Debates of Nov. 20th, 1997

Canadian Wheat Board Act

[Jim Pankiw, Reform, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today during report stage to contribute the very important debate on this bill. It is important to me for a number of reasons.

I represent the constituency of Saskatoon—Humboldt which has a significant rural portion.

This bill is going to have a dramatic impact not only on the rural component of the constituency but the urban as well. Although Saskatoon is a growing city with a vibrant economy, agriculture is still a core industry in Saskatchewan. Therefore the bill will affect not only the rural part of my constituency but the entire province.

Although I have lived in Saskatoon since the early 1980s and I represent Saskatoon—Humboldt, I am originally from a family farm in Unity, Saskatchewan. All my life I have been actively involved in farming until I got into politics. I believe this bill will impact not only on all my constituents but it goes deep enough to affect my family.

There is a great deal of concern on the prairies about the contents of this bill and of course it is very well founded. The amendments that have been advanced by my Reform colleagues would improve Bill C-4 and address the concerns farmers are raising about the bill.

One need only travel throughout the constituencies of Saskatchewan and into the small towns and coffee shops to hear the discussion on the bill and the widespread opposition to it. The opposition is from many angles. However, I would like to specifically address Motion No. 5 which was submitted by my colleague from Prince George—Peace River. That motion would allow the entire board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board to be elected which along with the minister would decide who would be president of the board.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I think I just heard my hon. colleague say that he wanted to discuss Motion No. 5. I thought that we were still discussing Motion No. 1. I would encourage the debate to go in that direction.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I would ask the hon. member to please confine his comments to Motion No. 1, which is being discussed right now.

[Jim Pankiw, Reform, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Madam Speaker, Motion No. 1 is with respect to returns that producers will get for their commodity. This has a direct bearing on that because it will affect the returns.

This debate is perhaps one of the most important debates that will occur in my term in this Parliament as the representative of the constituents of Saskatoon—Humboldt. I find the remark that my comments were straying slightly beyond the scope of what was strictly being debated somewhat obstinate but not surprising considering who it came from.

To continue, the current bill the way it stands, if passed, would allow 10 directors to be elected by the farmers, but the remaining 5 directors of the Canadian Wheat Board would be appointed by the minister, of course one being the president. It would seem logical that there would be opposition to that when a full third of the board is being appointed by the minister. That would ensure that the government's grip on the activities of the Canadian Wheat Board is maintained and the desire for accountability and for farmers to have control and direction over the wheat board through a farmer elected board is circumvented by allowing the appointment of members by the minister.

Furthermore, if experience tells us anything, Liberal ministers have not been shy in the past about handing out plum patronage positions to their party faithful.

To illustrate just how bad this can get, I would like to cite some examples that have taken place so far this year. The Liberals have made 510 prime appointments to date to the Senate and various boards, agencies and commissions.

This practice of patronage was denounced by the Liberals when they sat in opposition to the Mulroney government but now that they are in power, they are not only carrying on the practice of political patronage appointments, but taking it to extremes.

As unbelievable as it is, it seems that they are even worse than Mulroney with their political patronage appointments. I would suggest that the Liberals are truly number one at doling out parliamentary pork.

Here are just a few examples: defeated Liberal MP Mary Clancy appointed to consul general in Boston, the Prime Minister's legislative assistant, Graeme Clark, was appointed as ambassador to Peru and Bolivia—

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This member is far off base in terms of talking about Motion No. 1. He should be talking about what the motion is about. What does this have to do with Motion No.1?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. parliamentary secretary has a very good point. We would ask the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt to get to the point and stay there.

[Jim Pankiw, Reform, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the point I am making is directly relevant because they are going to be allowed to appoint the members of the board of directors. I think we have to look at past examples of their appointments to see what we can expect.

