Debates of Feb. 12th, 1998

Division No. 72

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with group 6 amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act and there are a total of six amendments here. Our party has proposed three of them and I would like to deal with them in some detail in the few minutes I have.

Amendment 35, regarding the pooling period, maintains the wheat board's pool account for the entire year, rather than having it broken down into shorter periods of time which is one of the proposals in Bill C-4.

The proposal, we believe, to shorten the pooling period is linked to cash buying, that is obvious, and other tools which are alleged by the minister responsible to make the board more flexible. We do not believe it would make the board more flexible, but we are sure that the long run result will be to undermine farmer confidence in the board and thus weaken the board in the long run.

Amendment 36 concerns the federal government guarantees.

This amendment, in the spirit of an earlier one, serves to maintain the government as the guarantor for the board rather than having the board set up a contingency fund to perform that task. I referred to that earlier when we were dealing with group 5 amendments.

Motion No. 39 is our other amendment regarding cash buying. I would like to spend a little more time going through what our hopes and expectations are in that regard.

Motion No. 39 is the amendment that would remove the current proposal in Bill C-4 to have the wheat board make cash purchases of grain. Bill C-4 does many things to undermine, we believe, the Canadian Wheat Board but nothing in the bill is more damaging than the proposal for cash buying. The wheat board has long had a practice of buying grain from farmers at announced prices and distributing profits to all producers on an equitable basis.

Now, under the proposals before us, in the brief time that has been allotted by the government, the wheat board will be able to buy grain from anyone, anywhere, at any time and at any price. We are absolutely convinced that this will totally destroy a fundamental pillar of the wheat board and it will undermine farmer confidence in it forever.

The proposals for cash buying are linked to other damaging proposals in Bill C-4. The contingency fund is one and the proposal to shorten the pooling period or have several pooling periods on a 12 month basis, which has been talked about before, is another.

As I noted, the Reform Party would have us go beyond even the weakening of these two pillars by attempting to destroy the third pillar which is the single desk selling via the dual marketing proposal.

Who is opposed to cash buying? The previous speaker was saying how many people have become involved in this and come together. The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool does not think that cash buying makes a lot of sense in this plan. I remind viewers and members that the wheat pool in Saskatchewan is the largest grain buying organization in Canada. The sister pools in Manitoba and Alberta are also opposed. They are joined by many other groups, including the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities and the National Farmers Union.

Those are our comments on group 6. We want to leave the indelible impression that we are very much opposed and say no to cash buying.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know why you should be so lucky or have the luck of the draw to be able to listen to my pearls of wisdom on this bill, but it seems you are always in the House when I get up to speak. Congratulations, Mr. Speaker.

I am extremely disappointed with the motion passed earlier today effectively stopping the democratic voice of not only parliamentarians but the numbers of producers this legislation will affect.

When I came to this House a raw rookie not that many months ago I expected that I would have the opportunity to put forward the views of not only my constituents but constituents who are affected by this legislation. Now I find that the government has decided that the voices of parliamentarians should not be heard and that the voices of western Canadian producers should not be heard. It seems there is an obvious move afoot to have a piece of legislation put through this House without forethought and, quite frankly, the understanding as to how the clauses in this legislation will affect those very producers we represent.

I have put forward an amendment in Group No. 6. Before I go through the amendment, I would like to say that there are a number of excellent amendments that have been put forward to the House but unfortunately they are not being listened to by the drafters of that legislation, the government of this country. In fact, if the government would listen, if it would understand the need for these amendments, I am sure it would appreciate that they should be implemented into this legislation.

On Group No. 6, I have put forward an amendment. I will read the amendment. It states that the corporation may enter into agreements with a producer at the beginning of the crop year authorizing the producer to market independently of the corporation a specified percentage of the wheat or barley produced by that producer in one crop year.

That speaks to options. It speaks to choice. I would like to emphatically state at this point that we are not opposed to the Canadian Wheat Board. That is not what the speakers before me or after me have said. I believe sincerely that the Canadian Wheat Board can compete effectively with other competition that is now in the marketplace.

