House of Commons Hansard #61 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was farmers.

Topics

The BudgetOral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

The hon. Deputy Prime Minister.

The BudgetOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Windsor West Ontario

Liberal

Herb Gray LiberalDeputy Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, the announcement in question is simply that of something which is being renewed. It was already there.

The hon. member has given me the chance to remind him and the House that the Minister of Finance had spoken in his last budget and since then of the tax reductions given to post-secondary students and their parents, the tax reductions given to disabled people and the extra moneys for health care.

The hon. member is living in a state of blind ignorance if he refuses to recognize what we have already done to reduce taxes. He is afraid to look forward to the constructive—

The BudgetOral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

My colleagues, that will bring to a close our question period.

Presence In GalleryOral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

I wish to draw to members' attention the presence in our gallery of Geraldine Fraser-Moleketi, Minister for Welfare and Social Development of South Africa.

Presence In GalleryOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

I will entertain a question of privilege from the hon. member for Charlotte. Then I will entertain a point of order from the hon. member for Medicine Hat, as well as a point of order from the hon. member for Calgary West.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Greg Thompson Progressive Conservative Charlotte, NB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which relates to the Minister of Health. He is denying information to members, specifically to me in my role as health critic for the Progressive Conservative Party.

I believe I am also speaking on behalf of other critics in the health field.

What I am talking about specifically is that all ministers routinely provide information to the critics in their legitimate roles in order for them to be able to perform their duties as critics.

Mr. Speaker, you are aware that this House has to operate on the best information available and we are being denied some of that information. For example, the Minister of Health has a budget of $1.5 billion. He has 6,400 employees to provide him with the best information. He is not doing it for the critics.

I am referring specifically to the clippings collected by members of his department from coast to coast every single day. We have always had the courtesy extended to us of having those clippings in our possession each and every day in order to perform in our roles as critics.

I will quote certain sections from Beauchesne's that relate exactly to the point I am making. In chapter two under privilege it states:

The privileges of Parliament are rights which are “absolutely necessary for the due execution of powers”. They are enjoyed by individual Members, because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its Members; and by each House for the protection of its members and the vindication of it own authority and dignity—

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

The Speaker

My colleague, if I understand correctly the papers to which you are alluding are newspaper clippings that appear in newspapers across Canada. Perhaps it was a courtesy that ministers in days gone by supplied these clippings but at this point I would not see that as a question of privilege in this House. I would hope the hon. minister would take that into consideration. He could share that information if it would save some money.

I am loathe to suggest another means of doing it, but if the hon. member would consider a question on the Order Paper, the question of privilege would be taken care of. This question of privilege is finished.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Reform

Monte Solberg Reform Medicine Hat, AB

Mr. Speaker, during question period the veteran's affairs minister quoted from a document that was allegedly from me. I am not aware of this document. Could the minister table that document so I can have a look at exactly what he was quoting from?

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario

Liberal

Don Boudria LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the minister referred to a document but did not read from the document. According to our rules, when a minister reads from a document there is a compulsion to table it. If he has read from a document other than the briefing notes of ministers, I will endeavour to have the document tabled, provided it is not the usual briefing notes ministers receive from cabinet.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

The Speaker

We will wait to see what the minister will say.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Reform

Roy H. Bailey Reform Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Mr. Speaker, yesterday during the debate while I was absent there were accusations that were totally untrue levelled against me in this House. One of the hon. members from the NDP levelled the accusation that I was a member of the Grant Devine government. That is absolutely false. That member should stand in the House and clarify that and apologize.

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

The Speaker

The hon. member will know that is probably cause for debate. I am glad that he pointed out to the House that he was not a member of the Devine government. That will show on the record.

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

Canadian Wheat Board ActGovernment Orders

February 17th, 1998 / 3:10 p.m.

Reform

Lee Morrison Reform Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK

Madam Speaker, the hon. parliamentary secretary should read the Access to Information Act before he starts making reference to it in the House. He should know well that any commercially sensitive information for it matters not what department or organization is protected and privileged. If you put in an application for access to information and it has any immediate commercial aspect, you will get a bunch of blank papers or you will get papers with whiteout. I have had this experience many times, so the hon. parliamentary secretary should inform himself.

The other point I would like to raise with the parliamentary secretary is that with respect to this vaunted consultation and all this approval that farmers have for Bill C-4, I attended a Grain Days meeting, and I would inform him that people who attend Grain Days meetings are almost without exception strong supporters of the Canadian Wheat Board.

A motion was proposed at that meeting asking that the government withdraw Bill C-4 and it was passed unanimously. There is something here that does not compute. Incidentally, the instigator of the motion, he did not actually propose it, was our local representative to the advisory council. So do not tell me that the minister has the support of the producers or of wheat board supporters. He does not.

