is important to outline that the Criminal Code slices
offences up into three different categories. There are summary
convictions, indictable offences and hybrid offences that the
crown can elect to prosecute either as an indictable offence or
as a summary conviction offence.
Summary conviction offences carry the lightest penalties and
indictable offences carry the heaviest. With the hybrid offences
the attached penalty depends on the procedure selected by the
crown. An important point is that when an accused is prosecuted
by indictment, he or she can choose to be tried before a judge
and jury, which can be a very slow process. In addition, the
accused is entitled to a preliminary inquiry when the offence is
indictable.
1830
I understand the hon. member wants to mark the seriousness of
the offence by making it an indictable offence, but I would have
to ask my colleague if it might also be counterproductive if—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry. 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.
TRANSPORT
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland—Colchester, PC): Madam
Speaker, I really appreciate this opportunity in this extended
question period to bring up a subject I brought up on December
the 4 about responsibility, about accountability and about
obligations, that is the federal government's obligation with
respect to certain federal-provincial agreements to do with
highways in Nova Scotia. It has now extended to New Brunswick
since I brought this up in December.
The federal government and the provincial governments sign
agreements. When the provincial governments do not honour them,
when I raise it in the House, the hon. minister replies all
highways are a provincial issue, ask the province. But the fact
is this is not about highways. This is about
specific federal-provincial agreements.
With respect to this multimillion dollar agreement, it says a
management committee shall be established as of the date of
execution of this agreement and shall consist of two members, one
member appointed by the federal minister, one member appointed by
the provincial minister. The management committee will be
responsible for administration and management of this agreement.
They will review and approve all projects. They will change any
projects on schedule B. Annual reports will be approved.
Approval of the proposed contracts and their modifications where
they affect the financial commitment of the present agreement
relating to any projects included in schedule B. It says the
decisions of the management committee shall be in writing and
shall be acted on only if taken unanimously.
So the management committee is one member from the federal
minister's department and one from the province, and all
decisions must be unanimous. That means the federal government
in this case is responsible on these issues, and again this is a
question about accountability, responsibility and obligations.
Since I brought that up in December, the same thing has happened
in New Brunswick, and it is exactly the same agreement with the
same words. The federal government must acknowledge and must
realize its obligation to police this.
In this case, the federal government said it will put 50% of the
money into a highway if the province puts 50% in, and it agreed
to do that. Now the province has taken its 50% out, which means
that 100% of the money provided by government is from the federal
government. That changes all the ratios. It changes everything.
I recently got a report from the Department of Transport, the
federal department. It says $32,474,270 has been paid on a
specific piece of highway between Moncton and Petitcodiac, New
Brunswick. That was before the end of March last year. This year
they have projected to spend another $5.7 million. That is
$38,174,270, and it says right here the money was paid out to
somebody to build that highway, but the provincial minister says
there is no taxpayer money in it, the highway has never been paid
for.
The provincial minister says the money did not go to pay for the
highway. He says the highway is not paid for. The federal
minister's report card says they paid $38 million to somebody.
Under the terms of this agreement the federal minister is
responsible to answer to where the $38 million has disappeared.
There is $38 million disappeared. The feds say it went to build
the road. The province says it did not go to build the road. But
this $38 million cheque went to somebody and we would like the
federal minister to take up his obligation in accordance with
this agreement which is very clear. He is a member of the
management committee. There are only two on it. All decisions
must be unanimous and in writing.
So, if $38 million is going to go somewhere—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Order. The time has
expired. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Transport.
1835
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is really unfortunate
that the hon. member for Cumberland—Colchester does not
recognize a dead end sign when he sees one. In fact, he has not
recognized this dead end sign and he smacked right into it a
couple of times.
As the minister has stated to the hon. member on this very
issue, under the Constitution of Canada the responsibility for
provincial highways, including highway 104 in Nova Scotia, falls
under provincial jurisdiction.
Transport Canada's only involvement in highway 104 is to match,
as the hon. member has stated, dollar for dollar, $55 million
with the province. That, for the hon. member's information, is
$27.5 million each.
The highway 104 western alignment project is one of a few
projects funded through the Transport Canada-Nova Scotia
strategic highway improvement program agreement signed in 1993.
This agreement makes provisions for both the federal government
and the province to each set aside about $70 million for a total
of $140 million for highway improvements in Nova Scotia.