As examples of that I put up the deregulation of utilities which has happened across this great country of ours in the past numbers of months, the deregulation of gas utilities, the deregulation of telephone utilities. I will give a brief glimpse into the future, the deregulation of hydro or the electricity industry that is going to come to this country. Those corporations did not wither and blow away into the wind. They worked harder to compete for the customer they were serving and have done so in a very efficient manner. It has produced efficiencies for the consumer or in this case it would produce efficiencies for the producer.

That is all we are saying. They can and should compete on the open market. The Canadian Wheat Board in my conservations with it will not even consider this particular tenet of what it should be looking at for the next number of years. Its head is stuck firmly in the sand and firmly with a monopoly situation. It is not going to happen.

With international trade, with the fact that the producers are not going to accept this piece of legislation, they are not going to be satisfied with what is put forward, there is still going to be substantial opposition to this legislation and to the Canadian Wheat Board.

Please, if there is one thing I can plead with the government and with the Canadian Wheat Board, it is put into place now what is necessary for the next year, two years or three years to make choices and options available.

My motion speaks specifically to that. It is a nice little segue into what is going to happen into the future. Let producers have a particular percentage of their product they can now sell on the open market on a cash basis, on a hedge basis, can go to the Chicago exchange and can hedge the type of cashflow they require in order to run their operations. A number of the amendments in this group speak to that very thing which does speak to choice.

Not all the producers, and I accept that, necessarily want to have that choice. But what they would have is the ability still to go to the Canadian Wheat Board under the pillars they are still guaranteed under the Canadian Wheat Board. They then could pool their grain. They could get their initial payments the way they would like to and plan their future in their farming businesses from year to year.

Quite frankly, when it happened in the other utilities a number of those customers stayed with the original utility because there was loyalty, because they wanted to, because it was convenient, because it was simple. If those are the reasons why producers wish to remain with the Canadian Wheat Board, so be it, and let the Canadian Wheat Board compete on that basis.

By the way, I would suggest at that time that the Canadian Wheat Board be able to compete on other commodities, not simply barley and wheat. Let it openly compete with the other commodities at that time, the canola, the flax, the rye and the oats. That is fair. Fair competition is fair for everybody. Let it have that ability. Do not simply have a monopoly for two crops.

The motion put forward by the Reform Party speaks basically to the same amendment I have put forward, perhaps a bit more detailed. It does speak to certain percentages of hedging available to it but in essence what we are simply saying is please allow for the options to be made to the producer.

I would like to speak to NDP Motion No. 39. This motion is to delete the one clause I suppose that gives a little opportunity to producers in this piece of legislation, the cash purchases. Cash purchases have been in place for quite a substantial amount of time, have been used for barley in the past and have been very successful.

I would like to mention a couple of points with respect to my motion once again. There are countless examples of how marketing outside of a monopoly is good for economic efficiency. In the November 13 issue of the Western Producer , the Canadian Wheat Board's chief commissioner, Mr. Lorne Hehn, said: “The growing domestic feed demand and increasing production of malting quality barley probably means that within five to ten years there will not be enough surplus feed barley to operate a predictable export program under the Canadian Wheat Board”.

What is that saying? What it says is that barley is not even going to be needed to be marketed under the Canadian Wheat Board in five to ten years. By the way, I take exception to the five to ten years. I think it will be sooner than that. If Mr. Hehn thinks it is five to ten, he is again sadly mistaken in his forecasting for the Canadian Wheat Board. It is sooner than that. No longer will barley be required to be marketed under the board because there will not be any need to market barley. It is going to be used domestically and only here in Canada for feed.

In March 1996 there was a study on the economics of single desk selling of western Canadian grains by two Ph.D ag-economists, Mr. Carter and Mr. Lyons. They state that a driving force for much of the Canadian Wheat Board activity is equity in treatment of producers rather than economic efficiency among producers. This is self-explanatory.

When oats and barley were removed from the Canadian Wheat Board jurisdiction, the volume of barley and oats exports to the United States increased dramatically. Is this merely a fluke or a strong sign of the Canadian Wheat Board's inefficient marketing practices? Make the choice. If someone wants to market through the board they can. If they want to market on the open market they should be able to.

