Debates of Nov. 20th, 1997

Canadian Wheat Board Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

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 Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques—Employment Insurance.

Message From The Senate

[The Deputy Speaker]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-3, an act to amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee; and of Motions Nos. 2, 31 and 41.

Canadian Wheat Board Act

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, once again I remind Reformers that they are obviously having a very hard time listening to the number of people who support the Canadian Wheat Board. I would like to mention some of them. They are the Government of Saskatchewan, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, prairie pools, the Keystone Agricultural Producers, the National Farmers Union, the Concerned Farmers Saving the Wheat Board and members of the Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee who are elected from across the prairies to provide advice to the board's operations.

It is extremely important that Canadians do not get caught up in the usual Reform rhetoric that goes on and on about nobody representing the people of Canada except Reformers, that we will never have freedom unless we listen to Reform. If we want to talk dictatorship let us talk about Reformers spouting they are the only ones who are here on behalf of Canadians and serving them. I had to listen to the rather childish diatribe from the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt who said “I'm a farmer, I'm a farmer, I'm a farmer” as if nobody else could understand what farmers go through.

Numerous people in Canada know what farmers go through, what fishermen go through and what every other person goes through if they take the time to consider those people and to make themselves aware of their troubles. I suggest that just once Reformers should take a look at the whole picture instead of their own narrow vision.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, several things come to mind as an opener, not the least of which is that I too am a farmer.

I guess another thing that should be said is that the times, they are a'changin'. It is a long time since my father and my father-in-law saw the birth of the Canadian Wheat Board. A lot of things have changed since that time when farmers would haul most of their grain in the winter. Practically all the grain was hauled on sleighs. The roads were bad during the summertime when they could only use wheeled vehicles and they did not have enough horses to pull a load of wheat through the muddy roads. They hauled their grain in the wintertime, when they had time to do it as well. They would haul about 100 bushels of wheat five, ten, twenty or whatever miles it required to get it an elevator. Most elevators were about 20 to 30 miles at the very most from farming communities.

The grain would be hauled in dribs and drabs by today's standards to the elevators where it would be loaded on to rail cars and shipped out in greater quantities.

Technology has evolved now to the point where we have trucks that can hold two or three the capacity of old time granaries. Once they get the truck rolling it really does not matter how far they have to travel. Once it is loaded on the truck it can be destined for almost anywhere in North America. The marketing of grain has changed immeasurably in the 50, 60 or 70 years since the birth of the Canadian Wheat Board.

The Canadian Wheat Board is stuck in the 1920s. I listened with great interest to my colleague from the NDP trying to defend the system and all the people he claims support single desk selling. I am reminded of a discussion with a friend back home who was of like mind. He thought the single desk marketing of grain was the only way to go because that was how to get the best results.

I asked him to extrapolate his thinking a bit. He also raised cattle. Maybe I should become the single desk buyer for cattle. He could sell all his cattle to me. Everybody in Alberta could sell their cattle to me and I would get the best price that I could. He thought about that for not even a second and said no, that he could not do that. He could not possibly think about selling me all his cattle exclusively and all the cattle of all producers in that area, in that province or maybe in all western provinces.

I would like to be in that position. Most people in the House would like to be in the position where they would have an absolute monopoly. That is what we are talking about today.

Farmers in western Canada have overcome drought, flood, hail, poor weather, too much rain, not enough rain, seed borne diseases, late yielding varieties and all sorts of things in the production of grain.

Now there are better seed varieties and better genetics. Seeds mature earlier. We are avoiding frosts. We have better machinery than we have ever had to work the land, to cut the grain and to combine the grain. It would seem oftentimes that we have more grain than we know what to do with, or at least what the Canadian Wheat Board knows what to do with.

It would seem production is not the challenge it once was. The huge challenge today is the marketing of grain. Because our input costs are so high that our margins naturally are proportionately lower. The marketing of grain is of the utmost importance. By introducing these amendments we are trying to put some flexibility into an absolutely inflexible Canadian Wheat Board.

The NDP member from Saskatchewan accused us of wanting to do away with the wheat board.

[An hon. member]

Hear, hear.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

It would appear our NDP friend from Saskatchewan would agree with that sentiment. He has it wrong, as usual.

We want to have a flexible wheat board. We want to have a board where we can be in or out. Why not have a choice?

