Debates of June 8th, 1995

Canadian Wheat Board Act

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is concerned about the welfare of farmers in his constituency. He said they will have to make some adjustments. They will be paying substantially more freight costs than they are now. That means a lower net price for grain relative to other grain farmers in western Canada, which really puts into place some of the market mechanisms, the natural comparative advantage that should be there.

One of the possible ways farmers in his area could deal with this extra cost is by shipping south into the United States. Unfortunately right now the Canadian Wheat Board restricts movement into the United States. Farmers in his area even more than now will be pushing this minister to allow competition with the wheat board into the United States or to allow farmers to sell directly to markets in the United States.

Does the member believe farmers in his area will be lobbying in every way they can to get these changes made to the wheat board so they can make up for some of the losses they have incurred, from the loss of the WGTA and the extra costs through Bill C-92?

[Glen McKinnon, Liberal, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

My comment is a little historical and futuristic in perspective. The closer one lives to the U.S. border the greater the desire to access that market by producers. As one moves further north from the border there is less and less thrust by the producers to access the market because of the geographical distance produce has to be hauled and depending on what product they are trying to ship.

I concur that new processes and regulations need to be examined. Realistically there is a market. American industries using Canadian grain still want our product for let us say the protein content in our product and not available in their own.

I agree with my colleague that it needs to be examined. It also needs to be accessed by Canadian producers in the long term.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, I was rather anxious to speak on this subject today when my colleague from Vegreville asked me if I would be willing to address a bill on the Wheat Board. I certainly am willing. It gives me an opportunity to express the views of what I hear when I am in my riding talking to the farmers on which these bills have such a direct effect.

It must be funny to some people in the gallery who come to listen to what we call a debate and they see all the empty chairs. They sometimes must wonder if we are debating with the security guards.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Bakopanos)]

I do not think the hon. member should make mention of the absence of members in the House.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

I guess I am not used to hearing myself so much in here; there is an echo.

It is neat to come into a debate on this subject. I hope some day we truly can get into some good honest hard debates about issues rather than some of the examples of what I am seeing this morning where we are bringing in closure on certain things. I like to have debates like we are attempting to do with this bill.

The ideas the agricultural minister is bringing forward in this bill certainly have merit. They are things we have been looking for in the Reform Party. They are things some farmers have been looking for but they are only little tinkerings, a start.

I am sure we will not have any difficulty in supporting this but I draw to the attention of members of the House that we need to really get into a serious debate about these issues regarding the Wheat Board, especially when we go across the country.

I am talking about not just my riding, but Vegreville and other ridings in other provinces. When we hear people saying scrap the wheat board, farmers are saying this and others are on the other extreme, that is why it deserves such a good debate. It is time viewpoints were brought forward and discussed so that we can come up with some ideas which will genuinely answer the causes of all the farmers across the country.

I echo once again what I had hoped to see in a bill when it came down regarding the wheat board. It would be more than just the pooling points and the minor change regarding the shipping calculations.

I would like to see some changes indicating the House was interested in having an elected, democratic board in the wheat board. It would be elected by farmers who then would have more input into what happens at the wheat board level. The board should be more relevant to the problems facing producers, changes the producers so much need that they would be able to seek help in getting those changes. The wheat board should be a producer oriented operation rather than another patronage appointment haven for the friends of the Liberal Party.

Upsetting farmers is that their input is so small. Then we see bills brought before the House, not too long ago something to do with access of information, which would require the wheat board and other organizations of that nature to open the books for examination, to see how they are operating and what they are doing. We would get a little more information that people who are paying the bill are entitled to.

Unfortunately it seems we are getting further away from that instead of being more accountable to the people who pay the bills, in this case the farmers who support all the funding for our wheat board.

It is only sensible that we should pick up a bill and hopefully see some positive changes that would give farmers more input, more say and certainly some knowledge about where their money is spent. No, when we suggested that, when we put it in the form of a motion, it was soundly defeated by our colleagues across the way.

It makes me sometimes wonder what is so secretive that they cannot open the books of a government body to the people paying the bills. I have a hard time understanding that.