The truth is that following the removal of oats from the Canadian Wheat Board in 1989 farm gate prices for oats have risen relative to world market levels and marketing costs have fallen by about one-third. When oats were taken off the Canadian Wheat Board prices went up. People still market it through the private sector and their marketing costs have reduced.

I have talked to the people who grow this. I have talked to the people who have oats. They say they would not want to go back into that system.

The motion put forward by me with respect to some options, fairness and choice has to be listened to by this government because that is what the producers are saying. If they do not get it in this legislation they will get it in the next legislation that will be coming not too far in the distant future.

I do hope some of the amendments are listened to honestly, logically and openly by the government.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I live in a great farming community, as I am sure you know.

I am pleased to share some of the comments from the government side with regard to particularly the amendments in group 6 but some other comments as well.

First, I find it interesting that members opposite would stand and complain about what they referred to as closure. They know full well that time allocation is a necessary tool that any government uses.

[An hon. member]

Rubbish.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

This is not rubbish at all. I have experienced the kinds of delays and filibustering that can occur with members standing in their place in a democratic legislature reading a telephone book or some other kind of nonsense simply to stall the government's program.

I want to share and put on the record some of the time, when we talk about time allocation, that Bill C-4 has enjoyed. Its predecessor was Bill C-72. At second reading there were over two hours of debate in this place.

There were over 39 hours in committee. There was more time at report stage and an additional three and a half hours in the House. That was the predecessor to the bill which we are debating today. There was quite a bit of discussion on essentially the same bill and the same issue.

This bill was debated for over three hours at second reading. We should bear in mind that the predecessor to this bill was debated for 19 and three-quarter hours in committee in addition to the 39 hours. It was debated for several hours at report stage. There were over 11 and a half hours of debate in the House.

This bill is not about rocket science. This bill is fundamentally about democracy and the governance of special purpose bodies. I think the number of hours of debate in this place alone have been sufficient.

I categorically reject the comments by members opposite that there is heavy handedness or closure intended. Indeed we are allowing the opposition parties to put forth amendments. There has been substantial debate. Public hearings were held right across Canada, notably in western Canada where this legislation will have the greatest impact. The farmers will benefit dramatically from the changes which are being made to the governance of this body.

The changes which are being made to the governance will turn what is a cumbersome, old crown corporation, which we know has had some difficulty, into a mixed, modern type of system which will allow the farmers to appoint two-thirds of the directors to the board. How could it be more democratic?

If members opposite do not want western farmers to have that kind of democratic participation, maybe they should say so. I have some difficulty understanding how they could justify that position.

Indeed the government has listened to the farmers in western Canada. This has been an extremely democratic process. A lot of time has been spent on this issue both in the communities and in the House of Commons.

The amendments in Group No. 6 would lead to a reduction in the operating flexibility of the Canadian Wheat Board. That is exactly what this bill attempts to do. It will create flexibility in a new board. It will be able to elect its own chair, who will be elected by the farmers. It allows for democratic votes to take place in the farming community when certain products are being deleted or added. This is one of the most democratic processes I have ever seen in government.

Two of the proposed amendments would remove flexibility tools, namely shorter pool periods and cash buying authority. I cannot imagine why the Reform Party would want that to happen.

Other amendments would deny the wheat board the power to make adjustments to initial payments on its own authority. That is extremely important. It would reduce the ability of the wheat board to use funds from uncashed cheques for the benefit of all producers and to engage in cash trading.

Again I would ask members opposite why in the world they would want to restrict the wheat board. As many of them represent farmers in those communities, why would they not embrace this legislation? They should see it as an opportunity for democracy to occur in a special purpose body.

We have several of those bodies. We recently had a debate about changes to the ports legislation. Once again it is the same concept. It allows more local democracy. The principle is that the government which is closest to the people is the most efficient and best government. That is exactly what this bill will accomplish.

For those reasons we clearly cannot support these amendments.

The new flexibility tools are important provisions which must remain in the bill. These tools would allow the wheat board to offer producers alternative means of receiving payment. Again, why would we not want to offer those alternative means?

They would speed up cash flows, which is extremely important in any business, while retaining the benefits to producers of the CWB being a single desk seller. They would also allow the board to better manage its own risk. That is where we have seen the government trying to go in many areas to get better risk management in the hands of the operators on the ground and actually doing the work. We believe that would do exactly that.

