moved:
Motion No. 33
That Bill C-4, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing lines 6 to 15 on page 10 with the following:
“10. Section 18 of the act is repealed.”
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 37% of the vote.
Canadian Wheat Board Act February 9th, 1998
moved:
Motion No. 33
That Bill C-4, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing lines 6 to 15 on page 10 with the following:
“10. Section 18 of the act is repealed.”
Canadian Wheat Board Act February 9th, 1998
moved:
Motion No. 21
That Bill C-4, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing lines 38 and 39 on page 7 with the following:
“5. The heading before section 5 and section 5 of the Act are replaced with the following:
Agriculture February 9th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a particularly important issue to both the agricultural industry and international trade. The World Trade Organization negotiations begin in 1999 and other countries have already begun to chart their course with respect to their agricultural sectors. Our current minister of agriculture has a tendency to simply let lawyers defend the industry rather than have his own ministry set policy for the future.
It is time for the government to start defending this multibillion dollar industry. Is our government going to begin a substantive plan on how our industry will fit internationally and compete in the global agriculture and agri-food market? Unlike the government's environmental initiative in Kyoto, we cannot wait until the last minute.
Now is the time to begin a comprehensive consultative process with both industry and consumers on how we should compete in both the international and domestic markets. I urge the government to start looking for such a plan.
Grain Transportation February 9th, 1998
moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately conduct a review, with the participation of all stakeholders, to develop a solution to grain transportation inefficiencies.
Mr. Speaker, what a better way to start a Monday morning than to speak in this wonderful Chamber. I know that you, Mr. Speaker, having rested over this past weekend, will no doubt appreciate the comments that I as well as members of other opposition parties will make.
Unfortunately the motion was deemed non-votable. I would have preferred it votable, but when I appeared before committee there were only so many motions that could be put forward as votable. This was not chosen as one of them.
This motion is what I believe to be one of the major agricultural issues that will be facing Canadian producers and certainly Canadian trade in not only 1998 but years to follow.
I put forward Motion 225:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately conduct a review, with the participation of all stakeholders, to develop a solution to grain transportation inefficiencies.
As part of my presentation to the committee, I quoted that the delayed 1997 shipments to contracted international customers, primarily in wheat, have resulted in demurrage charges of $65 million paid for primarily by producers. It has been estimated that an additional $35 million was lost in potential sales because of Canada's inability to deliver product. This does not only reflect poorly on westerners but on Canada as a whole in the international marketplace.
I would also like to inform the House that this motion does not put forward any partisan interests. I am not suggesting any changes in policy. I am suggesting that we, as parliamentarians, listen to stakeholders involved, draft a report and table that report to the House for consideration.
On December 18, 1997 the transport minister sent out a news release announcing the appointment of the hon. Justice Estey to conduct a review of Canada's grain handling transportation system. The timing is very important. In October I put forward this motion to committee. In December of that same year the government did announce Mr. Estey as being the individual who would take the review forward. There are still some issues and some problems with that. I would like to consider that the transportation committee and the agricultural committee have a joint committee struck so we can, as parliamentarians, listen to stakeholders and put forward their views to this House in a separate report.
I welcome the appointment. It has been a long time coming. A preliminary report will be available by May 31, 1998. The final report of the review is to be completed by December 31, 1998.
A grain review advisory council comprising of representatives from grain handling and transportation will be appointed by the Minister of Transport to support Mr. Estey throughout the review process. Hopefully the advisory council will not end in the same fate that the western grain marketing panel suffered after most of its key recommendations were shelved after they were given to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.
I welcome the government's decision to finally begin the process of the review. The unfortunate part of this is it is about two years too late. With this review scheduled to end by December 1998, it will not be until 1999 when there can be something actually done about the recommendations.
That being said, I would now like to elaborate on my motion today which unfortunately was deemed not votable.
On July 25, 1997 the federal ministers of transport and agriculture and the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board convened a grain summit in Winnipeg. A key objective was to gauge the interest among those who handled and transported grain and the value of embarking on a comprehensive review system. It was a productive exercise but it did not answer the problems that thousands of farmers have out west with our current system. However, there was a consensus that the review should be conducted in 1999. With all due respect, Canadian farmers cannot wait for two years.
We as parliamentarians have a role and a duty in committee to begin immediately to listen to the concerns of all stakeholders so that we may be able to have a better understanding as to how we might tackle this problem.
