Debates of Feb. 17th, 1998

Canadian Wheat Board Act

[An hon. member]

That is not Canada, is it?

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

That is Canada. That is the Canadian Wheat Board. That is the Liberal government. That is the Canada we live in.

What did the judge do? He gave him a $2,000 fine and the crown prosecutor said hold it a minute, that is not tough enough, not for this terrible criminal. That is not enough, we have to increase that to $20,000, and that is what he did. So they got rid of one more farmer.

That is why farmers are mad today and why they are not going to sit by and look at legislation like this and leave it go. They are going to change it and they are going to make that wheat board accountable and they are going to make it transparent.

It happened before that farmers had to take the bull by the horns and do something, and they will do it this time. There is no rule, no law in this country that dictates that kind of treatment. Rapists and murderers are allowed to run loose on the streets and a farmer is thrown in jail for selling his grain at a proper price. That is Canada. That is the Liberal government.

When the minister is asked just to put a preamble into that bill that will say we have to be accountable to the farmer and sell the grain for the best price, he cannot do it. That is not democracy. Why not make a bill that spells out clearly what that bill should be doing? Oh no, I know what I have spent to get the wheat board to say finally we have absolutely no authority or responsibility or duty to a farmer. That bill is there for the government and the corporation. That is there and if hon. members want to change it, they can.

Tonight hon. members can be men and women who stand up for democracy and defeat this bill, because that is what every farmer in western Canada has said so far. Tear it up, start all over again because we need a wheat board that is accountable and that is going to work for us, not just for us but for this country, something that will protect democracy and will protect the rights of individuals.

If this bill is implemented the way it is, it sets at risk every marketing scheme in this country. It sets at risk every RRSP plan. It sets at risk every pension plan. Everything can be confiscated if this is the type of bill we are going to pass in this House.

I hope the Liberals take it to heart tonight and show that they are men and women who work for this country. Stand up and vote against the government. They will go down in history just like Andy McMechan some day will probably have his face carved on those snow carvings, being a real hero just like Louis Riel.

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

Mr. Speaker, I tried to get up on a point of order and I might even have been out of order.

I do seriously believe that the allegation the member made is very serious and very wrong. I believe his heart is certainly in the right place in terms of fighting for farmers in the farm community, and I think he sees some good points in the Canadian Wheat Board as well. Probably he is not as in favour of it as I am, but he knows there are some very good points.

To accuse the Government of Canada of asking the Farm Credit Corporation, a crown corporation which operates with its own mandate, to push a farmer against the wall financially is a wrong allegation. I would ask the member if he has information to back up that allegation to table it. He is seriously wrong on that point.

The member raised the issue of salaries. The Canadian Wheat Board is a major $6 billion operation. It maximizes returns to producers. It is the paramount selling agency for producers around the world. It is a model which we should be emulating in other industries. I would ask the member what he sees as a legitimate level for administration expenses, including the salaries of board members.

The fact of the matter is that in 1995-96 in the pool accounts the administration expenses of the Canadian Wheat Board on $5.8 billion worth of sales were only .7%. That is a very efficiently run operation. To pull out figures like he is doing is absolutely going with the kind of rhetoric which Reform tends to go with.

What level does the member see as being efficient?

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the first question about this government not being capable of doing what I said. I will go a little further than that.

When I asked in this House how the minister could throw one farmer into jail for selling his grain at the best price when another farmer was rewarded for getting $54 a tonne outside the pooling system, the minister said he did not know what the wheat board act said. He had to get Richard Klassen, the wheat board commissioner, to interpret it. And what did he say? He said “We have no mandate to sell that wheat for the best price. Those kinds of bonuses are legal outside the system”.

When the RCMP looked into it they said “He is right”. What can we do?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Read this report.

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I can read all the reports I want, but I have the facts in black and white.

Not only that, when the customs and revenue people laid $165,000 worth of forfeitures against the farmer who received $250,000 in bonuses for selling outside the pooling system, he filed a complaint against customs and revenue. Customs and revenue have not filed a defence to date. It is shocking. They admitted they were wrong.

What is the government doing? It prosecutes one farmer and throws him into shackles and it gives another farmer $250,000 in bonuses for selling outside the pooling system. Is the government just working for the rich or is it working for the farm family which tries to maintain and keep ownership of their land? Which way does it want it? It is in black and white.

This book says there were $42 million in costs to operate the board. But what did we lose as far as getting a reasonable price when the judge said there is no mandate to sell at the best price? Mr. McMechan could have made $6 if he had hauled his barley 25 miles from his home and he got $2 from the wheat board. How much did it cost him to operate the wheat board? I do not think he made too much money on that deal. If I am right, he lost his farm.

