Debates of Feb. 17th, 1998

Canadian Wheat Board Act

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I said that the minister has the power to appoint the chief executive officer. He said something completely different. I said that the power rests within the minister to appoint the chief executive officer and he is—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

We are on questions and comments and the question is directed to the member for Souris—Moose Mountain.

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

Madam Speaker, in reply to my colleague, yes it is true. It is very true that from time to time all over western Canada the chief executive officer of the wheat board and the wheat board determine where the rail cars go and what the allotment is. The farmer who grows the grain has no say whatsoever as to where that grain will go, through what port it will go and only the wheat board makes that decision.

We now have the opportunity with a new structure coming into the Hudson's Bay area to double or triple the amount of grain going. I have been told by these people that they can fill the terminals more cheaply in Montreal, Saint John and Halifax by going that route. If it is cheaper it should be done. Every time you can save the western Canadian farmer a dollar you should. The farmer should get the money and not the Canadian Wheat Board. The board should not get the money if it is not acting in the best interest of the farmer to bring about maximum returns, a statement you would not put into the wheat board itself.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

There are 25 seconds for a very quick question.

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

Madam Speaker, 25 seconds. Is that calculating in the time that was taken by the Liberals for a point of order that was not a point of order?

I wonder if the hon. member would care to comment on what steps he has taken to ascertain the feelings of his constituents, the grain farmers who are actually going to be affected by this bill in his riding.

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

Madam Speaker, to give my colleague the answer to the question, in order for an industry on the prairies to become viable, it first must escape and not have to pay the freight rate because they do not use any freight and they must escape the handling charges because they do not use any handling charges.

The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool soon learned that they had to get out from the long arm of the wheat board. If industries are going to develop on the prairies, then the wheat board must recognize it and free the farmers to establish their own industry.

[Cliff Breitkreuz, Reform, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague who spoke just prior made the statement that it is a sad day on the prairies with the passing, as it of course will, of C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, and of course it is.

In the 35th Parliament, we had Bill C-68, the gun control legislation. It was a sad day then especially for Western Canada. Of course, we know where that particular bill is now insofar as four or five governments are concerned in taking the federal government to court.

Already in this term with not even a year gone by, we have Bill C-4, which is going to be disastrous to say the least for a lot of Western Canadian producers, and it is going to do some harm.

I want to quote a little bit from a column in the Western Producer. It is written by Reverend J.A. Davidson and this is what he has to say when he quotes T.S. Eliot in the play, The Cocktail Party:

“Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important”.

Then of course Reilly, who is the psychiatrist in this play, and I can see Reilly already being a psychiatrist and the minister of the wheat board lying on the couch, further explains that quote:

“They don`t mean to do harm—but the harm does not interest them. Or they just do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves”.

Harm is done by a lot of people. Just what harm is being done with the passing of Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act? I suggest there are going to be a number of harms done. In fact there were harms done to Canadian western farmers away back in 1943 when the Canadian Wheat Board became a monopoly.

Of course, the history goes back prior to that. The Canadian Wheat Board was actually established in 1935, but it was a voluntary wheat board up until 1943 when the government invoked the War Measures Act and passed the Canadian Wheat Board Act and made it a monopoly in Western Canada. Already back then, more than 50 years ago, what happened was this: the Canadian government made a deal with Great Britain—it was during the war—to supply Great Britain with 600 million bushels of wheat at a set price to be delivered over a four year period. This wheat was all sold at below market price to Great Britain, all 600 million bushels. The extent to which it was sold under market price ranged between $1 and $1.50. In late 1940 dollars, $1 and $1.50 below market price, accumulating actually almost $1 billion that western farmers lost in four years due to the monopoly of the wheat board.

Imagine those dollars in terms of today's dollars. There would be tens of billions of dollars lost to their prairie economy because of a control mongered government here in Ottawa. But it does not stop there.

Economists right through the wheat board's history have come up with this figure that over the 30, 40, 50 years, in addition to these four years that I have just talked about, western Canadian farmers have lost on average about a dollar a bushel on all the grain they have sold over those years, and of course we cannot get it. This is so ridiculous that we cannot know for sure because of the nature of the Canadian Wheat Board. Nobody can get into it. It operates in secrecy and this bill does nothing to open it up at all. It is still in the control of the minister and executive council.

We have over the 30 or 40 years hundreds of millions of bushels a year, about a dollar a bushel, billions of dollars that the centralist government here in Ottawa has taken out of the prairie economy. Imagine where the western provinces would be today if all those dollars could have been reinvested back in western Canada. Imagine that.