I want to repeat for the hon. member, and it is important for
the hon. member to recognize this, that this is where Transport
Canada's involvement in the highway 104 project ends. The
province of Nova Scotia is the responsible authority for this
project. It is the province that decides on the alignment, the
design, the construction standards, the tendering process and how
to finance the construction costs of the provincial system.
Nova Scotia chose to use a public-private partnership concept,
and good for it, as a means to construct and finance highway 104
and agreed to allow the developer to charge tolls to the users of
the new highway. The federal government is neither a party to
nor responsible for Nova Scotia's public-private agreement with
the developer. As I stated earlier, the government's only
involvement—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member for
Calgary—Nose Hill.
FISHERIES
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, in October I asked the minister about the Liberals'
failed Atlantic groundfish strategy or TAGS program.
Canadians had better hope the TAGS program is not typical of
Liberal strategic brilliance because if our well-being were to
rest on that kind of strategy, we would be in bad shape.
The TAGS program failed miserably to provide a meaningful future
for Atlantic fishers. Now just released is the government's
post-TAGS review report.
Mr. Harrigan and his team have provided a comprehensive and
forthright report. It contains no praise for the government.
The report clearly reinforces the scathing comments of Canada's
auditor general on the terrible mismanagement of the TAGS
program. It also confirms what Canadians in Atlantic Canada have
been trying to get through to this government for years. After
four years of so-called government assistance, and after spending
nearly $2 billion, there remain the same problems today as four
years ago, only now with a couple of new ones thrown in.
First, there was supposed to be job training so that fishers
could get into new areas of employment. Very little, nearly not
as much as was promised, was spent on this job training. In
fact, the job training that was done was not linked to any
realistic employment opportunities.
Second, there was supposed to be a license buyout to remove
capacity from the industry. Virtually none of that was
accomplished. Now we have thousands of people dependent on TAGS
for income support. We have income support that was promised
suddenly being pulled so that people who had planned and had done
their financial forecasts on this income are being left in the
lurch by a government saying sorry, we know we promised that this
program would stay on but now we are not going to do it.
We have a situation where people on TAGS who want to leave the
industry to find meaningful work cannot do that. We are not
giving any meaningful assistance. The community development
projects that were supposed to be funded lacked any kind of
realism and failed to use the talents and expertise from the
community.
We have a real issue of government ineptness and gross
mismanagement not only in the past of the government fishery, but
now a lack of vision for meaningful alternatives for those who
were affected by the government's incompetence.
Here we have both Liberal and past Tory governments politicizing
all their decisions and resulting only in waste, inefficiency,
personal hardship and loss of personal independence by reducing
people to rely on government handouts when they would rather
work.
1840
After months to reflect on their failed policies and programs
following the loss of the Atlantic fisheries critical resource
base, I ask the government whether it has any idea what people's
lives are going to look like after the TAGS program is over?
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Human Resources Development, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the
Atlantic groundfish strategy was designed to cope with an
extraordinary situation, a crisis of major proportions. It had
to be implemented within very tight time frames at a time when
the government was facing severe fiscal constraints.
Under the circumstances, the Minister of Human Resources
Development's first priority was to ensure that basic human needs
were met, so we directed our efforts at ensuring that individuals
who had lost their livelihood and source of income received
income support.
On this score TAGS has been successful. More than 40,000
clients were able to count on Human Resources Development Canada
to provide them with income support in a timely matter.
Having said that, it is very clear that TAGS was far from a
perfect program. With the benefit of hindsight, many things
could have been done differently but TAGS has helped Atlantic
fishery workers. Some 14,800 TAGS clients have adjusted outside
the groundfish fishery and found employment outside the industry.
Over 16,000 TAGS clients received job counselling and over 10,000
TAGS clients had the opportunity to improve their job skills
through various types of training, including literacy and basic
skills improvement.
TAGS is expected to end in August 1998 and the Minister of Human
Resources Development has just received a post-TAGS review report
prepared by Mr. Harrigan. The objective of Mr. Harrigan's report
was to get a sense of how the end of the TAGS program would
impact on individuals, families and communities.
This is a very good report that brings out a number of important
factors. For instance, it confirms that we cannot have a one
size fits all solution. The end of TAGS will have a great impact
on some families but very little on others.
As I said, the report gives the government a useful basis for
discussion. We look forward to the discussion with the
stakeholders in order to come up with a solution for the long
term.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed adopted. Accordingly, this House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.42 p.m.)