Debates of Nov. 20th, 1997

Canadian Wheat Board Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member from Frontenac is getting into inflammatory remarks against the current minister of agriculture.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The Chair would consider that to be a point of debate, not a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would invite my friend from Prince Edward Island, the hon. member for Malpeque, to listen, which is no mean feat in his case since you cannot tell him anything. However, he can learn a thing or two from the member for Frontenac—Mégantic, which is what I want.

So, the government, under the Prime Minister, gave responsibility for this bill to the Minister of Natural Resources, on the grounds that he comes from the west. I have more fingers on my hands than there are Liberal members from the West in this House, so he did not have a choice if they were going to give it to someone from the West. So he gave it to the Minister of Natural Resources.

I suggested to my friend from Malpeque that the auditor general, who is above all reproach and whose appointment was approved by all parties in this House, should go and root through the books of the Canadian Wheat Board. The Liberals turned the suggestion down saying that a group of auditors from the west—one of the famous accounting firms like Raymond, Chabot, Martin, Paré in Quebec—could do the audit. In the West it appears to be Touche Ross & Co.

My Reform colleagues went at the Prime Minister himself on several occasions because it appears that he gets a lot of financial support from these groups of auditors.

When an organization like the Canadian Wheat Board has its books audited, only the invoices presented are audited. The auditors find that it matches the invoice, but do not check if the invoice is valid. Do you follow me?

I think that the Reform Party, the Bloc Quebecois and all the opposition parties in this House agree that the auditor general should audit the books. I made some calculations. The Canadian Wheat Board will be managing sales representing between $6 billion and $7 billion. That is a substantial amount. A 1% error would cost $600 million. That is quite a lot of money. You will tell me that I am exaggerating. I agree, 1% is too high. Take 1% of 1%, or one thousandth. That is $6 million. I am pretty sure that if one thousandth of the sales were poorly managed, western farm producers would lose $6 million without anyone noticing.

But the auditor general, with his flair, with his team and with his expertise, would figure out in no time that something is wrong and would not hesitate to single out individuals in his annual report or to point out any inappropriate spending. Then we could rub Liberals' noses in it.

As I said, this is a step forward, but a very tiny step indeed. The board of directors will include 10 elected members; 10 western grain producers will sit on the board. But five other directors, two of whom will be major players, will be appointed by the governor in council.

I take this opportunity to submit to the hon. member for Malpeque, who is running this debate for the government, that the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food should be consulted. I am not asking that it be given a veto, just that it be consulted. The hon. member for Malpeque does not want to. He does not even trust—I am afraid my name is about to get crossed off of his list of friends, but we will see what can be negotiated later—the members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food.

This brings me to the appointments in question. This morning's papers report that the Prime Minister revoked an appointment made by his predecessor, Lester B. Pearson.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

On a point of order.

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

I only have two minutes to go.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Bourassa.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that my friend, the member for Frontenac—Mégantic, can get quite worked up—I'm not sure which hormones are involved—but I think we should stick to the point. What Canadians want to hear is his position on—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

In the opinion of the Chair, the debate of the hon. member for Frontenac—Mégantic was relevant and we will add that time to the hon. member's time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would be grateful if you were to allow me the two minutes I have left.

This morning, the Prime Minister expelled a Liberal senator appointed by Lester B. Pearson. I will not name him out of respect for his children. The fellow will earn $500,000 for doing nothing. This is coming out of our pockets.

In my riding, I hear about these appointments all the time. Voters turfed out Mary Clancy. Not two weeks had gone by before the Prime Minister found her a spot paying more than MPs' wages. Voters showed Francis Leblanc the door because of the treatment of the unemployed in his riding. The Minister of Human Resources Development will get him to administer the employment insurance fund. This did not—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The member for Bourassa on a point of order.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, you know what I am good at. If you want us to start rhyming off the names of members of the Bloc Quebecois who have demonstrated their incompetence rather than focus on the present debate, that is fine by me.

But the voters in my riding of Bourassa want to know what is going on with this bill and I would ask the member, who is perhaps not often in his riding, to stick to important issues, in this case the Canadian Wheat Board.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

In so far as the government will be appointing members to the board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board, debate concerning the record of the government's past appointments to previous boards is relevant.

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

Mr. Speaker, you can see as well as I that the rookie member for Bourassa lacks experience and is doing everything he can to distract us, to keep us from criticizing the blunders of the Liberal Party, headed by the member for Saint-Maurice, who can sometimes be inherently devious.

No wonder the government—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

With respect, I think the hon. member for Frontenac—Mégantic has gone a bit too far this time. With respect, I would ask that his most recent remark concerning the hon. member for Saint-Maurice be withdrawn.

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

You are probably right, Mr. Speaker. Being bothered regularly by the member for Bourassa, I went a bit too far. The member for Saint-Maurice, the Prime Minister, is not inherently devious.

To get back to the appointments, the former mayor of Quebec City ran up against my colleague, the hon. member for Québec, in the 1993 election. He lost the election and three days later—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I am sorry, but the hon. member's time has expired.

Resuming debate with the hon. member for Simcoe—Grey.

[Paul Bonwick, Liberal, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address remarks by two members opposite.

First to the hon. member for Brandon—Souris regarding his comments, I found them rather insulting and borderline prejudice. For him to suggest for one moment that as members of Parliament we are not supposed to deal with national issues, with a $6 billion industry that this government backs and because we are from one specific area or another, those comments are nothing more than prejudice. Absolutely unacceptable.

