36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 34
CONTENTS
Thursday, November 20, 1997
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1000
| COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
|
| Transport
|
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
| COMPETITION ACT
|
| Bill C-20. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. John Manley |
1005
| SMALL BUSINESS LOANS ACT
|
| Bill C-21. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. John Manley |
| ANTI-PERSONNEL MINES CONVENTION IMPLEMENTATION ACT
|
| Bill C-22. Introduction and first reading
|
| Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
| CANADA HEALTH ACT
|
| Bill C-282. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Mauril Bélanger |
| CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
|
| Bill C-283. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
1010
| CRIMINAL RECORDS ACT
|
| Bill C-284. Introduction and first reading
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| GOLDEN ANNIVERSARY
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
| Motion
|
| PETITIONS
|
| National Child Day
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1015
| Criminal Code
|
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
|
| Canada Post
|
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
| Speaker's Ruling
|
| The Speaker |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Golden Anniversary
|
| Mr. Jason Kenney |
1020
1025
1035
(Division 26)
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Mr. Bill Blaikie |
1040
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
|
| Bill C-4. Report Stage
|
| Mr. David Chatters |
1045
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
1050
| Mr. Jerry Pickard |
1055
1100
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1105
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1110
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1115
1120
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
1125
1130
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
| Mr. Mike Scott |
1135
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
1140
| Mr. Inky Mark |
1145
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
| Mr. John Williams |
1150
1155
1200
| Mr. Dick Harris |
1205
1210
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1215
1220
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
1225
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1230
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1235
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Motions Nos. 2 and 31
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Motion No. 41
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1240
1245
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1250
1255
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
1300
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
1305
1310
| Mr. Paul Bonwick |
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
1315
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1320
| Mr. John Harvard |
1325
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1330
1335
| Mr. Clifford Lincoln |
1340
| Mr. Gilles-A. Perron |
1345
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
1350
| Mr. Howard Hilstrom |
| Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
1355
1400
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| AVCORP INDUSTRIES INC.
|
| Ms. Sophia Leung |
| TRADE
|
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
| PERSONAL BANKRUPTCIES
|
| Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi |
| AFRICAN INDUSTRIALIZATION DAY
|
| Mrs. Maud Debien |
| DIABETES AWARENESS MONTH
|
| Ms. Aileen Carroll |
1405
| FESTIVAL OF NORTHERN LIGHTS
|
| Mr. Ovid L. Jackson |
| NATIONAL CHILD DAY
|
| Mr. Rick Casson |
| LITERACY
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| MINISTER OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mrs. Francine Lalonde |
| NATIONAL CHILD DAY
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
1410
| CRIMINAL CODE
|
| Mr. Gerry Ritz |
| INDIAN AFFAIRS
|
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
| NATIONAL CHILD DAY
|
| Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
| HENRI-BOURASSA BOULEVARD
|
| Mr. Denis Coderre |
| NATIONAL CHILD DAY
|
| Ms. Diane St-Jacques |
1415
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| CANADA POST
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1420
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| OPTION CANADA
|
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
1425
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Paul Martin |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
| DRUG PATENTS
|
| Hon. Jean J. Charest |
| Hon. John Manley |
1430
| Hon. Jean J. Charest |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| CANADA POST
|
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| QUEBEC'S PARTITION
|
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Hon. Stéphane Dion |
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1435
| CANADA POST
|
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| THE ENVIRONMENT
|
| Mr. Michel Guimond |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Mr. Bernard Bigras |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| CANADA POST
|
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
1440
| Mr. Preston Manning |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| INDIAN AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Claude Bachand |
| Hon. Jane Stewart |
| INTERNATIONAL TRADE
|
| Mrs. Karen Redman |
| Mr. Julian Reed |
| CANADA POST
|
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| Mr. Monte Solberg |
1445
| Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
| Mr. Peter Stoffer |
| Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
| COMMUNICATIONS
|
| Ms. Wendy Lill |
| Hon. John Manley |
| AIRBUS
|
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Andy Scott |
| Mr. Peter MacKay |
| Hon. Anne McLellan |
| FRANCOPHONIE SUMMIT
|
| Mr. Guy Saint-Julien |
1450
| Hon. Diane Marleau |
| CANADA POST
|
| Mr. Jim Gouk |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| RAILWAY TRANSPORTATION
|
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| PORTS
|
| Mr. Peter Mancini |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
|
| Mr. Scott Brison |
| Mr. Julian Reed |
| CANADIAN HERITAGE
|
| Mr. Lynn Myers |
1455
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| CANADA POST
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| SEAL HUNTING
|
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
| HEALTH
|
| Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
| Hon. Allan Rock |
| CANADA POST
|
| Mr. Gilles Bernier |
1500
| Hon. Lawrence MacAulay |
| DAVID GUSSOW
|
| The Speaker |
| PRIVILEGE
|
| Comments During Question Period
|
| Mr. Joe Jordan |
1505
| BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
| Mr. Randy White |
| Hon. Don Boudria |
| THE LATE ROBERT THOMPSON
|
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1510
| Hon. Herb Gray |
| Miss Deborah Grey |
1515
| Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
| Mr. Randy White |
1520
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
|
| Bill C-4. Report stage
|
| Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
1525
| Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
1530
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
1535
1540
| Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1545
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1550
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
1555
1600
| Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1605
1610
| Mr. Myron Thompson |
1615
| MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
|
| The Deputy Speaker |
| CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
|
| Bill C-4. Report Stage
|
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
1620
| Mr. Dale Johnston |
1625
1630
| Mr. Wayne Easter |
| Mr. Jim Pankiw |
1635
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
| Motions Nos. 4 and 15
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| New Motion No. 5 and Motions Nos. 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16,
17, 18 and 19
|
| Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien |
| Motion No. 6
|
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
| Motion No. 8
|
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
| Motion No. 13
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1640
1645
1650
| Mr. Dick Proctor |
1655
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1700
1705
| Mr. Rick Borotsik |
1710
1715
| Ms. Susan Whelan |
1720
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1725
1730
| PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
| AGREEMENT ON INTERNAL TRADE IMPLEMENTATION ACT
|
| Bill C-203. Second reading
|
| Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1735
1740
1745
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
1750
1755
| Mr. Pierre Brien |
1800
1805
| Mr. Scott Brison |
1810
1815
| Mr. Roy Cullen |
1820
1825
| ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
| Employment Insurance
|
| Mr. Paul Crête |
1830
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
1835
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 34
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, November 20, 1997
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1000
[Translation]
COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
TRANSPORT
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report
of the Standing Committee on Transport, on Bill C-9, the Canada
Marine Act.
* * *
[English]
COMPETITION ACT
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-20, an act to amend the Competition Act
and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
1005
SMALL BUSINESS LOANS ACT
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-21, an act to amend the Small Business
Loans Act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
[Translation]
ANTI-PERSONNEL MINES CONVENTION IMPLEMENTATION ACT
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-22, an act to implement the
convention on the prohibition of the use, stockpiling, production
and transfer of anti-personnel mines and on their destruction.
(Motions deemed adopted, the bill is read the first time and
printed)
* * *
CANADA HEALTH ACT
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-282, an act to amend the Canada Health Act
(linguistic duality).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill to amend the Canada Health Act
would add a sixth principle to it, that of respect for linguistic
duality.
The bill would amend the statute so that a province would be
paid the full sum under the Canada health and social transfer only
if it honoured the principle of Canada's linguistic duality.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-283, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat
Board Act (audits).
He said: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise in this
House and introduce this private members' bill to amend the
Canadian Wheat Board Act (audit).
Currently the auditor general does not have the authority to
audit the Canadian Wheat Board. Over the years, the auditor
general has provided a valuable service to Canadians by pointing
out waste in federal government as well as showing where
Canadians have received value for their money.
Western farmers and Canadians in general have demanded
legislation that would make the Canadian Wheat Board more
accountable to producers.
This bill endeavours to do exactly that and probably restore the
faith of farmers in the Canadian Wheat Board.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.
* * *
1010
CRIMINAL RECORDS ACT
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-284, an act to amend the Criminal Records Act
and the Canadian Human Rights Act (offences against children).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill will enable children's
organizations and parents to access the criminal record of
persons convicted of sexual offences against children, even if
later the sexual offender has received a pardon.
This limited disclosure will only be allowed to individuals who
apply for a position of trust with respect to children. This bill
is in response to a public concern and a large petition that was
received and presented in the last Parliament. It is aimed to
better protect our children from potential abuse.
I think it is quite appropriate that it be introduced in the
House on this day because it is National Child Day.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
GOLDEN ANNIVERSARY
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
there have been consultations among the parties, and I rise to
seek the unanimous consent of the House to move the following
motion:
That this House, on behalf of all Canadians, convey its warm
greetings and best wishes to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and
His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh on the happy occasion of
their Golden Wedding Anniversary.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have the consent of
the House to put the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: The House has heard the terms of the motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: The hon. member asked for unanimous consent
and unanimous consent was not granted.
Motion negatived
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
The Speaker: Is the point of order on this matter?
Mr. Jason Kenney: Mr. Speaker, I received unanimous
consent to introduce the motion.
The Speaker: You are correct. Unanimous consent was
given to introduce the motion. However, unanimous consent was
not given to pass the motion and that is what we are dealing
with. The motion was defeated.
* * *
PETITIONS
NATIONAL CHILD DAY
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today is National Child Day and I am pleased to present
seven petitions with the signature of 150 Canadians from the
provinces of Ontario and British Columbia. They are concerned
that by ratifying and implementing the United Nations convention
on the rights of the child that government bureaucrats and courts
will be legally entitled to determine what is in the best
interests of the child, not the parents.
The petitioners believe that the Government of Canada is
creating a bureaucracy to police parents and enforce the
guidelines in the UN charter, which has never been approved by
Parliament. Not only are parental rights being undermined by
implementing this UN convention, but they are concerned that it
will create greater incentives for families to abrogate their
parental responsibilities to the state.
Therefore, the petitioners request Parliament to address their
concerns by supporting my Private Members Motion No. 33 which
will add protection of parental rights and responsibilities to
the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
1015
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the second set of petitions I would like to present
comes with signatures of 52 Canadians from Manitoba and British
Columbia. It is most appropriate for these petitions to be
introduced on national child day.
These citizens of Canada support retention of section 43 of the
Criminal Code which states: “Every school teacher, parent or
person standing in the place of a parent is justified in using
force by way of correction toward a pupil or child who is under
his care if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under
the circumstances”.
The petitioners believe the government is weakening the role of
parents in determining what is in the best interests of the child
by continuing to fund research and court challenges by people who
advocate the removal of section 43. So your petitioners request
Parliament to affirm the duty of parents to responsibly raise
their children according to their own conscience and beliefs and
retain section 43 in Canada's Criminal Code as it is currently
worded.
* * *
[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 ask that
all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
[English]
REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
CANADA POST
The Speaker: I have received a letter from the hon.
member for West Kootenay—Okanagan with a request for an
emergency debate. I will permit him a few short sentences to
outline what it is all about and we will go from there.
Mr. Jim Gouk (West Kootenay—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I wish to ask for some guidance. I understand it is
customary that I read the actual application I made to the House
for this.
The Speaker: What is actually needed is a statement of
the reason for the request, not necessarily what is in the
letter. I have already read the letter so it is just to give us
an idea of what this debate would be all about.
Mr. Jim Gouk: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave to present a
motion under Standing Order 52(1) and 52(2) for the adjournment
of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and
important matter that requires the urgent consideration of all
hon. members, the current postal situation.
It is appropriate that we examine all the issues that affect
every one of the 31 million Canadians in this country. I am not
asking that we specifically debate something like back to work
legislation but rather that we should examine the impact and
ramifications of this current action, that we examine all the
different possibilities in terms of what might be appropriate
actions to take to reduce the harmful impact of this and
collectively arrive at some decisions as to how we may best serve
the interests of all Canadians.
SPEAKER'S RULING
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for sending me the
letter. The letter in itself is quite complete. We have a
general idea of what the hon. member wants in this emergency
debate.
At this time it would seem to me that it does not fulfil the
requirements for an emergency debate. Perhaps at a later time
that would be the case.
On a point of order, the hon. member for Calgary Southeast.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
GOLDEN ANNIVERSARY
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
moments ago I received unanimous consent to introduce a motion.
The Chair then sought unanimous consent to pass the motion. I
refer the Speaker to section 552(1) of Beauchesne's:
Every matter is determined in the House of Commons upon a
question put by the Speaker, on a proposition submitted by a
Member, and resolved either in the affirmative or negative as the
case may be.
This proposition, called a motion, is a proposal moved by one
Member, in accordance with certain well established rules, that
the House do something, or order something to be done or express
an opinion with regard to some matter.
1020
I therefore put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that a voice vote should
have been held on this motion rather than unanimous consent,
which was already given in the introduction of the motion and
which is not necessary to approve it.
The Speaker: Let me go through the whole thing. My
understanding is that this is what happened.
The hon. member asked “I would like to seek the unanimous
consent to move this motion”. At that point I asked the House
“does the hon. member have unanimous consent to put the
motion?” At that point I heard no one dissenting. Therefore
the hon. member had the right to put the motion.
When the hon. member put the motion I again sought unanimous
consent. There was not unanimous consent at that time. If
anyone dissents then that dies right there.
The hon. member does bring up an interesting point that this is
a motion. At that point, after I had asked whether there was
unanimous consent and there was a “no”, my clerk informs me,
and I agree with the rules, I should have put this to a voice
vote.
Because I did not do that, it is my fault. I, as the Speaker,
made this error. What I am going to do now, with the permission
of the House, is do it again. I invite hon. members to take it
from there. I will deal with this the way it should have been
dealt with.
The hon. member has sought unanimous consent to put the motion.
Is that correct?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I believe you have gone back
too far, if I may suggest that, because unanimous consent to put
the motion was already given by the House. The part which you
have to go back to is the moving of the motion itself. That is
where we were at. That was where the error occurred.
The Speaker: I did have unanimous consent to put the
motion. I am proceeding from that point.
Now I am going to ask the House is it the pleasure of the House
to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
1025
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Speaker: Call in the members.
1035
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Anders
| Bailey
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
|
Blaikie
| Borotsik
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Catterall
| Chatters
| Comuzzi
| Desjarlais
|
Dockrill
| Easter
| Elley
| Epp
|
Harvey
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
|
Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Konrad
|
Lill
| Lowther
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Malhi
|
Matthews
| McNally
| Morrison
| Myers
|
Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Proctor
| Ritz
| Stinson
|
Stoffer
| Thompson
(Wild Rose)
| White
(Langley – Abbotsford)
| Williams – 40
|
NAYS
Members
PAIRED
Members
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I declare the motion
carried.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder about the process
here. We were forced into a situation where we had to hold a
standing vote, yet it carried unanimously.
I wonder what precedent has been set today because of the Bloc.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): With respect, the
Chair does not believe that is a point of order.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I rise on the same point of order or similar point of order.
Obviously there is nothing uncommon about having a unanimous
standing vote. It has happened a number of times.
My point is that, as happy as I and my colleagues are to support
the motion of congratulations to the Queen and Prince Phillip on
the occasion of their 50th wedding anniversary, the House to some
degree was asked to believe there had been some prior agreement
that this would happen at this time.
1040
That simply was not so. There had been some mention that
something like this might happen, but there certainly had been no
agreement.
Had agreement been sought it would have been given by the NDP,
but to suggest that somehow there had been some kind of agreement
and that therefore anybody is in breach of some agreement is
simply not the case. I think it reflects an unfortunate
willingness to play politics with something that we should not
play politics with.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member's
intervention has been noted. The House needs to deal with that
which takes place in the House when it takes place. The matter
has been dealt with, in the opinion of the Chair.
We will now proceed to orders of the day.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
The House resumed from November 19 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 Motion No. 1.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today to speak in support of Motion No. 1 moved
by my colleague from Yorkton—Melville. I originally had not
intended to intervene in the debate at this point, but after
listening yesterday to the debate in the House and to some of the
comments on the government side I was motivated to take part in
the debate.
I can speak to the issue before us, the Canadian Wheat Board
bill, with some authority, being the third generation in my
family to be involved in the farming profession. My family held
a wheat board permit probably since the creation of the Canadian
Wheat Board and certainly since the creation of the monopoly of
the Canadian Wheat Board.
That is an important consideration to note as we take part in
the debate because of some of the interventions made by the other
side, in particular by the member for Hamilton—Wentworth
yesterday, on the credibility and the willingness of members on
both sides to speak.
I would like it understood that my constituents and I support
the concept of single desk selling for prairie grain farmers.
Producers in my constituency feel strongly about that and would
wish to support it.
Producers in my constituency are simply asking for fairness and
equality with grain producers in others parts of Canada. They
are asking for transparency and accountability on the part of the
board and an end to the secrecy and the closed situation we have
now.
Both the interests of my producers in preserving a single desk
selling agency and their desire for transparency and
accountability could be achieved if the government had chosen to
go that route. We could preserve the Canadian Wheat Board and
provide farmers with choices.
If the Canadian Wheat Board were acting in the best interests of
producers, producers would use the Canadian Wheat Board. The
problem is that we are setting up a situation that will
inevitably destroy the Canadian Wheat Board. Farmers will
continue to fight for choices and options. Eventually it will
mean the destruction of the wheat board and the loss of the
concept of the single desk selling agency. That would be a real
change.
1045
We heard a lot of discussion in the debate yesterday about who
the Canadian Wheat Board currently works for and who it will work
for under this bill if it goes forward. It is pretty obvious to
all of us grain producers that the Canadian Wheat Board as far
back as World War II was not working in the best interest of
farmers and some of my colleagues raised that point.
In our contribution to the war effort in western Canada, we
probably contributed more through the loss of revenue on grain
sales than what the national energy program drew out of western
Canada. There was a tremendous loss in revenue to the western
Canadian producer. Yet there does not seem to have been any
recognition of that and certainly no recognition here.
There are all kinds of other instances where the Canadian Wheat
Board has been used as a foreign policy tool and even a domestic
internal policy tool, much to the detriment of the Canadian
producer.
I would also like to respond to the comments made by the hon.
member for Hamilton—Wentworth yesterday who took great grievance
because of his impression that somebody over here said that he
had no right to speak on this issue. As a member of this House,
he certainly had every right to speak on this issue, but the
question has to be about the credibility of those who are
speaking on the issue.
The parliamentary secretary to the agriculture minister is a
potato farmer from Prince Edward Island who judiciously guards
his right to make choices in the marketing—
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point
of order.
The member for Athabasca seems to be referring to me. I am
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
and I am a beef and grain producer from Prince Edward Island.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Chair and the
House stands corrected.
Mr. David Chatters: My apologies for that error, Mr.
Speaker.
However, I feel quite confident that the member protects his
right vigorously to make choices in the way he markets his
products. Therefore, I think he lacks some credibility when he
tries to impose on western farmers something that he does not
wish to have imposed upon himself.
Some hon. members: That's right.
An hon. member: A double standard.
Mr. David Chatters: Of course, if we keep going in that
same direction, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Natural Resources, I believe from the province of Newfoundland, I
doubt has ever sold a bushel of wheat in his life as well.
The minister of agriculture, engaged in the profession of
agriculture, enjoys a wheat board fully elected and fully
accountable, yet he wishes to impose something different on the
farmers of western Canada.
I think it is a question of credibility of those who speak and
what they are trying to impose on others that they would not
impose on themselves. I think that is an important point to
make.
The Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister responsible
for the Canadian Wheat Board, being from the prairies at least
gives him some credibility, but I would question whether the
minister has ever sold a bushel of wheat in his life.
I have to perhaps forgive the government a little bit there
because truly Liberals on the Canadian prairies are becoming as
scarce as prairie chickens on the prairies these days. I have to
understand the limited choice the government had when they chose.
I also want to respond to the comments by the hon. member for
Hamilton—Wentworth about the preamble not being important. As
one of my colleagues pointed out, the courts have long been
famous for using the preamble to determine the intention of the
legislation when they are drafting the bill. I do not think
there is anywhere where that is more apparent than in the courts
and the rewriting of the Canadian human rights bill.
Certainly an effort to clarify the intention of the legislatures
in the preamble would be taken into consideration and an is an
extremely important point and not to be ignored.
Our intention is not smoke and mirrors. It is certainly
honourable.
1050
I have to also question the effort by the government through
this bill to protect from legal action the officers of the
Canadian Wheat Board and the secrecy, the lack of accountability
through access to information or the auditor general. I think
this effort to protect the officers of the board in good measure
is a result of the actions of my colleague from Portage—Lisgar
in his efforts to bring some accountability and transparency to
the board. I do not think that there is really support for those
kinds of actions.
Because of the lack of time, I simply say in conclusion that, in
all sincerity, we are not asking for anything in this Wheat Board
Act that producers in the rest of Canada do not have already. In
the interest of fairness, I think it would be reasonable to
provide some accountability, some transparency to a board that
works for the farmers.
Mr. Jerry Pickard (Kent—Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
find very interesting the position that the Reform Party has
taken over whether an elected person from this House can speak
about the western grain situation. I wonder if they would take
the very same position if we talked about the auto pact, that no
one from the west should be able to speak about the auto pact or
no one from the west should be able to talk about other factors
that affect this nation.
There is absolutely no question that Ontario produces a
tremendous amount of grain. In my riding I would suggest to you
that that grain is produced and the certificates from that grain
have to be confirmed by the Canadian Wheat Board. The Canadian
Wheat Board, without question, has a tremendous effect on the
grain farmers in Ontario.
The new law now before Parliament is based on many months of
consultation with farmers, including public hearings across the
prairies. This proposed legislation embodies the biggest changes
in western grain marketing in a half century. Throughout its
history, the Canadian Wheat Board has been governed by a small
group of commissioners appointed by the government and legally
responsible only to the government. But in today's dynamic
change in this marketplace the producers will have a clear voice
in what will be happening. The producers will be accountable and
the sales will be accountable to the producers.
Under the new law, it is the first time the Canadian Wheat Board
will be run by a board of directors. There will be 15 directors
in total and two-thirds of them, 10 of the 15 directors, will be
directly elected by prairie farmers. They will take office at
the earliest possible date in 1998 once the new law is passed by
Parliament.
All the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board will be in the hands
of the directors and because two-thirds of them will be elected,
they will be directly accountable to producers for how they
manage the Canadian Wheat Board's business.
In addition to the power to run the affairs of the Canadian
Wheat Board, the directors will have specific authority to select
their own chairperson; to set the salaries of directors, the
chairperson and president; to review the performance of the
president and to recommend his or her dismissal, if necessary.
To ensure farmers are getting value for their money, the
directors will be legally entitled to have full disclosure of all
facts and figures by the Canadian Wheat Board operations,
including all financial audited statements. The directors will
be able to examine the prices at which grain is sold, the price
premiums achieved, all operating costs, and whether the wheat
board is truly efficient.
Through these elected directors the Canadian Wheat Board will
gain practical expertise in the real producers. If the directors
are not satisfied with how the Canadian Wheat Board deals with
the farmers or its sales strategy or the way it does business,
they can make the necessary changes.
1055
The new law will require the directors and officers of the
Canadian Wheat Board to act honestly and in good faith,
exercising all reasonable care and diligence. If they fail their
duty, they will be exposed and have legal consequences.
Despite the structural changes, the Government of Canada will
continue to provide the Canadian Wheat Board with financial
guarantees. They will cover not only the initial payments set at
the beginning of each pooling period and the Canadian Wheat
Board's credit sales program but also all of the general
borrowings. Since the Canadian Wheat Board is a multibillion
dollar enterprise, the amount outstanding under these guarantees
is very large.
For this reason, there is continuing need for the government to
have a window on the Canadian Wheat Board in addition to the new
accountability directly to farmers.
Such a window is also necessary because the Canadian exporter of
wheat and barley, whether on the prairies or elsewhere, requires
a Canadian Wheat Board export permit. This safeguarding of
public interest will be achieved by the government appointing a
minority of directors, five in total.
All of the directors, whether elected, the ten or five who are
appointed, will have the same powers, duties and functions. The
farmers will hold two thirds of that majority. The new law will
put farmers in the driver's seat when it comes to any future
changes in the Canadian Wheat Board.
If farmers want to remove some type of grain from the Canadian
Wheat Board's current single desk system, that can be done
subject to three conditions. The directors must make it a
recommendation, the Canadian Grain Commission must approve an
identity preservation system to protect the quality standards
and, if proposed exclusion is significant to all the farmers, the
farmers must vote for that approval.
If farmers want to add votes, rye, flax, canola to the Canadian
Wheat Board's existing mandate, that too can be done subject to
three conditions. The farm organization that represents the
producers of that commodity must make a written request, the
Canadian Wheat Board's directors must recommend it and there must
be a vote among the farmers to approve it.
These new provisions are balanced and fair in both ways for
either exclusions or inclusions. In either case, the authority
is where it belongs, in the hands of themselves.
The Canadian Wheat Board is going to be more flexible. It will
give to farmers more options in how they are paid and how their
grain is moved through the system. It will make cash purchases
of wheat and barley, increase initial payments quickly whenever
market conditions warrant, close and pay out pool accounts at any
time, provide an early pool and cash out option, fully use modern
risk management tools, issue negotiable producer certificates,
offset producers' grain storage and/or carrying costs, facilitate
deliveries on condos' storage systems and receive grain through
on-farm mobile elevators.
The Canadian Wheat Board is a very effective marketer of
Canadian grain. It has the support of the majority of western
farmers. They want realistic and sensible Canadian Wheat Board
changes but they do not want a scenario that would lead
inevitably to the board's destruction.
Just how valuable overall has the scheme of things been? It
sells some $5 billion of grain per year at marketing costs of a
few pennies per bushel. It retains no profit margin. All the
rest goes to farmers. It is one of Canada's most significant
business enterprises, doing business in more than 70 countries
around the world.
It is our fifth largest exporter and our largest net earner for
foreign exchange. It has earned, for itself and Canada, a
positive reputation in the eyes of global customers. It is very
important to the Canadian economy.
The board targets to extract maximum premiums but very
important, the quality, cleanliness and consistency and our
technical support are long-term, dependable, for the customer,
the consumer from which we sell grain.
The Canadian Wheat Board has been rated as number one in the
world.
1100
These characteristics, coupled with the size of the board, its
global reach and the market clout, result in Canada having
roughly 20% of the share of the world market. The Government of
Canada believes that it is worth preserving.
I am very pleased with the principles put forth in the bill. I
am certain it will enhance our grain sales in the future.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe I am entitled to
have the member table the grain certificates to which he referred
in his speech. Those certificates apply to the provinces of
Ontario, Quebec and all other provinces that are not prairie
provinces which have the right, without charge, to export their
grains.
I wonder if he could table them so that the House could see how
unfair the certificates are. Those provinces can export their
grain with these certificates but the other three provinces
cannot. I believe the hon. member should table them immediately.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Chair will
consult with the table officers.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with respect to
this point of order, the hon. member was not talking about the
specific certificates. He was talking about the fact that the
Canadian Wheat Board has to authorize those export certificates
for other areas.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In the opinion of
the Chair this is a point of debate, but the Chair will invite
the hon. member for Kent—Essex, if he has the papers and wishes
to table them, to do so.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I do
not even know where to start. I am just amazed to hear all these
things coming from across the way about the great consultation
process that went on. We all know that the panel went across the
prairie provinces and talked to prairie farmers, but the
recommendations that were given to the panel are not being
implemented in the bill. It does not even come close.
Everyone in the House should have the opportunity to speak.
Nobody would deny that. Many MPs from the Toronto region will
definitely support the government because they have been told
that is what they have to do in this free country led by that
outfit.
I invite those Toronto MPs to come to Wild Rose to visit little
communities in my area and to talk to farmers. We should let
farmers convince these people how they should vote rather than
being told how to vote. We know that will happen. We know it
will be difficult to defeat a poor piece of legislation such as
this one because of the rules of the Liberal Party, the governing
body.
Those ladies and gentlemen should come out to talk to the
farmers. In every poll we have done in Wild Rose 80% to 90% of
the people want dual marketing. They like to go out there to
meet with the elite but they do not know anything about farmers.
They should try it some time.
Mr. Speaker, I bet you were a businessman before you came to the
House. I would bet on that. I bet you were a producer of goods
of some sort or that you provided a service. I bet you did your
best to maximize profits in your business. If you did not then
you were doing a poor job.
Every manufacturing company or producer in the country tries to
find the best place to make the best buck and get the best value
for their product.
That is good common sense.
1105
Why is it that one segment in one region of the country that is
not allowed to do that? What kind of situation is that? Let us
take a look at it a little further. Some people in some of these
regions—
Some hon. members: Stick around.
Mr. Myron Thompson: All of sudden there are no Liberals
in the House at all. That is too bad.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): With respect, all
hon. members are aware that we do not refer to the presence or
absence of other hon. members at any specific time.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the appropriate thing would be to call for a quorum.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We have a quorum
call.
And the count having been taken:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There is quorum.
Mr. Myron Thompson: Mr. Speaker, too bad all members of
the House are not listening carefully to the debate that is going
on here before casting their votes. Instead they are waiting for
the whip of a certain party to pull their strings so the little
puppets can jump up and vote the way they are told, the way they
have done in the House for ages. It is too bad that happens.
I was talking about maximizing profits, which is what the
preamble is all about. It is only common sense. Anybody with
the brain of a fish could say that makes sense.
I went to two court trials in Brandon, Manitoba, and spent some
time watching the proceedings. Individuals were brought before
the court for having illegally sold their grain across the border
without wheat board permits and were charged. They actually
broke the law; nobody is denying that. Their purpose for selling
grain across the border was not as a protest against any board or
any particular legislation. They were trying to maximize their
profits.
In many cases the people who were doing this all across the
border were trying to maximize their profits. They found
themselves in the situation that if they did not get the best
prices for their goods their farms could go under. They could go
broke. They were trying to provide for the livelihood of their
families. They had worked all their lives and were saying they
had to do something or they would go under. Nobody wants to go
under. They made an effort by doing that, but the legislation
stated that they could not.
One court case amazed me. An individual had broken into a farm
residence, ransacked the property, killed three dogs, set fire to
a tractor and stolen a pick-up truck. Later he was apprehended
and convicted. He received a sentence of community service. The
same day a farmer was brought in who had tried to maximize his
profits by taking his crop across the border. He was taken away
in shackles and chains.
Not only that. One farmer who had done it two or three times
received a consecutive sentence. I have been screaming at the
government for ages about consecutive sentences. Clifford Olson
should not be serving one life sentence; he should be serving
eleven. We finally got a consecutive sentencing. We got it for
a farmer who tried to maximize his profits by taking his crop
across the border. That is the wisdom of the justice system.
It is terribly frustrating to look at farmers being hauled off
in chains and shackles while a guy who destroys and steals
thousands and thousands of dollars worth of property gets
community service.
1110
An hon. member: Shameful.
Mr. Myron Thompson: It is absolutely ridiculous. All
they are asking for in the region of Wild Rose is an opportunity
to market their own product, the same opportunity for every
individual producer or manufacturer of any kind in the whole
country.
Why are they being targeted as the ones who cannot? They are
asking for that opportunity. They are not asking to scrap the
wheat board. They want to keep the wheat board as an option, as
one of the choices they may make in marketing their goods. If
they choose to do that, fine. If they choose not to, they should
have the freedom to do so. That is common sense.
When I was a young fellow farming and raising crops I did not
decide where we sold our grain. My dad did. He shopped around.
Although it was in a different country, we would load the truck
and he would instruct me on where to deliver the grain. He had
made some phone calls and had chosen the place where he would
deliver his grain. Guess why he chose the place? It was because
he was maximizing his profits. It was the best price.
I would drive to that place. Provided it passed a required test
to pay the price I would deliver the grain. If the test was not
quite as good as they wanted it, I would go to another place that
would take the grain, maybe at a lower price. We had choices all
over.
What those people did after they bought the grain, whether they
exported it to China, to Japan or to Russia, we did not know. We
had the choice on how to maximize our profits. That was fairly
nice. We did not have a body of people accountable to no one to
tell us what we should do with our grain. We did not have to get
something signed by a group of wheat board individuals about
whose expertise we were not too certain.
The government is asking farmers in the western prairies to
continue the same process. Bill C-4 does not change anything.
Even the agricultural minister from Alberta writes that it was
extremely disappointing to discover the changes served only to
continue government control of grain marketing, that no other
industry or no other individual was being treated in this unique
manner, and that in many respects it was something requiring
close scrutiny before passage of the proposed legislation.
The minister of agriculture in Alberta pointed out a number of
things in his letter that were wrong with the legislation. Much
of it applied simply to the fact that they lived in a free
country. When will they start giving people the freedom they
ought to have to do with their product as they see fit?
They are the ones that sweat hard. They are the ones who put
the seed in the ground. They are the ones who try to chase the
hail clouds away. They do not even know if they will get a grain
crop into the bin, but when they get there they should be allowed
to own it and to choose how to market it. It is their crop.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak on this topic, the
most important topic in my entire constituency. Interest in the
bill is growing and growing and growing every week.
I wish to alert members to a statement once made by Edmund
Burke. He said that the people never give up their liberties
except under some delusions. Ever since the wheat board began it
presented a delusion to many western Canadian farmers.
The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville emphasized the use of the
word maximizing. If the returns to the farmers of western Canada
are to be maximized, it involves another component,
transportation. We will talk about that later.
I want to read to the House a statement made by a lawyer
employed by the Canadian Wheat Board. This was before the
Manitoba Court of Appeal.
1115
I want to note carefully what he had to say: “To dispose
of grain in the best interest of the federal government the wheat
board has no obligation to obtain the best prices for the
farmers”. That is what a lawyer for the Canadian Wheat Board
had to say. You come west and try to sell the Canadian Wheat
Board with statements like that.
Less than three months ago we had a major dumping of Canadian
grain into the Iranian market at $15 a tonne less than the world
price. We only found out about that just a few days ago. When
the wheat board tells you that it has no obligation to maximize
the return to the prairie farmers, that they exist only for the
benefit for the government, at least it is speaking the truth.
The wheat board has its annual report out. I would like to read
a few statements from that annual report. Historically the
Canadian Wheat Board at numerous times has not marketed grain to
ensure the maximum return to the farmers. Now hear what it had
to say: “All proceeds from sales, less Canadian Wheat Board
marketing costs, are passed on to the farmers”. If it is
operating totally on behalf of the farmers then they had better
take a look at what they are trying to do in Bill C-4. If the
farmer is smart enough to grow the grain, he is smart enough to
market the grain. This is phoney thing between five members, ten
members, do not go out west and say that you democratized the
wheat board. They will laugh right in your face. We all know
what is going to happen.
