Debates of Nov. 20th, 1997

Canadian Wheat Board Act

[Some hon. members]

That's right.

[An hon. member]

A double standard.

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Of course, if we keep going in that same direction, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, I believe from the province of Newfoundland, I doubt has ever sold a bushel of wheat in his life as well.

The minister of agriculture, engaged in the profession of agriculture, enjoys a wheat board fully elected and fully accountable, yet he wishes to impose something different on the farmers of western Canada.

I think it is a question of credibility of those who speak and what they are trying to impose on others that they would not impose on themselves. I think that is an important point to make.

The Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, being from the prairies at least gives him some credibility, but I would question whether the minister has ever sold a bushel of wheat in his life.

I have to perhaps forgive the government a little bit there because truly Liberals on the Canadian prairies are becoming as scarce as prairie chickens on the prairies these days. I have to understand the limited choice the government had when they chose.

I also want to respond to the comments by the hon. member for Hamilton—Wentworth about the preamble not being important. As one of my colleagues pointed out, the courts have long been famous for using the preamble to determine the intention of the legislation when they are drafting the bill. I do not think there is anywhere where that is more apparent than in the courts and the rewriting of the Canadian human rights bill.

Certainly an effort to clarify the intention of the legislatures in the preamble would be taken into consideration and an is an extremely important point and not to be ignored. Our intention is not smoke and mirrors. It is certainly honourable.

I have to also question the effort by the government through this bill to protect from legal action the officers of the Canadian Wheat Board and the secrecy, the lack of accountability through access to information or the auditor general. I think this effort to protect the officers of the board in good measure is a result of the actions of my colleague from Portage—Lisgar in his efforts to bring some accountability and transparency to the board. I do not think that there is really support for those kinds of actions.

Because of the lack of time, I simply say in conclusion that, in all sincerity, we are not asking for anything in this Wheat Board Act that producers in the rest of Canada do not have already. In the interest of fairness, I think it would be reasonable to provide some accountability, some transparency to a board that works for the farmers.

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find very interesting the position that the Reform Party has taken over whether an elected person from this House can speak about the western grain situation. I wonder if they would take the very same position if we talked about the auto pact, that no one from the west should be able to speak about the auto pact or no one from the west should be able to talk about other factors that affect this nation.

There is absolutely no question that Ontario produces a tremendous amount of grain. In my riding I would suggest to you that that grain is produced and the certificates from that grain have to be confirmed by the Canadian Wheat Board. The Canadian Wheat Board, without question, has a tremendous effect on the grain farmers in Ontario.

The new law now before Parliament is based on many months of consultation with farmers, including public hearings across the prairies. This proposed legislation embodies the biggest changes in western grain marketing in a half century. Throughout its history, the Canadian Wheat Board has been governed by a small group of commissioners appointed by the government and legally responsible only to the government. But in today's dynamic change in this marketplace the producers will have a clear voice in what will be happening. The producers will be accountable and the sales will be accountable to the producers.

Under the new law, it is the first time the Canadian Wheat Board will be run by a board of directors. There will be 15 directors in total and two-thirds of them, 10 of the 15 directors, will be directly elected by prairie farmers. They will take office at the earliest possible date in 1998 once the new law is passed by Parliament.

All the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board will be in the hands of the directors and because two-thirds of them will be elected, they will be directly accountable to producers for how they manage the Canadian Wheat Board's business.

In addition to the power to run the affairs of the Canadian Wheat Board, the directors will have specific authority to select their own chairperson; to set the salaries of directors, the chairperson and president; to review the performance of the president and to recommend his or her dismissal, if necessary.

To ensure farmers are getting value for their money, the directors will be legally entitled to have full disclosure of all facts and figures by the Canadian Wheat Board operations, including all financial audited statements. The directors will be able to examine the prices at which grain is sold, the price premiums achieved, all operating costs, and whether the wheat board is truly efficient.

Through these elected directors the Canadian Wheat Board will gain practical expertise in the real producers. If the directors are not satisfied with how the Canadian Wheat Board deals with the farmers or its sales strategy or the way it does business, they can make the necessary changes.

The new law will require the directors and officers of the Canadian Wheat Board to act honestly and in good faith, exercising all reasonable care and diligence. If they fail their duty, they will be exposed and have legal consequences.

