Debates of Feb. 12th, 1998

Canadian Wheat Board Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that leniency. I did not realize I had that much time but I can certainly spend that much time speaking to this very important piece of legislation.

It is nice to see members of the committee on the government side still in the House, obviously listening to some of the more proactive amendments that have gone forward.

As I mentioned on this particular group of motions, the major issue that is being dealt with here is the inclusion clause that has been put into this piece of legislation.

In Bill C-72, when it was tabled prior to the election, there was no mention of any inclusion, the inclusion clause being that of canola, flax, rye and oats. We were told in committee after Bill C-4 came back and this inclusion clause appeared mysteriously in the legislation, that when the committee went throughout the country on Bill C-72 it had heard from hundreds and hundreds people who wanted to come forward and have the opportunity to include these other clauses as a single desk seller on the Canadian Wheat Board.

Well, surprise, surprise. When we sat in committee and dealt with Bill C-4, very few of those hundreds of individuals who wanted inclusion came forward. As a matter of fact the majority of the people who came forward to committee spoke totally in opposition to this particular clause, that of inclusion.

There were some individuals who did suggest that inclusion was fine, but almost all of those individuals and organizations who came forward spoke totally in opposition to inclusion. Let me give some names.

The canola growers. These are the same producers that this government suggests it is going to represent, that the Canadian Wheat Board represents the producers of western Canada. These are the same producers that came forward and said emphatically that they did not want to be part of the board with this particular commodity. They said that canola should be out of the board with no option at all of having it put in. These are the same producers that this government says it is trying to represent and have represented on the Canadian Wheat Board.

My most serious concern is with the loss of industrial opportunities in this country because of this inclusion clause. That comes specifically from the canola processors. They were in front of the committee and they said again emphatically “If we are to invest industrially in western Canada, why would we do it when our raw material could be jeopardized?” Just the simple fact that the word canola is in this particular legislation will scare investment out of our country. That is not scaremongering, it is fact.

I have talked to the chief executive officers of these corporations which I assume members of the government have not done. B.C.O. said “Why would we invest tens of millions of dollars into a commodity that we may not have access to if in fact this legislation goes through?”

Our area of western Manitoba and western Canada depend on this type of industrial job creation. If we do not have the ability to develop our own markets and our own raw material, then we will not develop those jobs.

The flax producers also came before the committee. They do not want flax put in as an opportunity of inclusion into the legislation. The same producers that this government says they want to represent are saying “Do not represent us. Get it out of the legislation”.

The oats producers also came forward. In fact oats used to be a commodity under the Canadian Wheat Board. It was a single desk seller. It was taken out of the wheat board's jurisdiction and surprise, surprise, they do not want back in. They say that since oats has been taken out, their value has increased in that commodity, that in fact it has reached world markets, that in fact its marketing costs have dropped by about a third from the point when they were in the Canadian Wheat Board.

The same producers that this government says they want to represent in the Canadian Wheat Board do not want to be represented.

If the government is going to go forward and pass this legislation with respect to the Canadian Wheat Board with wheat and with barley, my plea if you will, is please do not extend that to other commodities. We do not want it. The producers do not want it. We do not know who wants it quite frankly, perhaps with the exception of one hon. member on the government side who is going to destroy the wheat board with this type of clause.

Another organization has some serious concerns and it came to committee. That organization is the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange. The Winnipeg Commodity Exchange deals in canola futures. If it were a single desk seller, those canola futures would not be available to the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange. That organization has substantial employment in the province of Manitoba and certainly develops a market for the canola product that is produced by western Canadian farmers.

We are having an excellent debate, if I can just share that, with the proponent of inclusion and everyone else who is opposed to inclusion, but perhaps there could be order.

When I approached this government, this minister and these individuals who are so bent on having the inclusion clause, the answer they gave me for having the inclusion clause was, first of all that everybody wants it, which they do not. Second was that if you have exclusion, then you have to have inclusion. Guess what. We would be more than happy to get rid of the exclusion clause with the Canadian Wheat Board to in fact achieve getting rid of the inclusion clause in this particular piece of legislation. There are no more other answers.

There was one more which was really ridiculous but I will share it. The other answer was, “Hon. member for Brandon—Souris, do not worry about it. It is never going to be triggered, it is never going to be enacted”. That was the answer I got back from members of the committee, “Do not worry about it. Inclusion is in the act but it is never going to happen”.

Guess what. If it is never going to happen, get it out of there. Do not leave the inclusion clause in. It is putting fear into the marketplace. That fear in the marketplace is going to have a dramatic impact on the industrial development not only of the crop itself for the producers but also for jobs that we can create in western Canada based on these crops, based on the value added of these crops. Just having it in there is a very scary situation.

I will pass my time on to others whom I know speak as passionately as I to this particular clause. If there is one amendment that the House listens to honestly, to all the people who have spoken, this is it. Make no mistake. The inclusion clause must be taken out of this legislation.

[David Iftody, Liberal, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today in the House and to join with my colleagues on both sides of the House to discuss this important piece of legislation.

I shared what I want to say with a couple of the Reform Party members outside the House this afternoon when we were discussing this. My interest in this bill of course is as a rural member in Manitoba on behalf of the farmers there. It is also of particular importance because I shared with them my own family background where the Iftody family came to this country 100 years ago. This year we will be celebrating 100 years of being in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.

My ancestors came here as farmers. They were clearing the land as grain farmers. Those good people and their successive generations, like many immigrants from eastern Europe, cleared that land and planted primarily grain. That evolved to a much more sophisticated system but all of them will tell, if hon. members will listen on both sides of the House, of the changes that have occurred in the industry in the past 100 years.

They will tell, and some have told me, of the monopolies in the 1920s and 1930s of the large private grain companies that were gouging the farmers, controlling that process.

I find it absolutely surprising, strange and odd indeed that some of these members of Parliament are advocating a return to that place where invariably with the break-up of the wheat board we would have a companion, parallel process of monopolization with one grain company buying the other and buying the other until we are left with one or two large companies again in Canada competing against the small farmer whom these folks ostensibly are trying to protect.

That is the background to some of the comments I want to make on this. First, in the small business sector, or perhaps a farmer in a small farming operation, where would he or she today in the free market find an underwriter for exporting their product overseas? Some of the members have raised that question most recently about moneys owed to Poland, Russia or Asia because they need forward financing in order to buy the grain. Who would do that? Would the farmers be expected to pay the premiums on that and the risk of exporting in insurance as other manufacturers? Who would cover that? We have not talked about that.

We have a guarantee of $6 billion by the Government of Canada for the Canadian farmers. I think that is significant.

The Export Development Corporation, for example, does provide insurance policies as well for farmers who are exporting. Even in my own riding, if they are shipping overseas they do not know whether that receipt will come back void, that the company has shut down and they will lose that shipment. They need those guarantees. They are well placed companies, some of them doing $55 million or $100 million worth of exports. They need that insurance. They seek that insurance. It is provided through instruments of the Government of Canada.

With respect to the democratic process of the election of the board members, I cannot understand how it is, after the whole history of the wheat board and talking to farmers in Manitoba, grandfathers, sons and daughters who have farmed, that somebody would argue that for the first time in history we would allow and elect 66% of the members of that board, freely and duly elected, by the farmers. This is the first time. Yet we have opposition to that. We have members of parliament who will stand in this House and vote against that democratic process and that principle. I find that really puzzling and troubling. This is a historic moment.

For the first time these farmers lobbying in the coffee shops in my riding of Provencher, for example, will have the opportunity to talk to their colleagues about their plans for the marketing of grain in Canada, outside of Canada, to the U.S., to the Asian markets, and they will seek the approval of their peers. They will lobby and they will put their ideas forward in Alberta, in Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

If they have the guarantee of those people and have the confidence of their brother and sister farmers they will get that vote. They will get that vote and they will become a board member. How can anyone argue against that?

There is now emerging a charter challenge against the wheat board under the rights and freedoms. The Prime Minister of Canada, at that time the minister of justice, brought in the charter of rights and freedoms. He argued for it in the House of Commons. The very people now who want to use that were arguing against the charter. They did not want the charter. They were arguing for the notwithstanding clause in the charter which eventually they got. The notwithstanding clause in the charter generally says that any rights that may be abridged or abrogated in the charter, notwithstanding the collective good, may be overridden. What some of the members are forgetting to discuss is the larger question of the collective good.

I found it curious that they would apply to the human rights commission to invoke the charter of rights and freedoms to be able to accomplish we do not know what, but a charter of rights and freedoms that they attacked in 1980, in 1983 and that they continue to attack today. I find that puzzling indeed.

There has been some discussion about the inclusion clause. I too have some concerns about it. My bottom line for the farmers in my riding of Provencher is that I want them to prosper, I want them to do well, I want them to have a fuller say in the marketing of their grain, but we look at it in the long term.

Everyone is talking about the spot market and rushing over the border with a load of grain. We saw what happened in the Durham wheat question when our farmers were bringing grain over into Montana. There were almost fist fights at the local elevator prompting them to go to their congressmen and senators. Then they imposed an arbitrary cap on the kind and amount of wheat we could send to the U.S. Is it not logical and clear to some of the members in the House? How long do they think we will ship our grain over with our trucks to the U.S. before the American farmers are on the phone to their local politicians? Do we want to be beholden to them? I do not think so.

I do not argue that we do not need changes to the wheat board. We need some fundamental changes to the wheat board. It must be responsive to Canadian farmers. I asked and requested it to be responsive to the farmers in my riding. To suggest that we blow it open and disband it and put it in the hands of a short term interest is not wise and it is not prudent. Ultimately it would hurt farmers.

I do have some concerns with the inclusion clause. I share some of the views of my colleague from Brandon—Souris. I appreciate his views. I too met with a number of people to discuss this.

I met with canola growers. I met with western wheat growers following their meeting with the hon. member I had mentioned. They said to me that they would support the bill if the inclusion clause were removed. They said they would support the bill.