A few years ago we had two very learned people who did a lot of
work on this. I would like to read what they had to say: “Until
World War II the Canadian Wheat Board was a government owned
agency with a mandate to operate in the best interests of the
producers”. That is before World War II. The next point is:
“The role, structure and powers of the Canadian Wheat Board
changed drastically during the war. It became the federal
government's chief means of controlling wheat prices”.
The wheat board is in a position and it is attempting to control
prices, not to do what my hon. member has in this amendment,
maximize the prices. It has not been the responsibility—and we
have enough evidence that it has not always sought out to operate
in the best interests.
Let me read again from this report: “Its main aim was to limit
grain price increases so as to safeguard the government's wage
and price controls”. Who paid that price? The farmers paid
that price and they paid heavily for that.
Point three: “When world market conditions began to push up
wheat prices in 1943 the government granted the Canadian Wheat
Board its monopoly powers to enable it to impose strict controls
over grain prices”. The Canadian Wheat Board is doing exactly
the same thing today.
This report, which came from two eminent scholars, said further:
“The Canadian Wheat Board was the government's instrument of
choice in the immediate post-war period to control wheat
prices—into a peacetime market economy”.
Finally, it says that both Liberal and the Conservative
governments extended the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly because
they viewed wheat as a national strategy measure. Only wheat was
used in this way both the Liberal government and the Conservative
government. They used the wheat of the hardworking prairie
farmers to the benefit not of the prairie farmers. That was not
utmost in their minds.
1120
I look at the dumping practices of the wheat board today and it
is not accountable and it does not know where the grain is going.
The farmer, like the hon. member, at least knew where the grain
was going. We do not know where it is going. It dumps wheat on
to a foreign market where there is no competition and sells it
for less money. That is a terrible shame, and it exists today.
I want to draw attention also to the control of the grain
industry by the government. We read that lawyers have said
that the first responsibility of the Canadian Wheat Board is to
the government and the producers are secondary. We out west are
tired of that attitude. We are fed up.
Let me read: “Control of the grain trade by a government
agency was consistent with the aims of those Canadian bureaucrats
who were dictated to introducing the principles of Keynesian
economics into the regulation of the Canadian marketplace”.
I know what the hon. member said. I know that people are saying
that the act was made in Ottawa and therefore it must be good. Do
not be fooled. They never adopted one single principle of the
strategy committee that came before them. Not one principle is
embedded in this new act. They predetermined what the act was
going to be. They went through the phoney stage of talking to
people. The bill is before us now without one single
recommendation from the advisory board.
I say that this Canadian Wheat Board bill that we have today is
going to do one thing for sure if it is passed. The number of
people opposed to the monopoly of the grain market industry, the
number of producers, is going to drop, drop, drop until we reach
a real revolution on the prairies because of the government's
monopoly in this bill.
I wish everybody opposite would come out to the prairies, talk
to the people. It is a crying shame that an industry that brings
billions and billions of dollars into this country cannot even
control itself. The big bad government controls it.
It is a terrible shame. I beg them to read the bill and not to
support it.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, some people will try to say that because this is just
the preamble of the bill that they are seeking to amend that it
is not important and it is not necessary.
I would like to argue that point very vigorously. This is a very
necessary amendment. For the record I would just like to read
what I consider to be the most important portion of this
amendment:
Whereas such an organization will have a very significant effect
on the producers of grain and must therefore have the securing of
the best financial return to them as its object and first
priority and must be accountable to them for its performance.
In other words, this amendment places fiduciary responsibility
on the board to act in the best interests of farmers. About
six weeks ago—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Excuse me. We do
not seem to be getting the French translation. Could we confirm
that we are getting the French translation, please.
Perhaps if the member resumes we can try it again.
Mr. Lee Morrison: Mr. Speaker, I do not know at what point
the translators may have been cut off. I will backtrack just a
bit.
I read the portion of the amendment which I feel is most
important and I stated that I feel this is extremely important
because it places fiduciary responsibility on the board to act in
the best interests of farmers.
1125
About six weeks ago a three-justice panel of the Manitoba Court
of Appeal ruled that the Canadian Wheat Board has no fiduciary
duty to make the best possible deals on farmers' behalf or even
to treat them equally and with fairness. The board's only legal
obligation, according to this panel, is not to farmers but to
Ottawa. This is supposed to be our board, but it has no
obligation to serve us.
Anything which can be added to this bill, even if it is only in
the preamble, is bound to be an improvement. The fascinating
thing about Bill C-4 is that it is equally repugnant to
organizations as diverse in their outlook as the National Farmers
Union and the Western Canadian Wheat Growers.
I have been polling my constituents specifically on this bill to
determine how the majority of them would wish me to vote on their
behalf. Thanks to the brilliance of this government we now have
no postal service. With no postal service I cannot complete my
poll to find out how the people in my constituency would like me
to vote on this bill.
However, I have done other polling on the Canadian Wheat Board
with my constituents. I have also done formal scientific polling
by telephone through a professional polling organization. I have
a pretty good handle on how they feel.
It is regrettable that the government, with all of its grunting
about going back to the people to find out what they are
thinking, does not do a little more of this type of work. When
it does have its road shows and it goes about to get the opinion
of people on the issues of the day it is too bad it does not pay
attention to the results it gets.
We have had these visitations, and I use the word advisedly, of
people from Ottawa who say “We are from government, we are here
to help you, we want to know what you think. Now that we know
what you think, get lost”. That is the Ottawa way.
Bud the Spud over there would have us always believe that these
are the people with our interests at heart. They know what is
best for us poor, benighted, agricultural drones of western
Canada. We do not know what is good for us but, man, Ottawa sure
can show us the way.
I have polled my constituents and, to my surprise, I discovered
that on one commodity, that commodity being wheat, they want in
my riding to retain single desk selling. However, for
barley they want dual marketing.
They did not get a chance, when the government had its famous
plebiscite last January and February, to vote on that option. They
got a chance to say “are we doing to have barley all onboard or
all off board?” In or out. Take it or leave it. What the
farmers actually would have liked was not on the ballot.
Mr. Myron Thompson: You listen up over there, you one
Liberal.
Mr. Lee Morrison:
I wish the hon. member for Wild Rose would quit heckling. He is
throwing me off.
I know how my constituents stand on that particular issue, but I
do not know how they are going to come out on Bill C-4 because
there is nothing in Bill C-4 which directly relates to whether or
not we retain single desk marketing. It is just a hodgepodge. It
is a bunch of bandaids applied to the wrists, elbows, ears and
whatever other part of the poor western farmer has been damaged
by Ottawa. There is nothing substantive—
1130
Mr. Wayne Easter: The most changes in its history.
Mr. Lee Morrison: I hear a voice in the wilderness
telling me that there have been substantive changes. I suppose
that the reference will be to this remarkable new elected board,
a board which will be ruled in effect by appointees from Ottawa
who will tell them what to do, when to do it and how to do it.
With 10 elected members, the government need only get three of
those ten to agree with their appointed hacks and they will have
the majority. This is democracy?
The CEO is a government appointee. Give me a break. This is
not democracy. This is pseudo-democracy. This is a Soviet type
of democracy, if I may use the term loosely.
This brings me to the point that we do not have questions and
comments at report stage. I did want to make a comment to the
hon. member for Wild Rose when he was expressing surprise at the
discrepancy in sentencing of people who committed serious
criminal offences and those who broke the wheat board
regulations.
I would suggest to him that he should read a very excellent book
entitled The Gulag Archipelago in which it is spelled out
very clearly that in the prison system in the Soviet Union the
people who were most severely dealt with were those who had
committed political crimes. Ordinary criminals who merely
robbed, raped, or killed people were treated relatively leniently
even in the camps. However, it was the political criminals who
were nailed to the wall. I think the hon. member should take
that into consideration. It is very easy to explain if one stops
and thinks about it.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we in
the New Democratic Party caucus support the preamble in Bill C-4
and, quite frankly, do not understand why the government is so
opposed.
There is no question that the agriculture sector is an integral
part of the Canadian economy. There should be no question that
we need an organization that will work to secure the best
financial return for all producers.
Grain producers in Canada recognize the value of marketing their
product through one body. They recognize the value of working
together and having a system that gives small and large producers
opportunities and viability.
Producers have survived tough economic times because of the
wheat board. I believe that the Canadian Wheat Board has the
support of the majority of producers and there are very few who
have not supported the wheat board.
I and my caucus will continue to encourage changes that will see
the board fully elected by producers as well as the chair and CEO
appointed by the board. I urge the government to work in that
direction.
I am not going to go on and on without having anything
worthwhile to say. However, I do want to mention that for the
sticks and stones throwing between potato producers, grain
producers and someone else, I think it is extremely important
that we work to unite this country and to understand the
different areas of the country, whether it be the east, the
middle east or the west.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I was under
the mistaken impression growing up that this was a free country.
I listened to what the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands
was saying about the Gulag Archipelago and the treatment of
Soviet citizens who dared to challenge the government. That was
their crime. It was not that they challenged another member of
society. It was not that they committed serious criminal acts
but that they dared to challenge the government and paid the
price.
That is why we see the disparity of treatment in this country.
When anybody dares to challenge the government by directly
defying what the government has ordered shall be, they will pay a
very severe price indeed.
I started out by saying that I thought this was a free country.
As I grew older, I began to recognize that we actually live in a
police state, and we do. We have environment police, we have tax
police, we have land police, we have regulatory police. We even
have in this country egg police and milk police.
1135
Can you imagine the serious circumstances of the Canadian people
if by God we did not control the production of eggs and we did
not control the production of milk, butter and cream? What a
threat to our national security that would be.
The only thing that we do not have is pork police. We should
have because we know about all the pork that goes on on the other
side.
As a person who lives on the west coast of British Columbia, and
there is virtually no grain farming taking place in the riding I
represent, I come to Ottawa and I get to understand the grain
issue a little more. I find out that we have grain police and we
have a country where a man or a family on their own piece of
land, which they own and have bought and paid for, grows a crop,
reaps that crop and sells it where the government tells them they
are not allowed to sell it. What does the government do? As my
hon. colleague said, it takes them away in shackles and chains,
fines them tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of
dollars, confiscates their equipment and just about drives them
out of business.
This is not marijuana or heroin or cocaine. We are talking
about grain. What does the government do? It takes the people
and treats them like that.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you can get away with this kind of
treatment of your citizens for a time. The Liberal Party members
are the ones who dreamed up the egg police, the milk police and
the grain police. They want the government to control all
aspects of our lives. There are also the gun police—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): On a point of order,
the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fact of the
matter is that it was not the Liberal Party. It was a request
from the producers themselves calling for national products
marketing agencies and these requests were abided by in terms of
living up to the wishes—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Chair thanks the
hon. member for that point of clarification. Resuming debate,
the hon. member for Skeena.
Mr. Mike Scott: Mr. Speaker, all I have to do is remember
people like Eugene Whelan when I think about the kind of Liberal
approach to managing and controlling all aspects of our economy
and the kind of marketing boards that were set up by the Liberals
in the sixties and the seventies. We all remember the trainload
of rotten eggs.
To conclude my remarks, we live in what is ostensibly a free
country, but we continue to encroach on the freedoms and the
rights of citizens by such things as the grain police. Members
opposite might think that this is humorous but I tell you, Mr.
Speaker, that there will be a day of reckoning for treating
people like this. There is going to be a time when this is no
longer tolerated. I cannot say how that will come about. I
cannot say when it will come about. But I can say that you
cannot treat your citizens like this on an ongoing basis without
serious repercussions.
I would ask hon. members in this House today who are going to be
voting on this bill to consider the ramifications. This is an
issue that is very important to many people in the prairie
provinces in western Canada and we cannot treat them like this.
We cannot expect them to continue to live in a civil society on
these kinds of terms and conditions.
With that, I will conclude my remarks and thank the House for
its indulgence.
1140
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am very pleased to stand in this House and bring the concerns of
the farmers of Dauphin—Swan River. As you know, my riding is
very agricultural-based. There are farmers right through it,
from one end to the other.
During my short break at home I heard many concerns about the
new bill, about the attempted change to the Canadian Wheat Board.
I must say that the majority of the farmers in my constituency
support the Canadian Wheat Board, but they want real change. They
want change that is going to impact the farmers' lives.
One comment that has been raised continuously is: Why is it
that we, the producers of the crops, have no control on how it is
marketed, no control on the price, no control on the
transportation to market? I really have no way of responding to
these types of questions because the Canadian Wheat Board is a
very big monopoly that basically dictates. It is very
paternalistic in its approach.
Farmers in Dauphin—Swan River are asking for a real change that
will bring about real democracy. The purpose of the Canadian
Wheat Board should be for the benefit of the grower and the
producer, not the people who live in Ottawa who sit in this
House.
Another concern that is raised continuously in my riding is the
question: Why are farmers that are trying to market their
product across the border treated like criminals?
As you know, in this country we really do not have a justice
system, not the way the courts operate. These farmers are
treated in the worst way, worse even than criminals, by far. That
is a question that is continuously raised. These people probably
did break the law as it exists today in transporting their
products to market, but we need justice in this country. We have
to treat them in a fair and equal way.
As my colleague indicated previously, that is the political
crime that they have committed by doing this. Anyway, the people
of Dauphin—Swan River feel that this is not fair. It is not
fair to treat people in this manner.
The third concern is about the Canadian Wheat Board and the
control of the direction of the full grain and how they market
the grain and how they transport it out of this country. As you
know, the port of Churchill with the amendment to the Marine Act
is becoming part of the private sector and also, with the
privatization of CN, it is going to be a big plus for the
province of Manitoba in terms of exporting grain.
Considering that the port of Churchill was built in the
thirties, someone at the federal level had a vision for the
farmers of western Canada back in 1930. We have lost that vision
over the last 60 years. That port is totally underutilized.
The big advantage of using the port of Churchill as I have
vented in this House is that it is 6,800 kilometres shorter to
European markets than it is from the Thunder Bay port. Yet, over
the last 60 years this port has been totally neglected. In fact
this year the Canadian Wheat Board has shipped, I believe, less
than 400,000 tons through the port of Churchill.
Therefore, on behalf of the farmers, the wheat board has to
increase the amount of grain that it ships out of this country.
It is high time that the grain started moving north and south
instead of east and west at a cost to the farmer.
Shipping grain through the port of Churchill will save the
farmer of western Canada $20 per ton and that $20 will go in the
pockets of the farmers, which will in effect improve the local
economy and in effect will increase what goes into the pockets of
Ottawa as well.
There is no doubt that the Canadian Wheat Board has been a good
thing in the past.
1145
I mean in the past because I am reminded by older farmers who
went through the tough times of the 1930s and the pre-war period
that the wheat board was there for their protection. Today we
live in the 1990s.
This is the age where governments talk about entrepreneurship,
Internet technology, the shrinking global economy. There is no
doubt that there are many farmers out there who can ship their
own products much more effectively and efficiently than a
monopoly.
I am not saying that the government should not be marketing the
product but I believe the farmers in Dauphin—Swan River want
that option. They want an option to market their product on
their own.
It is all about accountability. The constituents of
Dauphin—Swan River are looking for accountability with the new
Canadian Wheat Board accountable to the farmers and not to the
politicians in Ottawa. They want accountability through the
organization's being more transparent and they also want more
options.
The final analysis is that they want the Canadian Wheat Board to
work on behalf of the farmers and not on behalf of big business
and government.
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today as a western Canadian farmer certainly
concerned with the future of our grain industry.
The quality of life on western Canadian farms is definitely tied
to the power of this unaccountable wheat board. There is a
growing dissension with the market status quo on the prairies
today.
If the minister were to hold meetings in the west, he would find
the people attending would most certainly have different things
to say. Our input costs are rising. The end of the Crow
drastically increased our transportation costs. Canadian Wheat
Board grains are backlogged and plugging the system.
As a result, farm returns are now non-existent. As a result of
wheat board policies, we also find that we are not allowed to
bring our feed grains and so on into different marketplaces.
Interprovincial trade and access to these markets is not there
for us.
The hon. member from Manitoba talked about using the port of
Churchill. That may also give us cheaper access into the
maritimes with our feed grains for their poultry and hog
industries. Those types of things are not done now under our
wheat board system.
There are many sections and subsections of Bill C-4 that farmers
in my riding on both sides of this issue agree are fundamentally
wrong, mainly the continuation of the unaccountability to
producers of their board.
The cash purchase clause that they are trying to put in through
Bill C-4 circumvents the final payment values derived through the
pooling system that we have now. The board, as it is shown in
Bill C-4, would consist of 15 directors, 10 elected and placed
at the discretion of the minister. That is a major point. Four
are then appointed by the minister to sit on this board and the
president or CEO is appointed on the recommendation of the
minister.
All these people are there at the discretion of the minister and
can be removed at any time should they go against the minister.
The Canadian Wheat Board also may indemnify from, in layman's
terms remove, any legal liability or responsibility for the
actions of its employees. This section goes on to say that this
also covers the employees' heirs and legal representatives and
would cover all costs, charges and expenses included in amounts
paid to settle or satisfy a judgment. No one is accountable.
This clause certainly protects the board over the producers it
serves.
The Canadian Wheat Board annual operations plan will be
submitted to the minister and will require his approval before it
can be implemented. This certainly would seem to circumvent the
elected portion of this board.
For the record I certainly do not oppose the Canadian Wheat
Board concept in principle. However, when I see the entrenched
lack of accountability of the board in this bill, my
constituents, through me, can do nothing but oppose it until it
can be amended for a positive impact on the depressed industry we
see in western Canada.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise to speak on Bill C-4, an act to amend the
Canadian Wheat Board. I wish it were to be some real amendments
because I think the Canadian Wheat Board is mired in the last
century and has yet to come into this century and we are just
about to go into the next one.
1150
I hoped this organization would have wanted to bring
itself up to date and that the minister would have wanted to
bring the organization up to date to address the global
marketplace in which we now live.
My interpretation of this bill is that it is just a reiteration
of where the board stands. The bill maintains the board with
arm's length monopoly powers when many farmers wish the board
could be opened up. We do live in a free society, and I
emphasize that. But for some reason this government wants to
maintain that every farmer in the three provinces of the prairies
shall sell his grain to the board with no alternative
opportunities. Yet farmers in Ontario can operate differently.
And I thought it was a free country.
I find it rather strange that we would say you have only one
buyer and no other buyer for your grain when there are people
around the world who would like to participate and purchase our
grain. There are buyers in the United States we know would like
to buy our grain, but we have to give it to the wheat board.
That is a travesty and an insult to the farmers on the prairies
who are part of the great bread basket of the world, who have
worked hard to produce a wonderful environment and a way of life
that sometimes involves struggle. And the wheat board sits there
with more and more powers and makes some noise about trying to
get itself modernized, but when we take a look at the intent of
the legislation nothing has happened. The minister knows it but
the minister will not say it. All he wants to do is to entrench
that little monopoly.
If monopoly is not bad enough, we have to add secrecy on top of
that. The auditor general is not allowed to look into the
workings of the wheat board. The legislation prevents him from
doing that. Access to information that allows anybody access to
government documentation allows us to ask questions about
government but we cannot ask questions about the wheat board. The
law says that we cannot ask questions about the wheat board and
have them answered because we are specifically denied access to
the Canadian Wheat Board and what is going on there. Yet it is a
monopoly that is protected by the government.
The Canadian Wheat Board does not report to Parliament. It does
produce an annual report but it does not report to Parliament. It
cannot be investigated by the auditor general. An individual
cannot ask questions through access to information. It is a
complete and absolute closed door shop and we as parliamentarians
and as Canadians have no idea what is going on in that
organization but we are being asked to endorse the status quo.
Surely we as parliamentarians have the right to know what is
going on in that organization.
This perfunctory thing that we are going to have a few elected
members on the board I do not think will change very much because
those members' hands will be tied. The minister will have a
majority on the board. It is fine for the minister to tell us
that this will be great stuff since he will be opening it up for
elections. But if they are a minority on the board, the minister
can get what he wants. That is how he can maintain his ironclad
policy of no information about the board.
I think about the people who have stood up for democratic rights
in Canada. We have seen people in China stand up for democratic
rights who were sent off to jail. The whole world stood up and
claimed it was an outrage that people who stand up for their
rights in China should go to jail and be punished severely by the
state. Yet we have farmers standing up for their rights in this
country who are saying all they want is the right to sell what
they produce to a buyer who is prepared to buy their produce.
They have had to go to jail and what outrage have we seen from
this government?
1155
I have not even heard a murmur from the government as it applies
the heavy arm of the law and drags these people off in chains and
puts them in jail as they stand up for their rights in a
democratic and free society to sell what they produce to a buyer
who wants to buy their product. Is that so bad? Apparently so.
Apparently it is bad because this government is not prepared to
introduce legislation which is going to give them the opportunity
to sell their produce in a free and open market.
NAFTA, the world trade organization and the GATT are all
organizations to build opportunities for free trade where we can
buy and sell our goods, our produce and our services across the
country and around the world, but not the prairie farmers.
Ontario farmers yes, farmers in other provinces yes, but not the
prairie farmer when it comes to producing grain for human
consumptions and grain for export.
It is ludicrous that any government should take this dictatorial
attitude today. It is an offence and an affront to democracy and
to all of Canadians that farmers would be locked into this type
of situation.
I want to let the government know that I am upset because I
believe in openness and accountability in government. I look at
the bill, section 313, which deals with indemnification. This was
a proposal being brought forward by the government. It says
“the corporation shall indemnify present or former directors or
officers who acted—against criminal charges”. I know that
they have backed off a little on committing. Rather than
“shall” indemnify, it is “may” indemnify. To me that is not
a reversal. It just says if we feel that it is in our own
interests we will indemnify these people against criminal actions
if they act honestly and in good faith.
It even goes on to say “—in case of a criminal or
administrative action or proceeding that is enforced by monetary
penalty believed on reasonable grounds that the conduct was
lawful”. Just as long as they think or stand up and say “I
think my conduct is lawful” the board will indemnify them.
I have heard of lots of situations when people have been in
court and have said “I thought I was on the right” and the
court says “no, you were on the wrong”. They are left with a
sentence and the cost of their own defence. But we now find that
the government is going stand behind, if it so chooses, past and
former people who have committed illegal acts, maybe with good
intentions. Lots of people have found themselves on the wrong
side of the law with good intentions. What is the phrase, the
road to that place is paved with good intentions, and we may all
get there but hopefully we don't. Let us hope we do not. Let us
hope the government does not get there either.
I am really concerned about the wheat board and the fact that it
is wrapped in a cloak of secrecy that is ironclad. We can
get no information out of this organization. This government is
doing nothing about it in a free and democratic society. People
who want to do something today get dragged off to jail in irons.
I emphasize in irons. I talked to several RCMP in my riding, one
who had 20 years service on the force. He said there was only one
occasion that he had to drag an offender off to jail in irons.
He was a rather violent offender.
An hon. member: Did he get caned?
Mr. John Williams: I am not sure whether he got caned but
he certainly got locked up in irons and presumably locked up
elsewhere for a long time.
1200
The point is that farmers from Saskatchewan and Manitoba were
taken away in irons. These were non-violent people. We have
seen all kinds of demonstrations on the west coast and elsewhere.
I hope the government takes these points very seriously and
amends the legislation to make it a lot more tolerable than it
is.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the bill. It appears the
government is trying to ram through a bill that will strengthen
the dictatorial powers of the Canadian Wheat Board and will give
it a tremendous amount of power to operate within a scope that is
pleasing to it.
I am not from a prairie part of the country, but it has always
been my assumption that the Canadian Wheat Board had a
responsibility to operate in the best interest of prairie wheat
farmers. If this is the case certainly the bill we are debating
today does not do that. It gives the Canadian Wheat Board the
power to operate in the best interest of itself and of its
political influence in the House.
The government of the day is dominated by members from the
province of Ontario and other provinces that are not involved
with the Canadian Wheat Board. They have a lot of authority in
the debate and will have the power of the vote by sheer numbers.
The government is influenced by a part of the country that has no
particular interest in the Canadian Wheat Board because it does
not apply to the growing of grains in those other provinces. They
will ram through a bill that will impose a detrimental effect on
wheat farmers on the prairies and in the west.
I have some personal knowledge of the operation of the Canadian
Wheat Board. I return for a moment to the fact that it should be
assumed the purpose of the Canadian Wheat Board is to get the
best possible price for grain products for prairie farmers.
If that is the case it would only seem logical the wheat board
would be willing to sell products on behalf of farmers in a
manner that would be in the best interest of farmers, which means
whoever approaches with a proposition that would bring a good
price for the product.
From second hand experience I know that over the last three
years the Canadian Wheat Board was approached to supply large
quantities of barley and grain at the top level of pricing for
the day. These were to be cash deals. There was no government to
government financing involved. It was cash on the barrel head.
The Canadian Wheat Board would not supply the product. It would
not take the products it had in the elevators and sell it through
this additional source of marketing for cash money at a higher
than average price.
1205
To make matters worse, I have absolute knowledge that the sales
offered to the Canadian Wheat Board never went through any of the
other sources of established marketing of the Canadian Wheat
Board. They were lost to other countries that supplied the same
product to customers willing to pay cash to the Canadian Wheat
Board, if it would sell it, but it would not sell it.
They not only lost several cash deals. They not only lost
finding another source of marketing for their product in addition
to what they already had. They not only lost the opportunity to
have a clean sale with no government financing required. They
lost the sale, period. It never happened. The purchase went to
another country.
I have been in business all my life, not in the grain business
but in business. If those in the private sector have a product
to sell, they want to sell it where they get the best price for
it, the cleanest deal and the best benefit for their business.
Certainly that is not the case with the Canadian Wheat Board. It
cannot be the case with the Canadian Wheat Board based on the
examples I have expressed today.
It begs a question. How on earth could a government, which
happens to be the Liberal government of the day and the Tory
government before it, support an organization like the Canadian
Wheat Board which has shown by example that it does not work in
the best interest of prairie farmers?
I am happy to see there are Liberal members in the House today
who have a direct interest in this matter and who have a
responsibility.
Some hon. members: One Liberal.
Mr. Dick Harris: Oh, one Liberal. That shows just how
much the Liberal government is interested in what the people of
Canada have to say. We are truly representing the farmers from
the prairie provinces over which the Canadian Wheat Board has
jurisdiction. It shows how much the Liberal government cares
about representation on this side of the House on this very
important issue.
We are talking about the livelihood of western Canadian grain
farmers. We are talking about the livelihood of families. We
are talking about the buoyancy of the economy in the prairie
provinces. Those farmers depend on good prices for their
product. They depend on good markets for their product.
In huge numbers they would like to have the ability to grow
agricultural products and sell them without having the government
in their face every step of the way and so that they get maximum
value for the fruits of their labour.
This has to do with rights. We are talking about the right of
Canadian citizens to work hard, to toil long hours at their
occupation, which in this case is farming, and to expect the
harder they work the more they will be rewarded. Is that too
much to ask?
Bill C-4 takes away that right. It gives the Canadian Wheat
Board more power to say to prairie farmers that it does not care
how hard they work.
It does not care how big their farm loans are. It does not care
how many kids they have to educate. It does not care how many
mouths they have to feed.
1210
The government will tell them how much money they can make from
what they do for a living. That is what it is telling prairie
farmers by way of the bill. That is simply unacceptable. I am
embarrassed for the Liberal member in the House today, who is not
from the prairie provinces incidentally. The member sits and
represents the government on this line of thought. It takes away
our right to succeed as a result of our hard work and labour.
The government has been famous for being in the faces of
Canadians and holding them back from success and opportunity.
This is simply one more example of that.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I rise on a point
of order. Earlier there was a question from a member of the
Reform Party directed to the member for Essex—Kent with
reference to the export licence for wheat and barley. I have a
copy of that export licence and I would like to table it.
While I am on my feet, in terms of transparency of records, I
refer members opposite to the Canadian Wheat Board annual report
which clearly shows the wheat board has obtained—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member
wishes to deposit this paper.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are debating a matter of
very grave importance to the people of western Canada. We are
debating legislation over which people can go to jail.
For the last two hours there have never been more than two
Liberal members in the House and that is shameful.
Some hon. members: Shame.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today on
the report stage of Bill C-4, an Act to amend the Canadian Wheat
Board Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
The approach I took in examining this bill is that it
concerns—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry to interrupt
the hon. member, but the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands
is rising on a point of order.
[English]
Mr. Lee Morrison: Madam Speaker, we do not have a quorum.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Ring the bells.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): We now have a quorum.
1215
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Madam Speaker, as I was saying before the call
for a quorum, I am pleased to speak today on the report stage of
the Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act and to make
consequential amendments to other Acts.
I approached this bill by asking myself what type of impact
this kind of a bill would have on Quebec. Certainly, at this point
western farmers are the main ones concerned, but I have analyzed
the bill within this context: what sort of comments, suggestions,
proposals for amendments would the farmers of Quebec have to make
if the agricultural sector in Quebec were affected by this bill?
I was struck first of all by the dichotomy surrounding the
necessity of organizing the wheat trade. In my region, no one
denies the pertinence of this. However, there are significant
elements missing between the desire to organize the wheat trade
properly and what this bill contains.
The first thing is that the bill does not give sufficient
power to farmers or board members, to those who make their living
selling their wheat, to those who have to live with the effects of
government policies in this area.
In this bill, could the government not have used the
opportunity to make sure the farmers were given a voice, so that
the reserve fund would truly be a management tool?
We have experienced this in other areas where, because sufficient
reserves were not made for hard times, the money is often taken from the
consolidated revenue fund, and, when this is done, the people end up
paying, even if they have nothing to do with this type of business.
The best example of that is what the Conservatives made us go
through with unemployment insurance several years ago. There were no
reserves, we had terrible deficits, and people who are contributing to
employment insurance today are still paying for this lack of foresight.
We must avoid this type of situation in the area of the wheat
sales. We could very well go through this type of experience again in
the coming years because, we know from past experience that the wheat
market can be very volatile. There can be some very good years and also
some very bad years.
Everything is linked to crop results in other countries and the buying
power of other countries, to international politics. So there should
have been a reserve fund ensuring solid management to balance variations
between good years and bad years, and there is nothing on this in the
bill.
At the beginning of my presentation, I said that I would address
this bill by looking at its impact on Quebec, and there is a significant
impact on oilseeds management. In Quebec, oilseeds represent a promising
market. It is a market for which production could be increased in the
future.
When we look at this bill and when we consider that it could cover
oilseeds, this is perhaps not the way of the future for Quebec,
precisely because there are markets here, such as linseed or other
products, that could be developed and that would become mixed up in a
type of management that is not suitable for them. Interesting and well
structured markets already exist for those products, and these markets
are working well. This bill would raise a barrier in a sector that is
already operational.
So things should not be mixed up. We should avoid adding barriers
in areas that already work and we should ensure that the Canadian Wheat
Board does not intervene in areas that are already well structured.
This is an important issue for Quebec farmers, and this is worth
considering because we all know that agriculture is undergoing
tremendous changes.
In the past, there has been a lot of specialization in agriculture,
since there was a sort of division in production: dairy products were
mostly the specialty of Ontario and Quebec, especially Quebec; other
products were the specialty of the west, and so on.
1220
But with the expected changes to international agreements and
the desire to diversify production in the various regions of
Canada, we must make sure that we leave the door open to the future
and do not put in place structures, legislation, and regulatory
requirements that would then stand in the way of development in
these sectors. We know that when bureaucracy gets a hold on a
sector, it is very difficult to dislodge it. It would perhaps be
better to do so something about this now.
There are other aspects to this bill that are of concern to
Quebec's agricultural sector.
They are not in line with Quebec's agricultural tradition. This
tradition includes the Union des producteurs agricoles, a strong
union highly representative of the agricultural sector and one
which works in collaboration with government, which expresses its
viewpoint and which is accustomed to being able to operate with a
certain degree of transparency that is missing from the bill before
us. If this spirit had been respected for matters such as access
to information, real transparency would be possible.
There would be a way of making information available, to ensure that
those affected by Canadian Wheat Board management have access to it so
they can assess whether the board is relevant and doing a good job and,
on the basis of the information available, make representations to their
elected representatives and to the government, and have something on
which to base their assessment. There is no such provision in this bill.
In Quebec, the agricultural tradition is such that the federal
government would have wanted to ensure, for instance, that the directors
are elected by the producers, by those representing the industry. There
is no such provision in the legislation.
While appearing to be open, the government is maintaining
significant control over the Canadian Wheat Board. The terms and
conditions for electing directors are set by the government. The
president of the board is appointed by the governor in council on the
minister's recommendation.
Does that not leave the door open to partisanship? Would it not have
been possible to find a way of ensuring that the president is selected
without any appearance of conflict of interest or partisanship?
Those are some of the many questions we can ask ourselves about
this bill as we consider a rather substantial amendment. Some major
changes are being proposed, and this legislation will not be reviewed
for a while. It will affect Canadian trade in wheat and several other
products, as we can see and as I referred to earlier.
We must make sure it is a framework law that will facilitate
operations in Canada's agricultural sector, that will facilitate the
wheat trade, and that will allow the various regions to develop new
products without having to face administrative obstacles or restrictions
we can no longer afford in the current context of free trade.
All in all, this is a bill which had to be introduced. It would
have been possible to make it acceptable with a number of changes. The
government made some efforts, but not enough.
If the government does not support amendments—particularly the
ones that we are proposing—that would make for more democratic and
longer term management of the Canadian Wheat Board, so as to even out
the good and the bad economic years, the Bloc Quebecois will have to
oppose the bill.
I urge the government majority to listen to our arguments and
accept those that are relevant. I hope we can state our views during the
debate on the other groups of motions, particularly in these areas, and
convince the government to adopt the best possible legislation for
Canada's wheat trade.
[English]
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today during report stage to
contribute the very important debate on this bill. It is
important to me for a number of reasons.
I represent the constituency of Saskatoon—Humboldt which has a
significant rural portion.
1225
This bill is going to have a dramatic impact not only on the
rural component of the constituency but the urban as well.
Although Saskatoon is a growing city with a vibrant economy,
agriculture is still a core industry in Saskatchewan. Therefore
the bill will affect not only the rural part of my constituency
but the entire province.
Although I have lived in Saskatoon since the early 1980s and I
represent Saskatoon—Humboldt, I am originally from a family farm
in Unity, Saskatchewan. All my life I have been actively
involved in farming until I got into politics. I believe this
bill will impact not only on all my constituents but it goes deep
enough to affect my family.
There is a great deal of concern on the prairies about the
contents of this bill and of course it is very well founded. The
amendments that have been advanced by my Reform colleagues would
improve Bill C-4 and address the concerns farmers are raising
about the bill.