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

Mr. Speaker, I might as well be in Mexico. I might as well join the senator down there. Mr. Speaker, you are the only one who is really listening to what I have to say. The government is not listening. We are essentially talking to ourselves in this place, so I might as well be in Mexico. It would do as much good.

There were 48 amendments proposed to this bill and not one was accepted. That is very significant.

Has the minister answered any of our questions? Has he been here to listen to the debate and to answer any of our questions? Not one. Therefore I went to some other avenues. I wrote him public letters and I never got a single answer. I might as well be in Mexico. I have worked very hard on this issue for a long time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe the Speaker will agree with me that it is not the conduct of this House to make reference to the presence or absence of members in this Chamber.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member is correct. It is not proper to refer to the presence or absence of hon. members in the Chamber. The member came very close, and since he switched topics quickly, I did not interrupt him. I know he will not do that again.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I referred to the convenient absence of the minister.

I asked the minister and I asked the chairman of the committee how much opposition to Bill C-4 there would have to be before the government would withdraw the bill. They never answered that question.

The opposition out there in the three prairie provinces is horrific. I have already stated that and I will not go into it. During the Christmas break and before, I asked farmers what they would like to see done. The minister has given the impression that there are two sides in this debate and they cannot be brought together. That is blatantly false. I went to the farmers and the farmers talked among themselves.

The farmers discussed the issue and came back to me with suggestions. Members know what I did with those suggestions. There was quite an internal kerfuffle in this House for me to get them drawn up and not simply have them sent to clerks. I went through all that and I had those amendments properly drawn up, which the majority of farmers agreed on.

I took the amendments back to the farmers and gave them several weeks to consider them. They went over them and I have already related the support there was for those amendments.

For the mandate of the board to be to maximize profits rather than orderly marketing, there was 97% support. And the minister said that they really do not know what they are thinking, that they do not know what they are talking about, that they are just farmers off in the prairies. How arrogant, how undemocratic can someone be, to ignore what these farmers want? The farmers were willing to allow for a five year opt out clause. In fact the support was 83%.

The minister said that both sides could not be brought together. How come I could do it? How come when I consulted widely I was able to do that in my constituency? How come when the farmers asked for an auditor general to examine the books of the board, I got 86% support for that?

Something is not ringing true in what the minister is saying. He is giving the impression that both sides cannot be brought together. That is blatantly false.

What good has it been for me to work hard and to bring farmers together and to get them to agree? What good has it done? Nothing. I might as well have taken a holiday in Mexico. It would have done as much good because the minister did not listen.

The Canadian Wheat Board minister said that this issue cannot be agreed on. I have proven him wrong. He will not answer the question about who is supporting him. There is virtually nobody. Look at the facts. Producers are opposed to this. But it is not just producers. Public letters from the Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee have been put in all papers on the prairies.

The Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee is elected by producers to sit on the Canadian Wheat Board and they are opposed to this. What level of opposition is needed? Here there are people who are in the know, who are on the inside of the Canadian Wheat Board structure saying that they do not want Bill C-4. Is it not abhorrent? We might as well all take a vacation in Mexico the way this government listens. It is absolutely ridiculous.

I have a half hour speech that this government is forcing me to make in 10 minutes so I have to go through things very quickly.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It was a proposal by the opposition members that they split their time 10 minutes a piece. It is not the government that did that.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sure we could have an interesting discussion about the length of the speech but the fact is the hon. member has the floor. I do not believe that is a point of order. It is a matter for debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, can my time be extended when they interrupt with these frivolous comments?

[The Deputy Speaker]

Yes.

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

Thank you.

This bill will create even more inequities. That is the point I am trying to make. I do not understand why this government does not trust farmers to make their own decisions and manage their own affairs.

The minister keeps saying the amendments put forward will put the Canadian Wheat Board at risk. If farmers who have to live with it want these amendments, why does the government not approve them? It is their money. It is their property, is it not?

That brings me to the second main point I would like to make in this small length of time the government has given me to talk. My question is: Whose grain is it? Who has taken the risks to grow it?

Mr. Speaker, you may not be aware, but I have introduced a bill in Parliament to strengthen property rights. I feel that is a fundamental issue and it is going to be the thing that is going to eventually destroy this board because of Bill C-4. Farmers are getting tired of having to hand their grain over to the board and then if they want it they have to buy it back. That is happening in Canada. Mr. Speaker, you look at little doubtful about that. It is happening in this country. Really it is.