I said I will meet you half way if you give me a letter stating that is a public position of yours. I would take it to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and to the Prime Minister and say look, we have some movement here. I am still waiting for the letter. I was hoping to have received it today. I have not received the letter and the member for Brandon—Souris said that if there were some changes, he would support the bill.

I think there is still some area for discussion here. But the bottom line is this. With the underpinning of the 66% of the board and the members having control over that process, how would it be possible that they would violate the will of the farmers they are ostensibly elected to represent and they would include something in the board, canola for example, without the approval of those farmers? I think it is inconceivable. It cannot happen.

The member was asking those rhetorical questions. Could it happen? I think very unlikely. It is a safety measure, but you cannot look at these structural changes in one year, three year. We talk about five year and ten year corporate plans. In something this important to western Canada, we need a 25 year plan.

In summary, I think we can support the basic intent and spirit of this bill, which is to bring a democratic reform to the Canadian Wheat Board, that regular farmers, men and women, can sit on that board and make long term decisions which are in their best interests and in the best interests of their children.

[Reed Elley, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is sort of a miracle, in view of the fact that the government over there has once again put time allocation on the free speech of members of Parliament representing their constituents, that I am able to speak at all. I like to participate in miracles. I am glad to have this opportunity to speak.

I live on a dairy farm. It is not a western grain producing farm but it depends very much on the free movement of western produced grain. I have some idea of what farmers across western Canada are facing.

It is a privilege to speak during this report stage of Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board.

I want to at least give the government a bit of credit for being consistent. This legislation was flawed in the last session as Bill C-72 and is still flawed. Perhaps one of the biggest shortcomings is that the legislation will not bring about voluntary participation in the Canadian Wheat Board. This means farmers still will not have the freedom to choose how they want to market their grain.

Bill C-4 gives Canadian wheat farmers no options. Thousands of farmers have told the government they are not happy with the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly. These farmers want the right to market their product themselves and Bill C-4 simply ignores those demands.

Like so many initiatives by this Liberal government, it is window dressing. Bill C-4 is a poor attempt by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to make it appear as though it is responding to farmer demands for change. By doing so and by effectively doing nothing, it has dodged the real issue of marketing options, and the minister's attempts to placate producers with this legislation could backfire.

The Canadian Wheat Board's grip on the sale of wheat and barley is an extremely controversial and divisive issue among Canadian wheat farmers. Yet the government fails to recognize that this controversy will not simply go away. As a result, farmers on both sides of the issue are growing increasingly frustrated because the minister will not deal with the situation.

The minister has adopted a zero sum approach in this matter, an all or nothing attitude. Instead of establishing mechanisms which would allow farmers to choose how their grain will be sold, the exclusion and inclusion clauses in the bill leave no room for compromise. These clauses mean that various grain producing groups could eventually vote to have their product included in or excluded from the Canadian Wheat Board. This means that a particular grain product is either in or out. There is no middle ground for farmers who are on the losing end of a vote concerning the inclusion or exclusion of a particular grain product. Far from preserving the Canadian Wheat Board, this situation could ultimately destroy it as one producer group after another chooses to get out from under its thumb.

These concerns are not new to the Liberals. Nor are they without merit. In fact the government ignored recommendations from its own western grain marketing panel. In July 1996, after a year long study, the panel told the government that the Canadian Wheat Board should operate more like a private company.

It went on to say that the board's monopoly on the sale of wheat should be reduced and that its monopoly on export feed barley should be ended. Yet, with an all or nothing display, the plebiscite that the minister finally permitted for barley growers early this year gave farmers little choice.

Basically they were asked “Do you want to go or stay with the Canadian Wheat Board?” There was nothing in between. What kind of choice is that? The plebiscite charade has left farmers more frustrated than ever.

We know how dangerous it is for governments or government agencies to try to settle issues by wording questions that influence the outcome. We saw that in the latest of Quebec's never ending referenda. The point here is that attempting to influence the outcome never helps to settle the issue. It just makes it worse.

Bill C-4 would allow for the election of 10 members to the new board of directors. However, this is not enough, as a fully elected board of directors is necessary if the voice of farmers is truly to be heard.

For example, if just three elected directors were to shift their vote to align with the five government appointed members of the board, the majority of directors elected by the farmers would find themselves outvoted. So much for democracy.

The ability of the directors to represent the farmers who elected them is in doubt. That is one of the reasons I fully support Motions Nos. 42 and 43 to this flawed bill.

Just like CSIS, Canada's secretive spy agency, the Canadian Wheat Board does not have to answer to the Access to Information Act. It cannot be audited by the auditor general. How can the directors act freely if they are bound by this secrecy?

In addition, the directors would not hold ultimate authority over the Canadian Wheat Board. That is because the agriculture minister and the finance minister would.

In effect, the corporate plan, which includes all the businesses and activities of the Canadian Wheat Board, as well as its annual borrowing plan, would have to be approved by the Minister of Finance. This means that even though the Canadian Wheat Board would no longer officially be a crown corporation, the federal government's grip would actually be tighter from a financial point of view.

The directors could also be denied liability protection if they were to speak and act freely on behalf of farmers. Directors would only be covered for liability if they acted in the best interest of the corporation. This creates an automatic conflict of interest as any instructions given to the Canadian Wheat Board by the federal government are defined as being in the best interest of the corporation.

If a director does not follow government directives, will they be held liable for not acting in the best interests of the corporation? I would suggest that there are some serious consequences which the government has failed to address in the bill.

The bill would also mean that a province planning to make changes demanded by a majority of its farmers is out of luck. Bill C-4 is binding on the provinces. Because this is the case, the federal government should have consulted with the provinces on the reform of the Canadian Wheat Board. This was not done and the Liberals charged ahead on their own. The message from the federal government clearly says “Forget it. We are in charge here”.

In addition, the Canadian Wheat Board is being left wide open as a target in international trade negotiations. This legislation will not satisfy our trading partners that the Canadian Wheat Board is independent from the federal government. This is significant because countries like the U.S. are pointing out that the Canadian Wheat Board, with the large degree of involvement and control by the federal government, gives Canada an unfair trading advantage. This will make the Canadian Wheat Board a target during the next round of trade negotiations at the World Trade Organization.

Is this the best the Liberals could come up with? There are approximately 110,000 grain farmers in the prairie provinces and parts of British Columbia. The Canadian Wheat Board controls $5 billion in sales annually. Even with the significance of these numbers it is hard to believe that the government has simply introduced this recycled legislation.

It is not just Reform MPs who are opposed to the legislation. As I mentioned earlier a majority of grain producer groups oppose Bill C-4. In fact they have been busy since the House last debated the legislation. The coalition against Bill C-4 has continued to pressure the agriculture minister to take the opposition amendments seriously. The list of member groups opposed to the legislation includes, to name only a few, the Canadian Canola Growers Association, the Flax Growers of Western Canada, the Western Barley Growers Association, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association. How much more does the government want?

As well, almost 100 witnesses stood before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food to comment on its predecessor, Bill C-72. Virtually all farm groups appearing told the committee that this was a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation.

What has the government done? In one word, nothing. Like so many other Liberal promises the government's legislation is similar: long on style but short on substance.

In conclusion I want to serve notice that I will not be supporting this piece of government legislation. I further urge members on both sides of the House to vote against Bill C-4 at third reading. It is clear the government has been consistently wrong on how to best address the needs of Canadian wheat farmers, and this bill is no exception.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to take part in the debate today on Bill C-4 at report stage, specifically on the matter of inclusion.

Before I start to address my remarks to that section, I want to register as loudly as I can my very strong disapproval for the government using closure or time allocation to kill debate on the bill.

It is absolutely shameful the Liberals have done this. They were the biggest group arguing against Brian Mulroney's use of closure in the 34th parliament. It was shameful that Mulroney used closure as much as he did. But guess what happens when the Liberals are in power? They up the ante and even use it more often.

On an item that is so important to the Canadian farmers we see Liberals using closure to close down the debate which is very consistent with the way the minister and the government have handled the issue in the last number of years I have been in parliament.

I think we need a bit of history about this debate. I want to put on record that my family and I have a 2,000 acre grain farm in Alberta. We are under the Canadian Wheat Board area, unlike the member for Malpeque who has influenced the debate so much with the inclusion clause. We are not growing potatoes in Prince Edward Island. We are under the Canadian Wheat Board area so we know firsthand what the effects are.

There has been a growing mood over the last 15 years or so for people to want a choice on how they market their grain. I know some constituents want to continue to use the Canadian Wheat Board to average their prices and accept the pooling method. I respect the choice that they want to make.

I am hearing more and more people saying that they do not want to be part of that system. They want to market their own grain. That rush of people is growing more and more as the government mishandles this piece of legislation.

What is the debate all about? I believe it should be about a matter of choice. It was interesting when the member for Provencher talked about eastern Europeans who really settled the land in Manitoba where he is from. A lot of people came to Canada, farmed and opened up the west. What were they coming here for? They were coming for new opportunity. They were coming so they could have some choice in what they did, not to be under the socialist system of eastern Europe.

Is it not ironic that the people who are trying to support the idea of maintaining the Canadian Wheat Board and its monopoly are largely coming from the board members themselves and the advisory group? What does that tell us?

At a time when eastern Europe went through dramatic changes socialist countries with failed policy, especially in agriculture, were breaking down the barriers, realizing that a market economy was the way to go, and moving to a market economy. At the same time a country like Canada with its Liberal government is moving to strengthen its monopoly over more crops grown by farmers for the Canadian Wheat Board.

Something happened. The communist countries and Canada passed in the night a few years ago. It is a failed policy in Europe. Why would it not be a failed policy here?

We have seen the special panel hand picked by the minister to review what was happening in terms of what farmers wanted on grain marketing. He did not do it willingly. There was a lot of pressure on him to make changes. His response was to hand pick this panel. I think his former campaign manager was the chair.

The panel members travelled across western Canada, determined that they would hold on to the wheat board monopoly. The evidence from farmers was compelling. They said “I do not want that. It is fine if my neighbour does, but give us a choice”. I attended some of those hearings and the percentage of people who said that was overwhelming.