One need only travel throughout the constituencies of
Saskatchewan and into the small towns and coffee shops to hear
the discussion on the bill and the widespread opposition to it.
The opposition is from many angles. However, I would like to
specifically address Motion No. 5 which was submitted by my
colleague from Prince George—Peace River. That motion would
allow the entire board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board
to be elected which along with the minister would decide who
would be president of the board.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Madam Speaker, on a
point of order, I think I just heard my hon. colleague say that
he wanted to discuss Motion No. 5. I thought that we were still
discussing Motion No. 1. I would encourage the debate to go in
that direction.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I would ask the hon.
member to please confine his comments to Motion No. 1, which is
being discussed right now.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Madam Speaker, Motion No. 1 is with
respect to returns that producers will get for their commodity.
This has a direct bearing on that because it will affect the
returns.
This debate is perhaps one of the most important debates that
will occur in my term in this Parliament as the representative of
the constituents of Saskatoon—Humboldt. I find the remark that
my comments were straying slightly beyond the scope of what was
strictly being debated somewhat obstinate but not surprising
considering who it came from.
To continue, the current bill the way it stands, if passed,
would allow 10 directors to be elected by the farmers, but the
remaining 5 directors of the Canadian Wheat Board would be
appointed by the minister, of course one being the president. It
would seem logical that there would be opposition to that when a
full third of the board is being appointed by the minister. That
would ensure that the government's grip on the activities of the
Canadian Wheat Board is maintained and the desire for
accountability and for farmers to have control and direction over
the wheat board through a farmer elected board is circumvented by
allowing the appointment of members by the minister.
Furthermore, if experience tells us anything, Liberal ministers
have not been shy in the past about handing out plum patronage
positions to their party faithful.
To illustrate just how bad this can get, I would like to cite
some examples that have taken place so far this year. The
Liberals have made 510 prime appointments to date to the Senate
and various boards, agencies and commissions.
1230
This practice of patronage was denounced by the Liberals when
they sat in opposition to the Mulroney government but now that
they are in power, they are not only carrying on the practice of
political patronage appointments, but taking it to extremes.
As unbelievable as it is, it seems that they are even worse than
Mulroney with their political patronage appointments. I would
suggest that the Liberals are truly number one at doling out
parliamentary pork.
Here are just a few examples: defeated Liberal MP Mary Clancy
appointed to consul general in Boston, the Prime Minister's
legislative assistant, Graeme Clark, was appointed as ambassador
to Peru and Bolivia—
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point
of order. This member is far off base in terms of talking about
Motion No. 1. He should be talking about what the motion is
about. What does this have to do with Motion No.1?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon.
parliamentary secretary has a very good point. We would ask the
member for Saskatoon—Humboldt to get to the point and stay
there.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, the point I am making is
directly relevant because they are going to be allowed to appoint
the members of the board of directors. I think we have to look
at past examples of their appointments to see what we can expect.
Therefore it has direct relevance and I am simply pointing out
examples such as the former president of the women's commission,
Joan Koury, appointed to the IRB and former Liberal MP, Ron
Fewchuk, appointed—
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point
of order. If the member would refer to the point of order, he
would recognize very clearly that the points he is raising are
not on the topic in terms of Motion No. 1.
This ridiculousness can be carried too far. This member is
filibustering and he is not even on topic.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on the same point of order regarding the issue of
relevance, I would call the attention of the Chair to Motion No.
1 where it says that such an organization will have a very
significant effect on the producers of grain. It must therefore
have the securing of the best financial return to them as its
object and first priority must be accountable to them for its
performance.
I would consider that the whole issue of the board of directors
is very relevant to Motion No. 1.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Chair would
appreciate it if the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt would confine
his comments to the appointments to be made to the board of
directors of the Canadian Wheat Board. The hon. member will then
be relevant.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: Mr. Speaker, that is fair enough. My
point is that the blatant examples of patronage from the past
leave farmers wondering just how many Liberal cronies this
government is going to appoint to the Canadian Wheat Board.
Of course, these appointments will make the appointees beholden
to their political masters since the government has ensured that
the president of the Canadian Wheat Board will be an appointee.
They have ensured their control over the organization of the
Canadian Wheat Board. That is the fear and the concern of
western Canadian farmers.
Furthermore, their ability to appoint the members of the board
of directors would ensure that the board of the Canadian Wheat
Board is under that type of influence.
On the other hand, if Motion No. 5 of my colleague from Prince
George—Peace River would be adopted, that would ensure that the
board of the Canadian Wheat Board is democratic and accountable
to its electors.
Furthermore, these electors in consultation with the minister
would select the president rather than the minister appointing
who the president is going to be. This is a fair and equitable
amendment which I am hopeful at least the other parties would be
able to support.
Neville Nankivell in the Financial Post had some
interesting comments about the election of the board as it
presently stands under Bill C-4. He wrote that because the
government still appoints directors, it will create a
quasi-advisory group rather than a proper independent board of
directors that should have the power to hire and fire the CEO.
The way the bill currently stands, that power will not be in the
hands of the farmers, which is just further evidence of the type
of control that the minister will have over them.
1235
Nankivell also wrote that there is almost universal condemnation
among farm groups of the government's intention to appoint the
CEO. Yet the Liberals are determined in their desire to be able
to do that. As I stated earlier, it is for one reason. It is so
they can continue with their political patronage appointments.
That comes as no surprise.
With Bill C-4 the Liberals want a board of directors which is
mired in the past, not one that is structured to meet the demands
of the 21st century.
In fact when Ted Allen of the United Grain Growers appeared
before the committee, he said that Bill C-4 is fundamentally
flawed and is an attempt to make time stand still or even turn
back the clock.
Western Canadian farmers need to look to the future and not be
mired in the past by regressive Liberal policies which are based
upon political patronage appointments.
In order to strengthen the measure of accountability, we also
need to bring the Canadian Wheat Board under the purview of the
Access to Information Act and the auditor general. Bill C-4 does
not propose to do that.
The election of the board is certainly important, but of equal
importance is the scrutiny of its operations by the public and
the federal government's watchdog.
However, this is not the only organization which the government
has exempted from scrutiny. Canada Post and a litany of other
crown corporations are not subject to access to information
requests.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner: Do you mean there is another wheat
board?
Mr. Jim Pankiw: There are lots of them.
Indeed, my colleague from Nanaimo—Alberni has been an advocate
of opening up these organizations to scrutiny. He has advanced
private members' bills on the subject and he has raised our
awareness about the importance of not allowing government
organizations to operate behind a veil of secrecy. I hope that
his efforts in this area will continue. I know that his concerns
certainly apply to the Canadian Wheat Board as presently
structured. I urge all members to consider that when they oppose
this bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is the House ready
for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Pursuant to
agreement made on Wednesday, November 19, 1997, the motion on
Group No. 1 is deemed put and a recorded division deemed
requested and deemed deferred.
We will now proceed
to Group No. 2.
[Translation]
Pursuant to agreement made on Wednesday, November 19, 1997,
all motions in Group No. 2 are deemed put and seconded. This group
contains Motions Nos. 2, 31 and 41.
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.) moved:
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC) moved:
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak to the
second group of amendments.
As I said in my intervention on the first group, which comprised
only one motion, the amendment put forward by my hon. colleague
from Yorkton—Melville to create a preamble, it is very
confusing. I am sure it is not only confusing to us, but it must
be confusing for the viewing public to follow how these 48
amendments have been grouped. However, we will try to work our
way through them.
Group No. 2 consists of three amendments. Motion No. 2 is an
amendment put forward by me. Motion No. 31 was also put forward
by me. Motion No. 41 was put forward by my hon. colleague from
the Progressive Conservative Party.
In speaking to these three motions, Motion No. 2 quite simply
would delete the clause that makes Bill C-4 binding on the
provinces.
1240
In actual fact this clause would block a province from making
changes which could be demanded by the majority of farmers in
that province.
The official opposition believes quite strongly that this is
undemocratic. We point to a possible example in the future where
one province might want to bring forward its own wheat board or
wheat marketing board. For example, Alberta might choose at some
time in the future to have an Alberta wheat marketing board
similar in structure to what exists for the farmers in Ontario.
The case can really be put that by having this binding on the
provinces, this would prevent a province such as Alberta,
Saskatchewan or Manitoba from doing that.
This particular clause further entrenches the inequity and the
inequality of the Canadian Wheat Board. What one province is
free to do, in this case Ontario has its own wheat marketing
board, another province in western Canada would be denied from
doing.
The second motion in Group No. 2 is motion 31, also put forward
by me. It has to do with removing all the references to the
contingency fund. This is where it really gets odd as to how the
exact amendments are grouped. This particular amendment No. 31
goes hand in glove with amendments and Motions Nos. 25, 26 and 27
which are found in another group. All of those amendments deal
with deleting any reference in Bill C-4 of the contingency fund.
At committee and while travelling throughout western Canada and
speaking to farmers and farm groups in my riding and other
ridings, it has become painfully obvious that the majority of
farmers view this contingency fund as simply another tax on
already overtaxed farmers. That is why we have put forward these
four amendments that would delete any reference to the
contingency fund, the farmer supported, the farmer paid for
contingency fund which currently exists in Bill C-4.
It is interesting to note that one of my colleagues earlier
referred to the need to survey his constituents, his farmers in
his riding. He referred to the fact that he is prevented from
doing this at the moment because of the postal strike.
I did survey the farmers in Prince George—Peace River when this
bill's predecessor, Bill C-72, was before the House last winter.
It was interesting to note that while the farmers in my riding
were, as I think they are across western Canada, very split on
this highly divisive issue of reform of the Canadian Wheat Board,
the one thing they were not split on was the issue of the
contingency fund.
The one question I asked was would you support a compulsory
farmer check off to help establish a capital base for a
contingency fund? An overwhelming 76.7% of respondents, the
actual farmers, Canadian Wheat Board farmers in Prince
George—Peace River, said no they would not support that concept.
There are other polls which other members have done and that
other entities have done across western Canada that would
indicate a similar conclusion. This contingency fund, as long as
the Canadian Wheat Board remains mandatory, a compulsory,
government state run organization which farmers do not have the
chance or freedom to choose the option of marketing their product
outside of the Canadian Wheat Board, farmers are going to resist
very strenuously another input cost being hoisted upon them in
the form of a contingency fund, especially when it is not defined
in the act in Bill C-4 how much it is going to be allowed to grow
to, how quickly they are going to accumulate the funds, how much
it is going to be taken off every time the farmer markets wheat
or barley through the board.
It is a major concern. This is why it is accompanying Motions
Nos. 25, 26, 27 which are in a subsequent group. We need to pass
that and remove any reference to the contingency fund.
How much time do I have, Mr. Speaker?
1245
An hon. member: Too much.
Mr. Jay Hill: The hon. member from the governing party
said “too much”. It has become painfully obvious that
throughout the debate the Liberals do not want to see the bill
properly debated. That is why they hustled it off to committee
without a proper second reading. That is why we went through the
charade—
An hon. member: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The
member is not on the topic.
Mr. Jay Hill: I am being very relevant to the main issue
at stake here. For the hon. member across the way to take the
issue so lightly points to the problem.
Over here we have members who have grown up on farms and farmed
year after year in western Canada. They are speaking out on an
issue of vital importance to western Canadian grain producers.
Over there we have people like the hon. member who treat the
issue frivolously.
I will briefly address Motion No. 41 put forward by my hon.
colleague. The motion would delete the exclusion clause from the
bill. We run into a problem here. I support the motion as put
forward, but we must realize it goes hand in glove with a motion
to delete the inclusion clause.
One great argument put forward by government members both in the
limited debate in the House and at committee was that when a
clause excludes certain types of grain from Canadian Wheat Board
jurisdiction, in fairness there must also be an inclusion clause.
Hon. members from the opposition responded by saying that was
fine.
However, there is so much resistance and so much fear of the
inclusion clause in the grain sector that we have said, if that
is the strongest argument of the government against bringing
forward an inclusion clause that hardly any farmer would support,
let us take them both out. Motion No. 41 is part of Group No. 2
and moves to strike the exclusion clause. It must be viewed in
conjunction with the subsequent motion to delete the inclusion
clause.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to rise once again on Bill C-4 and to deal with the
three amendments in Group No. 2. One of them is mine and two are
from hon. members of the Reform Party. I promise to be relevant,
as relevant as members on the government side have been. I
promise not to be boring. I hope that will please the Chair.
I will clarify a couple of points. I do not believe anybody on
this side of the House necessarily wants to see the demise of the
Canadian Wheat Board. It is very important to recognize that. We
are simply saying that we have the opportunity to make this the
best possible legislation available so that western Canadian
producers are able to take advantage of new techniques and new
opportunities within legislation. The legislation as put forward
does not allow that to happen. It is simply a regurgitation of
the existing legislation with some minor amendments.
Usually when legislation is being proposed there is at least one
segment of the society affected that would totally support it. I
can honestly say the government in its wisdom has alienated just
about everyone. There is no one who totally supports the
legislation.
I asked a number of witnesses in committee whether the
divisiveness among producers in western Canada would stop,
whether they would be happy to go forward with the legislation.
To a person, including those in support of Bill C-4, they said it
would not stop divisiveness, that it would not stop the anger
with respect to the controls Bill C-4 would place on producers in
western Canada.
1250
I will speak to the three motions put forward in Group No. 2.
The first one, the deletion of clause 2, put forward by the hon.
member for Peace River, says that the act is binding on Her
Majesty in the right of Canada or a province.
I also clarify that when dealing with provinces I do not believe
anybody on this side of the House would suggest members of
government should not have the opportunity to debate any piece of
legislation or to put their opinions forward on any piece of
legislation, no matter where they come from. Whether they come
from Prince Edward Island or from Vancouver Island, it is very
important for elected members of the House to have the
opportunity to put forward their opinions.
I hope Canadians realize the legislation affects only producers
from Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and a very small portion of
British Columbia. When individuals from Prince Edward Island,
Newfoundland or Quebec, my good friends from Quebec, deal with
the legislation I would expect them to listen to and understand
the views put forth by those people who come forward.
I did not see that happen in committee. I saw people put
forward their concerns and their views, but they were not
listened to. If they had been listened to, the amendments we are
speaking to right now would have passed at committee stage.
It was an opportunity for me to be at a committee hearing for
the first time. I actually thought we could include better
amendments that would make the legislation workable. It did not
happen for the simple reason it was a foregone conclusion. The
witnesses were in effect wasting their breath in speaking to us.
It would have been nicer if we had listened and taken their
concerns under advisement.
The provinces that are being affected should be listened to, the
people of those provinces should be listened to and the
provincial governments of those provinces should be listened to.
Two of the three provincial governments accept the fact that
there should be some major changes. One unfortunately decided
that the particular legislation should be maintained.
The second motion was spoken to most eloquently by my colleague
in the Reform Party. It deals with the contingency clause. It
is important for Canadians to understand what it is all about.
There are three pillars to the Canadian Wheat Board. The first
pillar is that of pooling. We will get into that a little later
when we talk about the options or the opt in and opt out and the
opportunity of cash buying. That is not being dealt with in this
amendment. It will be dealt with later.
The second pillar of the Canadian Wheat Board is monopoly. We
have talked a lot about monopoly purchasing and the selling of
one commodity, particularly wheat. We will get into that as well
at a later date when considering other amendments.
The third pillar of the Canadian Wheat Board, which is not
necessarily a bad one, is that of government guarantees. The
reason we have the Canadian Wheat Board is that the federal
government guaranteed producers initial payments and adjusted
payments.
The reason I mention this is that the contingency fund being
proposed in the legislation concerns not only me but producers.
The reason it concerns producers is that there is an opportunity
for the Canadian Wheat Board and the government to charge
producers, whether it be per bushel or per tonne, whether it be
$1 or whether it be 10¢. We do not know that yet. That will be
struck by the board. It will have the opportunity via a tax to
have a contingency fund that could be in excess of hundreds of
millions of dollars. It could be half a billion dollars if that
is the way the Canadian Wheat Board wants to operate.
The danger is that ultimately if there is a contingency fund in
those numbers the Canadian Wheat Board or the government could
say there is no need for particular guarantees from governments.
Guarantees could be funded out of a contingency fund. This is a
very serious danger to the existing Canadian Wheat Board and
certainly to producers themselves.
1255
There are some advantages and disadvantages, but the majority of
people who spoke to us, whether pro or against the Canadian Wheat
Board, indicated their desire not to have a contingency fund. I
have talked to producers, as have other members on this side of
the House, who had serious concerns about the contingency fund.
In this amendment we are saying that the contingency fund should
be removed from the legislation and the guarantees of government
should simply be put back into place.
The government wants a Canadian Wheat Board which is subject to
the controls of government, of its executive officer and of
members of the board. If 10 of 15 board members are to be elected
it does not mean the Canadian Wheat Board will be accountable to
producers. It will still be accountable to the minister
responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. It is written in the
legislation that the minister has the final authority and say. We
should not be confused by the fact that 10 of 15 members will be
accountable.
It should be made a truly elected board by having 15 of the 15
members elected by producers. It could be made a truly
democratic process by having the board hire the chief executive
officer. That makes sense corporately and has to be done.
My amendment speaks to the exclusion clause. As the member for
Peace River indicated, it is a marriage between two clauses, an
exclusion clause and an inclusion clause.
In Bill C-72, the predecessor bill, inclusion was never
mentioned. Now it is in this bill. When asked at committee why
there was an inclusion clause, the answer was simple: if we have
exclusion then we have to have inclusion. It was not a good
answer.
We asked people who appeared before committee if they would be
prepared to give up their exclusion rights to get rid of
inclusion. We literally heard from dozens of organizations and
only three did not want it. Almost unanimously they said that in
order to get rid of inclusion they would give up exclusion.
The motion has been put forward to get rid of exclusion. The
motion should pass. We will deal with inclusion when that motion
is being debated.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
thank you for giving me the floor so promptly.
Bill C-4 is a major bill for western grain producers, so much
so that consideration of the bill had to be spread over more than
a year. In its great wisdom and clarity of vision, the Liberal
government had planned to have Bill C-72 passed during the 35th
Parliament, but the early call for a general election on June 2
forced us to scrap everything that had been done. This meant a
considerable waste of money.
I would, however, like to emphasize that, on the agriculture
and agri-food committee, we heard the views of scores of people.
The large majority of them expressed discontent with the wording of
Bill C-4, which will, according to the Liberals, modify the
Canadian Wheat Board Act from a to z.
In our opinion, this is a very tiny step forward, and as a
result I can announce to you, to the great chagrin of the hon.
member for Malpeque, that we will support this amendment to Bill
C-4 for a number of different and important reasons.
1300
One of the reasons is as follows. I would like to know—and
from you directly, Mr. Speaker—why the Prime Minister gave
responsibility for the Canadian Wheat Board to a minister other
than the minister of agriculture. Is the new minister of
agriculture too incompetent to manage the Canadian Wheat Board on
his own? That is my question. Does the Prime Minister not have
confidence in him?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on a point of
order.
[English]
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order, the member from Frontenac is getting into inflammatory
remarks against the current minister of agriculture.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Chair would
consider that to be a point of debate, not a point of order.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would invite my friend
from Prince Edward Island, the hon. member for Malpeque, to listen,
which is no mean feat in his case since you cannot tell him
anything. However, he can learn a thing or two from the member for
Frontenac—Mégantic, which is what I want.
So, the government, under the Prime Minister, gave
responsibility for this bill to the Minister of Natural Resources,
on the grounds that he comes from the west. I have more fingers on
my hands than there are Liberal members from the West in this
House, so he did not have a choice if they were going to give it to
someone from the West. So he gave it to the Minister of Natural
Resources.
I suggested to my friend from Malpeque that the auditor
general, who is above all reproach and whose appointment was
approved by all parties in this House, should go and root through
the books of the Canadian Wheat Board. The Liberals turned the
suggestion down saying that a group of auditors from the west—one
of the famous accounting firms like Raymond, Chabot, Martin,
Paré in Quebec—could do the audit. In the West it appears to be
Touche Ross & Co.
My Reform colleagues went at the Prime Minister
himself on several occasions because it appears that he gets a lot
of financial support from these groups of auditors.
When an organization like the Canadian Wheat Board has its
books audited, only the invoices presented are audited. The
auditors find that it matches the invoice, but do not check if the
invoice is valid. Do you follow me?
I think that the Reform Party, the Bloc Quebecois and all the
opposition parties in this House agree that the auditor general should
audit the books. I made some calculations. The Canadian Wheat Board will
be managing sales representing between $6 billion and $7 billion. That
is a substantial amount. A 1% error would cost $600 million. That is
quite a lot of money.
You will tell me that I am exaggerating. I agree, 1% is too high.
Take 1% of 1%, or one thousandth. That is $6 million. I am pretty sure
that if one thousandth of the sales were poorly managed, western farm
producers would lose $6 million without anyone noticing.
But the auditor general, with his flair, with his team and with his
expertise, would figure out in no time that something is wrong and would
not hesitate to single out individuals in his annual report or to point
out any inappropriate spending.
Then we could rub Liberals' noses in it.
1305
As I said, this is a step forward, but a very tiny step indeed. The
board of directors will include 10 elected members; 10 western grain
producers will sit on the board. But five other directors, two of whom
will be major players, will be appointed by the governor in council.
I take this opportunity to submit to the hon. member for Malpeque,
who is running this debate for the government, that the Standing
Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food should be consulted. I am not
asking that it be given a veto, just that it be consulted. The hon.
member for Malpeque does not want to. He does not even trust—I am
afraid my name is about to get crossed off of his list of friends, but
we will see what can be negotiated later—the members of the Standing
Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food.
This brings me to the appointments in question. This morning's
papers report that the Prime Minister revoked an appointment made by his
predecessor, Lester B. Pearson.
Mr. Denis Coderre: On a point of order.
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: I only have two minutes to go.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for Bourassa.
Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, I understand that my friend,
the member for Frontenac—Mégantic, can get quite worked up—I'm
not sure which hormones are involved—but I think we should stick
to the point. What Canadians want to hear is his position on—
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In the opinion of the
Chair, the debate of the hon. member for Frontenac—Mégantic was
relevant and we will add that time to the hon. member's time.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would be grateful if you
were to allow me the two minutes I have left.
This morning, the Prime Minister expelled a Liberal senator
appointed by Lester B. Pearson. I will not name him out of respect
for his children. The fellow will earn $500,000 for doing nothing.
This is coming out of our pockets.
In my riding, I hear about these appointments all the time.
Voters turfed out Mary Clancy. Not two weeks had gone by before
the Prime Minister found her a spot paying more than MPs' wages.
Voters showed Francis Leblanc the door because of the treatment of
the unemployed in his riding. The Minister of Human Resources
Development will get him to administer the employment insurance
fund. This did not—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The member for Bourassa
on a point of order.
Mr. Denis Coderre: Mr. Speaker, you know what I am good at.
If you want us to start rhyming off the names of members of the
Bloc Quebecois who have demonstrated their incompetence rather than
focus on the present debate, that is fine by me.
But the voters in my riding of Bourassa want to know what is
going on with this bill and I would ask the member, who is perhaps
not often in his riding, to stick to important issues, in this case
the Canadian Wheat Board.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In so far as the
government will be appointing members to the board of directors
of the Canadian Wheat Board, debate concerning the record of the
government's past appointments to previous boards is relevant.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, you can see as well as I
that the rookie member for Bourassa lacks experience and is doing
everything he can to distract us, to keep us from criticizing the
blunders of the Liberal Party, headed by the member for
Saint-Maurice, who can sometimes be inherently devious.
No wonder the government—
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): With respect, I
think the hon. member for Frontenac—Mégantic has gone a bit
too far this time. With respect, I would ask that his most recent
remark concerning the hon. member for Saint-Maurice be withdrawn.
1310
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien: You are probably right, Mr. Speaker.
Being bothered regularly by the member for Bourassa, I went a bit
too far. The member for Saint-Maurice, the Prime Minister, is not
inherently devious.
To get back to the appointments, the former mayor of Quebec
City ran up against my colleague, the hon. member for Québec, in
the 1993 election. He lost the election and three days later—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry, but the hon.
member's time has expired.
Resuming debate with the hon. member for Simcoe—Grey.
[English]
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to address remarks by two members opposite.
First to the hon. member for Brandon—Souris regarding his
comments, I found them rather insulting and borderline prejudice.
For him to suggest for one moment that as members of Parliament
we are not supposed to deal with national issues, with a $6
billion industry that this government backs and because we are
from one specific area or another, those comments are nothing
more than prejudice. Absolutely unacceptable.
With regard to his comments of inclusion, as a new member of
this committee I did listen. I listened to my Reform colleagues.
I listened to the witnesses and I listened to Conservative
colleagues. Unlike the member for Brandon—Souris, I took back
some of the answers the people had given me. There was a very
simple statement made. What was best for the farmers was
inclusion. That is why it is there, not specific special
interests groups that do not necessarily represent certain
numbers of farmers. That is what is best for the farmers. That
is why it stands.
With regard to the member for Frontenac—Mégantic, he should
hang his head in shame. He should be embarrassed for
the comments he made. To insult the minister of agriculture
completely unacceptable. To sit here and question
the integrity of the prime minister is also unacceptable, likely
one of the respected politicians in the entire world and
certainly in Canada. Those types of statements are completely
unacceptable in this House.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on a point of order, do you know what the biggest insult
is right now? The minister responsible for the wheat board and the
agriculture minister are not here.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member will
know we do not refer to the absence or the presence of other hon.
members. The hon. member would also know that is not a point of
order. Resuming debate.
Mr. Paul Bonwick: Mr. Speaker, these types of shenanigans
my Reform colleagues are pulling are completely disrespectful of
this House. They too should be completely ashamed of the tactics
they use. They are not only embarrassing themselves but they are
embarrassing their constituents. I suggest they reflect on their
actions.
As I mentioned, the comments directed at our minister of
agriculture and our prime minister are completely unacceptable.
Again, the member should be extremely ashamed of himself.
He was asking some pointed questions with regard to why the
minister of agriculture was not overseeing the Canadian Wheat
Board discussions, the same questions he asked at committee. He
received completely detailed and very acceptable answers. Then
he brings those questions to the House for no more reason than
grandstanding and insulting members when he knows they are not
here to defend themselves.
The Canadian Wheat Board is good for farmers. The inclusion
clause is good for farmers, despite what these colleagues across
the floor are saying.
On that note, I request a answer from the member for
Brandon—Souris. Are we not entitled to discuss issues relevant
to Canada in an industry which encompasses $6 billion dollars or
should we just sit here and remain quite?
1315
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
would like the hon. member to refer to Hansard because he
asked the question—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): With respect, that
was a point of debate and perhaps that debate would be best
behind the curtains. Resuming debate, the hon. member for
Palliser.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in the next grouping of motions that are
before the House this afternoon. Specifically, we are looking at
Motions Nos. 2, 31 and 41 as has already been outlined by
previous speakers.
As I listened carefully to the mover of two of those three
motions, it was clear that on Motion No. 2 what the mover of the
motion is seeking is the ability of a province to opt out of the
Canadian Wheat Board. Motion No. 31 deals with a contingency
fund and Motion No. 41 deals with the exclusion clause as well
and obviously the inclusion clause is part of both of those, as
has been pointed out.
What is beginning to become clear is now that we are past the
words in the preamble, the support by the members in the
opposition for the Canadian Wheat Board is like Liberal support
on the prairies, a mile wide and an inch deep. That is
particularly true of some of the speeches that have been coming
forward.
With respect to Motion No. 2, clearly what is at play here would
be, as the member for Prince George—Peace River pointed out,
that a province such as Alberta could opt out. Obviously a move
like that would totally cripple the Canadian Wheat Board. We
certainly would oppose any reference to an opting out provision.
Of the three motions that are before us, Motion No. 31 is
critical. It would delete clause 8 which deals with using any
profits from bonds, debentures, notes or other evidence of
indebtedness in payment of expenses incurred by the corporation
or putting money into the contingency fund.
It seems to me that some members of this House, in particular
members of the Official Opposition, want to eliminate any
reference to a contingency fund and so does our caucus, but I
think we have different motives in mind. What is at stake here
is to delete any reference to the contingency fund and not to
have any borrowing contingencies from the federal government. In
other words, the Canadian Wheat Board would stand or fall on its
own.
We are not supportive of that. We do support the wheat board
and recognize that there needs to be government guarantees along
this line. In fact, we want to see the government guarantees be
the same as they have always been for the Canadian Wheat Board.
This has not been a big drain on Canadian taxpayers to have had
that kind of support.
It seems to us to be a very difficult argument to persuade
western Canadian wheat and barley growers that a new, improved
wheat board bill is going to be good for them and at the same
time have significant increased input costs, costs of production,
to maintain the contingency fund.
We tried during committee stage to have some estimate of how big
that contingency fund might be. We never did get a satisfactory
response from government officials, although some people have put
it as high as $575 million. Whether that is 10% of the value of
the Canadian Wheat Board, I do not know where that figure comes
from, but it is from usually reliable sources.
We do not know and farmers obviously do not know how big that
contingency fund is going to have to be or how much they are
going to have to pay for it. We certainly reject the idea of a
contingency fund.
1320
As I said earlier, we would like to see the Government of Canada
continue to have the borrowing authority for the Canadian Wheat
Board, more correctly, to be able to go through the government
for its borrowing requirements on an annual basis.
The Canadian Wheat Board, it seems to me, is a classic example
of farmers in this case banding together to create an entity
which would allow them to do collectively what they could not do
individually or separately.
Because there has been a lot of chatter about the history of the
wheat board and how it was invoked on an unwilling farm community
in western Canada, I would like to quote from an eminent Manitoba
historian, Gerald Friesen, who says that Prime Minister Bennett's
cabinet was under enormous pressure to relieve the burdens of
farmers and to judge by the leaders of prairie farm movements,
the prairie preference was for a national wheat marketing board.
Farmers supported the wheat board in the dirty thirties and they
are still supporting it in the nebulous nineties as we saw from
the vote last year, to the member from the Reform Party.
Sixty-seven per cent, as a matter of fact, of the barley growers
voted to have the board continue marketing their crop.
An hon. member: What do you know about farming?
Mr. Dick Proctor: I represent some farmers. I thought I
heard a lot of chatter. I know the difference between Motion No.
2 and Motion No. 5.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Dick Proctor: With regard to Motion No. 41, the
Conservatives and the Reform propose to do away with the
exclusion clause. Again, we see rugged individualists at work
here far more in common with the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange and
the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the National
Citizens' Coalition than with grain farmers.
We think it is a simplistic solution to say that we do not want
the inclusion clause, therefore we will take out the exclusion
clause as well and we will all live happily ever after.
Our preference in this caucus is to give the Canadian Wheat
Board both options of exclusion and inclusion clause for the
future. We may all have our views about what the future holds
for the Canadian Wheat Board, but no one can say with certainty
what it will look like in five or ten years from now.
I think not to give those kinds of options to the board of
directors of the future Canadian Wheat Board would be to
hamstring it significantly.
In conclusion, it would be a democratic decision, including a
vote. There is certainly nothing wrong with that. We say that
farmers should be allowed to vote on inclusion clause and
exclusion clause as the bill currently is, although we will have
something to say on deleting a portion of the inclusion clause
when we get to that portion of it.
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to
address a couple of points and provide some information that
might be helpful as this debate goes forward.
The hon. member from the New Democratic Party who spoke last
wondered out loud about the size of the contingency fund. He
intimated that he could not get a proper answer as to how large
the contingency fund might be.
It is a reasonable question but I think if people are in
possession of the facts, they will understand that the answer to
that is that no one really knows exactly how large that fund will
be. It will depend on the decisions made by the board of
directors.
Members have to remember that 10 of the 15 directors will be
elected by farmers. People from the Reform Party always have
real difficulty in listening to facts.
If I could just proceed, the size of the contingency fund will
depend on decisions made by the board of directors.
For example, how much use will they make of cash buyouts or the
early cash pools?
1325
It depends on what the board of directors does. If it does not
use those options very often, it could be that the contingency
fund will be quite small. However, it could choose to use the
extra tools which we are giving it, the tools which farmers have
wanted. One of the reasons for the bill is to give the farmers
and the wheat board more flexibility. If it chooses to use those
options very seldom, chances are the contingency fund will be
quite small.
With respect to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for
Brandon—Souris, his proposal concerning the contingency fund
would rob the board of one more flexible tool. If we considered
his motion, the only way that a contingency fund could be built
up would be through the route of check-offs. The way the bill is
written now profits could be used from the sale of bonds,
debentures, notes and other financial instruments to credit the
contingency fund.
Is the Reform Party saying “No, we should not give the board of
directors those options. No, we want to handicap it. We want to
tie its hands”? Let us get serious. Surely the board of
directors should have as much flexibility as possible.
The hon. member for Brandon—Souris has proposed in his
amendment to get rid of the exclusion clause. What is the
exclusion clause about?
It has the same principle as the inclusion clause. It sets down
a set of rules for orderly procedures. If someone wants to take
a grain away from the wheat board, under this bill there will be
a set of rules and much of the uncertainty will be removed.
Would farmers not want that? I think they would. But not the
Reform Party. It does not want any rules or procedures.
The exclusion clause sets out a procedure. The inclusion clause
does exactly the same thing.
The bill is seeking orderliness, a set procedure. If we talk in
those terms to most farmers, they will understand that there is a
need for rules so they will know exactly where they stand. Right
now, if someone wanted to exclude a grain from the wheat board,
what is the rule? It is all up in the air. The bill addresses
that issue.
It is the same thing with inclusion. What rules are there to
add a grain to the board? There are no rules. That is what the
bill is about.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. John Harvard: I know that members of the Reform Party
have trouble with facts. They have trouble with information.
Any time we try to bring facts to the debate, what do we hear? A
whole lot of hollering from a bunch of yahoos.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
coming from a bunch of crooks, that is not a bad comment—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): With respect, the
House has gone as far down that road as it is going to go.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, what we
are debating now are the amendments in group No. 2 to Bill C-4.
After the last speech it might not have been completely clear,
but in this grouping I find to be strange, there are three main
amendments which do not relate very closely one to the other.
The first amendment, as the hon. member for Prince George—Peace
River has already pointed out, would take away the power to bind
all western provinces to the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly.
Ontario has its own wheat board. Many Albertans, quite frankly,
want to have that same type of board. The board would have a
completely elected body and it would give choice to the farmers.
1330
They have to go through the token process of getting a Canadian
Wheat Board permit to export but those are granted routinely.
Many farmers in Alberta would be very happy to have that kind of
situation. That is the first amendment.
The second amendment which was also put forward by the Reform
Party would remove the contingency fund completely from the
legislation. It is difficult to understand why these two motions
were grouped together because they do not really relate to each
other in any way.