Despite the structural changes, the Government of Canada will continue to provide the Canadian Wheat Board with financial guarantees. They will cover not only the initial payments set at the beginning of each pooling period and the Canadian Wheat Board's credit sales program but also all of the general borrowings. Since the Canadian Wheat Board is a multibillion dollar enterprise, the amount outstanding under these guarantees is very large.

For this reason, there is continuing need for the government to have a window on the Canadian Wheat Board in addition to the new accountability directly to farmers.

Such a window is also necessary because the Canadian exporter of wheat and barley, whether on the prairies or elsewhere, requires a Canadian Wheat Board export permit. This safeguarding of public interest will be achieved by the government appointing a minority of directors, five in total.

All of the directors, whether elected, the ten or five who are appointed, will have the same powers, duties and functions. The farmers will hold two thirds of that majority. The new law will put farmers in the driver's seat when it comes to any future changes in the Canadian Wheat Board.

If farmers want to remove some type of grain from the Canadian Wheat Board's current single desk system, that can be done subject to three conditions. The directors must make it a recommendation, the Canadian Grain Commission must approve an identity preservation system to protect the quality standards and, if proposed exclusion is significant to all the farmers, the farmers must vote for that approval.

If farmers want to add votes, rye, flax, canola to the Canadian Wheat Board's existing mandate, that too can be done subject to three conditions. The farm organization that represents the producers of that commodity must make a written request, the Canadian Wheat Board's directors must recommend it and there must be a vote among the farmers to approve it.

These new provisions are balanced and fair in both ways for either exclusions or inclusions. In either case, the authority is where it belongs, in the hands of themselves.

The Canadian Wheat Board is going to be more flexible. It will give to farmers more options in how they are paid and how their grain is moved through the system. It will make cash purchases of wheat and barley, increase initial payments quickly whenever market conditions warrant, close and pay out pool accounts at any time, provide an early pool and cash out option, fully use modern risk management tools, issue negotiable producer certificates, offset producers' grain storage and/or carrying costs, facilitate deliveries on condos' storage systems and receive grain through on-farm mobile elevators.

The Canadian Wheat Board is a very effective marketer of Canadian grain. It has the support of the majority of western farmers. They want realistic and sensible Canadian Wheat Board changes but they do not want a scenario that would lead inevitably to the board's destruction.

Just how valuable overall has the scheme of things been? It sells some $5 billion of grain per year at marketing costs of a few pennies per bushel. It retains no profit margin. All the rest goes to farmers. It is one of Canada's most significant business enterprises, doing business in more than 70 countries around the world.

It is our fifth largest exporter and our largest net earner for foreign exchange. It has earned, for itself and Canada, a positive reputation in the eyes of global customers. It is very important to the Canadian economy.

The board targets to extract maximum premiums but very important, the quality, cleanliness and consistency and our technical support are long-term, dependable, for the customer, the consumer from which we sell grain.

The Canadian Wheat Board has been rated as number one in the world.

These characteristics, coupled with the size of the board, its global reach and the market clout, result in Canada having roughly 20% of the share of the world market. The Government of Canada believes that it is worth preserving.

I am very pleased with the principles put forth in the bill. I am certain it will enhance our grain sales in the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe I am entitled to have the member table the grain certificates to which he referred in his speech. Those certificates apply to the provinces of Ontario, Quebec and all other provinces that are not prairie provinces which have the right, without charge, to export their grains.

I wonder if he could table them so that the House could see how unfair the certificates are. Those provinces can export their grain with these certificates but the other three provinces cannot. I believe the hon. member should table them immediately.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The Chair will consult with the table officers.

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

Mr. Speaker, with respect to this point of order, the hon. member was not talking about the specific certificates. He was talking about the fact that the Canadian Wheat Board has to authorize those export certificates for other areas.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

In the opinion of the Chair this is a point of debate, but the Chair will invite the hon. member for Kent—Essex, if he has the papers and wishes to table them, to do so.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not even know where to start. I am just amazed to hear all these things coming from across the way about the great consultation process that went on. We all know that the panel went across the prairie provinces and talked to prairie farmers, but the recommendations that were given to the panel are not being implemented in the bill. It does not even come close.

Everyone in the House should have the opportunity to speak. Nobody would deny that. Many MPs from the Toronto region will definitely support the government because they have been told that is what they have to do in this free country led by that outfit.