The initiatives we are talking about are all enabling initiatives. They will or will not be used at the sole discretion of the board of directors. I remind members opposite once again that two-thirds of the board of directors will be appointed by farmers locally and five out of the fifteen will be established by the government.

It is important that the board be able to adjust initial payments quickly when market conditions make it appropriate to do so. That is one of the reasons flexibility is so important. It will help to get money in the hands of the producers as quickly as possible to attract deliveries of grain in a rising market.

It is a bit of the just in time mentality we see in business today. These modern changes will help them respond to those issues. If we were to adopt those amendments it will result in a slower process for getting money into the pockets of western Canadian grain producers.

What we are talking about and what they are trying to change is modernization of a system that will see—

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Rubbish.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

It is not rubbish. The gentleman opposite says it is. I would like him to defend why he would be against local autonomy, why he would be against grain farmers having the authority and the responsibility to run the wheat board, which has not happened under a crown corporation.

Without these changes we will leave farmers in western Canada working with an antiquated system that will restrict their cash flow, will restrict their ability to do business in the modern world and will restrict their flexibility to adjust to changing conditions.

I am sure it will be no surprise to members opposite that the government will not be supporting these amendments. It is not because we did not hear them. We heard them but we categorically reject them because we think they are bad for the farmers of western Canada.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my voice of condemnation to the move taken by the government today to stifle debate on the bill.

I take exception to the last speaker who said that this was not closure but was simply time allocation and that we have had a lot of time to discuss the bill. That is rubbish. It is a real flip-flop for him and his party to take that stance when a few short years ago they stood on this side and condemned the Conservatives over and over again for invoking closure.

When you and I were boys, Mr. Speaker, a period that many people would refer to as the old days, a mythical character rode the western plains on a white horse and shot silver bullets. Known as the Lone Ranger, this relentless crime buster divided his time between rescuing damsels in distress and bringing bad guys to justice.

Today another mythical character roams the Canadian plains. Known in Saskatchewan as the lone Liberal, his mission is to round up farmers who think they have the right to sell their own grain. Along with his trusty sidekick for comic relief, the Canadian Wheat Board, he brings to justice villainous farmers who think that if they can grow it they can sell it.

With the lone Liberal and the CWB in hot pursuit these criminals are dealt with, with due dispatch and without delay, while lesser law breakers like rapists and murderers are sternly admonished and sent home. Prairie farmers beware. The lone Liberal rides again and he knows where they live. He also knows where they park their trucks.

If the lone Liberal wonders why he is the only Liberal from Saskatchewan, all he has to do is look at his sidekick, the Canadian Wheat Board. By pushing the CWB agenda and not standing up for farmers, his compatriots were trounced in June. The heavy handed approach favoured by the lone Liberal will only mean that he will be the last Liberal from Saskatchewan.

Farmers are frustrated. They are fed up with the paternalistic approach of the government. Its primary goal is to control all facets of the lives of farmers. If anyone wonders why these farmers resort to border busting, the reason is that the government has made sure there is no option to the Canadian Wheat Board; it is the only game in town.

Farmers are self-employed only in the eyes of the tax man. In reality they are public servants without the benefits, without the salary and without the pension. The wheat board is like big brother, directing farmers on when to deliver the product and how much they will be paid: “Just bring it to us. It is none of your business what we get for it”.

Nowhere is the government's control fetish more evident than in its attempt to keep western farmers in line. For decades Liberals have been inventing ways to control the western economy. They did it in the national energy program. They are dying now to impose a carbon tax but in the interim they will settle for depriving western farmers of their property rights.

The bill even expands the board's control over wheat and barley to other grains, and to think the wheat board was set up as a temporary measure. Did we not hear that about income tax and the GST?

Failure to comply with this old soviet style state run monopoly results in a jail sentence. Farmers whose only crime is to try to get a fair price for their product are relentlessly pursued by the wheat police and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law by the government.

To make matters even worse, the board is now paying farmers less than the world price for grain. Compounding the problem is the fact that the board is so shrouded in secrecy that farmers cannot even determine how much less than the world price they are receiving.

