Debates of Feb. 9th, 1998

Canadian Wheat Board Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have made one observation and I would like to offer this as a suggestion. Rather than have the Liberals shouting their answers across the floor while someone is speaking, they should simply get up and talk about it.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

That is certainly not a point of order.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this afternoon to say a few words about the motions in Group No. 4, Motions Nos. 4 to 19.

An hon. colleague in the Reform Party mentioned earlier that it is the only party which is fighting for farmers. I wish to make it very clear that is not the case. New Democrats have always been supportive of farmers. We are proud to stand and fight for farmers.

We have always strongly supported the wheat board because it works in the best interests of farmers. For 60 years the wheat board as a crown agency has done an admirable job for farmers.

The government is suggesting a 15 member board of directors, 10 of whom will be elected by producers. We recognize that the government must continue to have some influence on the wheat board if Ottawa is to continue to guarantee initial prices for grains.

However, we feel very strongly that if the wheat board is to have a board of directors, elections must be fair. They should be elections by and for farmers. We do not want vested corporate interests interfering. We see too much of vested corporate interests nowadays. That is exactly what the MAI is attempting to do, to give free rein to the corporations so they can dictate their will upon others. We feel that with something as important as the wheat board this must not be the case.

Fair elections mean one producer, one vote. The Reform Party suggests that big farmers should have more votes than small farmers. We say that is anti-democratic and we want no part of it.

Fair elections mean a limit on the spending campaign of candidates, just as there is in federal election campaigns, so that wealthy individuals do not have an advantage. Wealth dominates too many things today. Those who are struggling cannot get ahead simply because they do not have money in their pockets. We want to see fair elections and spending limits.

Fair elections mean a strict and transparent limit to what third parties can spend. We want transparency. That is very important today.

The wheat board, as we know, is a $6 billion industry. It is a very big industry. Certain corporate interests would just love to get their hands on it. We do not want them using their deep pockets to influence the elections of the board of directors. We are already seeing too much corporate interference in the wheat board debate. For the past several months the Canadian Wheat Board has come under sustained attack. This attack is orchestrated by certain farm groups, aided by corporate interests, including the Canadian Federation for Independent Business, the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange and Cargo.

The so-called coalition against Bill C-4 is trying to do through the back door what it has failed to do through the democratic process. For example, it is demanding that barley be dropped from the wheat board's jurisdiction. Farmers voted on that very question in 1997 and 63% of them voted in favour of keeping barley under the board's jurisdiction. So we talk about democracy. Again, democracy is where the majority rules.

We say to these corporate interests and to the Reform Party that debate about the wheat board is a debate for farmers, not for corporations for their greed and their self-interest.

We have also witnessed the disgraceful media campaign by the National Citizens' Coalition to discredit the wheat board. This coalition claims to be funded by ordinary Canadians, but we believe it is bank rolled by big business. The coalition is a soulmate to the Reform Party. The head of the coalition is a former Reform MP and a close confident of the Reform Party leader.

Again, we come back to the question of fairness. If there are going to be elections for a board of directors we want them to be fair and not bought by corporate friends of the Reform Party with their deep pockets.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could say I am delighted to stand here today and speak on Bill C-4, the Canadian Wheat Board Act, but as a matter of fact I am not. I am not delighted at all. I am very upset about this legislation. I am upset about the fact that we have in this House members, the majority by far who are over there on that majority side government, who are not under the wheat board, who are making arbitrary decisions that affect western farmers. They sit over there and laugh while we are trying to bring these very serious and important issues to their mind.

What is also very annoying is that those gutless members over there are all going to vote the way they are told. They are not going to stand up and say yes to what the members from the west have said, because it affects the farmers in the west. The wheat board does not affect farmers in Ontario or in the east. It is strictly farmers in the west. They have the gall to stand there and say we will do the way our minister says and we will not even listen to this debate.

The fact is there is a lot of very serious opposition to this bill. They can stand up and say there was this vote and two-thirds of the farmers voted to stay in the wheat board. Sure, what was the question. It was a rigged question just like that question in Quebec was. It said do you want all in or all out?

That is the same as on a hot day. Do you stand on the edge of the pool or do you go four feet under? That is the choice that we were given, instead of giving the farmers the choice they really wanted and that was simply freedom.