Therefore it has direct relevance and I am simply pointing out examples such as the former president of the women's commission, Joan Koury, appointed to the IRB and former Liberal MP, Ron Fewchuk, appointed—

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the member would refer to the point of order, he would recognize very clearly that the points he is raising are not on the topic in terms of Motion No. 1.

This ridiculousness can be carried too far. This member is filibustering and he is not even on topic.

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

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order regarding the issue of relevance, I would call the attention of the Chair to Motion No. 1 where it says that such an organization will have a very significant effect on the producers of grain. It must therefore have the securing of the best financial return to them as its object and first priority must be accountable to them for its performance.

I would consider that the whole issue of the board of directors is very relevant to Motion No. 1.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The Chair would appreciate it if the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt would confine his comments to the appointments to be made to the board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board. The hon. member will then be relevant.

[Jim Pankiw, Reform, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that is fair enough. My point is that the blatant examples of patronage from the past leave farmers wondering just how many Liberal cronies this government is going to appoint to the Canadian Wheat Board.

Of course, these appointments will make the appointees beholden to their political masters since the government has ensured that the president of the Canadian Wheat Board will be an appointee. They have ensured their control over the organization of the Canadian Wheat Board. That is the fear and the concern of western Canadian farmers.

Furthermore, their ability to appoint the members of the board of directors would ensure that the board of the Canadian Wheat Board is under that type of influence.

On the other hand, if Motion No. 5 of my colleague from Prince George—Peace River would be adopted, that would ensure that the board of the Canadian Wheat Board is democratic and accountable to its electors.

Furthermore, these electors in consultation with the minister would select the president rather than the minister appointing who the president is going to be. This is a fair and equitable amendment which I am hopeful at least the other parties would be able to support.

Neville Nankivell in the Financial Post had some interesting comments about the election of the board as it presently stands under Bill C-4. He wrote that because the government still appoints directors, it will create a quasi-advisory group rather than a proper independent board of directors that should have the power to hire and fire the CEO. The way the bill currently stands, that power will not be in the hands of the farmers, which is just further evidence of the type of control that the minister will have over them.

Nankivell also wrote that there is almost universal condemnation among farm groups of the government's intention to appoint the CEO. Yet the Liberals are determined in their desire to be able to do that. As I stated earlier, it is for one reason. It is so they can continue with their political patronage appointments. That comes as no surprise.

With Bill C-4 the Liberals want a board of directors which is mired in the past, not one that is structured to meet the demands of the 21st century.

In fact when Ted Allen of the United Grain Growers appeared before the committee, he said that Bill C-4 is fundamentally flawed and is an attempt to make time stand still or even turn back the clock.

Western Canadian farmers need to look to the future and not be mired in the past by regressive Liberal policies which are based upon political patronage appointments.

In order to strengthen the measure of accountability, we also need to bring the Canadian Wheat Board under the purview of the Access to Information Act and the auditor general. Bill C-4 does not propose to do that.

The election of the board is certainly important, but of equal importance is the scrutiny of its operations by the public and the federal government's watchdog.

However, this is not the only organization which the government has exempted from scrutiny. Canada Post and a litany of other crown corporations are not subject to access to information requests.

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

Do you mean there is another wheat board?

[Jim Pankiw, Reform, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

There are lots of them.

Indeed, my colleague from Nanaimo—Alberni has been an advocate of opening up these organizations to scrutiny. He has advanced private members' bills on the subject and he has raised our awareness about the importance of not allowing government organizations to operate behind a veil of secrecy. I hope that his efforts in this area will continue. I know that his concerns certainly apply to the Canadian Wheat Board as presently structured. I urge all members to consider that when they oppose this bill.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Pursuant to agreement made on Wednesday, November 19, 1997, the motion on Group No. 1 is deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deemed deferred.

We will now proceed to Group No. 2.

Pursuant to agreement made on Wednesday, November 19, 1997, all motions in Group No. 2 are deemed put and seconded. This group contains Motions Nos. 2, 31 and 41.

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

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 2.

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 8.

