Dave Chatters

[Mining, November 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, today is Keep Mining in Canada day. It is only fitting to remind this government and especially the Minister of the Environment about the contribution the mining sector has on the Canadian economy.

By this minister's remarks to the Canadian Electricity Association, she is clearly making the coal industry an economic casualty of the climate change program, even after this government has been promising for months that its program would not result in major economic loss to the Canadian economy.

Let me remind the minister that the coal mining sector in Canada employs 73,000 people and generates over $5.8 billion annually to the Canadian economy.

I hold out the same example she used in her speech, that of Edmonton Power which has committed to achieve the Rio commitment by the year 2000 without eliminating the use of coal in its generation of electricity.

How are Canadians going to trust a government that engages in this kind of doublespeak? It is time for this government to come clean on the real costs.

[The Environment, November 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate much of what the member says. I agree with much of it but this concept of tradable emission permits or credits is an interesting theory until you start to really examine it.

The government member from Ottawa West—Nepean raised the concern that if they start down that road, it will very soon become much like the dairy quotas in Canada. These permits become more and more expensive and fall into the hands of fewer and fewer corporations and companies.

It seems to me that it quickly becomes unworkable or a real hindrance to free economic activity. When you take the scenario even just a little further and start talking about the worker who has to commute into town to work every day and does not have access to public transit and has to use his automobile, does he then need to trade emission credits with the little old lady who just drives her car to church on Sunday?

It just becomes in my view unmanageable. How would the member see that system working?

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 20th, 1997]

Of course, if we keep going in that same direction, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources, I believe from the province of Newfoundland, I doubt has ever sold a bushel of wheat in his life as well.

The minister of agriculture, engaged in the profession of agriculture, enjoys a wheat board fully elected and fully accountable, yet he wishes to impose something different on the farmers of western Canada.

I think it is a question of credibility of those who speak and what they are trying to impose on others that they would not impose on themselves. I think that is an important point to make.

The Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, being from the prairies at least gives him some credibility, but I would question whether the minister has ever sold a bushel of wheat in his life.

I have to perhaps forgive the government a little bit there because truly Liberals on the Canadian prairies are becoming as scarce as prairie chickens on the prairies these days. I have to understand the limited choice the government had when they chose.

I also want to respond to the comments by the hon. member for Hamilton—Wentworth about the preamble not being important. As one of my colleagues pointed out, the courts have long been famous for using the preamble to determine the intention of the legislation when they are drafting the bill. I do not think there is anywhere where that is more apparent than in the courts and the rewriting of the Canadian human rights bill.

Certainly an effort to clarify the intention of the legislatures in the preamble would be taken into consideration and an is an extremely important point and not to be ignored. Our intention is not smoke and mirrors. It is certainly honourable.

I have to also question the effort by the government through this bill to protect from legal action the officers of the Canadian Wheat Board and the secrecy, the lack of accountability through access to information or the auditor general. I think this effort to protect the officers of the board in good measure is a result of the actions of my colleague from Portage—Lisgar in his efforts to bring some accountability and transparency to the board. I do not think that there is really support for those kinds of actions.

Because of the lack of time, I simply say in conclusion that, in all sincerity, we are not asking for anything in this Wheat Board Act that producers in the rest of Canada do not have already. In the interest of fairness, I think it would be reasonable to provide some accountability, some transparency to a board that works for the farmers.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 20th, 1997]

My apologies for that error, Mr. Speaker.

However, I feel quite confident that the member protects his right vigorously to make choices in the way he markets his products. Therefore, I think he lacks some credibility when he tries to impose on western farmers something that he does not wish to have imposed upon himself.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of Motion No. 1 moved by my colleague from Yorkton—Melville. I originally had not intended to intervene in the debate at this point, but after listening yesterday to the debate in the House and to some of the comments on the government side I was motivated to take part in the debate.

I can speak to the issue before us, the Canadian Wheat Board bill, with some authority, being the third generation in my family to be involved in the farming profession. My family held a wheat board permit probably since the creation of the Canadian Wheat Board and certainly since the creation of the monopoly of the Canadian Wheat Board.

That is an important consideration to note as we take part in the debate because of some of the interventions made by the other side, in particular by the member for Hamilton—Wentworth yesterday, on the credibility and the willingness of members on both sides to speak.

I would like it understood that my constituents and I support the concept of single desk selling for prairie grain farmers. Producers in my constituency feel strongly about that and would wish to support it.

Producers in my constituency are simply asking for fairness and equality with grain producers in others parts of Canada. They are asking for transparency and accountability on the part of the board and an end to the secrecy and the closed situation we have now.

Both the interests of my producers in preserving a single desk selling agency and their desire for transparency and accountability could be achieved if the government had chosen to go that route. We could preserve the Canadian Wheat Board and provide farmers with choices.

If the Canadian Wheat Board were acting in the best interests of producers, producers would use the Canadian Wheat Board. The problem is that we are setting up a situation that will inevitably destroy the Canadian Wheat Board. Farmers will continue to fight for choices and options. Eventually it will mean the destruction of the wheat board and the loss of the concept of the single desk selling agency. That would be a real change.

We heard a lot of discussion in the debate yesterday about who the Canadian Wheat Board currently works for and who it will work for under this bill if it goes forward. It is pretty obvious to all of us grain producers that the Canadian Wheat Board as far back as World War II was not working in the best interest of farmers and some of my colleagues raised that point.

In our contribution to the war effort in western Canada, we probably contributed more through the loss of revenue on grain sales than what the national energy program drew out of western Canada. There was a tremendous loss in revenue to the western Canadian producer. Yet there does not seem to have been any recognition of that and certainly no recognition here.

There are all kinds of other instances where the Canadian Wheat Board has been used as a foreign policy tool and even a domestic internal policy tool, much to the detriment of the Canadian producer.

I would also like to respond to the comments made by the hon. member for Hamilton—Wentworth yesterday who took great grievance because of his impression that somebody over here said that he had no right to speak on this issue. As a member of this House, he certainly had every right to speak on this issue, but the question has to be about the credibility of those who are speaking on the issue.

The parliamentary secretary to the agriculture minister is a potato farmer from Prince Edward Island who judiciously guards his right to make choices in the marketing—

[Hibernia, November 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate all those involved in the Hibernia project and the people of Newfoundland for yesterday's milestone event when oil began to flow one month ahead of schedule and under budget. This day has been long awaited not only by the people of Newfoundland but the shareholders and taxpayers.

Investors can now begin to see a return on the billions of dollars used to finance the megaproject. Shareholders now have confidence to invest in future offshore oil projects. The people of Newfoundland will have up to 650 well paying jobs for the next several decades.

Newfoundland Premier Brian Tobin is quoted as saying that he expects Newfoundland to be a have province by the end of the decade. We Albertans know well the pride and benefits when oil flows.

Once again, congratulations to the people of Newfoundland.

[The Environment, November 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this is an outrage. If you have made progress in Regina, if you have business on side, why in the world can you not announce the government's position going to Kyoto?

[The Environment, November 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, if you in fact have consulted and made progress—

[The Environment, November 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, our position is not important. You are the government. It is your position.

[The Environment, November 17th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, for weeks now we have been asking this government for details on its position going into Kyoto and for weeks now the ministers have refused to discuss either how we achieve those targets or the cost to Canadians of that achievement. Over and over all we hear, and we heard it again today, is “we take this very seriously and it is a serious matter”.

If the government takes it seriously why are we the only country in the G-7 that has yet to announce a position going into Kyoto?