Canadian taxpayers are on the hook for a $7 billion liability through the board, but the Canadian Wheat Board is not accountable to farmers or Canadian taxpayers. It is an unbelievable situation.

The advance billing for Bill C-4 predicted an enhanced accountability to farmers. Instead what we have before us today is a badly flawed initiative in which the Canadian Wheat Board is accountable only to its master, the minister, the lone Liberal.

The legislation continues to promote secrecy over accountability by ensuring the board escapes the scrutiny of the auditor general and exempts it, believe it or not, from the Access to Information Act.

Nobody is advocating that the wheat board should negotiate contracts in the media or in the public. We admit that. There has to be some secrecy to present day negotiations. The notion of commercial confidentiality may have some validity on current negotiations. But why is the government so opposed to releasing historic information? The only reason I can think of is that it may be trying to hide extravagant spending, bungling and mismanagement.

We know the Liberals love to brag. If they were proud of their record they would certainly want to tell us all about it. It appears that we will never know because the bill stifles the ability of the elected directors to represent the farmers who elected them.

How can directors act freely if they are bound by secrecy? By denying board members liability protection they will not be able to speak out and act on behalf of their farmer constituents. If the government thinks its problems will be over once Bill C-4 becomes law it is sadly mistaken. In fact the Canadian Wheat Board will become a target in international trade negotiations.

The changes to the Canadian Wheat Board Act before us today will not satisfy our trading competitors that the board is independent from the federal government. It will be nothing less than a monumental challenge to convince protectionist U.S. Congress members that the board does not have an unfair trading advantage.

If the government and the lone Liberal from Saskatchewan really want to empower farmers, they will accept the amendments proposed by my colleagues, the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River and the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville. It is high time for the Canadian Wheat Board to act in the best interest of farmers, not just of government.

I would certainly endorse Motion No. 37 in Group No. 6. It is not exactly what we had in mind, but it is a step in the correct direction. It would authorize a producer to market outside the Canadian Wheat Board a percentage of the wheat and barley produced by the producer in a crop year. This is the sort of thing we have been advocating all along.

Some people who like to spread misinformation about members of the Reform Party saying that it is the party that wants to knock the wheat board on the head; they want to kill it and do away with it completely. That is absolute rubbish. We have never advocated that. We have always advocated a dual marketing system. If the Canadian Wheat Board cannot operate without its state run monopoly, it must be as very poor organization.

Every one of us has to compete in our business life and in our political life. I think competition is good and so should the Canadian Wheat Board.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise with considerable interest to speak to Group No. 6. The aim of these amendments for the most part is to improve Bill C-4, which, we must admit, is a step in the right direction toward improving the Canadian Wheat Board.

When the Canadian Wheat Board was set up, its underlying principles were valid. At that time, we were in a period of full economic crisis, and grain producers were working hard for next to nothing. The wheat board was founded then, when it was needed. The effect of this was to raise prices and stabilize incomes, which were then very, very low. Times were tough.

While the bill is a step in the right direction, it could be a big step. It is a little step, because the three to five members on the previous board of directors were political appointments. When the Liberals were in government, they appointed their friends with very little regard, as we know, for the quality of their work. When we changed vehicles, from red to blue, the friends of the Conservatives were appointed. Here too, the appointments were very dubious.

This morning I drew a parallel with Senator Thompson who, a few years ago, was an excellent Liberal, but today is the shame of his party. They want to kick him out of the Senate as they did out of the Liberal caucus. Since he was appointed to age 75, they are stuck with their choice. That is what the Constitution says.

The bill is, then, a small step in the right direction, but it could be a medium step or a giant step. The opposition parties have brought in several motions, highly constructive suggestions for the most part.

My party, the Bloc Quebecois, for which I am the spokesperson on agricultural matters, proposed Motion No. 46, which would require the Canadian Wheat Board to give access to information. Those mainly responsible for the existence of this Canadian Wheat Board, the producers, could thus, using the very founding principles of the Access to Information Commission, verify whether the Board was being administered very well, well, badly or very badly.