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

moved:

Motion No. 41

That Bill C-4 be amended by deleting Clause 24.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak to the second group of amendments.

As I said in my intervention on the first group, which comprised only one motion, the amendment put forward by my hon. colleague from Yorkton—Melville to create a preamble, it is very confusing. I am sure it is not only confusing to us, but it must be confusing for the viewing public to follow how these 48 amendments have been grouped. However, we will try to work our way through them.

Group No. 2 consists of three amendments. Motion No. 2 is an amendment put forward by me. Motion No. 31 was also put forward by me. Motion No. 41 was put forward by my hon. colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party.

In speaking to these three motions, Motion No. 2 quite simply would delete the clause that makes Bill C-4 binding on the provinces.

In actual fact this clause would block a province from making changes which could be demanded by the majority of farmers in that province.

The official opposition believes quite strongly that this is undemocratic. We point to a possible example in the future where one province might want to bring forward its own wheat board or wheat marketing board. For example, Alberta might choose at some time in the future to have an Alberta wheat marketing board similar in structure to what exists for the farmers in Ontario. The case can really be put that by having this binding on the provinces, this would prevent a province such as Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba from doing that.

This particular clause further entrenches the inequity and the inequality of the Canadian Wheat Board. What one province is free to do, in this case Ontario has its own wheat marketing board, another province in western Canada would be denied from doing.

The second motion in Group No. 2 is motion 31, also put forward by me. It has to do with removing all the references to the contingency fund. This is where it really gets odd as to how the exact amendments are grouped. This particular amendment No. 31 goes hand in glove with amendments and Motions Nos. 25, 26 and 27 which are found in another group. All of those amendments deal with deleting any reference in Bill C-4 of the contingency fund.

At committee and while travelling throughout western Canada and speaking to farmers and farm groups in my riding and other ridings, it has become painfully obvious that the majority of farmers view this contingency fund as simply another tax on already overtaxed farmers. That is why we have put forward these four amendments that would delete any reference to the contingency fund, the farmer supported, the farmer paid for contingency fund which currently exists in Bill C-4.

It is interesting to note that one of my colleagues earlier referred to the need to survey his constituents, his farmers in his riding. He referred to the fact that he is prevented from doing this at the moment because of the postal strike.

I did survey the farmers in Prince George—Peace River when this bill's predecessor, Bill C-72, was before the House last winter. It was interesting to note that while the farmers in my riding were, as I think they are across western Canada, very split on this highly divisive issue of reform of the Canadian Wheat Board, the one thing they were not split on was the issue of the contingency fund.

The one question I asked was would you support a compulsory farmer check off to help establish a capital base for a contingency fund? An overwhelming 76.7% of respondents, the actual farmers, Canadian Wheat Board farmers in Prince George—Peace River, said no they would not support that concept.

There are other polls which other members have done and that other entities have done across western Canada that would indicate a similar conclusion. This contingency fund, as long as the Canadian Wheat Board remains mandatory, a compulsory, government state run organization which farmers do not have the chance or freedom to choose the option of marketing their product outside of the Canadian Wheat Board, farmers are going to resist very strenuously another input cost being hoisted upon them in the form of a contingency fund, especially when it is not defined in the act in Bill C-4 how much it is going to be allowed to grow to, how quickly they are going to accumulate the funds, how much it is going to be taken off every time the farmer markets wheat or barley through the board.

It is a major concern. This is why it is accompanying Motions Nos. 25, 26, 27 which are in a subsequent group. We need to pass that and remove any reference to the contingency fund. How much time do I have, Mr. Speaker?

[An hon. member]

Too much.

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

The hon. member from the governing party said “too much”. It has become painfully obvious that throughout the debate the Liberals do not want to see the bill properly debated. That is why they hustled it off to committee without a proper second reading. That is why we went through the charade—

[An hon. member]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The member is not on the topic.

