Debates of June 19th, 1996

Supply

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

This is the place of vigorous debate. We might be able to pursue our business until 9.42 p.m.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I see I am going to have to cut this a little short because of the time limitation. I am glad for the opportunity to speak on the Reform motion dealing with the Canadian Wheat Board.

My family, my son and I, actively farm 1,400 acres in the Peace River country. There are 12 or 13 members in the Reform caucus who have farms or who are operating farms in some capacity. I think we have a little bit more credibility in this matter than these do-gooder Liberals across the way who have to have the minister of agriculture prompting them with bits of information here and there.

As a matter of fact, the only Liberal member that has spoken today who has any credibility on this issue is the member for Dauphin-Swan River who has a farm herself. She raised the question as to why should we get rid of the Canadian Wheat Board, that she wanted to use the Canadian Wheat Board. She entirely missed the whole essence of the motion.

We are not getting rid of the Canadian Wheat Board. We are calling for a trial period to see which agency farmers will choose: a free marketing system or the state controlled monopoly of the Canadian Wheat Board. If they choose to vote state controlled for their produce that is what we will continue with. If they choose to vote for a free market, that is what they should have.

Who was the member for Saskatoon-Humboldt asking to make expert testimony on this issue? A member from the Bloc Quebecois. What possible relevance could that member have to this debate? If the Canadian Wheat Board is so good, why do we not extend it to Ontario and Quebec?

Maybe the member for Saskatoon-Humboldt knows something about appointments of commissioners to the Canadian Wheat Board because it is my understanding that she did not have to face any election for her nomination, it was an appointment. I guess she is probably an expert on that.

I have spoken to a number of farmers in my riding. Without a doubt the majority want freedom of choice to market their grain. While some think the Canadian Wheat Board makes sense, different farmers have different needs and that is not being recognized here today.

Some are happy to take the initial price offered them by the board. They can afford to wait for a year for the final payment but others are paying high interest rates and they need the immediate cashflow. They have big payments to make in the fall and they cannot afford to wait. Then there are still others who grow specialty crops while the board is simply not able to handle those specialty crops.

A plebiscite was promised by both the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Prime Minister very conveniently in the 1993 election. Where is that plebiscite? It is not to be had. It is another broken promise by this Liberal government.

Alberta went ahead with that plebiscite and what happened? An overwhelming number of farmers voted for that choice. Freedom of choice is what farmers want. I have farmed for 28 years. We want freedom of choice, as any other industry enjoys. The real issue here is freedom of choice.

We can have a dual system if we want. The Canadian Wheat Board can offer that side by side. In fact that took place from 1935 to 1943. It has happened before. It worked effectively. The war came along and there were special circumstances. Canada put in a

system whereby supply could be guaranteed to Europe. I can understand that. This is a different time entirely.

Democracy, what is this about? The government is willing to allow for an elected advisory committee to the Canadian Wheat Board. That makes some sense. If it makes sense, would it not also follow that the commissioner should be elected? Is that not democracy? Or does the government want political control of commissioners so that it can dominate their decisions?

Is it common sense to have grain running through the Canadian seaway at a time when it is costing a lot more money than through the west coast or across the border into the United States? I do not think it is. With control of commissioners that is the type of thing that can happen.

I would like to go back to the farmers that find the Canadian Wheat Board a hindrance to their operations. These are examples of farmers who are trying to diversify but have been frustrated by the rigid structure of the Canadian Wheat Board.

First there is the story of Bob Numweiller. Mr. Numweiller is a Saskatchewan miller who lives close to the U.S. border. He farms there. He wants to mill his own wheat into flour and sell it on his farm. Of course he cannot do that under this rigid structure. The board says he cannot do it. First he has to sell his wheat to the Canadian Wheat Board, and although it does not do any of the marketing, then he can buy it back. This is really good stuff. He also must pay the board's price and administration fee, although it does not do anything for him. Then he waits for a year and maybe he will find out he might get a final payment and maybe not.

There is an absurd twist to the story. Now that the Canadian Wheat Board, as a result of the World Trade Organization, can no longer control imports, Mr. Numweiller has discovered that he can cross the U.S. border, buy the wheat, bring the wheat back and mill it on his farm. However, he cannot mill his own wheat. Does that make any sense?

[An hon. member]

That's Liberal policy.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Then there is the story of Dexter Schmidt, a constituent of my riding of Peace River. This government has been telling farmers they should diversify. He has taken their advice. He has diversified into organic grain, but the wheat board does not sell organic grain because as soon as it is pooled with all the other wheat it loses its distinctiveness. He wanted the ability to sell it himself.

