John Harvard

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 17th, 1998]

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 Act, February 17th, 1998]

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 Act, February 17th, 1998]

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 Act, February 17th, 1998]

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 Act, February 17th, 1998]

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 Act, February 17th, 1998]

There goes the Reform Party again. It really kills them to listen, does it not? It really kills them.

I want to pay tribute to all the prairie farmers who have participated in this debate with regard to changing the wheat board.

Prairie farmers are very democratically inclined. They take their business very seriously. They take the wheat board very seriously. They take the government seriously and they take politics seriously. They have made an enormous contribution to the debate which has been going on for a long, long time. I want to pay tribute to all the farmers who have worked so hard in trying to improve this bill as much as possible and who have given us the benefit of their views.

I know this is going to kill the Reform Party, but I would like to pay tribute to the minister responsible for the wheat board. If ever there was a minister who worked harder and who listened more to the stakeholders I would like to know who that minister is. This minister has bent over backward to find common ground, balance, equilibrium and compromise so that everyone's aspirations and desires would be reflected in the bill. The minister has done a magnificent job.

Let us be absolutely frank. If you are on the fringe of this debate, if you are a fanatic, you are not going to appreciate the hard work of this minister.

I know that most prairie farmers are fair minded. They are moderate people. They belong to the mainstream. What they want is a workable bill. They want a bill which will work. They do not expect that absolutely everything they desire will be in it. That is simply not possible in this kind of world.

We would have to exclude the Reform Party because its members live in some kind of ideological dream.

I wanted to put those remarks on the record for the sake of facts.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 17th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I will see if I can just stick with the facts. I know it upsets the Reform Party but we are just going to stick with the facts.

The sixth recommendation of the grain panel was to allow for pool accounts to be terminated and paid out at any time following closure of the pool. That is in Bill C-4. It is just another fact.

The seventh recommendation of the panel was to allow for the assignment of negotiable producer certificates. That is in Bill C-4 which is just another little fact for the Reform Party members. I know they have trouble listening.

The eighth recommendation of the panel was to clarify the board's authority to utilize risk management tools including futures and options in dealing with the farmers and customers. That is in Bill C-4. That is just another little fact for members of the Reform Party. I know it is difficult for them to absorb.

The recommendations that deal with the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board that came from the Western Grain Marketing Panel are all contained in Bill C-4.

Turning to the governance issue, the panel recommended that the board should be governed by a board of directors of not less than 11 and not more than 15 elected and appointed members. The panel went on to recommend that the board should be composed of a majority of farmers, a minimum of three representatives from the trade and a minimum of two representatives from the federal government.

Bill C-4 follows that pretty closely I would say. There would be 15 directors with a two-thirds majority elected by farmers. There is no requirement in Bill C-4 that the trade be represented on the board of directors as there are a number of groups who are concerned with having individuals with financial interests in the grain trade on the board. But the government would appoint five directors and they could well come from the industry, the financial sector, academia or other backgrounds.

Another recommendation of the panel on governance was that there should be a modern corporate structure under which a chief executive officer would be hired and would be responsible for the overall operations of the board reporting to the board through its chairperson. This recommendation has been largely fulfilled in Bill C-4. There would be a chief executive officer responsible for overall operations and there would be a chairperson of the board. The one difference is that the chief executive officer would be a member of the board of directors itself.

Another recommendation from the panel was to ensure a rapid and smooth transition to the new governance structure. The panel recommended that the first members of the board of directors should be appointed.

This recommendation was followed in C-72. However when the bill did not pass, it was decided that in order to live up to the commitment to have a board of directors with elected members in place by the end of this year, Bill C-4 could dispense with that interim board of fully appointed members. The change in C-4 has been well received.

Another recommendation was that the Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee should continue to function until all farmer members of the board are elected. In Bill C-4 the Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee would continue until their terms are up, which is expected to be at the same time the new board members would be ready to take office.

Finally there was a recommendation that a mechanism should be established which makes it possible for the Canadian Wheat Board to begin development of a capital base. Bill C-4 goes part way in that direction in that there is a provision for a contingency fund but it is limited to three uses. It could not be used to make investments in facilities but the contingency fund partly goes in the direction of this recommendation.

If we look objectively at the 13 recommendations that were made by the panel with respect to the Canadian Wheat Board, Bill C-4 in many cases follows them exactly and in the other cases follows them quite closely. Those are absolutely the facts. I dare any member of the Reform Party to try to refute those facts.

Where Bill C-4 does not follow the recommendations of the panel is with respect to the recommendations it made on feed barley being placed under an open market system not precluding the Canadian Wheat Board while malt barley would be marketed solely through the Canadian Wheat Board. Another recommendation that was not followed was that unregistered varieties of wheat should be exempt from the jurisdiction of the wheat board.

Those recommendations were not followed up in C-4. The government did not believe that those recommendations were workable. In fact the panel itself had some doubts about the workability of the recommendation on barley. Instead what is in Bill C-4 is the mechanism for farmers to decide themselves, through whom they elect to the board of directors or in some cases through a vote of farmers, to what extent wheat and barley could be covered under the Canadian Wheat Board or in an open market system with or without the participation of the Canadian Wheat Board.

As well there is a provision in the bill that provides a process for farmers to add oats, canola, flax and rye to the jurisdiction of the wheat board with or without the export control provisions.

Let me summarize. With respect to the organization and operational tools of the Canadian Wheat Board, Bill C-4 follows very closely the recommendations of the Western Grain Marketing Panel. With respect to the panel's recommendations on jurisdiction for wheat and barley marketing, the bill puts in place a full democratic process for farmers to make those decisions themselves, and I underline themselves.