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

I am being very relevant to the main issue at stake here. For the hon. member across the way to take the issue so lightly points to the problem.

Over here we have members who have grown up on farms and farmed year after year in western Canada. They are speaking out on an issue of vital importance to western Canadian grain producers. Over there we have people like the hon. member who treat the issue frivolously.

I will briefly address Motion No. 41 put forward by my hon. colleague. The motion would delete the exclusion clause from the bill. We run into a problem here. I support the motion as put forward, but we must realize it goes hand in glove with a motion to delete the inclusion clause.

One great argument put forward by government members both in the limited debate in the House and at committee was that when a clause excludes certain types of grain from Canadian Wheat Board jurisdiction, in fairness there must also be an inclusion clause. Hon. members from the opposition responded by saying that was fine.

However, there is so much resistance and so much fear of the inclusion clause in the grain sector that we have said, if that is the strongest argument of the government against bringing forward an inclusion clause that hardly any farmer would support, let us take them both out. Motion No. 41 is part of Group No. 2 and moves to strike the exclusion clause. It must be viewed in conjunction with the subsequent motion to delete the inclusion clause.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise once again on Bill C-4 and to deal with the three amendments in Group No. 2. One of them is mine and two are from hon. members of the Reform Party. I promise to be relevant, as relevant as members on the government side have been. I promise not to be boring. I hope that will please the Chair.

I will clarify a couple of points. I do not believe anybody on this side of the House necessarily wants to see the demise of the Canadian Wheat Board. It is very important to recognize that. We are simply saying that we have the opportunity to make this the best possible legislation available so that western Canadian producers are able to take advantage of new techniques and new opportunities within legislation. The legislation as put forward does not allow that to happen. It is simply a regurgitation of the existing legislation with some minor amendments.

Usually when legislation is being proposed there is at least one segment of the society affected that would totally support it. I can honestly say the government in its wisdom has alienated just about everyone. There is no one who totally supports the legislation.

I asked a number of witnesses in committee whether the divisiveness among producers in western Canada would stop, whether they would be happy to go forward with the legislation. To a person, including those in support of Bill C-4, they said it would not stop divisiveness, that it would not stop the anger with respect to the controls Bill C-4 would place on producers in western Canada.

I will speak to the three motions put forward in Group No. 2. The first one, the deletion of clause 2, put forward by the hon. member for Peace River, says that the act is binding on Her Majesty in the right of Canada or a province.

I also clarify that when dealing with provinces I do not believe anybody on this side of the House would suggest members of government should not have the opportunity to debate any piece of legislation or to put their opinions forward on any piece of legislation, no matter where they come from. Whether they come from Prince Edward Island or from Vancouver Island, it is very important for elected members of the House to have the opportunity to put forward their opinions.

I hope Canadians realize the legislation affects only producers from Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and a very small portion of British Columbia. When individuals from Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland or Quebec, my good friends from Quebec, deal with the legislation I would expect them to listen to and understand the views put forth by those people who come forward.

I did not see that happen in committee. I saw people put forward their concerns and their views, but they were not listened to. If they had been listened to, the amendments we are speaking to right now would have passed at committee stage.

It was an opportunity for me to be at a committee hearing for the first time. I actually thought we could include better amendments that would make the legislation workable. It did not happen for the simple reason it was a foregone conclusion. The witnesses were in effect wasting their breath in speaking to us. It would have been nicer if we had listened and taken their concerns under advisement.

The provinces that are being affected should be listened to, the people of those provinces should be listened to and the provincial governments of those provinces should be listened to. Two of the three provincial governments accept the fact that there should be some major changes. One unfortunately decided that the particular legislation should be maintained.

The second motion was spoken to most eloquently by my colleague in the Reform Party. It deals with the contingency clause. It is important for Canadians to understand what it is all about.

There are three pillars to the Canadian Wheat Board. The first pillar is that of pooling. We will get into that a little later when we talk about the options or the opt in and opt out and the opportunity of cash buying. That is not being dealt with in this amendment. It will be dealt with later.

