Debates of Nov. 19th, 1997

Motions For Papers

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-4, an act to to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee.

Canadian Wheat Board Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

There are 48 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-4.

Motion No. 3 is the same as an amendment presented in committee. Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 76(15) it has not been selected.

The other motions will be grouped for debate as follows: Group No. 1, Motion No. 1 is in the form of a preamble and would normally be ruled out of order. However, Bill C-4 was referred to committee before second reading, pursuant to Standing Order 73(1). Consequently the amendment will be allowed and will be debated and voted on separately.

Group No. 2: Motions No. 2, 31 and 41.

Group No. 4: Motions No. 4 to 19

Group No. 5: Motions Nos. 20 to 30, 32, 33, 34, 45 and 47.

Group No. 6: Motions No. 35 to 40.

Group No. 7, Motions Nos. 42, 43, 44, 46 and 48.

The voting patterns for the motions within each group are available at the Table. The Chair will remind the House of each pattern at the time of voting.

I shall now propose Motion No. 1 to the House.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among all parties and I believe you will find unanimous consent for an order of the House that would deem all amendments that have been found in order to have been read by the Chair and to have been duly moved and seconded and to further provide that, when there is no further debate, the amendments will be deemed to have been put and a recorded division requested.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader have the consent of the House to introduce the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

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

Mr. Speaker, I am seeking unanimous consent from the House to replace Motion No. 5 on the notice paper with a revised version. This motion as it appears on the notice paper is incorrect as a result of a typographical error.

The other parties have been consulted and I believe the Chair will find unanimous consent to replace this motion with the correct version.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The House has heard the proposal of the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River. Does the House give its consent to the substitution of the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I assume the hon. member will be handing a signed proposal to the Table without it having been read at this time to the House. Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Might I also ask, since the parliamentary secretary's motion appears to cover all motions placed on the notice paper, if it now covers the amended motion submitted by the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River. Is that also agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-4 be amended by adding before line 4 on page 1 the following:

“0.1 The Canadian Wheat Board Act is amended by replacing the enacting phrase with the following:

WHEREAS agriculture is a basic foundation stone of the Canadian economy; and

WHEREAS interprovincial and export trade in grain produced in Canada is an essential element of the agricultural sector of the economy, and

WHEREAS it is necessary to establish an organization to coordinate such trade; and

WHEREAS such an organization will have a very significant effect on the producers of grain and must therefore have the securing of the best financial return to them as its object and first priority and must be accountable to them for its performance.

THEREFORE Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:”

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your personal intervention to guarantee my right to have an independent legal expert from legislative counsel draft my amendments to the bill. I am very disappointed with the unilateral decision to have procedural clerks drafting my amendments to government bills. Lawyers draft the government bills and amendments, and members of the House deserve no less.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for defending my rights and privileges and providing the independent confidential legal advice and services I need to do my job as a legislator in the House.

It is a fundamental privilege of the House to decide on the rules of the House. So far we have been denied the opportunity to debate and vote on the quality and availability of essential legal services for MPs to do their jobs.

We represent a substantial number of people. The amendments we make are very important and deserve the proper consideration and advice.

On behalf of my constituents I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your personal intervention in this instance. It has made it possible for me to better represent the interests of my constituents in the House.

I also express my objection to the referring of bills to committee before second reading. It was my experience that the Liberal majority on the agriculture committee was no more open to amendments than any Liberal dominated committee reviewing a bill after second reading. That is a very serious concern because we need that input. Unless the government allows for proper critique of its legislation we are wasting our time in the House. I hope that will change.

The government has subverted the original intent of referring a bill to committee before approval in principle and is now using this procedure to skip second reading debate and deny members an opportunity to represent their constituents in the House. The procedure was supposed to open up the democratic process, not shut it down more than it already has.

I have introduced seven amendments to effectively address the deficiencies in the bill. With these amendments I proposed the following improvements to the Canadian Wheat Board Act. I will briefly go through them and hope to have an opportunity at a later time to talk to each one.

I put forth an amendment to add a preamble to the act and an amendment to change the object of the act from orderly marketing to maximizing the financial return to producers and three consequential amendments to that.

I also put forth an amendment to allow producers to voluntarily exclude one or more types of grain they produce from control of the act for a minimum of five years. In addition to this opting out clause my amendment would provide producers with the opportunity to opt back in by giving the board two years notice.