As members can see, contrary to what the official opposition has claimed, we have in fact followed the recommendations of the Western Grain Marketing Panel very closely.

Madam Speaker, how much time do I have left?

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 17th, 1998]

Reform members do not want to listen. I know the facts really grate on them. When someone is given to ideology, it is very, very difficult to listen to facts. I invite them, if they would just put aside the ideology for just five minutes, maybe we could get through this.

With respect to the panel's specific recommendations regarding the board, the first recommendation was that the amendments should accommodate restructuring the governance of the Canadian Wheat Board in accordance with a number of guidelines.

Certainly Bill C-4 would restructure the Canadian Wheat Board from being a crown corporation with five appointed commissioners to a mixed enterprise where farmers would control the majority of the board of directors. I will get into that more when looking at the specific recommendations of the panel.

The second panel recommendation was to permit the Canadian Wheat Board to make cash purchases and that is in Bill C-4. The third recommendation was to permit the Canadian Wheat Board to make payments to farmers for grain storage and/or carrying costs. That is in Bill C-4.

We are just trying to teach these little children a few things. I know it is very difficult for the Reform Party. It is very difficult but we on this side will not give up.

The fourth recommendation was to allow deliveries to farmer owned condo storage without regard to the delivery quotas or contracts. That happens to be in Bill C-4.

The fifth recommendation was to permit the Canadian Wheat Board to purchase grain from other than an elevator, rail car or from any other origin. That is in Bill C-4.

These are just some facts to see if we can help these poor little members from the Reform Party.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 17th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak on Bill C-4.

I listened intently to the member of the Reform Party from Alberta, the last speaker for the official opposition. After listening to him, I really hope that no young Canadian boys and girls were listening to this debate. I say that because I think young people who listen to the debate and especially the contributions made by the Reform Party would come away from this debate believing that it is all right to distort the truth, that it is all right to twist the facts, that when it comes to this type of parliamentary debate, anything goes, there are no rules, no honour in this debate.

They never want to listen to debate. I have never seen a political party that is so afraid of the truth. Those members quake in their boots every time a government member stands up.

This member from Alberta mentioned that at one time back in the late thirties and in the forties the Canadian Wheat Board was a voluntary board and it was not a monopolistic board. Somehow he tried to leave the impression that it became a monopoly because that is what the government of the day wanted.

The fact is that from day one farmers on the prairies wanted a monopoly. They wanted single desk selling. If the truth were to be told, it was the Liberal government of the day that was reluctant to make it anything but a voluntary board. It was not until the 1950s that it became what it is today.

The sentiment and opinions of prairie farmers have changed very little. They do not want a voluntary board. They did not want a voluntary board then and they do not want a voluntary board now, despite anything the Reform Party says.

This Reform Party member who spoke a few moments ago talked about the board's not being democratic and that whatever the board would do under Bill C-4 somehow would be shoved down the throats of prairie farmers.

What is the fact of the matter? The fact is that Bill C-4 takes away many of the powers the government now has and puts those powers into the hands of farmers. The major mechanism of that is through a board and most of its members will be elected by farmers. On a 15 member board, there will be 10 elected by farmers and 5 appointed by the government. It sounds to me that it is going to be a board which reflects a democratic exercise.

A Reform Party member is saying just the opposite. This is why I am concerned about boys and girls who might be listening to this debate today. I do not want listeners especially the young people to believe that an opposition party can come into this House and just say whatever it likes. You cannot if you want to be ethical, and if you are bound to the truth, you will stick to the facts.

I want to touch on some other things. The official opposition which happens to be the Reform Party, and a number of other groups that oppose Bill C-4 have said that the federal government has ignored the Western Grain Marketing Panel and its recommendations. They have accused the government of not listening to the panel which it selected. This is clearly not the case and I will try to deal in facts.

I would like to indicate the extent to which Bill C-4 reflects the recommendations of the Western Grain Marketing Panel. I wonder if members of the Reform Party would like to listen to some facts. We will see if they want to listen to facts.

It was worth noting that in introducing its recommendations, the panel stated: “The principle behind these amendments would be one of making the act a more enabling piece of legislation, thereby giving the minister responsible more authority to make changes by regulation rather than having to refer the act to Parliament for amendment on each occasion”. This is lesson number one for the Reform Party. This principle is clearly embodied in Bill C-4.

Many aspects of the bill, such as those providing for more flexible payment options for farmers, would allow the CWB to do many things it cannot do today. However, the decision to implement these new services or not would rest where it should be, with the farmer controlled board of directors. I want to remind the Reform Party members that if they have not read Bill C-4, we are going to have a democratically controlled board of directors.

[Final Offer Arbitration In Respect Of West Coast Ports Operations Act, February 10th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I appreciate the fact that he shares the concerns of the dairy industry as we all do on this side of the House.

I want to make very clear that the government recognizes the dairy industry's concerns about increasing imports of butteroil-sugar blends. However, while there have been efforts to address the concerns of the dairy farmers of Canada, it has not been possible to find a solution that would not—and I would emphasize the word not—would not contravene Canadian law and our international rights and obligations.

Butteroil-sugar blends are part of a larger issue of imports of dairy blends outside tariff rate quotas. The government shares the DFC's concerns about the impact of these blends on dairy producers.

Therefore the government has referred the broader issue to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, CITT, for a thorough examination of ways we could address these concerns in a manner consistent with our international rights and obligations.

The government is very disappointed that dairy farmers have indicated they do not intend to make their arguments to the CITT. We hope this decision will be reconsidered. The CITT is to report the results of its study to the government by July 1, 1998.