House of Commons Hansard #58 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was grain.

Topics

Canadian Wheat Board ActGovernment Orders

10:20 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Canadian Wheat Board ActGovernment Orders

10:20 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Division No. 72Government Orders

11:05 a.m.

The Speaker

I declare the motion carried.

Division No. 72Government Orders

11:05 a.m.

Reform

Jim Gouk Reform West Kootenay—Okanagan, BC

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I did not arrive for the actual reading of the question, so I did not vote. Had I been here, I would have voted against the undemocratic action of stifling debate.

The House resumed from February 9 consideration of Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, as reported (with amendment) from the committee; and of Motions Nos. 20 to 30, 32 to 34, 45 and 47.

Division No. 72Government Orders

11:05 a.m.

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario

Liberal

Don Boudria LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, there has been consultation among all parties in the House and I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That any divisions requested during consideration of the report stage of Bill C-4 be deferred to the time of the conclusion of consideration of Government Orders on Monday, February 16, 1998.

(Motion agreed to)

Division No. 72Government Orders

11:10 a.m.

Reform

Bob Mills Reform Red Deer, AB

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to stand and speak but I must admit that every time the government uses closure it makes me extremely annoyed. I think of what my electorate thinks of this kind of procedure. It is so disgusting and so despicable. This is one of the reasons the Reform Party was formed and why we believe we have to make changes to this place. This is such a disgusting act. We all realize how detrimental it is to the democratic process and to any kind of respect we might have for a place like this.

The amendments in Group No. 5 probably fit well with what the government has just done. It is denying the auditor general authority to audit this public agency and it is refusing access to information concerning this organization. The government members do this and then say they believe in democracy.

There are three aspects of Bill C-4 that are undemocratic. The government is slapping the western Canadian agricultural community in the face. That will be remembered. The government should look at the number of western Canadian members it has to get an idea of what western Canadians think of this lack of democracy.

Let us talk briefly about this bill in the time we have. Let us first talk about the supposed elections it refers to. Farmers will elect 10 members and the government 5 members and the president. The farmers are the shareholders of this corporation and should elect all members. They should be electing the president and the members of this organization. If you believe in true democracy, you believe in elections by the people who have a stake.

In Chile and Argentina senators are elected to their senates. Most countries in the world have elections. Elections mean democracy. This is an undemocratic act and we should make that public. This is an insult to the people and the farmers of western Canada.

I read an example of this kind of slap in the face in my newspaper last night. The editorial discusses the disposal of bases. When militaire Saint-Jean was shut down $25 million plus donation of the property was given. When the base in Toronto was given up, 380 acres were donated, plus $22 million. When the base in Calgary was given up nothing was given and no land was given by the federal government. That is typical of how this government abuses western Canada.

What about public information? I am a farmer in part. I received a letter from the wheat board in my mail last week. This letter is an insult to the intelligence of the farming community. This letter talks about how democratic this board will be. It talks about the real power of the farmer. It talks about complete accessibility. This is an insult to the people of the farming community.

If the Liberals cannot allow access to information, what are they trying to hide? What are they covering up?

When I read this letter I say that it is a cover-up. What are they trying to hide? What are they doing? Are they out selling grain for the farmers of western Canada or are they sitting on their duffs in some fancy office some place?

I want to know what kind of prices they are getting for grain. It is my grain. It is our grain. What kind of prices are they getting? They say that will destroy competition. Give me a break. If they release the prices they got for grain in 1996-97 that will not destroy competition. I challenge this government on the ability of the Canadian Wheat Board to be the only marketing agency.

This is about democracy. Let farmers choose. Let farmers decide whether they want to have the Canadian Wheat Board.

That is not the issue. The issue is the abuse that is going on. We should be able to access the information. It should be opened up so the auditor general can ensure accountability.

Rumours are created because of this sort of thing. What are the people in the Canadian Wheat Board being paid? What kind of bonuses do they get at the end of the year? What kind of perks do they get? How can they justify keeping all that secret from the farmers whose grain they are supposed to be selling?

I want to speak about competition. In my area of foreign affairs I often talk to trade delegations. I hear them say “Do you guys still grow grain over there? Do you still have grain for sale? We never see anybody coming to sell it”.

We hear about the problems of ships sitting for 30 days or 45 days because they cannot take delivery. The Canadian Wheat Board is blowing the marketing of grain. It needs to be accountable. It needs to be examined. It needs to be subject to the scrutiny of its membership, the farmers.