Of course the board cannot get these niche markets. They sell in boat loads and there is not enough production at this time in the organic grain market to make 20,000 tonnes. What has to happen to Mr. Schmidt? It is too much hassle for the board to administer the container loads. Is Mr. Schmidt allowed to do his own marketing? Only if he goes to the Canadian Wheat Board.

Here are the steps he must go through. First, he has to go to the elevator to sell his grain on contract. The elevator writes out the sales ticket. Mr. Schmidt writes out a buy back cheque for $36.94 a tonne. He also pays the elevator $5 a tonne administration fee. Now he owns his own grain. That is a major step. Now he can sell it as he pleases but he still has to wait a year to get back his original $36.94 a tonne and he may not see any of it at all, depending on how the board does on its marketing.

If he tries to bypass the board he commits a criminal offence and has to pay a penalty of $12,000 plus spend two years in jail. Does this make any sense?

Canada and Russia passed in the night about three years ago. Russia is going to a market system and where are we going? We are continuing with a very regressive system. This is an example of the type of thing we would hear from communist Russia 20 years ago.

These are just two examples of why I think the Canadian Wheat Board needs to be overhauled. I would start by ensuring that the commissioners are democratically elected by producers. After that, I think the board would change in the ways it needs to meet the 21st century.

Today's generation of commercial farmers want to substitute their management skills for the collective approaches that have dominated the past few decades. They see new opportunities in hot new markets like organic grains. Using their own skills and their own comparative advantages, they want to be free to grow crops and market them as they please, just the same as any other industry.

I want to take a moment to talk about the reports that were done for the Canadian Wheat Board and for the grain marketing panel. The Kraft report was referred to earlier. The Kraft report was done with selective information from the Canadian Wheat Board. It fed the panel certain information. That is a strange thing. Nobody else can get any information out of the Canadian Wheat Board.

This group was paid a certain amount of money to do a very selective report for the Canadian Wheat Board and was spoon fed the information. What did the report say? It was very complimentary to the board. It said that the board gets about $13 a tonne more for the grain when it sells all around the world than any other country or any other market would get. Does that make sense? If a company in Brazil was buying grain from us, why would it pay $13 a tonne more to the board than it would pay to anybody else? Maybe there is a quality issue here. That could be. But that same quality would exist whether the board marketed the grain or not. I think this Kraft report has to be discounted completely.

There was another report done by Colin Carter and Al Loyns. Their report states that they found just exactly the opposite. They said that the grain marketed by the board is costing farmers about $20 a tonne. The report was compiled without any benefit of Canadian Wheat Board information. In fact, they were stymied every step of the way trying to get information from the board.

This Canadian Wheat Board is acting very much like the department of defence these days. It has a bunker mentality and is hunkered down behind the barricades.

Then we have the famous Deloitte & Touche report. These are the people who are the Canadian Wheat Board's auditors. This firm was asked in 1992 to look at the board's management operations. What did it find? First, I have to say that the report was kept secret from 1992 until it was finally leaked and saw the light of day this winter. The report said that the Canadian Wheat Board has no corporate strategic plan, no formal marketing strategic plan, no clear plan for budgeting and managing information. Furthermore, the report reveals that the board is currently not conducting any value for money type reviews.

The minister of agriculture has told us all those things are being corrected. Who would know? The board does not report to anybody but the minister of agriculture and sometimes I wonder if it even reports to him.

My colleague has moved a motion that the auditor general should be able to review the Canadian Wheat Board books. This is a crown corporation. However, the Liberal Party voted against the motion on accountability to government. The Canadian Wheat Board is a crown corporation of government that cannot be audited by the auditor general. Shame.

This leaked information is especially disturbing because Deloitte & Touche is the Canadian Wheat Boards' own auditor. If it found that kind of incompetence, it would have to be fairly guarded in what it said. Imagine what it must have really looked like.

I do not have much time but I want to talk for a moment about the grain marketing panel that has been referred to here today. This is a whitewash. Mr. Molloy is heading up the grain marketing panel. He is a buddy of the minister of agriculture. What did this grain marketing panel do? The panel came to my riding. It had a facilitator go around and say: "Give us the information and we will tabulate it". Then there was a consensus at the end.

When a group of farmers in my area said they wanted to make a direct presentation to the panel, the facilitator said: "Okay, you can do that, but you have to come to Winnipeg". Imagine, they would have to travel all the way to Winnipeg from Grande Prairie, Alberta.