The third amendment in this group was presented by the
Conservatives. It was also presented by Reform. It would remove
the inclusion clause, a clause that would allow the inclusion of
grains other than wheat and barley into wheat board jurisdiction.
Try to figure how that relates to the other two. I am very
concerned about the groupings.
The fourth amendment in this group would remove the president as
an appointed member of the board. The Freshwater Fish Marketing
Board has demonstrated very clearly that we do not want the
president appointed by the minister. The president should be
hired and fired by an elected board of directors. That is the
situation we should have within the wheat board. The Freshwater
Fish Marketing Board has a board much like that being proposed
under Bill C-4 with some members being appointed and some being
elected.
A situation developed recently in which a former Liberal was
appointed as president CEO of the board, much as a Liberal could
be appointed as president or CEO of the wheat board when this
legislation passes. In that situation the board was so much
against having this person running its marketing board that the
board completely removed the power the president would have so
the person it wanted to run the board would retain that power.
What those board members did will help them. At least they will
have the person they chose to run the board. But there will
probably be interference from this patronage appointment.
Meanwhile the 2,500 fishermen who have their fish marketed
through this board are paying for that salary, which is about
$103,000, plus all the perks that go with this patronage
appointment.
That is the situation in the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board,
which is what would happen if the proposed changes in Bill C-4 go
through. That is the reason we have put forth our amendments in
this grouping. Those amendments would at least make the
president a position that required hiring by what we want, an
elected board of directors. Under this legislation that position
requires appointment by the minister. The legislation also
specifies a board with five appointees and ten elected members.
In a nutshell that is what is included in this group.
I will discuss the amendment related to inclusion and exclusion.
I recently saw a letter that pointed out four groups in support
of the inclusion clause in Bill C-4. These groups were the
National Farmers Union, the Family Farm Foundation, the Catholic
Rural Life Ministry and some of the delegates of the Saskatchewan
Wheat Pool.
The letter failed to mention the various groups that have stated
in committee and through letters to the minister that they do not
want this inclusion clause in the legislation. I will go through
this list for the members opposite who should know if they have
been paying attention to what has been going on with this
legislation that in committee these groups have vigorously
opposed the inclusion clause.
The first group is the Canadian Canola Growers Association, one
of the largest producer groups in Canada.
The second is the Manitoba Canola Growers Association. These two
groups represent thousands of farmers from western Canada who are
very happy having canola marketed on a completely open marketing
system.
1335
Back in the early 1980s we had a plebiscite on the inclusion of
canola into the wheat board and it was defeated by a large margin
even back then. The mood of farmers now certainly is not for
more inclusion under wheat board jurisdiction. If the members
opposite on the government side would just look at the polls that
have been done, at the surveys that have been done, they would
know that the mood in Canada today among western farmers is
clearly toward having the monopoly completely removed from the
Canadian Wheat Board.
I refer to the plebiscite in Alberta, a plebiscite which I think
was well run. It showed that 62% of farmers in Alberta preferred
a voluntary board or a dual marketing systems in wheat.
Sixty-seven percent of farmers in Alberta preferred a voluntary
board for the marketing of barley. That was for domestic and
export marketing.
Clearly the farmers of Alberta support a completely voluntary
board and in no way support this piece of legislation and are
particularly against the inclusion clause.
The Government of Saskatchewan, which wanted to get the results
showing that the monopoly should be retained, found to its shock,
even with the poll as it was done, that 57% of farmers in
Saskatchewan were in favour of voluntary marketing. They were in
favour of a voluntary board, a dual marketing system run by the
Government of Saskatchewan, even though it wanted a much
different result. That is clear evidence.
In my own constituency of Lakeland I had a professional pollster
out of Edmonton, a reputable organization, do a poll and in that
poll there were about 700 and some people involved. We were
polling on different issues. We had a response of somewhere
around 250 farmers in that constituency and about 80% favoured a
voluntary marketing system. I know that in my constituency
farmers do not support the inclusion clause. They do not support
this wheat board monopoly in any way.
To finish the list, the Flax Growers Western Canada are strongly
against the inclusion clause. The Oat Producers Association of
Alberta, the Alberta Winter Wheat Producers Commission, the
Canadian Federation of Independent Business and its members
polled do not support this inclusion clause. The Saskatchewan
Canola Growers, the Alberta Canola Producers, the Canadian
Oilseed Processors Association, the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange
and the Western Canadian Wheat Growers, being one of the larger
associations with a completely voluntary membership, which has
with it a pretty hefty membership fee—
Mr. John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the
Canadian Federation of Agriculture, which has a membership larger
than all the organizations he mentioned, supports this clause.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is a point of
debate.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I am really quite
shocked that these members want to interrupt us at every
opportunity they get. That same Canadian Federation of
Agriculture is against this piece of legislation as it is. It
wants some major amendments to this legislation before it will be
put in place.
So if the member is going to refer to the Canadian Federation of
Agriculture, he had better give the whole story. It does not
support this legislation as it is. In fact, even the wheat board
advisory committee is strongly against. It said it wants this
bill defeated if the parts of the bill that refer to cash
purchases are not removed. It does not even support it, if you
can believe it.
In fact, the only witness who supported this bill, and even with
amendments or with relatively minor amendments, was the current
chief commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board, Lorne Hehn. He
is the only one. In committee I asked Chief Commissioner Hehn if
he in fact was not in line for an appointment as president, CEO,
and he did not deny it.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on a point of order, just before the last speaker rose,
the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt referred to members on this
side as crooks.
1340
He finds this very funny but I will refer members to section 489
of Beauchesne's where “crook” is not accepted as parliamentary
language. I would ask you to ask the member to withdraw, please.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Lac-Saint-Louis is quite correct. The hon. member was responding
to another comment that was thrown across the Chamber, “yahoo”,
both given in the same spirit, both received in the same spirit.
The Chair ruled that we had had enough and that we were not going
down that road any further. Resuming debate.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I
do not think you will find in Beauchesne's that the word yahoo is
unparliamentary but certainly the word crook is there.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): With respect, I
think the House should note that the Chair has a great deal of
respect for the hon. member who has just made this point.
However, it is in the Chair's opinion that there are no words in
and of themselves which are unparliamentary. It is the context
and use of the words which make them unparliamentary. Resuming
debate.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian
Wheat Board Act.
My colleagues in the Bloc and I agree with the government's
intention to amend this act. It is interesting to see that, finally, the
government seems to want to give more decision making powers to grain
producers. I say seems to want, because the amendments to the act are
being made by the government, not by and for the producers.
It would have been in order for the government to first seek a
consensus among producers before making these amendments, but it did not
do so, if we are to believe what we are hearing in this House. I will
not get into the technical aspects of the act, but I will raise the
issues of fairness, honesty and patronage as they relate to the
legislation.
I firmly believe, as do the majority of members sitting on this
side of the House, that the Auditor General of Canada should have the
right and the authority to look into the activities of the Canadian
Wheat Board. I sometimes wonder. Why are government members opposed to
the auditor general doing that? Why are they opposed to the auditor
general checking into the Bank of Canada? Why are they opposed to him
looking into the Canada Post Corporation? Why are they opposed to him
checking into the Canada Ports Corporation?
I could go on and on.
These are corporations which are funded by us, the taxpayers. The
auditor general must not just write an annual report. His primary role
is to check on how public money is spent and then report on it, so that
this government can make the necessary changes.
1345
I have here a few questions. What would have been the
government's response to cases involving the Canadian Wheat Board
if the auditor general had looked into this? It is all very fine
and well to use chartered accountants—my colleague, the member for
Frontenac—Mégantic, said they will check the books—but
accountants do not make recommendations about mismanagement of a
corporation.
I also wonder how it is that our friends opposite did not pay
attention to the Canadian Wheat Board mini-scandal over the
revamping of Churchill Falls.
How is it that our friends opposite turned a deaf ear to the
pleas of the mayor of Thunder Bay? How is it that the mayor of a
city in Ontario is forced to turn to a member from Quebec for
support? The mayor of Thunder Bay, like all residents of Ontario
in the Lake Superior area, is wondering why the federal government
invested $44.5 million on window dressing in that city. Why did
this government's Department of Transport give $16 million to CN in
compensation for selling off the Winnipeg—Churchill Falls section
to Omni Tracks, which Omni Tracks operates on Hudson Bay Rails? CN
received $16 million in compensation for this.
Why is the Department of Transport investing over $14.4
million in a dust control system in the port of Churchill and $1.6
million in a system to unload trains?
This unnecessary spending adds up to almost $50 million.
What purpose will it serve? Instead of grain going to Thunder
Bay, across Lake Superior and then up the St. Lawrence to Europe,
it will go to Europe through Churchill Falls, a port that is not
open 12 months a year.
This change, according to figures provided by the city of
Thunder Bay, will send 700,000 tonnes of grain through Churchill
Falls instead of through Thunder Bay, which will deprive Thunder
Bay of $35,750,000 annually. This pointless spending will cost 12
Thunder Bay employees their jobs. In addition, this policy will
cost Thunder Bay $1.7 million in taxes annually. To put it
plainly, the government is robbing Peter to pay Paul.
The experts—not me, but the experts—say that from a common
point between Vancouver and Redford, Saskatchewan, and from Redford
to Thunder Bay or to a port on the St. Lawrence, the cost per tonne
of grain, of wheat shipped, differs—
[English]
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point
or order.
The hon. member is talking about transportation policy. What we
are dealing with here are the motions in Group No. 2. The member
is not speaking to those motions. I would request that you
ensure he does.
1350
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The parliamentary
secretary is accurate. We are speaking to the motions in Group
No. 2 and our remarks should pertain to Group No. 2.
Therefore I invite the hon. member to resume debate and ask that
his comments be limited to that which is relevant to Group No. 2.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: Mr. Speaker, I understand your concern and
your decision that I comment only on Group No. 2. But seeing how fast
the members opposite are moving this debate forward, with their
objections, their points of order, etc., Group No. 5 will only be
discussed in two or three years. Pardon me if I go from one group to the
other, but I will now move on to Group No. 2.
As I way saying, it costs $76.33 a tonne to ship wheat from Redford
to Vancouver. From Redford to Thunder Bay, it costs $53.80.
I wonder why the Canadian Wheat Board ships its grain, its barley and
its wheat to countries like Irak, Saudi Arabia, Germany and Belgium
through ports in Vancouver. Why not ship the wheat through Thunder Bay
and then through the ports in Quebec? This makes no sense, I cannot
understand it. I cannot understand it, unless this is part of a certain
Plan B to isolate Quebec from Europe. Maybe that is the reason. I cannot
understand it.
I will stop here, even before the minute you gave me is over.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The member for
Selkirk—Interlake has a point of order.
[English]
Mr. Howard Hilstrom (Selkirk—Interlake, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not feel the Bloc member is speaking to the matter
at hand either. I would like to have the references to useless
Churchill investments and whatnot stricken from the record.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): This is a very
complex bill and it is a very wide-ranging debate. The Chair
will allow as much latitude as possible to all hon. members in
the debate.
The hon. member for Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse has one
minute remaining.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles-A. Perron: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry if I irritated my
dear colleague from the Reform Party, but, yesterday, I was looking at
Reform Party members performing, and I can tell you that they too were
going all over the place.
I am pleased to participate in this debate and to expression my
humble point of view.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Resuming debate with
the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar who, the House may be
assured, will be very relevant and right on topic.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, having had that encouragement I would like to go on the
record as saying that transportation probably is a very important
part of the bill. I would like to challenge some of the
statements that have been made.
The second grouping suggests that the provinces should be
eliminated from making decisions on the Canadian Wheat Board bill
and transportation probably has a very big part to play in that
regard.
1355
I point that out because during the late 1970s and 1980s we
moved tremendous amounts of grain to the Soviet Union and other
east bloc countries. We could move it for about $30 or $40 a
tonne cheaper through Churchill. They even offered to bring in
icebreakers to move the grain out of that port. For some reason
there was enough clout either in Ottawa or somewhere else to
defer all that grain down the St. Lawrence, which cost us an
extra $38 a tonne to move.
The provincial governments should have some clout. They should
have some say. I cannot comprehend why hon. members would object
to that. Ontario, for example, runs its board completely by
itself. It ships its grain in whatever direction it wants and
sells it to whomever it wants. It seems very strange that the
bill would specific that provincial authority or provincial input
should be outlawed. That just does not make sense.
I would think we would want to make sure the bill was beneficial
to farmers and put the most money back into their pockets. Those
are the people who have sweated and worked hard. They have taken
chances. They have paid all the input costs and should get out
of it what it is worth.
Another thing I want to comment on for a few minutes is the
contingency fund. I do not know why farmers would support a bill
with this type of fund when they have no actual control over it.
With the five appointed commissioners or directors the government
would still have control because it will put in the CEO at its
pleasure and fire the CEO at its pleasure. Why would we want to
put money into a fund that we cannot control? That seems to be
plainly ridiculous.
Members of the wheat board appeared before us as witnesses. They
were asked what the contingency fund would cost farmers and what
percentage of the funds from what is to be sold through the cash
market will be deducted for the contingency fund? They said that
it would be from 5% to 10% of the gross amount of that cheque.
I do not know if Liberal members have not paid attention to the
return on agriculture investment today. The top investment money
one can get from one's assets today is probably 1.5% to 1.75%. If
the board is to deduct 5% as a minimum and up to 10%, farmers
will lose money selling their grain. There is no way to make the
contingency fund pay. Why would any farmer be so foolish as to
sell his grain in that kind of market? It does not make sense.
I cannot understand why a person would want to take money out of
his pocket and put it into a fund where the auditor general
cannot even look at it to see whether it is invested properly.
A year ago I introduced a private member's bill to put the
auditor general in control of the wheat board. Every member on
that side said no way. They did not want accountability.
That nice book the hon. parliamentary secretary to the minister
of fisheries holds up in the air is a smoke screen. It is not
worth putting a match to it. If members want to find out why
they should look into the elections act to find out how many
millions that auditing firm paid to the election fund of the
Liberals. It is very interesting.
I flew back to Ottawa in August to do some work. I picked up
the Hill Times, and what did I see? I saw a whole page ad
by the Canadian Wheat Board telling western farmers how good it
was. How many western farmers read the Hill Times? It
cost western farmers $3,200 to put that ad in the paper. Can you
believe that, Mr. Speaker? I cannot believe it.
1400
The Speaker: Well, if you have a tough time believing
it, I am sure we would all have a tough time.
It being 2 p.m., we will now proceed to Statements by Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
AVCORP INDUSTRIES INC.
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
recently my colleague, the Secretary of State for Asia Pacific,
announced $4.4 million in federal investment in Avcorp Industries
Incorporated based in Richmond, B.C. This investment is part of
Industry Canada's technology partnership program which supports
innovation in technology and job creation.
Through companies like Avcorp, the government is promoting
Canada's role as a leader in technology. As a consequence
economic prosperity is being fostered in B.C. and across this
country.
The technology partnership program is proof that the government
is creating jobs and is taking action to boost our economy in
British Columbia.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, three
years ago this government, along with all provinces, signed the
agreement on internal trade.
This agreement laid out a framework and timetable for completing
the agreement which would remove barriers to trade within Canada.
Each province agreed that removing internal trade barriers would
benefit that province. Yet this government has done little to
complete the agreement. One deadline after another has been
missed.
Studies have shown that a 10% increase in internal trade would
create 200,000 jobs and that the removal of trade barriers would
increase average family income by $3,500.
This afternoon my Private Members' Bill which would lead to the
completion of this agreement will be debated. This bill would
force the government to complete the agreement in areas where it
has the consent of the majority of provinces, including at least
50% of the population. The bill is supported by the President of
the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the President of
the B.C. Chamber of Commerce and a list of others.
This afternoon we will see whether this government has any
interest at all in completing the agreement which would do so
much for Canadians.
* * *
PERSONAL BANKRUPTCIES
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, though Canada is experiencing firm economic growth,
personal bankruptcies are at record high levels, reaching 79,631
in 1996, a 22 per cent increase from 1995, according to Industry
Canada.
It is our duty to ensure that everyone, including women,
students and self-employed Canadians, enjoy the benefits of
Canada's strong economic growth.
One way we can come to the aid of honest Canadians currently
facing a growing mountain of personal or small business debt
would be to enforce tougher penalties for those who abuse the
bankruptcy process.
To that end, the government should consider setting up a special
investigation unit to stop such abuses.
* * *
[Translation]
AFRICAN INDUSTRIALIZATION DAY
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are celebrating
today African industrialization day, as proclaimed by the United Nations
General Assembly.
In this resolution, the international community commits itself to
supporting Africa's efforts to achieve faster growth and sustainable
human development.
There is still much to be done to eliminate poverty, to promote
democracy, to strenghten civil society, to enhance the status of women,
to find solutions to the debt problem and to encourage the development
of the African economy.
Canada's efforts in these areas leave much to be desired. Canada's
contribution to poor countries over the next several years will fall
below 0.2% of GNP. In 1998, Canadian international assistance will be at
its lowest level since the 1960s.
The Bloc Quebecois strongly disagrees with Canada's withdrawal from
poor countries and especially from Africa. We urge the government to
respect its commitment to earmark 0.7% of its GNP for official
development assistance.
* * *
[English]
DIABETES AWARENESS MONTH
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, November is Diabetes Awareness Month. I would like to
take this opportunity to congratulate the Juvenile Diabetes
Foundation for its efforts in raising awareness of this disease
and for raising $3.5 million for diabetes research this past
year.
1405
The foundation was founded 23 years ago by parents of children
with diabetes who were concerned that not enough research was
being done to cure this disease. Since that time the foundation
has awarded $28 million to research, making it the largest donor
to diabetes research of any other health agency.
Some of the leading diabetes research still takes place in
Canada. Banting and Best may have discovered insulin in 1921,
but today the work continues at universities in Edmonton,
Montreal, Toronto and London.
The Juvenile Diabetes Foundation deserves our support.
* * *
FESTIVAL OF NORTHERN LIGHTS
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
November 14, 1997 Owen Sound's Festival of Northern Lights
celebrated its tenth anniversary.
From a modest beginning as a display of Christmas lights along
the Sydenham River, it has grown to one of the largest tourist
attractions in northern Ontario during the holiday season.
The festival now features 170 displays and 11 kilometres of
lights trimmed along the Sydenham River from the inner harbour to
the heart of the city.
On November 14 over 1,000 people took part in the official
opening of the festival. Two of its original architects, Marie
and Cecile Walpole, were there to officially turn on the switch.
It was a moving ceremony and a tremendous honour to Ann Kelly and
all those volunteers who have made this festival the pride and
joy of Bruce—Grey during the festive season.
* * *
NATIONAL CHILD DAY
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on this
National Child Day I would like to bring attention to the plight
of the children in Canada whose parents are finding it difficult
to feed and clothe their families, a situation which the
government has perpetuated through high taxes.
In many cases the troubles families find themselves in are no
fault of their own. Families that work long hours, work more
than one job still find that their after-tax income is not enough
to properly care for their children.
The average family spends more on taxes than on food, shelter
and clothing combined. This causes a great deal of anxiety and
pain to hard working Canadians. This situation does not need to
exist nor should it exist.
When will this government wake up, get its hands out of the
pockets of hard working Canadian families and give them their
money back? Through inflated income tax, job killing, high EI
premiums and now an almost doubling of CPP premiums, the
government continues to take, take, take.
Children are living in poverty in Canada because the Liberal
government is taxing their families into the poor house.
* * *
LITERACY
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, some of us take reading and writing for granted, but for
many it is a daily challenge.
Bob Croxford, who resides in Forest, Ontario, had trouble
reading a newspaper or directions on a paint can. But those days
are now behind him. Turning to a literacy class at Lambton
College in Sarnia, he worked tenaciously on improving his skills.
Two years ago he started writing a book.
Today in a special ceremony to kick off the Ninth Annual Read Up
On It program, Senator Joyce Fairbairn and Mr. Croxford presented
his book “The Unknown” to the National Library.
Literacy problems affect nearly 40% of Canadian adults with many
living in fear of admitting it. Bob Croxford has advice for
others. Do not hesitate. People are here who will help you. You
have to help yourself too.
On behalf of the constituents in Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, we
extend congratulations to Bob for providing inspiration to all
Canadians.
* * *
[Translation]
MINISTER OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs said that any unilateral
declaration of sovereignty by Quebec would be contrary to Canadian
constitutional law and to international law.
Is the minister telling us right away that the federal
government will refuse to negotiate partnership calmly and
serenely, thumbing its nose at the interests of Canadians and
Quebeckers alike?
The wish of the sovereignist movement is clear: to obtain a
yes for the sovereignty of Quebec in a democratic manner, along
with the mandate to negotiate a partnership with the rest of
Canada.
Is the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs aware that, in
his attempt to put fear into Quebeckers, he is at the same time
making clear his disdain for the economic and political interests
of Canadians and Quebeckers? He would do well to read the
statement by the previous Minister of Justice, who called for
recognition of the referendum vote and negotiation with a sovereign
Quebec.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL CHILD DAY
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today is
National Child Day, a day to recognize the important role which
children play in our lives.
One in five Canadian children live in poverty and many do not
receive adequate and nutritious food. Kids who do not get enough
to eat are tired, have short attention spans and do not learn to
solve problems as well as their classmates.
1410
It is for these reasons that the Canadian Living Foundation
established its breakfast for learning program. Since 1992 this
remarkable organization has helped over 1,700 community supported
nutrition programs across Canada. To date, over 18 million meals
have been provided for kids in need which include the children at
Cambridge Street Community School in my riding.
I thank the staff and volunteers at the Canadian Living
Foundation breakfast for learning program and I congratulate them
on a job well done. I also encourage our government to make
children's needs a top priority.
I join with my colleagues in congratulating all those who are
celebrating their birthdays today.
* * *
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Gerry Ritz (Battlefords—Lloydminster, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, a bill has once again been introduced in this House to
repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code. That section admits that
parents and guardians may use corporal punishment if the
situation warrants. Although opponents of section 43 would have
us believe they have the interest of the child at heart, it is
our responsibility to examine the motives and logic they bring to
this debate.
The United Nations sponsored convention on the rights of the
child has been mentioned as a document that prohibits corporal
punishment. Our own charter of rights and freedoms has also been
mentioned although the reference is less clear. In either case
the intention is to say to parents that special interest groups
and politicians who hide behind their self-described expertise
are much better qualified to raise your children than you are.
Canadians do not condone family violence but they are sick and
tired of hearing the outrageous abuse of facts that come from
government subsidized conferences held in foreign countries. I
urge all parents to love their children and to look critically at
any statement that begins, the convention—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Churchill.
* * *
INDIAN AFFAIRS
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
following are the words of Ila Bussidor:
I dream of an eagle
Forever coming to me with messages of strength
Always in friendship and kindness.
I touch the great sacred bird of spirit.
He cares for me, each time I vision him.
He lets me carry him.
He gives me his sacred feathers.
He walks with me.
I am not afraid of him.
I believe he is my guardian.
The spirits of my father and mother
Beside me in my times of pain.
Ila Bussidor is one of the Sayisi Dene who have survived the
tragic cycle of discrimination, poverty and violence that saw the
death of one-third of her people, a cycle of destruction that is
a direct result of their uprooting by the department of Indian
affairs. Ila Bussidor's account of that relocation and its
disgraceful result is the subject of the book Night
Spirits. Night spirits are the spirits of the dead.
I urge the minister of Indian affairs to read this book, to meet
with the Sayisi Dene of Tadoule Lake, to work toward compensation
for the government's actions and to apologize to Ila and her
people.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL CHILD DAY
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Today we are
celebrating the fifth National Child Day.
This day was created in order to commemorate two measures
adopted by the United Nations, the Declaration of the Rights of the
Child, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. That
convention, which Canada ratified in 1991, is aimed at ensuring the
survival, protection and development of children.
Recent statistics show that children under the age of 18
constitute 42% of those receiving assistance from food banks, and
that 20% of Canada's children are poor.
In Canada, and in Quebec, the number of poor children is
growing at the same astounding rate as the number of millionaires.
I am therefore inviting the government over there to reflect upon
the consequences of the actions it intends to take for future
generations.
* * *
HENRI-BOURASSA BOULEVARD
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on November
14, the new Henri-Bourassa Boulevard at the edge of Montreal North
was officially inaugurated. The project cost $113 million.
It was begun in 1994 and tripled the width of the boulevard
over a distance of 8.5 kilometres. Funding for this project was
provided by the federal and provincial governments and by the
municipalities involved, that is, Montreal, Montreal East, Anjou
and Montreal North.
As you can see, federal-provincial co-operation can produce
worthwhile results and shows once again that federalism works.
This project meets objectives set for the movement of people and
goods, and it also provides significant economic support for the
industrial development of Montreal's east end.
When two governments put their shoulder to the wheel to carry
out projects of this size for Quebec, we wonder why political
parties are fighting to separate Quebec from Canada or, in other
words, we understand why there is no reason for the Bloc to be in
Ottawa.
* * *
NATIONAL CHILD DAY
Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, PC): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to draw attention to National Child Day. Today, November 20, is
the day set aside for all children whatever their origin or their
nationality and whether they are rich or poor.
1415
Today, for 1.5 million Canadian children, or more than one
child in four, taking a step in our society where money means
happiness brings fresh pain, which, unfortunately, does not go
away.
For these children, the ray of hope they have each day as they
get up is dashed, as their dreams are often under the shadow of a
cloud. Their breakfast is often not enough to satisfy their
hunger.
I would remind this House and the Minister of Human Resources
Development that these children will be running Canada's economy
tomorrow.
These children will remember tomorrow what you do for them
today.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
CANADA POST
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, after seven months of collective bargaining at the post
office and assurances from the minister that this is the best way
to go, what do we have today? A strike at Canada Post and a
shutdown of mail service right across the country.
We know the minister and the government can be counted on to
defend the rights of management in the collective bargaining
process. We know the NDP and the Bloc can be counted on to
defend the rights of the union, but we are here to uphold the
rights of the long-suffering Canadian public who is sick and
tired of strikes at Canada Post.
I ask the Prime Minister, in the name of that long-suffering
Canadian public, will the government legislate the post office
workers back to work today?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the parties are talking at this time through
negotiations. Under the law of the land, workers have the right
to strike and we have to respect that law of this land. We would
not take away the right to strike before a strike occurs.
Now we hope that the parties will find a solution. They were
very close a few days ago, and I hope today's discussion will
bring about a conclusion through these negotiations. This has
always been the position that this government has preferred.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we support the collective bargaining process, but when
it fails the government has an obligation to act.
This government claims to be concerned about the economy. This
strike will cost businesses millions of dollars. It cripples the
direct marketing industry at the worst time of the year. It
hurts the economy.
I ask the Prime Minister, in the name of economic common sense,
in the name of fiscal responsibility, how many millions of
dollars does the Canadian business community have to lose before
the government will legislate workers back?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have in the laws of Canada a provision that gives
these employees the right to strike. Perhaps the opposition
party does not want to have the collective bargaining process
exist in our nation. That is fine. That may be its position,
but it is not ours.
We know that when we give the right to strike, the right to
strike can be used. At this moment, I am urging the parties to
sit down and find a solution in the interests of all Canadians.
The union has the prerogative to go on strike. It knows it is
causing problems for the people of Canada. I urge them to be
reasonable—
The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister upholds the right to strike. When is
he going to uphold the right of the Canadian public to its mail
service?
Appeals to fiscal and economic sense do not get anywhere.
Perhaps we can appeal to the jaded social conscience of the
government. The disruption of postal service, as everyone in the
House knows, falls most heavily upon the poor citizen. It falls
upon the ordinary citizen who has no alternative except the post
office.
In Montreal, the Old Brewery mission serving 1,200 meals a day
is going to have a mail campaign—
The Speaker: The hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, since there was no question, there is no need for an
answer.
I said, and I will repeat it, if they want an answer, yes, there
is a strike because the Parliament of Canada has given the right
to strike to this union. That is in the law and we have to
respect the law of the land by giving the two parties a chance to
find a negotiated solution.
1420
Mr. Jim Gouk (West Kootenay—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday on CBC TV the Minister of Labour said he would
not interfere with postal negotiations because 90% of all
collective bargaining in government sectors is settled without a
strike.
That may be so but Canada Post certainly is not one of them.
This is the third strike in 10 years, the fourth if we count the
two separate strikes we had in 1987. That brings Canada Post's
10 year average to less than 50%.
Will the minister admit that Canada Post is not one of his
success stories and legislate an end to this disruption?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the collective bargaining system has worked well in this
country.
As my colleague indicated, over the last year in fact 94.5% of
the businesses under federal jurisdiction have been settled
without a work stoppage.
What we want to have here, and what the prime minister has
indicated, is to let the process work. The strike is only a few
hours old.
Mr. Jim Gouk (West Kootenay—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if the minister thinks that an average of a strike every
two and a half years is a good record, I hate to think what his
bad record is.
Over 1,000 people in direct marketing were laid off prior to the
strike actually starting. Tens of thousands more in direct
marketing, charity organizations and businesses that depend on
mail in the operation of their business will soon be joining
them. Merry Christmas, Canada.
Can the minister tell this House how many people need to be laid
off and how much suffering they and their families have to go
through before he will act?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the people of Canada have little sympathy for a strike
or a lockout at any time, particularly this time of year.
What we must do is follow the law. Under Part I of the Canada
Labour Code they certainly have rights. This government is
letting the process work.
What I urge my colleague to do is encourage the parties to get
to the table, look in the whites of the eyes of each other, come
up with a deal, a deal that is better for the people of Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
OPTION CANADA
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in his
report, the director general of elections in Quebec says precisely what
the Minister of Canadian Heritage would never admit: Option Canada was
indeed a gimmick through which the Council for Canadian Unity could get
directly involved in the referendum.
In the light of this damning report, could the Minister of Canadian
Heritage stand up and tell us in unequivocal terms what Option Canada
did with the $4.8 million supposedly spent during the referendum
campaign?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we did the same thing Mr. Duhaime did with his funds.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Conseil de la souveraineté du Québec headed by Yves Duhaime submitted a
report of its activities, thereby clearly acting within the law, while
the same can unfortunately not be said of the Minister of Canadian
Heritage, who is twisting the facts as she did with the GST.
Will the Prime Minister, who is responsible for the integrity of
his government, state in this House that Option Canada did not violate
in any way the Quebec referendum act, which was in effect at the time of
the 1995 referendum?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is interesting that the hon. member should mention this act
because I think it was declared unconstitutional and that it why there
was no follow-up after the referendum.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
The federal government took close to $5 million from the budgets
allocated to the promotion of the official languages and gave the money
to Option Canada. This is six times the annual subsidy to the Fédération
des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada.
What distorted logic did the minister use to divert funds from the
official languages promotion budget to a phoney organization whose role
was to spread federalist propaganda during the last referendum campaign?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will simply remind the hon. member and anyone else interested
in this issue, that the amount of the funds allocated to Option Canada
is exactly the same as the amount given by the Quebec government to
Option souveraineté Québec.
1425
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we would
like to see the minister table a report that would confirm the
transparency of the process, as the Quebec government did in full
compliance with the law. The same cannot be said of her and that is the
problem.
The minister once said “If I am accused of fighting for my country,
then I plead guilty”. In all likelihood, the money given to Option
Canada was used to double the budget of the no side, which was in
contempt of the Quebec referendum act in effect in 1995.
Are we to understand that, for this government, which has a
holier-than-thou attitude and tries to lecture everyone, any—
The Speaker: The Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have never made excuses for fighting for my country and I
never will.
If the hon. member wants to talk about costs, let us talk about the
real costs of the referendum, as reported in Le Soleil on December 2:
“Government advertising aimed at Quebec's welfare recipients, $273,000;
unveiling of the preamble at the Grand Théâtre de Québec, $175,000;
hiring—”.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Halifax.
* * *
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Prime Minister.
Banks have registered record profits over the past five years. Part
of the reason for this is the service charges they require their
customers to pay. It is easy for the banks to strangle their customers.
This government does not require them to publish the figures that could
explain such charges.
Why not set up a parliamentary inquiry to determine how much of
these profits were made at the expense of Canadians?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if banks
are making profits, the leader of the NDP can rest assured that we will
tax them. This government, in fact, levied $100 million in taxes on
banks in its second budget. This government has taxed major
corporations, and this includes major financial institutions.
It is a good thing that the banks are stable, but we are ensuring
for Canadian taxpayers that we are getting our share of the pie.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
issue is why banks are making obscene profits while Canadians are
paying obscene service charges. Bank service charges are user
fees. They are regressive taxes feeding massive profits and they
play a part in preventing over 400,000 low income Canadians from
even having a bank account.
Will the Minister of Finance introduce legislation requiring
financial institutions to provide a lifeline account, assuring
basic, affordable financial services to all Canadians?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the banks have
already published that and undertaken that in accordance with our
instructions to them.
Let me quote from a press release of December 4, 1996, when the
leader of the fourth party said: “We welcome bank profits if
they are earned through good management, sound long term
investment and progressive participation in the Canadian
economy”.
Why is she changing her mind?
* * *
[Translation]
DRUG PATENTS
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, next Tuesday,
in the Town of Fleurimont, a Pharmacology Research Centre will be
inaugurated at the University of Sherbrooke.
This project would not have been possible without Bill C-91, which
was passed in this House. I would like today to ask the Prime Minister
to clarify his government's position on this legislation.
Does the government intend, yes or no, to amend this act or its
regulations? This was not made clear by the answers provided yesterday
by one of his ministers?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it was
rather clear, I think. We undertook to respect our commitments under
international treaties, including with the World Trade Organization and
also NAFTA.
We also received a report from a House committee suggesting that we
review the regulations. We are proceeding with this, but we will be
maintaining the 20-year period for patent protection.
1430
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, unfortunately
the minister today is confirming the doubts we had, because his answer
is unclear. He speaks of the 20-year period, but he leaves the door wide
open when it comes to the regulations.
The Prime Minister knows how important this bill is for Quebec and
for investments. Can the Prime Minister tell us clearly today that he
will not be changing the regulations to do through the back door what he
cannot do through the front door?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
said clearly that a House committee studied this issue and asked the
government to review the regulations.
The legislation requires that we review the regulations in 1997.
The legislation required that we review the regulations and also the act
itself in 1997. So we are only doing today what the law as passed
requires us to do for 1997-98.
* * *
[English]
CANADA POST
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this labour minister just said that the government follows the
law. Well, guess what? This government writes the law. It is
time that this government wrote some law that is going to help
the Canadian public right across the land.
