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

Canadian Wheat Board ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Reform

Jim Pankiw Reform Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK

Madam Speaker, I will get to my question in a minute. First I would like to say that the refusal of the Liberal government to address the monopoly of the Canadian Wheat Board means that it will continue to not be subject to competition. It will continue to not have to get the best price for farmers' grain. Canadian farmers will be forced to continue to accept far below world market prices for the grain they grow.

I was raised on a farm. The reason I chose a career other than farming is because there is no money in farming. I was forced to embark on a career other than what I might have had simply for economic reasons and simply because of the fact that the Canadian Wheat Board has been keeping farmers poor and not giving them the price for their grain which they deserve.

I resent eastern politicians and Ottawa lawyers telling my family, my friends, my neighbours and the constituents I represent “Here is how you must market your grain. You must accept lower than market value because we are going to dictate how you do it. But that does not apply to Ontario. It does not apply to the people we represent, but you people out west have to accept what we tell you”.

How dare they have the audacity and the contempt to force the bill down the throats of western farmers.

Canadian Wheat Board ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

John Harvard Liberal Charleswood—Assiniboine, MB

Madam Speaker, I would be absolutely delighted to answer that question.

First I would like to remind the hon. member from Saskatoon or wherever he comes from—

Canadian Wheat Board ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh.

Canadian Wheat Board ActGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

John Harvard Liberal Charleswood—Assiniboine, MB

Two people can play that game. If the hon. member thinks that he can tell eastern Canadians they are off limits when it comes to debating the wheat board, there are people who might want to say to members of the Reform Party “You are from Saskatchewan” or “You are from Alberta” or “You are from Manitoba and because of some residency clause you cannot speak”. I think that members of the Reform Party would be offended. If they were offended they would be right.

When we come to the House we all enjoy equal rights. We do not have a residency clause. We do not say to the people in the west that they cannot talk about a problem in Quebec or in the maritimes. We so not say to people in eastern Canada that they cannot say anything about farm issues in the west. The Reform Party simply does not get it.

I will address the member's question about monopoly. He seemed to imply in his question that we did not address monopoly. I have another small fact for the Reform Party. We did. We left it in place because prairie farmers want single desk selling. They want an agency. They want the Canadian Wheat Board to sell their grain. Why do they want single desk selling? Because the Canadian Wheat Board has proven over and over again that it is the best in the marketplace. Nobody can touch it. That has been shown.

When the Reform Party says that we have not addressed monopoly, we have. We have addressed it because farmers want single desk selling. If they want it, that is what they are going to have, and they deserve it.

Canadian Wheat Board ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Reform

Darrel Stinson Reform Okanagan—Shuswap, BC

Madam Speaker, I sat here and listened to the member opposite give his speech. Now I fully understand why out west the House in Ottawa is called the bull capital of Canada. There is no doubt about that.

The hon. member talked a lot about democracy. He mentioned democracy in his speech. To me democracy is the understanding that we have freedom of choice. Bill C-4 does not give us that freedom of choice.

I have a very specific question for the member. What assurance do the farmers on the prairies have that the people the government will appoint to these boards will have farming or marketing experience? What assurance is there in Bill C-4 of that?

Canadian Wheat Board ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

John Harvard Liberal Charleswood—Assiniboine, MB

Madam Speaker, that is actually a pretty good question coming from the Reform Party. He has probably overshot his mark but it is a good question.

The answer goes something like this. We trust farmers. Farmers know their business very well. They know whom to pick to represent their best interests. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind for a minute that they will pick outstanding representatives of their interests to sit on the board.

The Reform Party has members from Saskatchewan. I suspect some of these members may have heard of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, a pretty successful organization. Would the member not agree? What does it have? It has farmers who sit on its board through its system of delegation and selection. They do a pretty darn good job. Look at the growth of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool. It has done well.

If farmers can do a very good job of representing farmers' interests on the board of directors of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, I suspect they can do a job that is equally good or perhaps even better on the Canadian Wheat Board.

In this whole thing we have to trust farmers. They have good judgment, something the Reform Party does not seem to get.

Canadian Wheat Board ActGovernment Orders

4:50 p.m.

Reform

Jay Hill Reform Prince George—Peace River, BC

Madam Speaker, the most accurate thing the hon. member for Charleswood—Assiniboine said during his ramblings of the past 20 minutes was something to the effect that now he would try to stick to the facts.

I want to ask him the question I asked his hon. colleague from Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington earlier in the debate. I asked a very specific question, one that is very simple to answer.