So that is how they have lost. It was about a dollar a bushel over all those years. There is going to be harm done democratically as well. Not only will the wheat board be not operating democratically, but also in the greater context the other provinces are all bound to honour the Canadian Wheat Board Act.

Alberta has voted to opt out, to set up a dual marketing system. We cannot do that. Even though Alberta has voted to do that, we cannot do that because of the Canadian Wheat Board Act. It is undemocratic. It does not matter which way you slice it or dice it. Regardless of this law, it is still undemocratic.

It will continue to be undemocratic in spite of the amendments. The government would not accept our amendments, none of them. Shame on the government.

It has already harmed a number of western farmers. It has made criminals out of grain producers. The act has and I suggest it probably will continue to make criminals out of western grain producers. Already 219 charges have been laid against western producing farmers. What did they do? They must have raped their neighbour's wife or stolen or murdered. They must have done something like that to be charged, some of them shackled and thrown into jail.

What did these western producers do to warrant a trip to jail? They did the absolute unpardonable, they sold their grain to the Americans. Prairie farmers cannot sell grain to the Americans, that is not acceptable. They pay way less in taxes down there. You cannot sell grain into a country like that, a capitalist system where they can move grain back and forth freely. Of course they cannot into here but they can around the world.

They are charged under a law that is absolutely confusing. Some are charged, some are not. Others are convicted. The charges are stayed. You wonder really where we are at. I suggested already that it is going to keep young people from going into active farming in western Canada because of Bill C-4.

Why should young people go into wheat or barley production? After they have invested all the money, went out in the spring, did all the work, invested in fertilizer, in seed, machinery, land, the sweat and the stress of putting the crop in, taking care of it and of course harvesting it, why should they go into that when the government is going to control it?

They do not even own it, really. If they want to export milling wheat, they do not even own it. The government owns it, for heaven's sake.

Why should they go into a sector of our economy when it is the only sector in Canada's economy where the producers do not have control over where they market? It is absolutely a shame. This is a sad day for western Canadian farmers.

I have already mentioned that it will hurt the western economy because of the diversification that will not occur in so far as the processing of wheat is concerned. If people who want to add value to wheat have to buy it first, sell it to the Canadian Wheat Board then buy it back at greater price, there is a good chunk of their profit gone.

It is a bill that should be withdrawn. I plead with the members across the way that they not support it in the vote tonight.

Business Of The House

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Following discussion between the parties I think you will find unanimous consent for two motions. I will present one first and we will see if there is unanimous consent. Then I will present the second.

The first motion has to do with the days of the national conventions of some of the parties represented in the House. I move:

That the House shall not sit on Friday, February 27, 1998, Friday, March 20, 1998 and Friday, May 29, 1998, provided that, for the purposes of Standing Order 28, the House shall be deemed to have sat and adjourned on Friday, February 27, 1998.

(Motion agreed to)

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the second motion deals with the business of the House and the representation of the opposition parties in the House. I move:

That, on Wednesday, February 18, 1998, the House shall sit until 8.30 p.m., provided that Private Members' Business shall be taken up at 7.30 p.m., that no proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38 shall be taken up that day and that any division requested that day on any business pursuant to Standing Order 81 shall be deferred to the time of expiry of the time for consideration for Government Orders on Monday, February 23, 1998.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, and act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, be read the third time and passed; and of the amendment.

Canadian Wheat Board Act

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Questions and comments, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. members opposite have raised several issues which deserve comment and question.

One of the points made by the hon. members opposite from the Reform Party was that there are no net benefits gained through single desk selling. Quite frankly, in other industries and other agricultural sectors there are benefits that have accrued above and beyond the wildest imaginations of producers upon the suspension of regulatory marketing and other regulations affecting the industries. The hog industry was used as an example. Producers obtained unbelievable, unsurpassed profits.

One of the points which has to be made is that what the Reform Party is advocating is a move to a complete market based system, one that is in full competition with the Canadian Wheat Board, one that is in full competition with the private sector and operates almost under parallel circumstances to the private sector. In other words, everybody sells to wherever they want.

This is a question that was raised to me while I was travelling in Saskatoon—Humboldt not too long ago. It should have been addressed to the Reform Party. The Canadian Wheat Board and farmers benefit from financial guarantees provided by the government.