My question is for the labour minister. Why will this
government not put its foot down and get legislation in place to
get these postal workers back to work now?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what this government wants is a collective agreement. It
is unfortunate that we continually hear talk of legislation, talk
that will do nothing but hurt the negotiations. Both parties are
at the table. Let us leave them at the table to see if they can
come up with a collective agreement that will be better for the
people of Canada. Let us not be making statements that will hurt
the negotiations.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
both parties have been at the table for seven months and the
strike started yesterday.
This morning the office of the Liberal MP for Leeds—Grenville
told a constituent that the government did not want to legislate
the workers back because it would hurt the morale of the union
members.
Let us look at who is hurting here. The Canadian public is
hurting.
I want to ask the labour minister right now does he have
legislation in place to put these workers back to work and if he
does have legislation in place, what is the hold-up?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is unfortunate that they have to continue talking about something
that does nothing but hurt the negotiations. Let us be
constructive. We have both sides at the table. They want to come
up with a collective agreement. Let us support both sides in
order to come up with an agreement that will be better for CUPW,
better for the post office and better for the people of Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
QUEBEC'S PARTITION
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
Yesterday, the minister said that when it came to the
sovereignty of Quebec, they could not exclude the possibility that
changing borders is the lesser evil. This is clearly a statement
in support of the proposal to partition a sovereign Quebec.
Are we to understand that, by making this statement, the
minister is becoming the moral support, the political
representative and the chief leader of the partitionist movement in
Quebec?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is typical of the separatist leaders: when they do
not know what to say about something, they try to run down their
opponent.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary is for the Prime Minister.
Will the Prime Minister admit that the partitionist movement
being led by his minister is rejected by the Quebec people and that
his government should dissociate itself for once and for all from
this completely irresponsible, not to say outright dangerous,
movement?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the people of Quebec have voted twice to remain in Canada.
Second, every time the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
writes a letter, the Parti Quebecois, the Government of Quebec and
the Bloc Quebecois, being unable to reply in writing, try to insult
him.
* * *
1435
[English]
CANADA POST
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians have lost access to the postal system. The Minister of
Labour says that he supports the collective bargaining process.
So do we. But when will he act to do something about this
monopoly that 30 million Canadians do not have an alternative to?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, all I can say to my hon. colleague is please let the
system work. Both parties are at the table. They are trying to
come up with a deal that will be better for Canada, better for
the post office and a deal that will be better for CUPW. Let us
let them do their negotiating.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for
seven months this process has been going on and the results have
been that there has been not bargaining in earnest but actually
depending on the government at some point to legislate them back
to work, like it has done time and time again.
When will the minister take some action and restore the postal
service?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the only unfortunate thing is that these statements are
doing nothing but hurting the process.
My hon. colleague talks about businesses under the federal
jurisdiction. I have indicated before that in the last year of
the businesses under the federal jurisdiction, 94.5% have settled
without a dispute. It is a good system. The collective
bargaining system has served us well in this country for years.
Let it work.
* * *
[Translation]
THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Yesterday, in Montreal, the Minister of Transport said that
his government intended to become involved in public
transportation, which is under provincial jurisdiction, as part of
the struggle against greenhouse gases.
Before he starts meddling in other people's business, why does
the minister not give priority to saving VIA Rail, which is dying
a slow death because the federal government lacks the courage to
act to enable it to develop?
This is something that is in his bailiwick, let him mind his own
business.
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): My
goodness, Mr. Speaker, I never thought that one speech in
Montreal would excite the hon. member so much.
The fact is the reports of the federal government interfering in
provincial jurisdictions in this area are totally wrong. We have
a collaborative approach with the various transport ministries
across the country which work very well. However, there is no
denying that there is an urban congestion problem.
What I said in Montreal I will say here again. We want to work
with the provinces and others to help relieve that problem.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Bigras (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of the Environment.
How does the minister justify the fact that her government is
paying out hundreds of millions of dollars directly or indirectly
to support the oil industry, when it is throwing only crumbs to
support the development of renewable energy?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. gentleman's information is factually incorrect.
Since the late 1980s the amount of direct spending by the
Government of Canada in relation to the energy sector has dropped
dramatically. In our last two budgets, 1996 and 1997, we
substantially enhanced the amount of resources dedicated to
renewable energy, energy efficiency and alternative sources. The
hon. gentleman should catch up with the facts.
* * *
CANADA POST
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it seems that we are the only party in the House that is
concerned about this post office strike.
The minister tells us to have confidence in the collective
bargaining process at Canada Post. That process has led to a
strike or a disruption once every two and a half years for the
last 10 years.
So I ask the minister again will he acknowledge that the
process is broken and legislate those workers back to work?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is most unfortunate that we have to continually talk
about something that does nothing but hurt the process.
1440
The member is criticizing a system that has been over 90%
successful in the last year. The collective bargaining system
has served us well over the last many years.
Let it work. Let Canada Post and CUPW come up with a collective
agreement that will serve Canadians well.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, what hurts the process is not statements from this side.
It is inaction, an unwillingness to act, on the part of the
government. That is what encourages both sides not to
co-operate.
Will the minister not acknowledge that the process he is relying
upon is broken and do something to fix it and do something today?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this process is under part 1 of the Canada Labour Code.
It has been updated periodically. In fact legislation was just
tabled. What it does is that it updates the process.
The process has served us well for years. A process that has
over a 94% success rate is not a process that needs to be torn
apart and then fixed. The collective bargaining process has
worked well. Please let it work.
* * *
[Translation]
INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Many voices have been raised to decry the sad history of
residential schools for native peoples, which were set up to break
their ancestral culture. These schools almost wiped out a
generation of native people, and the federal government has an
enormous responsibility in this sad story.
When and how does the minister plan to publicly apologize to
the native communities that were the victims of this tragedy?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the stories of residential
schools were explained and described very well in the Royal
Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.
It is a commitment of the government to respond to the royal
commission as soon as possible, and we will do so.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade.
Last week I had the opportunity to participate in the business
women's trade mission to Washington which involved 120
participants from across the nation.
What action is the government taking following this trade
mission to ensure that women are meaningful participants in the
export industry of Canada?
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in thanking the hon.
member for her question I should report to the House that she was
part of a history making event, the first female entrepreneur
trade mission in the history of the country.
I am also pleased to report to the House that the minister
announced a women's trade summit would be held in Toronto in
1999. Women are making a great contribution to the economy of
the country.
* * *
CANADA POST
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, low
income people, seniors and people who live in rural Canada are
the people who depend on Canada Post to stay in touch with their
friends and family. We have an instance of a charity in Montreal
that uses Canada Post to do its fund-raising so it can do its
good work.
Why is the government allowing all these very vulnerable groups
and individuals to suffer because of its inaction?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, of course the government is concerned but we must let
the process work.
As far as social assistance cheques are concerned they will be
delivered by CUPW.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
have 9.1% unemployment. Some 1.4 million people are unemployed
in the country today. This strike will cost Canadian businesses
about $40 million a day.
How can the minister stand there and not do anything at all,
knowing that hundreds of thousands, millions of Canadians, will
suffer because of its inaction? When will the government
legislate them back to work?
1445
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like these people to
realize that we are protecting seniors. In that way the
government has reacted very well.
We have negotiated with Canada Post to deliver employment
insurance and social security benefits that Canadians need. I
would like Canadians from coast to coast to know that we have
organized the establishment of over 400 distribution sites so
that social benefit cheques will be available to them.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, now a question from the only party in the House that
sees the workers of CUPW as Canadians.
The current crisis facing Canadians and Canadian businesses is
because the Minister of Public Works and Government Services has
turned Canada Post into a cash cow with excessive dividends and
demands for the government instead of quality postal service for
all Canadians.
Will the minister advise the House that the government will get
its greedy little fingers out of the coffers of Canada Post so
that bargaining between the management and CUPW will begin in
earnest in an atmosphere of openness and fairness?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the moment that
we speak and since last night talks have resumed.
Canada Post is at the table with the union. Canada Post has a
mandate to negotiate. I am sure that with good will from both
parties we will have a negotiated settlement as soon as possible.
* * *
COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, there is
another area in which Canadians are being sidelined for profit.
That is telephone service.
Since 1992 some local phone rates have increased by over 100%.
Thousands of homes are without phones because the rates have gone
through the roof. Now phone companies have gone to the CRTC
wanting more increases so their shareholders will have higher
dividends.
My question is for the Minister of Industry. How will the
ministry make basic telephone services affordable for all
Canadians?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is a very good question. I know the member will be
aware that Canada currently has the lowest telephone rates in the
world both for local and long distance service.
She will also know that we have moved to ensure that basic
service is made available. We have asked the CRTC to ensure that
is the case and that it is increasing telephone service across
Canada.
Canadians will have access not just to basic telephone service
but to the very best services the new technologies have to offer
as well, as we become the most connected nation in the world.
* * *
AIRBUS
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Ottawa RCMP Association president
stated that the Liberal government singled out the police as
scapegoats in the Airbus affair.
Earlier the government tried to cover its tracks on this Airbus
matter by placing a gag order on a golden handshake for former
Staff Sergeant Fraser Feigenwald. The rank and file of the RCMP
are not accepting responsibility for political interference in
the matter.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Will he live up to his
shallow rhetoric on government accountability and tell the House
once and for all who is responsible for this mess?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have been through this many, many times. The fact of
the matter is that an investigation was done, hearings commenced,
the Staff Sergeant resigned, and they stopped.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister
have repeatedly quoted from a document signed by Brian Mulroney
as a means to protest their innocence.
How does the Prime Minister reconcile this fact with the fact
that we have another letter charging that an innocent man has
done something in a foreign land? This letter is still existing
out there. When will the letter be withdrawn and when will we
have a public inquiry into the matter?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned at the
suggestion the hon. member has just made.
It seems to me he is suggesting that the government interfere
with an ongoing police investigation. I would think that hon.
member would be the first to complain if we were to do so.
* * *
[Translation]
FRANCOPHONIE SUMMIT
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister for International Cooperation and Minister
responsible for Francophonie.
The Francophonie summit was held at Hanoi this past November
14 through 16. Could the minister tell us how the summit turned
out and if Canada attained its objectives?
1450
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation and
Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to inform this House that Canada attained all of its
objectives at the Francophonie summit in Hanoi. Most particularly,
Moncton was selected to host the 1999 summit.
The Francophonie has elected its first Secretary General, Mr.
Boutros Boutros-Ghali. Under the leadership of the Prime Minister,
we succeeded in advancing the Francophonie in a number of areas,
particularly the information highway, the permanent international
criminal court and human rights.
The Speaker: The hon. member for West Kootenay—Okanagan.
* * *
[English]
CANADA POST
Mr. Jim Gouk (West Kootenay—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a little collective bargaining lesson for the
Minister of Labour.
Collective bargaining has four parts: negotiate, conciliate,
mediate and a settlement mechanism. Canada Post and CUPW do not
have a settlement mechanism; they have a confrontation system.
When will the minister put a settlement mechanism in place and
stop holding Canadians to ransom?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as Minister of Labour I am trying not to come up with
statements that will harm the discussions between CUPW and the
post office.
I want to see a collective agreement. Let the parties sit down
and come up with an agreement that will be better for all
Canadians: a Canadian solution to a Canadian problem.
* * *
[Translation]
RAILWAY TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Transport.
When I met with executives of Via Rail on November 10, they
confirmed their intention of having the Océan and Chaleur trains
back up under the Quebec bridge all the way to Sainte-Foy.
Does the Minister of Transport find this a safe solution, and
what does he intend to do with the Lévis station?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I have already stated in this House, no decision has
been taken on rail service at the Lévis station in the hon.
member's region.
I must, however, inform the hon. member that Via Rail has
asked CN to defer the decision until January 13, in order to make
holiday season travel easier for everyone.
* * *
[English]
PORTS
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Transport. Yesterday I asked
the Minister of Transport what he knew about a complaint laid
with the RCMP about alleged wrongdoings by Canada Ports police
officials.
The minister told the House that he understood the investigation
was under way and he could not comment further.
Outside the House the minister changed his tune and said the
RCMP were evaluating the complaint to decide whether or not to
launch an investigation.
Still later, an RCMP spokesperson in Halifax said that the force
was assessing the nature of the complaint.
Is there an investigation under way or not and, if not, why not?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have been quite consistent. The fact is that
certain allegations of wrongdoing were made. They were brought
to the attention of the RCMP. They are evaluating that
particular complaint and will decide whether or not to
investigate.
* * *
EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, at a
foreign affairs committee meeting earlier this month the
president of the Export Development Corporation, Ian Gillespie,
confirmed that the EDC was reluctant to sign a code of ethics
championed earlier this year by the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
How could the Canadian government ask Canadian corporations to
sign this code of ethics when crown agencies are unwilling to
sign the code of ethics and play by the same rules?
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for his question. I will take it under advisement and
report back to him.
* * *
CANADIAN HERITAGE
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
a recent survey found that nearly one in two Canadians would fail
the citizenship examination given to immigrants. This suggests
that a large number of Canadians lack the basic civic knowledge
required to understand and participate in Canada's public life.
My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. What role
does she think the federal government should play to ensure that
history and civics are taught in schools across Canada? Does she
think that the federal government should develop national
standards in these areas?
1455
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Waterloo—Wellington for
his question. I know that in his past life he had a particular
interest in heritage.
The statistics he quoted are of concern to all of us. That is
why at the last meeting of federal-provincial ministers of
culture we agreed to establish a pilot program with the Canadian
Council of Ministers of Education at its request because it said
that we needed more material to teach Canadian about our own
history.
We are working with the CCME. At the next meeting of the
ministers of education we hope to have a very concrete proposal
for a clearinghouse for Canadiana that will be available to all
Canadian students.
* * *
CANADA POST
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
a million Canadians who want jobs cannot find them. Millions of
others who have jobs basically have not had a pay increase in
years. Meanwhile Canada Post has guaranteed lifetime employment
to its 45,000 unionized members and offered them a 3% pay
increase over two years. This strike will cost Canadians
millions of dollars.
Is this what the government and the Minister of Labour call
fair?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what the government calls fair is the collective
bargaining system.
Let the collective bargaining system work. Let the people in
CUPW and the post office sit down and come up with an agreement
that will be better for the people of Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
SEAL HUNTING
Mr. Yvan Bernier
(Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The opponents of seal hunting are currently running ads in
which hunters are seen performing unspeakable acts on these
animals. There are two possibilities: either this is fake footage,
in which case it needs to be denounced for what it is, or these
acts really were committed, in which case the perpetrators need to
be prosecuted.
Can the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans make a commitment to
initiate an investigation in order to inform this House as to
whether seal hunting is indeed being carried out in accordance with
the standards and the law?
[English]
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, clearly the seal
hunt is being directed according to law.
The facts are that the total allowable catch for last year was
not met. There were 261, 354 harp seals caught and 7,058 hooded
seals. We can assure the member that DFO is doing all it can to
see there is no illegal seal hunt.
* * *
HEALTH
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, we have had political interference with parliamentary
signings on drug patent legislation. We have had political
editing of an independent audit of drug research and now we have
a political whitewash of scientific findings that show
dangerously high levels of lead in children's toys.
Whatever his agenda, will the Minister of Health at least agree
to put children first and will he pull off the market any
children's toys and plastic products that exceed his department's
own standards for lead content and that could create irreversible
neurological damage among children?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I wish the hon. member would confine herself to the facts when
she speaks about the safety of children. It is not fair to
children or their parents to create misimpressions about these
things.
We recently received and looked carefully at data about the
safety of toys. We satisfied ourselves that all the toys tested
had levels of materials that did not pose a threat to the safety
of children.
This is National Child Day. I urge the hon. member to join with
me and the government in celebrating our children, not in scaring
them in this way.
* * *
CANADA POST
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Tobique—Mactaquac, PC): Mr. Speaker,
this week the government told Canadian charities that they would
have to run out of money. It told small businesses that they
would have to put some employees out of work. Yesterday the
government ran out of time and now it is clear that it is out of
ideas.
Does the government have any clue how it will end the postal
strike, or will it leave Canadians wishing that they had thrown
the government out of office?
1500
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, again what we must do in this country is let the
collective bargaining system work. The collective bargaining
system has served workers and management well.
Let the people of CUPW and the post office sit down and come up
with a collective agreement that will be better for all
Canadians.
* * *
DAVID GUSSOW
The Speaker: My colleagues, today is rather a special
day for one of our table officers.
[Translation]
Today is the last day David Gussow, Deputy Principal Clerk in
Procedural Services, will act as table officer.
[English]
David will be leaving this week to take his well earned
retirement after 25 years of devoted service on Parliament Hill.
He began his career at the Library of Parliament in 1972 and he
went on to work in various capacities in the House, becoming a
table officer here with us in 1990.
I know, my colleagues, that you would like to join with me in
recognizing David's long and successful career.
I want to wish you, David, your wife Margaret and your two
children good health and much happiness in the years to come.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: Before we proceed to tributes to a former
parliamentarian, Mr. Thompson, I am going to entertain a question
of privilege from the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville and then I
am going to come immediately to the tributes.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
COMMENTS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of personal privilege. I must say that in
between the tributes that we are about to pay I am troubled that
I should even have to say this because this is a very honourable
place in which we work, and I think everybody realizes that.
During question period the member for Edmonton North saw fit to
refer to some sort of clandestine operation she undertook and
then alluded to comments that one of the people who worked on my
staff said. That person is not here to defend themselves.
I fall short of saying that this is McCarthyism but—
The Speaker: This is surely not a point of privilege. We
have one member saying one thing which is perhaps a point of
view, an interpretation of the facts. We have another member who
I think was going to say that this did not take place.
1505
If that is the case, then we have a matter of dispute of the
facts. I would hope that this type of thing would not occur, but
it is not a question of privilege. It is a point of information,
surely, that he wants to pass on. The point is well taken by the
House.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to get the government House leader to provide the
House with some information about the legislation that is coming
forward in the House for the remainder of this week and for the
balance of next week.
More specifically, I would also like him to let the House know
how many days are planned for the debate on Bill C-2, the Canada
pension bill.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the
House leaders of all parties for their co-operation in trying to
arrange what I believe to be so far an orderly program for this
House.
That program calls for the business for the next week as
follows. Tomorrow morning we will deal with second reading of
Bill C-17, respecting Teleglobe. In the afternoon I understand
that there is agreement to deal with the report stage and third
reading of Bill C-7 regarding the Saguenay park.
On Monday I understand that there is also agreement to deal with
all stages of the legislation on land mines that was introduced
earlier today. It is also my understanding that the House may
sit into the evening to complete the said bill.
Tuesday shall be the final allotted day in the present period
with votes on main and supplementary estimates and on the
consequent appropriation bill or bills at the end of the day.
I am pleased to respond as well on Bill C-2. Next Wednesday and
Thursday it is our intention to consider the report stage of Bill
C-2 respecting the Canada pension plan.
Next Friday we will consider the report stage and third reading
of Bill C-10, respecting certain international tax conventions.
This is the business statement at least as can be determined at
the present time.
* * *
THE LATE ROBERT THOMPSON
The Speaker: My colleagues, we will now proceed to
tributes to Mr. Thompson, who was with us. He was a member of the
Social Credit Party and also a member of the Conservative Party.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Robert Thompson who came to this
House in 1962 to represent his constituents of Red Deer, Alberta
and to lead the Social Credit Party at a time of great political
change.
He served in the House from 1962 until 1972, a decade. What a
decade in political life. In those ten years there were five
general elections. The Social Credit Party which Bob Thompson
led in 1962 was a power to be reckoned with in the west and in
Quebec.
Press accounts of the day paint a picture of a new leader and a
new party running against the establishment. When the Social
Credit Party collapsed, he ran successfully as a Progressive
Conservative and in 1968 he was a member until the general
election in 1972.
Bob Thompson served his country in Parliament and also in
the Royal Canadian Air Force when Canada was engaged in pilot
training during World War II.
He served humanity as an educator here and in Ethiopia. He was
a minister of education in the imperial Ethiopian government from
1947 until 1951. After his political life, he maintained his
interest in teaching and public affairs. In 1982 he prepared a
model constitution for Canada.
His strong religious faith is reflected in his coat of arms, the
motto being translated “In the will of God”. Mr. Thompson was
made an officer of the Order of Canada in national recognition of
his service.
Today the House of Commons pays tribute to him. In doing so, we
thank his family for sharing him with Canada. His eight children
and his widow Evelyn had less of his presence and time because
of his public service.
Today we mourn him, we honour his memory and we thank his family
for sharing him with this House and with Canada.
1510
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is with regret that we learned of the passing of Bob
Thompson. His career was rich and varied in service to others.
Bob taught school in Alberta before the war. He was an officer
in the Royal Canadian Air Force. He went to Ethiopia in 1943
both as a teacher and as an air force officer. During the
forties and fifties he served with distinction as an educator in
Ethiopia and in the Sudan before returning to enter public life
in Canada.
He was the national leader of the Social Credit Party from 1961
to 1967 and was elected an MP for Red Deer in 1962, 1963, 1965
and 1968. When he retired from Parliament in 1972, he resumed
his career as a university teacher and administrator and
completed his public service as a member of the parole board.
I served in this House of Commons with Bob throughout his
parliamentary career. I recall him as a man of substance and
integrity. He was at the centre of events at a time of unusual
political tumult. But even those of us with greatly differing
political points of view came to respect and admire him for his
sincerity and his personal high standards of parliamentary
conduct.
I think it is fair to say that despite what a distinguished
Canadian author called the distemper of the times, Bob Thompson
was a leading parliamentarian without personal enemies. He made a
strong contribution to this House and to Canada.
Therefore I wish to extend our sincere condolences to his
widow Evelyn and to his family. Bob will certainly be missed in
terms of service to Canada. Once again, our sympathy to his
widow and his family.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on behalf of the official opposition to pay tribute to an
amazing Canadian today.
Robert Norman Thompson gave his life to public service in
teaching, missionary work, elected political life and as a
roaming emissary, specifically in Ethiopia.
Bob was active as a very young man in the Social Credit movement
in Alberta. He honed his political skills at the feet of William
Aberhart. This would stand him in good stead for his entire
lifetime.
Bob, his wife Hazel and their children served in Ethiopia for
years as missionaries. Bob was a teacher who organized and
helped set up the modern education system there. He organized an
air force training school and was the head of a leprosy mission,
among other things. Bob got things done.
When he arrived back in Canada, Bob took over the leadership of
the federal Socred Party in 1961 and, as has been mentioned, he
was elected to Parliament for Red Deer in 1962 and re-elected in
1963 and 1965. He then ran as a Conservative and was re-elected
in 1968.
In 1972 Bob left politics and moved out to the west coast. He
helped found Trinity Western University in Langley, B.C. He
taught political science there and sponsored many Ethiopian
students over the years.
It was at Trinity that I met Bob Thompson in the mid-1970s. One
strong memory I have of him was when I was involved in a terrible
accident with the Trinity van. He was planning on taking a
singing team out that same evening and called me after I had been
released from the hospital. He said to me “Well, sis, what am I
suppose to use for a vehicle tonight now that you have wrecked
the van?”
When I was elected to this Parliament in 1989, Bob became an
instant adviser. How I appreciated him as a mentor. I mentioned
the other day that Bob was fast, feisty and a fierce competitor
when it came to political debate. We had some wild and exciting
political discussions which taught me a lot. He was a wonderful
role model to me and I appreciated that.
After Bob's wife Hazel passed away, he married a long time
friend and fellow missionary, Evelyn Brant, in 1993. Lew and I
also married in 1993, so we considered ourselves the twin
couples. Lew and I quickly fell in love with Evelyn and all
enjoyed every chance we could get to have a visit when we were
out in the Vancouver area.
Just this past summer we enjoyed a wonderful visit, complete
with Bob's giving me advice about my new position as a member of
Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. It is a special memory that I
will always treasure.
The world is a better place because Bob Thompson was in it.
Thank you, Bob, for all you gave us. Thank you, Evelyn, and all
Bob's children for sharing him with us. Bless you all.
1515
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, both personally and on behalf of my colleagues in the Bloc
Quebecois, I would like to offer my most sincere condolences to the
family of Robert Thompson, who passed away on November 16.
Mr. Thompson was born in Duluth, Minnesota. After World War
II, he was involved in the reconstruction of Ethiopia, holding a
number of senior positions within the Ethiopian government. He
earned particular renown as the director of the Ethiopian Air Force
Academy, and subsequently as the deputy minister of education, a
position he held for 16 years.
On his return to Canada in 1958, Mr. Thompson got actively
involved in politics. He became the leader of the Social Credit
Party in 1962. That same year marked his first election to the
House of Commons. He was to represent the people of Red Deer for
10 years, first as a Social Credit MP from 1962 to 1967, and then
as a Conservative from 1968 to 1972.
Once he left politics, Mr. Thompson moved on to a distinguished
career as a professor of political science and vice-chairman of
the board of governors of Trinity-Western University. In 1975 he
was appointed Canadian High Commissioner to Singapore.
We parliamentarians realize full well how demanding political
life is, and what commitment and generosity it demands. For this
reason, we must pay particular tribute to the professionalism and
devotion shown by Mr. Thompson throughout his entire political
career. His family and friends have every reason to be proud of
him and of all his accomplishments.
[English]
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I do
want to add the voice of the New Democratic Party to those of
others in expressing our sadness at the loss of Mr. Bob Thompson.
When I was first elected to Parliament in 1968 he was a member
of the Conservative Party, actually sitting in the House roughly
where the Conservative Party sits today. I remember speaking to
him. I was only 22 years old and he was one of the more seasoned
veterans, what I considered to be a very older person in those
days, although he was probably only in his fifties at the time.
He certainly was a very wise and honourable member of the House
and I really appreciated him very much.
He was very unique in many ways. First, he was a teacher, but
he was also a chiropractor, a combination we do not see very
often. He was a flight lieutenant in World War II with the Royal
Canadian Air Force and then, as members have heard, he became
involved in Ethiopia where he spent many, many years involved in
education and in government.
He was also very unique because he was the Minister of Education
for Ethiopia and later on, of course, a Canadian member of
Parliament. Those are a couple of unique combinations and very
rare indeed. He was a very interesting man.
He returned to his country in 1960, I believe, and became
President of the National Social Credit Party. That was an
interesting time because the Social Credit Party had been wiped
out in 1958, the CCF was down to eight seats at that time and
both parties were in the process of rebuilding. The Social
Credit Party did rebuild, came back with a stunning 30 seats in
the House, with 26 from Quebec led by the deputy leader Réal
Caouette, who later split away and formed the Ralliement des
créditistes.
Mr. Thompson persevered and stayed on and ran again in 1963 and
in 1965 and was re-elected as a member of the Social Credit
Party. If my understanding is correct, he did not like the
direction that his party was taking or the configuration of the
party after the split with the créditistes. He switched parties
in 1968 and ran as a member of the Conservative Party in the same
riding of Red Deer and, of course, was re-elected.
Our party differed on many of the ideas and philosophies that
Mr. Thompson held, but we respected him as a very honourable man
who made a great contribution to the House and to this country. I
think we can learn a lot from his legacy.
With all sincerity, I wish to convey my condolences and the
condolences of the New Democratic Party to his wife Evelyn, his
eight children, to his many grandchildren and great grandchildren
and his friends. This country will surely miss him.
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Bob Thompson was a most influential political force in the House
during the 1960s, but that is not where his political influence
started or stopped.
1520
His involvement as a political science professor at
Trinity-Western University, the very university he was a founder
of, has influenced many a student to change this country for the
better. The deputy leader of today's Reform Party, my colleague
from Edmonton North, was indeed one of the people influenced by
Bob Thompson.
Very few people have influenced our nation in so many ways as
Bob Thompson has. How was it possible for one person to be an
officer during the Second World War, a federal member of
Parliament, the organizer of Ethiopia's boy scout group, a school
principal, a deputy minister of education, a leader of a federal
political party, chairman of the board of governors of a
university, founder of a school for dyslexic children in my
riding, an author, and on and on and on his influence goes.
Yet, through all of that, he devoted much of his time to his
family, his friends, his community. His influence on me was
significant. Bob often shared his vast experiences with me even
when I was a rookie candidate. He advised me, he informed me
when I was on the wrong path and as recently as a couple of
months ago, he summoned me to discuss my position and
responsibilities as opposition house leader and how to deal with
the complexities of the unity issue.
I was proud to be asked to speak with him. He was a sincere,
knowledgeable and wise visionary. Bob Thompson's family,
friends, community, church and country will miss him dearly and I
send my sincere condolences to all of them. As for me, I shall
miss the greatest political mentor of my life.
Thank you, Bob Thompson.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
The House resumed 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
Motions Nos. 2, 31 and 41.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Portage—Lisgar
has four minutes remaining in his intervention.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to take the last four minutes and address
the issue of exclusion costs. The hon. member for
Brandon—Souris moved this amendment to exclude both the
inclusion and the exclusion clause.
You would wonder why this clause became an issue. We were
dealing more or less with the exclusion clause in Bill C-72 and
we did not hear too many complaints about the exclusion clause
until an ill wind from the east brought up the idea of an
inclusion clause. This idea was planted in committee. It was
planted in hearings that we held in western Canada. We found out
very quickly that this inclusion clause that was proposed for
C-72 would create a lot of problems.
Now we see what this has really done. The member for
Brandon—Souris, and I think rightly so, has made an amendment to
exclude both. When we looked at the commodity groups or had them
before as witnesses, they were dead set against this inclusion
clause because their farmers that control the commodity groups
would have nothing to do with the inclusion clause. I was
somewhat surprised why they were so hesitant or why they objected
the most to this clause.
I was talking to some railway officials just this last week and
we got by accident on this inclusion clause and I said: “Can
you inform me somewhat why, in the special crops industry, this
is such a harsh clause or this is such a harsh thing to deal
with?”
They explained to me that with the exclusion of the special
crops from the wheat board, the commodity groups controlled
completely the buying of the grain, the moving of the grain and
the transporting of the grain across the ocean. When customers
want to buy some of the special crops like canola, sunflowers,
canary seeds, they buy it on the basis that it is delivered right
to their plants.
That relieves a lot of headaches for them. They demand delivery.
When they buy a product, that product better be delivered on time
or else there are huge fines or huge discounts.
1525
The companies that control these special crops have a tremendous
record of getting that crop to the destination. This has always
been the problem of the wheat board grains. We do not want to
just blame the board for some of these problems but the board
grains are always on the basis f.o.b. Vancouver, Thunder Bay or
Montreal and that is where it stops.
After that, it is up to the customers to try to find
transportation to organize it, to bring that product to their
plants or to their processors. This has become a real issue as
far as the Canadian Wheat Board grains are concerned, the
delivery of those board grains.
Customers demand that they have delivery on time because it
offsets their production times. It offsets the commitments they
have made to the finished end users of their products.
I think this clause has to be removed. If it takes the
exclusion clause to go along with the inclusion clause, that has
to be supported by this House no matter what because we do not
want to ruin or hamper the special crops industries which have
really been the survival of western farmers in the last decade or
two.
If we should take away the special crops, farmers would all be
bankrupt today and they would not be able to survive on just the
wheat board grains.
It is sometimes hard to believe the issues that arise when some
of these bills or amendments are dealt with. It has made me a
little wiser as far as the transportation of special crops is
concerned. I think we have to do everything humanly possible to
either amend this bill to a point where it is acceptable by
farmers or completely table it and forget about it until some
other government will take the bull by the horns and give western
farmers what they want, a choice that will make the system work.
As one of the Liberal members asked, how can we fix this
inclusion and exclusion clause issue? It is very simple. All we
have to do is make the Canadian Wheat Board a voluntary
institution and all these problems will be resolved by
themselves.
Farmers will take their product to the place where it is
shipped, where it brings the best price, where it is delivered to
the customers because they want to produce a product that is used
and has benefited other countries as well as our own.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to propose a lawyer board at this time.
Rather than a wheat board, I think we should have a lawyer board
in Canada.
All lawyers' services should be marketed through a central
agency and this central agency should have its contracts approved
by government. It should apply only to the lawyers in Ontario
and Quebec and these lawyers should not be paid directly. All
earnings should go through a central fund.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point
of order. I do not believe this member is talking about the
motion before us. Maybe he is proposing a new agency that the
Reform Party might support, but we are really talking about the
Canadian Wheat Board here and how to maximize returns back to
primary producers.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I noticed that the
hon. member for Yorkton—Melville in his remarks did not seem to
have ones that were immediately relevant to the bill, but I
assumed that he was going to draw a parallel between the board he
was discussing and the bill before us and indeed the clauses that
we are currently debating in Group No. 2. I know the hon. member
will do that soon so that it will be clear to all hon. members
that he is on topic.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, anybody who was in
this House for the last two days would know the relevance of what
I am saying. We are discussing the Group No. 2 amendments which
apply to only three provinces. They are very undemocratic. They
control only farmers. I am drawing an analogy and I am going to
continue.
1530
The lawyer board I am advocating, analogous to the wheat board,
would not allow lawyers to market their services outside this
area. It could only market its services to certain customers,
not to everyone. The lawyer board would control profits. It
would prevent lawyers from making certain contracts because the
lawyer may make too much money. The board should not, however,
be allowed to be audited by the auditor general. If the funds
are not being properly managed that should not become public.
How many lawyers would protest would not matter. They would be
forced to pool all their returns and distribute them equitably,
except for those who could maybe manipulate the system and get
outside it.
Any lawyer who was caught marketing his services outside the
designated area would have his property confiscated, be put in
jail, in leg irons and handcuffs. He would be strip searched
every three days because he marketed his services in a way that
the government did not want him to. He would be kept there for
five months even if it meant changing the law within an hour.
Lawyers would be limited on where they could deliver their
services. Lawyers would have quotas, limits on how many clients
they could have. If after 50 years of this lawyer board they
thought it was an undemocratic lawyer board and the government
felt some pressure to change it, the government could come up
with a question that would have a predetermined outcome to keep
control over lawyers by the board and the government.
The question would probably read something like this, if we
could ever get lawyers or anybody to agree on that kind of
question. Do you want lawyers to be paid adequately for their
services? What do we think lawyers would say? Lawyers would
probably say yes. Then the government would come around and say
that means they want to have a lawyer board. That is how fair
the question was that the government asked.
I am trying to make a point that relates directly to the
amendments. Why does the government single out one particular
area of the country, discriminate against one narrow sector, the
agricultural sector? Why does it not pick lawyers. Why does it
not start having a lawyer board and put control on them?
There is something very seriously wrong here. I am very
concerned about this issue. I have worked on it.
This morning I asked a Liberal member to table a piece of paper.
I do not have it yet. I happen to know what is on it in any
event, or I would not have asked for it.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that item was
tabled this morning. Maybe the hon. member was not in the House.