They are talking about putting more crops under the control of the Canadian Wheat Board. That is a pretty scary thought. What about canola? What about feed barley? Will those crops be included? Will the wheat board inefficiently try to market an increased range of grain products? That is not good news for farmers anywhere.

This is about freedom of choice. A farmer has to decide what he should grow. A farmer has to decide what kind of fertilizers he should use. He has to decide when to spray and what to spray. He has to decide whether to insure against hail and all the other problems. He has to decide when to swath and when to harvest. He has to make all those decisions and worry about quality. The most important part is the paycheque that he gets for doing all that. The most important thing is the marketing of the product he produces. He controls everything else but he does not have any control over the people he should be electing to do his marketing.

Those people should be accountable. How much do they get paid? What do they do? How aggressive are they? He has a right, as a farmer, to know those answers.

We need to know we are getting the highest price possible. We need to know what this secret monopoly, which is filled possibly by patronage appointments, is all about. I hear the words accessibility and accountability. That is really what it comes down to.

We can look back to when this board was formed. Many of the farmers in my constituency have told me that they needed it at the time. I do not think we are talking about that. The issue of whether we should have it is not the question. The question concerns accountability. It needs to be open to the auditor general. It needs to be open to access to information. The people affected by this need to have access to it.

Division No. 72Government Orders

11:20 a.m.

Bloc

Jean-Guy Chrétien Bloc Frontenac—Mégantic, QC

Mr. Speaker, here we are after a vote to gag the opposition as we consider Bill C-4. The government has used its majority to gag us.

However, we in the Bloc Quebecois will use the time we have left to point out the failings of the bill, as has been our practice since our arrival in this House, put forward constructive amendments and hope that the government majority will agree.

The Canadian Wheat Board, it will be remembered, will have sales of between $6 billion and $7 billion annually. This is not peanuts. We in the Bloc have a very constructive proposal, Motion No. 20, and I would like to take a few minutes to read it. I would invite you, Mr. Speaker, to pay careful attention, because this is important. It is vitally important as a moral issue and to give grain producers confidence in the Canadian Wheat Board.

You already know that the Board, although its prime objective is praiseworthy, has lost a lot of credibility among the main stakeholders, the grain producers.

Motion No. 20 reads as follows:

That Bill C-4, in Clause 4, be amended by adding after line 37 on page 7 the following:

“(4) Notwithstanding subsection (2), a department within the meaning of the Financial Administration Act includes the Board for the purposes of the Auditor General Act”.

What does that mean exactly? It means, currently and once Bill C-4 on the Canada Wheat Board is passed, the books will be audited once a year to see whether the people appointed by the government, primarily the president, are working for the benefit of producers or for their own benefit.

The company of Deloitte and Touche will do the audit. I will not ask how much that means a year for this firm, which is a willing contributor to the Liberal Party campaign fund.

In the interests of transparency, we in the Bloc Quebecois are proposing not only that the auditor general be the one to audit transactions, but that he also be allowed to audit the Canadian Wheat Board's operations. The accounting firm will audit only the statement of income and outgo. You know how it works. An accounting firm prepares the following sort of letter: “On the basis of the figures supplied to us, we have audited a few invoices and everything seems to be in order”.

There is always this traditional phrase relieving the private auditor of all responsibility in the event of fraud. Whereas the credibility of Denis Desautels, who plays an extremely important role, is above all suspicion and he could also, as I was saying earlier, audit the Canadian Wheat Board's operations.

Let us take the sales figure of $7 billion. A mere 1% adds up to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Funds could be misappropriated.

Obviously, the president and the four other individuals appointed by the Liberal Party could be above all suspicion, but the absence of suspicion could later turn into slight doubts.

Take Senator Andrew Thompson, for example. He was a good Liberal who headed up the Ontario Liberal Party. He was appointed to the Senate by a Liberal government. Today, he has fallen from favour. But the Constitution tells us he was appointed until age 75. We are stuck with him. That was a Liberal appointment.

We are proposing that appointments be examined and approved by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, something the government party is unfortunately rejecting as well.

For the good of grain producers, I am asking the Liberal majority to seriously consider and approve—this is nothing to be ashamed of—the Bloc Quebecois' proposal, which seeks to give more transparency to the Canadian Wheat Board. If the idea has to come from the Liberal Party, then let us remove my name and put the name of a Liberal member on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. I can certainly live with that. As you know, the Canadian Wheat Board provides excellent services and is a necessary corporation. Still, only 60% of farmers are willing to rely on it. This is not normal.

