Roy H. Bailey

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to enter this debate as we deal with this group of amendments to Bill C-4.

While I was home during the Christmas break, I deliberately went to groups that were previously very much in favour of the Canadian Wheat Board both in the past and to some extent up to the present. I was amazed at the differences even among those who had been most loyal to the concept of the wheat board and what is growing on the prairies, and the reason they would like to see the very amendments the Reform Party is moving to Bill C-4.

There is one fundamental thing wrong at the present time when we call this the Canadian Wheat Board. If you take a C and complete the arc, you have an O . To many of the people in western Canada it is not the Canadian Wheat Board, it is the Ottawa wheat board. They look on this wheat board now as being something not within the prairies, not within the area of where they are growing grain, but rather something in far off Ottawa which is controlling the livelihood of the producers on the prairies. Maybe they have a point.

First of all, the legislation to the wheat board is made right here in Ottawa.

During the debate on the two school questions, the one in Quebec and the one in Newfoundland, one of the hon. members opposite asked me what right I had in even speaking on the school bill as it relates to the province of Newfoundland. I would take that question and reverse it as to the decision of this bill.

A former member speaking to the bill said it was likely that this bill would pass. Look at the representation from the areas that produce this bill. Look at the membership in the House of Commons from the people who represent these producers. I come from a totally agricultural area, as does my hon. colleague who has already spoken, as does my hon. colleague who will likely follow me.

These are the people who should be listened to. Instead of that, the Ottawa wheat board was made in Ottawa, was legislated in Ottawa, but any necessary changes should come from the west where the producers are situated.

If this government were listening, which it has not been so far, it would listen to what the members on this side of the House had to say.

The court decisions that have arisen in the last two years have all come down to a final statement, which is extremely dangerous. Not only is the statement dangerous but it has brought a great deal of hatred on the part of the producer. In every court case of a farmer versus the wheat board, the legal representation for the wheat board had always concluded the debate this way. I want members to listen very carefully, because this is pretty well a quote. The wheat board is entirely responsible to the Government of Canada and not the producer. That is what the decision has been.

If they would listen to what we are saying, if they would listen to the other agencies, they would be taking steps in constructing the wheat board bill so that it in fact does listen to the producer and the necessary steps will be taken.

It is the Ottawa wheat board. It is legislated here. The court decisions have said that it is responsible only to the government.

Then we have the board appointments. Again, it is the Ottawa wheat board. The board makes the appointments from here. If the minister in charge of the wheat board is not totally satisfied with them, or even a little dissatisfied, out that minister goes.

Who makes that decision? Again, it is made in Ottawa. It has nothing to do with the producer in any way.

I am saying here that board appointments can be an area that is only increasing the suspicion in western Canada that there is something wrong with this Ottawa controlled wheat board.

Let me give an example. We have a multimillion dollar project being studied in my constituency. It probably takes in 150 producers in an area where a circle can be drawn around in the best growing durum in the world. No place else grows better durum than right there. The better the durum, the better the pasta.

These people want to go in and set up a pasta plant in the same way that there would be a closed co-operative. The producer-owner wants to grow his durum, take it to his plant and put it on to the North American market. The only way that will be viable is if the wheat board gets in gear, gets its thoughts together and says we are coming into a new century. The people in western Canada are not going to be considered to be hewers of wood and drawers of water anymore. The previous wheat board says get everything out of the west. Let us reap the advantages.

That is why in Saskatchewan the canola growers, the rape seed growers and all the other products being produced off-board have an industry right in western Canada to accompany that. They do not like one bit the idea of the inclusion clause which may draw them back into the wheat board and shut down their industry.

I believe this government should take this antiquated bill back to the drawing board. Pull the bill altogether. Take it right off because even those who four months ago supported the wheat board in its entirety no longer support that. It is dead. It is a dead issue.

As long as this wheat board and all its operation does not fall under the long arm of the auditor general, that suspicion is going to continue. It will continue to the point that there is going to be so much disruption, if the government does not pull the bill now, take it back to the drawing board, it will self-destruct by the time we turn the century.

We do not want to destroy grain marketing. This is 1998, not 1943. The west wants to be a producer of some of its own products but cannot be as long as the long arm of the Ottawa wheat board sits in the way.

It is interesting to note that the provincial Government of Saskatchewan, a traditional supporter of this monopoly buying, decided it wanted to get into hog production and then said the barley is under the control of the wheat board. In order to make its hog operations productive, it would have to take that portion off the wheat board. Permission granted. There it is. It would not be a viable operation.

