Mr. Speaker, I would certainly like to commend my colleague, the member for Souris—Moose Mountain, for all the work he has done on this issue, his understanding of it and the hours and hours of endless committees where he carried the ball for the Canadian Alliance. I thank him for that.
One of the reasons we are looking at the grain transportation act and grain movement is that our primary producers in the grain and oilseeds sector are suffering. We need to look at ways to give them a little more cash in their pockets because it is a desperate situation.
There have been groups that have said that as much as $300 million could be left on the prairies if the grain transportation system was commercialized. That is $300 million. The estimate of the government as a result of this bill is $178 million. We will not stand in the way of any dollars flowing to the primary producers because they do need it.
I have a letter which was sent to me today by an organization which represents 90,000 farmers in western Canada, the Prairie Farm Commodity Coalition. The group represents the Alberta Barley Commission, the Alberta Canola Producers Commission, Alberta Marketing Choices Implementation Group, the Alberta Rye and Triticale Association, the Alberta Winter Wheat Producers Commission, the Prairie Oat Growers Association, the Saskatchewan Canola Growers Association, the Western Barley Growers Association, the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association and the Western Producer Car Group.
This group represents 90,000 primary producers. Instead of giving some words here that could be construed to be just those of the Canadian Alliance, I would like to read the letter from the chairman of the group, Greg Rockafellow:
On June 8, 2000, the Prairie Farm Commodity Coalition was invited to make a submission to the House of Commons transport committee on Bill C-34 which is part of the government's so-called “reform” package on grain transportation. The position taken in the PFCC submission was that the grain transportation reform package put forward by the federal government is a sham, and will do precisely nothing to resolve the problems that have been studied for almost three years.
The consequences of the federal government's inaction on these problems will have profoundly negative effects on farmers, the grain industry and the federal government. The consequences for the federal government will come to bear during the next tie-up in grain movement, when vessels are once more lined up in Vancouver harbour, sales are lost, and Canada's reputation as a reliable supplier is further tarnished. The responsibility for this event, when (not if) it occurs, will rest fully on the federal government's shoulders.
It is our position that this package of so-called reform is in fact worse than the current situation. It moves the grain industry and the farmers back towards the old Crow rate regime which gave us nothing but inefficiency, system breakdowns and restricted investments. If the federal government was motivated in the smallest degree by principle, this package would be withdrawn. If members of parliament on both sides of the House wanted to do what is best for western farmers, they would vote against Bill C-34.
More serious than the loss of three years of study and discussion is the shabby political games that have been played in Ottawa by the government over the package. Putting forward this backward looking and empty set of proposals, and then accusing anyone who opposes it of “denying farmers $178 million in freight savings” is itself symptomatic of a government which is bereft of ideas and principle. This trap, however, is only one way among several in which the federal government has abused parliamentary democracy campaign over the last few weeks:
Railroading the package through with no opportunity for debate;
Having the farmers' presentations to the transport committee occur after the deadline for any amendments to be submitted to the committee for clause by clause consideration;
Bringing in the party whip to sit at the committee table, driving Liberal members who dared to criticize the package off the committee at the last minute, and replacing them with other MPs who had not heard the presentations of any of the witnesses.
We find it repugnant in the extreme that the federal government has put political gains ahead of the interests of farmers, has abused the democratic and parliamentary system, and has insulted the farm groups who travelled to Ottawa on their own time and at their own expense to provide their views on this disgraceful package.
Farmer representatives from the PFCC organizations spent all of last summer working in good faith on the Kroeger facilitation process. Each devoted considerable time and personal expense on the premises clearly stated on May 12, 1999, that the federal government had accepted Justice Estey's recommendations and Mr. Kroeger was to develop an implementation plan. Clearly, the only party that was not operating in good faith was the government, which had no intention of implementing the Estey report. The federal government's actions on this file over the past year have completely undermined any trust that we will have in the future in any consultation process.
That letter alone from an organization that represents 90,000 primary producers pretty much puts in black and white what this process has done and what it will not do. The faith the farmers put in the government has been totally destroyed.
As the member for Souris—Moose Mountain said, when this bill comes back the next time, it will be done right.