They understood that the farmers and producers benefit from the financial guarantees provided by government. These guarantees currently cover initial payments, credit grain sales and the Canadian Wheat Board's general borrowings.

The Reform Party wants the Canadian Wheat Board to compete with private trade. It wants it to act as though it were in the private sector and basically wants farmers to compete 100% in the private sector.

This is the question that was raised to me and I raise it to the hon. member. Would the Reform Party view it as fair to have one enterprise benefiting from special government guarantees competing with the private sector companies which must risk their own capital or would the Reform Party want to see the Canadian Wheat Board and farmers no longer benefit from these guarantees?

That is a specific question and I would really appreciate a specific answer. Does the Reform Party want the Canadian Wheat Board to operate as a private sector enterprise and not have the benefit from unfair competition by federal government guarantees or does it support the Canadian Wheat Board and the federal government's position?

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The hon. member for Yellowhead is not here to answer the question. Therefore we will be resuming debate.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

I have taken time in this House to ask a question to the hon. member who stood before and took time. Can I please get—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

We will be resuming debate.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak on Bill C-4.

I listened intently to the member of the Reform Party from Alberta, the last speaker for the official opposition. After listening to him, I really hope that no young Canadian boys and girls were listening to this debate. I say that because I think young people who listen to the debate and especially the contributions made by the Reform Party would come away from this debate believing that it is all right to distort the truth, that it is all right to twist the facts, that when it comes to this type of parliamentary debate, anything goes, there are no rules, no honour in this debate.

They never want to listen to debate. I have never seen a political party that is so afraid of the truth. Those members quake in their boots every time a government member stands up.

This member from Alberta mentioned that at one time back in the late thirties and in the forties the Canadian Wheat Board was a voluntary board and it was not a monopolistic board. Somehow he tried to leave the impression that it became a monopoly because that is what the government of the day wanted.

The fact is that from day one farmers on the prairies wanted a monopoly. They wanted single desk selling. If the truth were to be told, it was the Liberal government of the day that was reluctant to make it anything but a voluntary board. It was not until the 1950s that it became what it is today.

The sentiment and opinions of prairie farmers have changed very little. They do not want a voluntary board. They did not want a voluntary board then and they do not want a voluntary board now, despite anything the Reform Party says.

This Reform Party member who spoke a few moments ago talked about the board's not being democratic and that whatever the board would do under Bill C-4 somehow would be shoved down the throats of prairie farmers.

What is the fact of the matter? The fact is that Bill C-4 takes away many of the powers the government now has and puts those powers into the hands of farmers. The major mechanism of that is through a board and most of its members will be elected by farmers. On a 15 member board, there will be 10 elected by farmers and 5 appointed by the government. It sounds to me that it is going to be a board which reflects a democratic exercise.

A Reform Party member is saying just the opposite. This is why I am concerned about boys and girls who might be listening to this debate today. I do not want listeners especially the young people to believe that an opposition party can come into this House and just say whatever it likes. You cannot if you want to be ethical, and if you are bound to the truth, you will stick to the facts.

I want to touch on some other things. The official opposition which happens to be the Reform Party, and a number of other 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 which it selected. This is clearly not the case and I will try to deal in facts.

I would like to indicate the extent to which Bill C-4 reflects the recommendations of the Western Grain Marketing Panel. I wonder if members of the Reform Party would like to listen to some facts. We will see if they want to listen to facts.

It was worth noting that in introducing its recommendations, the panel stated: “The principle behind these amendments would be one of making the act a more enabling piece of legislation, thereby giving the minister responsible more authority to make changes by regulation rather than having to refer the act to Parliament for amendment on each occasion”. This is lesson number one for the Reform Party. This principle is clearly embodied in Bill C-4.

Many aspects of the bill, such as those providing for more flexible payment options for farmers, would allow the CWB to do many things it cannot do today. However, the decision to implement these new services or not would rest where it should be, with the farmer controlled board of directors. I want to remind the Reform Party members that if they have not read Bill C-4, we are going to have a democratically controlled board of directors.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Do not mislead the children now, John.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—Assiniboine, MB]

Reform members do not want to listen. I know the facts really grate on them. When someone is given to ideology, it is very, very difficult to listen to facts. I invite them, if they would just put aside the ideology for just five minutes, maybe we could get through this.

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

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

The second panel recommendation was to permit the Canadian Wheat Board to make cash purchases and that is in Bill C-4. The third recommendation was to permit the Canadian Wheat Board to make payments to farmers for grain storage and/or carrying costs. That is in Bill C-4.