The hon. member is the parliamentary secretary to the minister of agriculture. He sits from time to time on the standing committee, as I do. He was present, I believe, during most of the presentations that were made over the very shortened time that we had Bill C-4 before the committee. I would like to know how many presenters appearing before the standing committee—and I would like him to identify who they would be—supported Bill C-4. How many farm groups would there be?

Second, since he has such great faith in the Canadian farmer, as I do, especially since I was one for about 20 years, would he be willing to have the farmers decide the fate of Bill C-4 with a straightforward plebiscite question?

Canadian Wheat Board ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

John Harvard Liberal Charleswood—Assiniboine, MB

Madam Speaker, on the question of plebiscite, not too long ago, I guess about a year ago, we had a plebiscite on the prairies regarding barley and it was approved by farmers. They wanted barley to stay under the jurisdiction of the board, something the Reform Party did not want.

The member from Prince George mentioned that I sit on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. I am there all the time, not occasionally. I am a full member. There is no such thing as a part time member of the committee on agriculture.

He raised a question about how many groups showed up that were opposed to the bill and how many were in support of the bill. Is that the question?

Canadian Wheat Board ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Reform

Jay Hill Reform Prince George—Peace River, BC

How many supported it.

Canadian Wheat Board ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

John Harvard Liberal Charleswood—Assiniboine, MB

Anybody who knows the committee process knows full well it is those organizations that have a concern about a bill that are put to the front of the queue. They are the ones who are heard more than anyone else. Organizations, individuals and in this case farmers who are happy with the bill or just have some minor reservations about it do not seek to come before the committee. So, yes, we had a number of organizations concerned about the so-called exclusion clause and they were allowed to come before the committee.

Canadian Wheat Board ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Reform

Allan Kerpan Reform Blackstrap, SK

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise at this late date to speak to Bill C-4. I have a few comments to make. I would like to inform the Chair that I will be sharing my time with the member for Elk Island.

Two things I am going to open with and I am also going to close with were mentioned just a couple of minutes ago by my colleague from Prince George—Peace River. If the government is convinced that farmers support Bill C-4 then put it to a binding referendum, straight and simple. There is no question.

When we look at Bill C-4 and the farmers and farm groups I have talked to about the bill over the last few months I do not see anybody on either side of the debate who likes the bill. The people who are solidly in support of single desk monopolies do not like the bill. Neither do some of the other people who would like the choice of a dual marketing system or any other type of system.

When nobody likes a particular piece of legislation it kind of reminds me of Bill C-68. We have a government which is saying “This is what is good for you people. Do what we tell you to do and be nice little children out in western Canada. Do as we say and we will get along just fine”. It does not work. It cannot work. It is the same type of arrogance we saw in Bill C-68 from the government in the last parliament.

I remember particularly one day in June 1996 that we held a debate on the wheat board in the House. That was in the last parliament. I looked across the way and we counted 15 lawyers who were Liberal members and 12 farmers on the Reform side in the House at that time. It struck me as ironic that there would be 15 lawyers, most of whom had never been to a farm in Saskatchewan, telling farmers from Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta how they should do their business. I do not understand that kind of thinking. It is something that I just cannot accept.

I look at this bill and I see tinkering around the edges of the wheat board. I think the minister knows full well that unless he makes some changes, the wheat board will most likely explode from within rather than from without. He knows of the tremendous pressure from farmers and farm groups on the Canadian Wheat Board and yet he has failed. He has a very good opportunity here to make some changes that farmers can accept, yet he has failed to do that.

The two things that farmers tell me most is that they would like to have the opportunity to look at the books of the Canadian Wheat Board. They also tell me that they would like to elect all of the wheat board directors. Quite simple.

I think if you had those two basic fundamental steps, a lot of the pressure on the wheat board would be taken off. There is no question about it.

I think what Bill C-4 is about, almost as much as it is about the right to market grain, is basic rights in this country. Again, as I said before, we have seen over the past number of years the inability of this Liberal government to recognize the basic fundamental rights of Canadians on a lot of issues.

Another one that is before the Supreme Court is the right of Quebec to decide its own future. Our government fails to recognize the need for Canadians to have those particular rights and the rights of property, as I mentioned before, Bill C-16, the right to own a gun, the right to sell that bushel of wheat that you grew on your farm, yet you have no right to sell it in your own best interests.

A fellow came into my office when I was the member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre in the last parliament. He said he had a pile of durum on his ground in his yard, about 10,000 bushels. He said he could take that durum across the line and get $8 a bushel for it. In Canada there was no market at that point in time to sell that durum. He asked what he was supposed to do. He said he was going broke, that if he did not sell the durum he would most likely lose his farm. He asked if he should take it across the line.

