Mr. Speaker, prior to dealing with Bill C-4 and some of the amendments which have been proposed, I would like to respond to statements which have been made by my Reform colleagues across the floor.
First, Reformers have suggested they are all knowing and representative of the western prairie farmers simply because the majority of Reformers come from the western provinces. They also suggest that we on this side of the House and our Conservative and NDP colleagues should not be speaking to this bill because they are all knowing and they are the representatives. They suggest that we should be listening and doing nothing else.
I am here to tell them that when we are dealing with an issue which affects the entire country, when we are dealing with an issue that represents $6 billion to $7 billion, guaranteed by every man, woman and child in this country, I am going to speak to it. It is my parliamentary privilege to do so, just as it is for members from Quebec, the maritimes, B.C. and northern Canada.
Ninety per cent of my riding is agricultural. The people in the agriculture community want to see a couple of clear things coming from this House. They want clear questions, clear statements and clear answers. They do not want to hear all the rhetoric, misinformation and grandstanding which Reformers are throwing out. Some of the statements with respect to Bill C-4 which have been made today and in days gone by have been absolutely ludicrous. We should be dealing with the straightforward points the government is recommending with respect to Bill C-4.
Before I speak to those points I would like to mention a couple of comments which appear in Hansard that my Reform colleagues have made. Perhaps these members, when they see fit, might apologize for the comments. Literally they have been grandstanding. They have been creating anarchy on the western plains. They should be ashamed of themselves. These are not my words. These are their words.
The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands said: “This is little more than a personal anecdote. Most of the 200 farmers present were staunch supporters of the Canadian Wheat Board. I might even say most of them were rabid supporters of the Canadian Wheat Board”. I quote the word rabid. They are classifying wheat board supporters.
I would like to give the House a dictionary definition of the word rabid. This is how they are classifying western wheat producers: “Rabid: furious, violent”. Is that the kind of language we expect to hear in the House of Parliament? The definition continues: “unreasoning; headstrong; fanatical—affected with rabies”. That is what they have branded the producers of the CWB. They have branded them as rabid supporters. I suggest that the member should consider apologizing for his absolutely outlandish comments. They are completely unacceptable and something which I certainly would not imagine coming from a parliamentarian.
What this bill is about and what we should be discussing today are clear and precise facts such as are the wheat producers going to have control of their wheat board. The answer is yes, absolutely yes.
I would like to give my colleagues across the floor a little definition of democracy. It is anything over 50%. They like to throw out these referenda. If they do not have the majority of support in the ridings they will step down from their seat. Democracy is 50% of the vote, gentlemen. The grain producers have 66% elected representatives on the wheat board. That is a vast majority. Two-thirds of the directors will be directly voted in by the wheat producers. So their myth is set aside. No more fallacies, just simple truth. The farmers will have control.
With respect to government appointments, the government of this country is backing the Canadian Wheat Board to the tune of $6 billion. Are Reformers suggesting this government should have absolutely no role to play? Are they suggesting that we sign a blank cheque every year and we have no control or mechanism in place to make sure the money is being spent wisely? If that is what the Reform Party is suggesting it would have this government bankrupt in no time at all. I suggest the Reform Party should be ashamed of itself.
We certainly would not be prepared to offer a corporation $6 billion in guarantees without having some control in this House.
I would like to speak to the farmers' involvement. We have heard the Reform Party throw out many names and agencies of people who have been opposed to this bill, most of whom are somehow either directly or indirectly related to the Reform Party.
I would like to take a minute and go over a chronology of events, the consultations the hon. minister went through. This is not something that we are bringing closure to in a matter of one day. This has been ongoing for many months. Unlike my colleagues across the floor, my opposition members in the NDP, in the Conservative Party and in the Bloc chose to table some of their amendments during committee, in front of the experts. They felt they would stand the test and have good debate on them.
Not my Reform colleagues. They withdrew all their amendments at committee. They said we are going to do it in the House where we can grandstand, where we can do nothing more than support the people who support us, the Reform members who were not elected and decided to join various organizations that came forward to present themselves. That is unacceptable.
I would like to take a minute and go through this chronology. These are facts. A factual brochure on the grain marketing system was distributed to over 200,000 farmers, not executives and board members, but farmers, organizations and industry representatives in December of 1995. There was series of 15 town hall meetings held across the prairies in 1996 to provide farmers and other individuals the opportunity to express their views. Twelve days of public hearings were held in Winnipeg. There have been many opportunities for the farmers to provide their comments with respect to this bill.
The panel travelled across the country and it heard what the farmers want. Not a couple of specific Reformers, those who are all knowing, those who are wanting to yell across the floor or act violently. They heard from common sense individuals, good business people, farmers, grain producers.
This bill will do a good job for the Canadian wheat producer.
I will conclude with a couple of the principles behind the Canadian Wheat Board and the acts mentioned therein. I will read some notes I have made as I have gone along. I would encourage my Reform colleagues to listen for a change. No more heckling, no more laughing, no more grandstanding, but represent their constituents the way they should and listen for one moment.
The changes in CWB governance and operation will enable the CBW to function more effectively in carrying out its mandate to market western wheat and barley for export and domestic consumption on behalf of farmers. The current commissioner structure of senior management will be replaced by a part time 15 member board of directors comprised of 10 producer elected representatives and 5 government appointees, including a full time president and chief executive officer who can only be appointed with consultation with the rest of the board. Not simply the minister's whim, but the rest of the board has to be consulted in this. Further, the rest of the board is going to decide his salary.
No more grandstanding. The facts are out. The Canadian Wheat Board bill, Bill C-4, is a good bill. It is a good bill for Canadian wheat farmers and now they know the facts.
I think they will look a little differently on some of the comments made over the last several days.