[An hon. member]

Ask the auditor general.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

I hear members across the way hollering about the auditor general. I am surprised they even know who he is. They never pay attention to what he says. We can name lots of things there, but I will not get on that topic.

I get a little concerned when I hear my colleague talking about things that have happened in the wheat board regarding changes from orders in council. Once again there are a selected few, usually the ones on the front row here, who decide for all of Canadian farmers what is best for them.

It does not matter if it is best for them but if they think it is best for them, that is what counts. We have a history of 30 or 40 years of this happening; we know what is best for the people, we will make the decisions and you just never mind. That is the attitude people are beginning to think we have.

The ability to have an open debate and throw things out on the floor the farmers would like us to do regarding the wheat board only makes sense. The trouble is we spend a lot of time and many of these things could be resolved. I hope a lot of these things are talked about in the agriculture standing committee. I know from serving on the justice committee there are hours talking with witnesses.

I assume the same thing happens in the agriculture committee where its members get the feelings of people, giving them an opportunity to reflect those feelings in the form of a bill and bring it before the House for a good debate; unless they decide there is no reason to debate and they should put closure on it, shut it down to six hours or in the case of pensions four hours and forget the whole thing. They may feel the information fed to them by 60 or 70 witnesses is not important enough to bring in here, after all they are only the taxpayers.

It is the attitude that bothers me and I think it needs to change. We have been asking, hoping and watching for that possibility but instead we get more of the same, an example of which we saw this morning.

Regarding changing the shipping point calculations, when Wild Rose business tells us it cannot ship its product, there are some things we need to talk about with regard to bills. Compressed timothy producers tell me they cannot get containers to ship their product. Why is the government not addressing shipping problems to help Canada's balance of trade? Why is it not assisting a cash crop market instead of maintaining a narrow view of one issue?

It is willing to help grain producers adjust to the new reality of shipping costs when the Crow is repealed. Farmers who have practised sound crop rotation principles and at the same time have developed a new cash crop market for Canadian produce are being abandoned. Compressed timothy and forage crop producers are far more sensitive to shipping costs than grain producers but the government has punished them for growing a crop that is not marketed through the wheat board. Then it wonders why some farmers get upset at the way the board operates.

Not too long ago this body of people declared an open barley market, the continental barley market. Suddenly there were many farmers doing a good job of moving their produce, getting good prices. They were quite pleased they had an opportunity as producers to market their goods without having to go through a

monopoly. That was quickly shut down. We sometimes wonder why.

Maybe it was because they were so successful, maybe they were proving they had the ability to do these things without the assistance of some great government appointed body. Maybe it was not the bureaucrats who had the ability to so these things; maybe the farmers could do this. At least they proved it for a while but the Liberal government cannot let that go on. So it was shut down. It simply tells people out there that if they grow certain crops they will go through this body by way of the arm's length setup of the wheat board to sell produce. That is the way it has to be done.

Some farmers agree with it and I give them credit for it. However a pile of them say that the wheat board should be scrapped. We need to talk to all of them and start asking exactly what we can do to make the situation a lot better than it is.

The bill is another example of half measures by government trying to convince Canadian farm producers that it is doing something when I am not so sure it might be making things worse. The Liberal government seems intent on abandoning farmers who have already adjusted to the global marketplace. I am talking particularly about forage and timothy hay growers who are doing very well.

It is certainly strange when we meet with farmers in our communities. We tell cattlemen in a joking way what is coming down the tube, that we are setting up a cattle marketing board. Talk about shock and fear, the whole idea another system of that nature would interfere with their ability to access free markets such as they have now really frightens them.

Why did the government arbitrarily decide that 1994 would be the cutoff year for support when producers were adjusting to the new global trading reality and when they went into forage and timothy to enhance their individual viability in the world trading market? Does the government have a problem with farmer initiative? Is it because the government wants to keep the Canadian Wheat Board as a closed shop, a patronage haven? It also wants to dictate to western producers what crops will be acceptable for them to grow. Exactly what is behind that?