The farmers take all the risks. They grow the grain, they have all the input costs and when they harvest the grain they cannot own it. They have to turn it over to the board if it is wheat and barley and is grown in one of the three provinces. If it is grown in Saskatchewan, Alberta or Manitoba they do not own that grain. If it was grown someplace else, in certain regions of British Columbia, they could own it. But they cannot own it if it is grown in certain districts.

The farmers cannot own their own grain. They have to turn it over to the board and if they want it they have to buy it back. Of course they cannot buy it back for the same price. They have to pay a much higher price because the board does not want them to make that profit.

Section 1(a) of the Canadian Bill of Rights says every individual, including prairie farmers, has the right to life, liberty, security of the person and the enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law. This government is breaking that right. It is removing it from farmers. It is depriving them of the enjoyment of their property.

It is not just on wheat and barley. Because farmers cannot control that, it devalues their land. I will not go into the explanation of how it does that but if you are growing a product and you cannot reap the full benefits of that product, you actually devalue the land on which it is being produced. That is happening in the prairies today.

The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 17 says everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others and no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. It is wrong for this government to arbitrarily deprive farmers in only three provinces of their property and only in a narrow area.

I have heard members opposite argue that they do not have to grow wheat and barley. What a display of ignorance. You have to know what the economy of the prairies is. You have to know something about crop rotation. You have to know that the options these farmers have are very limited and they have no choice. And this government takes away even the choice that they do have and would like to have. Even the United Nations says it is wrong. It is despicable that the federal government used lawyers and its power to override property rights on the prairies.

In this last minute I would like to appeal to the people of Canada, our city cousins who may be listening to this and do not understand the problems that are being experienced by a few people on the prairies and how this government is running roughshod. These farmers are not crying for separation. They are not saying “We do not want to be part of Canada”. All they are saying is “We want to control our property”. That is what they are asking for.

I appeal to the people in all the other constituencies in Canada to listen to this debate today and help us out. We cannot do anything because we do not have representatives in government. We do not have the power to change this and so we need the help of the Canadian people.

I have much more that needs to be said about the property rights issue. Could I get unanimous consent to finish my speech? I realize the government has imposed time allocation.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent of the House to conclude his remarks?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member has run out of time. He will have a chance in reply to questions and comments, which I now invite.

[Paul Bonwick, Liberal, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, some comments have been made here today that are exaggerated beyond belief. My goodness, unsubstantiated accusations and statements, false truths. It is unbelievable.

I have heard statements like 97% of farmers recently polled want this and 86% of farmers want that. Yet they do not table these documents. They simply throw out numbers and say they ran this survey or that survey back in their ridings. They throw these numbers out with absolute callous disregard.

They have made statements such as the government cut back their allotted time from 30 minutes to 10 minutes. The fact is that this member chose to split his 20 minutes with another Reform member. The government had nothing to do with him splitting his time. It was an untrue statement, a false accusation.

If he is making false accusations and untrue statements in the House debating an important bill like Bill C-4, what do we think he is telling his constituents back home? Should they believe anything he says? I suggest not. We in this House should be sitting here telling the truth and giving clear messages, not these false statements. Shame on you.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member will address his remarks to the Chair, not to the hon. member. I urge him to be prudent in his choice of language. All hon. members, I am sure, are expressing the truth perhaps as they see it.

[Paul Bonwick, Liberal, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

I apologize, Mr. Speaker, for directing my comments across the floor, but when I hear members heckling, laughing and not taking seriously this bill, I get a bit emotional about it.

This is a $6 billion industry. It is important to all Canadians, not just those few Reformers across the floor who have very selective memories and believe they are telling the truth. I suggest they take a long look at themselves when they are making false statements like the government instructed farm credit to foreclose or to take legal action on somebody. This is absolutely untrue and they should be ashamed of themselves.

I would like one question answered by the member. We sent out over 200,000 questionnaires or letters of information to farmers, not a specific 600 here or 200 Reformers there. As of the last response, a little over 1,200 farmers were opposed to certain parts of Bill C-4.

Would the hon. member like to respond to why less than 1% of those polled or surveyed responded in a negative way? Could he explain how he got his number of 97% being opposed if they are not prepared to respond?

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

Mr. Speaker, I need one clarification. How many responses were returned?

[Paul Bonwick, Liberal, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is having difficulty hearing the question because of the heckling. I would suggest that if he listens with clarity he might have an opportunity to answer the question.

The question was fairly simple. Less than 1% of the responses we received back were opposed in the last polling that was sent out. Of over 200,000 letters less than 1,200 came back adamantly opposed. If that is fact then why—

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

Mr. Speaker, what I want to know is how many responses did he get out of the 200,000.