Debates of Nov. 19th, 1997

Canadian Wheat Board Act

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

If members will just give me a chance I will explain why. It should be obvious. I cannot see why the other parties have fell for this line by the Reform Party which is just a strategy that over time, through legal challenges to the board, will in fact undermine the board. That is the real strategy here. Let us put it on the table and call a spade a spade.

Before I go too far with the Reform Party opposite, I do want to correct a matter that my friend, the hon. member for Frontenac, said. He talked about the commissioners who have been appointed to the wheat board over a number of years. He was fairly critical of those appointments. I think the record shows that the appointments by various governments of commissioners to the wheat board over time have been excellent in that the wheat board has always been able to return to producers the maximum that is in the market and most times has outdone the open market.

As far as the motion by the member for Yorkton—Melville, what does the preamble really mean? Let us be serious on this. How does it really stand up in law? We know in the past, and it is clearly on the record in many places, that the Reform Party has never been a strong supporter of the Canadian Wheat Board. It gives it lip service but it tries to undermine it at every stead. I believe it was last year when the barley producers were violating the laws of Canada that some of these members opposite were actually supporting those producers in terms of trucking barley across the United States in a law breaking venture.

How can we trust the Reform Party in terms of what it is really trying to do concerning this piece of legislation?

Maybe, as I said a moment ago, there is a subtle strategy at work here by the Reform Party in which it is trying to use a preamble to the bill to set the stage where the Canadian Wheat Board will be challenged legally time and time again. Look at the amendment. It reads “whereas, whereas, whereas”. Finally, in the “therefor” we get to it stating the exact same thing as the government is saying in terms of enacting the bill.

One usually uses “whereas” at a political convention for resolutions. We are not doing this for a political convention. This is a superior piece of marketing legislation for a marketing organization that has always stood by the farm community. This is legislation that empowers the Canadian Wheat Board and, through empowering the Canadian Wheat Board, it empowers the grain producers of western Canada to maximize returns in the marketplace with, of course, as we have done in the past, the backing of the Government of Canada in terms of guarantees on borrowing, credit guarantees, initial price guarantees and the authority to be a single desk seller and thereby be able to maximize returns to producers in competition to other players in the international marketplace.

Let us just take a moment in terms of the preamble and compare it to what has happened in the past with the wheat board. I turn to the Canadian Wheat Board 1995-96 annual report “Marketing for the Future”. In a corporate profile this is what it said:

The Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) is the marketing agency for western Canadian wheat and barley growers. The CWB markets these grains in the Canadian market to more than 70 countries around the world with the goal of attaining the best price possible.

That is what it says in its corporate profile now. It does not need to be said in terms of preamble to the legislation. Annual sales revenue ranges from $4 billion to $6 billion depending on grain prices and the amount of delivery by farmers.

This makes the Canadian Wheat Board the largest single wheat and barley marketing corporation in the world. Imagine that, marketing on behalf of Canadian producers with that kind of market power and market authority. All proceeds from sales less Canadian Wheat Board marketing costs are passed back to farmers. In that sense western Canadian farmers are the Canadian Wheat Board's only shareholders.

Let me again turn to the comments made earlier by friend from Frontenac when he was critical of those wheat board commissioners. We expect the new board will be able to do similar things.

A performance evaluation, which was also outlined in this wheat board report, indicates how well it has been able to do. That is why we need this kind of legislation, so that it can continue to do those kinds of things for western grain farmers. I quote: “A performance evaluation conducted during the 1995-96 crop year showed Canada ranks highly with its customers in such areas as quality of product, customer service, technical support and dependability of supply”.

On the point of the dependability of supply, if we went with some of the resolutions proposed by the Reform, you could not assure yourself, as a marketing agency of supply, because you would never really know what was happening with that supply area. With the kind of authority we have under the wheat board you can depend on that kind of supply and you can market intelligently, not just boom and bust, as the members opposite are basically saying we should do.

Another study study conducted by three economists showed that the Canadian Wheat Board's single desk system generates an additional $265 million per year in wheat revenue for farmers, thereby enhancing Canada's competitiveness. It also showed the Canadian Wheat Board provides a low cost marketing service to farmers.

This shows what the Canadian Wheat Board has been able to do in the past with appointed commissioners. This legislation, although giving farmers more say in terms of the management of the Canadian Wheat Board, sets the stage to ensure it has more say and the kind of authority to continue to market in that way into the foreseeable future.

Another point is how low, because of these efficiencies, the Canadian Wheat Board is able to keep its administration expenses, down to 0.7%. That is remarkable for one of the largest marketers around.