Let me give my esteemed colleague examples of some things I am sure he supports. What about co-ops? What about credit unions? What about pools? I am sure my friend from the more socialist party believes those are good things.

Let us take a quick look at how they operate. Do the credit unions in Mountain View, Ponoka and Bashaw, Saskatchewan, operate under a board that is appointed by the premier of the province or the reeve of the county? No. Those people are elected. The boards of directors are elected.

Some of those people are not even paid. They may collect mileage to and from meetings. They may get their registration fee paid to attend conferences and that sort of thing. A lot of these people donate their time to the board. They are elected by the members of the credit union, by the producers in the hog pool, or whatever it is, or by the people who are members of the co-operative. They are accountable to the people who elect them. Those elected people hire an administrator. The administrator makes administrative decisions and the elected board makes political decisions.

Is there any resemblance between what I have just described and the Canadian Wheat Board? None whatsoever. They are not even in the same ballpark.

We are asking for a completely elected board of directors that is accountable to producers, a wheat board farmers could be members of or excluded from and market their grain one way or the other.

My NDP friend from Saskatchewan said “it will not work if you are not all in it”. How does he know that? If it did not work because it was not a monopoly, if it will not work without being a monopoly then it must be a pretty poor system.

I think that anybody in this House would say that competition is good. I am sure my hon. colleague feels very good about the fact that he ran against other opponents in the election and was victorious. In that case he would say “Certainly competition is great. Competition is good”.

Why is competition not good in the grain market business? We evolved immensely in agriculture in the 60 or 70 years since the dawn of the wheat board. What we are trying to do is to drag the wheat board and proponents of same kicking and screaming into the 21st century in a marketing system that answers the requirements, in fact the demands, of the producers.

I wish I could think of the member's riding. The member for Qu'Appelle likes to say these groups support the inclusion. Let us have a look. The National Farmers Union, the National Foundation and three others we have listed here.

Mr. Speaker, because of time constraints I have 12 groups of people listed here; Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association, Winnipeg Commodity Exchange, Canadian Oilseed Processors Association, Alberta Canola Producers, Saskatchewan Canola Growers Association, Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Western Barley Growers Association, Alberta Winter Wheat Producers Commission, Oat Producers Association of Alberta, Flax Growers Western Canada, Manitoba Canola Growers Association and Canadian Canola Growers Association all are vigorously opposed to the inclusion. I think we will find certainly not the least of which should be added to that is the Reform Party of Canada.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans I believe has spoken in the debate. Is he rising on a point of order?

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I want to outline to the member opposite that the kind of competition he is talking about will be the same as Reformers running against Reformers in an election.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am afraid that the parliamentary secretary has an interesting point, but it is not a point of order.

Resuming debate the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all I have to wonder why the Liberal government is bound and determined to ram this legislation down the throats of western farmers? It does not represent the west. How many Liberal MPs come from the west?

We are here representing western farmers. Many of us are farmers and we are telling them plain as day we do not want this. We want the option. Why will they not give us a choice? Why can farmers not have the choice? Wouldn't that be good? Other marketing boards would spring up. There would be competition. The Canadian Wheat Board would be driven to get better prices, to find newer and better markets for farmers. Everybody would benefit. Why will they not understand that? Well I can tell you why. I see one Liberal member in the House.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Tempting as it may be, and I have experience at this I assure the hon. member, to refer to the presence of members, it is improper to refer to the absence of members. The way the hon. member is phrasing his remarks, he is clearly referring to the absence of certain members. I invite him to comply with the rules and refrain from making such suggestions.

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

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I am trying to draw attention to the fact that they do not care. They are not here engaging in the debate. It is sad to feel that we are here trying to tell them why the farmers are asking for changes to the act, but it is falling on deaf ears. It is falling on no ears.

The other thing I find interesting in the debate today is members of the NDP.

They insult me and make fun of me for saying that I am a farmer and for representing the farmers in my constituency. The member for Qu'Appelle who was going on and on in his Marxist-Leninist rant did not even run in the rural riding that represents farmers. He had to put his tail between his legs and go to Regina.

People who live in Regina also are going to be impacted by this because what hurts farmers hurts every community in Saskatchewan and everyone in western Canada.

[An hon. member]

—Marxist-Leninist.

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

They continue to insult me when I stand up and attempt to defend the right of farmers to have a wheat board that they can participate in when they want, to have a wheat board that they can be elected to, to have a wheat board that is accountable to them and that they can be represented by and not a wheat board that is run by Ottawa under the dictates of Ottawa from Ottawa politicians.