All these things I have referred to are in the entrepreneurial spirit of the young farmers in Saskatchewan and in the other prairie provinces. They hate the thought of going out and doing anything on their own because the wheat board would step in.

There is a court case going on now in Saskatchewan. I want to illustrate this. Here is a group of farmers growing organic grain. All the people of Canada should listen to this. They grow the grain and they want to mill that grain because it has a demand across North America. No, sir. The long arm of the Ottawa wheat board says they can mill it but they will have to pay the penalty at so much money before shipping it out.

This whole thing is antiquated. It is completely out of date. For the sake of a $6 billion plus business, let us pull the bill. Let us go back and ask the producers to take it back to the drawing board and all of Canada will prosper.

If they proceed with this bill, we will have nothing but hardship, court cases and farmers leaving the land, which they most certainly will do.

[Grain Transportation, February 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to rise in debate on this private member's motion. Indeed I wish it were votable as well.

I would like to assure the hon. member who just spoke that I am not here to criticize the appointment of Mr. Justice Willard Estey. The point I want to make is that this has come far too late.

We have had a disease hit western Canada which obviously this government is not aware of. It is a disease called terminalization. This terminalization has us in a situation that is changing the western grain transportation movement so quickly that the appointment of the hon. Mr. Justice Estey may be redundant.

In the motion by the hon. member for Souris—Brandon there is one word that is key in the debate, that in the opinion of this House the government should immediately conduct a review with the participation of all stakeholders.

Up to this time, I want to assure this House, that the most important stakeholders, the most numerous stakeholders, the stakeholders whose livelihoods depend on it have not been consulted by the railways. They have not been consulted by this government and they have not been consulted by the grain companies.

The farmers in western Canada today feel they have been betrayed wholesale. In May, during the campaign, we had the three members of this government move a public inquiry as to what was happening.

At that time I said that the inquiry would never take place. It did not. It moved on until July. A joint statement by three members, as the member alluded to, said that things were going to go well.

I want people in this House to think for one moment. I have a constituency right now where there is an oil boom. Still the majority of people are dependent on agriculture for a living.

In light of what my colleague from Souris—Brandon had to say, if something is not done very drastically within the next two years, and I will be coming to this a little later, I will have farmers attempting to get the grain to market not 100 kilometres but 100 miles.

Those people are out of business. Mr. Justice Estey will find that it has gone too far, too fast and we have people who can no longer live in the land. I have examined several of my constituents' grain bills. Now almost half the total cost of grain is in transportation alone. It is a dreadful thing. Nowhere else in Canada does agriculture face this type of transportation cost.

I want to inform the minister and members of this House what has happened. I have a formula from a paper in western Canada: deregulation minus competition equals a monopoly. Let me take a moment to explain how that monopoly has taken place.

In Saskatchewan all the CN lines were traded to CP and CN went to northern Saskatchewan. The CP branch lines to northern Saskatchewan came to southern Saskatchewan and created a mammoth monopoly. That is what is existing at the present time.

I do not really think the transport minister, the agriculture minister and the sole government member in charge of the wheat board are even aware this monopoly has been created on the prairies. It is a zero plus for any western farmer today. That is what has happened.

I want to talk a little about the situation that the chief justice finds himself in.

I know the railways are not happy with me but the producers are, and they are the ones who count. For the last five years they have been meeting behind closed doors and they themselves are establishing a monopoly. We have CN to the north, no competition, and CP to the south, no competition. The grain companies have decided where they are going to put the various terminals. Even the producer will not have an option as to who buys the grain.

Talk about living under a regime. They do not have an option to where they haul their grain and they do not have an option under the Canadian Wheat Board as to how the grain is to be sold. They have developed a very serious thing in the prairies.

I would like to provide information which I think is very important. The Reform Party proposes that a moratorium be legislated on the abandonment branch lines west of the city of Winnipeg. What is the hurry? The branch lines are there. They are in top shape. The elevator houses are there. Let us slow down for a moment until we get some sense of the disease which I have referred to as terminalization.

Under section 43 of the Canada Transportation Act, they should be protected from dismantlement for not less than three years to allow time to investigate and develop the short line proposals. We have moved too far, too fast and if we continue to move at the current rate we can forget about any short line proposals. It is reaching the point where it is case closed. We will have to live with the results of not the shareholders but the railways and the grain companies. The producer is going to suffer the consequence of the government's sitting by and allowing this monopoly to develop.