I also understand how we might tackle the problem. I also believe that the most appropriate way of conducting an immediate comprehensive review is to form a joint standing committee of agriculture and agri-food and transport, pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a). The committee would hear witnesses from farming communities across western Canada, railways, the Canadian Grain Commission, the Canadian Wheat Board and those who operate and regulate the industry.
I would also like to dispel any thoughts that this is an issue that affects only western Canada. It is an issue that has widespread ramifications across Canada even though it has directly affected those west of the Ontario border. It is Canada's international reputation that is at stake as supplier of some of the world's best grain and best product.
The review is necessary because of the new market realities for Canadian grain. With the end of the Crow rate two years ago, farmers have to be more competitive. Also, it should be noted that the federal government's 13,000 hopper fleet is yet to be sold, leaving farmers wondering the government's reasoning for not doing anything with it. This is not helping the situation.
The review should assess the effectiveness of the process, the adequacy of shipper protection, lack of railway competition and alternatives and potential improvements and efficiencies, bearing in mind the costs to all stakeholders.
Canada exports approximately $18 billion to $20 billion worth of food products every year. About half of those exports are grains, oilseeds and related products. Inefficiencies in the management of the Canadian grain transportation system have caused serious damage to the Canadian grain export industry and prairie economy.
Delayed 1997 shipments to contracted international consumers, primarily in wheat, have resulted in demurrage costs of approximately $65 million, paid for by producers. It has been estimated that $35 million was lost in potential sales because of Canada's inability to deliver. These are conservative estimates.
Prairie pools, for example, have suggested estimates of hundreds of millions of dollars in lost sales of prairie products. This does not only reflect poorly on westerners but Canada as a whole and the international global marketplace.
Instead of dealing with the situation rationally, the Canadian Wheat Board's knee-jerk reaction to the problem was to file a complaint against CN rail before the CTA, which is only costing taxpayers and producers more money, in a battle of egos instead of sitting down rationally in committee and solving the problem.
I have asked the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board to drop the complaint so that we can get on with the constructive review. He has declined to do so. Unlike what the Canadian Wheat Board and CN have done, the committee review will not be an exercise in finger pointing.
The CTA hearing has literally handcuffed the government's ability to conduct this review on grain transportation. Legislation governing the Canada Transportation Act allows 120 days to lapse between the time a complaint is filed and when the public hearing must take place.
Unfortunately the CTA has delayed public hearings three times since the complaint began and now is not scheduled to hear until March 1998.
Once again I would like to inform this House that this motion does not put forward any partisan interests. I am not suggesting any changes in policy. I am only suggesting that we, as parliamentarians, listen to stakeholders, draft a report and table the report for consideration in the House of Commons.
Every provincial government in western Canada wants the review conducted as soon as possible. Even Saskatchewan's transport minister has said, referring to Ottawa's response to the issue, it is a process that is taking much too long. There is not a stakeholder involved who does not want an immediate inquiry into the issue.
The committee process is vital to our role as parliamentarians. Since the time of Confederation, the House of Commons has created committees to study matters of national importance. It is just one of many issues that are important to western Canadians and Canada's reputation. If anything, I hope this exercise is not a waste of time. At the very least those on the government side can consider this an information session so that the next time they might actually try to listen to the concerns of farmers across western Canada and be proactive instead of reactive.
I have a number of concerns. As I said earlier, Mr. Justice Estey has been identified as the individual to take this banner across western Canada to try to find out exactly what the inefficiencies are in the transportation system. And there are many.
One of the concerns I have right now is the changes that are going on constantly in the rail transportation system. One is that of rail abandonment. Our concerns and certainly my position would be, rather than rail abandonment because of the change in the transportation system in the inland terminals that we have more short lines. The short lines should be available to those entrepreneurs who wish to develop the process within their own marketplaces. I believe that is one very major issue that has to be studied not only by the committee but certainly by Mr. Justice Estey and his individual groups.
Another very serious concern I have, and I talked about it briefly, is that of political will. We recognize there is a very major problem with the system of grain transportation now in western Canada. There is no finger pointing. A number of stakeholders and organizations are equally at fault by operating a system that is unimpeded by progress in the last number of years. They are steeped in tradition only but have not developed the same way that farming has developed in western Canada.
It is going to take political will to make the system change. Right now the Canadian Wheat Board controls the allocation of cars. The question should be asked, should in fact they be controlling that particular aspect of transportation, or should it be controlled either by the producers or for that matter by the railroads themselves.
I find it very strange that a producer when he sells his product is responsible for that product until it gets on a ship. However he has no control of that product. This is the political will that is required to make the necessary changes in order to make the system work better. I believe that a joint committee of agriculture and agri-food and transportation would at least allow the nurturing of that political will, non-partisan, to do what is best for the producer and certainly what is best for western Canadian trade abroad.