The Deputy Speaker: I think the parliamentary secretary
is indicating that the document was tabled. The hon. member can
continue his speech.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Speaker, the member is just
trying to interrupt me. I hope I get some extra time.
I saw that document. It was illegible. The Table apologized
and was going to try to get me one that I could read. I was here
when it was tabled.
In any event the point I am trying to make in relation to all
this is that it is not fair. There is a blank on these
applications to export wheat or barley. The export licence asks
the number of tonnes to be exported, who wants to export it and
so on. Then it says exported under the export licence
application dated and that it was grown in the province of. If
three words appear in that line an export certificate will not be
granted. Those three words are Alberta, Saskatchewan and
Manitoba. It is as simple as that.
Do you get the point I am trying to make, Mr. Speaker? It is
undemocratic. It is not fair. That is the point we are trying
to make.
I listened to my Bloc colleague this morning. He began by
saying he supported Bill C-4. I thought everything they are
saying contradicts the fact that they are supporting Bill C-4,
very flawed legislation. I began to ask myself why they were
supporting Bill C-4.
1535
Could it be that it continues to guarantee the Canadian Wheat
Board can determine that grain from the prairies will be shipped
through the sea ports of Baie Comeau or Montreal rather than
through the port of preference for the people in my constituency,
that being Churchill?
Would he agree with a board controlled by the federal government
that shipped products from Quebec through the prairies? I do not
think he would agree with that any more than lawyers would agree
to a lawyer's board. Nor would the Bloc want to have all of
their products shipped through the prairies if that were not cost
effective.
Farmers in my area want more grain shipped from Churchill.
Because it costs less, they would be able to put more money in
their own pockets. However, the Canadian Wheat Board controls
their wheat and barley and the route by which it will be shipped.
I have something else to reply to from this morning. I was shut
down by the Speaker but I think it needs to be mentioned. The
member said that we were insulting the House by raising some of
the points we have in relation to government controlling this and
all that.
Do members know the biggest insult? The people in my riding are
saying it. It is not that we rise on points of order and that
the minister does not have courtesy. One of the greatest insults
to the House is that the government is not listening. We have
not had the minister responsible for the wheat board here one
minute yet.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I apologize.
The Deputy Speaker: I know the hon. member is interested
in the attendance of all members of the House, but he also knows
that it is quite improper in debate to refer to the presence or
absence of members in the House. I know he would not want to
breach the rules.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Anyway, what is the bottom line on
Bill C-4, the Canadian Wheat Board bill we have before us? The
bottom line is that it does not solve the problems with the
Canadian Wheat Board. None of the proposals that have been
brought in address the division, the problems or the big issues
that concern farmers.
Should the Canadian Wheat Board have the exclusive jurisdiction
over grains like wheat and barley? Farmers want control over
their property. How does the bill diffuse the division that
exists? Not one speaker on the Liberal side has addressed that
serious problem. It does not in fact.
Then we have the other underlying issue of property rights which
my colleagues have adequately addressed and I will not take the
time to do so. I appeal on behalf of all farmers to the
government to listen. Our city cousins should take note of the
debate that is happening here. Without their help we cannot get
rid of this discriminatory legislation.
If I lived in Quebec and hollered “separation” if you did not
pay attention to what I want, I would probably get some
attention. However, if I am a farmer from Saskatchewan I am not
getting that attention. I am not about to holler “separation”.
Surely to goodness we can have some fairness in the country.
If I was an aboriginal and I wanted to suddenly export all my
grain, would the government suddenly listen? The bottom line is
that it is not fair. I showed the certificate earlier.
Because of the inaction of the government the Canadian Wheat
Board will be destroyed. I have in my hands a statement that
reads “the constitutionality of the Canadian Wheat Board is
going to the courts in February 1998”. Why? It is because the
government has not addressed the serious problems that exist.
“Property rights will be the focal point of the challenge.
However discrimination may prove to be the trump card”, this
person says. This will be a very important case with regard to
property rights in Canada. The bill of rights, United Nations
conventions, common law and international investment agreements
concerning this issue all address property rights. If we do not
look at the amendments that the Reform Party is putting forward
we will lose our wheat board for those who truly want it as a
marketing agency. There should be some concern about that.
I one to talk about process. There was an argument about the
legislation being sent to the committee before second reading.
Now we are reporting it back from committee. We were assured
there would be many witnesses and those witnesses would be
listened to. I want to ask a question of the government. How
many substantial changes were made to the bill because of the
witnesses and their testimony?
I sat there and I listened. I looked at the bill and those
concerns were not addressed. It is a slam in the face to
democracy.
1540
It is important to listen to the witnesses and not simply to go
through the formality. Listening means that we hear what is
being said. The parliamentary secretary to the fisheries
minister sits here casting cat calls with a smirk on his face but
not hearing what we are saying. That concerns me greatly.
If the board were to become more accountable it might change the
way it operates. We are asking for that. Producers want to be
assured that will happen.
I have many other remarks but I will have to wait to finish.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Reform member
said that the government party is not listening, and he is right.
This government is truly not good at listening.
However, the member who just spoke does not seem to be
terribly good at listening himself, because the Bloc Quebecois
members who spoke before me all said we were opposed to the bill.
For at least two minutes, he got some mileage out of Quebec and the
Bloc Quebecois by saying we were in favour of the bill, but that is
not the case.
The Bloc Quebecois is opposed to this bill. On initial
examination, certain provisions are interesting, but they do not go
far enough.
There is mention of greater participation by representatives of
agricultural producers, of wheat or grain producers sitting on the
board of directors.
Here I agree with the Reform Party member that the federal
government is retaining too much authority over the administration
of the Canadian Wheat Board. In the end, the only opportunity for
industry representatives, for producers, to manage the board is
symbolic and somewhat meaningless.
I repeat, that is the position of the Reform Party, and on
this point we are in agreement. But the members from Quebec
represent first and foremost the interests of Quebec and it must be
remembered that we do not produce enough grain in Quebec for export
purposes, or at least very little. That is why, when it comes to
the Canadian Wheat Board, we would not necessarily want to stand in
the way of others, but this is not yet an issue that concerns us
greatly.
We do not produce enough grain crops to be able to export.
What the Reform Party and other parties are saying is that the
current situation, even if it remains unchanged in the bill, means
we are not creating a large enough contingency fund for the
Canadian Wheat Board. When a problem arises, who pays up? The
government and thus all Canadian taxpayers.
As we are still in a federal system and as Quebec represents
24% of the population, it means that each time the Canadian Wheat
Board has to pay out subsidies, the shortfall will have to be made
up. The situation is the same as in the case of the famous
harmonized GST in the maritimes, where Quebec has received no
compensation and has to pay its share to help the maritimes
harmonize their tax. It is the same situation.
I know that the Minister of Human Resources Development, who
wants to make known his presence in the House, is trying to
question me, but he is also distracting me.
This is why we in the Bloc Quebecois oppose the bill and I
have a hard time understanding—and this is my closing point—all
the arguments of the Reform members, or at least those of the
last one to speak. He gave the House the impression that we
support this bill, when we oppose to it.
Is it a problem of language? Perhaps, but regardless, I want to
dispel the misunderstanding immediately. We oppose the bill.
1545
I would just like to comment on something he said. I found
it—I was going to say in poor taste—let us say unpleasant. It
is as if he were saying that the Liberal government opposite did
not listen to the people in his province or to those in the two
other western provinces. He said “Yes, but if I were in Quebec,
this government would certainly listen to me”. He is wrong there,
because one of the problems Quebeckers face with the federal
government and the federal system is they are not paid enough
attention.
If he thinks he is not paid as much attention as we are, there
is a serious problem, because we have a very hard time getting
Quebec's point across in the House. In several the standing
committees, we have a hard time getting documents in French. This
morning, we spent an hour explaining that the French version of a
clause did not say the same thing as the English.
And yet, he, who speaks the same language as most Canadians,
is saying that, despite that, he does not feel he is listened to or
understood. It is not enough just to be listened to, people have
to be understood. Understanding requires two or three mental
states: openness, receptiveness and a willingness to be convinced.
Without these, a debate becomes a monologue and not a dialogue.
I will have the opportunity to talk about other groups of
motions on the subject of this bill, because it covers a variety of
aspects. I will draw on my experience as assistant to Jean Garon,
who was the Quebec minister of agriculture at one point in time.
[English]
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to clarify one important thing for my
colleague who who has just spoken.
The Canadian Wheat Board and the movement and selling of grain
has never been subsidized, never since the beginning of the
Canadian Wheat Board. The contingency fund is not a subsidy
fund. It is a fund that the western Canadian farmer eventually
pays if he does not pay it up front. I want to make that clear.
When I began my study of this, I went back and read two very
important books on the history and origin of the Canadian Wheat
Board. Depending on the history book, the origin of the board
and the purpose for its beginning are dubious. But this is 1997
and we are soon going into a new year, soon going into a new
century and we are still trying to move grain under a board which
is completely out of date.
Today there is a whole new generation of farmers. These young
people do not have just $20,000 invested. Many of them have $3
million and $4 million invested. They know what is going on in
the country and what is taking place with sales around the world.
They know when the Canadian Wheat Board is selling grain. They
know that they are being taken.
I want to say that all but two letters that have crossed my desk
have stated that people are very afraid of this new bill. Why
are they afraid? It is because of the inclusion clause. Western
Canadians are afraid of the inclusion clause.
Some may argue that if they want in or out, they have to have
the same regulations. They got out of the business of growing
wheat for the simple reason that they did not want to be mastered
by a wheat board which was made in Ottawa, not made in western
Canada.
1550
It is a real fear that they have. We have a new era of farmers.
They are going out. They are growing different crops. The real
fear of the young person who is coming on is what they are doing
in the way of specialty crops such as the canola crop flats and
so on. Some dingbat of an organization is going to give them the
idea, let us include it and put it to some phoney vote, and I
want to say phoney. Every person in western Canada would tell
you that the latest vote was a phoney. It was phoney because it
was an all or nothing at all vote.
While those people will tell you that it was a major victory for
the wheat board, it was a major disgrace for the wheat board. It
was 37%. I would like to tell you if that same vote was held
today it would be 47%. In a year's time it will be 57% if the
government continues with Bill C-4 the way it is.
They are going to kill themselves. Do not blame the Reform
Party for that. Blame nobody but yourself. We are the new era
of transportation. We have huge boats that come in the harbour
of Prince Rupert. Most important, western Canada should now have
the right to dictate where its grain is going and to what
transport facility. Whatever brings the most dollars back to the
farmers of the west, that is the route the grain should go. If
we can fill the terminals in Halifax and in Montreal by going
through a cheaper route, then it is the God-given right of
western producers to have their grain sent that way.
Some hon. members: Right on, right on.
Mr. Roy Bailey: We are not going to tolerate this. If the
government does not want to listen, then it had better start
listening to a $6 billion industry which is being controlled from
Ottawa. They dictate the transportation route.
We have a new era also in communications. Most of these young
farmers are on the Internet. They know what is going on. You
cannot fool them anymore by Bill C-4.
I want to say this. This bill, if not amended, is doomed to
die. Maybe it will get passed in this House. But as we go into
the new year and into the new century, this type of ancient
marketing, a monopolistic marketing on the international trade
that we have today and unless a farmer is given some freedom,
will self-destruct and nobody will be to blame. That phoney
document says that the Canadian Wheat Board, the document the
government is so proud of, does not always sell grain in the best
interests of the farmer. That is exactly why were are here.
It is too bad the country cannot see and hear what we are trying
to do. We are trying to preserve an industry that is a billion
dollar industry, although we do not have as many people involved
in the industry. We want to save it. This government is going
to destroy it by this bill.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, we are here today to discuss Motion No. 2.
I am having a great problem with everything in this bill. Let
us take a look at the clause. This clause makes the Canadian
Wheat Board Act binding on the provinces. This would block a
province from making changes demanded by a majority of its
farmers. Correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Speaker.
It was not quite two weeks ago, November 11, when I happened to
speak at a function on a day called Remembrance Day in this
country of Canada.
While I was there I talked to many of the old vets. Many of them
were farmers. Many of them still have children on the farm in
the prairies.
1555
I have to wonder just exactly what they fought for. They fought
to be independent, to be allowed to make their own decisions and
to freely sell their products in this country. Everybody seems
to be able to do that except western farmers.
In Ontario the board members are freely elected. With this bill
the board in the west will have ten elected members and five who
will be appointed by the government. They will be patronage
appointments, including the president and the CEO.
There is only one message that a person can take from this. The
government does not think that our farmers are capable of
managing their own affairs. The government needs positions in
which to put its friends, relatives and defeated candidates.
Farmers are not silly. It will not take them long to realize
that all the rats are not in the granary when they look at what
the government is trying to impose upon them.
These are the people who have spent literally hours, more than
many members of this House are willing to put in, trying to
scrape together a living, only to have the government intrude in
every facet of their lives.
We know that under socialism the object is that the farmer grows
the product, keeps part of it and the government takes the rest.
Under communism the government just takes it. Under liberalism
farmers will not only buy product in order to seed the field,
they will not only care for the product, they will not only cut
it, harvest it and get it to the shipyards, but they will be told
who they can sell it to, where they can sell it, at what price
they can sell it and what route it will take.
When farmers go broke, our caring, sharing Liberal government
says “That is too bad”. The farmers are not given any handout.
They do not get a bit of help. I have to wonder how long the
farmers will put up with this. I would suggest not too long.
This bill would block a province from making changes demanded by
a majority of its farmers. Who the heck does the government
think has spent the time to get the product ready? It sure as
heck was not the government or any of its members.
The government refuses to allow not only farmers but the
majority of citizens in this country to work for profit. The
government fully recognizes that the biggest threat to that side
of the House is a farmer or any other businessperson who can
stand up and say they are independent.
The government will do everything in the world to block any
fashion of businessperson in this country from being able to say
that because it knows full well that when a person can stand and
say they are independent they no longer have to depend on the
government.
1600
Yet that is one of the functions that we were taught very young
in school. When I went it was that the harder someone would
work, the better they produce, the earlier they could retire.
It is bills like this that make that impossible. Today the
harder the farmer works, the more he is penalized. Does that
make any sense? It does not. Does it make any sense to the
government opposite? Yes, I see some nods over there that it
does. I have to wonder is the government in place to govern for
the people or to the people. I see over there it is to the
people, not for the people.
Again I have to wonder why our farmers, along with other parts
of society, took up arms in order to protect a so-called
democratic society.
We see today that it is a total farce. There is no such thing
in this country any more. We have to look at some of the
functions that farmers play. These are the people who will feed
the people and their families, but not as long as they are being
driven out of business, not as long as they cannot get the best
price they can for the product, not as long as they are told who
they can sell to, when they can sell and how much they can
charge.
This is not what farming was all about, yet farming was one of
the basic institutions that built this country.
They can sit there opposite and smile because they know it will
not directly affect them. They will allow other parts of Canada
to become independent and allow them to freely elect the members
of their board who will make the decision on how they will make
their livelihood. They will do that but not out west. God help
us if we ever get that decision. The farmer may be able to put a
few dollars in his pocket when he goes to town so that he can
afford to buy new clothes for his family for a change.
I have to wonder just how far this government is willing to go
to make sure every facet of society is kept broke.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to participate this afternoon to put on the record
what I think are the feelings of the people of the prairies,
particularly Saskatchewan, in terms of some of these amendments.
I know some people watch the parliamentary debate on CPAC. MPs
follow it closely. We have a member now from Saskatchewan, from
Souris—Moose Mountain, who has said that people on the prairies
clearly oppose the inclusion clause. He said they fear for the
inclusion clause. There is overwhelming opposition for the
inclusion clause.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: I am glad that they rose to that bait
and again showed that they clearly oppose the inclusion
clause.
That is why the election results are very important. We have
some balance back in this Parliament, so this kind of misleading
information will be challenged in the House of Commons.
I want to put on record, and let them yelp if they want, that
here are some of the players that support the inclusion clause.
The Government of Saskatchewan—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: They may laugh. Here is a government
that has the support of about 60% of the Saskatchewan people. It
is one of the most popular governments anywhere in this country
that represents—
An hon. member: 38%.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Run against us. If you want to get
into provincial politics, run against us. Here is the Reform
Party that does not have the guts to run in provincial politics
in Saskatchewan, a government that has MLAs from all parts of the
province, urban and rural. It supports the inclusion clause and
they said nobody does. Misleading of the House.
1605
Second, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture
supports the inclusion clause. Is that an irrelevant
organization? Does it not speak for a few farmers across the
prairies and in the province of Saskatchewan? I am sure it does.
The people should be aware that the Reform Party is misleading
the House and the Canadian people.
An hon. member: There's some cheap barley in Ontario.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: That is true. Now let them squirm and
let them listen because they are being taken to task.
Who else supports the inclusion clause? The Saskatchewan Wheat
Pool and the prairie pools. Reformers laugh. The biggest company
in Saskatchewan is the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. The wheat pools
speak for thousands and thousands of farmers. It is the majority
farm organization, it markets grain and it supports the inclusion
clause. And the Reform Party says that nobody does. The
Saskatchewan Wheat Pool does.
The Reform Party should not be misleading the House, and that is
why we in our party are very proud to support the Saskatchewan
Wheat Pool. My family has been involved as members of the
Saskatchewan Wheat Pool since its foundation. It supports the
inclusion clause.
Keystone Agricultural Producers Inc. of Manitoba also supports
the inclusion clause as well as the Concerned Farmers for Saving
the Wheat Board. Finally, the wheat board advisory committee,
whose members are elected by prairie farmers, supports the
inclusion clause. The overwhelming majority of people across the
prairies and in the province of Saskatchewan are in support of
the Canadian Wheat Board and they want an inclusion clause so
that if farmers want more grains in the wheat board, they will
have that right.
It is about time the Reform Party was taken to task. The Reform
Party is not telling the truth in the House of Commons and not
reflecting its constituents' views. That is the party that said
it would reflect the voices of its constituents when it was in
the House of Commons. It is not doing that. The Saskatchewan
government is supportive. The wheat pools are supportive. The
wheat pool is a big, credible organization. The Canadian
Federation of Agriculture is supportive. The wheat board
advisory committee which is elected by farmers supports the
inclusion clause, but here is the Reform Party, which is not used
to being challenged in the House, trying to mislead the Canadian
people that prairie farmers oppose the inclusion clause.
There is the member for Souris—Moose Mountain who used to be a
member of the provincial Conservative Party in Saskatchewan as an
MLA. We know what happened to that party. It has now been put
to sleep for 10 years.
The Reform Party believes in referenda and in consulting people.
A while back a very clear question was put to the prairie
producers. It concerned whether or not they wanted barley
marketed by the wheat board or outside the wheat board. The
prairie producers responded with 63% who voted that yes, they
wanted to keep barley in the Canadian Wheat Board, while 37%
voted no. They responded to a very clear question.
The Reform Party is supposed to be reflecting those views in the
House of Commons. Reformers are supposed to reflect the views of
their constituents in the House of Commons or resign or be
recalled. Why do they not reflect that point of view in the
House of Commons? It was a clear question.
The National Farmers Union is also in support of the inclusion
clause. The farmers union itself, which has been very involved
in these issues, thought the question was clear. I wonder where
the Reform Party comes from. When it comes to really
representing the point of view of its constituents in the House
of Commons it just does not do it.
I assure the House that the people of Saskatchewan support the
Canadian Wheat Board. They have always supported the Canadian
Wheat Board. They want some collective clout in the marketplace
and we will reflect that point of view here in the House of
Commons.
I have another concern that was raised by the Reform Party, that
there is no reference to provinces. It has been said in the
House with some of these rather right wing points of view that
they would like the provinces to opt out.
1610
Now, of course, Reform Party members applaud these extreme right
wing points of view, these friends of Conrad Black, friends of
the Canadian grain exchange and of the Canadian Taxpayers
Federation. They listen to them instead of listening to the
wheat pool of Saskatchewan, the farmers union or the federation
of agriculture or the people's organizations. They just listen
to the people who have the money. They want to destroy the wheat
board. They want a province to have the option of opting out of
the Canadian Wheat Board like the province of Alberta. Of
course, if that power is put into the act it will be the
destruction of the wheat board. So I certainly oppose that as
well. I am sure that Canadian farmers will also oppose that point
of view.
Here are some so-called farmers from British Columbia and
Alberta who are campaigning against the Canadian Wheat Board.
However, I can assure members of the House that there is very
strong support for orderly marketing and for the Canadian Wheat
Board. All the major credible farm organizations that support
the board want the inclusion clause. They want farmers to have
the right to vote if they so wish to include other grains under
the authority of the Canadian Wheat Board. They also support the
exclusion clause so that farmers if they so wish can vote to have
a grain taken out of the authority of the wheat board. Why is the
Reform Party against that democratic right? It is a right that
the farmers want.
I know the truth hurts. If we listen to the Reform Party we
would think there was never a vote on barley or that the question
was fudged on barley. The question was very clear and there was
a very clear answer. I am very surprised that the Saskatchewan
Reform members, in particular, are talking this way. In
Saskatchewan the yes vote for the inclusion of barley was higher
than in Alberta and Manitoba. Why are Reform members not
reflecting the wishes of their constituents in the House? Why are
they not listening to their constituents? Why should they not be
recalled?
Why will this very shy member from Souris—Moose Mountain not
get up and say “the farmers in my riding voted to have barley in
the wheat board”? Instead he stands in the House and says
people in the province do not want the inclusion clause. They are
against it and they are fearful of the inclusion clause. That is
a bunch of bloody rubbish and he would know it if he used his two
ears to listen to his people. People are very supportive of that
clause. It is important that be put on the record.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is
very difficult to sit hear and listen to some of these things.
I would like the member who just spoke to come out and stand on
the street corners of Hussar, Standard, Olds, Sundry or Didsbury
and talk to the farmers I talk to day in and day out. He would
find out that what he is saying is not true.
What really amazes me is that they are not talking about freedom
of choice. It does not seem to me that they want it. But then I
have to stop and remember these people are of the old line
governments and parties that figure they always know best and
they want control. It is as obvious as it can be. If the
government is not involved, it is no good. That is the old rule,
the old way of doing things. That is in the past. Count on it.
It will be gone.
A very wise man said to me when I was elected in 1993 “There is
one thing about it, you have now obtained power.” I felt like
sticking my chest out a little bit. I had not had much power
before in my life and now he said I have power. He said he
wanted me to remember one thing, “Please remember this on behalf
of us. When you go to Ottawa, the power you have received is the
power to serve”, not the power to dictate like they do behind
closed doors.
There is legislation coming out from behind closed doors day in
and day out. It is brought in and presented to the House like
Bill C-4, and all the little puppets will have their strings
pulled and they will jump up and vote the way the party told them
to vote. That is the way they do it. The Liberals will do what
they are told. They will vote the way they are told to vote.
1615
If members were truly serving Canadians and were truly using
their power, they would take the time before casting their votes
to go out to the ridings of prairie farmers where the legislation
has the most effect and talk to them. They should not be like
the phoney Liberal panel that was set up. It backfired because
the panel brought back all kinds of recommendations from farmers.
The Liberals got rid of that panel and did not follow those
recommendations because they did not suit their little cup of
tea.
It is the same old story over and over again. The Liberals, the
NDP, and right down the line. Every old line party that has ever
been here says “We know best. We will have it our way”. That
is something Canadian people are sick and tired of. That is
something I am sick and tired of.
In 1993 when the Conservatives were in power they had the wisdom
to open up the intercontinental barley market. They did that for
a while. Guess what? During that time farmers did better than
they had ever done in the history of growing crops.
Guess what else? The wheat board did better than it had ever
done. For the first time it had some competition. It decided it
had to get off its backside, get out there, get to work and find
some of these markets as well. That is good healthy competition.
That is why farmers are saying keep the wheat board but give us a
choice.
I do not believe that is asking for too much. I can hardly wait
to go back home. A Wild Rose constituent asked me when I
expected the minister to rise in the House and announce that
canola growers want to market through the board. My constituent
hit the nail on the head. After all, canola growers have
nurtured, researched and developed a former niche industry into
an agricultural powerhouse. The farmers did it. Canola
producers did all this without any dictated government
involvement. Now that it is to be such a success, mark my words,
one day the government will want control of it.
The government's power is to dictate. It has not learned the
power to serve. I challenge government members to do that. I
challenge every one of them when they vote on this piece of
legislation to vote in the interest of the people it is
affecting, prairie farmers.
God help me if I ever vote against any legislation that hurts
the fishing industry. I do my best to try to represent them with
my vote, and I do not have anything but little brook trout in my
riding. I try to understand their problems and try to vote in
their interest. I talk to fishermen whenever I get a chance.
Come on out to Wild Rose. Stand on the street corners and talk
to the farmers who grow grain. Ask them what they think about
Bill C-4. Talk to them one on one.
Perhaps those members want to continue to listen to phoney
panels and the phoney things they do across the country. They
fly around, as they say, consulting with the elite and making
sure all the right ones are in the ivory towers of Calgary
instead of visiting Hussar, Standard, Olds, Didsbury or other
small communities where farmers live and thrive. Then it might
change some things.
The government ought to start thinking about the power to serve
and stop the power of dictation.
The Deputy Speaker: 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 Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques—Employment Insurance.
* * *
[Translation]
MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Deputy Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House
that a message has been received from the Senate informing this
House that the Senate has passed Bill S-3, an act to amend the
Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 and the Office of the
Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act, to which the
concurrence of this House is desired.
* * *
[English]
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
The House resumed 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. 2, 31 and 41.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, once
again I remind Reformers that they are obviously having a very
hard time listening to the number of people who support the
Canadian Wheat Board. I would like to mention some of them.
They are the Government of Saskatchewan, the Canadian Federation
of Agriculture, prairie pools, the Keystone Agricultural
Producers, the National Farmers Union, the Concerned Farmers
Saving the Wheat Board and members of the Canadian Wheat Board
Advisory Committee who are elected from across the prairies to
provide advice to the board's operations.
1620
It is extremely important that Canadians do not get caught up in
the usual Reform rhetoric that goes on and on about nobody
representing the people of Canada except Reformers, that we will
never have freedom unless we listen to Reform. If we want to
talk dictatorship let us talk about Reformers spouting they are
the only ones who are here on behalf of Canadians and serving
them. I had to listen to the rather childish diatribe from the
member for Saskatoon—Humboldt who said “I'm a farmer, I'm a
farmer, I'm a farmer” as if nobody else could understand what
farmers go through.
Numerous people in Canada know what farmers go through, what
fishermen go through and what every other person goes through if
they take the time to consider those people and to make
themselves aware of their troubles. I suggest that just once
Reformers should take a look at the whole picture instead of
their own narrow vision.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
several things come to mind as an opener, not the least of which
is that I too am a farmer.
I guess another thing that should be said is that the times,
they are a'changin'. It is a long time since my father and my
father-in-law saw the birth of the Canadian Wheat Board. A lot
of things have changed since that time when farmers would haul
most of their grain in the winter. Practically all the grain was
hauled on sleighs. The roads were bad during the summertime when
they could only use wheeled vehicles and they did not have enough
horses to pull a load of wheat through the muddy roads. They
hauled their grain in the wintertime, when they had time to do it
as well. They would haul about 100 bushels of wheat five, ten,
twenty or whatever miles it required to get it an elevator. Most
elevators were about 20 to 30 miles at the very most from farming
communities.
The grain would be hauled in dribs and drabs by today's
standards to the elevators where it would be loaded on to rail
cars and shipped out in greater quantities.
Technology has evolved now to the point where we have trucks
that can hold two or three the capacity of old time granaries.
Once they get the truck rolling it really does not matter how far
they have to travel. Once it is loaded on the truck it can be
destined for almost anywhere in North America. The marketing of
grain has changed immeasurably in the 50, 60 or 70 years since
the birth of the Canadian Wheat Board.
The Canadian Wheat Board is stuck in the 1920s. I listened with
great interest to my colleague from the NDP trying to defend the
system and all the people he claims support single desk selling.
I am reminded of a discussion with a friend back home who was of
like mind. He thought the single desk marketing of grain was the
only way to go because that was how to get the best results.
I asked him to extrapolate his thinking a bit. He also raised
cattle. Maybe I should become the single desk buyer for cattle.
He could sell all his cattle to me. Everybody in Alberta could
sell their cattle to me and I would get the best price that I
could.
He thought about that for not even a second and said no, that he
could not do that. He could not possibly think about selling me
all his cattle exclusively and all the cattle of all producers in
that area, in that province or maybe in all western provinces.
1625
I would like to be in that position. Most people in the House
would like to be in the position where they would have an
absolute monopoly. That is what we are talking about today.
Farmers in western Canada have overcome drought, flood, hail,
poor weather, too much rain, not enough rain, seed borne
diseases, late yielding varieties and all sorts of things in the
production of grain.
Now there are better seed varieties and better genetics. Seeds
mature earlier. We are avoiding frosts. We have better
machinery than we have ever had to work the land, to cut the
grain and to combine the grain. It would seem oftentimes that we
have more grain than we know what to do with, or at least what
the Canadian Wheat Board knows what to do with.
It would seem production is not the challenge it once was. The
huge challenge today is the marketing of grain. Because our input
costs are so high that our margins naturally are proportionately
lower. The marketing of grain is of the utmost importance. By
introducing these amendments we are trying to put some
flexibility into an absolutely inflexible Canadian Wheat Board.
The NDP member from Saskatchewan accused us of wanting to do
away with the wheat board.
An hon. member: Hear, hear.
Mr. Dale Johnston: It would appear our NDP friend from
Saskatchewan would agree with that sentiment. He has it wrong,
as usual.
We want to have a flexible wheat board. We want to have a board
where we can be in or out. Why not have a choice?
Let me give my esteemed colleague examples of some things I am
sure he supports. What about co-ops? What about credit unions?
What about pools? I am sure my friend from the more socialist
party believes those are good things.
Let us take a quick look at how they operate. Do the credit
unions in Mountain View, Ponoka and Bashaw, Saskatchewan, operate
under a board that is appointed by the premier of the province or
the reeve of the county? No. Those people are elected. The
boards of directors are elected.
Some of those people are not even paid. They may collect
mileage to and from meetings. They may get their registration
fee paid to attend conferences and that sort of thing. A lot of
these people donate their time to the board. They are elected by
the members of the credit union, by the producers in the hog
pool, or whatever it is, or by the people who are members of the
co-operative. They are accountable to the people who elect them.
Those elected people hire an administrator. The administrator
makes administrative decisions and the elected board makes
political decisions.
Is there any resemblance between what I have just described and
the Canadian Wheat Board? None whatsoever. They are not even in
the same ballpark.
We are asking for a completely elected board of directors that
is accountable to producers, a wheat board farmers could be
members of or excluded from and market their grain one way or the
other.
1630
My NDP friend from Saskatchewan said “it will not work if you
are not all in it”. How does he know that? If it did not work
because it was not a monopoly, if it will not work without being
a monopoly then it must be a pretty poor system.
I think that anybody in this House would say that competition is
good. I am sure my hon. colleague feels very good about the fact
that he ran against other opponents in the election and was
victorious. In that case he would say “Certainly competition
is great. Competition is good”.
Why is competition not good in the grain market business? We
evolved immensely in agriculture in the 60 or 70 years since the
dawn of the wheat board. What we are trying to do is to drag the
wheat board and proponents of same kicking and screaming into the
21st century in a marketing system that answers the requirements,
in fact the demands, of the producers.
I wish I could think of the member's riding. The member for
Qu'Appelle likes to say these groups support the inclusion. Let
us have a look. The National Farmers Union, the National
Foundation and three others we have listed here.
Mr. Speaker, because of time constraints I have 12 groups of
people listed here; Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association,
Winnipeg Commodity Exchange, Canadian Oilseed Processors
Association, Alberta Canola Producers, Saskatchewan Canola
Growers Association, Canadian Federation of Independent Business,
Western Barley Growers Association, Alberta Winter Wheat
Producers Commission, Oat Producers Association of Alberta, Flax
Growers Western Canada, Manitoba Canola Growers Association and
Canadian Canola Growers Association all are vigorously opposed to
the inclusion. I think we will find certainly not the least of
which should be added to that is the Reform Party of Canada.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. parliamentary
secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans I believe has
spoken in the debate. Is he rising on a point of order?
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point
of order.
I want to outline to the member opposite that the kind of
competition he is talking about will be the same as Reformers
running against Reformers in an election.
The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid that the
parliamentary secretary has an interesting point, but it is not a
point of order.
Resuming debate the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
first of all I have to wonder why the Liberal government is bound
and determined to ram this legislation down the throats of
western farmers? It does not represent the west. How many
Liberal MPs come from the west?
We are here representing western farmers. Many of us are
farmers and we are telling them plain as day we do not want this.
We want the option. Why will they not give us a choice? Why can
farmers not have the choice? Wouldn't that be good? Other
marketing boards would spring up. There would be competition.
The Canadian Wheat Board would be driven to get better prices, to
find newer and better markets for farmers. Everybody would
benefit. Why will they not understand that? Well I can tell you
why. I see one Liberal member in the House.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: Tempting as it may be, and I have
experience at this I assure the hon. member, to refer to the
presence of members, it is improper to refer to the absence of
members. The way the hon. member is phrasing his remarks, he is
clearly referring to the absence of certain members. I invite him
to comply with the rules and refrain from making such
suggestions.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I am trying to
draw attention to the fact that they do not care. They are not
here engaging in the debate. It is sad to feel that we are here
trying to tell them why the farmers are asking for changes to the
act, but it is falling on deaf ears. It is falling on no ears.
The other thing I find interesting in the debate today is
members of the NDP.
1635
They insult me and make fun of me for saying that I am a farmer
and for representing the farmers in my constituency. The member
for Qu'Appelle who was going on and on in his Marxist-Leninist
rant did not even run in the rural riding that represents
farmers. He had to put his tail between his legs and go to
Regina.
People who live in Regina also are going to be impacted by this
because what hurts farmers hurts every community in Saskatchewan
and everyone in western Canada.
An hon. member: —Marxist-Leninist.
Mr. Jim Pankiw: They continue to insult me when I stand
up and attempt to defend the right of farmers to have a wheat
board that they can participate in when they want, to have a
wheat board that they can be elected to, to have a wheat board
that is accountable to them and that they can be represented by
and not a wheat board that is run by Ottawa under the dictates of
Ottawa from Ottawa politicians.
How about having farmers run the Canadian Wheat Board and have
farmers determine what is best for them? Why force that upon
anybody?
There is the idea of an inclusion clause. We grow a lot of
canola on our farm. What right does anybody have to tell me
where I can sell it? What right does anybody have to do that to
me?