The panel had to write a report that reflected what it was hearing across the country. Did the minister of agriculture at the time listen to his own hand picked panel? He never even met with the panel. After a year of study and travel around western Canada and a couple of million dollars of taxpayers' money the minister does not even read the report because he hears that the panel is recommending that farmers want choice.

What kind of government do we have? A monopoly situation, state controlled. Does that not remind us of something we used to hear about in communist countries?

What did we hear from the farmers who attended the hearings? I was at many of them. I heard that they wanted choice. I heard that they are not able to plan properly. They have high input costs. It is a big business these days. On our farm machinery costs are probably half a million dollars. They need to know what prices are for their product. The farmers who are doing well are bypassing the Canadian Wheat Board because it is not reflecting their concerns. They are bypassing the Canadian Wheat Board because the board does not provide them with the options they need.

Modern farmers are now growing crops which the board does not handle. If this board is left in place I predict that the amount of grain it will handle will continue to go down.

The special panel made a report which the minister did not like. He took his own survey and said that there was overwhelming support for the board. Then he instituted Bill C-72.

Then the agriculture committee travelled across the country and listened to farmers. The member for Malpeque was a member of that committee. I attended many of those hearings as well. Farmers were saying that they wanted choice. Some farmers on the other side of the issue wanted to keep the Canadian Wheat Board in tact to market their grain. They said “Don't touch it. Leave it as it is”. I respect that opinion.

Younger farmers said they wanted a choice. There were the growing number of people who were making presentations. I never heard anybody say they wanted more crops included under the Canadian Wheat Board mandate.

When Bill C-72 died and the sphinx that rose from the ashes of it became Bill C-4, all of a sudden there was an inclusion clause. Crops were included that were not previously under the board: flax, rye, canola and peas. They can now be included. It was a red herring floated by the member for Malpeque, but it suddenly took on a life of its own and now it is in Bill C-4.

Farmers are not happy. Farmers walked out on the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board about three weeks ago at hearings in Regina. They will not accept this.

We have to wonder who wants this monopoly power and why they want the monopoly to include more items than before. I suggest it is the Liberal government that needs to maintain control. I suggest the Liberals are faltering. They realize that the only way to keep this is to keep the lid on it and not give the auditor general power to audit the books of the Canadian Wheat Board, as we requested, and not to let us have access to information in the Canadian Wheat Board.

Ninety-nine per cent of the Canadian economy runs on a market economy. There are some exceptions such as power companies that have control because they are the only supplier. But then we put in things like public utilities boards to look after the public's interest and have hearings before they can have rate increases.

On the other side for farmers, what do we have? We have the Canadian Wheat Board and it says that any grain that is exported from Canada in wheat and barley has to go through the Canadian Wheat Board. Farmers cannot do it themselves. Supposedly they are not smart enough, I guess.

Yet we are able to sell our canola, our flax, our rye, our oats, our peas, our clover, our hay and livestock every day on the world markets, and farmers are doing fine. So what kind of a piece of legislation do we have here? It just does not make sense.

I do not see the member for Malpeque wanting the Canadian Wheat Board for potatoes. Why does it not include potatoes? Why does it not include Ontario? Why does it not include Quebec? No, western Canadian grain farmers have to have big brother government do it for them. Even worse, we are going to include more of your crops so you are not going to have the flexibility to be able to operate. It is absolutely shameful and it should be withdrawn.

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

Madam Speaker, I do welcome the opportunity to speak on group 7 motions of Bill C-4.

This section of motions especially relating to the inclusion clause seems to have provoked a lot of yelling from Reform members. Sadly, their yelling is based on scare tactics and misinformation. Their comments are generating a lot more heat than light on the subject at hand, Bill C-4, and what it will do for the farm community. In their efforts to mislead western farmers, some members opposite have attacked me personally and where I live and what I produce. They do so on the basis that they believe I authored the so-called inclusion clause.

The fact is I did not author the inclusion clause. Western Canadian farmers authored the inclusion clause through the hearings that we held in western Canada last spring. That is who authored the inclusion clause. They demanded choice in terms of putting other products under the Canadian Wheat Board.

Members opposite talked about the member for Peace River. He said he was at some hearings. Yes, I will admit I saw him at some hearings. I was at them all. The members of the previous standing committee on agriculture were at them all. We heard what individual after individual farmer had to say to us in terms of wanting to strengthen the Canadian Wheat Board by having the opportunity through a democratic process to put more products under it.

There is no question why the vast majority of farmers want to see the Canadian Wheat Board strengthened and expanded. It is easy to see why they have such great faith in the Canadian Wheat Board, and I will turn to the study by Kraft, Furtan and Tyrchniewicz on a performance evaluation of the Canadian Wheat Board. They conclude in their study: “The results show that Canadian Wheat Board marketing averaged an increase to the wheat pool account of $13.35 per tonne, or $265 million per year for the 14 year period over what would have been realized by multiple sellers”. That is a pretty good performance, and that is what farmers want to see more often.

They believe strongly in the Canadian Wheat Board principles, single desk selling, price pooling, guarantee of prices and guarantee on borrowings by the Government of Canada.

Contrary to what has been said, what the inclusion clause allows is an opportunity for farmers with no choice currently but the open market to look at another option, that of single desk selling.

I was not surprised at all when the Winnipeg commodity exchange came before the agriculture committee which I was at and attacked this bill strenuously. Of course it would attack it, because when the open market fails and the Winnipeg commodity exchange fails, it does not want farmers to have a choice to go another approach of marketing, which is single desk selling through the Canadian Wheat Board. That is the reality.

The member for Peace River has said this many times as did the member from Prince George earlier. I quote the member for Peace River: “There is a growing mood that people want choice”. He talked about choice many times, and that is what the inclusion clause does. It puts farmers in charge of their own destiny through a democratic process. It gives them the choice of another option in terms of marketing. That is what farmers demanded during our committee hearings.

I have been called a potato producer so many times, although I do not grow potatoes, because I happen to currently live in Prince Edward Island. This impression they are trying to leave is because I am a strong supporter of the Canadian Wheat Board. Because I do not live out west they think I do not know anything about it. I would like any Reform member opposite to stack up against my list of staying at homes in western Canada over a 17 year period in community after community in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and B.C. and talking to farmers around the kitchen table.

When I went out west, first as president and organizer of the National Farmers Union, I to ask in my own mind why people so strongly supported the Canadian Wheat Board. What was this instrument that they had such great faith in? They talked about the history of how the grain companies used to rip them off and how the Canadian Wheat Board has been part of their salvation in terms of being one of the paramount marketing institutions in the world today since its beginning in 1935.

As a result of this, I studied that extensively. I spent time in the Canadian Wheat Board offices. I spent time in farmers' homes and I believe very strongly that there is very strong support. Votes on the Canadian Wheat Board have shown that there is strong support for the Canadian Wheat Board.

I am very proud to stand in the House, having served for 11 years as president of an organization mainly centred in western Canada, in support of the inclusion clause going into Bill C-4. That is what farmers demanded and when farmers demand something this government tries to act on it and give them that choice.

I want to speak on one other motion, Motion No. 46, the access to information request. The amendment under Motion No. 46 would require the Canadian Wheat Board to reveal far more information about its business transactions than does any of its competitors. The obligation to disclose commercially sensitive information would place the Canadian Wheat Board at a disadvantage when it negotiates contracts with international buyers.

Under this bill, the new board of directors will have access to any and all information it wishes to see concerning the Canadian Wheat Board operations and sales contracts.

There are other government operations that are not subject to the Access to Information Act. The Export Development Corporation, which is also involved in international trade, is an example. Producer elected directors will be able to decide what information could be released to producers without compromising Canadian Wheat Board operations.

I would like to point out that the Canadian Wheat Board has not been secretive. In fact, it has been very open. The Canadian Wheat Board is currently engaged in its annual grain day meetings where the commissionaires of the wheat board travel to towns across western Canada to meet with and answer the questions of farmers. The Canadian Wheat Board has a 1-800 service to answer farmers' questions. It issues a detailed audited annual report which is second to none. In fact, I asked at committee if we could such see a detailed audited annual report of the Reform Party. I have not seen that come forward yet. It is one of the most open annual reports of any organization. It has opened its books up completely to independent academics so they could evaluate the board's performance.

The farmer elected advisory committee members also have access to Canadian Wheat Board information.

[An hon. member]

Why do they not all support Bill C-4?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

The member asks why all the wheat board advisory members do not support Bill C-4. They all support the inclusion clause. There is a little difference of opinion on the advisory board in terms of whether some of the things in this bill would weaken the board.

The bottom line is that this bill, with the election of a board of directors and in offering more choice through the inclusion clause, puts farmers in charge of their own destiny. The party opposite should be supporting farmers' taking charge of their own destiny.

[Rob Anders, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I was not going to speak on this bill today, but when I heard some of the debate that was going on I felt implored to do so.

I used to work for the National Citizens Coalition. I talk to the people at home, because I realized they may be the only ones listening. I remember when Andy McMechan's wife would call us at the National Citizens Coalition and tell us about how her husband was in shackles and in jail because he tried to sell his wheat independently.

As a result, they were facing financial hardship. They were going to lose their family farm. She called in desperation to David Somerville and the rest of us at the National Citizens Coalition to ask us to help cover their bills. They faced thousands of dollars in fines. Their tractors and their trucks were seized. Her husband was in jail. She had no one to turn to for help, simply because her husband wanted to market his grain independently. There was no wheat board to turn to because the wheat board was enforcing the monopoly.

I have heard members opposite say they do not like monopolies. They think monopolies are bad. However, they support a monopoly which is state sanctioned.

It is not just Andy McMechan. There are other farmers out there who have had their properties seized. Their abilities to conduct their business and to put food on the table for their families have been restricted by these policies.

Members are standing in the House today to say they are proud of this bill when they know that some of their constituents, people on the prairies and grain marketers, are in jail, in shackles, facing tens of thousands of dollars in fines.