I invite those Toronto MPs to come to Wild Rose to visit little communities in my area and to talk to farmers. We should let farmers convince these people how they should vote rather than being told how to vote. We know that will happen. We know it will be difficult to defeat a poor piece of legislation such as this one because of the rules of the Liberal Party, the governing body.

Those ladies and gentlemen should come out to talk to the farmers. In every poll we have done in Wild Rose 80% to 90% of the people want dual marketing. They like to go out there to meet with the elite but they do not know anything about farmers. They should try it some time.

Mr. Speaker, I bet you were a businessman before you came to the House. I would bet on that. I bet you were a producer of goods of some sort or that you provided a service. I bet you did your best to maximize profits in your business. If you did not then you were doing a poor job.

Every manufacturing company or producer in the country tries to find the best place to make the best buck and get the best value for their product. That is good common sense.

Why is it that one segment in one region of the country that is not allowed to do that? What kind of situation is that? Let us take a look at it a little further. Some people in some of these regions—

[Some hon. members]

Stick around.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

All of sudden there are no Liberals in the House at all. That is too bad.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

With respect, all hon. members are aware that we do not refer to the presence or absence of other hon. members at any specific time.

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

Mr. Speaker, the appropriate thing would be to call for a quorum.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

We have a quorum call.

And the count having been taken:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

There is quorum.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, too bad all members of the House are not listening carefully to the debate that is going on here before casting their votes. Instead they are waiting for the whip of a certain party to pull their strings so the little puppets can jump up and vote the way they are told, the way they have done in the House for ages. It is too bad that happens.

I was talking about maximizing profits, which is what the preamble is all about. It is only common sense. Anybody with the brain of a fish could say that makes sense.

I went to two court trials in Brandon, Manitoba, and spent some time watching the proceedings. Individuals were brought before the court for having illegally sold their grain across the border without wheat board permits and were charged. They actually broke the law; nobody is denying that. Their purpose for selling grain across the border was not as a protest against any board or any particular legislation. They were trying to maximize their profits.

In many cases the people who were doing this all across the border were trying to maximize their profits. They found themselves in the situation that if they did not get the best prices for their goods their farms could go under. They could go broke. They were trying to provide for the livelihood of their families. They had worked all their lives and were saying they had to do something or they would go under. Nobody wants to go under. They made an effort by doing that, but the legislation stated that they could not.

One court case amazed me. An individual had broken into a farm residence, ransacked the property, killed three dogs, set fire to a tractor and stolen a pick-up truck. Later he was apprehended and convicted. He received a sentence of community service. The same day a farmer was brought in who had tried to maximize his profits by taking his crop across the border. He was taken away in shackles and chains.

Not only that. One farmer who had done it two or three times received a consecutive sentence. I have been screaming at the government for ages about consecutive sentences. Clifford Olson should not be serving one life sentence; he should be serving eleven. We finally got a consecutive sentencing. We got it for a farmer who tried to maximize his profits by taking his crop across the border. That is the wisdom of the justice system.

It is terribly frustrating to look at farmers being hauled off in chains and shackles while a guy who destroys and steals thousands and thousands of dollars worth of property gets community service.

[An hon. member]

Shameful.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

It is absolutely ridiculous. All they are asking for in the region of Wild Rose is an opportunity to market their own product, the same opportunity for every individual producer or manufacturer of any kind in the whole country.

Why are they being targeted as the ones who cannot? They are asking for that opportunity. They are not asking to scrap the wheat board. They want to keep the wheat board as an option, as one of the choices they may make in marketing their goods. If they choose to do that, fine. If they choose not to, they should have the freedom to do so. That is common sense.

When I was a young fellow farming and raising crops I did not decide where we sold our grain. My dad did. He shopped around. Although it was in a different country, we would load the truck and he would instruct me on where to deliver the grain. He had made some phone calls and had chosen the place where he would deliver his grain. Guess why he chose the place? It was because he was maximizing his profits. It was the best price.

I would drive to that place. Provided it passed a required test to pay the price I would deliver the grain. If the test was not quite as good as they wanted it, I would go to another place that would take the grain, maybe at a lower price. We had choices all over.

What those people did after they bought the grain, whether they exported it to China, to Japan or to Russia, we did not know. We had the choice on how to maximize our profits. That was fairly nice. We did not have a body of people accountable to no one to tell us what we should do with our grain. We did not have to get something signed by a group of wheat board individuals about whose expertise we were not too certain.