There is no reason in the world why the wheat board cannot continue to function and still allow individual farmers, when they see a market that they can fill, to have the freedom to market their own grain outside the wheat board if they so choose.

This is a bunch of hooey when they say that the wheat board cannot function unless it has a monopoly. Monopolies basically stifle any good performance. Farmers in the west have been dumped on. They have been shafted. Dare I say it, they have been raped by central Canada over and over again and they are plumb tired of it.

I suppose this is a question of unity. Democracy only works as long as we have the consent of the governed. There are more and more farmers out west who are getting so cotton pickin' upset about this intrusion on their freedom by this central government that they are losing their consent to be governed. They are getting to a point where they want to revolt. Why will this government not listen to some very sensible amendments and say those amendments make sense and we will follow them?

I grew up on a farm in Saskatchewan. When I was a youngster I remember my dad saying “I cannot understand how come, when I buy a combine or a tractor that is manufactured in Ontario, I have to pay the freight from Ontario to Saskatchewan. Yet if I sell them my grain, I have to pay the freight from my farm all the way to Ontario”. Why is that? It is because the big powerbrokers, the big majority here, not listening to the sensible needs of western farmers, just say nuts to you, we will do whatever we want. It is just like these guys are doing right now. They are sitting over there, disrespectful. Look at that potato farmer from Prince Edward Island. He has nothing to do with the wheat board and he is sitting there grinning because he is in a position where he—

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member referred to me as a potato farmer. I am not a potato farmer. I was president of the National Farmers' Union and I spent 12 years in western Canada dealing with this issue. I do not like my name being taken in vain by this member.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member does make a valid point. We should keep our comments directed through the Chair and not resort to personalities.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize but I still maintain that he has a disrespectful grin on his face during this very serious debate. He is sitting there and just basically saying we have the majority over here and we can do whatever we want. What is annoying is that they will. When the voting comes around on this bill in a few days those Liberals over there, one after the other when their string is pulled, are not going to listen to this argument. I dare any one of them to stand up against the recommendation of their minister and vote for what is right and vote against this bill unless it is properly amended or, better yet, to vote in favour of these amendments. They do not have the guts to do it and I do not believe they will.

What we have here is a very basic freedom. When I have an old car for sale I can sell it to whomever I want. I can ask $500 for my old car. If a guy comes along and offers $400 I can say No, I want $500 or I ain't selling it. The poor farmer in the west who has wheat for sale cannot sell his wheat to the highest bidder. He is forced to sell it to the wheat board and very often it is at the lowest price.

I have a despicable story to tell. There is a farmer who owes money to, among other people, the Farm Credit Corporation, a federal government agency. The Farm Credit Corporation says money, money, money or else we are going to foreclose on you. Meanwhile he has his granaries full of grain. He could put that grain into a truck and sell it for almost twice what the wheat board would offer him if in fact it issued a quota and said that it was going to sell it for him.

Instead, his grain is in his bin and he cannot sell it. The Farm Credit Corporation is threatening foreclosure and he cannot sell his own grain even though he has a market for it and could sell it tomorrow if he had that simple freedom. If that is not a violation of a very fundamental freedom in this country of ours then I do not know what is.

That is why I urge the members, particularly the members opposite whom I am talking to. We in the opposition here just do not have quite enough numbers to force their hand. We will but we are not there yet. Very frankly, as long as they have the majority it is in their hands. If they do what is wrong it is not going to serve this country well and it will be a great affront to the farmers.

Very often we have these farmers getting together with different associations. There is a farmer in my riding who specializes in selling seed grain. Seed grain, specifically, does not come under the wheat board. He should be able to sell his seed grain as seed because it is a different kind of market.

It is not for the general market. It is not for making the macaroni that you and I love so much, Mr. Speaker. He has been prevented from selling his seed grain because he did not sell it first to the wheat board. They confiscated his truck at the border.

I can see where the farmers out west can be upset. Can members believe it? There are farmers who are arrested. Their crime is they are trying to sell a product they have raised and is properly theirs. They want to sell it to the highest bidder at the highest price they can get. They are in breach of some arbitrary vicious law.

That has to change. Why can we not have a system whereby all those farmers who want to can go through the wheat board? That is certainly a very large organization and many farmers, I am sure, would choose to do that.