Both CN and CP are issuing notices of discontinuance of rail lines on a piecemeal basis. If this happens I will have no railways in the western half of my constituency operational by the year 2000. Not one. Everything is going to be wiped out. In doing so, most of the subdivisions are available for sale and would not be viable for stand alone short lines because of the railway abandonments. There is no place for them to haul.

There is a cartoon in the paper showing a main line going but all the branch lines coming into the main line being cut. Short lines are out. The monopoly of the railways and the monopoly of the grain companies is already taken place. Most of the branch lines are at risk in Saskatchewan.

The hon. member from Souris Brandon alluded to this, but I want to say that no place is it more evident than in Saskatchewan that the public road system is in absolute shambles. There is tactic alliance between the railways and the grain companies to eliminate the branch lines as quickly as possible and concentrate grain facilities in high capacity main line terminals. That in itself would not be bad if the farmers, the real stakeholders, had a voice in this.

The absence of railway competition in western Canada negates the argument that controlling the abandonment process will interfere with the free market. What a joke. There is no free market. Surely the people of Canada, particularly of eastern Canada, recognize that for the farmers in western Canada there is no free market.

Large scale farming in western Canada would not have developed without the historical past, right or wrong, of money being injected into the railways.

With the time I have left I want to point out something this government should be aware of. The amount of energy that will be used to get the grain to a terminal has already been measured as between three to eight times the amount of emissions going through the air as it would by rail traffic. I believe every word of all those reports. It has to be more polluting to haul grain to terminals via roads that do not exist.

At least half the villages in my constituency have totally disappeared in the last 30 years. In some places there is not even the old store or an elevator or even a post office or even postal boxes to indicate where the towns had been. The remaining small towns have stabilized and are providing essential services in the west. But many of these communities will disappear as we continue the wholesale abandonment and betrayal of the western Canadian farmer.

[Special Interest Groups Funding Accountability Act, February 6th, 1998]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-310, an act to require special interest groups that receive grants or loans from public funds to submit for tabling in Parliament a report on the purposes to which the funds were put.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are clamouring for more accountability at all levels of government. I am pleased to introduce a private member's bill that would require special interest groups and other groups to become more accountable to the government and thus to the Canadian public. I hope we have an opportunity to examine it in this House.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, February 3rd, 1998]

I could get Mr. Young. Maybe he could come and give us a hand.

Talk about highway robbery. This has been going on for years. What is the government's response? “Oh but we give infrastructure grants”. Infrastructure grants come from other sources of taxation and the ministers have to admit that.

The straight 10 cents a litre the government takes out of the pockets of the people from Saskatchewan in a country that has to move grain 100 miles to get to a terminal, and this government returns 21 cents on $5 taken. And the Liberals brag about the fact that they do not have a deficit. They are taking it out of the industries all over Canada.

I would like to inform the members of the NDP caucus down there about this. Do they know what the provincial Liberals are doing in Saskatchewan? They are going around Saskatchewan with a petition to get the provincial government to spend more money on highways. Maybe that is a good petition. The provincial government in Saskatchewan has not been too kind but at least it has spent 40% of what it has taken in. This government is spending less than 4% at times. I hope the federal Liberals will welcome the provincial Liberals from Saskatchewan so they can get some help for Saskatchewan roads. I am sure nobody on this side of the House would kick if the Liberals raised it to 20%.

For five years the Canadian Automobile Association and the truck drivers association have pleaded with this government to give 20% of the money it takes, just 20%. But no, we are getting something like 4%. This government is riding on the shirttails of people who have to make a living in the transportation industry.

The railway located in my town is slated for closure. There are people south of where I live whom I know extremely well. In two years they will have to haul their grain 160 kilometres just to get it to a terminal. And those people over there are wringing their hands with delight because they will be able to tax that industry even more and put farmers completely out of business.

This is the one tax that affects all of Canada and this government steals every time we put the nozzle in the tank to fill it with gas. It is a terrible terrible shame. It is a disgrace. We are the only country of our size that does not have a national highway policy, the only country in the world. And they sit and say “Look what we are doing”. We know what they are doing.

I want to refer to just one other thing. In Saskatchewan we have rural governments. Rural governments are called rural municipalities. These rural municipalities were created at the time Saskatchewan became a province. We have a large number of Indian bands in Saskatchewan. When the previous Conservative government in settling treaties, which took a 10 square section out of a rural municipality, promised and acted that it would give that rural government 25.5 times the assessment in compensation for the tax base that was lost.

