Roy H. Bailey

[Supply, February 18th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, somehow I do not like the term brain drain. It somehow indicates that all the smarts have gone some place else. Looking around at all of us here, I do not believe that is true.

I would like to direct a question to the member who has just spoken. I would rather call it an intellectual exodus. Does the member remember the greatest exodus outside the depression in Saskatchewan? The greatest exodus that ever hit Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta was when a Liberal government instituted the national energy policy.

We are talking about an exodus. That kind of taxation brings about an exodus. Would the member not agree that the exodus we are talking about is brought about by high taxation?

[Supply, February 18th, 1998]

Because all the young people leave.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 17th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, to give my colleague the answer to the question, in order for an industry on the prairies to become viable, it first must escape and not have to pay the freight rate because they do not use any freight and they must escape the handling charges because they do not use any handling charges.

The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool soon learned that they had to get out from the long arm of the wheat board. If industries are going to develop on the prairies, then the wheat board must recognize it and free the farmers to establish their own industry.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 17th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, in reply to my colleague, yes it is true. It is very true that from time to time all over western Canada the chief executive officer of the wheat board and the wheat board determine where the rail cars go and what the allotment is. The farmer who grows the grain has no say whatsoever as to where that grain will go, through what port it will go and only the wheat board makes that decision.

We now have the opportunity with a new structure coming into the Hudson's Bay area to double or triple the amount of grain going. I have been told by these people that they can fill the terminals more cheaply in Montreal, Saint John and Halifax by going that route. If it is cheaper it should be done. Every time you can save the western Canadian farmer a dollar you should. The farmer should get the money and not the Canadian Wheat Board. The board should not get the money if it is not acting in the best interest of the farmer to bring about maximum returns, a statement you would not put into the wheat board itself.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 17th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it is very interesting on this day, which is a sad day, as I mentioned earlier, for western Canada and especially sad for the wheat board itself, that this instrument, this act and this potential that we have to meet the demands of the new western Canada simply is not being addressed. The same old monopoly, the same old act which makes the people of western Canada hewers of wood and drawers of water is still there.

It is a very sad day for the wheat board. There are no fundamental changes. This bill will be passed in its present form which will mean that the wheat board will self-destruct. There is no question about it.

When the wheat board initiated a survey to see how it was doing, it received the answer that it was doing very well. That was on February 5. A former agriculture and economics professor at the University of Manitoba said this: “There is no question that producers will pocket more cash under a dual market system”.

Why do we never listen to economists outside the wheat board?

This same chap went on to say: “There is one world price out there and I don't believe the board fetches a higher price, but I do believe there is a lot of efficiencies associated with the current arrangement”.

Every one of my Reform colleagues, in every speech we have made, has attempted to save the fundamental principles of the wheat board. Hon. members opposite are so devoted to destroying something they will not even listen to one amendment.

It is a sad day for our farmers. Many of our young farmers want to get into private enterprise so they can use the grain products presently under the control of the board. They will not be allowed to develop those businesses on the prairies under the current arrangement.

I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Yellowhead; however, I would like to make one further comment.

In my constituency we have three big projects going on. I want to mention the largest one. There is a group of farmers who grow the world's best durum. Naturally the best durum makes the best pasta. They are taking thousands upon thousands of dollars from their pockets to conduct a survey with respect to making available a closed co-op. These durum producers are doing that so they will be able to grow their own grain and deliver it to their own plant. But, no, the long arm of the Ottawa wheat board thinks that is a business which should be here in eastern Canada and it will not allow them to do that.

I hope that the people of my constituency will see how this vote goes tonight. If the bill is passed and the wheat board maintains its current legal monopoly, it will have to stand very soon and tell those people “No, you cannot proceed with that because you do not own your grain”. It is an absolute farce. It is a terrible thing to do.

I want these members to tell me and the people of the Souris—Moose Mountain constituency that my farmers cannot go into business for themselves growing their own grain. Let them answer that question. Let them tell the people why, when they want to mill organic grain, the wheat board reaches over and says “No. You can do it. But we want this”. We cannot even have a small mill in Saskatchewan to send the organically grown grain to to be made into flour without the heavy hand of the wheat board.

This is 1998. It is time hon. members opposite said “Let's free the west. Let's let them do what they are doing in eastern Canada. Let them develop their own industries there with the products they grow”.

Shame on this government if it prevents one of the potential industries from being developed in my constituency. If the government does that it will hear from more than just my constituents' representative in this House.

It is a crying shame. It is totally out of date. We should defeat this bill, take it back to the drawing board and make it relevant to 1998.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 17th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, listening to the hon. member in the party to my left, the far left, I could not help but think how badly they feel because they could not control in any way the rural vote in Saskatchewan. The rural vote left them completely, even the hon. member.

This is a sad day for the people of the prairies. Right now the passage of the bill is as much concern to the people of the prairies as what is going on in the supreme court this afternoon. They are fearful of the passage of the bill.

If the bill passes tonight I will have an arm band ready because it will mean the death of many industries in Saskatchewan which I will point out.

The hon. member referred to a project conducted by the wheat board which indicated that the majority of farmers gained more money by selling to the wheat board. What did he expect?

[Points Of Order, February 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday during the debate while I was absent there were accusations that were totally untrue levelled against me in this House. One of the hon. members from the NDP levelled the accusation that I was a member of the Grant Devine government. That is absolutely false. That member should stand in the House and clarify that and apologize.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 17th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I have a comment for the member opposite. Not only did my colleague from Yorkton—Melville give some statistics of what happened during the Christmas break. I too could give some that are very similar to his. This is not making up something. These are real and actual.

Does the minister realize that every MP elected to the House whose majority of constituents come from the rural wheat producing area, with the exception of one, will be voting against the bill? Does that not make any difference to the government opposite?

We have listened to our constituents say no way and the government does not even listen to that.

[Supply, February 13th, 1998]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, they look alike. We have a government that has sold many of its crown corporations. It has lowered the taxes to multinational corporations. It has lowered the taxes in potash. It has lowered the taxes in oil and thus Saskatchewan is almost parallel to Alberta in having the highest employment. This comes by governments lowering taxes, thus feeding the industry and thus creating jobs. You do not create jobs by continuing high taxation. That is the point we have to get across.

[Supply, February 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the debate which was introduced by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. We have heard from all parties in this House at the present time.

Before they go on with further talk, we should look at what measures have been taken by places in Canada, in the United States and around the world to deal with this particular problem. In North America we will find that the people who have the lowest unemployment and the people who are giving and entertaining the most employment are governments that have taken a look at their tax structure. They have the best employment.

I want to refer the member for Qu'Appelle to my province of Saskatchewan—