However, if canola is grown in Ontario, that is okay. That will
not apply. They will be able to market it wherever they want. If
we apply the inclusion clause to canola in the west, then I am
going to be bound to that.
I say—they can insult me all they want—on behalf of all
farmers, we do not want that. How much clearer can a guy be?
An hon. member: What about the barley vote?
An hon. member: Say it slow for him over there.
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I rise
on a point of order. I want to correct the member. He has given
the impression to the House that I was suggesting or making fun
of farmers.
In actuality, I have the utmost respect—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I think the hon.
member recognizes that her point of order, while interesting, is
really a point of debate. Resuming debate.
I think hon. members must realize that remarks are not intended
to be personal to hon. members. I hope they are not taken as
such in a debate of this kind.
Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to agreement made yesterday,
all questions on the motions in Group No. 2 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. 4.
[Translation]
Pursuant to the agreement concluded on November 19, 1997, all
motions in Group No. 4 are deemed to have been moved and seconded.
[English]
This group contains Motions Nos. 4 to 19.
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC) moved:
That Bill C-4, in Clause 3, be amended
“3.02 (1) The directors are elected in accordance with
section 3.06 to 3.08 and the regulations. The president shall be
appointed by the board.”
That Bill C-4, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 18 and
19 on page 5 with the following:
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-4, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines
7 to 14 on page 3 with the following:
“3.02(1) Fifteen directors are elected in accordance with
sections 3.06 to 3.08 and the regulations. The president shall
be appointed by the board in consultation with the Minister.”
That Bill C-4, in Clause 3, be amended by deleting lines
22 to 24 on page 3.
That Bill C-4, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines
22 to 24 on page 4 with the following:
“(e) the manner in which the board, in consultation with the
Minister, may decide to remove the president and the manner in
which the board, in consultation with the Minister, may implement
a decision to remove the president.”
That Bill C-4, in Clause 3, be amended
“(2) Producers shall be eligible for votes based on the following
levels of production:
For the purposes of this Act, 1 tonne of grain is defined as 1
tonne of wheat or 1.5 tonnes of barley. A producer will be
eligible for 1 vote if they grow or market a minimum of 50 tonnes
of grain in a given year. This information will be obtained from
permit book records or in a signed affidavit submitted by the
producer.”
That Bill C-4, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines
35 to 40 on page 4 with the following:
“the board, in consultation with the Minister, shall make
regulations respecting the election of directors, including
geographical representation on the board and the staggering of
the terms of office of directors.”
That Bill C-4, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines
41 to 45 on page 4 with the following:
“3.07 After the date referred to in section 3.08, the board,
in consultation with the Minister, shall determine the proper
conduct and supervision of an election of directors, including”
That Bill C-4, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines
18 and 19 on page 5 with the following:
That Bill C-4, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after
line 35 on page 5 with the following:
“(2) The president shall implement measures to include the
Canadian Wheat Board as a signatory to the International Code of
Ethics for Canadian Business, no later than six months following
the first election of the Board of Directors.”
That Bill C-4, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines
36 to 41 on page 5 with the following:
“(3) If the president is absent or unable to act or the
office of president is vacant, the board of directors, in
consultation with the Minister, may appoint an interim president.
An interim president shall not act for more than ninety days,
unless approved by the board.”
That Bill C-4, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 5
on page 6 with the following:
That Bill C-4, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after
line 9 on page 6 the following:
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ) moved:
That Bill C-4, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing
line 14 on page 3 with the following:
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.) moved:
That Bill C-4, in Clause 3, be amended
by replacing lines 12 and 13 on page 4
with the following:
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP) moved:
That
Bill C-4, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after line 10 on page
5 the following:
“(3) Directors shall be elected by producers on the basis of
one vote per producer permit book
(4) There shall be limits placed on the expenditures made by
any candidate for election to the Board of Directors.
(5) There shall be limits placed on the expenditures made by
any third parties toward the election of candidates to the Board
of Directors.”
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and address my comments
to Group No. 4 of the amendments before the House.
I must say that it is exceedingly difficult for all of the
members from whatever party and whatever point of view to address
such a large group of amendments because they deal with so many
different areas.
We have 16 amendments in this group that we are going to
endeavour to try to adequately address and debate in a short
10-minute intervention. In light of there being 16 amendments in
10 minutes, I will have to confine my comments to just a few of
them.
Perhaps for the viewing public watching this debate at home with
interest I am sure, I should note that Group No. 3 comprised
Motion No. 3 and was dropped because apparently it had been
brought forward at the committee and therefore was ruled out of
order.
I did want to make the point when I put that motion forward that
what it did was remove reference to the president as a member of
the board of directors.
1640
In other words, the president would not have served on the board
of directors.
The Deputy Speaker: The Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on a point of order.
Mr. Wayne Easter: Mr. Speaker, this issue has been
debated at committee and lost. The member is debating Group No.
3 which has been ruled out of order by the Chair.
The Deputy Speaker: I thought the hon. member was making
a passing reference. He did say it had been ruled out of order
and I am sure he is not going to continue discussing the motion.
He is proceeding with his remarks, I am certain.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I was just making passing
reference to it for the sake of the viewing public at home who
might not have known why we moved straight from Group No. 2
amendments to Group No. 4.
On to Group No. 4 amendments of which, as I have indicated,
there are some 16, Motion No. 5 is an amendment put forward by
myself on behalf of the Reform Party of Canada, the official
opposition. It calls a fully elected board of directors. The
rationale for this is that if this board is going to be put into
place for the best interest of farmers, for the best interest of
western grain producers, then certainly they should have the
right to elect all of the directors to the board.
We have the situation in this legislation where the government
and the minister still retain the right to appoint five
directors, one of which will be the president and the chief
executive officer of the board of directors. We find that
completely reprehensible. We do not understand the inequity, the
inequality in the system whereby the Ontario Wheat Marketing
Board can have a fully elected board of directors to run the
affairs of the Ontario Wheat Marketing Board and yet western
grain farmers are denied that fundamental right of electing their
entire board of directors.
We would certainly urge all members of the House in light of
that to support Motion No. 5 and ensure that this bill is amended
so that we have a fully elected board of directors.
Motion No. 7, also in this Group No. 4, deletes the powers of
the board of directors. The bill, as it is presently structured,
lays out different powers for the appointed directors and the
elected directors. Of course, if Motion No. 5 is successful and
passes and you have all 15 elected as they should be, then there
would be no need to have a differentiation in the powers of those
individual directors.
Motion No. 9 ensures that the elected board and not the minister
would have control over the hiring and firing of the president.
If farmers are to truly have a say in the way that the board
operates, I think that this is fundamental. During committee
hearings, the witnesses who appeared before the committee, and
time after time we heard this, the groups who appeared, as short
as the list was and as confined as the time was allowed at
committee, did make the point that they felt that the board of
directors should have the power to hire and fire the president
and the chief executive officer.
We had some of my hon. colleagues remark about that earlier and
cite examples of the credit unions and the co-ops and other
successful co-op enterprises where Canadians have seen fit to
band together for their mutual financial best interest on a
voluntary basis, but they retain the right to elect their board
of directors and that board of directors then hires the
administrators. We see no reason whatsoever that this new
structure, this new Canadian Wheat Board, would not have a
similar process in place.
I would like to add to that and to the comments of my hon.
colleague from Wetaskiwin who spoke a few moments ago. I find it
more than a bit strange that the more socialist people in this
country, whenever a state run enterprise is under scrutiny,
always fall back and say that it cannot exist in a free market
economy. It is in the best interest of the producer, but we have
to protect that interest because if there were any competition,
it simply would not survive.
In the long term interests of the farmers, in this case the
western Canadian grain farmers, we need to ensure that the
monopoly, the compulsory nature of the Canadian Wheat Board, is
retained.
1645
I find that somewhat puzzling, just as my hon. colleague from
Wetaskiwin did, in the sense that there has been a longstanding
tradition in western Canada as there has been across this country
of enterprises that have not only survived but have indeed
thrived in a free market economy. He cited the examples of the
co-ops, the pools and the credit unions which I am familiar with
as I am from a rural area and was a farmer in my previous life.
Nobody said when credit unions were put into place that
Canadians would be forced to join a credit union. No one said
you cannot do your business at a bank because it is in your best
interest to belong to a credit union. Imagine the open rebellion
there would be in this country if everyone were forced to bank at
the same institution. The credit unions have done quite well.
They have filled a niche market and they continue to enjoy
enormous support especially in the rural areas of western Canada.
Motion No. 10 would ensure some minimum production level so that
the vote of a hobby farmer would not totally cancel out the vote
of a full time farmer, someone who is earning his living and has
a lot more at stake with the business conducted and the decisions
made by the Canadian Wheat Board than someone who is earning all
or most of his income off the farm.
The rationale for Motion No. 11 is that once the initial
elections have taken place, the minister's involvement in the
election of the director should be limited if farmer interests
are to be served. The minister's control of the barley
plebiscite earlier this year proved that at times when a minister
is directly involved, he can structure a vote to ensure the
outcome he wants.
Motion No. 14 also refers to the hiring and firing of the
president. At the end of the day it is the board of directors
that must retain that control over the president and the
president cannot be beholden in any way to the minister or to the
government of the day.
It is very difficult when we look at the way many of these
motions are grouped to go through them in a singular manner. I
refer briefly to Motion No. 19 which ensures that the new
corporation will have to adhere to the code of ethics guidelines
for corporations. The federal government initiated the signing
of this code by Canadian businesses in September 1997. The code
sets out standards for ethically, socially and environmentally
responsible business practices. However, the federal government
did not instruct its departments and agencies to sign the code.
Given that the wheat board markets extensively abroad we feel it
is more than appropriate that the corporation become a signatory
to the code in which it would commit among other things not to
make illegal and improper payments or bribes and will refrain
from participating in any corrupt business practices. That is
just a small part of the code.
It is interesting to note that question was put to the
government by an hon. member during question period, that it is
pretty hypocritical of the government to insist that businesses
now adhere to this code when crown agencies themselves are not
required to. That is the purpose of that amendment.
I look forward to a return of the lively debate we have seen
over the past hours.
1650
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in this interesting grouping as previous
speakers have indicated. Motions Nos. 4 through 19 include a
large variety of important items, the election of all directors,
giving the standing committee some insight into the ongoing work
of the Canadian Wheat Board, the equality of those who are
elected and those who are appointed, the removal of the president
and how we would proceed on that important note should it ever
come to that, minimum production levels, which I will come back
to in a short while, regulations respecting elections and the
staggering of elections, which I think is an important point as
well, the terms for the president, code of ethics and so on.
I did want to talk a bit about Motion No. 10. This is a motion
put forward by the previous speaker, the member for Prince
George—Peace River. I think I understand what he is getting at
here. He wants a minimum level. In fact, he talked about the
difference between a hobby farmer and a somebody who earns his
living in farming and who should have the right to vote and who
should not.
I want to go on record to say that this caucus will very
strongly oppose that. I heard a member from that party talk
about two tier. If there is anything that is two tier it is
clearly this.
In this caucus we think that as long as a farmer is sending one
bushel of grain to the wheat board that he or she should have
the right to a vote on the election of the board of directors.
I also want to talk about Motion No. 13 which is contained in
Group No. 4. I think how the directors are elected is very
important. I want to take a minute for the benefit of the people
listening to read Motion No. 13:
(3) Directors shall be elected by producers on the basis of one
vote per producer permit book
(4) There shall be limits placed on the expenditures made by any
candidate for election to the Board of Directors.
This is a very important aspect of it:
(5) There shall be limits placed on the expenditures made by
any third parties toward the election of candidates to the Board
of Directors.
I want to elaborate on Motion No. 13 if I may. If the wheat
board is to have a board of directors, and we certainly go along
with that, then it is essential that the majority of them are
elected through free and fair elections. That means, as I said
before, one vote per producer holding a wheat board permit book.
It seems to me on Motion No. 10 that the Reform Party wants to
see the large scale agribusiness farmers have more votes
and more clout than their neighbours. We say this is totally
anti-democratic and we want no part of it.
Fair elections also mean a limit on campaign spending by
candidates just as in federal and provincial elections so that
wealthy individuals do not have an unfair advantage. Fair
elections mean the strict and transparent limit as to how much
third parties can spend on elections and how much they influence
the outcome.
We are reminded of the million dollars that the Alberta
government poured into the barley vote last year to try to
influence that one and fortunately to little or no avail.
As has been pointed out repeatedly, the wheat board is a $6
billion industry and certain corporate interests would love to
get their hands on it. Western grain farmers do not want those
folks with deeper pockets than the rest of us to influence these
elections unduly on the board of directors.
We are also witnessing what could only be termed as a
disgraceful media campaign by other friends of the Reform Party,
the National Citizens Coalition, again to try to discredit the
Canadian Wheat Board.
1655
The coalition claims to be funded by ordinary Canadians, but we
all know that it is bankrolled by the friends of the Reform Party
and the the big business community in this country. We know who
is in line to be the next president of the National Citizens
Coalition, a former member of the Reform caucus.
With those points, we think it is very important that the
election of the new board of directors be done in a free and fair
way. We will be watching and hoping that the government will
move to make some accommodation so that can result.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we have
come to Group No. 4. I will go through the motions one by one,
after which I will give an overview, because I have the feeling we
will not go any further.
The first motion in Group No. 4, Motion No. 4 moved by Mr.
Borotsik, proposes that 10 out of 15 directors be elected. There
is a small problem, however, because this motion means that
directors would be elected according to regulations made by the
governor in council as set out in clauses 3.06 to 3.08. This
eliminates what makes clause 3 attactive, which is that producers
are appointed by other producers. There is no longer a specific
reference to their being elected by producers, as was the case in
clause 3.02.
This reduces the significanace of the representation by producers
on the board of directors.
It is the same for the amendment deleting the paragraph about
the maximum term of office of directors, and this is unthinkable.
We are therefore going to be voting against this motion, although
we were very much in favour of greater representation by producers.
Motion No. 5 would increase the number of directors on the
board from 15 to 20. For the reasons I gave earlier, we will vote
in favour of this amendment, which fits in with our wish for
greater representation and a greater role on the board of directors
for producers.
Now, on to Motion No. 6. I am certain that, had my colleague,
Mr. Chrétien, been able to debate it, he would have done a splendid
job.
An hon. member: Jean-Guy?
Ms. Hélène Alarie: Jean-Guy Chrétien of the Bloc Quebecois.
Jean-Guy on this side, not Jean on that side.
Mr. Chrétien pointed out that the government does not want the
president to be appointed by members of the board of directors but
by the governor in council. The Bloc is therefore moving that this
appointment be considered by the Standing Committee on Agriculture
and Agri-food. We did not get the results we were hoping for when
this bill was considered in committee, but we still believe in the
strength of this committee and the interventions that must be made,
and we think that the appointments should be subject to the
approval of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food.
This brings me to Motion No. 7. The proposed amendment would
create a potential distinction between the powers, duties and
functions of a director who is elected and those of one who is
appointed. At this point, we have little or no idea of what this
amendment would mean in practical terms, and in the absence of
information, we are abstaining. We will therefore vote against.
Now comes Motion No. 8; I feel like a school teacher. In
Motion No. 8, the proposed amendment would set the board's quorum
at two-thirds of the board members and a ratio of two elected
directors to one appointed director.
1700
If we keep looking at what it wanted at the grassroots level,
namely, greater control by grain producers, farmers and people who
have a major interest in this bill, we do of course support an
amendment that would see a quorum of at least two-thirds of the
board members, thus twice as many elected directors. This is
consistent with what we want, which is more board members who are
producers. This is why we support this motion.
This brings us to Motion No. 9. Under this motion, the board,
in consultation with the minister, decides the terms of removal of
the president of the board and implements them.
The amendment substitutes the chairman of the board for the
president. We therefore support this amendment, because it puts
power in the hands of the board. And as we want the amendments to
increase the number of farmers to be agreed to, for reasons of
consistency we support this motion.
This brings us to Motion No. 10. Under this amendment, in the
bylaws for board members, the governor in council should give a
vote to producers producing a certain quantity of grain.
I listened with considerable interest to remarks made in this
House on this motion. However, the experience I have had in my
riding of having many part time farmers and realizing that they
provide strong and solid support to the agricultural community
makes it hard for me to oppose their participation, however
limited, in the Canadian Wheat Board. If the Canadian Wheat Board
is there to efficiently market a crop—I heard some colleagues
say this morning that it was a bit of a monopoly, but it is not a
monopoly when it is in the hands of the producers, in my
opinion—it is appropriate for all these producers, even the
smallest ones, if the Canadian Wheat Board is a good one, to be
protected by a structure for the marketing of their crop.
Of course, when a person has thousands of hectares, this may
be an amusing question, but in real life we sometimes see part time
farmers or small scale farmers end up as large scale ones. They all
make a valuable contribution to agriculture and we find it very
hard not to consider them all, to reject them. For this reason we
will vote against this motion.
This leads us to Motion no. 11. Here the amendment makes it
not the minister who makes regulations in consultation with the
board, but the board which makes regulations in consultation with
the minister.
This is a very subtle point, but basically the power is given
to the people who have to do the administration, and not the
minister. I have been surprised to hear very little reference to
increased federal government power over the Canadian Wheat Board
where there is a possibility of some difficulty with the rules of
international trade.
This amendment returns much more power to the board of
directors, and moves the minister onto the back burner. This may
not be what our friends across the way are after, but I believe we
must attain that objective if the Canadian Wheat Board is to be
properly administered. That is why we will vote for Motion No. 11.
Motion No. 12 is much like 11. Moreover, in the motions that
follow there are some things that overlap. That is why I will have
far less to say about the following ones, for example, Motions Nos.
14 and 15. In Motion No. 14, the proposed amendment sets a limit
for the mandate of the president to be determined by the board of
directors, so in Motion No. 15 this should also be the board of
directors and not the governor in council.
We totally agree with this motion, which reduces the federal
government's power to appoint someone to this position for an
indeterminate period.
1705
You can see that the same logic has been followed from the
start and there is an attempt to give more power to farmers on the
Canadian Wheat Board and the board of directors, and thus to move
it a little away from the control of the federal government.
As for Motion No. 16, its purpose is to have the president
implement measures no later than six months following the first
election of the board of directors to include the Canadian Wheat
Board as a signatory to the International Code of Ethics for
Canadian Business. This, I believe, is self-evident.
We will therefore vote in favour of this motion.
We shall do likewise for Motion No. 19, which is a
consequence, or at least a corollary, of Motion No. 16, in which it
is stated, as has already been mentioned, that the code of ethics
governs the conduct of Canadian businesses abroad by ensuring that
they do not exploit child labour and that they apply the same
labour standards elsewhere as they do here. What this means,
therefore, is that the Canadian Wheat Board must act as a good
corporate citizen both here and elsewhere.
Now for Motion No. 17, the amendment on the absence or
inability to act of the president, I think that this is a routine
matter, this is normal. We will therefore vote for there to be a
replacement when required.
Finally, to address Motion No. 18, where the amendment
stipulates that the board members shall act in the performance of
their duties with integrity and good faith, which I do not doubt.
We will therefore vote in favour of this statement of good
intention.
[English]
Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Mr. Speaker,
once again I am pleased to speak to the amendments. We are now
debating Group No. 4. In this grouping our party has
two amendments. I will speak to those amendments as well as
others. These amendments have been grouped together, as a number
of them work in conjunction with each other.
There are two areas in this legislation about which I am
concerned. One of the areas has been dealt with to a certain
degree and we will get to it a little later when we debate the
amendment with respect to the inclusion clause. Exclusion and
inclusion are very serious components of this legislation and
should be amended in order to improve the legislation.
The second area about which I have very serious concerns is the
governing section of the legislation. There have been substantial
improvements put forward in this legislation which improve the
existing governance of the Canadian Wheat Board.
For those who do not know, the current governance of the
Canadian Wheat Board consists of a membership board, a commission
if you will, with a maximum of five commissioners. Currently
there are three commissioners acting as the head of the Canadian
Wheat Board. There is also an advisory board. The advisory
board is made up of elected representatives, but the advisory
board has absolutely no power. It is a eunuch. It simply
advises not only the commissioners but the minister responsible
for the Canadian Wheat Board.
As proposed, this legislation would improve that governance. In
fact, there would be 10 elected board members out of the 15 who
will comprise the membership of the Canadian Wheat Board. Ten
will be elected and five will be appointed.
In our motion we have proposed a change to make it a fully
democratic board of 15 elected members. There is no reason the
government should have any objection to having a fully
accountable board of directors elected by the producers.
A precedent has already been set with respect to this type of
governance. The Ontario wheat board has a fully elected board of
directors. It makes sense that a parallel organization, the
Canadian Wheat Board, should have elected members.
1710
The government will say because it has certain requirements and
certain guarantees that are outstanding for the Canadian Wheat
Board that it has to have five appointed members of which one is
the chief executive officer. That is absolute hogwash. It is
not necessary.
As part of governance there is a manager, a chief executive
officer, referred to in the legislation as president. The
president under this legislation will be appointed by the
government and the minister.
I can say from experience I have had in the House over the very
short period of time that the government has not given us an
awful lot confidence in those people it will be appointing to the
position of chief executive officer.
There have been examples of people who do not understand the
business of being appointed as chief executive officer. This is
not the chairman of the board. This is not a board member. This
is the individual who is going to be taking a corporation from
the year 1997 into the 21st century. Here is an individual who
has to have an awful lot of business acumen, understanding of the
business, understanding of the industry, understanding of trade
arrangements and organizations in order for us to succeed as
western Canadian grain producers.
This cannot be a Liberal patronage appointment, which
unfortunately has been shown to happen many times in the past. I
am very nervous of that situation. There is no reason why an
elected board of directors cannot have the confidence placed in
them to appoint and hire a chief executive officer. That is what
these amendments speak to. They speak to the point that this
chief executive officer should be hired and report to the board
of directors who would hire him, not to report to the government
and the minister who really have no understanding of what is
happening to the Canadian Wheat Board.
I talk about governance. We have the board of directors and a
chief executive officer. I have some further concerns when we
talk about the current commissioners who are now operating the
Canadian Wheat Board. They run under a very sheltered cocoon
operation, obviously, having it as a monopoly corporation. It
runs basically the same way now as it did in 1943.
I have with me a interview which was done by the current chief
commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board. It was given to the
Manitoba Co-operator. I would expect that would be a
fairly reasonable source and acceptable source by the members of
government. It says Chief Commissioner Lorne Hehn said: “`I
said to the minister if the board and the minister want me to be
there, I will be there for one year but not beyond that', Hehn
said after speaking a Manitoba pool annual meeting. `I am
prepared to do it, be the chief executive officers, but the price
has to be right”'.
I have some concerns about that because, quite frankly, what has
to be right has to be right for producers and Canadian farmers,
not what is right for a chief executive officer or for a minister
of the crown. It has to be right so we can put into place the
proper marketing measures to compete in a global society right
now, to compete in a global marketplace where there is
substantial competition.
So that speaks to these amendments, where in fact we should have
a fully accountable elected board of directors and an appointed
chief executive officer by the board.
Two other motions I would like to touch on. One is Motion No.
8. The reason I bring this up is I originally tabled this motion
at committee and then withdrew it. It obviously found its way to
the amendments here. I bring it to the attention of the House.
It says “—rum at the meetings, which shall be at least
two-thirds of the board”. That obviously means quorum, but when
I read this I almost had unanimous consent of the committee.
1715
However, the amendment is a legitimate and logical one. It
speaks to a quorum being struck for the board of directors. It
should be two-thirds board members and a ratio of two elected
directors to one appointed director. For every meeting of the
board of directors there has to be two elected members to one
appointed member and two-thirds of the board present for a
quorum. That makes good corporate, business sense.
I will be speaking against an amendment which is obviously not
mine. It was an amendment put forward by the hon. member for
Peace River. It speaks to the actual election of the board of
directors and the criteria people must achieve before they can
register a vote for the board of directors.
I understand where the hon. member is coming from because there
are large and small producers. All producers should have a vote
for the person they wish to have on the board of directors of the
Canadian Wheat Board.
We will not be supporting the amendment. I appreciate where it
is coming from and I understand why it is there. It has merit
but it flies in the face of democracy. It should not be based on
the number of bushels produced or the numbers of acres farmed. It
should be that farmers and producers have the right to elect the
board of directors.
In wrapping up on this section I do not know if the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries would like
to be the CEO of the Canadian Wheat Board. He seems to be heading
in that direction. I have some concerns with respect to the
appointment of the CEO.
In a brief rebuttal, let me say that a number of organizations
and people are still very concerned about the inclusion clause.
We will have a chance to speak to that in another category that
is coming up.
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, earlier
today in the Chamber the hon. member for Skeena started to talk
about the Liberal approach to managing and controlling all
aspects of our economy. He referred to marketing boards that
were set up by the Hon. Eugene Whelan.
It shows the lack of understanding of marketing boards of the
member for Skeena. What was even more ironic was that he talked
about the Liberal approach in the 1960s and 1970s. He should be
aware that when Eugene Whelan became agriculture minister there
were already over 108 marketing boards in existence in Canada,
mostly provincial.
When the member talked about it being a Liberal policy, it is
ironic that the provinces with a long history of Conservative
governments also had a long history of marketing boards. There
were 25 marketing boards in existence under the government of
Bill Davis.
I want to ensure the member for Skeena knows what a marketing
board is if in the future he wants to talk about it. I thought I
would put on record that marketing boards vary in practice but
the principle is very simple.
It is a system whereby producers, in this case the farmers in
case the Reform Party does not know what those are, pool their
products, decide on a cost price formula, when and how much to
produce, how much to sell and at what price.
As was not understood by the member for Skeena, farmers have
democratic control over a marketing board. They run it
themselves. It is not forced on them. A marketing board for
perishable products makes the most sense.
That is the difference. The member for Skeena did not
understand that marketing boards are mainly for perishable
products in Canada. Some products can be stored in a bin for
years but that cannot be done with a pound of butter or meat. To
produce a surplus of perishable products and assume that the
market will take care of it is utter economic nonsense and
wasteful.
“A marketing board is an efficient way of protecting domestic
producers and assuring that there will always have a supply for
domestic consumption”. The hon. member could have read that. It
is a quote from a book published by Eugene Whelan, in case he has
not had the time. It was given to him in 1993 to read.
He also talked about rotten eggs. Again it showed a lack of
understanding of the industry.
The incident he referred talked about the number of eggs spoiled.
The number was quite small when one looks at the industry in
context. It was only about a half of 1% of a year's production
which under any circumstances is not bad for any perishable
product. I challenge the member for Skeena to find another
industry that did so well. It is quite impressive when we
remember that we are dealing with a perishable product.
1720
It is interesting to note that the person he referred to, Eugene
Whelan, was not responsible for the storage facility but only for
the legislation establishing the board. It is even more ironic
that same person, Eugene Whelan, became the first agriculture
minister in Canadian history not to have to subsidize the poultry
industry. I thought that would be something the Reform Party
would reward. I thought they would be happy to hear there was no
subsidy under his leadership.
It is interesting how the Reform Party throws in comments and
does not recognize the importance of marketing strategies or, in
particular in this case, the difference between marketing boards
for perishable products and the Canadian Wheat Board. The
Canadian Wheat Board is guaranteed for all farmers.
To end my comments today, I wanted to say that the only rotten
egg in parliament today was the member for Skeena.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that is
a hard act to follow and I will try not to do so.
I will talk about Group No. 4. It contains over a dozen
amendments to Bill C-4 which deal with a wide range of issues.
The issues are so wide ranging that it will be very difficult to
touch on half of them in the time I have. I am concerned about
the fact that the amendments are not grouped in a way that would
make debate a little easier.
The first motion I want to talk about is Motion No. 5 brought
forward by the Reform member for Peace River. The member for
Brandon—Souris already talked about this amendment. It was
interested that he was quoted in a newspaper recently as saying
he had found friends in the Liberals and the New Democrats but
would never co-operate or find friends in the Reform. Yet here
he is fully supporting the amendment of the member for Peace
River. I appreciate the change of heart on the part of that
member. I think it is progress.
The member for Brandon—Souris presented the case on Motion No.
5 quite well. I think I can leave it at that. He did a good job
of explaining that amendment.
The next amendment I will talk about is Motion No. 8 which I put
forward. The purpose of the amendment is to set out what a
quorum would be on this partially elected and partially appointed
board which it seems the Liberals are determined to give us. What
Reform wants is a completely elected board. We think farmers
will settle for nothing less. We are to get a partially
appointed and partially elected board. The board will consist of
15 members, 5 appointed under Bill C-4 as it stands and 10
elected.
Depending on how quorum is set by the minister, I have concern
that a quorum could consist of all appointed directors. In a
case where a meeting is called and for some reason the elected
members cannot make it to the meeting, we have nothing to assure
us that a board of only appointed members could make serious
decisions about the future of the board or about operations of
the company.
I do not think this amendment could possibly be opposed by
government members. It would ensure that we have a good quorum
with at least two-thirds of the members, 10 out of the 15, and
that we have a ratio of at least 2:1, two elected directors and
one appointed.
That is very important. We can then be assured that at least the
elected directors will be there and will have their say at the
meetings. I encourage the government to support Motion No. 8. It
will be difficult to understand why It would not.
1725
I will talk a bit now about Motion No. 9. It concerns the
hiring and firing of the president-CEO. The way Bill C-4 amends
the Canadian Wheat Board Act the minister would appoint the
person to the position of president-CEO. It is very unusual for
a president and a CEO to be the same person. It is very unusual
to have the chief executive officer whose job is to run the daily
operations of the company also sitting on the board as its
president. It is extremely difficult to understand why the
government would propose that type of a situation.
Let us look at the background, at the philosophy of wheat pools,
for example. Members opposite often refer to what pools offer
and how pools operate. If they looked at how pools and
co-operatives operate they would know that no one but an elected
board of directors would hire or fire the president of the board.
For example, delegates and directors of the Alberta Wheat Pool
are elected by members who meet. First they elect a president.
Then the same board of directors hires the chief executive
officer. At any time they choose they can fire the chief
executive officer. These people would never be the same two
people. It is a situation which to some extent would involve a
conflict of interest, having the chief executive officer who is
to carry out the wishes of the board of the directors sitting on
the board as president. Having one person filling both positions
is extremely unusual.
If we look at the model set out by co-operatives and by the
prairie pools we find that it is in complete conflict with what
the government has done in Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian
Wheat Board Act.
Motion No. 9 in the name of the member for Prince George—Peace
River is an extremely important amendment. It is important that
this is passed. I hope members opposite will understand the
importance of the motion, especially those who so strongly
support co-operatives as I do. Let us learn from what we have
seen in co-operatives.
There are several other motions that I want to talk about, but I
will have to limit myself in that I only have a few minutes. The
next one is Motion No. 10. It deals with who should vote and how
many votes a certain operation should have. We do not know how
the voting will be set up. That will be dealt with in the
original election under the regulations. That is a concern
because it should be in the legislation.
The rules for voting should be right in the legislation so that
we know how the voting will take place. That will not happen.
The regulation will be set after the bill is passed as it surely
will be because the government will ram it through.
A member of the NDP said earlier that a farmer that grows one
bushel of grain should have the same vote as a farm that has a
permit book and may be the sole means of support of three, four
or five families. Many farms have one permit book for several
families. That member said that a farmer who grows one bushel of
grain should have one vote the same as a farm that supports
three, four or five families.
It is nonsense. It makes no sense. That is why we have an
amendment that would at least say that a minimum of 50 tonnes of
grain have to be produced to be eligible to vote, and 50 tonnes
is not much.
A commercial farm would grow many times that. It is certainly
not a number that would eliminate any farmers who are anywhere
near being commercial farmers.
1730
Another change that must take place in the voting arrangements
is to make it so that farmers who do not have a permit book but
who grow grains like wheat and barley that are under wheat board
jurisdiction will have a right to vote. Many farmers have chosen
not to use the wheat board so they do not get a permit book. It
is a very deliberate move on their part. Why should they not be
allowed to vote when it comes time to elect a director to the
Canadian Wheat Board? The answer is very difficult to
understand.
I have heard several members of Parliament from other parties
say that is the way it should be. If you do not have a permit
book, you should not be eligible to vote. Of course that will
all be determined in the regulations and we do not know what will
be in the regulations.
I am very concerned about the voting. I was hoping this bill
would never get to a stage where there would be a vote. Maybe
the government will see the error of its ways here and completely
scrap this bill. It might happen. In my dreams it will happen.
I suppose it is not very likely.
This piece of legislation should be scrapped because clearly it
is not going to do anything to improve the Canadian Wheat Board.
It is not going to make it any more accountable to prairie
farmers. It is not going to reduce the power and control of this
government and of the minister. I think that is another
extremely important amendment.
Since I am getting an indication that my time is up, I will say
that I have so much more that I would like to say to these
amendments. If I have no more time, I will make some further
comments when we get to future amendments. It is important that
there are members of the Reform Party who can really identify
with the farmers who will be affected by this legislation to
speak out on these amendments.
The Deputy Speaker: Order. 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]
AGREEMENT ON INTERNAL TRADE IMPLEMENTATION ACT
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): moved that Bill
C-203, an act to amend the Agreement on Internal Trade
Implementation Act, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise to speak
to my private member's bill which I believe will do an awful lot
to remove barriers to trade between provinces within Canada and
between businesses within a province.
I will give some background to this bill, I will speak on what
Bill C-203 will do, I will talk about the importance to Canadians
of implementing this bill, then I will do something very
important and read from letters of support I have received from
various institutions and individuals across the country.
The agreement on internal trade was passed in this House in
1994. It was signed in 1994 by this federal government and by
all provinces and the territories. It came into effect in July
1995 and I took part in the debate that preceded the passing of
the bill. I supported the bill. I did not think it had gone far
enough, I did not think it was strong enough, but I supported
many aspects of the bill as did the Reform Party. It was right
to support it.
Many of our concerns were very legitimate.
1735
The agreement came into effect in 1995, but what the agreement
really did was set a timeline and a framework for future
negotiations that would complete an Agreement on Internal Trade,
that agreement which would remove most of the barriers to
internal trade within the country.
Unfortunately, every timeline that was set in that Agreement on
Internal Trade which was passed in 1995 has passed and has not
been met. None of the timelines have been met. The dates that
were set have passed. What we find is a situation where a piece
of legislation which had good intent, which was passed by this
government in 1995, has had very little positive effect on its
stated purpose which was to remove the barriers to internal trade
within this country. So it has not done the job.
A main part of the reason that it has not done the job is due to
a couple of terms used in the agreement, particularly the term
“agreement by consensus” between the provinces, the federal
government and the territories, or between all provinces and the
territories. This term “agreement by consensus” has been
interpreted by this group to mean “unanimous consent”.