Why cannot the government assist western producers? Showing this initiative would not only help them to maintain their farms. It would also help Canada's balance of trade and make Canada a stronger trading nation.

The European community and the United States realize that their treasuries cannot continue their farm subsidies and they will be cutting back. In the meantime, Canadian timothy and forage producers will face the full rate expenditure while European and American producers will have support.

We do not have any problem with this half hearted attempt at modifying the Canadian Wheat Board. The shipping cost adjustment is a step that recognizes the reality of modern times and the global marketplace. However, merely readjusting who pays for the cost of shipping through the St. Lawrence seaway does nothing to tackle the real and dangerous problems facing Canadian producers and the inadequacies of the wheat board. It is a minor thing when there are so many major things we need to look at.

Changing cost pooling so that western Saskatchewan and Alberta producers will no longer share the cost of shipping eastern Saskatchewan and Manitoba grain from Thunder Bay through the St. Lawrence seaway is acceptable. Why not continue and address the real issue of the needed fundamental changes to the wheat board?

Members will say all the farmers want it. They must have a short memory. It was not too long ago that there were two rallies going on in Regina at the same time: one pro and one con, the one the agriculture minister would not attend.

Why is the government so afraid to face the reality of the nineties and beyond? Why is its policies still stuck in the sixties? Why did the government not use the bill to give producers an opportunity to elect the board of directors? What is wrong with an elected board of directors? Is that too democratic? Is that the problem?

It could be. I base that on things I have seen, such as what happened this morning. Why was the government so fearful of allowing those who know the business to run it? Why does it not allow producers who know the business the best to be in charge? Why does the government always feel it has to get involved in everything? Why does it feel that it will not be done right if it is not done from this place?

The whole thing will change. People will insist that it change rather quickly. If the government believes that will not be the case then it has a very short memory.

I wonder if it would stop to think for a moment, when it looks at operations such as the wheat board and others, why the Reform Party is here. It should stop to analyse why the Reform Party needs to exist if for the last 30 years so-called Liberals and so-called Conservatives had done their jobs. We would not need to be here. Why did all western provinces, particularly rural farmers, decide enough was enough and to send Reformers who had presented to them an idea that made a lot more sense than the status quo?

Once again we have a government bill that pretends to address issues of concern for western producers but in reality is an attempt to hide the failures. This half measure deals with an important issue but it is only a half measure.

When will the government finally face reality and deal with the real problems that exist with the wheat board and the board's inability to accept that producers know what is best, not appointed bureaucrats? The producers, believe it or not, know what is best. Why do we not give them an opportunity to express what they know?

I doubt very seriously whether the bureaucrats making the decisions have half the real experience or knowledge facing most western producers, particularly those in the riding of Wild Rose.

I support Bill C-92. It is a little step in the right direction to which we are getting accustomed. With all their bills we are getting a little tinker here and a little tinker there. The Liberals think they will be the next government, which I doubt seriously. However we will support the bill.

I ask the government and the agriculture minister to go beyond Tinker Bell stuff. There are serious problems out there. For a change the government should try listening to the people instead of dictating to them what will take place.

[Morris Bodnar, Liberal, Saskatoon—Dundurn, SK]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has been talking about matters such as the federal government abandoning farmers. In his second breath he talked about the federal involvement being too great in the farm community, that we should get out of wheat boards and let farmers decide everything on their own in those matters instead of the representatives of farmers who have been sent to the House.

The Reform talks about abandonment and how the Liberals and Conservatives have not done their jobs and that is why the Reform are here now.

I have a question for the hon. member. Last year we had a rail strike and farmers were suffering greatly because they could not get their products to market. The whole Canadian economy was losing $200 million per day.

Could the hon. member indicate to us why only six representatives of his party showed up in the House to vote?

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, we had a private member's bill that would have prevented all that. It was soundly defeated by our Liberal friends across the way. My hon. colleague from Lethbridge brought forward a bill that would have taken care of the problem, and Liberals know that very well.