I will use the rest of my time to look at Motion No. 21, moved by the Conservative member from Manitoba. The hon. member proposes to add a heading, but I am almost certain that Liberals will vote against it. Let me give an idea of how narrow-minded the Liberals are when it comes to helping farmers. This motion makes sense. I cannot see why the Liberals will reject it. It reads, in part:

  1. The Corporation is incorporated with the object of marketing grain grown in Canada in the best interests of farmers—

The motion states that the corporation works in the best interests of farmers. Does this not make sense? Is the CWB's raison d'être not to maximize grain producers' returns? Its role is to help and support our grain producers, not make them poorer.

Based on what Liberal members on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food said, the Liberals will vote against Motion No. 21, moved by the hon. member for Brandon—Souris. Again, all this is not very transparent.

Let me go back to the financial interests that the Liberal Party may have in passing Bill C-4. Given the refusal to have the books of the Canadian Wheat Board audited by a private accounting firm, and given the refusal to let Denis Desautels, the auditor general, take a look, we are justifiably concerned about the transparency of the Canadian Wheat Board.

Let us not forget that 15 directors will sit on the CWB's board of directors, 10 of whom will be elected by the producers themselves.

There are five others, including the president, who, to all intents and purposes—and we might as well be honest about it—will run the board of directors. He will run the Canadian Wheat Board. This very important person will be appointed by the governor in council and there will be no way to have the auditor general audit his books. That is unacceptable.

I launch an appeal, in closing. I appeal to my colleagues opposite to work for the benefit of farmers and not for their own personal benefit.

Division No. 72Government Orders

11:30 a.m.

NDP

Dick Proctor NDP Palliser, SK

Mr. Speaker, my first words this morning have to be ones of condemnation as well toward the government for introducing closure on Bill C-4. I remind the House, especially those who do not sit on the Standing Committee for Agriculture and Agri-food, that the bill was rushed through the House last fall. At that time the excuse was that the government wanted to have the bill through before Christmas.

I recall that even before the Canadian Wheat Board made its presentation on Bill C-4 opposition and government members on the committee were to have their amendments in. This is yet another example of this rush to judgment. A couple of more days to have concluded all this would not have been beyond the pale.

We are dealing this morning with Group No. 5 in which there are 14 or 15 amendments. In a broad brush way they include the auditor general, which my colleague for Frontenac—Mégantic spoke about it at some length; maximizing returns to farmers-producers and I will come back to that; the contingency fund; how any profits from the new wheat board will be consolidated; and the questions of lower then normal price, best returns, overtime and the accountability of directors.

I want to zero in during my remarks this morning on the contingency funds. For us this proposal is perhaps the worst feature of Bill C-4.

Bill C-4 does not reflect the wishes of western Canadian farmers. Despite objections from numerous farmers and farm groups section 39(1) remains in the bill. That section would allow for cash buying and thus undermine price pooling.

Bill C-4 also terminates the government's guarantee of adjusted initial prices. These two changes together would necessitate the creation of the contingency fund which has been estimated could cost farmers as much as $5.45 a tonne every year for five years on every tonne sold through the Canadian Wheat Board. That is a total of $27 per tonne marketed.

This is based on Mr. Hehn's estimate of a contingency fund that would be in the neighbourhood of $575 million or $580 million. Again we have no indication from the government about how big or how small that contingency fund will be. One assumes that the $580 million comes loosely on a 10% contingency fund for the annual marketing of the Canadian Wheat Board, which is in the neighbourhood of $6 billion.

The contingency fund could cost wheat and barely growers almost as much money as they received under the Crow payout scheme of two or three years ago.

Canadian Wheat Board supporters are not only being asked to accept legislation that fundamentally damages the board, but through the contingency they could be asked to pay thousands of dollars each if Bill C-4 changes are implemented. The bill ignores and repudiates the clearly articulated will of the vast majority of western Canadian farmers and is therefore totally unacceptable in its present form.

The minister responsible for the wheat board has been able to achieve the almost impossible. He has all the opposition parties united against the bill, admittedly for very different reasons but nonetheless in total opposition to what we have in front of us. It seemed to be unthinkable at the time but the impossible has been achieve.

Let me make it crystal clear that our caucus and our party oppose the bill because we do not believe that what is here unamended will improve the Canadian Wheat Board. Rather it will significantly weaken the Canadian Wheat Board.

The fundamental question that needs to be answered is whether the bill will or will not be an improvement over what we have now, particularly the three pillars of the current wheat board. The conclusion, as I have said, is that what is before us is a significant diminution of the wheat board which has been a critical factor in western Canada for the past 63 years.