We cannot support this legislation because I think the Reform Party in this preamble is playing games. I am surprised the NDP and the Bloc and the Tories fell for these kinds of subtleties. Certainly these kinds of decisions are better left to the board of directors to decide what is in the producers' best interest rather than providing a heyday for lawyers bringing law suits that challenge the Canadian Wheat Board decisions as not being in the producers' interests.

That is the real game Reformers are playing. How many lawyers are over there in your camp anyway? I thought you were trying to represent producers here, not the legal community? That is what I thought but obviously that is what you are up against.

[John Reynolds, Reform, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, one of the most elemental rules in this House is that we speak in the third person rather than straight across the floor.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Point well taken. I remind the member to please address his remarks to the Chair.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, much more pleasant in any event to address my remarks to the Chair.

In closing I want to say that this piece of legislation is here in the best interests of producers. We have had the hearings. I have said three times that this preamble to the legislation is a very subtle way in which the Reform Party is really trying to undermine the real future of the Canadian Wheat Board.

[Hélène Alarie, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be relatively brief, given that everything is relative in this House.

A number of motions have been tabled during this debate on Bill C-4 and I do not want to anticipate, but I think the best is yet to come.

Beyond party politics, this motion reflects a global view which is, all in all, beneficial to grain producers. The motion asserts the importance of this legislation and takes us to the heart of the matter. Just looking at the reactions this afternoon, the debate on Bill C-4 will definitely be lively.

It was the same thing in committee, which led us to think that it is probably important to include Motion No. 1, which is a preamble to the act. Some may feel it is redundant, but it is better to be safe than sorry.

The number of witnesses heard is evidence of the interest in this legislation. No one in this House is opposed to the Canadian Wheat Board, but the views and the means to achieve our goals are quite different. As for Motion No. 1, which we support, we can only be in favour of trade coordination.

A coordinated marketing structure for agricultural products, both at the interprovincial and at the international level—in the case of exports—would benefit our producers. I think we all want to see more powers in the hands of grain producers, to make the decision making process more democratic.

I think that any business organization must try to achieve the best performance. And these days, businesses must account for their performance, that is to say, for their management practices. We want grain producers and the agricultural sector as a whole, which is the cornerstone of all our industries, to be as successful as possible.

In this context, I think that, if they were here today, grain producers and all those who came forward would support this motion because, as it stands, Motion No. 1 makes a lot of sense. I would not call this a partisan strategy, far from it; call it an overview of the debate on Bill C-4 and what is important to us.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are debating a very serious government bill that will affect certain parts of the country, yet the government is not here to listen.

I do not believe we have a quorum.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

We will count the members and let you know.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

We now have a quorum.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a real pleasure to rise in the House today to speak on a bill that I have looked at thoroughly.

It is appreciated that after 34 years I farmed and had a wheat board permit book, I can finally say something on the issue.

I was enthused when the hon. member for Malpeque started to talk about the benefits of the Canadian Wheat Board. He must have a relative in Winkler, Manitoba. During the fair this summer I had an office there and people came to talk to me. One gentleman came in and asked me to support the wheat board.

I want to maintain the wheat board. I have always wanted to keep the wheat board but I want to make it accountable and make sure it gets the best prices for the farmer.

He wanted me to make sure the wheat board stayed. I asked him how much wheat board grain he grew and whether he was a big farmer because I did not know him. He had a quarter section and a good job at Triple E, a mobile home manufacturer. He grew a quarter of wheat board grain, mostly feed barley.

I asked him how many bushels he sold to the wheat board and his answer was zero. He sold no grain to the wheat board. I then asked why he was concerned about keeping the wheat board. It was because he raised hogs and wanted to keep cheap feed prices.

The hon. member for Malpeque went from dairy to beef cattle. I know why he wants to keep the wheat board. He wants to keep cheap feed prices. That is the support the wheat board has.

It is amazing to hear him say that the wheat board is the main gatherer of supplies. It has the supplies it can deliver. Why do we have all our wheat board grain in bins, all the canola, flax and lentils? Everything is gone. It has been sold at good prices. Why do we have wheat board grains in the bins? There is no money for that.

The member also talked about law breakers. The member for Malpeque should explain which laws were broken. All they did was sell their grain for a better price than they could get from the wheat board. Is it criminal to get the best price for their grain?

I can see why members opposite object to the preamble my hon. colleague from Yorkton—Melville proposed. They do not want to sell it for the best price. They are afraid to put that in the preamble because somebody could challenge that statement.

