Debates of June 11th, 1996

Criminal Law Improvement Act, 1996

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion for second reading of Bill C-17, an act to amend the Criminal Code and certain other acts.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe the House would give its unanimous consent that the vote on the

previous motion be applied to the motion presently before the House, the Liberal members voting yea.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Madam Speaker, the members of the official opposition will vote yea.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Reform Party members present will be voting no unless instructed by their constituents to do otherwise.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

Madam Speaker, all New Democrats in the House this evening will be voting no on this matter.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Madam Speaker, all PCs in the House tonight will be voting in favour.

[Jag Bhaduria, Liberal, Markham—Whitchurch-Stouffville, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be voting for the motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

I declare the motion carried.

This bill is therefore referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Canadian Wheat Board Act

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Lisgar—Marquette, MB]

moved that Bill C-212, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act (audit), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on my private member's Bill C-212, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act with respect to audits. The bill proposes to require that accounts and records of the Canadian Wheat Board be audited annually by the Auditor General of Canada. Currently the audit is conducted by the private sector firm of Deloitte & Touche which was chosen by the wheat board.

The bill will not represent an extra cost to the taxpayer since the cost of the audit could be transferred to the auditor general's office from the Canadian Wheat Board. It is almost unbelievable the auditor general has to sign the wheat board audit without so much as a glimpse at the actual figures. There is no way he can verify the debt load or the operating costs.

I will give some background on the role of the auditor general in holding government institutions accountable.

The auditor general has given Canadians some very interesting reading. The horrors and the ridiculous can be overwhelming to a taxpayer's mind. The people's right to control how their taxes are spent is one of the cornerstones of democratic government. Canadian taxpayers are telling their elected representatives that they want the best possible value for the tax dollars they send to the federal government.

The auditor general has gained the respect of Canadians and has been instrumental in pinpointing waste and mismanagement to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Over the years a process has developed. The government submits to the House of Commons its spending plans for each department; reports on the past year's activities; and provides the public accounts that show all federal spending, borrowing and taxing. One more link in the accountability process is required: an independent assessment of that information.

Members of Parliament need this impartial evaluation so they can effectively question or criticize the government on its performance. This is where the auditor general provides a valuable service. This service would be effective in looking at all operations of the Canadian Wheat Board to make it more accountable. Farmers would not have to doubt whether these figures are actual or manufactured, especially if the information act would apply to the CWB.

The job of the auditor general is to help find out if value is being obtained by the federal government. The auditor general conducts independent audits and examinations and encourages accountability and improvements in government operations. Citizens will only have confidence in their government institutions if they believe that their tax dollars are spent wisely and effectively. Confidence in our national government depends upon clear and timely accountability by the government and its crown corporations and proper accounting methods.

I will touch on the Canadian Wheat Board situation. The board has sole jurisdiction for marketing western Canadian wheat and barley. This monopoly position results in a financial summary that features some astronomical figures: not millions or hundreds of millions but billions of dollars. It makes one wonder why a government would allow some private accounting firm to audit these books and not even have the right to double check figures at its discretion.

In 1993-94 the board's assets were $8.86 billion and loans from the private sector were $7.78 billion. There was no mention of what the loans were for or what term they carried. Board revenues were $3.87 billion and the surplus in operation was listed as $669.5 million.

The current Canadian Wheat Board Act allows the wheat board to appoint a firm of chartered accountants for the purpose of auditing records and accounts and certifying reports of the board. There were 49 crown corporations in Canada in 1994-95. The wheat board is one of seven corporations exempted from part X of the Financial Administrations Act which allows for a private auditor rather than the auditor general. Even among these exempted crown corporations only the Canadian Wheat Board and the Bank of Canada do not have the auditor general audit their accounts and records.

The Office of the Auditor General could be more effective because it can maintain its objectivity when conducting audits. It is not subject to any restrictions that may occur when a private firm audits a government agency.

For example, private auditors usually include a disclaimer to the effect that they can only ensure the accuracy of the audit based on the information they were given. Private auditors simply do not have the authority to ensure they have all the necessary information. Moreover the auditor general reports directly to the House of Commons, not to the agency or the crown corporation in question.

Bill C-212 will also require that the board submit a report to the minister each month that would detail its purchases and sales for the month, as well as the quantities of grain held by it. The report would be certified by the Auditor General of Canada.

If the auditor general has a monthly opportunity to certify the report, the overall grain transportation system could be made more efficient. Grain car shortages could be avoided because the grain trade would know what the future commitments were. Similar bottlenecks in the system could be smoothed out if we knew that the monthly operations of the board were closely tracked by the auditor general.

Right now in western Canada there is a debate raging about the role of the Canadian Wheat Board. I do not think there has been a time in the history of the board when its future has been the subject of so much discussion.

Back in the 1993 election campaign the agriculture minister and the Prime Minister promised a plebiscite on the marketing of wheat and barley through the Canadian Board Board. It would now appear they have completely backed away from their promise of allowing producers to decide the issue. Broken Liberal promises seem to be the order of the day and more bountiful than the days of the month. When will this finally stop? Not as long as there is a Liberal government.

To add to the farmers' frustration over the broken promise of a plebiscite is the justified perception that the wheat board is an organization shrouded in secrecy. The wheat board is one of the most secretive government agencies in Canada. It is a crown agency the government set up to exclusively handle the sale of wheat and barley for western Canada. While the government does not fund the board it does guarantee its debt.

Another current concern about the board is that it is not subject to the Access to Information Act. I propose to change this fact in another private member's bill. Hopefully at some time the bill will be drawn and the House can deliberate its merits.