In terms of the strike they have a short memory. I do not think he was here to see that the first person to rise in the House seeking an emergency debate regarding the strike was the member standing right now. I stood in the Chamber and demanded an emergency debate on the strike and the Liberals did not want it. To them it was a big joke that a Reformer rose to his feet and dared to ask for an emergency debate on the strike in Vancouver.

The next morning our wonderful new labour minister came up with the good idea to have an emergency debate on the strike in Vancouver. Wham, overnight a miracle happened. The Liberals discovered they had an answer for a problem. They had a chance to do it 48 hours before that but they do not want to listen to anybody but themselves. One day they will pay for that.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I remind hon. members that we do not refer to the absence or the presence of any member of the Chamber.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that a Liberal member would have the nerve to suggest Reformers never did their part in ending the strike. Our legislation would have prevented it from ever happening and should have been passed. It was legislation that would allow the collective bargaining process to go ahead. It is good legislation that has to be put in place somewhere along the way.

Does the member believe farmers in his constituency would support an elected board of directors replacing the present commissioners appointed by the minister to the wheat board?

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the question. Recently I included a questionnaire in a householder that asked farmers to respond to what they wanted to do with the wheat board. Fifty-four per cent came back saying that the wheat board should be scrapped. Another high percentage said to change it drastically to a democratic process. A few others wanted to keep the status quo.

We need to take a look at the whole situation. If only we did not have a government that says it can do it behind closed doors, that it does not need good, open, solid debate about what should be done with some of these bodies, and that it knows best. We remember good old Trudeauism when the metric system was brought in. The government gave us the metric system and said we did not know what was good for us. There were a few more items like it. The Conservatives said gave us the GST and said we did not know what was good for us.

Canadians know what is best for them and will start expressing it.

[Allan Kerpan, Reform, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre, SK]

Madam Speaker, obviously a discussion has arisen in debate in the House about some problems we have seen with regard to labour tie-ups, strikes and backups that have occurred in Canada over the past many years.

I can speak quite simply and quite plainly as a farmer. I have been involved in the farm business for some 15 to 18 years in Saskatchewan. I know firsthand the problems when there is a

labour disruption. The innocent third party always gets hurt. In this case it is the farmers, the shippers or the dehy plant people.

My colleague from Wild Rose hit the nail on the head when he said that we had a plan to prevent labour disruptions. The government across the way saw fit in its wisdom, if I may call it that, not to support the legislation.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

You use the term loosely.

[Allan Kerpan, Reform, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre, SK]

I use the term loosely. That is absolutely right.

My colleague from Saskatoon-Dundurn has indicated on numerous occasions that Reformers were not in the House on that particular Sunday to vote. Whether or not that is the truth is irrelevant. Less than a week before that, we had put before this House private members' legislation that would have prevented this. There would have been no need for anyone to be here on that Sunday. It is ludicrous. It is a ridiculous argument and I am ashamed that someone would bring that up before this House.

I want to get to the business before the House today, Bill C-92, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act. It aims to change the pooling system of the Canadian Wheat Board in order to respond to new market conditions.

Rapidly changing market conditions is the greatest factor affecting the agricultural sector today. There is no question about that. The reality is we live in a modern knowledge based, technologically equipped and economically linked world. This presents many new opportunities for farmers and agri-businesses. It presents opportunities for policy makers and legislators. It presents opportunities for grain companies, farm groups and transportation companies as well. Coupled with the rapidly changing new world of markets, there are two other factors.

The agriculture industry is unique in that we produce a basic and unchanging product for which there will always be a demand, that is food. With a growing world population that is expected to reach 10 billion people by the year 2050, the demand for our products will expand tremendously. This commodity of food that we produce is essential to the life and health of all of us. Our daily bread is the most basic need we have. We have a product for which there will always be a market.

The agriculture industry therefore is a primary resource industry in full transition attempting to keep up with an expanding market and hoping to take full advantage of the opportunities that it presents. We have a good product and we have a market. We must adjust to and take full advantage of these new opportunities. We must be prepared to do this quickly. We must learn to anticipate what the future holds for us and seek to prepare ourselves for it.