Finally I put forth an amendment to introduce a five year sunset clause which would repeal the act if it does not achieve its stated objective of securing the best financial return to producers. Talking about sunset clauses, that should be in all legislation. If the legislation does not meet its stated objective we should scrap it.

I would also like to speak to the four main proposals put forward in the amendments: adding the preamble, making the first priority of the Canadian Wheat Board Act to secure the best financial return for producers, to provide opting out and opting back in provisions, and to provide a sunset clause.

I hope to speak to each of my amendments as they appear in the appropriate grouping of amendments. First I will speak to the preamble.

I introduced Motion No. 1 to correct a serious oversight. The Canadian Wheat Board Act does not have a preamble. The act current says “an act to provide the constitution and powers for the Canadian Wheat Board”. If any act of parliament needs a preamble it is this one.

For far too long the government has been saying what the Canadian Wheat Board is supposed to be doing but has done a pretty good job of keeping the real facts a secret. The board says one thing and thousands of farmers disagree. Surely the government cannot disagree with the preamble I have introduced in the House today. If it does, I would like on record the points it disagrees with and the points it would like to see amended. That should be obvious.

Agriculture is the basic foundation stone for the Canadian economy. Interprovincial and export trade of grain is an essential element of our agricultural economy. I do not think anyone can disagree with that, so I hope it will be approved.

It is necessary to organize and co-ordinate such trade. Whoever co-ordinates this trade must have as a first priority the goal of securing the best financial return for producers.

Who in the House can argue against that objective? The minister responsible for the wheat board even said so in the House on October 28, 1997. I quote what the minister said.

The Canadian Wheat Board in every market in the world extracts the very best price it possibly can get for the farmers of Canada.

If that is the case we should put it in writing. The board must be accountable to producers for its performance and we should be willing to say that.

These are far more than just motherhood statements. They set the framework around which the act and the bill must be debated. For the government to pass an act of such importance as giving a government monopoly powers is asking for those powers to be abused.

I respectfully request that all members of the House support the inclusion of a preamble to the Canadian Wheat Board Act. It is a serious oversight not to have it in there. This is the preamble that should be included:

WHEREAS agriculture is a basic foundation stone of the Canadian economy; and

WHEREAS interprovincial and export trade in grain produced in Canada is an essential element of the agricultural sector of the economy, and

WHEREAS it is necessary to establish an organization to co-ordinate such trade; and

WHEREAS such an organization will have a very significant effect on the producers of grain and must therefore have the securing of the best financial return to them as its object and first priority and must be accountable to them for its performance.

The purpose of the amendments I have put forward is to protect all farmers. The government always says that it is listening to the majority of farmers. In a democracy everyone must be protected and their rights must be respected, which is included in the amendments I have put forward. A significant number of producers are represented by people on this side of the House. I appeal to the government to listen to the amendments we are making. They are common sense reasonable amendments and they should be considered.

The attitude has been “Why should we provide proper legislative counsel to the opposition? The government will not listen to our amendments anyway”. They are asking why they should provide resources. That attitude has to change. What we do in the House is fundamental to preparing legislation all Canadians have to live with. We need the best resources and the best legal advice to make legislation what it should be.

Therefore we appeal to the government to give us the resources and to consider the amendments we put forward. They are reasonable amendments that address the concerns of the people we represent.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to respond to the motion put forward by the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.

This is a very substantial piece of legislation, very important to all Canadian grain producers. It is an important aspect of the governance of that industry. That is why I am very proud to support the legislation. In speaking to Bill C-4 it certainly accomplishes the objectives set out by the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.

The member for Yorkton—Melville criticized the government for its decision to refer the legislation to committee before second reading. I simply point out to the hon. member and to all members present that it is a very unique and important method of actually getting input from members.

Once adopted at second reading the spirit of the legislation cannot be changed by the House. That is one reason the government saw fit to adopt a method of referring legislation to committee before second reading so that members would have ample opportunity to look into the details of the bill and to provide constructive and positive suggestions for change.

In criticizing this method of referring the legislation to committee before second reading the member has criticized the fact that he now has the opportunity to put forth his amendment. Amending the preamble to any legislation would not be in order after second reading. By actually referring the legislation to committee before second reading the hon. member has the opportunity to put forward his motion to amend.

I just say that as a point of clarification. That is the purpose of that directive.