I would remind the House that, year in and year out, wheat sales hover around the $6 billion mark, and are coming up to $7 billion. I have just been doing the math, for the fun of it. If, for example, the board makes a one one-hundredth of one percent error—one-hundredth of a percentage point is very little, one-hundredth of a penny is so little compared to a dollar, and we do not even bother to bend over to pick up a penny—that still represents a $600,000 error. That is significant. If the error is one one-thousandth, that represents $60,000.

The ten directors elected by the producers and the five appointed by the governor in council will, presumably, be highly competent of course. The CEO, who will be the only full time person, the one who will obviously call the tune for the Canadian Wheat Board, will be appointed by the Liberal Party. Let us face it, they are the ones in power today. So the CEO will certainly be a good Liberal, let me tell you, and will draw a nice comfortable salary, needless to say. If this president or CEO is out by a fraction as small as 1%, huge sums would be involved.

In the interests of transparency, we in the Bloc Quebecois are suggesting that grain producers or anyone, I or my neighbours in the riding, should be able to request an audit in order to have this board release documents.

I would remind you that, in Group No. 5, we learned that the auditor general would not have the opportunity or the right to go and audit the books and find out how well or badly the Canadian Wheat Board was being run. Sometimes I honestly wonder whether the Liberal government headed by the member for Saint-Maurice does not have some things it is trying to hide from grain producers. It is a question I ask myself, and I hope that a member of the government party will give me an answer after I have finished.

The trust of grain producers must be restored at all costs. This is essential. It is terrible the number of telephone calls, letters and faxes my office has received from western farmers, from western groups working tirelessly for the defence of grain producers. Unfortunately, as soon as it looks like farmers are going to get any control, the government hesitates, although farmers themselves are the ones who know how it should be run.

As an example—I am digressing briefly—there will be 15 members on the board of directors. In that sense, it is an improvement. Before, there were three, four or five at most, and they were all partisan appointments. People were told “We are sending you there”.

For example, if a prime minister wanted to get rid of a member of Parliament, he would appoint him to the Canadian Wheat Board, where that person would get a good salary and nice perks. A byelection would follow, and some friend of the prime minister would get elected and get a cabinet post or some other big job. It would now be a good thing to change things, restore the producers' trust.

This is a step in the right direction, since 10 of the 15 directors will be elected by farmers, who will vote by region. For example, grain producers in the Peace River area will vote for Mr. Y, who will become their representative. If he does not do a good job, he will be replaced the next time.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Or Mrs. Y.

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

Or Mrs. Y, of course.

The problem is with the position of chairperson.

I will conclude by discussing another motion, moved by the hon. member for Prince-George—Peace River, who is making a very interesting suggestion.

The bill currently provides that the already existing advisory committee may—it may, but all this is not clear—continue to exist. Motion No. 48 moved by the Reform Party member proposes to clearly state that the existing advisory committee will be dissolved.

The board will have 15 directors, compared to the three members currently sitting on the advisory committee. We agree with the Reform Party that having a board with 10 elected and five appointed directors would be enough. This is not to say we necessarily approve of the number 10 for elected directors. Personally, I would have proposed that all members be direct representatives of grain producers, and that they be elected through a general vote.

If the chairperson does not do a proper job, he will be let go at the end of his mandate, as was the case with the Conservative Party, in 1993, when only two board members were kept.

Mr. Speaker, I would like you, as Speaker of the House, to ask the Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture or, rather, the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, namely the Minister of Natural Resources, to take a close look at the many motions before us. These motions do not seek to weaken Bill C-4, but to improve it. After all, this legislation deals with sales of between $6 and $7 billion.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, what we are debating now is group 6, a grouping of amendments including three very progressive amendments moved by my colleague and next door neighbour, the member for Palliser.

I want to make very clear at the outset that I too object to the government's imposing closure on this very important piece of legislation for western Canadian farmers and indeed for all the country.

I am sure the government House leader understands that the Canadian Wheat Board is a very important institution, doing about $6 billion worth of business every year on behalf of western Canadian farmers. That $6 billion worth of business every year provides a tremendous spin-off to not just western Canadian farmers or western Canadians but to the nation as a whole. That is why this legislation should not be forced through the House with closure but that this House should be more receptive to accepting some of the progressive amendments that have been moved by members on the opposition side of the House.