Most of the time I am honoured to stand in this House to represent the people of Calgary West. However, today we are considering passing a bill which would entrench in law expanded powers for the wheat board. Its new powers would go beyond the control of wheat, to oats, barley, flax and other crops. I am not proud of what this House is about to do. The government is going to expand the powers of the wheat board and put more grains under its control.

It boils down to free choice. Andy McMechan was not allowed the free choice to market his grain independent of the wheat board. As a result he was deprived of his ability to put food on the table for his family. He was fighting for the right, as were the other farmers who faced these restrictions, to have voluntary compliance with the board. If they want to market their grain through the wheat board, that is fine. But they had no other option. They were put in jail and faced fines. Their wives and their families were so desperate that they had to turn to non-government organizations for help.

It is unbelievable that we have that going on in this country. That they will not allow for free competition, that they are encouraging a legislated monopoly, and I heard another member say it today, indicates just how poorly run this monopoly is.

They talk across the way about how, during the 1920s and 1930s, there were private monopolies. No person who supports free competition supports a monopoly of any kind, whether it be government or private. For them to go ahead and support the idea of a government monopoly that can put people in jail for wanting to market their grain independently, I do not know how they can sleep at night when they back something like that.

I think in many ways, and this is unfortunate, it speaks to the arrogance, to the elitism and to just how out of touch how many of the people who stand and represent constituents in this Chamber are. They can support a bill that would jail their fellow citizens for wanting to market their grain independently. Like I say, it is not a proud day when I have to stand and speak to this.

I implore the people across the way, because they are the only ones who can really make changes at this stage. They have the narrowest majority of any government during this century aside from coalition governments. For those who may be watching in their offices who represent rural constituencies and who know that vast chunks of their electorate do not support a monopoly bargaining on behalf of the Canada Wheat Board, please I implore them, they have no better opportunity than in this bill here to stand up for their constituents and to not merely read off of ministerial talking points and to represent their constituents and come clean on this. Otherwise they will have to go back to face their electorate in the next election.

They have an opportunity here that few governments and few backbenchers in governments are ever afforded and they have a real opportunity to stand up and make a meaningful contribution. If they do not take this opportunity, shame on them.

For the folks back home, expanding jurisdiction basically means that the government wants to expand beyond the wheat board and be able to go into things like canola and flax and oats and barley. A government never asks for power unless it intends to exercise it. This means it hopes to rule out competition on these products like canola, flax, oats and barley. It intends to expand this monopoly beyond wheat and take it to these other grains. Therefore it will be impacting far more farmers than what the wheat board already does.

Once again, they have an incredible opportunity here to help out and to safeguard those farming operations across Canada. They owe it to them to stand up and stand for freedom on this.

Some people across the way speak of democracy and yet they forget about minority rights. Just because 50% plus 1 of people decide they happen to be in favour on one particular plebiscite does not speak to minority rights. The only time we must have a democracy and where people must follow one rule is when you can have only one rule.

It would not be fair, for instance, for one person to say they have to pay only 10% tax and another person to say they thought it was appropriate to pay 20% tax. You have to have something that is straight across the board, an even keel for all. Certainly in terms of a marketing organization for grain, you do not need to have everybody within one board. They should be allowed to have dissenting opinions.

For those farmers who wish to market through the Canadian Wheat Board, God bless them in their pursuit, but how can others legitimately say they wish to see their neighbour jailed, put behind bars, their equipment seized, and fines of tens of thousands of dollars placed against their operations because they want to operate outside the board? I am not proud today, knowing this type of legislation may pass in this House.

Also, I speak to the fact that the auditor general cannot have access to audit the Canadian Wheat Board. If you add up all these incriminations, that people are going to jail for wanting to market their grain independently, that the auditor general cannot look into the books, that they are encouraging a government monopoly, all these things, I implore backbench MPs in the Liberal Party, please, they have an opportunity to stand up against this. If only a handful were to take a stand in their caucus they could seriously change and amend this legislation.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

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 Cumberland—Colchester-transport; the hon. member for Calgary—Nose Hill—fisheries.

[Chris Axworthy, NDP, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Madam Speaker, what we have heard today from the Reform Party is the triumph of ideology over common sense. I know Reformers do not like the fact that an agency within the government purview works and works for those for whom it is designed to work and is one which is supported by the majority of those farmers who use it because we know that it is supported by the majority of farmers who use it, in spite of the continual denial of that by the Reform Party.

It works, as has been made clear many times, indeed by every credible study of the wheat board's activity. Mention has already been made of the study by Kraft and Furtan, two of Canada's most prominent agricultural economists. They point out that each year farmers make $265 million more selling wheat through the wheat board than they would selling it through the private grain trade.

What do Reformers have against farmers being $265 million better off each year selling their wheat than they would be through the private grain trade? What possibly could be a problem with that, except that the Reform Party does not want those farmers to make those extra profits.

There was a study by another one of Canada's most prominent agricultural economists. I know the Reform Party hates the fact that these good economists say the wheat board is doing a good job. Andy Schmitz who is known all over the world as one of the most prominent agricultural economists also pointed out that the wheat board increases the returns to barley producers by $72 million a year.

What would the Reform Party have against barley producers making $72 million more a year than they would if they used the private trade? Why would Reformers be opposed to that? Because their ideology, their crazy right-wing, neo-Conservative ideology does not want that to fit. They do not want that to work, but it does work.

Last year there was a plebiscite by farmers across western Canada, those who were interested in the barley trade. Sixty-three per cent of those farmers, including the majority of farmers in those areas represented by Reform Party MPs, voted in favour of the Canadian Wheat Board and barley. It was even difficult to get 63% of the population opposed to the GST, but 63% support the wheat board and barley.

Why will Reform Party members not listen to farmers who support the wheat board in large measure? Sixty-three per cent support the board.

It makes no sense to choose an ideology over common sense. Yet that is what the Reform Party is doing.

We hear also some of the most peculiar, indeed almost crazy statements by the Reform Party. The Reform Party member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, for example, compared life in Canada with the wheat board to life in the former Soviet Union. He recommended that we read the Gulag Archipelago if we want to find a Soviet parallel to Canada with the wheat board. It is at least extremism if not craziness.

They are all like that but only some of them speak out in these terms. The Reform Party member for Skeena said that Canada is a police state because we have the Canadian Wheat Board.

It really does make us wonder when this blind right-wing, neo-Conservative ideology, this extremist rhetoric prevails over common sense.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

You are absolutely wrong.

[Chris Axworthy, NDP, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member says I am absolutely wrong. Do they think that I am wrong when all the studies point out that the wheat board works for farmers?

Let us get to the question of inclusion. They have also made crazy statements about this. What objections could anyone have to farmers being asked to decide whether they want their product to be marketed through the wheat board? How could that be anything other than a genuine democratic vote, a genuine respect for democracy? That is all this is doing, saying to farmers if they want to use the wheat board to market their product, they can do so.

I do not see anything unreasonable about that, yet Reform Party members are going apoplectic about the possibility that people should have the right to decide to use the wheat board. Why do they get in that state? Because they just do not want the wheat board.

They talked about dual marketing. That is just the code, a step along the way, to getting rid of the wheat board, which is of course exactly what they want to do. Why do they want to get rid of the wheat board when it makes sense for farmers, when it returns to farmers a premium year over year, hundreds of millions of dollars more than without the wheat board? Because their ideology does not like it. Ideology, common sense. Ideology prevails.

It is time Reformers responded in a common sense way, gave up their crazy opposition to things that work and supported things that support Canadian farmers. Canadian farmers will continue to support the wheat board. We have to make sure the Liberal government continues to support the Canadian Wheat Board.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand to speak today to the debate on this group of motions put forward.

I think it is very timely that we take into consideration actually a group of motions, because that is exactly what Reformers are trying to do. They are trying to lump in a whole bunch of issues, cloud the entire issue so that they do not understand it and they are hoping and praying that nobody else will.

Categorically their attempts have failed to confuse those who do not support the wheat board. They have failed to confuse those who would try to follow in those particular paths.

We heard from the member for Calgary West who asked this House to support a great Canadian institution by basically rendering it immobile and ineffective through their motions. However, this House will not do that. This House will protect a great Canadian institution for the benefit of producers whom it serves, and that is exactly what we intend to do.

Several members of the Reform Party suggested in this House that what really will happen here is that this Canadian Wheat Board as being an instrument of the federal government, as they declare, will actually be under sanction, particularly under threat by international forces, by international trade tribunals because it is an overly effective trade mechanism for the farmers of western Canada. That has basically been the allegation on the floor, that the Canadian Wheat Board will be under threat by foreign players because it is too effective an instrument in terms of international trade. It has an unfair trading advantage.

Put this into perspective. We have heard from the hon. members opposite that the Canadian Wheat Board is an ineffective organization, that it does not work in the collective best interests of farmers. Yet these same members say that the Canadian Wheat Board will be under attack by international interest because it is too effective a competitor in the international marketplace. That just does not seem to make sense, quite frankly.

I think the hon. member for Calgary West probably spent a little too much time down in the United States of America following Mr. Newt Gingrich's bandwagon, and I think he knows exactly what I am talking about. When he starts to defend the United States of America's ability to come in and try to dismantle a great Canadian institution, probably for its benefit and not for the benefit of western Canadian farmers, I am a little suspicious of that. I wonder exactly what is the intent. Quite frankly, I think the Canadian Wheat Board has to be strengthened and should be strengthened, which is what Bill C-4 is about to do.

The official opposition and a number of groups that oppose Bill C-4 have said that the federal government has ignored the Western Grain Marketing Panel and its recommendations. They have accused the government of not listening to the panel that was selected. This is clearly not the case. I would like to indicate the extent to which Bill C-4 reflects the recommendations of the Western Grain Marketing Panel.

Many aspects of the bill, such as those providing more flexibility payment options for farmers, would allow the Canadian Wheat Board and its client producers to do many things it cannot do today. However, the decisions to implement or not to implement these services would rest where it should, with the farmer controlled board of directors.

With respect to the panel's specific recommendations regarding the Canadian Wheat Board, the first recommendation was that the amendments should accommodate restructuring the governance of the Canadian Wheat Board in accordance with a number of specific guidelines.