The exemption ties into Bill C-212 however. By being exempt from the Access to Information Act, the board does not have to answer individual requests for information on how it is being run. If the auditor general did the annual audit of the board surely there would be more information available to the public eye.

Farmers pick up the tab for the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board. They should be able to find whether or not their money is being spent wisely but they cannot. A recent cause for concern has been the rapid increase in administration expenses at the wheat board. They have risen dramatically from $26.8 million for fiscal year 1987 to $35.3 million in 1992 and to $41.3 million in 1994. This was an increase of 54 per cent in seven years.

While the cost had a hefty increase, the amount of wheat and barley produced in western Canada did not increase accordingly. In 1987 there were 37.6 million tonnes and in 1992 there were 37.9 million tonnes. That is an increase of only 1 per cent. When it comes to jacking up costs obviously the wheat board is in a class by itself.

Unfortunately the bill is paid by grain farmers. They have watched the steady increase in costs with absolutely no option to review them to see where their money was being spent. This is a real injustice. It makes one wonder whether farmers grow wheat and barley just to keep the Canadian Wheat Board functioning or whether the wheat board should have to answer to farmers instead of farmers to the wheat board.

In November 1994 I asked the board to give a breakdown of information on pension plans and wages for Canadian Wheat Board commissioners and staff. Regarding the pension plans I requested a breakdown of employer versus government contributions and the age at which the commissioners and staff were eligible to receive pension benefits. My request was denied by Agriculture Canada on the basis that the Canadian Wheat Board does not fall under the terms of the Access to Information Act.

Numerous other farmers and taxpayer organizations have tried to find this information but they have also been stonewalled because of the wheat board secrecy. The only person it has to answer to is the agriculture minister.

Does the agriculture minister own the wheat that farmers grow or should the farmers have entitlement to the products they produce?

A private researcher revealed that the board or the minister had given severance packages of about $300,000 to former commissioners. They also received privileges such as eight-week vacations per year. At the time this information was made available I was still waiting for an answer to my request.

The government quickly scaled back the packages after an uproar in the farming community but only for the new commissioners. Since the commissioners are not accountable to farmers they were seemingly able to fill their pockets at will.

The Liberal government has failed to correct this injustice. This is a damning reminder of the gold plated MP pension plan all over again.

It is important to note the minister of agriculture is responsible for the operation of the Canadian Wheat Board. Should he not also be accountable to farmers? Why is he trying to restrict farmers from earning the same return for their labour as the wheat board commissioners?

Without farmers there is no need for Canadian Wheat Board commissioners or an agriculture minister. The whole incident has led to producer scepticism and a loss of confidence in the board.

For over two years farmers have provided me with documents that suggested irregularities within the wheat board. Since January 1995, I have held four news conferences and have twice asked for an RCMP investigation into these irregularities.

I have also asked that the justice minister order a judicial inquiry into the $180 million loss barley producers suffered this past year according to the claims made by former wheat board commissioner Ken Beswick.

I have received information through the access to information office that confirms an RCMP inspector asked two RCMP detachments to start investigating farmer complaints.

When he was informed that customs officials at the port of Snowflake, Manitoba confirmed farmer suspicions of irregularities, he failed to communicate this to me. Instead he took it upon himself to declare there was no evidence of criminal intent and seemingly altered document dates, throwing further suspicion on the whole process.

During this period customs and revenue inspectors in conjunction with RCMP have brought charges against farmers for allegedly violating the Customs Act.

Two trials have received a lot of media attention in my constituency of Lisgar-Marquette involving David Sawatzky and Norman Desrochers.

In the David Sawatsky case, Judge Arnold Connor ruled that Sawatzky had not broken the Customs Act but probably violated the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Sawatzky was eventually acquitted of his charges.

I have two photo copies of sworn affidavits by farmers that an RCMP constable involved in prosecuting Sawatzky gave false information to access computer files at U.S. customs offices to start a criminal investigation. How far will the wheat board officials go to protect the secrecy of this operation?

It also shows how rigid the board is. Many polls have been conducted that show farmers want changes and more say in the wheat board's operations. A recent poll in Saskatchewan shows that 83 per cent of the responding farmers wanted more control of the Canadian Wheat Board. This sentiment has obviously been expressed in other prairie provinces as well.

These are examples of why farmers are calling for change. That is why I introduced Bill C-212. The demand for a more open and accountable board is clear.

Giving the auditor general the ability to do an audit would represent a good first step. Unfortunately we have a minister and government that embrace the status quo at the expense of ignoring constructive change.

Before I turn the debate over to my colleague, I ask the House for unanimous consent to support this bill and make it votable.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[Fernand Robichaud, Liberal, Secretary of State (Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the debate on Bill C-212, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act.

This bill would amend the act so as to require an annual audit of the accounts and books of the Canadian Wheat Board by the Office of the Auditor General of Canada.

The government fully supports financial responsibility in all its departments and agencies, however, this bill raises many questions that warrant careful and thorough consideration. The government must strike a fair balance between financial responsibility and the smooth operation of its various agencies and departments.

The first question raised by the bill is that of responsibility, or more precisely the proposal that the board be audited annually by the Auditor General of Canada.

At first glance, this seems a wise proposal, but it should be pointed out that the Canadian Wheat Board already has all of its financial operations audited in depth annually.

The results of this audit by a firm of independent and highly reputed consultants are published each year in the board's annual report and financial statement.

A summary of this report is sent by mail each year to all those who have a board producers' permit book, and the full report, available on request from the Board, is tabled once a year in the House and the Senate.

In addition to this annual audit, an internal audit committee, comprising, among others, a representative of the board's advisory

committee, elected by the members, supervises the ongoing audit, division by division, of the board's expenditures.