With regard to his comments of inclusion, as a new member of this committee I did listen. I listened to my Reform colleagues. I listened to the witnesses and I listened to Conservative colleagues. Unlike the member for Brandon—Souris, I took back some of the answers the people had given me. There was a very simple statement made. What was best for the farmers was inclusion. That is why it is there, not specific special interests groups that do not necessarily represent certain numbers of farmers. That is what is best for the farmers. That is why it stands.

With regard to the member for Frontenac—Mégantic, he should hang his head in shame. He should be embarrassed for the comments he made. To insult the minister of agriculture completely unacceptable. To sit here and question the integrity of the prime minister is also unacceptable, likely one of the respected politicians in the entire world and certainly in Canada. Those types of statements are completely unacceptable in this House.

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

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, do you know what the biggest insult is right now? The minister responsible for the wheat board and the agriculture minister are not here.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member will know we do not refer to the absence or the presence of other hon. members. The hon. member would also know that is not a point of order. Resuming debate.

[Paul Bonwick, Liberal, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, these types of shenanigans my Reform colleagues are pulling are completely disrespectful of this House. They too should be completely ashamed of the tactics they use. They are not only embarrassing themselves but they are embarrassing their constituents. I suggest they reflect on their actions.

As I mentioned, the comments directed at our minister of agriculture and our prime minister are completely unacceptable. Again, the member should be extremely ashamed of himself.

He was asking some pointed questions with regard to why the minister of agriculture was not overseeing the Canadian Wheat Board discussions, the same questions he asked at committee. He received completely detailed and very acceptable answers. Then he brings those questions to the House for no more reason than grandstanding and insulting members when he knows they are not here to defend themselves.

The Canadian Wheat Board is good for farmers. The inclusion clause is good for farmers, despite what these colleagues across the floor are saying.

On that note, I request a answer from the member for Brandon—Souris. Are we not entitled to discuss issues relevant to Canada in an industry which encompasses $6 billion dollars or should we just sit here and remain quite?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member to refer to Hansard because he asked the question—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

With respect, that was a point of debate and perhaps that debate would be best behind the curtains. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Palliser.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the next grouping of motions that are before the House this afternoon. Specifically, we are looking at Motions Nos. 2, 31 and 41 as has already been outlined by previous speakers.

As I listened carefully to the mover of two of those three motions, it was clear that on Motion No. 2 what the mover of the motion is seeking is the ability of a province to opt out of the Canadian Wheat Board. Motion No. 31 deals with a contingency fund and Motion No. 41 deals with the exclusion clause as well and obviously the inclusion clause is part of both of those, as has been pointed out.

What is beginning to become clear is now that we are past the words in the preamble, the support by the members in the opposition for the Canadian Wheat Board is like Liberal support on the prairies, a mile wide and an inch deep. That is particularly true of some of the speeches that have been coming forward.

With respect to Motion No. 2, clearly what is at play here would be, as the member for Prince George—Peace River pointed out, that a province such as Alberta could opt out. Obviously a move like that would totally cripple the Canadian Wheat Board. We certainly would oppose any reference to an opting out provision.

Of the three motions that are before us, Motion No. 31 is critical. It would delete clause 8 which deals with using any profits from bonds, debentures, notes or other evidence of indebtedness in payment of expenses incurred by the corporation or putting money into the contingency fund.

It seems to me that some members of this House, in particular members of the Official Opposition, want to eliminate any reference to a contingency fund and so does our caucus, but I think we have different motives in mind. What is at stake here is to delete any reference to the contingency fund and not to have any borrowing contingencies from the federal government. In other words, the Canadian Wheat Board would stand or fall on its own.

We are not supportive of that. We do support the wheat board and recognize that there needs to be government guarantees along this line. In fact, we want to see the government guarantees be the same as they have always been for the Canadian Wheat Board. This has not been a big drain on Canadian taxpayers to have had that kind of support.

It seems to us to be a very difficult argument to persuade western Canadian wheat and barley growers that a new, improved wheat board bill is going to be good for them and at the same time have significant increased input costs, costs of production, to maintain the contingency fund.

We tried during committee stage to have some estimate of how big that contingency fund might be. We never did get a satisfactory response from government officials, although some people have put it as high as $575 million. Whether that is 10% of the value of the Canadian Wheat Board, I do not know where that figure comes from, but it is from usually reliable sources.

We do not know and farmers obviously do not know how big that contingency fund is going to have to be or how much they are going to have to pay for it. We certainly reject the idea of a contingency fund.

As I said earlier, we would like to see the Government of Canada continue to have the borrowing authority for the Canadian Wheat Board, more correctly, to be able to go through the government for its borrowing requirements on an annual basis.

The Canadian Wheat Board, it seems to me, is a classic example of farmers in this case banding together to create an entity which would allow them to do collectively what they could not do individually or separately.

Because there has been a lot of chatter about the history of the wheat board and how it was invoked on an unwilling farm community in western Canada, I would like to quote from an eminent Manitoba historian, Gerald Friesen, who says that Prime Minister Bennett's cabinet was under enormous pressure to relieve the burdens of farmers and to judge by the leaders of prairie farm movements, the prairie preference was for a national wheat marketing board.

Farmers supported the wheat board in the dirty thirties and they are still supporting it in the nebulous nineties as we saw from the vote last year, to the member from the Reform Party. Sixty-seven per cent, as a matter of fact, of the barley growers voted to have the board continue marketing their crop.

[An hon. member]

What do you know about farming?