Debates of Nov. 20th, 1997

Canadian Wheat Board Act

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

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.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

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.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

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?

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.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—Assiniboine, MB]

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.

[Jim Pankiw, Reform, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

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.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

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.

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.

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—

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—Assiniboine, MB]

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.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Lakeland, AB]

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.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

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.

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.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

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.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, QC]

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.

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—

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

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.

[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.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, QC]

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.

[Howard Hilstrom, Reform, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

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.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse, QC]

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.