I want to be very clear at the outset that our party has stood historically behind the concept of the Canadian Wheat Board.

We have had the wheat board now for roughly 60 years in this country. There was a real struggle back in the 1930s and the 1940s to fight for the creation of a Canadian wheat board that would market things collectively and operate as a single desk marketing agency for the farmers of western Canada.

I can remember the days when I was a kid and my grandfather telling about the struggles that people of his generation had in the 1920s, 1930s and early 1940s against the Winnipeg grain exchange and the Chicago futures market in terms of getting a decent price for the grain they were marketing to different parts of the world. After a long struggle and through all kinds of prairie popular movements, the creation of the Canadian Wheat Board occurred some 60 odd years ago.

Today there is a fight on the prairies once again about the very survival of the Canadian Wheat Board. Our party is firmly behind the wheat board. We want it democratized and as open and accountable to farmers as possible, but we want the wheat board to be expanded to include more grains so that it can market those grains for the farmers of western Canada.

What is the option? The option is to open up the market and allow the big grain companies like Cargill and others to market grain and reap the profits of the farmers of western Canada. That is the position taken by the Reform Party. It is trying to disguise that by saying it wants a dual marketing system, a double marketing system in this country.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

That's what farmers are saying.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

The farmers are not saying that. When there was a vote in western Canada on barley and the wheat board, the farmers said very clearly they wanted to maintain barley in the Canadian Wheat Board by about a 65% to 66% vote.

The Reform Party says it believes in democracy and a referenda. There was a referendum on that issue. The Alberta government intervened on the side of the open marketers I think with about a million dollars and, despite that, the producers turned it down almost two to one going into the open market. Has democracy spoken? Reform Party members should be listening to democracy, listening to their constituents and listening to their farmers if they believe in what they are saying to the people of this country.

I am sure that the member for Wild Rose, being a populist, would agree that we should listen to the farmers of western Canada and listen to the democratic choice those farmers have made in western Canada. He should come around to our ridings and hear what people are saying about keeping the Canadian Wheat Board.

Instead, what we are hearing from the Reform Party—and western Canadians watching should be aware of this—the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands said in the House a while back that the Canadian Wheat Board in this country compares to the old Soviet Union. What kind of extremism is that? Here is a party that is so extreme that it compares the Canadian Wheat Board, which is supported by Canadian farmers, the people in my riding, to the kind of institutions in the old Soviet Union. That is what the Reform Party is saying and it is on the record here in Hansard .

What does the member for Wild Rose say about that? Why does he not go wild on that one? That is what the Reform Party is saying.

If that was not enough, the member for Skeena, that great grain producing riding of Skeena, compared the Canadian Wheat Board to a police state. It has been a long time since I have heard that kind of extremism in the House of Commons.

The members of the Reform Party are getting very excited. I am afraid they are going to start rushing me. I have not had much training in boxing recently, but I hear those extreme voices being raised once again about jailing farmers. There are some farmers in a movement called farmers for just us who broke the Canadian law. They were found guilty by the courts in this country and here are the members of the Reform Party saying they want to stand up on behalf of law breakers. Again, the extremism in that party ought to be noted by ordinary people in this country. It is about time they were called to task on that.

Some of the farmers in farmers for just us have broken the law and members of the Reform Party stands four square behind them.

An important part of any parliamentary democracy is to listen to the people, and the people of western Canada have spoken very clearly, very succinctly and often on the need to keep the Canadian Wheat Board and single desk marketing and have that as an institution of economic good for the people of western Canada.

There was a referendum on that as it pertains to barley. The Reform Party lost that referendum. They pretended it did not exist. They do not listen to their constituents. In fact some of them should be recalled on this issue.

I would like to have a Reform Party member get up and tell us why they do not want to listen to the people. I believe the whip of the Reform Party is hanging his head in shame up there at the Chair because the Reform Party was not listening to the people of this country when they spoke so clearly in the barley referendum. I would like to have a Reform Party member get up and explain how they can do this, how they can not listen to what the people are saying.