What is anyone in their right mind going to tell this man? You have to tell him that he has to do the best that he thinks is right for him. Nobody could argue that. I have no idea what the man did but if it was me and it was my durum, I would be hauling it across the line to save my farm. I would just do that.

I want to touch on the arrogance that we see from this government. I have listened to the debate today about how farmers support Bill C-4. I would like to ask the government how many Liberal MPs have been to Saskatchewan, how many have been in the communities of Dundurn, Val Marie or Smuts, gone to the coffee shop and asked the farmers what they think about C-4.

I do not recall one Liberal MP being in Saskatchewan. Of course, we have to remember there are very few Liberal MPs in Saskatchewan. The parliamentary secretary said he believed farmers were fairly intelligent people. They are. They did kick out four Liberal MPs in the last election. Yes, I think they are relatively intelligent.

The question is how can you make a statement saying that farmers support this bill when you do not listen to the farmers in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. You cannot have consensus unless you listen to people. They have not done that. They have taken the advisory committee recommendations and put half measures in place in many cases. The minister said they acted on all the recommendations.

There was one. The advisory committee recommended that farmers be allowed to sell a certain portion of their wheat off-board. I do not recall the minister saying they acted on that one. Maybe I was not in my chair at that time, but I do not think he mentioned that.

It comes down to rights, to democracy and to the ability of any government, whether it be this Liberal government or any other government, to listen to the people, to let the farmers decide how they want to run their business, within certain regulations of course.

In Saskatchewan if you look at the state of agriculture, the NDP provincial government will say that all is wonderful.

That is a far cry from the truth. The fact is that there are 3,500 in my province who are in arrears to the Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Corporation. More farmers will probably go bankrupt this year then have in the last two or three years put together. That is what I would consider the edge of disaster for agriculture in Saskatchewan.

One of those concerns is the wheat board and one of those is transportation. We have problems out there. If only this government would take the simple time to listen to what the people are saying, some of those problems could be avoided. Some of those bankruptcies that will ultimately happen, and have happened, in our province of Saskatchewan will rest on the shoulders of this Liberal government. Indirectly, the blame for those bankruptcies can go to this Liberal government. In my opinion that is a shame.

I want to end by saying if this government has so much faith in Bill C-4 and if they believe that the farmers in western Canada who live under the Canadian Wheat Board support that bill by a vast majority, as most of the government members will tell us, then put your money where your mouth is. Let us put Bill C-4 to the test, to a binding referendum among farmers. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, if it comes back and the result is in favour of Bill C-4, I will stand by that decision as well.

Canadian Wheat Board ActGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

The Speaker

Questions and comments? I see two members standing who are going to split the time.

Canadian Wheat Board ActGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Winnipeg North—St. Paul Manitoba

Liberal

Rey D. Pagtakhan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, I am perplexed that when an issue is before Parliament that is composed of members elected from across the country and who are given a mandate to debate an issue, all of a sudden the Reform will surrender that responsibility to another election process, a referendum.

We have been given the mandate to debate. I recall three kinds of politics articulated by Robert Bellah in his book “Habits of the Heart”. He speaks about the politics of the community when there is a consensus. That will be difficult to find in this Chamber. Then there is the second kind of politics, the politics of interest, that by definition there has to be competing and sometimes conflicting interests. But then we, in Parliament, must govern. We in Parliament must make a decision and not relinquish that again to yet another process that will be costly and time consuming.

I appeal to the Reform Party to make its decision known and to give its votes, but let the politics of the nation prevail and that of the majority. If you live in a democracy, when the majority of this Chamber so wills, let it be done and not surrender to yet another election process.

Canadian Wheat Board ActGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

Reform

Allan Kerpan Reform Blackstrap, SK

Mr. Speaker, I can almost say after this member has spoken, that I can rest my case. That is exactly what I am saying. Let us have a full democratic process where the people who are most affected by this legislation have the opportunity to make a decision.

The member opposite was alluding to the fact that we are all elected from across the country to make those decisions. He is right. If there is a bill in this House on fisheries and oceans in Atlantic Canada, I do not have much expertise in that. I like fishing but that is as far as it goes. I am not going to be the guy who stands up and says “this is what you should do in Newfoundland” because I have no idea what the fishermen in Newfoundland think.

On the flip side of that, there is no way on God's green earth that an MP who probably has never travelled to central Saskatchewan can say “this is what I want you to do farmer Jones in Kedleston, Saskatchewan, because it is good for you”. It is not because they are bad people, it is because they have no ability. There is no possible way that they could know what that farmer in central Saskatchewan faces.