Certainly Bill C-4 would restructure the Canadian Wheat Board from being a crown corporation with five appointed commissioners only, to a mixed enterprise where farmers would control the majority of the board of directors. I will get to that a little more when I talk about the specific recommendations of this panel.

The panel's second recommendation was to permit the Canadian Wheat Board to make cash purchases. That is in Bill C-4.

The third recommendation as to permit the Canadian Wheat Board to make payments to farmers for grain storage and for carrying costs. That is in Bill C-4.

The fourth recommendation was to allow deliveries to farmer owned condo storage without regard to the delivery quotas or contracts. That is in Bill C-4.

The fifth recommendation was to permit the Canadian Wheat Board to purchase grain from other than an elevator rail car or from other origins. That is in Bill C-4.

The sixth recommendation was to allow for pool accounts to be terminated or paid out at any time following closure of that pool. That is in Bill C-4.

The seventh recommendation was to allow for the assignment of negotiable producer certificates. That is in Bill C-4.

The eighth recommendation was to clarify the board's authority to utilize risk management tools including futures and auctions in dealing with the farmers and customers. That is in Bill C-4.

The recommendations that deal with the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board that came from the Western Grain Marketing Panel are all contained in Bill C-4.

The panel recommended that the Canadian Wheat Board should be governed by a board of directors of not less than 11 and not more than 15 elected and appointed members. It went on to recommend that the board should be composed of a majority of farmers, a minimum of three representatives from the trade and a minimum of two representatives from the federal government.

Bill C-4 follows that recommendation very closely. There would be 15 directors with a two-thirds majority elected by farmers. There is no requirement in Bill C-4 that the trade be represented on the board of directors as a number of groups have expressed concern about individuals with financial interests in the grain trade being on the board. The government would appoint five directors from within the industry, the financial sector, academia or other backgrounds.

Another recommendation of the panel on governance was that there should be a modern corporate structure under which a chief executive officer would be hired and would be responsible for the overall operations of the Canadian Wheat Board, reporting to the board through its chairperson. This recommendation has been largely fulfilled in Bill C-4. There would be a chief executive officer responsible for overall operations. There would be a chairperson of the board. The one difference is that the chief executive officer would be a member of the board itself.

Another recommendation from the panel was to ensure a rapid and smooth transition to the new governance structure. The panel recommended that the first members of the board of directors should be appointed.

This recommendation was in Bill C-72, but when that bill did not pass it was decided that, in order to live up to the commitment to have the board of directors with elected members in place by the end of 1998, Bill C-4 could dispense with the interim board of fully appointed members. That change in Bill C-4 has been well received.

Another recommendation was that the Canadian Wheat Board advisory committee should continue to function until all farmer members of the board are elected. In Bill C-4 the Canadian Wheat Board advisory committee would continue until its term is up, which is expected to be the same time as the new members of the board of directors will be ready to take office.

Finally, there was a recommendation that a mechanism be established which makes it possible for the Canadian Wheat Board to begin development of a capital base. Bill C-4 goes part way in that direction in that there is a provision for a contingency fund that is limited to three uses. It could not be used to make investments in facilities, but the contingency fund partly goes in the direction of this recommendation.

If we look objectively at the 13 recommendations that were made by the panel with respect to the Canadian Wheat Board, Bill C-4 in many cases follows them exactly. In other cases it follows them quite closely.

Bill C-4 is the mechanism for farmers to decide themselves through whom they elect to the board of directors, or in some cases through a vote of farmers, to what extent wheat and barley would covered under the Canadian Wheat Board or in an open market system with or without the participation of the Canadian Wheat Board. As well there is a provision in the bill that provides a process for farmers to add oats, canola, flax and rye to the jurisdiction of the wheat board with or without export control provisions.

Let me just summarize. With respect to the organization and operational tools of the Canadian Wheat Board, Bill C-4 follows very closely the recommendations of the Western Grain Marketing Panel.

Let it never be said in the House that the government does not listen to advice given by producers and those who are interested in the Canadian wheat industry.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, I hope the farmers in my riding are watching today. If they are, after hearing the NDP socialists from that end of the House and hearing the hon. member for P.E.I. they are probably wilder than any wild rose that grows in that riding.

One thing was mentioned earlier. They were disgusted on that side of the House and inferred that I would dare lead my farmers to believe this and that. I have news for that group of people across the way. In my riding the farmers lead me. I am here to give their voice. I have gone to extensive efforts to find out exactly what the people of Wild Rose would like for me to say today. I am going to make every effort to represent them in that regard.

Regardless of what they are saying across the House, Wild Rose grain growers are not in favour of Bill C-4. They do not want it. There are a lot of things about it that they do not like. If they are going to amend it there are some things they would want to see in it which obviously this group is not going to include.

One thing that concerns farmers in Wild Rose is that the vote to decide whether we have Bill C-4 will basically be that of the Liberals. We know they support the entire bill because they have been told to do so.

I do not imagine that have been many wheat board town hall meetings in the city of Toronto lately. I am quite certain they have not had very many in Montreal. Our Bloc friends would not have a lot of wheat board meetings in any of their ridings. Yet, all members of Parliament from those areas will not hear the voice of the west. They will hear the voice of the leaders in the front row who say to them “When you come to vote on Bill C-4 you will vote what I tell you to vote. That is the way it is in the Liberal Party. You will vote the way you are told”.

I am thankful I belong to a party that gives me full privilege to vote according to the way my constituents want me to. I know how the farmers in Wild Rose want me to vote on this issue. I will be representing them, even though no one else is willing to listen to western farmers. After all, that is who we are talking about: western farmers. That is who is being affected.

I was talking to some of my colleagues across the way in the street awhile ago. I mentioned that they should consider what is being said in the west and not listen to the rhetoric or their own caucus leaders. They should listen to what is being said in the west and vote for those people because the bill affects them.

One member made an interesting comment. She said “No, this wheat board. You are all in”. She said that it was like a dental plan, that if we were to have a dental plan for Canadians they would all be included. I asked if that would include Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces. She said “Absolutely”.

Then I said that all the farmers must be rushing from Ontario and from Quebec to get to Winnipeg to sign up for the wheat board because it is so great. I would like to see the repercussions if the government were to announce that all grain growers throughout the country, including Ontario and Quebec, were to immediately come under the Canadian Wheat Board. I would love to see the response.

Let us consider the opting out clause. The member for Yorkton—Melville and the member for Portage—Lisgar would love to be with us, but today they are in a courtroom with a farmer who is also fighting for the right to sell his own product.

All the things we see around us, the paper on our desks, the chairs, the books and whatever is made, are the product of hard work. At the end of the day producers can market their goods the best way they choose. However, a grain farmer in western Canada cannot do that. The government tells them how to market their barley and wheat because of these kinds of bills. Farmers simply want the option to use the wheat board or to use some other mechanism.

In 1993 the Conservative Party had the wisdom to open the continental barley market. During those years farmers flourished. Barley farmers phoned me in 1993 to tell me how well they did. When we do some checking we also find that Canadian Wheat Board marketers got off their backsides and worked hard because they now had some competition and did better than they had ever done. That is a good sign to me that competition is healthy and that it ought to be considered.

Another farmer is being arrested because he tried to sell his grain. I was at Andy McMechan's trial and I was at Bill Cairns' trial. I watched them being chained and shackled and taken off to jail. At the same time I saw a violent offender being given community service. The policies and legislation of my colleagues across the way makes that possible. Two rapists are walking free because of the wonderful way socialists and Liberals think that a rapist can walk free and get community service. However, a farmer trying to demand the right to look after his own produce goes to jail.

Not only that but I saw the farmers get consecutive sentencing. I have been trying to get consecutive sentencing in the House for a long time. Clifford Olson murdered 11 people and he got one life sentence. Bill Cairns tried to sell his grain on two occasions. He got 60 days and 90 days consecutively. “We will show those rotten crooks, those mean people, those dangerous offenders who dare try to sell their own produce”.

They worked hard. They sowed their grain. They planted it. They hoped to get the right moisture. They worked hard to get it into the bin, and suddenly it is not theirs any more. It belongs to somebody else. They have no way of marketing their produce without going through the government's Canadian Wheat Board. They want the option.

I will read from an article of which I am sure most people in the House are aware. It concerns the Privacy Act and is entitled “Canadian taxpayers hold $7 billion liability through Canadian Wheat Board—high profile panel wants to end government secrecy”:

Canadian taxpayers hold a $7 billion liability through the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) and have paid millions of dollars on behalf of foreign grain purchasers in order to hold this liability to its current level.

Although the CWB does produce an annual report which provides a limited amount of information, its exemption from the federal Access to Information Act means taxpayers and farmers are unable to independently evaluate its operations and performance.

How much the CWB fitness instructor gets paid, details of financial returns realized from the sale of wheat and barley in the 1960s and 70s, and a breakdown of demurrage costs paid by farmers over the years is just some of the information a high profile agricultural committee wants the federal government to disclose.

A detailed synopsis of the $7 billion taxpayer liability and the transactions that led to this debt are also being requested. The outstanding amount owed is equal to $1,000 for every family of four in Canada.

Maybe we should have some wheat board meetings in the cities of Toronto and Montreal, but they are not very interested. They might be interested in knowing that as taxpayers they are also being burdened with the load.

This group of people want to put an end to the secrecy at the Canadian Wheat Board but the government will not allow it. In fact when these farmers came to Ottawa last week, the agriculture minister, his secretary and no one else would meet with them. They do not want it to become open.

The question that the farmers in Wild Rose are asking is, what is it they do not want us to know?

One of those members had the gall to say to me one day “We must keep a lot of things secret because most farmers do not really know the proper method they should use to market their grain”. He said that if some information were disclosed to the farmers they would use it wrongly and it would not be helpful.

The Canadian Wheat Board is for the benefit of the government, not for the benefit of Canada's producers.

[Maurice Vellacott, Reform, Wanuskewin, SK]

Madam Speaker, I find it rather hypocritical and want to read for the sake of the record some of the comments which Liberals made with respect to the matter of closure while they were in opposition.

