House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2006, with 53% of the vote.
Canadian Wheat Board Act February 17th, 1998
Madam Speaker, the hon. member forgets that the minister responsible for the wheat board also lives in Saskatchewan. The member was not the only one who was home during the Christmas holidays. The minister was there taking the pulse of the producers out west. He came back and offered an olive branch to members opposite which they rejected to a man. They will not consider any other option but the destruction of the wheat board.
Canadian Wheat Board Act February 17th, 1998
Madam Speaker, to accuse the government of ramming through the legislation is going beyond the credible stage. We have been at this for three years. At some time all good things must come to an end. In this case the debate over the Canadian Wheat Board has gone on long enough. Farmers in the western provinces would agree that the debate has gone on long enough and that it is time to make a decision and get on with life.
Everything in the bill is not etched in stone forever and ever. If there comes such a time that the changes do not work then the appropriate measures will be taken. However, to accuse the government of ramming through the legislation with time allocation is stretching credulity.
If 10 of the 15 members of the new farmer board want to hide things from their fellow farmers who elected them, I suppose that is up to them. If Canadian wheat farmers who elected the majority of members are not satisfied with the auditing procedures of the people who were hired by the board, I have no doubt the members would change it and institute measures that would be more acceptable to the people who elected them.
Canadian Wheat Board Act February 17th, 1998
Madam Speaker, I too have had a very interesting experience dealing with this piece of legislation. My experience may be as interesting as that of the member for Brandon—Souris, as both of us entered into this debate probably two years after the debate started on the changes to the wheat board.
Given the various opinions that exist in the western provinces with regard to the role and function of the wheat board, the legislation struck the right changes to satisfy most producers affected in the Canadian west.
As previous speakers have said, western Canadian farmers need every possible advantage to tackle head on the challenges inherent in the changing global economy. We have heard that said over and over. The Canadian Wheat Board gives them an advantage that makes them the envy of farmers around the world.
Farmers have said clearly that they want the Canadian Wheat Board, but they want it to be more democratic, more responsive and more accountable, and this legislation does that. It would maintain the single desk system of selling grain that allows the wheat board to command premium prices from its customers around the world. It is a system that the majority of western farmers appreciates and wants.
The legislation fundamentally changes how the wheat board would be run. Farmers would be empowered to direct their own wheat board. While government would continue to be a partner, it would play a much smaller role in the new modernized Canadian Wheat Board.
Bill C-4 would not only change who runs the wheat board but how it would be run. The bottom line in Bill C-4 is that farmers through a majority elected board of directors would decide their own future. Directors elected by farmers would assess the performance of the Canadian Wheat Board and of senior management. They would be able to make changes if performance were not up to expectations.
Farmers quite rightly would make these important decisions about their own destinies through the board of directors which they would control through their two-thirds majority. If this is not democratic, if this is not transparent and if this is not fair and appropriate, I do not know what is.
With the passage of Bill C-4 the wheat board's future would not be determined by the government or by members of the House. Bill C-4 will come as a great relief to tens of thousands of farmers whose livelihoods are linked to the Canadian Wheat Board. They deserve to have the power to design their own futures.
I emphasize the support which exists outside the Chamber for this legislation. The precursor of this bill, Bill C-72, was widely debated. The agriculture and agri-food committee held about 40 hours of hearings on it in Ottawa and more critically in Winnipeg, Regina, Saskatoon, Calgary and Grande Prairie. The committee heard from more than 40 groups and 40 individuals. Many more people supported the legislation than opposed it.
There were concerns. The government listened and the committee took action. After these hearings the standing committee made more than 20 amendments to the bill. Those amendments are reflected in Bill C-4.
Under Bill C-4 the system by which the Canadian Wheat Board is currently run, that is by government appointed commissioners, would end and be replaced by a 15 member board of directors. The majority of directors, 10 out of 15, would be elected directly by farmers themselves.
Could anyone in the House of Commons name another $6 billion corporation that would be run by a board of directors, most of whom are elected by the clients they serve? This is more than unique. It is unprecedented.
The directors would have real power to direct all the business affairs of a modernized Canadian Wheat Board. They would have the power to review all Canadian Wheat Board sales and financial data, bar none. They would have the power to select their chairperson, set their own salaries as well as those of the chair and the president and, if necessary, recommend that the president be fired.
As farmer elected representatives, the directors would be as responsible to their electorate as we are. They will listen and respond to the needs of producers. If they do not they would likely not gain re-election. That is accountability.
We have heard a number of calls in the House for farmers to elect all members of the Canadian Wheat Board to the board of directors. Usually those calls point to the Ontario Wheat Producers' Marketing Board as an example of a grain marketing agency with a fully elected board. The question that usually follows is why the same cannot be done for the Canadian Wheat Board.