Through the information it releases in its annual report, the Canadian Wheat Board provides more financial information on its operations than many major private grain companies.

At a time when the federal government is trying to eliminate overlap and duplication, and put government back on the right track, the proposal to further audit the board annually seems to add a useless extra step, which would be duplicating established practices and result in a waste of time, and money of course.

The board is constantly seeking to improve its planning, management and operations. To this effect, it has on occasions asked for outside advice, leading to recommended changes.

A review conducted in 1992 by the management consulting firm, Deloitte and Touche, pointed out a number of things to be changed. I have the honour to inform the House that, since the publication of the review report, the board has proceeded with the recommendations it contained.

The board has adopted a corporate vision and mission as well as a set of strategic goals. It has put in place a budget process, a business planning process, a reporting system, and a new performance appraisal system.

We should also take into account the fact that the Canadian Wheat Board is operating in a highly competitive environment. Private grain companies, whether in Canada, the United States, Europe or Australia, are very reluctant to release the slightest bit of information that might give an edge to their competitors.

Their main goal, as is the case for the Canadian Wheat Board, is to maximize profits on behalf of their customers. In the case we are concerned with, the customers are the men and women who grow wheat and barley in western Canada.

For all the reasons I just explained, the government cannot, for the time being, support the subject matter of this bill.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-212, introduced at first reading stage on March 1 by the hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette. This bill, whose purpose is to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, contains interesting provisions, which, unfortunately, we will not be able to debate in this House.

Indeed, it has been agreed to make this bill a non votable item, when in fact it has substantial impacts on western Canadian grain producers. In this context, my desire to speak on the subject reflects my constant concern to ensure the fair and effective representation of producers and the Canadian farm industry as a whole.

The primary objective of this bill is to change the procedure used to audit the Canadian Wheat Board's financial statements. At present, this administrative operation is carried out by the private accounting firm Deloite and Touche. The bill introduced by the hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette would see this responsibility transferred to the Auditor General of Canada.

At first, we may wonder what the use is of setting the whole legislative process in motion for a simple matter of administrative jurisdiction. But there are much more important considerations involved than it might seem at first glance. The sophistication of this proposal could considerably improve the internal working of the Canadian Wheat Board.

Whether we are dealing with the management of human resources, the control of administrative expenditures, or even the implementation of resolutions relating to promotional activities, an audit by the auditor general would uncover some details that inevitably escape the attention of private sector experts.

It is not necessary to stress that the Canadian Wheat Board is, first and foremost, a parapublic agency in charge of maximizing profits for Canadian grain producers. As with other government agencies, it would be normal and essential for the government to have a say in the administration and operation of this parapublic body.

Of course, those opposed to this reform will raise simple arguments like the fact that, as a commercial venture, the Canadian Wheat Board has some room to manoeuvre that amounts to a right to use discretion. I understand full well this aspect of the issue, and I wish to point out that I fully endorse this principle.

I want to stress that this bill is not aimed at giving the government the right to interfere in the private affairs of wheat producers. On the contrary, the auditor general could provide monitoring services going well beyond a simple financial audit by a private firm.

The annual tabling of the auditor general's report is a major event allowing the government and all taxpayers to see how public affairs are managed.

By shedding light on the operation of government agencies through rigorous, in-depth analyses, the auditor general puts himself in a good position to make recommendations aimed at optimizing the operation and structure of these agencies. This would benefit the CWB, as its relatively large structure as well as the broad impact of its actions inevitably hide some shortcomings that outside auditors like Deloitte & Touche cannot see.

I do not want to leave any doubt as to the quality of the work done by these specialized firms. Quite the contrary. My point has more to do with the basic principles of performance and efficiency, in an era of budget cuts. So, the auditor general would submit a detailed report to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, in which a series of recommendations would be included to improve CWB's initiatives in all its fields of activities.

I am not trying to convince the House to make the CWB accountable to Parliament. It already is. However, this bill would make it more accountable to wheat producers, who depend on the soundness of the board's decisions. In fact, I could tell you about several western producers who, every day, have to put up with constraints imposed by the CWB regarding the marketing of their crop.

The complex internal procedures of the board generate widespread slowdowns in the negotiation of tariffs and the marketing of crops. This type of problem is not noticeable to private independent auditors, for the simple reason that it is beyond the scope of their mandate. However, getting the auditor general involved could remedy the situation, for the benefit of all Canadian producers.

Before concluding, I remind members of this House that the bill is not a votable item. This means that rejecting it could result in the shelving of a measure that would benefit the whole industry. There is a relatively strong consensus and we must show that we can legislate without being guided only by partisan considerations.

In conclusion, Bill C-212, moved by a Reform Party member, proposes a measure which would not cost anything to this government, which could promote transparency, and which would at least give western grain producers the guarantee that the Canadian Wheat Board is well managed.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette for introducing Bill C-212, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act. It would require the board to be audited annually by the auditor general.

I am sure members are aware that the Canadian Wheat Board is a marketing board whose primary responsibility is to serve the producers whose products it sells. In fact, the producers have no way of knowing how well the board is performing. The only people who have any indication of the performance record of the board is its internal auditing firm and the minister of agriculture, who may or may not choose to reveal that information to the producers the board serves.

The hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette has talked about the need to open up the books of the Canadian Wheat Board to the auditor general so that he can report to Parliament and thereby report back to the producers that the board serves. I agree with the hon. member.

The member for Frontenac suggested that a performance evaluation would also be a wise undertaking by the auditor general. Perhaps that could be done on occasion as well as the annual audit of the books of the Canadian Wheat Board.