I cite for the record today the now Liberal Minister of Foreign Affairs who was reported in the Toronto Star as saying on April 1, 1993 “It displays the utter disdain with which this government treats the Canadian people”.

I quote from Hansard of November 16, 1992 when the now Liberal government House leader said “I am shocked. This is just terrible. This time we are talking about a major piece of legislation. Shame on those Tories across the way”.

That is what was said by Liberals and today we have closure on this bill.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, who is now the Deputy Speaker, said “What we have here is an absolute scandal in terms of the government's unwillingness to listen to the representatives of the people in this House. Never before have we had governments so reluctant to engage in public discussion on the bills brought before this House”. How appropriate that is for this occasion today.

As well, the same individual who is now the Deputy Speaker said “I suggest that the government's approach to legislating is frankly a disgrace. It cuts back the time the House is available to sit and then applies closure to cut off the debate”.

Lastly, that same member from Kingston and the Islands said “This is not the way to run Parliament. This is an abuse of the process of the House”. That is exactly what is now being done by the Liberal government this afternoon.

I was hoping that as a result of an amended Bill C-4 we would have a viable, modern, democratized Canadian Wheat Board which would allow some market choice, some voices of moderation and a reasonable position.

Instead in cynical fashion the Liberal government has, by its bill, not respected the farmers as mature adults able to make wise choices. They can make choices for themselves. It is not like they are little kids and we need to do it for them because they are not wise enough to do it for themselves.

This legislation will not bring about that voluntary participation in the Canadian Wheat Board. Farmers will not have that freedom to choose, to exercise their mature adult will. This bill, as the minister knows, gives farmers no options of that sort.

Thousands of grain farmers have told the government what they are asking for and what they want. They want that choice. They want the choice of marketing for themselves. It is not that others would have to, but it is only if they wished to do this they could do so. Bill C-4 simply ignores those farmers. It is a feeble attempt by this Liberal government to appear as though it is responding to farmers' demands for change. It is a kind of charade, but it has dodged the real issue of marketing options for farmers.

The minister attempts to placate producers with this legislation but they are not fooled. It will backfire. The Canadian Wheat Board's tight grip on the sale of wheat and barley has an extremely divisive effect back in the constituencies in the west among Canadian farmers. A much better approach could have been taken by the minister responsible for the wheat board.

It is not a controversy that will simply go away. All farmers are getting more and more frustrated because the minister will not deal with the situation. The minister has taken an all or nothing attitude instead of paving the way for farmers to choose how to sell their grain.

The inclusion clauses in the bill leave no room for compromise. It is unbending and a cruel joke. This means that a grain is either in or out. Far from preserving the Canadian Wheat Board, it ultimately will destroy it as one producer group after another chooses to get out from under its thumb.

The government has ignored recommendations from its own Western Grain Marketing Panel. We heard some selective quotes from the member opposite about some of the things the government did follow in some fashion but not citing those where it did not.

In July 1996 after a year long study the panel told the government that the board's monopoly on the sale of wheat should be reduced and that its monopoly on the export of feed barley should end. That was one of the recommendations of the panel which was not cited by the hon. member opposite.

With that all or nothing kind of display, the plebiscite that the minister then fixed or rigged earlier this year permitting barley growers gave them little choice. The question was did they want to go or stay with the wheat board and nothing in between. What kind of choice is that when there could have been other options and a fairer way to word the question?

Farmers are more frustrated than ever. That barley vote was not unlike the referendum in Quebec where they determined the outcome by the wording of the question. Farmers were fully aware at the very outset, from the wording of the question, what the determination would be.

The election of 10 members to the board has been referred to often here. That is not enough. A fully elected board of directors is mandatory if the voice of farmers is truly to be heard. This hybrid kind of board will be, as we have said before in a speech in the Hansard record, like the offspring of a donkey and a horse, a mule. It will be unproductive.

For example as has been cited, if just three directors shift their vote to align with the five government appointed members, the majority of farmer elected directors would find themselves outvoted. That my friends is not a wise choice. It is not a choice for farmers across our country.

The ability of those elected directors to represent the farmers who elected them is also in doubt. Just like CSIS, Canada's secretive spy agency, the Canadian Wheat Board does not have to answer to the Access to Information Act.

I found it interesting to hear the member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar citing these studies in terms of all the benefits and all the extra dollars accrued to farmers by way of the Canadian Wheat Board operations. I am not sure where these studies all come from in that we do not have access to information. Even 30 years afterward, why would anyone need to withhold that information from us if there is nothing to hide? We do not presently have a need to have the wheat board audited by the auditor general. How can those directors act freely if they are bound by some oath of secrecy?

I agree with the Bloc member's motion. It is a good one. Motion No. 46 under this Group No. 7 would bring the wheat board under the jurisdiction of the Access to Information Act which is good for farmers.

I am also concerned that the directors could be denied liability protection if they were to speak and act freely on behalf of farmers, which is what one would think the wheat board is all about and what it should be doing.

Directors would only be covered it would seem for liability if they act in the best interest of the corporation. Any instructions given to the Canadian Wheat Board by the federal government are defined as the best interest of the corporation. If a director does not follow government directives, then they may well be liable because they are not looking out for the interest of the corporation. The mandate of the wheat board should be to look out for the best interests of farmers.

The government as we know has also neglected to tackle the Canadian Wheat Board's role in grain transportation in this bill. There is an impending crisis in the system of grain transportation and the Liberals are either unwilling or unprepared to do anything about it. This is the very best as it stands before us now unamended that the Liberals could come up with.

There are approximately 110,000 grain farmers in the prairie provinces and part of British Columbia and the Canadian Wheat Board controls $5 billion in sales. Given the significance of those numbers it is hard to believe that the government has simply introduced this recycled legislation. I am for recycling but not in this regard. We need some reformed legislation.

Almost 100 witnesses stood before that agriculture committee to comment on the predecessor, Bill C-72. Virtually all of the farm groups appearing told the committee that it was a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation. We need reformed legislation.

In the report stage of this bill the Liberals rammed it through committee in less than two weeks despite overwhelming objections by producer groups. Witnesses were forced to present views in a confusing round table format, providing MPs with little opportunity to analyse thoroughly the legislation.

The presence of Reform MPs through the course of this debate has really been quite tremendous. The Liberals were for the most part conspicuous by their absence, at times not even present in the House.

The wheat board minister obviously found little support in that Regina meeting and was booed off the stage.

Grain producer groups opposed to Bill C-4, the coalition against Bill C-4, have continued to press the minister to take the opposition amendments seriously. Numbers of coalitions listed on numerous occasions over these last days oppose this bill.

On January 21, and this is the case which was referred to before, the minister discussed in a fairly contemptuous fashion the matter of directors when in fact this has not yet been passed. This shows a disregard for Parliament and really in my view a contempt of Parliament. A number of those groups invited to that Regina meeting walked out protesting the meeting. Again that is a very graphic testimony to the fact that this Bill C-4 is a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation.

In closing, I would say the farmers I have talked to, although not all agree, do want reformed legislation of the sort that includes the amendments that the Reform Party has put forward. Regrettably this bill instead of being known as the act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board may tragically in history go down as the act to end the Canadian Wheat Board. That will be a sad day.

[Gerry Ritz, Reform, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am happy once again to speak on behalf of my constituents and all farmers across the west who are really after only one thing in this debate: freedom of choice.

If it has not been made clear by all the members who have spoken over the last days and months that the government still fails to understand what is bothering thousands of farmers who attend meetings to express their frustrations with this bill, then let me make it absolutely clear. Western producers demand a say in how the products of their labour are dealt with.

Members opposite will claim that this venue is being given to them by this bill in the form of a semi-elected board. They do not explain why this board cannot be completely elected. They fail to make a logical case for why its president must be a creature of the government or why it must continue as a western Canadian monopoly that forces otherwise free citizens to hand over their property with compensation based on arbitrary and secretive business dealings.

My colleague from Yorkton—Melville has put forward an amendment to allow farmers to opt in and out of the Canadian Wheat Board. His amendment will put the freedom of choice into the hands of the producers so that with proper notice they can decide to participate in the board or seek a better deal elsewhere if that is what seems in their best interests.

Some might argue if we have farmers opting in and out and deciding one year to include a particular grain and a few years later to take it elsewhere, that we will undermine the ability of the board to conduct its business over the long term. But this amendment prescribes certain limits. The farmer must opt out for a minimum of fives years and give two years notice of opting back in. This is not a case of leaping in and out on a whim. This is a case of letting well informed and self-motivated farmers decide their own future.

The member for Brandon—Souris earlier today made an excellent case on the position of oat growers in western Canada since oats have been taken out from under the board. Some might argue that if everybody is acting independently this will undermine the pooling concept and lead to chaos. Certainly our colleagues on the left will throw up their hands and say that Reform is advocating a return to the 1920s, just before the depression that made some of these government organizations necessary.

They are the ones who are stuck in the early decades of this century when farmers were lucky to have telephones. The modern reality is that farmers have access to more knowledge in a few seconds than some of our colleagues have obviously taken advantage of in the last few years. The days of government paternalism are gone. They have been swept away by the Internet and the satellite dish. It is about time the government got the message.

All those who support the Canadian Wheat Board are just as free to continue to use its services as they are now. If the Canadian Wheat Board is the great provider that they desire, obviously they will be encouraged to continue to stay there. If large numbers of farmers vote with their feet to find a better service elsewhere, this should be a clear indication that changes are called for in the board or even in the government's approach to what it tries to do for these producers.

We have myriad examples of government departments believing that it is in their best interest to keep information to themselves rather than let private citizens make up their own minds about what they want. The more compulsory a government action is, the less it wants anybody to know what it is up to.

We have amendments before us to put the activities of the board before the auditor general and to make it open to the Access to Information Act, both of which the government rejects. Along with today's motion to arbitrarily limit debate we cannot help but believe the government and the wheat board have something to hide.