On those instances where they find an alternate market at a better price or, more important many times, an immediate sale as opposed to one that is two or three months down the road, why should they not have the freedom to do that?

I urge that the members opposite stand up on principle, forget about being trained seals that stand up on command, examine these amendments and vote in favour of them, support them because—

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been sitting here with some tolerance, given the source of the comments I have been listening to for the last 15 minutes. Twice now I have been accused of being gutless. I have been accused of being a trained seal and I think that is contrary to the order and decorum expected in the House.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Hon. members, we do need some sensitivity as to how we reflect one upon the other.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I guess all I would say is I challenge them to prove me wrong.

This is an opportunity for this government to do what is right, to do what is good, to stand on principle, to give farmers individual freedom and control over the wheat board that they themselves should be controlling.

It should not be run by distant Ottawa on their behalf with all its arbitrary rules. They should stand on principle and support these amendments that we are putting forward and do what is right.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I do not mean to make reference to anyone in particular, not the member for Elk Island who has finished.

We have to be really careful that when we are speaking one side toward the other and we are perhaps less than complimentary we make sure that we keep our comments clearly defined in the royal weave that any pejorative words or sentiments are not addressed to any one person in particular. Resuming debate.

[Jim Pankiw, Reform, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, to begin I would like to address Motion No. 5 of Group No. 4 with respect to the proposed board of directors for the wheat board, of which five members would be appointed.

To make my point, I would like to embark on a bit of a journey in history. In the dying days of the 1993 election campaign, the Progressive Conservative Party made more than 600 political patronage appointments.

The current Prime Minister at that time had a field day criticizing the blatant patronage of the Conservatives, vowing that he would do different, that he would not insult Canadian taxpayers in the same manner as the prime minister of the day.

He said, a direct quote from the 1993 campaign, that the people of Canada will see a big difference with the Liberals in power. Furthermore, he said that the Liberals were elected to serve the people of Canada, not to serve themselves.

If we look at the red book of the time, it said “the Conservatives made a practice of choosing political friends when making thousand of appointments to commissions and agencies, but a Liberal government will review the appointment process to ensure that necessary appointments are made on the basis of competence”.

The reason I gave that bit of history is that is it not amazing that a few years later, in September 1997, the Prime Minister completely reneged on that promise, changed his tune and said that he appoints people from his party. He said “I am not going to name people who are not Liberals”. This is a complete violation of the promises he made both verbally during the campaign and in their campaign book called the red book.

To illustrate my points, I go back to the year following the 1993 election to give examples for the benefit of all the members of the House as well as all Canadians. Jean Robert Gauthier, Liberal MP, Ottawa-Vanier was appointed to the Senate; John Bryden, New Brunswick Liberal organizer and worked for the Prime Minister in the 1993 leadership race and also ran Frank McKenna's election campaigns was appointed to the Senate; Sharon Carstairs, former Liberal leader and Prime Minister loyalist appointed to the Senate; Robert Nixon, former Ontario Liberal Leader and confidant of the current Prime Minister, appointed as chairman of Atomic Energy of Canada; Royce Frith, former Liberal Speaker of the Senate, appointed High Commissioner to Great Britain. I could go on and on but I do not think it would be fitting to occupy the next several days to list the Liberal political patronage appointments.

The proposed board is another source of potential patronage appointments for the government. That is why it does not want to empower the farmers to run their own board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board. It wants to have appointed positions so that it can continue its “patronage party” which it embarked upon in 1993. The government has shown no signs of slowing up its activity in that regard.

Not only is the minister responsible for the wheat board proposing to control the board through these appointed positions, the chief executive officer would also be appointed. The farmer-elected board of directors would not be able to choose its own chief executive officer. The minister responsible for the wheat board would have that authority. This is a real affront to farmers. It should be embarrassing for the Liberal government.

Every chance I have had, I have spoken to the Bill C-4 amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board. Again today and never in the past has the minister responsible for this bill been here to listen to the concerns of the western grain farmers as conveyed by the members of parliament who represent them.

As I speak, there are three Liberal MPs in the House of Commons.

[Pat O'Brien, Liberal, London—Fanshawe, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Unless I stand corrected by you, Sir, it is my understanding of the parliamentary rules that it is out of order to speak to the absence or presence of members.