The hon. member's motion is to provide a change to the preamble of the bill. That is basically what we are here to discuss. The hon. member is providing an amendment to the enactment section of the bill. What must be pointed out is that the original bill, as proposed by the government and approved by committee, provides substantial opportunity for the governance of the Canadian Wheat Board by the producers themselves. Two-thirds of the board of directors would be put in place by the producers and not by the government.

That is the form of governance I think the democratic process should take. That is the form of governance I think the farmers want and that is exactly what we heard in committee.

They wanted a stronger role for producers, and clearly two-thirds of majority control of the board of directors for the Canadian Wheat Board accomplishes that objective.

The purpose, if I were to anticipate for the member's motion here, would be to add the preamble, to put specific restrictions on the board of directors so that it would be somewhat encumbered in its job and subject to what many would consider to be frivolous lawsuits in the performance of its duties.

The preamble, as put forward, in essence accomplishes exactly what the bill already accomplishes, with one critical difference. It provides specific language, which I am sure opponents to the Canadian Wheat Board would enjoy the opportunity to capitalize on and to create quite a feeding frenzy by the legal community whose members of certain jurisdictions would so aptly want to support as opposed to supporting farmers.

I will rise not in support of this amendment to put a preamble into the bill for the simple reason that I am extremely confident that the bill itself accomplishes the goal of providing the producers the opportunity through the process of annual meetings, through the process of disclosure, through the process of producers themselves maintaining their own majority control over the processes of the Canadian Wheat Board. We are accomplishing exactly what producers want us to accomplish.

That is a very important point and while I see some merit in the spirit of what the member is trying to accomplish, quite frankly and potentially a little naively what the amendment would accomplish is probably a feeding frenzy by the legal community trying to poke holes in the fact that the farmers themselves, the producers, will now take a majority control, a majority position on the wheat board. They are the ones who are most capable with a majority position, a clear two-thirds, 10 out of 15, to guide the report into the future.

I have no hesitation whatsoever in speaking favourably to Bill C-4 in its original intent as passed by the committee of all parliamentarians. It is a very good one.

When we get into these discussions about democracy and about freedom of members to be able to practice their craft in the House of Commons, something that I would simply remind the hon. members opposite of is this. They criticized the fact that the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board chose to put this legislation, with the consent of the House, before committee before second reading so that the members who sat on the committee with me could take a good solid look at the specifics of the bill and have the opportunity to put forward constructive changes before the bill was tabled and before the bill was adopted at second reading.

What we are really seeing here is that members opposite are criticizing the fact that they had the opportunity to participate in the process. They are also criticizing the producers' opportunity to participate in the process. They want to stifle the ability of the producers who will be sitting on that board of the Canadian Wheat Board. They want to stifle that opportunity for those producers to be able to do their job in the best interest of farmers.

Therefore I do not support the amendment. I suggest to the members opposite that what they really should be focusing on here is to let farmers, the ten members, the majority of members who will be sitting on that board, do their job and let them provide the Canadian Wheat Board with the leadership in concert with the Government of Canada, in concert with all the people of Canada, the best options for all farmers.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, can I not reply to some of the false claims this member made?

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sure the hon. member would like to do that, but under the rules of the House, as he knows, on debate on report stage amendments, each member has one 10 minute intervention.

The hon. member will get an opportunity, I am sure, on the next group when we get to it. He could expose whatever disagreement he has with whichever hon. member who has made comments by that time. By then there may be several. He will have a field day in his next 10 minute intervention, I am sure.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I speak this afternoon to Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

The Liberal government headed by the Prime Minister, the member for Saint-Maurice, thought that a slight revamping of the more than 60-year-old Canadian Wheat Board, a body viewed with very mixed feelings by grain producers themselves, it might be added, would be a good idea. Discontent in the three western provinces and in the Peace River area was such that producers were on the verge of signing a general petition calling for nothing less than the total abolition of the board.

So, 18 months ago, the minister responsible for the board, a western minister of course, tabled amendments in the form of Bill C-72. We in this House devoted much effort to improving this bill. But because of this government's lack of foresight, we are now, to all intents and purposes, back at square one with Bill C-4.

My colleague in the Reform Party, the member for Yorkton—Melville, is suggesting a preamble to Bill C-4 that I feel I must approve. I will tell you why. When a bill seems to be good, there is no need to shy away from saying so. What interests me most in the motion put forward by the hon. member from the Reform Party, is the preamble saying that agriculture plays a vital role in Canada and especially in the three western provinces and the Peace River region. Do you object to that, Mr. Speaker? You agree with me that it is no crime to include that in the preamble to the bill.