There was an performance analysis of the Canadian Wheat Board done by its auditors, Deloitte & Touche. This was instituted in 1992. Perhaps some would argue that we do not need to have the auditor general look at the efficiencies of the Canadian Wheat Board because its auditors are doing it.

The problem is that this report should have been presented to the minister of agriculture. If it was, the minister did not make the report public. It either gathered dust at the Canadian Wheat Board or the Privy Council. It was never released to farmers or the Canadian public. It became a secret document which contained much good information and was only recently unveiled to the public when copies were made available to me and other concerned people.

Does this report contain some top secret, classified information? Not at all. It contains information on the performance of the board, how well it is serving producers, whether or not it is doing a good job. Certainly the auditor general could perform such an evaluation on a regular basis and that would serve Canadians and farmers in the prairie region very well.

Let us look at the internal performance audit done by Deloitte & Touche of the Canadian Wheat Board. It discovered many areas of significant deficiency. This was all hushed up, kept secret. Farmers were not aware of the audit and the results.

On page 18 of the Deloitte & Touche performance evaluation, it states that there is no evidence of an ongoing formal corporate strategic plan or process. That is quite an allegation.

We asked the chief commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board, Mr. Hehn, about that. He said: "Oh, well, we have dealt with all the concerns that were raised by the Deloitte & Touche audit. They have all been looked after". How do we know? It is all secret. It is all kept under wraps.

As far as the corporate structure of the board is concerned, it has not changed. There are still five commissioners appointed by the Privy Council, probably under the direction of the minister of agriculture or whoever pulls the minister's chain. Currently there are three commissioners running the board; one retired some time ago and another one recently stepped down because he could not agree with some things the board was doing. So presently three commissioners who were appointed by the minister of agriculture are running the Canadian Wheat Board and keeping everything secret.

The chief commissioner of the board said that they have adequately handled all the recommendations in the Deloitte & Touche audit. He has yet to convince me that he can answer the charge that there is no evidence of an ongoing formal corporate strategic plan or process, as was the criticism on page 18.

I quote again from page 19 of the report, regarding operational management and planning:

Departmental planning resulting in annual operational plans generally does not exist. Some departmental area plans have been submitted to the board with no feedback or approval. Budgeting and forecasting of expenses do not exist. This includes administrative expenses (excluding salaries) and annual operating expenditures (storage, interest and demurrage, etc) representing annual expenditures of approximately $200 million.

This is not small change. The board or senior management approves most or all of the administrative expenditures, individually, as incurred. That is what happens when the operation does not have a public audit. It is inefficient and there is no way of determining whether a problem has been rectified if one has been identified.

With respect to accountability, page 20 of the report reads:

Specific performance targets or expectations are not set and communicated for the senior operating management team or for senior managers. Senior management job descriptions are out of date, incomplete or non-existent. There is no formal performance appraisal process for senior management which reinforces accountability for meeting objectives.

At page 21 of the report there is a rather strong indictment of the structure of the Canadian Wheat Board. It reads:

The structure as designed (1930s) with five equal Commissioners and more than six direct or indirect reports does not promote efficient and effective delivery and accountability for the 1990s.

As members know, the corporate structure of the Canadian Wheat Board is still the same. That problem has not been rectified. It is still a 1930s model which does not serve western grain farmers well in the 1990s.

That was corporate governance. Now I will turn, in the Deloitte & Touche audit, to finance and accounting management. Regarding corporate planning and budgeting, at page 67 it reads:

A formal budgeting process does not exist for the Finance and Accounting expenditures department. There is no overall responsibility assigned to Finance for establishing and administering a corporate budgeting process. Salary expenditures are approved at the beginning of the year.

Obviously the hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette has very good reason to bring forward a private member's bill which would call for an annual audit of the Canadian Wheat Board by the auditor general. There has been no budgeting. There has been no accountability. There has been no responsibility assigned to finance for establishing and administering a corporate budgeting process. This is serious stuff.

Furthermore, we know that the commissioners' salaries have been kept secret. It has been leaked that they have extremely high salaries. We also know that they have a very cushy benefit package. We were astonished to find out that their severance package is around a quarter of a million dollars. Farmers' dollars are going to finance the commissioners and the farmers had no idea that such a plan existed for the commissioners of the Canadian Wheat Board. We need an audit to be done by the auditor general to expose these things.

Regarding the board's strategy and business direction, on page 78 of the audit it reads:

A formal corporate strategy does not exist for review and input to an MISD (Management Information Services Division) strategy. No formal assessment of business needs or direction was conducted as part of ISP project. Some information is known about the direction of the business but has not been used to evaluate the current system.

Page 78 continues under the heading "Identify Issues and Operations" by stating:

Information systems issues and opportunities were identified but were not based on an assessment of the current systems. As such, any opportunities with the current systems have been overlooked.

I have talked about corporate governance. I have talked about finance and accounting management and about strategy. I would like to go on to talk about the sales and marketing of the Canadian Wheat Board.

On page 31 of the Deloitte & Touche audit it states that no formal strategic marketing plan exists. This is the Canadian Wheat Board. It is supposed to be marketing farmers' grain. The internal audit said that no formal strategic marketing plan exists and this report was put on the shelf and kept away from the eyes of the producers whom the board is to serve.

Under the heading "Marketing Organization" on page 32 the report reads:

The marketing function lacks focus and co-ordination due to a lack of direction from a corporate governance point of view, the absence of an effective marketing plan, and separated departments within the organizational structure.

At page 35 the report reads:

Agents emphasize that relationships with the CWB are not sound/positive business relationships. Accredited export agents indicated that they are not being utilized as effectively as they might be in sales opportunities in niche markets and geographic markets where CWB market knowledge is limited and resources limited.