I also have a concern about the delay in Justice Estey's report. We have some serious concerns right now about the fact that we are being affected in the international market because of just in time delivery. If Justice Estey wishes to bring his report forward in two years, we may have lost a wonderful window of opportunity to have additional sales in the world market where we could not access them because of the lack of ability to deliver on time.
There is another issue too with respect to transportation which has not been dealt with but which the committee should be studying. That is the effect on municipal roads that rail transportation is going to have in the not too distant future. We have seen a number of the private sector corporations developing huge inland terminals where producers are required to ship their product by rubber tire many kilometres further now than what they did previously with other rail lines.
The problem with that is that road infrastructure is being impacted by the grain trucks and municipalities are responsible for the repair, the construction and the maintenance of those roads. I believe it is important that this government and the committee design and help to put in place a policy which will assist that road infrastructure.
There is one other issue that I have a real serious concern with. It is the CTA hearing itself. How can Justice Estey expect to have open, honest, transparent dialogue when the Canadian Wheat Board is taking the same people to a quasi-judicial court and asking for millions of millions of dollars? It cannot be expected to be honest and open unless we get rid of the CTA hearing. That too should be debated and discussed openly at the committee level so that parliamentarians can make an honest decision and judgment and bring it back to the House.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you and I hope your Monday morning has gone well. I hope the rest of the week goes equally as well for you and the rest of the House.
Motions For Papers February 4th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I do not withdraw my motion. I wish to transfer it for debate.
Petitions February 4th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I present this petition on behalf of constituents of my riding as well as other ridings in western Canada. This petition deals with a piece of legislation that will again be coming forward to this House, Bill C-4, the bill that deals with the Canadian Wheat Board.
I will read the petition as listed. It says that Bill C-4 does not make the necessary changes to the Canadian Wheat Board that the majority of western Canadian farmers want to ensure that the Canadian Wheat Board operates in the best interests of the producers and that Bill C-4 opens the possibility of including more crops under the Canadian Wheat Board's jurisdiction which will adversely affect the marketing and processing of non-board grains.
Therefore, the petitioners call upon Parliament to withdraw the parts of Bill C-4 which would allow for additional crops to be marketed by the Canadian Wheat Board and that no more crops are brought under the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly.
I wish to present this and table it in the House.
The Late David Orlikow February 4th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of my caucus and the PC Party of Canada and as a Manitoban to pay tribute to a truly great Manitoban.
On January 19, 1998 one of Manitoba's longest serving politicians died in the hospital of heart failure at the age of 79. David Orlikow was a member of Parliament for over 25 years and served his constituents of Winnipeg North with great dignity and professionalism. He gave over 40 years of his life to the public, working for the greater good of Manitobans. Whether it was in the capacity as a former MLA, alderman or school trustee, he served the public to the best of his ability. His strong belief in social justice led him to his political career where he fought for human rights, immigration and the union movement among other things.
David Orlikow was remembered best for his tireless commitment to his constituents. He often spent long hours both in his office and talking with his constituents trying to solve whatever problems they may have had.
There is one word that would best describe David Orlikow and that word would be dedicated.
Regardless of one's political stripe it is difficult not to respect a man of his calibre. Unfortunately I was not able to get to know him but David Orlikow will be greatly missed by all who did have that opportunity.
There is an old adage that one cannot demand respect but one must earn respect. In Mr. Orlikow's situation, he earned the respect of all Manitobans.
I would like to extend my condolences on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party to the surviving members of the Orlikow family.
On behalf of Manitoba, thank you for your years of public service.
Infrastructure February 4th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the prime minister.
Yesterday in this House the Minister of Transport rose and stated that the government had entered into an agreement with the province of New Brunswick; as a matter of fact it would respect that agreement, a deal is a deal.
The helicopter deal was not a deal. The Pearson airport deal was not a deal. Scrapping the GST was not a deal.
Will the prime minister please tell me today if the only deals that are respected are those entered into with former Liberal cabinet ministers? Is he prepared to tell Doug Young to go hit the road?
Questions On The Order Paper February 2nd, 1998
Who were the project recipients for Scientific Research Tax Credit during the years 1980-1985 and how much did each project receive through tax credits?
Questions On The Order Paper February 2nd, 1998
What is the exact amount of the debt incurred by the Ontario Wheat Board during the 1996-97 crop year that the federal government will be responsible for?