Canadian Wheat Board ActGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte Newfoundland & Labrador

Liberal

Gerry Byrne LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources

Madam Speaker, just on the point of the Access to Information Act and release of documents, I think it is important for all producers as well as all Canadians to appreciate and understand, which I think they do when listening to reasoned arguments, but this is very sensitive information and I do not think, quite frankly, the producers would feel very comfortable about foreign buyers, foreign markets, foreign competitors, foreign companies having access to, very, very sensitive information which could impact negatively upon the Canadian Wheat Board's ability to market their grains abroad.

That is exactly what the Reform Party are asking for our competitors. They are not asking for Canadians. They are asking on behalf of competitors to the Canadian Wheat Board to open up the books so that they can have all the information they need to be able to help defeat Canadian wheat producers, and that is something I will not stand for. We will protect the Canadian Wheat Board. We will protect Canadian producers, and quite frankly, we will have a more competitive environment.

Canadian Wheat Board ActGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

On a point of order, the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.

Canadian Wheat Board ActGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Reform

Garry Breitkreuz Reform Yorkton—Melville, SK

Madam Speaker, this is a red herring. That is not what farmers have been asking for. Farmers want a wheat board that is accountable. They want a wheat board that will allow the auditor general to look at the books. For this minister to twist that—

Canadian Wheat Board ActGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

That is not a point of order. Will you conclude very quickly.

Canadian Wheat Board ActGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

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

Madam Speaker, I will resume. It provides me with an opportunity to once again reiterate the point that the Canadian Wheat Board has proposed within C-4. It is an elected body of 10 directors who will be installed into the directorship of the Canadian Wheat Board. That provides a majority position for producers, not for political appointees, which I think is what the other members from the opposite side of the House want. They want to be able to control the wheat board by politicians. We want to put it in the hands of producers. That is what this government states.

Canadian Wheat Board ActGovernment Orders

3:15 p.m.

NDP

Chris Axworthy NDP Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand again and discuss Bill C-4, the wheat board bill. As members will know, the New Democratic Party remains the only party in this House to stand four square behind the board and behind farmers who support the board, which is the vast majority of farmers, in total contradiction to what the Reform Party tries to say.

We know from the barley plebiscite that 63 per cent of farmers supported the board there. We know that whenever asked, farmers will support the Canadian Wheat Board. That is because they are rational economic actors. They support the wheat board because the wheat board is being good to them. The wheat board has paid them a premium year over year. As a consequence, because they have benefited from the wheat board, farmers support the board.

There are those, of course, who will put common sense aside and will argue they want to use the open market where they will make less money than they would under the board. We should, of course, not pay too much attention to those who are not acting rationally in this regard. The Reform Party would rather pay considerable attention to those few farmers who ignore common sense, ignore reality, ignore the fact that the wheat board has been of significant benefit to farmers. They want to destroy something which has been critical to agriculture in Saskatchewan and the rest of the prairies and remains critically important to farming, to farmers and to farm families across the west.

As is clear, over and over the Reform Party chooses ideology over common sense, ideology over what is good for farmers, but farmers will not listen to that argument. Farmers across the prairies, as we know, contrary to everything that the Reform Party would want and contrary to what it says, support the board whenever they are given the opportunity to be asked on that.

When farmers were asked about barley and the board, fully 63 per cent supported the board. That is not a number that the Reform Party likes and it is not a number it wants to accept, but the truth of the matter is on that plebiscite farmers supported the board because the board makes sense. The board makes sense over and over again to farmers every time they are asked.

We know it is in the hundreds of millions of dollars a year that the wheat board makes for farmers. Significant studies by the very best agriculture economists here and in the United States point out that farmers make around $265 million a year more by selling wheat through the wheat board than they would by selling through the private grain trade.

Why would the Reform Party be opposed to farmers making $265 million a year more than they would by using the private grain trade? The Reform Party, being ideologues, being neo-conservatives, wants to make sure the private grain traders who support it so well and support it financially and support it in its arguments with regard to the wheat board make more money, rather than the farmers. We know that the wheat board ships that profit that it makes back to the farmers.

It is not just wheat, it is in barley too. Studies show that $72 million a year extra goes to barley farmers than would otherwise be the case. Again, the Reform Party because of its ideology, because of its distaste for any good government program, any program that works, opposes barley farmers' getting that extra $72 million a year.

When ideology does not work it should be discarded. This ideology of the Reform Party should be discarded too.

There are problems with Bill C-4. We know that. We know and farmers know that the Liberal government cannot be trusted with the wheat board either. There are significant problems in Bill C-4 which point that out. They support that rightful concern by farmers.