The interesting thing is that this organization, the Canadian Wheat Board, has an important effect on grain producers and must, accordingly, have as its object and first priority the securing of the very best financial return for them. The Canadian Wheat Board will have to be accountable to the grain producers for its performance.

Mr. Speaker, can you look me in the eye and say that you object to the Canadian Wheat Board making every effort to obtain the best prices for our grain producers? The Liberal government objects to having this in a preamble to the bill. It makes no bloody sense. Worse yet, they are going to ask the Canadian Wheat Board to account to grain producers for its actions.

The minister responsible is objecting. I fail to see why. Bill C-4 does have good intentions. For instance, there is at least some attempt to democratize the administration of the Canadian Wheat Board, by having 10—not enough in my opinion, but at least this is a first step in the right direction—of the 15 directors elected by universal suffrage by the grain producers. That is a step forward.

In case it has been forgotten, there used to be five commissioners, and all five were appointed by the governor in council. These were generally five patronage appointments, not necessarily five truly competent administrators. When the colour of the government in power was blue, Conservatives were appointed. Now, since it is red, we have just had the announcement of a series of Department of Agriculture appointments, and they are all Liberals. One was a bag man, one the chief organizer, one had worked hard to get his boss, the Prime Minister, elected as leader of his party. You will recall this, Mr. Speaker, since you supported him too and got a little reward for it, since you are now seated in the chair.

Bill C-4 is an attempt to change the Canadian Wheat Board Act for the better—at least I hope it is for the better, and the government is sincere—for the benefit of grain producers. So why fear it?

I have just been listening to the words of the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. He said they were afraid they would have to tie the hands of the directors of the Canadian Wheat Board. Is it a crime to tie their hands and require them to obtain a better price? I do not think so. Given that the board will be dealing with $6 billion or $7 billion, even a fraction of 1% will mean a better price. A fraction of 1% of $7 billion means many many millions of dollars that the board could come up with and put into the pockets of producers.

I invite my colleagues in the government to have another look at the proposed preamble. It is not because it was introduced by the Bloc Quebecois that it is no good. It looks like the Liberals think that if it is not their idea it is not good.

I do not want to have to reread the main part of this preamble, but the part that interests me, once again, is the part that would oblige the Canadian Wheat Board to obtain the best possible return on grain. The board should also be accountable for its performance.

So, a vote against this motion, the first on Bill C-4, indicates a lack of transparency and a fear of working effectively for western grain producers.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I too am very pleased to be taking part in this historic debate on Bill C-4, the amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act, this afternoon. Before I talk about the preamble before us, Motion No. 1, I will respond to the comments made by the parliamentary secretary about how privileged members who serve on the committee should feel for the ability to come to the House and propose amendments since the bill was referred to committee prior to second reading.

I would take more comfort in that if I had not felt as a member of the standing committee that there was a rush to judgment throughout the entire process. I do not recall specifically how many groups appeared before the committee, but they were grouped in threes and fours so that we could get through the bill in a matter of two or three weeks. The amendments were rushed through in one session. It was not a very effective way to consider a bill of this magnitude which will have a long lasting impact on Canadian grain producers.

With respect to the preamble put forward by the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville, he said that it is not motherhood. I think that there is a lot of mom and apple pie in it. However, I also think that there is nothing wrong with us saying that in a preamble, as my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois articulated a few moments ago.

The New Democratic Party and the CCF before it have always been very strong supporters of the Canadian Wheat Board and we continue to be strong supporters of it. What is wrong with insisting that there be a preamble that makes it very clear? The motion which is before us does that. It states what the vision and mission of the Canadian Wheat Board is to be.

Those vision and mission statements are very much in vogue these days. We see corporations and other groups doing it. What is wrong with such a statement being in the preamble about what it is that the Canadian Wheat Board is all about? It is a reference point that producers and others can look to when seeking guidance or when they have concerns.

Having said that, New Democrats believe that the wheat board has been a very good marketer for Canadian grain producers over the years. We see absolutely nothing illogical about having this as the preamble and we will be supporting this particular motion when it comes to a vote.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat reluctant to speak on this piece of legislation which has gone through committee and returned to the floor of the House. The reason I am reluctant is because we have been talking about participation in the process, as the hon. member from the governing benches indicated. Quite frankly, I am disappointed in the opportunity we were given to participate in the process.