The way the provinces and the territories have been interpreting
this term “agreement by consensus” is that every single
province and each territory and the federal government must all
agree to any change which would help complete the Agreement to
Internal Trade.
My bill would remove that unanimity requirement that has been
self-imposed by the board. It would instead put in place a
mechanism which would require consent of at least seven
provinces, including at least 50% of the Canadian population.
That is a formula which is much more realistic and which will
allow, I believe, the completion of this Agreement on Internal
Trade. With the completion of the Agreement on Internal Trade
will come removal of most of the barriers to trade within this
country. I will talk a little later about the importance of that
to Canadians.
Back to a little bit of background, I have had people say:
“With what you are proposing”—not many, mind you; they have
mostly been from the Liberal Party—“are you not letting the
federal government be heavy-handed in this issue?”
In fact, that is not the case at all. It is not the case at all
because again what I am saying is that only in cases where the
provinces and the federal government and the territories together
have not been able to reach an agreement could the federal
government impose a settlement when we have had agreement of at
least seven provinces, including at least 50% of the population.
Second, Bill C-203 would apply only to cases where the proposal
falls within the federal legislative powers as established by the
Constitution Act of 1867. That is the part of the act that
relates to the interprovincial trade. Particularly, we are
talking about section 91 of the BNA Act of 1867, which states
that legislative authority of Parliament extends to the
regulation of trade and commerce, and section 121 of the BNA Act
which states that all articles of growth, produce or manufacture
of any one of the provinces shall, from after the union, be
permitted into each of the provinces.
Clearly, section 121 of the BNA Act says that it is the
obligation of the federal government to ensure free movement
between provinces. The federal government has abdicated this
responsibility in particular for the last 80, 90 years and it has
allowed one barrier after another, after another, after another
build up so that we do not have free movement of goods in this
country anymore.
It has come to the point where people who run successful
companies have come to me and said “It is absolutely ridiculous
in this country when it is more difficult for me to move goods to
another province than it is for me to do business with a company
in the United States”.
1740
I have also had people who run successful companies come to me
and say “I have stayed in Canada as long as I possibly can. I
want to be a Canadian. I want to do business in this country.
But if I want to do business with all ten Canadian provinces and
the territories, I can do it much more easily from a company
based in the United States”. That is the situation we have
today. It makes no sense. It is costing Canadians an awful lot
of money.
I will mention some of the studies that have been done which
have shown the cost to Canadians.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce stated that a 10% increase in
internal trade would result in 200,000 new jobs. With
unemployment hanging around 9%, those 200,000 new jobs would be
very important indeed. Of course, an increase in internal trade
beyond 10% would mean even more jobs.
The Fraser Institute stated that removing interprovincial trade
barriers would increase family income by $3,500 a year. The
average family income would increase $3,500 a year.
The Canadian Manufacturers' Association stated that removing
these barriers to internal trade would mean $6 million to $10
million more being put into the Canadian economy. That would
have a huge impact.
I know I only have five minutes remaining, so I am going to skip
over some of the things I was going to cover. However, I am
going to refer to two studies which I believe must be referred to
when we are talking about the complete lack of success of the
agreement on internal trade that was passed in 1995.
A federal study leaked last May found that the agreement on
internal trade only addresses 13% of the thousands of
interprovincial trade barriers faced by the 50 companies who were
taking part in this government survey. The study found that 56%
of the trade barriers could be addressed if the agreement were
completed. Only 13% had been removed, but 56% of the barriers
would be removed if the agreement were completed.
We have to wonder why this government has not been more serious
about removing these barriers. Surely that alone should indicate
that this government should implement this bill. If it does not
like the bill exactly as it is, then I say “Go ahead. Make the
changes that you want to make to it, but put in place legislation
which will implement the agreement on internal trade”. It is
too important to Canadians to ignore.
Last spring the Canadian Federation of Independent Business
asked their members the following question: Should the federal
government take steps to ensure that the provisions of the
agreement on internal trade are enforced without further delay?
Of those who responded, 58% said yes, 21% were undecided, 10%
were not interested in the issue and only 11% said no. When
asked a question which directly relates to my private member's
bill, only 11% said “No, don't do that”. Fifty-eight per cent
said “Yes, and do it quickly”.
I would like to refer to some letters of support which I
received from important groups in Canada.
The first letter comes from the British Columbia Chamber of
Commerce. This letter is dated November 3, 1997. I sent a
letter to a couple of dozen key institutions across the country
and asked them if they would write a letter of support
specifically for my private member's bill.
This letter is from John Winter, president of the British
Columbia Chamber of Commerce. It reads: “The British Columbia
Chamber of Commerce would like to commend you on your initiative
to improve trade opportunities within Canada. Much has been made
of the success Canadian businesses enjoy in a free trade
environment within North America, and the opportunity to improve
trade conditions in Canada is overdue. We support you in your
efforts and wish you much success in passing An Act to amend the
Agreement on Internal Trade Implementation Act.” That is the
title of my bill.
1745
That is from the British Columbia Chamber of Commerce.
From the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Catherine
Swift, CEO, a letter written November 4, 1997 in response to that same
letter: “Thank you for your recent letter on Bill C-202, an act
to amend the Agreement on Internal Trade Implementation Act.
Small and medium size businesses in Canada have long supported
the elimination of internal trade barriers and welcome your
initiative on this matter.
“In your letter, you cited CFIB's recent mandate ballot survey
which showed that 58% of the respondents supported the federal
government ensuring that provisions to the agreement on internal
trade are enforced without further delay.
“I have attached the full text of the question as well as two
earlier member votes on related topics to your information.
“Please be assured that Canada's small businesses are supportive
of your initiatives in this area”.
From the C.D. Howe Institute, I want to make clear up front that
this letter is from Daniel Schanen, a real expert in this area.
He does say, and I want to get to this first: “Our mandate as an
independent institute does not allow us to support or disapprove
of particular bills”. But the rest of his letter goes on to
show strong support for the initiative that I have taken through
this piece of legislation.
They also expressed the importance of the barriers to internal
trade being removed in this country. So many of the letters
really stressed their disappointment in the lack of action on the
part of this government when it came to making some progress on
implementing the agreement on internal trade, finishing the deal
so that we have barriers to trade reduced and eliminated in this
country.
We have the information from studies on the importance of
removing these barriers to internal trade. The industry minister
has stated on several occasions that he thinks this is an
important issue.
I guess I have to ask why this same industry minister who again
and again has stressed the importance has said, and I have a
quote here on that, that maybe it is time that the federal
government went beyond what it proposed to really do what it has
a right to do and ensure that this deal is completed.
Every single province and every territory in this country said
that if the agreement on internal trade is passed, the people of
their provinces would be better off.
That confirms the information that has been received from
studies and from the responses I have received from the letters I
have sent out on this bill.
I appreciate the time given to me to present my bill and to make
some key points on it. I look forward to the debate from other
members on this bill.
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to
speak on Bill C-203, an act to amend the agreement on Internal
Trade Implementation Act.
This bill serves as a timely reminder of how important trade is
to Canada not only in international but in domestic trade. From
its very beginning, Canada has been a trading nation. Trade is
the lifeblood of this country.
The well-being of Canadians depends on our ability to create and
profit from competitive trading environments both at home and
abroad. It was for that reason that the federal government and
the provincial governments during 1993 and 1994 negotiated the
agreement on internal trade.
The purpose of the agreement was to create a framework for
continued co-operative efforts among governments to open up the
domestic market. It established a set of rules and a work
program aimed at ensuring the free flow of goods, services,
people and capital and, more generally, governing trade and trade
disputes between provinces and territories.
The agreement on internal trade came into effect July 1, 1995.
It is no secret that there are problems with the agreement. From
the start, the government recognized that the agreement was only
a first step.
We have accordingly consistently sought to bring other
governments to agree to make it a more effective instrument for
economic growth.
1750
The Minister of Industry has at every meeting on internal trade
pressed his provincial colleagues to ensure the work mandated by
the agreement was done within the deadlines set. He has
repeatedly challenged the other parties to the agreement to
seriously consider ways to improve both its scope and the way it
operates.
Recent studies and reports by business organizations such as the
chamber of commerce and other observers have underlined many of
the weaknesses in the agreement. They have pulled few punches in
identifying the reluctance of various provincial governments to
live up to the spirit or the letter of their commitments.
Most of these observers have identified the decision making
process and the agreement, that is, its requirement for a
consensus as a major impediment to progress.
This bill reflects an attempt to address that particular issue.
The intent is understandable. The bill itself, unfortunately, is
neither realistic nor practical.
As most hon. members will recall, last year we considered and
passed the Agreement on Internal Trade implementation Act which
this bill proposes to amend. The government introduced that
legislation in 1995 because we were then and remain today firmly
committed to making the agreement work.
The Agreement on Internal Trade and Implementation Act enables
the federal government to meet its obligations under the
agreement on internal trade. That legislation was necessary to
give the government the appropriate authority and specific tools
to act within its own areas of direct responsibility. However,
it is most important to recognize that our Agreement on Internal
Trade Implementation Act and the agreement on internal trade are
quite different and distinct instruments.
The one is legislation by and for only one government within its
own jurisdiction and powers. The other is a collectively
achieved accord on how all the governments that are party to it
will exercise their respective powers within their own
jurisdictions. The agreement on internal trade was the outcome
of a difficult process of negotiations between the federal
government, the provinces and the territories during 1993 and
1994.
The authority of the agreement on internal trade does not derive
from federal legislation. Rather, the authority of the agreement
on internal trade derives from the commitments, obligations and
undertakings which all governments accepted when they signed it.
That is a fundamental point which the bill before us fails to
recognize.
Simply put, no one party to the agreement on internal trade
can on its own amend that agreement. That is what this bill
is attempting to do.
There are therefore two main reasons why this bill is
inappropriate. First, it cannot accomplish what it wishes to do,
which is amend the agreement on internal trade without the
agreement of all the other governments that signed it.
Second, it directly conflicts with the fundamental basis on
which the agreement was negotiated, co-operation, joint action
and national interest. The Canadian business sector has a
legitimate expectation that the agreement on internal trade
should deal effectively with internal trade barriers and
impediments.
It has a legitimate expectation that the agreement should also
deal with the burden of extra costs imposed by conflicting,
overlapping and duplicate regulatory requirements. Ordinary
Canadians have a legitimate expectation that the agreement should
make it possible for them to live and work wherever they can be
gainfully employed or wherever they are able to provide
marketable services. All Canadians have a legitimate expectation
that the agreement should make it possible for them to invest
freely and conduct honest business freely throughout the country.
The agreement as it now stands does not deliver on those
expectations. It is only a first step. The fact is that dealing
definitively with internal trade issues is not a simple task.
1755
It is easy to read through sections 91(a) or 121 of the
Constitution and conclude that what is needed is bold and
decisive action by the federal government; easy but simplistic
and ultimately ineffective.
It is simplistic because unilateral federal action could not
address some areas that are exclusively within provincial
jurisdiction like labour mobility or local government spending on
subsidies and other incentives. It is ultimately ineffective
because it fails to recognize how this country works best.
Permanent, practical and effective change is best achieved when
based on acceptance and co-operation among governments, not on
the basis of legalism and coercion. All governments in Canada
must work together to ensure that the national economy is strong,
efficient and producing new products, services, jobs and growth
opportunities.
It is important to that end that all governments be pressed to
make the agreement on internal trade work better. The agreement
belongs to all its parties. Its implementation is the
responsibility of all its parties, not just the federal
government.
While I cannot support this bill before us for the reasons I
have outlined, I hope its message will not be lost by other
governments and that the member opposite proposing this bill
encourage in his own province that his own province be proactive
and a leader in making sure that internal trade barriers come
down.
In that regard, it is encouraging that the provincial premiers
at their annual meeting in August directed their ministers and
officials to complete the outstanding work of the agreement and
to embark on a major expansion of the activity under it.
This government certainly can be counted on to continue to try
to co-operate and work with others to strengthen and improve the
agreement on internal trade. We look to others to work with us
and be proactive to make things happen.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is with
great interest that I rise to speak to Bill C-203, the purpose of
which is to amend, and I will come back to this in detail, the
Agreement on Internal Trade Implementation Act.
I am glad to see you there, Mr. Speaker, because I am sure
that this is a topic of great concern to you and that you will
listen closely to what I have to say. Two topics seem to have you
terribly worried lately; obviously, the postal dispute, and the
impossibility of delivering mail from your riding, as well as your
inability to send out your seasonal greetings in the coming weeks.
I know that this concerns you greatly, and that internal trade
weighs just as heavily on your mind.
What is the bill before us all about? I will read the bill's
summary, which explains this very clearly.
This enactment will give the Governor in Council the
power to bring a proposal into force under the Agreement if,
although not having unanimous provincial consent, it
nevertheless has the consent of two thirds of the provinces
that have at least fifty per cent of the population of Canada.
This would apply only to cases where the proposal falls within
the federal legislative powers established by the Constitution
Act, 1867 that relate to free interprovincial trade.
There are two parts to this bill: the first is the amending
formula, and the second deals with the jurisdiction of the federal
government in matters of interprovincial trade.
I will start with the first point. Right now, the approach is
based on consensus, meaning that the agreement of all the provinces
is needed before proceeding. It strikes me as very appropriate to
ensure that the parties involved agree before the rules affecting
them are passed.
The big risk in the proposed formula is that the government would
be imposing rules on the provinces with which they were not in
agreement, and the odds are that, if these provinces were not in
agreement, it would be because their citizens were not in agreement
either.
When it comes to questions of trade, whether we are talking
about opening up borders to international trade or about
interprovincial trade, there is obviously very strong pressure to
liberalize that trade, but at the same time there is also pressure
to do so with respect for the particular characteristics of diverse
industries.
There is, for example, the whole issue of the colouring of
margarine, which is of concern to a lot of dairy producers. We
have to understand their concerns.
1800
So, it is certainly not up to the federal Parliament to decide
to impose rules without a consensus among the provinces involved.
So, I repeat, the current practice, a relatively recent one, is to
obtain the unanimous support of the provinces.
The second element of the formula proposed, which is in fact the
seven and fifty formula, that is seven provinces and 50% of the
population, was never accepted by Quebec. It had long
claimed—all sorts of problems arose subsequently—to have veto
power. However, no Bloc Quebecois member would agree in this
House to this formula, which, in the case of interprovincial
trade, would reduce the powers currently enjoyed by Quebec.
I have a warning, because I know the members of the government
are listening carefully. There is a danger in interprovincial
trade. This is my second point, and I will move to it now because
it follows nicely. The danger is that little by little the federal
government—and the supreme court has given it all the tools it
needs—will claim that many sectors of interprovincial trade are
under its jurisdiction.
We have long seen the Constitution from the standpoint of the
sections that speak of sharing jurisdictions. There are two ways,
however, that the federal government can use the Constitution to
acquire new powers.
There is public order and good government, and there is the
Criminal Code. We are not concerned with the Criminal Code here,
but I will explain how that would work anyway. The federal
government would introduce criminal offences in a particular sector
to claim that it had jurisdiction.
Whenever there have been disputes, the supreme court has
always ruled in favour of the federal government. This happened
again recently. There were a series of decisions recently—I will
not look at all of them individually—which meant that everything
was on the table if the federal government decided to go ahead and
use this provision of good order or good government to take over
areas of provincial jurisdiction with respect to interprovincial
trade. This is undesirable and I hope the federal government will
not resort to this.
It knows very well that, because of the way the court interpreted
the Canadian Constitution in its decision, there would be the
potential for the federal government to centralize further.
Therefore, as I was saying, there are two aspects to the bill.
The seven and fifty formula, which is unacceptable to a province
such as Quebec, would also be inconsistent with the claims of a
number of political parties, although in the case of the Reform
Party, this is less and less obvious, that they support the unique
character of Quebec, the new phrase we have been hearing.
This formula merely adds force to our argument that Quebec can
been considered to have a unique character on paper, in a
declaration with no constitutional value, but when it comes to
introducing bills or making legislation, and so forth, that does
not count.
This has symbolic value, it is a piece of paper that can be given
to Daniel Johnson to parade around with in the next election
campaign.
This must not have any legal impact, though, and still less
have any use as a means of recognizing more powers, or specific
powers, for Quebec, never, never. It is clear that if the Calgary
declaration were sold under that angle, it would sell even less
well than now. That agreement is not out of the woods yet, but
that is not what we are debating now.
Now back to the second aspect, which states that the seven and
fifty formula ought to be used for jurisdictions currently
belonging to the federal government. This is what I am explaining.
The problem is that the federal government is then going to claim
that other areas of jurisdiction belong to it, where
interprovincial trade is concerned. We can pretty well bet that
the supreme court would back it up, as usual.
There is an old expression in Quebec, with which you are very
familiar, which says that the supreme court is like the Leaning
tower of Pisa, it always leans in the same direction.
In the case of interprovincial trade, once again they are
nibbling away at the powers of the provinces—in the case I refer
to, the powers of Quebec—so that the federal government from the
heights of its great wisdom here in Ottawa can declare that it is
in the best position to ensure the proper operation of government.
They would say that good governance and law and order should be left
with the federal government. The government would then gradually invade
provincial jurisdictions. So we cannot agree on either count.
1805
Now, as far as interprovincial trade per se is concerned, it would
clearly be desirable to further harmonize all kinds of existing
regulations. I am in a good position to comment on this, since I live in
a border riding. Geographically, the riding of Témiscamingue is in
northwestern Quebec, on the border with Ontario. Naturally, we do a
great deal of trade.
We have a very serious transportation problem. There is all sorts
of regulations, and trucking regulations in particular.
In our riding, on the border, there is this company called Tembec Inc.
Its trucks only have to travel a few hundred feet to cross the border
but they are subject to a different set of standards regarding loading
and so on, depending on which side of the border they are on. That does
complicate things somewhat and there are serious problems.
But this does not mean we should give the federal government the
power to decide what would be best for these people. Hopefully, the
provinces will step up negotiations to improve interprovincial trade, in
the interest of businesses, individuals, workers and ultimately
consumers.
In some cases, it is easier to trade with a foreign country, and
the United States in particular, that between two Canadian provinces.
Everyone agrees improvements are required, but certainly not along the
lines of the proposals contained in the bill before us today, as it
would not be in keeping with the amending formula Quebec wants, it would
not give it a veto. On the other hand, it would enable the federal
government to avail itself of this means to help itself to more and more
power in the area of interprovincial trade. In the end, this would lead,
once again, to a greater centralization of powers.
For these two very valid reasons, we cannot support this bill.
[English]
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to speak to Bill C-203.
The bill before us proposes to amend the powers of the
government to enforce the agreement on internal trade. Under
Bill C-203 unanimous consent from the provinces will no longer be
required to reduce interprovincial trade barriers.
Internal trade is an area of great interest to me. My
background is in small and medium size business. My family have
been historically involved in small and medium size business. Our
family and our region in Atlantic Canada prospered under more
liberalized trade both with other Canadians and with people
around the world.
Currently 20% of our national income and over 1.9 million
Canadian jobs are created by trade among provinces and
territories. Trade between the provinces totalled $314 billion
in 1995 alone. Recognizing that internal trade in Canada is a
vital part of our economy, I am distressed that since the
internal trade agreement was negotiated and implemented it has
received very little attention and even less leadership from the
government.
Working harder to eliminate interprovincial trade barriers might
stop or at least slow the recent increase in the unemployment
rate. Canadian consumers, Canadian taxpayers and Canadians
looking for work are paying the price for inaction on reducing
internal trade barriers.
The initiative on the internal trade agreement was brought
forward by the former Conservative government in partnership with
the first ministers of the day. In 1987 the partners reached an
agreement in principle to negotiate an agreement on internal
trade. In the spring of 1993 negotiations began with a deadline
of June 1994.
Unfortunately this agreement has not had the effect its
originators had envisioned for it. This is especially
distressing when one reads the red book distributed by the
government in 1993. In it the Liberals promised to urgently
address the issue of internal trade if they were to form a
government. Today Canadians still find the economy hampered by
internal trade barriers which give the provinces protectionist
powers that cost Canadians jobs.
1810
The current agreement is fundamentally flawed. There continue
to be differing rules for a wide range of goods and services and
specifications for things as ludicrous as the colour of margarine
to the standards that trades people must meet in neighbouring
provinces. Self-governing professional groups have erected
qualification and certification barriers that prevent mobility of
the workforce between provinces.
The current agreement does not cover the $50 billion public
procurement market involving municipalities, universities, schools
and hospitals. A recent proposal to open this market was vetoed
by the British Columbian government. Since the agreement
contains no enforcement mechanism, when a province wishes to
break the agreement it can do so without fear. These trade
barriers are creating false economies, are creating higher costs
for consumers, taxpayers and are hindering employment growth.
The Liberal Party has in its past fought free trade. Now it
cannot get enough of it. One week it will sign a deal with
Chile. The next week it will sign a deal with Israel. While we
are supportive and have been consistent in our support of the
principles of liberalized trade and have recognized its benefits,
it is time to bring down the barriers that create more trade
barriers between Newfoundland and Ontario than exist between
Newfoundland and Chile or Newfoundland and Israel.
This is not an issue of partisan politics as members of each
party recognize the importance of bringing down these barriers
and ensuring that we further grow the Canadian economy through
liberalized trade.
Since the Liberals negotiated the agreement they have continued
to pass legislation that increases barriers to internal trade.
The current Minister for International Trade, the government's
latest choirboy for trade internationally, was singing a
different tune just a short time ago when as minister of the
environment he championed Bill C-29 which created internal trade
barriers within Canada that are now being contested under chapter
11 of the investor state provisions of NAFTA. This represents a
potential $350 million loss to Canadian taxpayers because of his
ineptitude at the time he championed Bill C-29.
The former minister for international trade, now the defence
minister, cautioned the member for York West in a letter dated
February 23, 1996. He told the minister “Bill C-29 could have
many adverse implications for Canadian trade without compensating
environmental benefits”. The government is guilty of creating
more internal trade barriers within the country, not eliminating
them.
Bill C-29 created internal trade barriers and is inconsistent
with our current international trade minister's philosophy du
jour espousing the benefits of liberalized trade. Now the
minister's trade policy contained in Bill C-29 has brought the
lawsuit from Ethyl Corporation. It is one of three lawsuits now
against the Canadian government from foreign companies under
chapter 11 provisions of NAFTA.
Not only did the government introduce Bill C-29 but it also
tried to push taxation barriers on the Atlantic provinces through
the implementation of the HST. Tax-in prices would have done
more to create internal trade barriers and would have cost more
jobs in Atlantic Canada. It is completely contrary to the basic
principles of liberalized trade the government consistently
represents, at least in terms of its rhetoric. It is completely
inconsistent in terms of its policy inaction.
The motion put forth by the member for Lakehead is headed in the
right direction as it asks for trade barriers to be reduced. It
has enabled the House to have a lively debate on the important
issue of internal trade. The motion on its own is too simplistic
to completely address the barriers surrounding internal trade. I
fear that what is needed is leadership from the government on an
issue that is all too important to be downsized.
The government has shown a propensity to downsize and offload
responsibilities to the provinces in the race to fiscal
responsibility. We cannot offload or downsize leadership. That
is what I fear has happened with this important issue of internal
trade.
The problems with this agreement are much deeper than unanimous
consent of the provinces. This is an example of the need for an
enforcement clause which I touched on earlier.
Furthermore, the motion asks the government to unilaterally
change the internal trade agreement without consultation with the
provinces. It is this type of federalism that the Official
Opposition has used at times to divide Canadians while our party,
the PC Party, is trying hard to unite Canada.
1815
The PC Party believes it is time to deal with this problem of
internal trade barriers with a holistic approach. The jobs at
stake are simply too important for the federal government to sit
on the sidelines. We believe that free internal trade can be
negotiated co-operatively with the provinces.
The government needs to provide courageous leadership on this
issue. The government has demonstrated basically that it is not
interested in playing that important and critical role with the
provinces on these types of important negotiations.
Earlier this spring my party proposed making internal trade an
integral part of something we call the Canadian covenant. Under
the Canadian covenant the PC Party proposed forging a new and
lasting federation with a new level of co-operation between the
federal government and the provinces.
Besides health care and post-secondary education, the covenant
would have focused on interprovincial trade. We support the
establishment of a commission to regulate and enforce the rules
of interprovincial trade. We need to negotiate with the
provinces to harmonize provincial standards in areas of corporate
and business registrations, professional or occupational
certification so that the costs of doing business in this country
are not increased but in fact are reduced. The PC also supports
strengthening internal trade through the transportation
procurement provisions.
In closing, interprovincial trade like international trade is
vital to our economy. The current government has focused too
little time on improving trade conditions right here at home.
The Canadian Chamber of Commerce estimates that a 10% increase
in interprovincial trade will create 200,000 very necessary and
important jobs for Canadians. It is time for a Team Canada for
Canada and it is time that we demonstrate leadership and it is
time that the federal government actually works hard to provide
this type of leadership at this critical time for the Canadian
people.
Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to rise and speak on Bill C-203, a bill to amend the
Agreement on Internal Trade Implementation Act.
I would like to congratulate the member for Lakeland for this
initiative. I would like to congratulate our government as well
for making some early moves in the right direction. As the
parliamentary secretary indicated, more needs to be done, but I
am very happy that we have started the process.
If we look at it from the point of view of economic efficiency,
it does seem somewhat ironic that as we are breaking down
barriers to trade internationally, we still do have some barriers
to trade within our own country.
Within that context I wonder if we could talk briefly about the
brewing industry. The brewing industry and the location of
brewing plants in Canada has been one of those issues within the
context of the internal trade agreement that has received some
profile and some attention.
In my riding of Etobicoke North I have two very large breweries,
a big Molson brewery and a big Labatt brewery. I have many
dealings as a result of that with the brewing industry. When I
speak with them we often discuss how the brewing industry in the
United States has evolved. There are typically very large
brewing plants in the United States in one location or two
locations and they serve the domestic U.S.A. market and perhaps
the market internationally. They tend to have huge plants and
they capitalize on some tremendous economies of scale.
In Canada the brewing industry has developed somewhat
differently. We have a number of smaller plants which are
relatively large in size but compared to the megaplants in the
United States, they tend to be smaller and they tend to be spread
out across Canada. As I understand it, the reason that has
evolved is that many provinces—including I suspect the province
of Alberta, but I do not know that for certain—but various
provinces have insisted that for the national breweries to do
business in their province, they have restricted transport
movements of beer. It really has meant that the brewing industry
has been required to set up brewing plants in very many of the
provinces.
Presumably some of the major breweries have established plants in
Alberta. Again, I do not have those facts in front of me.
1820
If the barriers to internal trade are removed for the brewing
industry, it would undoubtedly mean that some of the smaller
plants across the prairies, in British Columbia, in the maritime
provinces and in Ontario would shut down and a lot of the
production would be consolidated into megaplants. I wonder if
the hon. member for Lakeland would see that as a positive step
and whether he would support it.
The Deputy Speaker: If the hon. member for Lakeland
speaks now, he will close the debate. The hon. member for
Lakeland.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I will respond to some
of the issues which were brought up by the members who spoke. I
do not have much time obviously to spend on the response to any
one particular member. I will start by responding to the
questions posed by the hon. member for Etobicoke North. He asked
what would happen to some of the smaller breweries if barriers to
internal trade were removed. He asked about Alberta
specifically.
If the member wants to refer to Alberta, it would be important
for him to know that the province of Alberta has led the movement
to remove barriers to internal trade. Unilaterally it has made
many of the changes which will be and should have been put in
place by a completed agreement on internal trade. Alberta has
done it unilaterally because it feels that this issue is
important to Albertans.
There have been a few people who have complained about this
unilateral action. They feel that Alberta should have waited
until the agreement is completed. That is what my private
member's bill would do. It would lead to the completion of the
agreement.
Members who have called it simplistic obviously have not read it
and thought it through. It is simple. It is a simple amendment,
but it is not simplistic and it will do the job.
In terms of the breweries, many successful breweries are in fact
micro-breweries, smaller breweries. I cannot say for sure that
some would not close down as a result of removing barriers.
However, every province, each territory and the federal
government, when they signed the agreement on internal trade
agreed that there would be a net benefit to the people of each
and every province.
That brings me to the comments made by the Bloc member. He was
concerned that Quebec would lose its veto within the formula
which would remove the unanimous consent requirement and put in
place the consent of at least seven provinces having at least 50%
of the population. His concern is completely unfounded. In
fact, the Government of Quebec signed the agreement on internal
trade. It agreed to a step by step process to complete the
agreement. All my bill would do would be to allow for the
completion of the agreement on internal trade.
The concerns put forth by the hon. Bloc member are completely
unfounded because Quebec has already agreed to it, as has every
other province and territory in the country.
Furthermore, I believe that Bloc members supported the
implementation agreement which was introduced in 1995 and passed
in 1996. This nonsense about Quebec losing its veto is
completely unfounded. It has already expressed the desire to
have this agreement completed and that is all my bill would do.
It would put in place a more realistic formula for approval for
each step in completing the agreement on internal trade.
The reactions of government members have been very vague in some
ways. However, they did say they were concerned because the
agreement on internal trade was signed by all governments in
Canada, so how could the federal government alone make this
amendment.
I would ask the parliamentary secretary if the government has
even attempted to consult with the provinces and the territories
to make this change or a change like this. I do not care if they
use the exact method that I am putting forward. I do not care. I
just want the job done.
1825
The government has far more resources than I have in terms of
coming up with a way of doing it. I believe it will work, as do
members of these institutions who have studied the issue in some
depth. They agree it will work.
I do not believe it is simplistic. I believe it is simple. The
concerns the government has expressed are completely unfounded. I
will use some quotes from Liberal ministers in the last
government to back that up.
One is from Alan Toulin, writing in The Financial Post,
October 25, 1996. He referred to the minister from Edmonton West
hoping for agreement on internal trade in electricity. She also
raised the possibility that Ottawa would use its constitutional
powers to manage the country's economic union.
That would mean a more active federal government, a role in
bringing about deregulation for that minister and the Minister of
Industry.
On February 25, 1997 the Minister of Industry spoke to a group
of Edmonton small business people at a small business conference.
He said that from his point of view it would soon be time for
the federal government to consider alternative strategies. To
say that he was disappointed, angry or frustrated is not only how
he felt but an understatement. Being this far along into the
agreement with so little progress to show indicated to him that
it was certainly time to re-examine the strategy.
I will close with that. I had several quotes from
constitutional experts. I would be glad to table them if I am
requested to do so. I thank members for their input. I thank
them for their clear support in dealing with the issue. It was
unanimous, I believe. If government members do not believe my
bill is the best way to go in this regard, I encourage them to
come up with their own and I will support it wholeheartedly.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: As no other hon. member wishes to speak,
and the motion was not selected as a votable item, the hour
provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now
expired and this item is dropped from the Order Paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on October 24, 1997, I questioned the
Minister of Human Resources Development about the fact that the
matter of the use made of the surplus of billions of dollars in the
employment insurance fund should be included on the agenda of the
next federal provincial conference.
1830
We must not forget that, last summer at St. Andrews, the
premiers decided that there were two things the federal government
had to do about employment insurance. It had to lower
contributions and improve the living conditions of workers who are
between jobs, that is unemployed people receiving benefits.
Since then, there has not been a peep out of the federal
government. The minister told us that the agenda was not his
responsibility, it was the Prime Minister's. Today, we have
reached that point in the autumn when—and we can see it at the
InfoCentres—in Shawinigan they are getting calls from all those
who are dissatisfied with the employment insurance reform.
Our riding offices are systematically flooded with calls from people who
say they can no longer get through.
In this wonderful federal system, it used to be that each Canada
employment centre could provide answers to those it served. Through some
incredible coincidence, it was decided to centralize everything in
Shawinigan, in the Prime Minister's riding, and nothing works any more.
There is no one to answer the phone. People call and call, but the line
is always busy. This is example of the contempt shown by the Liberal
government, which did not heed the message sent by the public during the
last federal election.
Several Liberal MPs from the maritimes lost their jobs here. They
were replaced by New Democrats or Conservatives because the public sent
a clear message to the government that the employment insurance issue
had to be reconsidered.
People do not call it employment insurance. They still talk about
unemployment insurance. They know that the new program is not a
guarantee of employment, but a guarantee that they will have
increasingly less money when they find themselves between jobs. They
want to know whether the government is prepared to lower the requirement
of 910 hours of work for first-time contributors, such as graduating
students or women who re-enter the labour market. Would it be possible
to lower this requirement to a more reasonable figure, so that people
will not give up?
Would it be possible to change the fact that, at the end of every
20 weeks of collecting employment insurance, people will see their
benefits diminish by 1%? It means that if someone is starting this fall
at 55%, he or she will get 54% in 20 weeks. If that person needs to rely
on employment insurance again next year, the same thing will happen. The
clock is not set back to zero.
This means that in three years, seasonal workers will find themselves
with 50%, while a person who lives in another region and who does not
have to rely on employment insurance on a regular basis will get 55%.
Is there any possibility that the federal government can promise to
put this issue on the agenda at the first ministers' conference that
will be held in December, as requested by the Quebec premier and the
other provincial premiers last summer? That would tell us something
about this government's ability to show compassion.
[English]
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the
hon. member's question by reminding him, and the Minister of
Human Resources remarked on this recently, that the last federal
budget and the main estimates already contain a great deal of
information on the employment insurance account.
That said, there is no great mystery regarding the employment
insurance account reserve. A reserve is necessary since it makes
it possible to apply more stable premium rates throughout the
economic cycle, thus making it possible to avoid increasing them
in a recessionary period. In addition, the reserve makes it
possible to ensure that there are sufficient funds to pay
benefits when they are most necessary.
Let us recall for a moment what happened in the last recession.
A $2 billion surplus in the Employment Insurance Act turned into
a $6 billion deficit in two years and it was necessary to
increase premiums by 30% in what was already a difficult time for
job creation. That is no time to increase premiums.
Consequently the government believes that it is wise to
establish a reserve in the employment insurance account.
The size of the reserve varies continually. It increases and
decreases depending on the rate at which benefits are paid out.
The reserve is currently estimated to contain some $12 billion.
However, this amount is to be reviewed and the government will
soon be announcing its decision in this regard.
1835
It should be remembered that the funds are kept in an account in
anticipation of future expenditures that might be incurred under
the program. The interest is credited to the employment
insurance account. As indicated in the main estimates for
1997-98, interest this year totalled $345 million.
The employment insurance premiums of workers and employers make
it possible to provide income protection. That is very important
for persons who unexpectedly lose their jobs.
The Deputy Speaker: A motion to adjourn the House is now
deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.36 p.m.)