The second pillar of the Canadian Wheat Board is monopoly. We have talked a lot about monopoly purchasing and the selling of one commodity, particularly wheat. We will get into that as well at a later date when considering other amendments.

The third pillar of the Canadian Wheat Board, which is not necessarily a bad one, is that of government guarantees. The reason we have the Canadian Wheat Board is that the federal government guaranteed producers initial payments and adjusted payments.

The reason I mention this is that the contingency fund being proposed in the legislation concerns not only me but producers. The reason it concerns producers is that there is an opportunity for the Canadian Wheat Board and the government to charge producers, whether it be per bushel or per tonne, whether it be $1 or whether it be 10¢. We do not know that yet. That will be struck by the board. It will have the opportunity via a tax to have a contingency fund that could be in excess of hundreds of millions of dollars. It could be half a billion dollars if that is the way the Canadian Wheat Board wants to operate.

The danger is that ultimately if there is a contingency fund in those numbers the Canadian Wheat Board or the government could say there is no need for particular guarantees from governments. Guarantees could be funded out of a contingency fund. This is a very serious danger to the existing Canadian Wheat Board and certainly to producers themselves.

There are some advantages and disadvantages, but the majority of people who spoke to us, whether pro or against the Canadian Wheat Board, indicated their desire not to have a contingency fund. I have talked to producers, as have other members on this side of the House, who had serious concerns about the contingency fund.

In this amendment we are saying that the contingency fund should be removed from the legislation and the guarantees of government should simply be put back into place.

The government wants a Canadian Wheat Board which is subject to the controls of government, of its executive officer and of members of the board. If 10 of 15 board members are to be elected it does not mean the Canadian Wheat Board will be accountable to producers. It will still be accountable to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. It is written in the legislation that the minister has the final authority and say. We should not be confused by the fact that 10 of 15 members will be accountable.

It should be made a truly elected board by having 15 of the 15 members elected by producers. It could be made a truly democratic process by having the board hire the chief executive officer. That makes sense corporately and has to be done.

My amendment speaks to the exclusion clause. As the member for Peace River indicated, it is a marriage between two clauses, an exclusion clause and an inclusion clause.

In Bill C-72, the predecessor bill, inclusion was never mentioned. Now it is in this bill. When asked at committee why there was an inclusion clause, the answer was simple: if we have exclusion then we have to have inclusion. It was not a good answer.

We asked people who appeared before committee if they would be prepared to give up their exclusion rights to get rid of inclusion. We literally heard from dozens of organizations and only three did not want it. Almost unanimously they said that in order to get rid of inclusion they would give up exclusion.

The motion has been put forward to get rid of exclusion. The motion should pass. We will deal with inclusion when that motion is being debated.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the floor so promptly.

Bill C-4 is a major bill for western grain producers, so much so that consideration of the bill had to be spread over more than a year. In its great wisdom and clarity of vision, the Liberal government had planned to have Bill C-72 passed during the 35th Parliament, but the early call for a general election on June 2 forced us to scrap everything that had been done. This meant a considerable waste of money.

I would, however, like to emphasize that, on the agriculture and agri-food committee, we heard the views of scores of people. The large majority of them expressed discontent with the wording of Bill C-4, which will, according to the Liberals, modify the Canadian Wheat Board Act from a to z .

In our opinion, this is a very tiny step forward, and as a result I can announce to you, to the great chagrin of the hon. member for Malpeque, that we will support this amendment to Bill C-4 for a number of different and important reasons.

One of the reasons is as follows. I would like to know—and from you directly, Mr. Speaker—why the Prime Minister gave responsibility for the Canadian Wheat Board to a minister other than the minister of agriculture. Is the new minister of agriculture too incompetent to manage the Canadian Wheat Board on his own? That is my question. Does the Prime Minister not have confidence in him?