The government is asking farmers in the western prairies to continue the same process. Bill C-4 does not change anything. Even the agricultural minister from Alberta writes that it was extremely disappointing to discover the changes served only to continue government control of grain marketing, that no other industry or no other individual was being treated in this unique manner, and that in many respects it was something requiring close scrutiny before passage of the proposed legislation.

The minister of agriculture in Alberta pointed out a number of things in his letter that were wrong with the legislation. Much of it applied simply to the fact that they lived in a free country. When will they start giving people the freedom they ought to have to do with their product as they see fit?

They are the ones that sweat hard. They are the ones who put the seed in the ground. They are the ones who try to chase the hail clouds away. They do not even know if they will get a grain crop into the bin, but when they get there they should be allowed to own it and to choose how to market it. It is their crop.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak on this topic, the most important topic in my entire constituency. Interest in the bill is growing and growing and growing every week.

I wish to alert members to a statement once made by Edmund Burke. He said that the people never give up their liberties except under some delusions. Ever since the wheat board began it presented a delusion to many western Canadian farmers.

The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville emphasized the use of the word maximizing. If the returns to the farmers of western Canada are to be maximized, it involves another component, transportation. We will talk about that later.

I want to read to the House a statement made by a lawyer employed by the Canadian Wheat Board. This was before the Manitoba Court of Appeal.

I want to note carefully what he had to say: “To dispose of grain in the best interest of the federal government the wheat board has no obligation to obtain the best prices for the farmers”. That is what a lawyer for the Canadian Wheat Board had to say. You come west and try to sell the Canadian Wheat Board with statements like that.

Less than three months ago we had a major dumping of Canadian grain into the Iranian market at $15 a tonne less than the world price. We only found out about that just a few days ago. When the wheat board tells you that it has no obligation to maximize the return to the prairie farmers, that they exist only for the benefit for the government, at least it is speaking the truth.

The wheat board has its annual report out. I would like to read a few statements from that annual report. Historically the Canadian Wheat Board at numerous times has not marketed grain to ensure the maximum return to the farmers. Now hear what it had to say: “All proceeds from sales, less Canadian Wheat Board marketing costs, are passed on to the farmers”. If it is operating totally on behalf of the farmers then they had better take a look at what they are trying to do in Bill C-4. If the farmer is smart enough to grow the grain, he is smart enough to market the grain. This is phoney thing between five members, ten members, do not go out west and say that you democratized the wheat board. They will laugh right in your face. We all know what is going to happen.

A few years ago we had two very learned people who did a lot of work on this. I would like to read what they had to say: “Until World War II the Canadian Wheat Board was a government owned agency with a mandate to operate in the best interests of the producers”. That is before World War II. The next point is: “The role, structure and powers of the Canadian Wheat Board changed drastically during the war. It became the federal government's chief means of controlling wheat prices”.

The wheat board is in a position and it is attempting to control prices, not to do what my hon. member has in this amendment, maximize the prices. It has not been the responsibility—and we have enough evidence that it has not always sought out to operate in the best interests.

Let me read again from this report: “Its main aim was to limit grain price increases so as to safeguard the government's wage and price controls”. Who paid that price? The farmers paid that price and they paid heavily for that.

Point three: “When world market conditions began to push up wheat prices in 1943 the government granted the Canadian Wheat Board its monopoly powers to enable it to impose strict controls over grain prices”. The Canadian Wheat Board is doing exactly the same thing today.

This report, which came from two eminent scholars, said further: “The Canadian Wheat Board was the government's instrument of choice in the immediate post-war period to control wheat prices—into a peacetime market economy”.

Finally, it says that both Liberal and the Conservative governments extended the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly because they viewed wheat as a national strategy measure. Only wheat was used in this way both the Liberal government and the Conservative government. They used the wheat of the hardworking prairie farmers to the benefit not of the prairie farmers. That was not utmost in their minds.

I look at the dumping practices of the wheat board today and it is not accountable and it does not know where the grain is going. The farmer, like the hon. member, at least knew where the grain was going. We do not know where it is going. It dumps wheat on to a foreign market where there is no competition and sells it for less money. That is a terrible shame, and it exists today.