All of the stakeholders, the farmers, the processors, the transporters, the marketers, the policy makers, must work in a co-operative way to ensure that we make the transition from the old realities to the new realities in as an effective and efficient way as is humanly possible.

I am pleased this bill is before us today. It is essentially tabled as a response to an expanding and changing market. We will no doubt get into the details of this bill but basically the bill is in response to the fact that our grain products are moving to new markets. When this happens, we need to change our system and our policies in order to respond to those new markets.

More specifically, this bill responds to the fact that in recent times our grain has become more in demand in the Pacific rim countries; more is therefore having to be transported across the Pacific instead of the Atlantic. This change in international market patterns has a direct effect upon our internal shipping ports and our internal transportation system.

Historically western Canadian grain producers have shared some of the costs of shipping grain to our ports. We call this a pooling system. It was established as a simple attempt to distribute the benefits and the costs of our grain industry as equally as possible among all the producers. I want to comment on this principle of benefit and cost sharing in a moment but first, let me speak briefly about the changes in our current pooling system that the new world of markets is causing.

The ports western grain farmers have traditionally used for overseas shipments are Vancouver and Thunder Bay. This is because the world market value of grain in store at these two locations, one going east and the other going west, was effectively the very same. The market demand on the other side of both oceans was about equal, but with larger markets emerging on the other side of the Pacific Ocean, the world market value of grain in Vancouver has increased beyond that which is in Thunder Bay.

To adjust to this new market reality and to keep our grain pooling system intact and fair, it is necessary to move the eastern point of departure from Thunder Bay to ports further east, those along the lower St. Lawrence River. In practical terms, this means that the farmers in Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan who ship their grain east to an export position at Thunder Bay will now have to absorb the cost of getting their grain to the further eastern ports along the lower St. Lawrence.

For years now farmers in the western prairies have seen the use of Thunder Bay as the Canadian Wheat Board's eastern point

of departure for export sales as adding unfairly to their share of the cost of pooling. Farmers in the eastern part of the prairies have recognized this. In other words, it has been apparent that there was some anomaly and some unfairness in the pooling system.

Eastern prairie farmers under Bill C-92 will now have to pay the higher costs of the movement of their grain to the further eastern ports. They have asked for transition assistance to offset these higher costs. The government announced that partial compensation will be provided to these farmers from the $300 million WGTA adjustment fund. It is meant to facilitate the transition to a deregulated system after August 1, 1995.

There are many specifics to be worked out regarding the changes in the pooling points proposed by the bill. My colleagues and I will be commenting on the specifics of those throughout committee debate, report stage and third reading debate.

How do we as farmers best respond to the changing marketplace? This has to be the basic question. Our markets are changing. Our systems that we set up to deal with old markets must be examined to see if they are adequate to take full advantage of the new markets. Are they helping or are they hindering farmers?

My colleagues and I maintain that when there are such dramatic and far reaching changes at the middle and end points of the industry process, we must go right back to the beginning of the process and examine the principles upon which we are building. This is the area of discussion that presents the most difficulty for large and old organizations such as government and government agencies. The Canadian Wheat Board definitely falls into that category.

Old governments, old parties, old agencies and institutions have difficulty with change. Large and old enterprises can become very inflexible. They take a long time to change, if they can ever change at all. Sometimes it is easier for an old institution to die rather than to change and to be reformed.

In the process of governing a country or managing a grain marketing process, that is why new parties and new institutions arise. If the older parties and institutions cannot change or are unwilling to change, if they are unwilling to re-examine themselves to see if they are doing things the best way, then they will be replaced by new enterprises and new ways of doing things. This has happened throughout the history of government in this country and in other institutions, as surely as day follows night and a new century follows an old one.

Reformers are saying that in order to meet the market challenges of a new world and a 21st century, we must talk about the underlying principles. There are two principles we believe should be the foundation for any changes that we make in our marketing and transportation systems.