Why did parliament originally pass the wheat board act? In the 1920s and the 1930s it was to provide competition to the grain companies to get a better price for the farmers. Why has a preamble never been included in the wheat board act? Why is it a sin to put that preamble into an act that is supposed to protect the interests of farmers? I would like that explained.

Why would we pass legislation in the House that does not identify what it is all about? Why would we pass legislation if we do not have the guts to include the preamble or to indicate the intent of the bill, what it is supposed to do, and the bylaws in the bill upon which regulations and rules have to be set?

Not everybody is a lawyer. We do not have any on this side. The Liberals have lots of them so they should be able to identify the intent of a bill. If they do not want to identify the intent, why have it? It sounds ridiculous to me.

I was impressed by the hon. member from the Bloc. We have always been classified as separatists; Reform members are separatists. We can work together with our Bloc colleagues and identify good and bad legislation. I appreciate those members in the House who have the guts to say what is right and what is wrong.

Why in the world would we pass legislation to divide the country? If it is not unifying when Reform and Bloc members agree on a bill, I do not know what is unifying. What are we to say about that?

What will hon. members from Ontario answer? Every member of its wheat board is elected. Why should Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan have partially appointed boards? Why are Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan different from Ontario? Why can we not elect all the directors and make them accountable to the farmers? That is what should happen.

If they can give me a solitary reason why they should not be elected when Ontario's board members are elected, I will agree with them. As long as it gives different powers and different regulations to different provinces, it only creates separatism and hostility among certain parts of the country.

We have had enough of that. We have seen for three and a half years in the House the divisiveness that is created when different regions have different powers. Why do we want to create another difference? I would like that explained to me. I cannot see that happening in the bill, the way it is drafted.

I do not know why these people are afraid of identifying the bill for what it is. If the bill does not give farmers the right to sell their grain for the best price, it is not worth the paper it is written on. It will do more harm than good.

I would like the House to support amendments such as the one moved by the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.

I also express my appreciation to the hon. member for Brandon—Souris. He did a very good job relating his feelings. He is a member of the opposition who has an interest in farming. He is located in a central community which benefits from the farmers around it. He knows what he is talking about. He is not just talking through his hat.

It has been a pleasure to say a few words. I am sure I will get another chance when some of the other motions are being debated.

I encourage Liberal members to stay in the House and listen to the debate. I see they have disappeared again. We can see from that how much interest they have in the bill. We can see how much they are concerned about what is happening in western Canada. It is a shame there are only four or five members on that side of the House when we are debating a bill of this importance.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are debating an important piece of legislation which will affect farmers out west, and again members of the government have not shown up in the House. I am calling for a quorum.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The hon. member for Okanagan—Shuswap has called for quorum. I do not see a quorum so please ring the bells.

And the bells having rung:

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

Madam Speaker, I would simply like to point out that some disparaging remarks have been cast on members of the House. I would like to point out that those disparaging remarks, I think, should be retracted given the fact that the Reform Party—

[An hon. member]

Do you want to debate that?

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

—is in dereliction of their duties for the simple reason that I see a party which has a caucus of over 50 members, but I only see four in front of me.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to debate this important bill in the House today. We have seen quite a bit of activity here talking about the low attendance in the House. I would agree that this is a very important bill for western Canadian farmers and people should be paying attention.

I would like to speak in support of my colleague from Yorkton—Melville and his introduction of a preamble to Bill C-4. The preamble I am interested in is the section where he says:

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.

Why would we want such a preamble introduced in the bill? I suggest it is because under section 5 of the current bill, there is no accountability to farmers. We did not have it in Bill C-72, it was not in the previous Canadian Wheat Board Act and we do not have it in this bill. This is an effort to try to bring some accountability by the Canadian Wheat Board to its producers.

In the recent M-Jay Farms case, the Canadian Wheat Board argued forcefully and successfully, I may add, that it is not accountable to farmers. It has always taken this position in court.

For example, in 1976 the Riske case, it found in favour of the board and not in favour of accountability to farmers. When the board is talking to farmers, however, it says quite the opposite. The board should not be allowed to speak from both sides of its mouth on this issue. Since the board is accountable to the minister and not farmers, I wish that the minister would stop letting the board misrepresent this position.

Mr. Hehn, Chief Commissioner of the board has said on many occasions, and I will quote: “We look forward to a strong and successful partnership with farmers of western Canada.” That is in the Canadian Wheat Board annual report of 1994-95. “There can be no partnership without accountability.” He also goes on to say on another occasion: “It is your grain and your marketing agency”, Grain Matters, January-February 1996—“With no accountability, again this is an absolute falsehood.”