There are three pillars of the wheat board. We believe two of them are at risk in the bill as we see it, price pooling and government guarantees. If the Reform amendments were adopted the third pillar would disappear as well, single desk selling.

As we all know, Reform wants to do away with the wheat board. They want a voluntary board or to do marketing which would effectively kill the wheat board. The notion of a voluntary board is a total fraudulent idea. It is a scam, as was noted by the Alberta Judge Muldoon who said that a duel market was simply a quick transition to an open market. This is something Reform critics and commentators never acknowledge.

I want to say how refreshing it was to hear the agriculture critic for the Conservative Party when he rose on Monday to speak to the bill and specifically to some of the resolutions, instead of the pathetic bleating and ranting of many but not all in the Reform Party.

One Reform Party speaker told us how many speakers from his party had risen to speak in this debate. Let me say as an interested observer that there was a heck of a lot more chaff than wheat in most of the content we heard on Monday afternoon. Particularly abysmal was the performance of the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt. I would encourage any fair minded person to go back and read his contribution to Monday's debate.

Western Canadian wheat growers have a policy that I do not agree with. They have a lengthy paper on duel marketing. They are the ideological soul mates of many Reformers. They must be somewhat embarrassed when they hear what is said many times on the floor of the House.

On the contingency fund, we would propose specifically under Motion No. 25 to delete all references to the contingency fund. Let me underline that we believe the fund is, as I have said before, the single worst feature of the bill. The idea of establishing such a fund follows from provisions in the bill for cash buying. That is the logic behind it. The contingency fund is unnecessary if Ottawa would continue to provide financial guarantees to the board as it has done for the past six decades, guarantees, I might add, that are seldom used and as a result cost taxpayers next to nothing.

Furthermore, the government is either unwilling or unable to indicate how large of fund is required. I have alluded to that. The assumptions are somewhere between $350 million and as much as $575 million to establish the fund.

I note in passing that the parliamentary secretary to the minister of agriculture rose in his place while we were debating the bill last November and said that nobody could pinpoint exactly how large the contingency fund would be. It is another dilemma in our position on the bill.

We believe the government could make an important concession by guaranteeing federal finances that have seldom been required over the past six decades to support the wheat board. It would mean that the kind of money we are talking about would not be required to be produced by farmers but instead would have some genesis and some real assistance from the Canadian government.

Motion No. 30 simply reinforces the federal guarantee to the Canadian Wheat Board. It is in Group No. 5 as well.

Before I close I want to refer to one of the amendments before us. It was somewhat startling to hear what the member for Yorkton—Melville said on this grouping. Subsection 1 shall not be interpreted to prevent the corporation from making a contract to sell a type of grain at a price that is lower than normal in order to secure other sales of the same type of grain that will result in the best return to producers of that type over a period of time.

That amendment sticks out because it is totally hypocritical. That party has been chastising the wheat board over many years because it fails to get the best return. Now it is suggesting that we should do it as an order of business.

I close by saying that this party opposes any notion of a contingency fund and we want to see the continuation of government guarantees in Bill C-4.

Division No. 72Government Orders

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

Larry McCormick Liberal Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox And Addington, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this very popular Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board.

Division No. 72Government Orders

11:40 a.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh.

Division No. 72Government Orders

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

Larry McCormick Liberal Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox And Addington, ON

Politics are alive and well in the Chamber. People are laughing about the popularity of the wheat board bill, but the standing committee on agriculture in the previous year listened to all groups involved in the production and the sale of wheat. They spent days and even weeks on the road listening and consulting with people.

Since that time the ministry has sent out hundreds of thousands of forms and letters of information to all growers in western Canada, all growers of all commodities. Growers have been happy with the Canadian Wheat Board. It has been one of the most successful bodies in the country.

The Reform Party is guilty of twisting the facts. We are not surprised about that, but it is unfair to the majority of the people who produce and grow wheat, the people whom I respect very much.

The bill, according to one of my colleagues, has been rushed to judgment. Again I repeat that my colleagues spent months on it. Since that time we have heard from representatives of all commodity groups at committee. Who would represent some of those groups? The growers cannot decide themselves who should represent those groups.

The Reform Party wants a voluntary wheat board. It wants its cake and to eat it too. It wants to do a flip-flop, jump in, jump out, and have it both ways.

The area of one of my colleagues opposite who sits on the standing committee has been dealt very severe blows by Mother Nature. In the Peace River area the people do not deserve what they have had in the way of weather. I know this hard working member has raised the concerns of these growers. Yet how do we address them? There are programs in place to help these people.