Reformers believe that producer organizations, including marketing boards, commissions and co-operatives, should receive their direction from producers who should structure their organizations in any manner which they believe will best serve their interests. In consultation with producers, Reformers will seek to provide for a viable, self-reliant and market driven industry to create an environment in which producers make their own decisions as to how products are marketed.

Specifically this principle means there needs to be some changes to the Canadian Wheat Board. If we are to take full advantage of the new markets, if we are to adjust quickly to them, then we need to, we have to, it is imperative to allow for the democratization of the Canadian Wheat Board.

The present government appointment of Canadian Wheat Board commissioners must be changed to an elected board of directors chosen by producers in a fair and open election process. It is simply the only way we will move from these old dying institutions I talked about a few minutes ago to a new reformed system that is responsive to farmers, to transportation, to the markets and to the new way of doing things. At that point in time, grain producers will be asked to examine their organizational and jurisdictional options, including but not limited to introducing domestic market competition, permitting the Canadian Wheat Board to trade in grains and oilseeds currently excluded from its jurisdiction.

I can think of examples in my own riding. There is a small private flour mill. I was in to see the gentleman at Viscount about three months ago and asked him how his business was. He said it was terrible. He said he had to pay a buy back fee to the Canadian Wheat Board to buy wheat so he can make flour and sell it locally. He is not allowed to go to a neighbour or a friend to contract wheat on an individual basis. It is simply not allowed.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

It is the same with organic grain.

[Allan Kerpan, Reform, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre, SK]

It is the very same with organic grain.

I think about these examples and wonder where the common sense is in this organization. I see none. Those are the things that have to change if we are going to move into the next century.

Farmers must be allowed to decide on the purchase of wheat and other grains on either a cash basis or a pooled initial final price basis, implementing special opting out provisions for entrepreneurs interested in developing niche export markets. Again, I relate to what I said before about the small town flour mills and also extending fixed price and guaranteed delivery producer contracts.

The second principle on which we must build our new marketing system is transportation reform. Canadian agricultural products should move to market by any expeditious mode, on any route and in any form or state of processing based exclusive-

ly on the principle of cost effectiveness and with the best interests of the customer in mind.

As I mentioned at the outset of my remarks, there has been some debate in this Chamber today about labour problems, labour tie-ups and transportation problems of all types for agricultural products certainly from my province of Saskatchewan. I think back to alternate methods of transportation and routes. If there are the types of labour disputes and tie-ups we have seen over the past number of years and if it is feasible in a cost effective way, what is wrong with hauling our products somewhere else, perhaps through the United States?

We believe major reforms are still needed in the Canadian Wheat Board system of marketing our very most valuable product, food. Bill C-92 does not go anywhere near far enough. Comparative advantage must be the primary principle behind decisions about what farmers produce, how they market and how they transport.

I assure members we on this side of the House will keep working toward this end.

[The Speaker]

It being 2 p.m., we will now proceed to Statements by Members.

Environment Week

[John Finlay, Liberal, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the theme for Environment Week this year is the automobile's impact on air quality. Car emissions are a major cause of smog and climate change. Smog and air pollution not only threaten a healthy environment but also the health of all Canadians.

Maintaining vehicles in good working order will reduce the impact of emissions. Therefore, Environment Canada is holding emission clinics across the country. The national capital region clinic is on June 7, 8 and 9 at Carlingwood mall.

This week gives Canadians an opportunity to find better ways to keep their environment healthy for present and future generations. According to this year's theme, instead of driving we should opt for walking, cycling, car pooling, and using public transportation.

Summit On Private Forests

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bloc members wish to draw the attention of the House to the excellent dialogue that took place during the summit on private forests chaired by Quebec's Minister of Natural Resources, François Gendron.

The conference provided an opportunity for exchange and consensus on future policy directions. Indeed, representatives showed an exemplary sense of responsibility.

They agreed on the way funds to be contributed by the Quebec government and other stakeholders would be distributed under Quebec's private forest development plan.