Then we called for the panel to hold hearings in the capitals of the three provinces, to at least make it easier for those people to present information. We had a major fight to get that to happen. This is supposed to be an open process. It was a major fight.

What did we find when we got to the grain marketing panel? A bunch of political hacks, in most cases. One member is a former member of the Manitoba pool. His sole contribution to the debate was: "Things cannot be too bad under the Canadian Wheat Board. I was out in the country the other day and I saw some farmers driving new pick-ups".

The Liberal government in this very House, less than a month ago, talked about a monopoly. It talked about a monopoly in the gas and oil industry. It said that gas prices are being controlled by a monopoly. It pales by comparison with the monopoly that the Canadian Wheat Board holds over farmers. It is a monopoly on the buy side only. There is only one buyer for wheat and barley that goes to export and that is the Canadian Wheat Board. Any other industry could not be controlled this way. Nobody would want it to be so.

I ask the question again: If the Canadian Wheat Board is so good why do we not have it in Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes so that the potato farmers can experience the joys of having the Canadian Wheat Board?

To whom does the Canadian Wheat Board answer? I had a discussion with a Canadian Wheat Board field representative in my riding recently. I held a series of meetings in my riding and people were concerned that they were not getting very good shipping of wheat out of the Peace River area. I phoned the Canadian Wheat Board and asked what the shipping schedule was for the next two or three weeks.

The next time I met this man he was quite offended that I had not talked to him. He asked me what was my interest in this. I answered that as the member of Parliament, the government representative, I represented these constituents who are concerned that they are not able to move their product. He then asked me what it had to do with me as it was not a government matter. When I mentioned that the Canadian Wheat Board is a crown corporation, he said: "Technically that might be so, but we do not answer to the politicians". I said: "Who do you answer to? Do you answer to the farmers?" He said: "No, we do not answer to them either". There is the answer. They are completely unaccountable.

Let us try this system and let the farmers choose what they want. If they want the Canadian Wheat Board working alongside with a dual marketing agency, that is fine. If they choose the Canadian Wheat Board alone for their product, that is fine. If they choose the private sector completely, that is fine too. The choice should be made by the farmers, not by the Liberal lawyers on the other side who have no experience whatsoever in this area.

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

Mr. Speaker, in light of the vigorous debate we have had over this issue I wonder if there might be unanimous consent to make this a votable motion.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

There being no unanimous consent and it being 9.42 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that the proceedings on the motion have expired.

[English]

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in the last couple of months I have raised two issues of particular concern to all British Columbians, namely, the failure of the Canada-U.S. salmon treaty and the disastrous DFO fleet reduction policy of the minister. In both of these areas federal Liberal policies are having a devastating impact on B.C. fisheries, particularly on coastal communities and on small owner operators.

Of course, the six B.C. Liberal MPs and 24 Reform MPs have been totally ineffective in standing up for B.C. interests.

It is appalling that while Liberals are taking drastic action on fleet reduction they are pathetically weak in standing up to the United States, especially Alaska, which has shown such contempt for the Canada-U.S. salmon treaty.

I would note that over the course of the last decade Canada's interception of salmon bound for U.S. spawning beds has fallen by 25 per cent, while U.S. interception of Canadian salmon has jumped by 50 per cent. The Government of Canada has totally failed to stand up to the United States and, in particular, to Alaska overfishing.

B.C. Premier Glen Clark has made it very clear that this will be at the top of his agenda for the first ministers' conference which will start tomorrow. I urge the Liberal government to accept the recommendations of the B.C. government for a fisheries renewal plan. Its primary goals would be the conservation of fish and the maximization of jobs in British Columbia from each fish caught. That is the kind of leadership we need in the B.C. fishery which Premier Clark is giving.

The recently announced fleet reduction policy is a disaster for the B.C. fishery. It ignores key recommendations of the federal round table and especially the recommendations of the 1991 Cruikshank commission which held extensive hearings in coastal communities.

The plan purports to strengthen conservation but there is nothing at all for habitat protection, for enhancement or for restoration. There is nothing for enforcement whatsoever and the plan has been condemned by all key environmental and conservation groups.

The stackable area licensing will have a devastating impact on small owner/operators in coastal communities like Sointula, Alert Bay, Ucluelet and Port Hardy. We have already seen the disastrous effect on the black cod and herring fishery. Dennis Brown of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union has said that while small operators, especially gill netters, will be particularly hard hit, it will be the fish packing companies and well financed entrepreneurs who will scoop up the licences and take over the industry.