The wheat board is a very important institution. The wheat board sells about $6 billion a year of grain. The profits are returned to the farmers, not to private investors. The wheat board is accountable to Parliament. The wheat board has its books audited independently by Deloitte & Touche. The wheat board is accountable. It is open. It is there for the farmers of western Canada yet the Reform Party is opposing the Canadian Wheat Board. I wonder why.

Let us look at who funds the Reform Party. Conrad Black. I do not know if he contributed to your campaign, Mr. Speaker, but he did not contribute to mine. He contributes to the Reform Party. Imasco, some of the big banks and believe it or not, the CPR. That is why the Reform Party is in opposition to the Canadian Wheat Board.

Just like the fights which occurred in the 1930s and 1940s with the far right in western Canada as they opposed orderly marketing, those fights are occurring again by these new radicals and new extremists who are taking a stand against orderly marketing in Canada.

The whip of the Reform Party is so ashamed, he is now across the House and is sitting with the Liberals. A few minutes ago he was hanging his head in shame, but now he is sitting with the Liberals, dissociating himself from the Reform caucus.

[Maurice Vellacott, Reform, Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member has this problem with staying on course and relevancy. He got beaten in Yorkton—Melville badly for not listening to his people. As a result, he does not stay on the subject.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I think the hon. member is discussing the Canadian Wheat Board Act which is what we have been debating here all day. He has some minutes remaining in his speech.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have been representing farmers in this House for some 26 years. I know what the farmers are saying in my riding and around Saskatchewan and around western Canada. They want a strong Canadian Wheat Board. They want Parliament to support that Canadian Wheat Board. Yes, they want it to be more accountable, they want it to be more democratic, but they want to keep the Canadian Wheat Board.

The real debate is whether or not that wheat board continues to exist. The Reform Party will destroy the Canadian Wheat Board. They will set up a dual marketing system. They will destroy the Canadian Wheat Board.

They have had members in this House that have compared the Canadian Wheat Board to a police state. The member for Skeena did that. The member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands was comparing the wheat board to the old Soviet Union. These are extremist statements. But that is exactly where the Reform Party stands. They are also not listening to the democratic will of western Canadians who voted very clearly to keep barley within the context of the Canadian Wheat Board.

So I say to them, why do they not listen to their constituents? Why do they not listen to what people are saying? If they did that, we would have a strong wheat board for the farmers of western Canada.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely astonishing to listen to that member from Saskatchewan rant and rave about how he is the great protector of the rights of Canadian farmers. Here is a member who fled from the rural ridings of Saskatchewan because his support was non existent. He fled to an urban riding to seek re-election. What did he care about the farmers? He wanted to go to the city so he could get himself another job.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order and it is a legitimate one. The member from the Reform Party is geographically challenged. The riding of Qu'Appelle is one-half rural and one-half in the city.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sure all hon. members are happy to learn the demographics of the hon. member's riding, but I am afraid it is not a point of order.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite likely the hon. member's thinking is one-half in the mud and one-half in the sand. There is no doubt about that.

We have heard the member talk about this glorious wheat board, a wheat board that is determined to shackle the efforts of Canadian farmers. That is the philosophy of communism where the state is in control of everything. I am not surprised that it is coming from that member from Saskatchewan, a disciple of the socialist communist philosophy.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There are times when members get carried away. I would like to ask the member to withdraw that. He said I am a disciple of the communist philosophy. I am not. I never have been. I have always been critical of that. I would like him to withdraw that comment.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am not sure that what the hon. member said or what is objected to is necessarily unparliamentary. I am unaware of a precedent that would rule it is an unparliamentary term. If the hon. member could assist the Chair later with that, I would be glad to do it.

I know that hon. members generally would prefer to continue their remarks in a temperate vein and I would urge that.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member is not listening to what the Reform Party has said because he chooses not to. He chooses to keep his head in the sand and not listen to a new way of doing things.

It is a way of doing things which we believe would free the farmers from the oppressiveness of the Canadian Wheat Board. It would free the farmers from the dictatorship of the Canadian Wheat Board. It would free the farmers from the corruptness of the Canadian Wheat Board, free the farmers from the mismanagement of the Canadian Wheat Board and free the farmers from the influence of the Liberal friends of the Canadian Wheat Board.

[An hon. member]

What corruptness?