How about having farmers run the Canadian Wheat Board and have farmers determine what is best for them? Why force that upon anybody?

There is the idea of an inclusion clause. We grow a lot of canola on our farm. What right does anybody have to tell me where I can sell it? What right does anybody have to do that to me?

However, if canola is grown in Ontario, that is okay. That will not apply. They will be able to market it wherever they want. If we apply the inclusion clause to canola in the west, then I am going to be bound to that.

I say—they can insult me all they want—on behalf of all farmers, we do not want that. How much clearer can a guy be?

[An hon. member]

What about the barley vote?

[An hon. member]

Say it slow for him over there.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to correct the member. He has given the impression to the House that I was suggesting or making fun of farmers.

In actuality, I have the utmost respect—

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. I think the hon. member recognizes that her point of order, while interesting, is really a point of debate. Resuming debate.

I think hon. members must realize that remarks are not intended to be personal to hon. members. I hope they are not taken as such in a debate of this kind.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to agreement made yesterday, all questions on the motions in Group No. 2 are deemed put and the recorded divisions are deemed requested and deemed deferred.

The House will now proceed to the debate on the Motions in Group No. 4.

Pursuant to the agreement concluded on November 19, 1997, all motions in Group No. 4 are deemed to have been moved and seconded.

This group contains Motions Nos. 4 to 19.

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

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-4, in Clause 3, be amended

(a) by replacing lines 7 to 14 on page 3 with the following:

“3.02 (1) The directors are elected in accordance with section 3.06 to 3.08 and the regulations. The president shall be appointed by the board.”

(b) by deleting lines 15 to 17 on page 3.

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-4, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 18 and 19 on page 5 with the following:

“pleasure for the term that the board of directors may determine.”

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

moved:

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-4, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 7 to 14 on page 3 with the following:

“3.02(1) Fifteen directors are elected in accordance with sections 3.06 to 3.08 and the regulations. The president shall be appointed by the board in consultation with the Minister.”

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-4, in Clause 3, be amended by deleting lines 22 to 24 on page 3.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-4, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 22 to 24 on page 4 with the following:

“(e) the manner in which the board, in consultation with the Minister, may decide to remove the president and the manner in which the board, in consultation with the Minister, may implement a decision to remove the president.”

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-4, in Clause 3, be amended

(a) by adding after line 33 on page 4 the following:

“(2) Producers shall be eligible for votes based on the following levels of production:

For the purposes of this Act, 1 tonne of grain is defined as 1 tonne of wheat or 1.5 tonnes of barley. A producer will be eligible for 1 vote if they grow or market a minimum of 50 tonnes of grain in a given year. This information will be obtained from permit book records or in a signed affidavit submitted by the producer.”

(b) by replacing line 34 on page 4 with the following:

“—(3) After the date referred to in section 3.08,”

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-4, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 35 to 40 on page 4 with the following:

“the board, in consultation with the Minister, shall make regulations respecting the election of directors, including geographical representation on the board and the staggering of the terms of office of directors.”

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-4, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 41 to 45 on page 4 with the following:

“3.07 After the date referred to in section 3.08, the board, in consultation with the Minister, shall determine the proper conduct and supervision of an election of directors, including”

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-4, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 18 and 19 on page 5 with the following:

“the pleasure of the board of directors for such term that the board of directors may determine.”

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-4, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after line 35 on page 5 with the following:

“(2) The president shall implement measures to include the Canadian Wheat Board as a signatory to the International Code of Ethics for Canadian Business, no later than six months following the first election of the Board of Directors.”

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-4, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing lines 36 to 41 on page 5 with the following:

“(3) If the president is absent or unable to act or the office of president is vacant, the board of directors, in consultation with the Minister, may appoint an interim president. An interim president shall not act for more than ninety days, unless approved by the board.”

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-4, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 5 on page 6 with the following:

“view to the best interests of producers;”

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-4, in Clause 3, be amended by adding after line 9 on page 6 the following:

“(c) comply with guidelines as established by the International Code of Ethics for Canadian Business.”

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

moved:

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-4, in Clause 3, be amended by replacing line 14 on page 3 with the following:

“sultation with the other directors, and following the approval of the committee of the House of Commons that normally considers matters relating to agriculture.”