Canadian Wheat Board ActGovernment Orders

5:05 p.m.

The Speaker

The hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt you have one minute.

Canadian Wheat Board ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Reform

Jim Pankiw Reform Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the hon. member for Blackstrap.

How does he tell his constituents or what does he say to the farmers that he represents? How does he explain that Bill C-4 will apply only to farmers in Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba, but the restrictions that are placed upon them by the bill will not affect farmers in other provinces? How does he explain that?

Canadian Wheat Board ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Reform

Allan Kerpan Reform Blackstrap, SK

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question from my colleague for Saskatoon—Humboldt.

What I tell the people in my riding or the farmers that I speak with on a daily basis is that it is a very unusual type of situation where we would have three prairie provinces which live under different rules, forced rules from the government of Canada, than farmers in other provinces.

I think that is part of the frustration that farmers see. They see farmers in Ontario who do not live under the same rules. In fact, I don't believe the name of the Canadian Wheat Board should be the Canadian Wheat Board. It should be the “Western Canadian Wheat Board” because it really only does apply to provinces in western Canada. That is part of that whole frustration.

As I said in my speech, if we don't make big changes to the wheat board, it is not the farmers or the Reform Party or the Grain Growers Association who are going to erode and destroy the wheat board. The wheat board is going to destroy itself.

Canadian Wheat Board ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Reform

Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to stand in the House of Commons in Ottawa, our nation's capital, and speak on behalf of farmers.

I come from farming stock. My grandparents on both sides of my family were pioneers in the west. They opened up some land. They began farming. My dad who is now in his mid-eighties still can't stay off of the farm. At seeding time and harvest, he goes out there and he has to see what the boys are doing.

It just sort of gets into your blood. Once you have been involved in growing grain, in producing food to feed not only Canadians but also people around the world, it is much more than a matter of just having a job and a livelihood. It is a matter of great service.

My brother who has taken over our family farm has taught me a lot in terms of patience and perseverance, as did my dad, farming in the dirty thirties. I remember one bumper sticker that my brother had on his half-ton that I think is very appropriate. It said: When you complain about the farmers, don't talk with your mouth full.

I think that is so important because it is the farmers who produce our food and, without food, we die. Without food and the export of food, our country's economy takes a huge beating because so much of what we produce is for the export market.

I have a great honour to stand here and speak on behalf of farmers, not only because of my family involvement in it, but also because of the fact that I represent a rural constituency in Alberta where people farm. To me, the essence of the debate is the individual freedom of these farmers to manage their affairs.

We all know the difficulties under which farmers operate. They have the vicissitudes of weather, the vagaries of government. They have the high costs of machinery and input costs of other kinds. It is a great affront to me when the very fundamental freedom that they have to sell their own market, to sell their own product, is taken away.

I know I have to cut myself short here because of the time. In conclusion, I want to quote A. de Tocqueville, a great philosopher, from his book Democracy in America . This is a quotation that came to my mind. I looked it up this afternoon because I wanted to get this into the record. I quote:

—after having thus successfully taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp, and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arms over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered but softened, bent and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to be nothing better than a flock of timid and industrial animals, of which government is the shepherd.

Mr. Speaker, I will not read to the end of it. I will just say in conclusion I do not want to live in such a Canada. I do not want to live in a country where some distant autocratic government dictates to the people what they can and what they cannot do. I want to live in a democracy where the will of those people is reflected in the rules.

That is why I urge all members to vote in favour of the amendment which is in front of us now, which is to hold this bill for a short time while we examine it further and get it right.

Canadian Wheat Board ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

The Speaker

It being 5.15 p.m., pursuant to order made Thursday, February 12, 1998, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion at third reading of Bill C-4.

The question is on the amendment.

As far as the recommittal of the bill, the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River moved:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following therefor:

“Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board—

Shall I dispense?

Canadian Wheat Board ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Canadian Wheat Board ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

The Speaker

No.

—and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be not now read a third time but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Agriculture for the purpose of reconsidering clause 8 in section 9 to ensure that the Board show such particulars and furnish such information as requested for the purpose of an audit by the Auditor General; and provide such records and information as requested under Access to Information Act in so far as the records and information requested have been in the process or under the control of the Corporation for at least three years before the day on which the request is received by the Corporation and that the Corporation shall continue to be a government institution within the meaning of the Access to Information Act”.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

Canadian Wheat Board ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Canadian Wheat Board ActGovernment Orders

February 17th, 1998 / 5:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Canadian Wheat Board ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

The Speaker

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

Canadian Wheat Board ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.