Fearing possibility that farmers might truly have a democracy and decide for themselves, the Reform Party does not want to see destruction of the wheat board. We simply believe that it must behave the way a public service should: voluntarily, openly and with full accountability to the producers it is meant to serve. If it is not strong enough to stand solidly on its own merit and falls by the wayside, the producers have spoken.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Madam Speaker, before I commence my debate with respect to this issue I wish to raise a matter that arose in the House on Monday. It pertains to the member for North Vancouver.

He made a comment in the House to which I responded from my chair. The matter he raised was a suggestion that the whips order their MPs how to vote. I wish to withdraw a comment I made in respect to his comment on that.

I do not believe that is the case in every party, especially not in the NDP, but at that time I used the word lie, and Hansard picked it up. I wish to withdraw that word out of respect for this institution, but I still maintain that his comment was not accurate with respect to the NDP. I wanted to get that on the record at this time.

The NDP at this point, as most people know, believes that Bill C-4 before the House is flawed legislation. It undermines the Canadian Wheat Board as we know it. The NDP tried to improve the bill in committee, but the Liberal majority refused to accept our amendments.

Bill C-4 proposes a number of issues which we do not support. As a result of three or four key issues, we will not be voting for the bill. I wish to take some time right now to inform the House of why we will not support the bill, in particular the clauses we are discussing right now.

First, the bill proposes a cash buying option. In our view this will destroy a fundamental pillar of the wheat board. It will undermine farmers' confidence in it. The wheat board would buy grains under cash buying from anyone, anywhere, any time at any price. We believe this disrupts the board's long practice of buying grain from farmers at announced prices and distributing profits to all on an equitable basis.

The second reason we are opposed is that Bill C-4 proposes a contingency fund which would cost farmers as much as $575 million in check-offs. It is our view that is not needed at this time, particularly because farmers cannot afford it. A contingency fund is not necessary if Ottawa continues to provide financial guarantees to the board, guarantees that have been seldom used.

My constituency of Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre has a significant number of farmers. They are squeezed right now with input costs. They have fuel cost crunches for spring seeding. They have fertilizer cost crunches for their inputs affecting this coming season. They are very concerned about the transportation increased costs as well as a result of the minister responsible for the wheat board doing away with the Crow benefit, which has taken about $350 million to $375 million dollars a year out of the Saskatchewan economy.

This was taken out of the economy after the bill which established the railway to the west coast, passed by parliament over a century ago, provided for a Crow benefit in perpetuity. The reason they did that was not because they were shortsighted in terms of their forecast for inflation or value of the dollar. They gave the CPR billions and billions of dollars in alternating sections of land across the western part of the country. They gave the CPR the mineral rights to those lands so that in future the revenues from the land and the minerals the mining and oil companies produced would have provided more than adequate compensation to the railways in a very generous way.

The Liberal government and its predecessors, the Tories, allowed the CPR to hive off the land and sell it to Marathon Realty. The profits have gone away. They have allowed, persuaded and encouraged the CPR to take its Comincos, its mining companies, its Pan Canadian oil company, the second largest oil company in Canada, and hive them off into subsidiaries and not use those revenues or profits to sustain the railways and the transportation to western farmers, to our western population.

Literally billions and billions of dollars have been hived off. All we have left is a stand alone branch line kind of railway system in western Canada. The railways are now saying that they are not sustainable on their own.

If the billions and billions of dollars in assets are returned to the CPR there will be more than adequate transportation in they country. That is where we have a problem. Canadians do not understand the fact that Liberal and Tory governments in the last 100 years have allowed and encouraged assets to be removed from the CPR which were meant for, intended and provided by the House of Commons and the Parliament of Canada for the maintenance of the railways and a transportation system for western Canada.

Now we see CNR going south and expanding in the United States at the expense of what is happening in Canada. Billions and billions of dollars were hived off into Marathon Realty, Pan Canadian, Cominco, the shipping and airlines. They are all gone. All the assets are gone and the poor old railway says it cannot make a profit.

The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is now the minister in charge of the wheat board from Saskatchewan. He encouraged all this. He put the nail in the coffin in terms of some of the transportation problems that western Canada now has. Farmers will never forget that.

Another reason we oppose Bill C-4 is that it claims to put farmers in control of the wheat board's destiny. The Liberal government will continue to appoint the chief executive officer. This makes talk of a farmer controlled board in our view a travesty.

How can a farmer controlled board not have accountable to it its chief executive officer? Anybody in business will know that the chief executive officer has to be accountable to the board. The board knows what is going on and the CEO reports to the board.

The government has made it a political issue. The minister who has screwed farmers on the Crow rate will now screw them on this matter with respect to the wheat board. I do not think farmers will be very happy about that.

We support many parts of the bill. We support the provision for a possible inclusion of more grains under the wheat board's jurisdiction. This inclusion allows farmers to decide in a vote to remove grains from the board's authority. It is only fair that farmers can vote to include extra grains as well.

Agribusiness and the Reform Party are a bit concerned about this matter. The Reform Party embraced the referendum principle. It should understand that if there is a referendum among producers to exclude or include something perhaps the referendum decision should be honoured.

Reform philosophy is always do as I say and not as I do. Reformers say one thing to one part of the country and the opposite to another part of the country.

One of the fundamental principles of Reformers is that they believe in referenda. Yet, when it comes down to the inclusion or exclusion referendum, they think it is bad. They only want one as opposed to both. They want the exclusion referendum but not the inclusion referendum. Reformers believe they know better than farmers, that they know better than the 60,000 farm families in Saskatchewan. I do not believe that for one second. Neither do the 60,000 farm families in Saskatchewan nor the farm families in Alberta or Manitoba.

We have a bit of a problem. The organizations that are opposing the Canadian Wheat Board, a strong institution supported by our party, are good farm organizations like the National Citizens' Coalition. One Reform member used to work for the National Citizens' Coalition. I challenge the member to name 10 citizens.

I will name a few citizens who belong to this organization: Conrad Black, Imperial Oil and Pan Canadian that has just plundered and raped our oil resources from railway system and hived them off for its shareholders all over the world. These are the real citizens of Canada that support the National Citizens' Coalition which supports the Reform Party. Its chief executive officer is Mr. Harper, former Reform member of Parliament from Calgary. I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Harper but his philosophical and ideological position is in lockstep with the Reform Party.

That is one example but there are other significant examples. The Winnipeg Commodity Exchange, the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, oilseed producers or processors and Cargill are all great people who support the abolition of the wheat board. They want to see the wheat board totally dismantled so they can go in there and finish the plundering of farmers that the CPR has undertaken and the Liberals, the Tories and the Reformers are all partners in.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Madam Speaker, here we are in the final 20 minutes of debate on the bill under closure. It is absolutely outrageous that we are facing closure again in the House.

All through the last parliament we had closure, closure, closure. The Liberal government has set a record for closure. In the last parliament alone it moved closure more times than in the entire Mulroney period prior to the Liberals. We thought that was an outrageous record, but this government has demonstrated itself to be totally incapable of understanding the principles of democracy.

Here we are in the last 20 minutes of debate on an important bill. When we look at the schedule through to June we have February, March, April, May and June. We have five months in which to be talking about important bills like this one, bills that Canadians are interested in.

And what is happening? The government is moving closure on a very controversial bill. When we look at the schedule we must ask ourselves what is the rush. Over the next four months there is nothing but a litany of boring, inconsequential, insignificant and irrelevant nonsense on the schedule of what we have to debate over the next few months. It is boring.

For the people in the real world it is boring and frustrating. When they look at the schedule that is coming down the pike, they wonder why we are not talking about the Young Offenders Act, which they have been pleading with us for 20 years to do something about. What are we doing? We are moving closure on an important bill and moving to boring insignificant stuff.

They ask us why are you not talking, for goodness sake, about the immigration and refugee problems we have in this country. We cannot talk about that because, amazing but true, Liberals think that immigrants to this country should not have to speak one of the official languages. They are quite happy for anybody to come here. They support the recommendations in the report that say that international agencies overseas should pick our refugees for us and send them here, even if they are incapable of settling here.

When we look at things like this and the people in the real world outside, the voters of Canada, want us to be debating these things, what is happening? We are having our time cut short. We are moving on to things that are technical in nature, technical bills, boring bills, insignificant bills.

The speaker before me from the NDP mentioned that the Reform Party believes in referenda and enacting the will of the people, and we do. There was a plebiscite run for the farmers in connection with this bill, not directly related but indirectly related, but it was flawed in many ways. First of all, it was a plebiscite, not a true referendum, and it had a carefully engineered question. There was no discussion about how that should be organized.

It really gave the barley farmers, who were the only ones involved, an all or nothing option. It reminded me of that advertisement on television right now where the man comes into the office and says tell me about RRSPs, and the adviser says yes, just put your head here between the vice and I will tighten it a little. That was exactly what was happening to those barley farmers. They had their heads put in a vice where they had no option but to give the answer that the government wanted them to give. When we look at Bill C-4, we have to ask what is the rush.

No wonder the Liberals did not want to write property rights into the charter of rights and freedoms, because when you look at what they are doing in this bill, they are preventing people from selling their own property on a free market. What sort of way is that for a civilized country to conduct itself?

[An hon. member]

It is a socialist way.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

It is a socialist way, as one of my colleagues said. Fancy telling people they cannot sell their own property on a free market, they have to be controlled by big brother.

It is wrong and there are so many contentious issues in this bill, we should have been able to properly discuss it, to spread it out over a bit more time where there was an opportunity to get full input that could make a difference to the bill. Instead of that, we are faced with closure.

As I said, we will be moving on to some pretty boring stuff next week. I was just looking for a list of some of the bills here, and I see I do not have it with me, but just reading the names alone is pretty shocking when, as I mentioned, we could be talking about something like the Young Offenders Act, getting the age lowered to 10, for example. Everybody out there for 20 years has been asking for that, or publishing the names of young offenders.

I went to a meeting in my riding a few weeks ago, a together against violence group. They had a group of young people there who had previously been young offenders, and we discussed the issue of publishing names. Every one of them agreed that it would have been a tremendous disincentive for them to continue to commit crimes if they had their names published in the newspaper, if they had the public embarrassment that they were violating the rules of society.