We survived the 1998 ice storm. It was the most severe natural disaster in the history of the country. There may be a difference between a major natural disaster and something we can insure against.

In this case the Reform Party wants the people who had no insurance to receive money for the buildings that burned down. They want the best of all of this. The members of the Reform Party want the auditor general. They are doubting the words of one of the most professional auditing firms in Canada. They tell us that this auditing company does not give them a transparent report.

Division No. 72Government Orders

11:45 a.m.

Reform

Jay Hill Reform Prince George—Peace River, BC

All they do is check the numbers.

Division No. 72Government Orders

11:45 a.m.

Liberal

Larry McCormick Liberal Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox And Addington, ON

They check the numbers. I understand that a professional auditing firm does check numbers and if it produced a report I would accept it. One of my colleagues in the standing committee has asked members of the Reform Party if they would give us an audited statement of the finances of their party and we are still waiting for that.

I just want members opposite to recognize the fact that the government, our party and the committee have not heard at all from the majority of the growers in western Canada. The majority of the growers are satisfied with the status quo. They have faith in the Canadian Wheat Board.

The members of the Reform Party are asking that the Canadian Wheat Board be subject to audits by the auditor general.

Division No. 72Government Orders

11:45 a.m.

Reform

Darrel Stinson Reform Okanagan—Shuswap, BC

What is wrong with that?

Division No. 72Government Orders

11:45 a.m.

Liberal

Larry McCormick Liberal Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox And Addington, ON

What is wrong with that.

Making the Canadian Wheat Board subject to the Access to Information Act would force it to reveal far more information about its activities than any of its competitors. The release of company information would put the Canadian Wheat Board at a disadvantage when it negotiates sales with international buyers. This would not help their constituents.

I also ask members opposite to listen not just to the members of their own political party but to meet with their constituents in general. We cannot pay attention just to the letters we get from a few people. We have asked the members of these groups to come before us at the committee. They do not represent a majority of the people in this country. They do not represent the majority of the growers in western Canada.

A member opposite said that this party here does not represent the voices of the growers in western Canada with regard to the Canadian Wheat Board because these growers have not replied with the forms that were sent to them. The members of the Reform Party talk about the board of directors and that the growers have no control with this new Canadian Wheat Board.

I thought that when the growers had the opportunity to appoint 10 directors out of 15 they would have a majority. They will have the power to do what they want to do. They will have total control. What amount of money could they pay this director? If they do not like the director they could lower the pay. They have the majority.

I do not think this is a laughing matter. This is something I would like to see discussed fully in the House.

I have listened to groups from across the different prairie provinces and I welcomed the opportunity to learn from them. However the biggest thing I have seen from all these groups is that everybody wants to protect their turf. Everybody wants to say that they are representative of the groups. I do not think we can have 14 different marketing groups within some commodities. There has to be an umbrella to cover all of these groups.

The Canadian Wheat Board has been one of the most successful bodies in the history of this country. The amount of money and the quality of a great Canadian wheat product will make for increased sales in the future. We have to have control over a product like this. What more control can we have than 10 directors who represent the growers who produce this product?

The member from the NDP said that all parties are against this bill. The member also said it was for various reasons. They are not all in support of the Reform policy and the Reform amendments. I would like to bring attention to that.

Yesterday we saw history being made in this House when we saw the PC party vote with the Bloc. I believe the NDP voted with its brothers too.

In this case the farmers of western Canada are watching the Reform Party, not just letting the Reform Party lead them. A group of these Reformers have taken out ads on the Ottawa radio stations to tell us in Ottawa how we should vote. We should not listen to the producers. We should go by a paid radio announcement. I heard these ads on the radio and I do not think some radio advertisement is the way to go. I would rather that the same groups made use of the standing committee which is open to the groups.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter. I look forward to standing in the House and speaking on the next reading of the bill.

Division No. 72Government Orders

11:50 a.m.

Reform

Gerry Ritz Reform Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to speak to the Group No. 5 amendments on Bill C-4.

Motion No. 23, securing the best financial return for the producers is a unique concept. We have a farm crisis in western Canada and a lot of it comes down to the fact that the bottom line is in the red and not in the black.

On October 28, 1997 the minister responsible for the wheat board said in this House in a query to my compatriot for Yorkton—Melville “I can assure him however that the Canadian Wheat Board in every market in the world extracts the very best price it can possibly get for the farmers of Canada”. I will repeat that, the very best price it can possibly get.