But at the same time that government promised that for any land that was purchased by the natives, they would also get the same amount. Now this rural government has gone to court with this government opposite because all it wants to pay for the amount of land purchased is a measly 5.5%.

Some of our rural governments in Saskatchewan have no tax base left and they are holding this up in the court and watching them completely disappear. I visited two RMs during the Christmas break and they are just about finished because they have no money left to provide the services because this government has held it up.

When I said I was happy to talk about this, I really am because I come from a province that is just teetering now in many areas because of the taxation of this government. Heaven forbid, the next tax it will raise will be a carbon tax on more fuel and take great glory in spending 21 cents back to the highways for every 5 dollar it takes. Then it can fire Doug Young at the same time.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, February 3rd, 1998]

Madam Speaker, if I should look happy, I am happy for the simple reason I am very pleased to get into something which is bothering Canadians, it is bothering me, and it is the future of this country.

I would like to refer to hon. members of the Conservative Party. One of them when speaking the other day referred to the lack of funding for provincial health care and that Nova Scotia was being forced into closing three hospitals. Members should fasten their seatbelts to listen to this record.

The premier of Saskatchewan knew what was coming in this transfer. We were forced to close 52 hospitals in one day. That is what happened. In my province because of the slashing of the federal grants to health care, people like myself—and I figure I am lucky—have to go 100 miles before they can get to emergency care. This is the worst we have had since the province was settled in 1905. That is what has happened.

This government has been riding on the backs of the people all over North America. It should not take pride and it should not brag about not being in a deficit position. It has done it on the backs of ordinary people.

I will refer to what may be the worst tax grab for the people in western Canada. We go to the gas pumps all across Canada and we fill up our tanks. Let us say that we put in 50 litres of gas. Bang, the federal government has got $5. Just like that, it has $5. Page 100 of the October Reader's Digest lists how much the federal government has put back into the highways of Canada. On average it is a little more than 21 cents. That is why we have toll roads in Nova Scotia. That is why in Saskatchewan we do not have any roads left.

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member used percentage figures in his address. I have worked in this business for many years, in fact a lifetime. If the constituency I represent were to hold a referendum today, it would be more than 73% in favour of going with one school system. I would have to say to constituents in Weyburn, Estevan and Radville who have enjoyed a private school system, that they have to give it up because 73% of the people said they had to do so.

I understand and appreciate what the member and others have said, but do not ask me to make the same application as you are making in the House to the province of Saskatchewan.

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned the fact that he would not like someone from another province interfering and that he would not want to interfere in the business of another province, or something of that nature.

I would like to inform the hon. member that the question of the constitution is a Canadian concept. It does not belong to just one province. As a result, I have received a number of letters, in bundles of 25 and 49, from a minority group in Saskatchewan asking if the passing of this particular motion in any way endangers their minority position of operating a separate religious school in Saskatchewan.

As was said, the majority of people have made a distinct decision in Nova Scotia. What happens if that same concept was moved to the province of Alberta? I am asking the member, could I really say that the passage of this bill will have no effect on that minority group in Saskatchewan?

[National Highways, December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the last best west was developed with the help of railways. Railways were built and have continuously operated in western Canada with massive government assistance.

Now railways are pulling up stake and leaving town. Rail line abandonment is a real threat on the prairies. The government invested in the only infrastructure able to efficiently transport grain. With that gone, there is no viable route for grain. Our roads are in shambles and our elevators are closing.

The federal government must invest in new infrastructure. The National Highway Act of 1919 has to be taken off the back burner and put on the front of the agenda.

Without a co-ordinated highways program many farmers will loose their livelihood because of not being able to haul their grain.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, December 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, a question for the hon. member opposite.

We recognize, as most Canadians do, that up until this point the investment of the government with the clients' funds has a deplorable record. What guarantee can this government give that the new CPP investment board is going to have one thing in mind and one thing only, to maximize every dollar put into the plan to the benefit of the clientele? What guarantee can the member give me of that?.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, December 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke very well in support of the new Canada pension plan. However, I polled young people and the results of that poll showed that young people are entirely in opposition to her way of thinking. I asked them to take their contribution, put it together with the employer's contribution, take the money to a credit union, bank or investment office, tell them how long the money is going to be invested and compare that to the CPP. I did not get one reply saying they would like to contribute to the Canada pension plan. They would rather go into a different plan.

I do not know where the Liberals are coming from. Of all the replies I got, I did not get one single response saying they wanted to join the Canada pension plan.