We are just trying to teach these little children a few things. I know it is very difficult for the Reform Party. It is very difficult but we on this side will not give up.

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

These are just some facts to see if we can help these poor little members from the Reform Party.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have tried to restrain myself here. The member keeps demeaning other members of Parliament. That is against the rules of this House. It destroys the decorum of this House. I wish that you would request him to withdraw those negative statements that he has made and to start treating us like the fellow adults that we are.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I will try to be more attentive to the debate. At this point I would like to request to see the “blues”.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—Assiniboine, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will see if I can just stick with the facts. I know it upsets the Reform Party but we are just going to stick with the facts.

The sixth recommendation of the grain panel was to allow for pool accounts to be terminated and paid out at any time following closure of the pool. That is in Bill C-4. It is just another fact.

The seventh recommendation of the panel was to allow for the assignment of negotiable producer certificates. That is in Bill C-4 which is just another little fact for the Reform Party members. I know they have trouble listening.

The eighth recommendation of the panel was to clarify the board's authority to utilize risk management tools including futures and options in dealing with the farmers and customers. That is in Bill C-4. That is just another little fact for members of the Reform Party. I know it is difficult for them to absorb.

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.

Turning to the governance issue, the panel recommended that the board should be governed by a board of directors of not less than 11 and not more than 15 elected and appointed members. The panel 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 pretty closely I would say. 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 there are a number of groups who are concerned with having individuals with financial interests in the grain trade on the board. But the government would appoint five directors and they could well come from 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 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 and there would be a chairperson of the board. The one difference is that the chief executive officer would be a member of the board of directors 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 followed in C-72. However when the bill did not pass, it was decided that in order to live up to the commitment to have a board of directors with elected members in place by the end of this year, Bill C-4 could dispense with that interim board of fully appointed members. The change in 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 their terms are up, which is expected to be at the same time the new board members would be ready to take office.

Finally there was a recommendation that a mechanism should 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 but it 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 and in the other cases follows them quite closely. Those are absolutely the facts. I dare any member of the Reform Party to try to refute those facts.

Where Bill C-4 does not follow the recommendations of the panel is with respect to the recommendations it made on feed barley being placed under an open market system not precluding the Canadian Wheat Board while malt barley would be marketed solely through the Canadian Wheat Board. Another recommendation that was not followed was that unregistered varieties of wheat should be exempt from the jurisdiction of the wheat board.

Those recommendations were not followed up in C-4. The government did not believe that those recommendations were workable. In fact the panel itself had some doubts about the workability of the recommendation on barley. Instead what is in 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 could be 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 the export control provisions.

Let me 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. With respect to the panel's recommendations on jurisdiction for wheat and barley marketing, the bill puts in place a full democratic process for farmers to make those decisions themselves, and I underline themselves.

As members can see, contrary to what the official opposition has claimed, we have in fact followed the recommendations of the Western Grain Marketing Panel very closely.

Madam Speaker, how much time do I have left?

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

You have three minutes.

[An hon. member]

You are done.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—Assiniboine, MB]

There goes the Reform Party again. It really kills them to listen, does it not? It really kills them.

I want to pay tribute to all the prairie farmers who have participated in this debate with regard to changing the wheat board.

Prairie farmers are very democratically inclined. They take their business very seriously. They take the wheat board very seriously. They take the government seriously and they take politics seriously. They have made an enormous contribution to the debate which has been going on for a long, long time. I want to pay tribute to all the farmers who have worked so hard in trying to improve this bill as much as possible and who have given us the benefit of their views.

I know this is going to kill the Reform Party, but I would like to pay tribute to the minister responsible for the wheat board. If ever there was a minister who worked harder and who listened more to the stakeholders I would like to know who that minister is. This minister has bent over backward to find common ground, balance, equilibrium and compromise so that everyone's aspirations and desires would be reflected in the bill. The minister has done a magnificent job.

Let us be absolutely frank. If you are on the fringe of this debate, if you are a fanatic, you are not going to appreciate the hard work of this minister.

I know that most prairie farmers are fair minded. They are moderate people. They belong to the mainstream. What they want is a workable bill. They want a bill which will work. They do not expect that absolutely everything they desire will be in it. That is simply not possible in this kind of world.

We would have to exclude the Reform Party because its members live in some kind of ideological dream.

I wanted to put those remarks on the record for the sake of facts.

[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 Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, Airbus; the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, banking; the hon. member for Vancouver East, education.