All these amendments do is change the object of the Canadian Wheat Board Act so that it matches more exactly what that minister is telling us in the House and telling Canadians the purpose of the act is. If the minister honestly believes that the Canadian Wheat Board extracts the very best possible price, then he should wholeheartedly support these amendments.

Currently section 5 states “The board is incorporated with the object of marketing in an orderly manner in interprovincial and export trade, grain grown in Canada”, let me repeat that one portion “grain grown in Canada”. I find it odd that the act gives the board authority to market grain grown in all of Canada but only imposes its monopoly powers in the prairie provinces.

Why is the government monopoly good for grain grown in the west but not good enough to force on farmers in the rest of Canada? Could it be they do not really want it? Are we not as smart or as capable to handle our affairs in the west? Do we not have a stake in our own marketing? We grow it, we take the risks, we like to have a share of the gravy at the other end.

If this government monopoly is supposedly serving farmers' marketing needs in the west so well, I find it odd that farmers in the other provinces are not demanding that the wheat board take over their marketing too. The fact that it is not happening illustrates why western wheat and barley producers are so frustrated. They are being discriminated against. They are being forced to sell their grain to the government controlled monopoly while farmers in the rest of the areas in Canada can sell to whomever they wish.

At least these amendments would make sure that the prairie farmers are getting the best return that a government operated monopoly can get for them. As the wheat board act is worded, all they are guaranteed is orderly marketing, not good marketing.

These amendments would improve on the existing wording by saying the purpose of the Canadian Wheat Board in the orderly and co-ordinated marketing of grain is to maximize, and I underline maximize, the financial return to the producers it serves.

The first amendment, Motion No. 1, adds a preamble to the act to clarify the reasons why we have a Canadian Wheat Board and that the first priority of that board should be to secure the best financial return to producers. People from all political stripes can identify with that one. The board must be accountable to those farmers for that performance.

The second amendment, Motion No. 23, changes the wording of section 5 of the act to state “The object of the corporation is to secure the best financial return to producers of grain in Canada by marketing grain in an orderly and co-ordinated manner”. It also adds to section 5 that the board carries out this marketing activity “on behalf of the producers of the grain”. Put their interests first.

It is a sad day that my colleague from Yorkton—Melville has had to draft such an obvious amendment to put the best interests of the producers ahead of the rights of this marketing board.

This change in the object or purpose of the act resulted in three consequential amendments.

The first amendment, Motion No. 28, concerns clause 7 of the bill. Section 7 of the act is being amended to ensure that grain sold or disposed of is not only sold for a price the board considers reasonable, but that it must be done in order to fulfil the new objective of maximizing the financial return to farmers. What a concept that is.

The second consequential amendment, Motion No. 29, also concerns clause 7. It directs any profits from the sale of grain back to the producers rather than have the profits paid into the government's consolidated revenue fund which is kind of like putting them in a sinkhole.

The third consequential amendment, Motion No. 39, concerns clause 22 which is found at pages 16 and 17 of Bill C-4. It would ensure that undistributed balances would be paid back to the producers who are entitled to the payment rather than just being designated to the government's vague term “for the benefit of all”.

Motion No. 45 would insert a sunset clause. The last amendment is what is commonly referred to as a sunset clause. It would require the auditor general to examine the wheat board's operation over the five year period ending December 31, 2002 to determine if the board had met its first priority as described in the new amended section, namely to secure the best financial return to the producers by marketing grain in an orderly and co-ordinated manner.

At this point the auditor general is not allowed to have a peek at the books, but he is allowed to look at other areas, like defence, CSIS and the RCMP, which are also highly political and could lead to problems. Why can he not look at the wheat board?

The auditor general's report on the wheat board's operation would have to be delivered to the minister no later than September, 2003. The minister would have to table the report in the House and in the Senate where it would be referred to a committee of the whole. This sunset clause would repeal the Canadian Wheat Board Act if it had not lived up to its mandate over that five year period.

This is another accountability measure. If the people who are running the wheat board, whether elected or appointed, know that their performance will be measured independently by the auditor general after that timeframe, they will make absolutely sure they are securing the best financial return for the producers. Their jobs are in the balance. Some accountability exists.

The real benefit of a sunset clause is that it forces the board, the government and Parliament to revisit this legislation every five years to make sure it is still needed and that it is achieving the objectives established by Parliament.