The parties also agreed that the federal government must compensate the Quebec workers who are hard hit by its withdrawal from the sector. Here again, through their dynamism and their solidarity, Quebecers in the various regions must make up for the failure of the federal government to honour its commitments.

Gun Control

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Mr. Speaker, information meetings at Tara, Ontario, on May 31 and at Shelburne on June 3 drew 2,740 Ontarians eager to learn more about Bill C-68.

Herculean efforts by the organizers failed to produce any speakers favouring gun control, so statements by the justice minister and other opponents of civil liberty were read to the crowd.

Anti-control speeches were so logical and convincing that formal, independently audited balloting yielded 2,716 votes against more bureaucracy, 19 in favour, and five spoiled ballots.

I have the ballots and will deliver them to the justice minister. I hope that he will at least acknowledge the dedicated efforts of the organizers.

The MPs for Bruce-Grey and Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Simcoe did not bother to attend these major gatherings. If they like their present line of work, they should take note of the results when voting on Bill C-68. Closure will not stop the people from remembering.

Vive la democratie!

Transport

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Transport Canada is now in the process of watering down the

regulations governing the number of flight attendants required on commercial flights. The plan is to go from the current Canadian ratio of one for every 40 passengers to the American ratio of one for every 50.

Even before bringing forward new regulations in the House, the government has acted unilaterally by using ministerial exemptions to reduce the number of attendants required on certain aircraft.

I ask the Minister of Transport to listen to the advice of Canadian flight attendants, who have been telling him that the weakening of regulations will have a serious impact on the safety of the travelling public. The American standards are based on tests that are highly artificial and underestimate the need to have safety personnel on board in real life accidents.

The only benefits of harmonizing our standards downward to the American standards will appear on the bottom line of the airline industry, whose costs will be cut at the expense of safety.

I hope the minister will let the airline attendants' reasoned advice penetrate his remarkable fetish for American stylederegulation and reconsider the direction of this policy.

[Francis Leblanc, Liberal, Cape Breton Highlands—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, this week is national transportation week and an excellent opportunity for me to remark on the importance of marine transportation in my riding.

The Strait of Canso is one of the largest deep water ports in eastern North America. It is ice free and allows year round access to Canadian and international markets. It is an important gateway for the shipping of many products. This natural asset has already proven its economic importance. Several successful businesses operate on its shores, serving the petroleum, forestry, gypsum, and energy sectors, to name only a few.

The Minister of Transport is currently developing a new marine strategy. I would urge him to keep in mind the importance of the Strait of Canso to our transportation network and the bright economic potential it holds for this region.

Ocean Day

[Mark Assad, Liberal, Gatineau—La Lièvre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the objective of Ocean Day, which is today, is to raise the public's awareness of the danger in which the negligence of the world's governments has put the planet.

There is no direct link between the ocean and the people in a riding like mine, Gatineau-La Lièvre. However, oceans are necessary for our survival, for they produce more oxygen than rain forests and are the planet's biggest water supply. They provide us with an incredible quantity of protein and remedies for certain illnesses.

We can all help clean up our oceans. If we do not, we will be destroying our planet. On this day, it would be a good start for each of us to identify one habit that we could change in order to contribute to saving our oceans and Canada. Limiting fishing activities is a good start.

Gordon And Diane Davidson

[John Harvard, Liberal, Winnipeg—St. James, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the efforts of two Winnipeg St. James constituents, Gordon Davidson and his wife Diane. They recently travelled as volunteer advisers to the Czech Republic to assist the Sternberk town council with a long term tourist development plan. Mr. Davidson worked with a community committee to draft a plan to crate tourist trade opportunities in the town and set up advertising and promotional programs.

The Davidsons were able to embark on this adventure and share their expertise as volunteer advisers with the Canadian Executive Search Organization, which provides advisers to business and organizations in Canada's aboriginal communities, developing nations, and emerging market economies in central and eastern Europe. CESO volunteers are skilled Canadian men and women who willingly share their lifetime of practical experience with those who need it.

Again I congratulate all CESO volunteers, and especially my constituents, Gordon and Diane Davidson, on a job well done.