Perhaps while the member is casting his aspersions he could rationalize for us the flip-flop of his leader and why he now lives in Stornoway.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Hon. members, first we will deal with the question of whether or not members refer to other members in the House.

It is a long-standing custom that we do not refer to the presence or absence of other members in the House. It is a fact of life.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, for those people watching on television, I think they should know something about what is happening in this House with regard to order—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

With respect, I do not think this is a point of order. We are in debate.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it should be pointed out for those people watching that we have circumvented second reading. We do not have second reading on this bill. If some of the debate seems to be somewhat extraneous—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

With respect, that is not a point of order.

[Jim Pankiw, Reform, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I was trying to make the point that the best attempts of the Reform Members of Parliament to represent the concerns that farmers in our constituencies have with the changes to this bill have fallen on deaf ears. Our pleas for changes to improve the bill on behalf of the people it will affect are being taken with contempt for our ability to stand here and speak on behalf of the farmers that we represent.

We are talking about members of Parliament from eastern Canada that do not represent anyone that this bill will impact upon or affect. The least they could do is not show contempt for us and hear what we have to say about the people that we represent that this bill is going to affect. I take affront with the way they are conducting themselves in the House of Commons today.

[An hon. member]

You are casting aspersions.

[Jim Pankiw, Reform, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

With respect to casting aspersions, as the Liberal member of Parliament is shouting across the floor, I am merely reading from a text of political patronage appointments. It is not casting aspersions; it is a simple fact. The list I have is from 1994. It details the Liberal government patronage appointments in the first year they were in power. I think that has great relevance to the discussion today. The board that will be established if this bill becomes law will provide them with another source of patronage appointments.

To further illustrate what I am talking about, Robert Wright was the chief fund-raiser for the prime minister in the 1984 leadership bid. He was appointed the government negotiator with the Pearson development consortium on the cancelled Toronto airport contract.

Pat Lavelle, Ontario chair of the current prime minister's 1984 and 1990 leadership campaigns, was appointed Chairman of the Federal Business Development Bank.

Ron Langstaffe, loyalist to the current prime minister, who ran Liberal MP Hedy Fry's election campaign against Kim Campbell in Vancouver Centre, was appointed Chairman of the Vancouver Port Corporation.

Raynald Guay, former Liberal MP, was appointed Vice-Chairman of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal.

Jim Kinley, twice defeated Liberal candidate, was appointed Lieutenant Governor of Nova Scotia.

Patricia Landers, defeated 1993 candidate in Saint John, was appointed to the Veterans Appeal Board.

James Palmer, Liberal Party fund-raiser in Alberta, was appointed Director of the Bank of Canada.

Ethel Cherneski, local campaign manager in 1993 in Burnaby, was appointed Director of Canada Place Corporation.

Donna Scott, provincial Liberal candidate for Mississauga South, was appointed Chair of the Canada Council.

Morris Kaufman, former Vice-President of the Liberal Party, was appointed Director of VIA Rail. As I said, I could go on for days with the list but more important is the urgency with which I plead with the House of Commons to not set up yet another board to which the government can make political patronage appointments, in particular a board which it can be argued that the positions have to exist. We are talking about an elected board, elected by the farmers. That is the way it should be.

On behalf of all western Canadian grain farmers, I will close by appealing to the Liberal members of Parliament from eastern Canada to please have some degree of respect for the proposals which we are putting forward on behalf of the farmers that we represent and stop the contempt that they have displayed.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have tried to remain quiet through all these hours of Reform nonsense. Our viewers can see how pathetic it is to watch people elected by the public bad-mouthing democracy. Furthermore, they have just insulted me by saying that, because I come from Quebec, I am not entitled to speak to this important matter.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Prince George—Peace River, on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, this hon. member earlier in the debate called the member for the Bloc Quebecois on relevance. Certainly what he is trying to put forward now, if he wants to talk about nonsense, is totally irrelevant to Group No. 4 amendments to Bill C-4.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sure the hon. member, as has been the case with every hon. member today, will draw some relationship between his or her remarks and the bill that is before the House. That seems to have been the pattern.

I am sure the hon. member for Bourassa will proceed accordingly.