No producers have a problem with a marketing agency, a monopoly in this case, which is transparent and accountable to them serving their best interests. If the Canadian Wheat Board was truly accountable to the producers, we would not be having this debate today, nor will the debate stop after the government rams through this legislation.

Division No. 72Government Orders

11:55 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is the House ready for the question?

Division No. 72Government Orders

11:55 a.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Division No. 72Government Orders

11:55 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Pursuant to agreement made Wednesday, November 19, 1997, all questions on the motions in Group No. 5 are deemed put and the recorded divisions are deemed requested and deemed deferred.

The House will now proceed to the debate on the motions in Group No. 6.

Division No. 72Government Orders

11:55 a.m.

NDP

Dick Proctor NDP Palliser, SK

moved:

Motion No. 35

That Bill C-4, in Clause 17, be amended by replacing lines 16 to 19 on page 12 with the following:

““period” means a crop year”

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-4, in Clause 18, be amended by replacing line 2 on page 13 with the following:

“order of the Corporation with the approval of the Minister and the Minister of Finance.”

Division No. 72Government Orders

February 12th, 1998 / 11:55 a.m.

Progressive Conservative

Rick Borotsik Progressive Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

moved:

Motion No. 37

That Bill C-4, in Clause 19, be amended by adding after line 31 on page 15 the following:

“(5) Section 33 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (5):

(6) The Corporation may enter into an agreement with a producer, at the beginning of a crop year, authorizing the producer to market independently of the Corporation, a specified percentage of the wheat or barley produced by that producer in that crop year.”

Division No. 72Government Orders

11:55 a.m.

Reform

Garry Breitkreuz Reform Yorkton—Melville, SK

moved:

Motion No. 38

That Bill C-4, in Clause 22, be amended

(a) by replacing line 36 on page 16 with the following:

“39. If producers of any grain sold and,”

(b) by replacing line 12 on page 17 with the following:

“separate account, and distribute to them in an equitable manner any balance remaining in the separate account after such payments have been made.”

Division No. 72Government Orders

11:55 a.m.

NDP

Dick Proctor NDP Palliser, SK

moved:

Motion No. 39

That Bill C-4, in Clause 22, be amended by deleting lines 20 to 27 on page 17.

Division No. 72Government Orders

11:55 a.m.

Reform

Jay Hill Reform Prince George—Peace River, BC

moved:

Motion No. 40

That Bill C-4, in Clause 22, be amended by adding after line 27 on page 17 the following:

“39.2 (1) The Corporation shall establish a plan for wheat pricing which shall have the following features:

(a) a producer will be able to hedge a specified portion of his or her wheat on a recognized grain exchange in Canada or in another country;

(b) the quantity of wheat hedged by the producer under paragraph (a) will be delivered to the Corporation prior to the maturation of the futures contract entered into by the producer under the hedge;

(c) the Corporation will assume ownership and responsibility for the hedged position upon delivery of the wheat to the Corporation.

(2) The Corporation shall establish, annually, the portion of each producer's wheat which each individual producer will be allowed to hedge under this program.

(3) The Corporation shall establish the terms and conditions under which the hedge position of the producer is to be assumed by the Corporation.”

Mr. Speaker, I cannot let this opportunity pass without making reference to the fact that the government has brought in time allocation. The way in which the government has treated this very important legislation has been absolutely reprehensible right from the very beginning.

In my speech at third reading, which will probably be next Tuesday, I will outline for the House, for the viewing public and most important for the western Canadian farmers exactly what has transpired over the last year and a half and how the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and the government have handled this very important issue.

In debate on the last group of motions the hon. member for Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington made some absolutely outrageous statements which cannot go unnoticed. He said that the majority of growers are satisfied with the status quo.

That was the statement he made which clearly shows the fantasy world Liberal members live in when it comes to the Canadian Wheat Board and how it affects the livelihoods of western Canadian grain farmers.

I will now discuss the motions in Group No. 6. There are six motions listed under Group No. 6, Motions Nos. 35 to 40, inclusive. I will primarily address Motion No. 40 which I put forward and which was supported by my colleague from the progressive Conservative Party.

One of the unique things about this is that the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board has accomplished the near impossible. This was referred to during the November debate of this bill at report stage. It was also referred to this morning by an NDP member. The minister has alienated almost every western farm group with the way he has bungled this issue from the very beginning. It is no small accomplishment to get everybody in western Canada angry with you, but he has managed to accomplish that.

I would like to pay some tribute to the farm organizations, some of which have banded together to form an ad hoc group called the coalition to fight Bill C-4. That is the level of intensity springing up across western Canada as farmers are trying to get this government to reconsider. I thank those groups for the time, energy and considerable expense they incurred to bring forth proposed amendments to Bill C-4.