I want to draw attention also to the control of the grain industry by the government. We read that lawyers have said that the first responsibility of the Canadian Wheat Board is to the government and the producers are secondary. We out west are tired of that attitude. We are fed up.

Let me read: “Control of the grain trade by a government agency was consistent with the aims of those Canadian bureaucrats who were dictated to introducing the principles of Keynesian economics into the regulation of the Canadian marketplace”.

I know what the hon. member said. I know that people are saying that the act was made in Ottawa and therefore it must be good. Do not be fooled. They never adopted one single principle of the strategy committee that came before them. Not one principle is embedded in this new act. They predetermined what the act was going to be. They went through the phoney stage of talking to people. The bill is before us now without one single recommendation from the advisory board.

I say that this Canadian Wheat Board bill that we have today is going to do one thing for sure if it is passed. The number of people opposed to the monopoly of the grain market industry, the number of producers, is going to drop, drop, drop until we reach a real revolution on the prairies because of the government's monopoly in this bill.

I wish everybody opposite would come out to the prairies, talk to the people. It is a crying shame that an industry that brings billions and billions of dollars into this country cannot even control itself. The big bad government controls it.

It is a terrible shame. I beg them to read the bill and not to support it.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, some people will try to say that because this is just the preamble of the bill that they are seeking to amend that it is not important and it is not necessary.

I would like to argue that point very vigorously. This is a very necessary amendment. For the record I would just like to read what I consider to be the most important portion of this amendment:

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.

In other words, this amendment places fiduciary responsibility on the board to act in the best interests of farmers. About six weeks ago—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Excuse me. We do not seem to be getting the French translation. Could we confirm that we are getting the French translation, please.

Perhaps if the member resumes we can try it again.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know at what point the translators may have been cut off. I will backtrack just a bit. I read the portion of the amendment which I feel is most important and I stated that I feel this is extremely important because it places fiduciary responsibility on the board to act in the best interests of farmers.

About six weeks ago a three-justice panel of the Manitoba Court of Appeal ruled that the Canadian Wheat Board has no fiduciary duty to make the best possible deals on farmers' behalf or even to treat them equally and with fairness. The board's only legal obligation, according to this panel, is not to farmers but to Ottawa. This is supposed to be our board, but it has no obligation to serve us.

Anything which can be added to this bill, even if it is only in the preamble, is bound to be an improvement. The fascinating thing about Bill C-4 is that it is equally repugnant to organizations as diverse in their outlook as the National Farmers Union and the Western Canadian Wheat Growers.

I have been polling my constituents specifically on this bill to determine how the majority of them would wish me to vote on their behalf. Thanks to the brilliance of this government we now have no postal service. With no postal service I cannot complete my poll to find out how the people in my constituency would like me to vote on this bill.

However, I have done other polling on the Canadian Wheat Board with my constituents. I have also done formal scientific polling by telephone through a professional polling organization. I have a pretty good handle on how they feel.

It is regrettable that the government, with all of its grunting about going back to the people to find out what they are thinking, does not do a little more of this type of work. When it does have its road shows and it goes about to get the opinion of people on the issues of the day it is too bad it does not pay attention to the results it gets.

We have had these visitations, and I use the word advisedly, of people from Ottawa who say “We are from government, we are here to help you, we want to know what you think. Now that we know what you think, get lost”. That is the Ottawa way.

Bud the Spud over there would have us always believe that these are the people with our interests at heart. They know what is best for us poor, benighted, agricultural drones of western Canada. We do not know what is good for us but, man, Ottawa sure can show us the way.

I have polled my constituents and, to my surprise, I discovered that on one commodity, that commodity being wheat, they want in my riding to retain single desk selling. However, for barley they want dual marketing.

They did not get a chance, when the government had its famous plebiscite last January and February, to vote on that option. They got a chance to say “are we doing to have barley all onboard or all off board?” In or out. Take it or leave it. What the farmers actually would have liked was not on the ballot.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

You listen up over there, you one Liberal.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I wish the hon. member for Wild Rose would quit heckling. He is throwing me off.

I know how my constituents stand on that particular issue, but I do not know how they are going to come out on Bill C-4 because there is nothing in Bill C-4 which directly relates to whether or not we retain single desk marketing. It is just a hodgepodge. It is a bunch of bandaids applied to the wrists, elbows, ears and whatever other part of the poor western farmer has been damaged by Ottawa. There is nothing substantive—

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

The most changes in its history.