We are now getting into performance evaluation. I will conclude with the following point. The report on transportation states: "Several costs associated with transportation in grain movement

are primarily influenced by Canadian Wheat Board operations. However, there are no budgets or standards of performance for these such as storage and demurrage costs". We are talking about the sale of hopper cars in western Canada and whether they should be sold to the producers or to the railroads and who should allocate the cars.

If we would have had a proper evaluation of the Canadian Wheat Board by the auditor general it would have helped us to make wiser decisions about those cars. However, we have had that information kept from us and it has hurt the industry. It has increased the mistrust of farmers in the Canadian Wheat Board. Certainly this bill would solve that problem.

[Gordon Kirkby, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured today to add my voice to the second reading debate on Bill C-212, an act put forward by the hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act.

The government does not support the bill. The government's opposition to the bill is based on a significant number of factors and very important considerations.

One such factor the government bases its decision on to oppose the bill is the timing. The bill proposes to make a major change to the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board without any discussion or consultation with farmers across the country.

The hon. member who makes this motion comes from a party which says it listens to what the people have to say, which says it seeks input before making decisions to change legislation, which says it will do what its constituents want.

Once again we see, as evidenced by this high handed, pre-emptory proposal, an attempt to change in a very significant and serious manner legislation without proper consultation with farmers, organizations and people across the country whose lives depend on farming; to change the Canadian Wheat Board in a fundamental way without any discussion or consultation with farmers.

This merely shows the hypocrisy with which the Reform Party put forward this idea: listen to the constituents until they do not agree with you and then go ahead and do what you want. This is Reform Party policy to a tee.

The federal government has a process in place where it is now engaged in a prairie-wide consultation with grain producers, grain companies and other organizations that have a direct interest in the future shape of western Canada's grain marketing system.

This is the approach that is always taken by this government. We listen to the organizations that will be affected in order to hear what they have to say. We listen to what farmers, grain companies and corporations involved in the farming industry have to say. We listen to what all stakeholders have to say with respect to the Canadian Wheat Board before deciding on change.

Once we have gathered all the input, we then consider what direction the Canadian Wheat Board will take in the future. This process is in place right now.

Without addressing the specific pros and cons of the bill, the government feels any decisions taken on either the Canadian Wheat Board or the grain marketing system must await the final outcome of this process. This is a process which has been started. Obviously it makes sense that we allow this process to continue, that we allow the committee to make its report to the minister before making a decision.

Certainly it would seem strange if we set out a process to review concerns and issues with respect to the wheat board. We set that process in place and then make changes before the process is even complete. That does not make any sense. Then again, I suppose what does make sense is that it would be suggested by the Reform Party.

The whole issue about grain marketing and the role of the Canadian Wheat Board has been the subject of very intense debate across the prairies for the last three or four years.

The difficulty with this debate has been that it has tended to take place in a rather ad hoc fashion with no co-ordination or focus. That is why the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food last year established the panel that I have talked about, the committee that I have talked about, the Western Grain Marketing Panel.

The panel is composed of a chairman and eight individuals who represent virtually every perspective on grain marketing from one end of the spectrum to the other. That is certainly a fair approach.

We want input to be heard by people who represent all points of view. Proceeding in that manner, the report of the committee will have a significant amount of credibility.

Late last year the panel distributed copies of a tabloid style information package to all western grain producers. This ensured that every farmer in western Canada had complete access to all the relevant facts and figures that relate to grain marketing.

In January the panel conducted a series of town hall information meetings across the prairies. These sessions gave grain producers the opportunity to bring forward their perspectives and opinions, to advance their best arguments and to engage in a logical, face to face dialogue about all the pros and cons of the issue of grain marketing.

The panel has now completed its third phase, hearing more than 80 formal submissions from a wide variety of farm groups and industry. These sessions took place across western Canada. They took place in Winnipeg, Edmonton, Regina.

The Reform Party made a presentation before the panel on March 18. Now it wants to pre-empt the process its members participated in. This does not make any sense at all. As I said before, the only thing that makes sense about something not making sense is that it is proposed by the Reform Party. I take this to mean its participation in the process is that its members agree with the validity of it. I congratulate them for joining in and participating, like they should.

Now I encourage them to let the process take its course, come forward with its conclusions and when the minister makes his decisions, to support the minister in his decisions, which no doubt will be the best for the western grain farmer.

With all the consultations, examinations and cross-examinations, everyone with an interest in western Canada's grain marketing system has had their say on the issue.

As we debate this motion in the House today, the panel is preparing to write its report, which will be submitted to the minister in June. It is from this report, its observations and conclusions based on the input of producers and other stakeholders that the government will look for constructive suggestions on how to move forward.

If the government agreed now to make such a major change to the Canadian Wheat Board before it had received the report we would be dishonouring a commitment we made to the grain producers across the country that no major change would be made without consulting them.

That is something the government will not do, even though the Reform Party seems very keen on doing it. It seems evident by the precise nature of this motion that once again it betrays the motive of the Reform Party, which simply is to utterly destroy the Canadian Wheat Board.

The grain industry is a very competitive industry. Every little shred of information that a competitor can possibly get is of value. Certainly we want to ensure a proper balance between accountability to those it serves and protecting the competitive edge of the Canadian Wheat Board as it is marketing its grain worldwide.

Here we have hon. members from the Reform Party reading from a document that is four years old and setting out criticisms contained in that document when the wheat board has moved on those issues and has improved how it does its business. It has an audit. There is no sense duplicating efforts by having another audit take place which would have-

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me this evening to add my remarks to those made by my hon. colleagues on what we view is a very important bill put forward by my hon. colleague from Lisgar-Marquette, Bill C-212.

What is this really all about? That is the question we have to ask ourselves. This is about accountability. It is that simple.