It is unfortunate the government does not respect this contribution. This is obvious because these groups that represent the majority of grain producers were not consulted when legislation was drafted in the first place and because the Liberals rammed the legislation through committee, allowing minimal time for witnesses to testify. Then today they invoked time allocation to limit MPs' opportunity to properly debate these substantive amendments.

I assure those groups from both sides of the debate, those content with the status quo in the Canadian Wheat Board and those calling for significant change, that their efforts have been valuable and very much appreciated by me and my Reform colleagues. Their submissions and input have guided us in our approach to Bill C-4. I thank every last organization and individual who made submissions to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, wrote letters to MPs and called to express their views on this important legislation.

One of these groups came up with an ingenious amendment that seeks to meet the needs of all parties involved with the Canadian Wheat Board. This amendment provides voluntary opportunity for risk management. It allows other producers to maintain their exclusive use of the Canadian Wheat Board to market their grain.

I was so impressed with the amendment proposed by the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association that I thought all MPs should have the opportunity to debate it as an amendment to Bill C-4 in the House of Commons. It is known as the cash pricing option. I will guide members through it as outlined by the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association in the brief it submitted.

The proposed amendment to the Canadian Wheat Board Act would allow producers to forward price 25% of their wheat production. They would use the same recognized futures exchange used by the wheat board for pricing and hedging of prairie wheat, that is Minneapolis for spring wheat and Chicago or Kansas City for hard, red winter wheat.

The option would work in this manner. The producer would first commit to a deferred delivery contract or sell a futures contract for part or all of his 25% allotment. Sometime before the futures contract month becomes a cash month, the producer would deliver his wheat either to an agent of the board at a country elevator or to a landed basis location, that being a terminal or a processor.

Upon delivery of the wheat, the grain company holding the deferred delivery contract would give its futures contract to the Canadian Wheat Board. The Canadian Wheat Board would then buy back the futures contract and execute the cash side, that is sell the cash wheat to any customer it desires. The producer's settlement would be the futures price adjusted for exchange rate minus basis deduction from the Canadian Wheat Board. As well, the producer's settlement would be adjusted from base grade specs of the futures contract for grade, protein, moisture, and so on.

This cash pricing option would allow farmers to trade one quarter of their wheat in exactly the same way in which they presently trade canola, flax, rye and oats.

Under this proposal every farmer would have an equal opportunity to participate. Farmers who would forward price the maximum 25% are also taking on the risk that they may not get the best price. No one hits the market highs all the time. But farmers would have better ability to manage price risk and manage cashflow, especially in years when the initial price is set extremely low, like this year.

Farmers would gain assurance that they are getting the world price, and that is important for farmers who have become accustomed to dealing with the secretive Canadian Wheat Board. Many farmers are suspicious that the Canadian Wheat Board system does not deliver the world price.

The cash pricing option would have a number of other consequential benefits that the Liberals, if they would bother to pay attention, would find very attractive. The threat of border runs and civil disobedience that we have seen frequently would be reduced by allowing farmers access to the better prices they can see in the U.S. market.

As the Liberals struggle to put out fires in trade skirmishes with the U.S., this amendment would reduce trade irritants for the federal government by showing that Canadian grain coming into the U.S. is at world price.

All these advantages would be found, while at the same time single desk selling is maintained, reassuring those who favour this approach.

This amendment embodies the true spirit of compromise. It is a step in the right direction that boldly yet wisely seeks to progressively develop the western Canadian grain marketing system. Yet it also provides security to those who believe single desk selling is in their best interests.

I believe it is obvious that this amendment is worthy of serious consideration by all MPs in this House. While the opposition to the government's version of Bill C-4 has been loud and prolific from all sides of the issue, a group of Canadians has brought to us a mechanism with which to resolve a dispute. Producers are willing to give it a try. Members of this House should ensure they get that opportunity.

I have just enough time to wrap up by saying how appalled I am on behalf of all opposition MPs, as the agriculture critic for the official opposition in the House of Commons today, that this government would move to bring in time allocation again, as we saw it do so often in the 35th Parliament.

I cannot let it go without saying that I think western Canadian farmers are going to be watching this debate. I am sure they have watched with intense interest up until today. I think the move today to shut down debate with one day of debate for report stage remaining today and one day only for debate at third reading is absolutely reprehensible, and this government should certainly be embarrassed, if nothing else.