There is a number of quite valid reasons for treating the Canadian Wheat Board differently from the situation for grain marketing currently found in Ontario. The Ontario Wheat Producers' Marketing Board does not benefit from the same government guarantees as does the Canadian Wheat Board. The government does not guarantee the borrowings of the Ontario board while it does guarantee Canadian Wheat Board borrowings of more than $6 billion.
The situation is also different with respect to export credit guarantees. The Ontario board does not have its own export credit program. Rather it obtains export credit from the Export Development Corporation, an organization with a board of directors appointed entirely by government.
The Canadian Wheat Board operates its own credit grain sales program which benefits from a government guarantee. This is another reason for having the government appoint at least some members of the Canadian Wheat Board board of directors.
The financial implications of decisions made by the Canadian Wheat Board are much larger than those associated with the Ontario board. On average the Ontario Wheat Producers' Marketing Board markets about 900,000 tonnes of wheat per year mainly in Canada and the United States, while the Canadian Wheat Board markets an average of 25 million tonnes of wheat and barley per year in more than 70 countries.
The Canadian Wheat Board would continue to exercise certain public powers conferred by parliament such as the issuing of export licences for wheat and barley for all areas of the country. The Ontario board does not have such powers. For example, it must obtain export licences from the Canadian Wheat Board.
The government's role in Canadian Wheat Board operations would change from one of paternalism to one of partnership. The government would guarantee to provide financial guarantees to the wheat board. As these guarantees are worth billions of dollars, the government would need to continue to ensure the guarantees did not become a drain on the public treasury, as is only prudent.
The government would appoint five directors but the directors would be in a minority. The majority elected by farmers would clearly hold sway. Farmers in the Canadian Wheat Board have also asked for more options in how grain is marketed and paid for. As I mentioned earlier the Canadian Wheat Board is envied around the world for its size, its clout and its success. Of course it comes under attack by our trading competitors. Its high rating among global buyers clearly makes it a threat to our competitors.
The governor of North Dakota recently said that farmers from both countries should work together. He suggested that as a first step North Dakota farmers should be able to sell their grain to the Canadian Wheat Board. At the same time the United States bashes the Canadian Wheat Board.
If it were not doing a good job for Canadian farmers, would the U.S. government give a tinker's damn about the Canadian Wheat Board? I think not.
With Bill C-4 we are doing the right thing. We are positioning the Canadian Wheat Board for the new millennium and giving farmers the power to steer their own future. Bill C-4 deserves the full support of all members of the House.
Fisheries February 10th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Human Resources Development. What assurances can the minister give the fishermen of Atlantic Canada that there will be some help for them when the Atlantic groundfish strategy runs out in August?
Cape Breton Development Corporation February 5th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
Yesterday the member for Bras D'Or stood in her place, frantically waving a document which she purported to be a secret government document which threatened to privatize the Cape Breton Development Corporation.
Will the minister relieve the people of Cape Breton?
Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997 February 2nd, 1998
You had better not get sick.
Lorie Kane November 24th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, a great moment in Canadian sport occurred this past weekend when Lorie Kane, a native of Prince Edward Island, tied for first place in regulation play in the LPGA tour championship.
The top 30 women golfers of the world came together in Las Vegas for the final tournament of the year to determine who was the best.
To have a Canadian and a Prince Edward Islander tie for first place was a great achievement for Lorie and for Canadian women's golf. The fact that Lorie lost after three playoff holes to the top money winner and player of the year, Annika Sorenstam, does not diminish the pride all islanders feel in her performance.
Rightly or wrongly, a golfer's success is measured by money earned. By this standard Lorie's earnings of over $425,000 U.S. have established her as the best female Canadian golfer in history. To accomplish this as a rookie on the tour makes it all the more impressive.
Lorie is a great ambassador for the sport, for P.E.I. and for Canada. She always remembers those who have helped her along the road.
Lorie, we congratulate you and wish you continued success.
Petitions November 7th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I would like to present a petition on behalf of the constituents of Prince Edward Island who are concerned about the explicit nudity in public places which is becoming quite frequent. There are laws in Canada to protect children against this form of nudity in all media, but currently there are no laws protecting children in public places.
Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to enact legislation to amend the Criminal Code, specifically sections 173 and 174, the indecent act and public nudity provisions, to clearly state that a woman exposing her breasts in a public place is an indecent act.
Committees Of The House November 7th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food relating to Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
Premier Of Nova Scotia November 5th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to congratulate the Premier of Nova Scotia, Russell MacLellan, on his election yesterday in the riding of Sydney North. Russell was the choice of his party and the people to be Premier of Nova Scotia.
Russell is an 18 year veteran of this place where he made his mark as a parliamentarian noted for his honesty and integrity, a great representative of his province and as a man of the people in all his deliberations.
We wish Russell well on his victory and that of his colleague Dr. Ed Kinley in Halifax Citadel. These victories bode well for a re-election of the Liberal government in Nova Scotia in the next few months.