I have one word for the hon. member who just spoke, the hon. member from Prince Albert-Churchill River, and that is hogwash. He knows it. What is he afraid of? What is the government afraid of in making the Canadian Wheat Board accountable and allowing the Auditor General of Canada to look at the books and perform an annual audit on the Canadian Wheat Board? What is so wrong? What would happen that is so bad?

The hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River talked about timing. He said the Reform Party should wait until the process is complete. We have been waiting for three years for the government to act in relation to the Canadian Wheat Board. Farmers have been waiting.

The member for Prince Albert-Churchill River was never a farmer, though I spent 20 years in the agricultural sector, farming, as did the hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette, and as did about five or six other members of the Reform Party caucus. We have some inkling of what farmers are going through. Quite frankly, they are sick and tired of a government that is dragging its feet on this issue of holding the Canadian Wheat Board accountable to the people paying the bills.

I was quite shocked when my hon. colleague was revealing some of the numbers and how the budget for the Canadian Wheat Board for administration costs has increased so dramatically over the last number of years. He read that it was over $26 million in 1987, $35 million in 1992, jumping to over $41 million in 1994, with no real accountability. Why would the auditor general not be allowed to audit those figures and reveal what that increase encompasses?

My hon. colleague from Kindersley-Lloydminster in his brief remarks questioned some of the issues that would be contained in those costs such as salaries and severance packages. It reminds me of another issue of accountability or lack of accountability, the whole issue of MP pensions. My hon. colleague from Lisgar-Marquette mentioned that in his speech.

I find it more than ironic to hear once again the government saying "do not worry about what we are doing, do as we say, not as we do", as the government does with pension reform. It is talking about making cuts to Canadians' CPP pensions while it feeds at the trough of the MP pension plan.

The member for Prince Albert-Churchill River was speaking about the need to consult farmers in this process. That is almost laughable. Is this the same party that during the campaign promised a plebiscite on whether it should be single or dual marketing? Where is the plebiscite after three years?

The hon. member talks about consulting and now he is busy heckling. It would be interesting if he is so verbose in his consultations with farmers.

[An hon. member]

Where is the accountability of this government?

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette outlined examples that clearly explained why it is imperative that the Canadian Wheat Board be put under the jurisdiction of the auditor general. The wheat board should also be subject to the Access to Information Act. Farmers are asking: "Why all the secrecy?" Reform members of Parliament are asking: "Why all the secrecy?" Why cannot this board be held accountable to the people that are paying the bills, the farmers?

As the hon. member opposite mentioned, there has been a lot of dissent. In my riding of Prince George-Peace River, farmers are divided on what to do with the wheat board. It is universal across the west that farmers are divided. However, there is one thing they are not divided on, and that is holding the board accountable.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the Order Paper.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-26, an act respecting the oceans of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the committee; and of motions in Group No. 11.

Oceans Act

[Yvan Bernier, Bloc, Gaspé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Skeena had the floor, but perhaps I could start right away and he can use his remaining five minutes shortly, if he wishes.

We have now reached motions in Group No. 11 at report stage of Bill C-26, an act respecting the oceans of Canada.

Group No. 11 comprises three motions. I will just run over them, since we were interrupted for a vote and for private members' business.

The member for Vancouver Quadra referred to Motions Nos. 67 and 68 proposed by the Liberal Party. I have problems living with what the government proposes in Motions Nos. 67 and 68. I say to the House I intend to vote against them.

As for Motion No. 70 proposed by the Reform member for Skeena, I am pleased to see that, even though we form the official opposition and the hon. member for Skeena and myself represent ridings at the opposite ends of the country, one in Vancouver and the other in Gaspé, the nose of Quebec, we can still reach a similar view on how to administer the Coast Guard.

I would like to read the final part of his motion, which states:

-provided in the most cost effective manner possible.

The hon. member for Skeena takes advantage of the opportunity to add what he means by this. He says:

"The level and scope of such services, as well as the manner of their delivery, shall be defined in full, ongoing, consultation with all beneficiaries."

And what does this mean? Who are the beneficiaries? The objective of the Coast Guard, through its new fee charging powers, is to get money out of the users. They went from hearing to hearing, trying to make us understand in committee the new Coast Guard charges for navigational aids, trying to get through our thick skulls the idea of user fees.

A real user pays principle implies canvassing those using our services to find out the type of service they really want. Those paying for the service are also entitled to have their say. They want to know from the government whether the service offered is at the lowest possible cost, whether it could be offered another way and whether privatization is a possibility. All this in the context of the socio-economic and human impact on those who have to deal with the rationalization.

Regardless, as for the need for this motion, as we will see later in Group No. 12, that ideas will blend. The principle is to have the government not collect money just for the sake of collecting it and not to lay principles on the table and then ignore them later.

The government says: "We want to collect money, we are short". The Bloc Quebecois also advocated deficit reduction in the latest election campaign. However, the difference lies in achieving the objective. And here I am delighted to see that even people at the other end of the country, who call themselves reformers, can appreciate good common sense.

So, I still have to try to convince one of the three groups in the House. I realize the job is a bit difficult, but part of our work in Parliament is to try to find the words to help them understand the thing.

What can I say? I spent three weeks in hearings, from 9 in the morning to 9 at night. People would come and express their opinions. This too is hard to take: there were consultations, but it did not change a thing, and the legislation was not yet in force.

Imagine what would happen if we did not include right away in this bill the principle that there must be consultation, that users must be able to say what level of service would be appropriate and what level of spending they feel capable of taking on. To negotiate this change it is contemplating, this change it has to make to face the music and reduce its deficit, the Canadian government needs the help of the industry. It needs to establish what I would call partnership ties. I will reaffirm this basic principle over and over again.