I am sure most Canadians recognize that this is probably the most important piece of legislation which will affect the western Canadian producer in this session of Parliament.

The minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board had an opportunity to put forward legislation which in fact would take the producers of western Canada into the 21st century, taking into consideration the open global marketplace that we have today. He certainly had an opportunity to put into place legislation which would allow producers in western Canada to take full advantage of the produce they are producing currently at world prices.

The minister said that he was going to listen to all of those people who were prepared to appear before the committee. He wanted to hear their comments. He wanted to make sure their comments were embodied in this legislation. Quite frankly, the process that we went through in committee was, in my estimation, a railroad job.

The legislation was put through committee in record time. We were not allowed to listen to all of the opinions of all of the people who wanted to come forward.

I will give the House two examples. In committee I put forward an amendment to bring the minister back to the committee. The minister said, in his own words, that he wanted to come back to the committee after we had heard the witnesses to be able to hear what positions were being taken by those individuals. I asked the committee to extend the period of time that it was sitting to invite the minister back and I was turned down on that request. The minister I believe would have come back but the committee did not want to waste the time to hear all of those comments.

I also suggested that there is a parallel organization called the Ontario Wheat Board which has a fully elected board of directors, which has certain freedoms for its own producers that are not allowed in this particular piece of legislation. I would have liked to have heard from those individuals. The Liberal members of the government in committee would not allow us to subpoena or bring those people before the committee to hear how they operate.

As I said earlier, there was obviously an opportunity for the legislation to do what it should have done for the next numbers of years on behalf of our producers. I come from an area which is referred to as the wheat city. This legislation is very important. No one, I do not believe, really wanted to get rid of the Canadian Wheat Board. All we wanted to do in this legislation was to make sure that it is more competitive in today's market and today's world.

As for this preamble, this amendment that is before us, Motion No. 1, I cannot see why any member of this House, including the government, would not support it. As the parliamentary secretary indicated, the government wishes to have the producers in charge of their own marketing corporation.

All this preamble says is that the corporation will be working for the producers. Why not put that in the legislation so that it is there and people and the corporation recognize it is for the producers and not for the Government of Canada, not for the Minister of Agriculture, nor for the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board?

My party will be supporting Motion No. 1. In fact it is somewhat reminiscent of certain other motions that follow behind this. I know we will be dealing with them at another time in other areas.

I would also like to say that the government takes great pride in saying that this new legislation will make the Canadian Wheat Board accountable to producers, will make it transparent and certainly will make it accountable.

Quite frankly, the only way it will be accountable is if it has the full board of directors elected by the producers themselves and not have five of those directors appointed by the federal government.

There is another serious concern and that will be spoken to later in the amendments with respect to the appointment of the chief executive officer, the president. This will take many hours of debate to make sure that the government recognizes that an appointed CEO is just simply another arm of the federal government and not accountable to the producers themselves.

I am very pleased to be able to stand here and suggest that Motion No. 1 will be supported by my party when it comes to the vote and if indeed the Canadian Wheat Board is accountable to the producers, it should have that said specifically in the body of the legislation. I cannot see why government would not allow this to happen.

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

Mr. Speaker, as with the hon. member from the fifth party who just spoke, I am almost reluctant to speak to this bill in light of what has transpired over the previous month.

As the hon. member articulated, this bill has been rushed through from beginning to end. For the government to try to pretend to the viewing public, to the Canadian people and in particular to western Canadian farmers that it has used this process to bypass second reading and to hustle this bill off to committee, and it has used this process in order to try to better the bill, is an absolute fallacy. It is totally ridiculous when people take the time to view what has really transpired over the last while.

The way these amendments have been grouped is very odd. At some point in time I would like to have it explained to me how they came to be grouped the way they are. It is hard to rationalize how they have placed some 48 amendments into the various seven groupings.

Motion No. 1, which is the preamble, totally comprises Group No. 1 and was put forward by my hon. colleague from Yorkton—Melville. Part of the motion states:

Whereas such an organization will have a very significant effect on the producers of grain and must therefore have the securing of the best financial return to them as its object and first priority and must be accountable to them for its performance.