It will also hurt the suppliers, suppliers of small shipyards, marine suppliers, machine and repair shops, tackle and gear manufacturers and others. With as many as 5,000 jobs being lost there is absolutely no compensation whatsoever, no retraining, no adjustment program whatsoever. When we compare that with what has happened on the east coast it is a disgrace.

The buyback is totally inadequate. Fishers have already paid in some $65 million to the $80 million that was on the table. It should be well in excess of $200 million and the buybacks are a failure. Only half the target has been met and there are absolutely no criteria for bidding in this process. Approximately 90 per cent of coastal fishers voted for a fair voluntary buyback.

An unprecedented coalition has come together to oppose the government's plan, the DFO plan. That coalition has offered a very clear alternative. It wants a transparent inclusive process that would be implemented to devise a new plan to ensure a healthy fishery, a healthy industry and healthy communities.

I urge the government to adopt this plan, this coalition plan which has been supported by the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union, the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council, the Canadian Labour Congress, Coastal Communities Network, Greenpeace, the David Suzuki Foundation, the Native Brotherhood of British Columbia, the Georgia Strait Alliance, the Pacific Trollers Association, IWA-Canada, the T. Buck Suzuki Environmental Foundation, the West Coast Sustainability Association and many others.

Yesterday Premier Clark was in the village of Sointula with a population of 900. That village will be absolutely devastated by the impact of the government's plan according to the Glen Robertson, the New Democrat MLA for that area. He said it is an arbitrary and capricious plan.

Other speakers said the same thing. The Mifflin plan will not save the salmon. It will simply take the catch away from coastal communities and give it to companies that can afford to stay in the industry.

I appeal to the government to finally listen to the people of British Columbia, listen to coastal communities, listen to owner/operators, stand up for the B.C. fishery, stand up for the proposal that has been made by Premier Glen Clark. Shelve the disastrous Mifflin plan and get tough in negotiating the Canada-U.S. salmon treaty.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question, although he will pardon me as a student of oratory in suggesting it was less of a question than a philippic. Nevertheless we can bring some light into the darkness.

The Pacific salmon revitalization strategy was announced on March 29. It is clear that some fundamental structural problems in the B.C. salmon fishery must be resolved if we are to meet two objectives, ensuring conservation of the resource and promoting the viability of the commercial fishery in the future.

Problems of excess capacity and declining returns in the commercial fishery are not new. Over the past 15 years there has been a commission of inquiry on the state of the B.C. fishery and several task forces which recommended fundamental change. But the will to take the necessary steps simply was not there.

The Pacific revitalization strategy is a six point plan including conservation as a priority intersectoral allocation device, new licensing measures, a licence buyback program, transition measures and new institutional mechanisms.

There has been criticism of the strategy, particularly from coastal community representatives. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans listened to these representatives, travelled to B.C. and met with fishing industry groups and announced modifications to the strategy on May 9, 1996. These minor adjustments were based on consultations and included the announcement of a salmon licence fee holiday for those who choose not to fish in 1996.

The minister announced on June 14, 1996 the preliminary results of the implementation of the strategy. New licensing measures, including single gear and area licensing, have been successfully applied to 97 per cent of the salmon fleet. Indications are that more than 250 licence holders intend to take advantage of the new licence stacking provision that permits one vessel to fish in two areas.

The licence buyback program has achieved half of its targets in the first round with the retirement of 411 salmon licences, 10 per cent of the fleet, at a cost of $42 million. On the recommendation of the independent fleet reduction committee, the minister has announced a second round of the buyback program in an effort to realize the fleet reduction target of 20 per cent set out initially.

This program is about choice, and the results indicate the fleet has been prepared to make the difficult decisions required to contribute to the long term protection of the salmon resource. These changes are also necessary to make the industry more viable.

This strategy addresses immediate concerns before the 1996 season, and the minister has invited the input of the round table steering committee on longer term issues as implementation proceeds.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on May 17, 1996, I questioned the Minister of the Environment regarding the Taro dump in Hamilton.

The proposed dump is slated to be located within 800 meters of the Niagara escarpment, a fractured rock bed which is a United Nations declared biosphere.

Constituents in this area are concerned that the leachate has the possibility of going into Lake Ontario, water protected under the Great Lakes eco-basin agreement signed in 1974.

Surface runoff from the site is now piped into the lake. People are seriously concerned the local water table and land will be negatively affected.

My question to the minister was direct and succinct: "Can the minister tell us whether a federal environmental assessment panel review will be conducted?" His answer had everything to do with the election in Hamilton East and little to do with environmental assessments.