In previous motions, we dealt with the notion of partnership in the context of the integrated management strategy that needed to be developed. In these motions, I specified that Canada's partners were the provinces, which make up Canada. In the case at hand, they are service users. These services are sometimes used by the provinces, but most of the time, they are used by industries and businesses.

As such, these should be our focus of attention. It is with them in mind that the consultation and feedback process should be put in place. But nowhere in this bill do I see this notion expressed. I cannot detect this kind of spirit in there. I cannot detect a hint of this notion either. What shall we make of it, especially when we see the minister press on with his new tariff structure after three quarters of those in the industry came before the committee to tell us loud and clear and in black and white that they did not want this new tariff structure for navigational aids, for commercial shipping? How far will they go if we let them? That was my first point.

Second, still on the same topic, the coast guard's new fee schedule for navigation aids was set for purely financial reasons. The Minister of Finance gave an order. Even though the coast guard appeared not to have a choice, it did have one. It could have continued to cut spending. If it wanted to collect more revenue, it could have considered what the people had to say about this.

Talking about a $20 million financial objective is a mathematical trick, as commercial shipping activities are not spread over 12 months. Rather, the targeted level of activity must be compressed into the commercial shipping period. Consequently, the objective for this summer should be set at $26 million or $28 million to take this into account.

Furthermore, still on this topic, what is not mentioned is who will administer all this. How will these accounts be collected? At this point, no one knows. The funniest thing in all this is that these orders were not published for 30 days in the Canada Gazette , as it customary for any order of the governor in council.

This item in Part II slipped through almost unnoticed on a Friday afternoon. The industry was flabbergasted. They are still wondering how all this will be administered and what the administrative costs will be. I have already heard that the person who will administer this new fee schedule will receive a 5 per cent commission to bill the people concerned.

The bill has not been passed yet, but the regulations on the new fee schedule have just been put in place. There was mention of $20 million, then $28 million because of the short collection period, and they have just added 5 per cent. There is nothing reassuring in all this. We do not see how this shows respect for those who will use this service. I think it is very important to instil such respect and entrench it in this bill.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-26, and more particularly on Motions Nos. 67 and 68, concerning the oceans of Canada.

I congratulate the hon. member for Gaspé for his excellent work regarding this issue. The bill seeks to recognize Canada's jurisdiction over its maritime zones, and to define the legislative framework required to establish a national oceans management strategy.

Bill C-26 also seeks to define federal responsibilities regarding ocean management, something which it fails to do. Part I recognizes, at the national level, Canada's jurisdiction over its maritime zones, as defined by the UN convention on the law of the sea. This part incorporates provisions of the Canadian Laws Offshore Application Act and of the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act. It is therefore a repetition of existing legal provisions. Consequently, I wonder about appropriateness of this part of the bill which, in my opinion, is not necessary.

Let us not forget that, with coastlines stretching for some 244,000 kilometres, Canada is among the first countries in the world in that regard. These coasts are, to a large extent, along islands in the Pacific, Atlantic and Arctic oceans. This is in addition to the 9,500 kilometres of coastline along the Great Lakes.

In 1970, Canada affirmed its jurisdiction over a territorial sea of 12 nautical miles. On January 1, 1977, the fishing zone was extended to 200 nautical miles.

I take this opportunity to mention the dispute that opposed Spain to Canada. It is an episode which I followed closely, since I am the

only member of this Parliament who is of Spanish origin. The dispute was about the turbot along the coast of Newfoundland.

A settlement was reached between Canada and the European Union, but Spain is not entirely pleased with it. There are currently two lawsuits before the courts: one by the Spanish government, before the International Court of Justice, in The Hague. The other, of a private nature, is by the owner or the captain of the Estai .

So, Spain is contesting the acts, the regulations and the measures taken by Canada, maintaining that Canada has no right to seize boats outside its territorial waters, and claiming compensation. The case is before the International Court of Justice in The Hague, but in the meantime Canada does not want to recognize that court's jurisdiction. The case is now at the preliminary stage concerning the jurisdiction of this international court.

In my view, this is an important problem. Canada should recognize the jurisdiction of this tribunal so that it may hear the case as to the substance. I think that this would greatly improve relations between Canada and Spain, between Canada and the European Union. I ask the Canadian government to review its position and to recognize the jurisdiction of this international tribunal.

Part II of Bill C-26 seeks to establish a national oceans management strategy. However, the legislative framework is poorly defined and federal responsibilities are not spelled out. This paves the way for interference by the federal government in sectors that do not come under its jurisdiction. I am thinking here of the protection of wildlife and habitats, as well as water, where Quebec has the greater jurisdiction.

Furthermore, clause 29 refers to provincial governments merely in terms of collaboration, on the same level as aboriginal organizations, coastal communities and other persons and bodies affected by the issue.

It is therefore reasonable to believe that this part of the bill may give rise to a number of conflicts between Ottawa and the provinces, as well as with the various stakeholders in the communities concerned. I would like the bill to involve the provinces more, to see them fully involved in the decision making process leading to the creation of a national ocean management strategy. This would make it possible to clarify the responsibilities of all partners involved.

For the foregoing reasons, I cannot support this bill as presented to us today, and I am even less able to support it because of the motions under consideration at this time. The number of motions to this bill in the committee and in the House suggests it is fairly controversial, moreover. I would also like to point out that I support the various motions proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, particularly those from my colleague from Gaspé. These motions offer more clarity by redefining the relationships and powers between the federal government and the provinces. In my opinion, they will ensure a greater respect of provincial jurisdictions by Ottawa.