That is the key part of the preamble put forward by my hon. colleague for Yorkton—Melville. It sets the tone for the entire bill. I am very pleased on behalf of the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville to note that we have support for his Motion No. 1 from the other three opposition parties. That is important.

The public recognizes that it is sometimes very difficult to get unanimous support from all four opposition parties in this place. All parties view this as a very important preamble. Although some on the government side would say it is just motherhood and apple pie, it does set the tone for the entire bill.

I will read a letter into the record that came to me from the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association that was sent to the hon. Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. This letter indicates the level of dissatisfaction with this bill that exists within the farming community: “I append a copy of a news clipping listing the organizations which support the inclusion clause in Bill C-4. They are: the National Farmers Union, Family Farm Foundation, Catholic Rural Life Ministry, Concerned Farmers for Saving the Wheat Board and `several' Saskatchewan Wheat Pool delegates of which there are 123 in total”.

It goes on to say: “The coalition against C-4 has the following membership: the Canadian Canola Growers Association, Manitoba Canola Growers Association, Flax Growers of Western Canada, Oat Producers Association of Alberta, Alberta Winter Wheat Producers Commission, Western Barley Growers Association, Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Saskatchewan Canola Growers Association, Alberta Canola Producers Commission, Canadian Oilseed Processors Association, Winnipeg Commodity Exchange, Western Canadian Wheat Growers Associations”.

Then it poses the interesting question to the minister: which of these groupings do you feel better represents the interests of western Canadian farmers? If you believe—and it is hard for me to think otherwise—that the second group better represents the views of farmers, could you please explain to me why, against the opposition of these groups, Bill C-4 still contains the inclusion clause?” The letter is signed by Mr. Larry Maguire, President of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association.

It is interesting to note that Mr. Maguire did not write the letter on behalf of one organization that the government would care to discount by saying that it had always been anti-wheat board and pro-free choice, pro-free marketing. He wrote it on behalf of a coalition of many groups that represent literally tens of thousands of farmers who are concerned not only about the inclusion clause but about a lot of clauses and the very scope of this legislation.

First let me say at the outset that we will be debating seven groups of amendments and many members I am sure will get up seven times to speak to various facets of the legislation.

I hesitate to keep saying this because to a certain extent it angers me as a former grain producer who grew grain for 20 years under the Canadian Wheat Board. Reform is not opposed to the Canadian Wheat Board. I say that because at times it seems that some of our political adversaries like to paint us in that light. Reform is not opposed to the Canadian Wheat Board. We want to see it improved, strengthened and address the real needs of western Canadian grain farmers. Above all, we want the wheat board to be accountable to the farmers. However, we do not see that in this legislation.

I indicated during my 10 minute intervention before this bill was shunted off to committee that first and foremost we want the Canadian Wheat Board to be made voluntary. Until farmers have the ability to opt in or opt out or market their grain through the board or through the private sector, I do not think farmers will really be supportive of the existence of the Canadian Wheat Board as we know it now.

There were comments made earlier by my colleague from the New Democratic Party about the groups of witnesses. I think all of us on the opposition side at committee were very disappointed in the process there, where witnesses who had travelled at considerable expense and time to appear before the committee were lumped together and there was not really an adequate chance to listen to them and have an honest open debate and exchange of information. It really puts pay to the argument by the government that the reason why it superseded second reading and put the bill off to committee was to try to better the bill. That simply did not happen.

To show how divisive this bill is, it actually accomplished the near impossible. The minister has accomplished the near impossible. He has managed to alienate almost every single Canadian farmer, every single person who is involved in grain production and transportation in western Canada with this one piece of legislation. To show just how divisive it is, imagine the Canadian Wheat Board advisory committee of 11 farmers itself being split and the majority of those producers calling for the complete withdrawal of the legislation.

I want to read an excerpt from the November 6 front page of the Western Producer newspaper quoting the remarks of the chair of the Canadian Wheat Board advisory committee: “Macklin disputed government claims that one of the results of the legislation will be to democratize the wheat board and turn power over to farmers thought the two-thirds of board members they can elect”. Then there is direct quote: “We think this new structure will be more subject to political manipulation than the old structure”.

I completely agree with that assessment. I think this bill is not going to address the needs. In fact, it is going to continue to sow the seeds of divisiveness in western Canada instead of addressing the real needs out there.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Madam Speaker, I must oppose this particular amendment to the preamble.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.