In my supplementary question I asked: "Will the minister use his power and commit to launching a full environmental assessment of the Taro dump so all sides will be allowed real influence?" Again the minister answered with the same political bluster.

I remind that this is the jurisdiction of the federal environment minister to initiate full panel reviews. The former minister never

conducted these, even when the problem was very close to her own constituency office. Taro dump is an example of a larger problem of environmental assessments.

Section 28 of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act gives the minister the power to launch a full panel review of a project:

Where at any time the minister is of the opinion that

(a) a project for which an environmental assessment may be required under section 5, taking into account the implementation of any appropriate mitigation measures, may cause significant adverse environmental effects, or

(b) public concerns warrant a reference to a mediator or review panel. The minister may-refer the project to a mediator or a review panel in accordance with section 29.

Will the project cause adverse environmental effects? If leachate from the dump goes into Lake Ontario, which is under federal jurisdiction, then yes, the project will cause serious environmental effects.

Is there public concern? The minister could easily review the Hamilton Spectator newspaper and he will discover the anger of the locals, especially those who have been threatened with lawsuits to keep them quiet about this project.

The issue at stake is whether the Minister of the Environment is willing to do his duty. If a minister does not make use of his powers then Canadians must ask what special interest has a hold on him.

Last month I was Sydney, Nova Scotia to see the extremely hazardous tar ponds site. The people of Sydney for years have desperately looked for help. The provincial government wants the most economical solution, while the federal government seems to be hiding. I challenge the minister to spend a day of inspection at Sydney like I did.

This was the scope of my question from May 17: when will the minister do what is needed to put Canada on the right track of environmental sustainability?

The minister knows full well that my two previous questions were not answered properly. I ask now three pointed questions on which I expect a clear answer.

First, does the Minister of the Environment envision ever using the power to conduct environmental assessments? Second, if leachate seeps into Lake Ontario, does the province of Ontario suddenly become responsible for the Great Lakes or does it remain the responsibility of the federal government? Third, the parliamentary secretary stated that before the end of the term the government will do something with the Sydney tar ponds. Can she explain exactly what the government plans to do with this poisoned black tidal inlet?

Sadly the answers so far appear to be process rather than action, paper making instead of field operations. My questions relate to needed action by the minister. The time for excuses is over.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. May I compliment him on his patience and durability in sitting through an exhausting and some would say interestingly combative debate. If it was not the eleventh hour as some of our predecessors in the debate eloquently suggested, it is at least the witching hour and it is quite clear that all honest people and all MPs should be home in bed at this hour. It is a tribute to our staying power in the service of the state.

The proposal by Taro Aggregates Limited for the east quarry landfill in Stoney Creek is presently being reviewed by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Energy under that province's environmental assessment process. The proposed site would be used for non-hazardous waste.

We understand that under Ontario's process a decision on the project or a decision to submit the project to a full Ontario public hearing will be made by the Ontario Minister of the Environment and Energy, the Hon. Brenda Elliott.

With respect to a federal environmental assessment panel, the project is not subject to the federal environmental assessment process as described under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. A federal review process will therefore not be established.

The federal process is only triggered when a federal agency is a proponent, provides funds or loan guarantees, administers the project lands, or issues permits or licences which enable the project to take place. None of these conditions are in effect for the Taro landfill proposal.

We gather that a number of groups, including the Hamilton Regional Conservation Authority, have reviewed the project's plans and have asked the Ontario Minister of the Environment and Energy to hold a provincial public hearing for the proposal under the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act.

We have been advised by Ontario region that in past years a private company owned the landfill site known as the west quarry adjacent to Stoney Creek. The site received residential and industrial garbage but was not an "engineered" site with a liner. It reportedly was the source of some local groundwater contamination by chlorides.

This west quarry site was taken over by Taro-Philip Environmental and remedial measures were taken at the site to stop further groundwater discharges. The west quarry site is not presently in use, but the site has not been formally closed.

The Hamilton-Stoney Creek area needs a disposal site for industrial non-hazardous waste to replace the Glanbrook landfill which is nearing capacity. Taro-Philip Environmental has proposed

the use of an engineered landfill with a proper liner at the east quarry, next to the inactive west quarry facility.

It is this proposal which is currently under review by the Ontario government. If the hon. member has any further concerns about the project, we would advise him to make submissions to the Ontario Minister of the Environment and Energy.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24 (1).

(The House adjourned at 9.59 p.m.)