I also support the motions on fee mechanisms for Coast Guard services, particularly navigational aids and ice breaking. The objectives of these motions are, among other things, to make the fee mechanisms more equitable and to force the ministers to collaborate with the industry and the provinces before imposing fees or raising them. These amendments will prevent the minister for acting unilaterally, with no concern for public hearings, as he has done in the past.

The fees in this bill are unevenly distributed among the various Canadian ports. It will cost as much for a ship arriving off the Atlantic to unload in Sept-Îles as it will in Thunder Bay, 3,700 kilometres further up the St. Lawrence. Another example: a Canadian shipowner registering his vessel abroad will pay one seventh the amount paid by the person registering his vessel in Canada.

These two examples indicate that the scale of charges in Bill C-26 is problematic. The bill contains a number of inequities. It will considerably reduce the competitiveness of Quebec and Canadian ports. This is why I think these clauses should be reviewed.

In this regard, I would like to point out that the Quebec transport minister, Jacques Brassard, the mayors of the principal cities along the St. Lawrence, the St. Lawrence Ship Operators Association, and the mayor of Rivière-du-Loup all vigorously oppose this bills for the reasons I have just given. They demand a moratorium on Bill C-26. I agree and think the motions put forward by the Bloc Quebecois should be considered.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-26 and the motions in group No. 11.

Motion No. 70 deals with how to pay for some very important factors of fisheries and oceans. One of these is the coast guard. It is of particular importance in my riding of Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, which has a large coastline and where thousands of boaters are on the water in inclement weather and need coast guard services. These days the coast guard is under tight fiscal constraints and is finding it increasingly difficult to provide those necessary services in our waters.

We in the Reform Party believe in the principle of Motion No. 70 which states that services by the coast guard are most effectively paid for on a user fee basis. That is common sense. Why should somebody who is not using the service pay for it?

Another ancillary problem I have in my riding, which I would ask the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to look at, is what is happening to the volunteer rescue services on our coasts. They are

having an increasingly difficult time paying for the important services they provide, given the length of coastline and the limited number of coast guard. Often they are the first response team to arrive at situations where people's lives are at stake.

In Sooke, British Columbia in my riding, it is of particular importance. The people there save dozens of lives every year, yet that service may close down. I ask the minister to look at one of the solutions that has been discussed in my community. Perhaps a surcharge could be established on moorage fees that could be used locally to provide the funds necessary to maintain search and rescue services in the community. Bear in mind this is a cost effective way of doing it because the people who man the search and rescue service are essentially volunteers and the moneys they use go into the infrastructure they need; the rigid hull zodiacs, fuel, training, et cetera.

I would ask the minister to look at that and remind him of the desperate need of these volunteer departments across the country for funds. Some way has to be found to enable these rescue services to fund themselves. I know there is no more money in the pot to do this. There are alternatives and I would suggest he look at them.

Motion No. 71 is very important and Reform opposes it. It seeks to limit the minister's marine protection areas to fisheries alone. We oppose it because the protection of the fish extends to their habitat. The creatures that live in the sea depend on their habitat in order to survive. Therefore preservation of the species without preservation of the habitat makes no sense. They are two parts of the same whole, and it is absolutely essential that habitat be protected.

I mention again my riding of Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. One of the problems, particularly with forestry, is the large amount of degradation of habitat up and down the coast. As a result, many species are being devastated, particularly salmon and crustaceans such as shellfish.

This is not solely a problem of poaching or overutilization, but a problem of habitat destruction. Regardless of what species one is looking at, whether on land or in the ocean, the primary reason these species are coming down in numbers and why species around the world are threatened is habitat destruction.

I hope that the minister will rethink Motion No. 71 and in the future extend this to involve not only the fisheries, but also the habitat. He only needs to look at the salmon fishery on the west coast to see the devastation that habitat destruction has wrought.

A constructive way of improving this is to go to the people who actually destroyed the habitat in the first place. Many of the companies on the west coast, particularly some of the forestry companies, are primarily responsible for the destruction of this habitat and have got off scot-free. The minister should work with these groups and try to have a co-operative arrangement with them to try to improve the habitat and get it back to where it was before it was destroyed. It can be a mutually beneficial situation that can improve the communities and the commercial sector.

Motion No. 73 deals with research. We support this, because research, not only in fisheries but in other aspects of our industrial and environmental complex is quite fundamental.

I would like the minister to look at a couple of areas. There have been a number of criticisms from other countries. I will take one specific example. It deals with aquaculture.

As members know, Canada used to lead the world in aquaculture. We do not lead the world any more. Chile does. Why? It is in part because we have failed to be aggressive in the utilization of our resources. We used to be on the cutting edge of aquaculture, including research, but we are not there any more.

We were handed an opportunity to continue to be leaders and also to take our position as the number one country in the world in aquaculture, with who else but Iceland? Iceland has approached this government, and previous governments, to make co-operative interventions in the science of aquaculture in ways in which we can maximize the resources within our oceans in a sustainable fashion.

The people in Iceland came to Canada on many occasions with open arms, with good ideas and basically were told to go away, that Canadians were not interested. That does a huge disservice to our fisheries and to the people whose livelihood is dependent on fisheries and oceans. This country has a huge opportunity in fisheries and in aquaculture and we need to capitalize on that.

Part of the way we can capitalize is to invest in research and development, primarily through co-operative arrangements with the private sector. There is no new money, but money could be found in the private sector. The government can take a leadership role in this important area. It will lead to greater employment in our country.

In short, the Reform Party supports Bill C-26, the oceans act. Some of the motions we are going to support were not in Group No. 11. I would ask, with the constructive criticisms that the minister has heard today, that he takes them home with him and looks at them carefully to build a better bill.