I quote the Chief Commissioner of the board: “We are looking for ways to be more accountable to farmers.” Grain Matters, May-June 1996. He said this at the very same time that the board was before the courts arguing just the opposite.

In the grain case of the M-Jay Farms the board was arguing that there is no accountability to farmers by the board. It is only accountable to the ministers, and the courts found exactly that.

He goes on to say: “We are structured to do the job for farmers” the Edmonton Journal , October 11, 1996. Had he been totally truthful he would have said: “We are not accountable to farmers and we are in court here today to prove it.” And that is exactly what happened.

Furthermore there is nothing in the amendments to Bill C-4 that would make the board accountable to farmers. I refer to the board's section 5 which says, and I will read it. This part has not been changed at all. Section 5 says: “The board is incorporated with the object of marketing in an orderly manner interprovincial and export trade grain grown in Canada.” It says nothing about accountability to farmers.

If I read the findings of the court in the M-Jay case, where it ruled against M-Jay Farms, they said: “But the express purpose of the act as set forward in section 5 is not the maximization of profits for producers, but rather the orderly marketing of grain grown in Canada in interprovincial and export trade.” Essentially quoting section 5.

They go on in the court case to say “Taken in this view I take it that this statute is responsibility not to any individual producers but rather to the minister under the act”. The members on the other side ask us why we are trying to bring accountability into this House, why we would ask for it in the preamble to the act. We are doing it because they would not make changes to section 5. The court has found consistently that under section 5 the Canadian Wheat Board is not responsible to farmers but to the Minister of Agriculture. Nothing has been changed in the act. Section 5 has not been changed and therefore there is no accountability.

[An hon. member]

Two-thirds of the board are farmers.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member for Malpeque is making some noises from the other side. He is talking about the structure of the board under this current arrangement, but the board is still accountable to the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Two-thirds of the members on the board are elected and one-third are appointed but the chair of that board is appointed by the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.

This government is totally out of touch with the debate in western Canada concerning what is going on and what farmers want. Farmers want a system in which they have a choice in how they market their grain. I know a great many farmers who want to keep the Canadian Wheat Board so they can pool their product, accept an average price and use that vehicle. I also know a great number of farmers who do not want to use that vehicle. They want a dual system. They want to be outside of that monopoly. This bill does not address that at all and I suggest it is doomed for total failure.

There is no accountability in this act. When my colleague from Yorkton—Melville said that the very least we can do in the preamble to the act is to suggest that we must have accountability to farmers rather than to the minister, we were ridiculed by the other side. We were ridiculed by people who do not have constituents under the Canadian Wheat Board jurisdiction. I see a member who grows potatoes in P.E.I. I do not see any move to try to include potatoes under the Canadian Wheat Board Act. I see a lot of lawyers over there from Toronto who are more interested in keeping control over Canadian farmers than they are in serving their needs.

We have a system—

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The colleague opposite keeps referring to individuals on this side and suggesting to the Canadian people that there are lawyers and only lawyers on this side who are listening to the debate. I think that is an irrelevant point and he should not be calling attention untruthfully to the composition of the people on this side of the House. I am not a lawyer.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

That is not a point of order. Resuming debate.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I see that the truth hurts. It is very interesting that the people in the Liberal Party who want to maintain the status quo of the Canadian Wheat Board have even moved beyond the status quo of the Canadian Wheat Board. They are now trying to have more crops included that farmers are not asking to have included. Those very people are not representing areas that are under the Canadian Wheat Board jurisdiction.

What authority do they have to put a group of farmers in western Canada under a system they do not even have in Ontario, Quebec, Prince Edward Island, any areas where there is agriculture? I do not think they should have that moral authority. When we ask very simply that there should at least be some accountability shown in the preamble to the act as in Motion No. 1, even there the Liberals do not have enough dignity to say that they respect farmers in western Canada, that they respect that there should be some accountability. They even want to deny us that. It is wrong and they will pay the price for it.

Request For Emergency Debate

[Jim Gouk, Reform, West Kootenay—Okanagan, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As of just after four o'clock this afternoon Ottawa time, the people of Canada do not have a postal service in this country. That is causing major economic problems in this country.

I ask the Chair to seek the unanimous consent of this House to move to an emergency debate on this pressing national emergency after the hour of adjournment of regular business this evening.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

There are some procedures to deal with matters of this kind. However, on the other hand, the hon. member has asked for the unanimous consent of the House. Does he have the unanimous consent of the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

There not being unanimous consent, we will be resuming debate after I read this order.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough—Criminal Code; the hon. member for Frontenac—Mégantic—B.C. Mines.

Resuming debate.