Bill C-4 proposes cash buying. This is a significant problem and will undermine farmer confidence in the board. Regarding the contingency fund, why does the government want to take $575 million or thereabouts in check-offs from farmers?

It would not be necessary to take that money from farmers were the Liberal government to stand firmly behind the board in the way in which the board was designed to be protected by the federal government.

What about control? It is true that we will have farmers elected to the board. Still, the government will choose the chief executive officer, a critically important functionary, and thereby take away a chunk of the control that farmers would otherwise have.

I should point out, too, a point that I omitted with regard to the support for the wheat board. Not only when asked in plebiscites do farmers support the wheat board, but when asked to elect wheat board advisory members farmers overwhelmingly choose farmers who support the wheat board.

In other words, whenever asked, farmers have stood up for and supported the wheat board. The Reform Party is simply not supporting the views of its constituents when it wants to destroy the very thing that, in short, farmers make the extra profit with on a yearly basis.

What about the inclusion clause? The Reform Party goes on so much about democracy. What could be more democratic than asking farmers whether they would wish to add a grain, a commodity under the wheat board jurisdiction? What would it have to be afraid of if farmers make that decision on a free vote?

Why would it be opposed to that democratic decision making when it goes on so much about democracy with regard to the wheat board in general?

Let us look at who wants to get rid of the wheat board. It is not Canadian farmers, as I have said, because they have consistently supported the board. It is the kind of people, the kind of big business, the kind of anti-farmer interest that supports the Reform Party in all of its endeavours.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the commodity exchange in Winnipeg, Cargill, these kinds of corporations stand to gain by farmers' not having the wheat board on their side.

It is time the Reform Party put its ideology aside. It is time those agribusiness organizations put their self-interests aside and let farmers get a crack for once.

We have known all along that Reformers and Conservatives are fundamentally opposed to the wheat board and will do everything in their power to attack the wheat board and its credibility. They will do everything in their power to enhance the profit making abilities of the private grain trade and those who would oppose the interests of farmers.

We even know that they are prepared to say that farmers are opposed to the wheat board when they favour the wheat board. Nothing is left to chance by the Reform Party. Its members will say black is white in order to pursue their ideology.

Canadian Wheat Board ActGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Reform

Jake Hoeppner Reform Portage—Lisgar, MB

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar is indicating that we brought forward Bill C-4. It is a government bill and that is what he should be addressing.

Canadian Wheat Board ActGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

That is not a point of order.

Canadian Wheat Board ActGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

NDP

Chris Axworthy NDP Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK

Madam Speaker, I am glad that some Reformer are listening. It is too bad that they do not change their minds on any of these things. As I said, common sense is not in great currency over there on the Reform Party benches.

The opponents will also talk about dual marketing as if this is not the end of single desk selling and the end of the wheat board. Not only Judge Muldoon but many others and all those who look at this matter sensibly can see that this is the beginning of the end for the board.

This is another tactic by the Reform Party. It has nothing to do with wanting dual marketing. It is just a step along the way. It wants to get rid of the wheat board and will do anything it possibly can to ensure that. I note the Liberals cannot be trusted on the wheat board either. There has been very little in the last while to suggest this government would stand up for farmers in a pinch.

Word was mentioned of grain days. There was a grain day hearing in Rosetown in my riding. From past experience many might feel there would not be support for the wheat board although they voted overwhelmingly in favour of the barley plebiscite. It was a surprise to the local community that during that day not one person spoke out against the wheat board.

There are problems with Bill C-4 but there are greater problems with the approaches of the Reform Party and the Conservative Party which would get rid of the wheat board altogether. We need to look carefully and long and hard at the amendments that have been made. We need to do what we can to make sure the wheat board is there to support farmers into the future.

Canadian Wheat Board ActGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Reform

Garry Breitkreuz Reform Yorkton—Melville, SK

Madam Speaker, I listened to the rhetoric of the last few minutes with great interest. During the campaign the member said “if elected, we will hold the government accountable”. Yet every single speech I have heard from him and other NDP members in this House has mentioned the Reform Party. They are constantly analysing Reform Party policies.

Could the member give some explanation of why he did not talk about Bill C-4, the bill before the House? He should recognize that farmers are supportive of the board but a vast majority of farmers, over 80%, are opposed to Bill C-4. Not once in his speech did he recognize that people of Saskatchewan, his rural constituents, are opposed to Bill C-4. He did not express any of their concerns with regard to this bill. I have many articles from the Western Producer that he could read. They are written by strong wheat board supporters who would like to have the wheat board held accountable for its performance, for higher returns, for more information, for more openness.

I do not understand why NDP MPs are not speaking up on behalf of their constituents. The board should be accountable and these NDP members should be accountable.

What is his position on Bill C-4?