These are things people want us to be talking about. They want us to be talking about automatically upgrading to adult court for serious crimes.

Next week we have, for example, Bills C-21, C-20, C-19, S-4, C-6, C-8, C-12, S-3. That is a list of all the bills we are going to be looking at. Unfortunately I do not have all the descriptions here, but they are certainly not worthy of the rush we are exhibiting with this closure on this bill here.

In closing I would just like to say that I am appalled that we have once again run into this problem of closure where democracy goes out the window and we get the Prime Minister sitting over there with a silly smile on his face, happy that he is once again forcing us to abandon debate on an important bill so that he can rush through an agenda that suits the socialists at the other end of this House.

[Murray Calder, Liberal, Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of Bill C-4.

The amendments contained in Bill C-4 are based on nearly three years of extensive consultation and discussion with western grain farmers to determine what kind of grain marketing organization they want. Western Canadian grain farmers have asked to retain the Canadian Wheat Board but they also want a more democratic, accountable and responsive Canadian Wheat Board, one that is truly in their hands, allowing them to shape the Canadian Wheat Board to meet their needs.

That is what the proposed changes in Bill C-4 actually provide for. The proposed changes in Bill C-4 would put more power into the hands of producers than they have ever had before throughout the Canadian Wheat Board's 63 year history.

The proposed changes would modernize the governance of the CWB. They would improve the accountability to the producers and through the creation of a producer elected majority board of directors and, most important, the marketing changes proposed in Bill C-4 are enabling. They would give the farmers the tools and the power necessary to shape the CWB's marketing structure to fit their present and their future needs.

I would like to address some of the questions that have been raised to clear up some of the misconceptions that have arisen around Bill C-4 and its proposed amendments to the CWB act.

Some farmers have asked if they would have more control under the new system of CWB governance. The answer is yes. The 15 member board of directors would be comprised of 10 producer elected directors and 5 federal appointees. In essence the farmer elected directors would enjoy a two to one majority on this board. Directors would have effective control of the strategic direction of the new CWB and would be able to reflect the views and the needs of farmers in future operational and marketing decisions.

These elected directors would not be subject to dismissal by the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Only those who elected them would be able to accomplish this through a subsequent election.

Under Bill C-4 all directors would be entitled to complete disclosure of all CWB facts and figures, bar none. That is transparency. They would be able to examine the prices at which grain is sold and the premiums achieved and all the operating costs and whether the CWB is operating effectively. With their full knowledge of the CWB and its global competition the directors would be in the best position to assess what information should be made public and what for commercial reasons should remain confidential.

So why is the board of directors not 100% producer elected? That was another question asked. Under the proposed legislation the government would continue to maintain a substantial financial commitment to the CWB. The government would continue to guarantee the CWB's initial payments, its borrowing and its credit sales made under the credit grain sales program.

This represents a strong case for the government's having a role in appointing some of the members of the board of directors. In addition, the CWB has the public policy responsibilities. For example, the CWB is charged with issuing all wheat and barley export licences for all of Canada, not just the prairies.

I have heard the question why is the CWB not legally obliged to get the best price for farmers' grain. The CWB does seek to obtain the best prices possible. In fact, it is a matter of policy.

However, making this the corporation's legal objective would be difficult because the CWB seeks to obtain the best price for producers jointly through pool accounts. It is not always possible to show, after the fact, if higher returns could have been realized for individual producers because a different set of marketing decisions may have been made. Therefore, to make the CWB legally responsible to achieve the best price for individual farmers would result in countless legal challenges being made to the board's marketing decisions. It would sort of be like dealing with it by 20:20 hindsight.

Looking to the future, the board of directors would be responsible for ensuring that the sales programs would be well managed and that the CWB operated in the best interests of the producers. This would be preferable to taking a legalistic approach.

Why does the CWB need to establish a contingency fund? What would this money be used for? These are more questions which have been asked.

A contingency fund would be developed in order for the CWB to make adjustments to the initial payments during the crop year on its own authority, without the delays involved in getting government approval, to provide for potential losses in cash trading operations and to provide for an early pool cash-out.

The contingency fund would provide the CWB with the ability to adjust the initial payments and to get money into the farmers' hands more quickly. I am a farmer. I know how important that last statement is.

Given the history of adjusted initial payments the related risk would be minimal. It would be less than the related benefits to farmers. It would be up to the board of directors, with its two-thirds producer elected majority, to determine if, when and how the contingency fund should be created. How it is set up will be the responsibility of the board.

Why can the Auditor General of Canada not examine the CWB's books? The CWB currently retains an independent firm of chartered accountants to audit its operations. Through its pool accounts the CWB is managing farmers' money, not government appropriations. Therefore it has always made sense that a private sector auditor, rather than the auditor general, audit the CWB's books.

Under Bill C-4 the CWB would cease to be an agent of Her Majesty and a crown corporation. It would become a mixed enterprise. This would reduce even further the justification for involving the office of the auditor general.

Finally, some of the private sector users of financial reports take comfort in the fact that private sector auditors, unlike the auditor general, are liable under the law for negligence and other professional misconduct.

The proposed changes in Bill C-4 are balance and fair. The government realizes that the changes contained in Bill C-4 cannot hope to satisfy all parties. I think we have all heard that in the House today in what has been a polarized debate among representatives of the western grain producers.

The government, nonetheless, feels that the proposed changes to the CWB would equip farmers with the tools and the power to shape the CWB as they see fit so that it can meet the needs of the farmers of today and the farmers of the future.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand that the time should now be expiring as a result of the motion this morning. Because there was a further deferral transferring the vote to Monday, there is no need to have the 15 minute time period for the bell.

Therefore, I think if you would seek unanimous consent to add back the 15 minutes to the time, or at least the time required for the opposition House leader to make his speech up to a maximum of the 15 minutes which should have been there to begin with, we would be favourably disposed to that.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is going to be tough with the Liberals here trying to shake me loose.

There are two issues here for those of us who do not know a lot about wheat farming, indeed who do not know much about farming at all in this country and there are many who do not. The first issue is one of democracy and how democracy works in this country and the second issue is of law and order. I want to speak briefly on both of those. I do not think I will take up the 15 minutes but one never knows. Perhaps I will give the House leader of the government five minutes to sum up his side.

The issue of time allocation in a democracy is one which one could consider takes a lot away from our democracy today and it does. Time allocation or closure is about the right of an individual to speak in the House of Commons. It is about the rights of individuals to hear in the House of Commons not just from one party but from all parties.

This case, Bill C-4 referring to the wheat board, is an issue we think everybody, whether they are farmers, whether they live in the city or wherever they live in this country, should be able to hear about it. It is an issue of the right to speak for others.

We have farmers in our caucus and probably there are farmers in all the caucuses here. Some of my colleagues are wheat farmers. I think where they come from this is about the right to speak for the farmers in their areas who are concerned about Bill C-4 and about a monopoly of the wheat board. This bill is really about the rights of farmers.

The government is again calling for time allocation or closure on an important bill. This has only been done twice I believe in this 36th Parliament, the other being on the Canada pension plan bill, another major issue in this country. Minor bill after minor bill comes through this House and we seem to find the time to be able to debate those. But when an important issue comes up, what the government does in effect is it restricts the right to speak out, it restricts the right of people to hear, it restricts the right to speak for others.

And it has certainly restricted the rights of farmers across this nation. I guess I can understand why there are no elected Liberals on the prairies because that is the feeling a farmer would get: Where am I best represented? The results of elections are obvious.

Members are now rating me. At least I got a one and someone gave me a one and a half. When you rate somebody in this country you have to have some standards upon which to rate.

When we are talking about standards and rating that is exactly what the farmers do. If we had the farmers rating who in this House best represented them, we would see a 10 on this side and perhaps one-half a point on that side.

I want to talk about the second issue in this House as a non-farmer, as an individual who depends on his colleagues for comments about the true effect of Bill C-4. I want to talk about law and order.

There is something dreadfully wrong in this country when we put our farmers in jail for trying to sell their product and at the same time I find myself fighting day and night to put bad guys, real criminals in jail and find very little success at it.

I know there are rules that are given to farmers for selling their product, but must the first option be to put a farmer in prison because he does not live by a rule, that he wants to sell his product, that he wants to be productive? Must that be the Liberal way?

I want to draw an analogy here. For the Liberals who do not know what an analogy is, I am going to draw a comparison, something similar.

In my community a fellow by the name of Darren Ursel raped a young lady. He went to court. The judge said “Well, it is your first time and you said you were sorry. Well, I guess you will not do it again. You do feel remorseful. And you were tender at times”. He gave this fellow a conditional sentence, no time in jail.

I really wonder what the wheat farmers across this country are thinking when they compare that to what happens when one of their own ends up in prison for trying to convince the government here that there is another way to sell wheat. I just cannot imagine how a farmer ends up in prison and a rapist ends up walking the street. For a person like me who is not a farmer, I look at it and I say there is something dreadfully wrong in this country.

There are two Reform members who are not here today, who are out once again in court fighting for the rights of farmers. I think it would be wise for members on the opposite side to get out there a little bit, get into these communities in the prairies. I know they will not get elected in the prairies, but it is not bad to show up once in a while.

It would be a good idea to go out there and listen to what happens in these court cases. I am absolutely certain that members opposite would come back into this House and say the same as we are saying. Listen to what is happening in this country. They are throwing farmers in prison while they are leaving rapists on the street. That says very little for a government.

This bill continues a monopoly that has existed for some time. We will get outvoted in this House of Commons because there is a majority government. It is a fact that the only time farmers will get a restriction of a monopoly, get to act the way they want to act, get to live the way they want to live, get justice the way they want justice is to wait until we upset the Liberal government in an election.

For those farmers out there we know why we get their support. It has been three days straight here that farmers, like the gentleman behind me, have been fighting day and night in debate to try to get things changed, while those on the opposite side insist that the letter of the law is more important than the right of a farmer. That is wrong. It is very wrong.