Roy H. Bailey

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. friend in the bloc party. He mentioned the fact that the death benefit under the Quebec pension plan was higher than that in the rest of Canada.

I heard of a problem recently. When human resources were handling a death benefit out of Regina, from the time of death until the payment was made used to be six weeks. Last October, before the move, the average time for those constituents to obtain the death benefit settlement was five months.

Under the minister's plan does it take five months for someone to get a death benefit settlement?

[Canada Marine Act, December 3rd, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I will just sum up and get some clarification and hopefully some clarification for anyone who may be reading the results of this debate.

The hon. minister mentioned that in this tranferring from the one authority or one paycheque to another that these people would be no worse off. Those were the terms that he used. May I present this to the hon. minister. If someone is being transferred to the new authority and they do so with 20 years experience, will that 20 years experience count with the new authority so that if the pension age is with 30 years of service, that would be the same number of years which qualified that individual for full pension?

That has not been made clear and I think that should be made clear because that is valuable information for the people who are waiting for the new port authorities to be established.

The second thing is in Motion No. 19, which is a motion which was raised by the government—and I will be very quick—there is a statement there that says that this excludes the port authorities, but this is another issue and I am wondering how the government is going to deal with that other issue.

Those are my two points.

[Canada Marine Act, December 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we have before us Bill C-9, the Canada Marine Act which is long overdue as we turn the pages into a new century. We are not quarrelling with that. I want to commend the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands for the tremendous amount of effort he has put into this bill.

I want to make a few comments about the modernization of the ports. Canadians from the Atlantic to the Pacific realize this is a modernization of the way in which we will operate in the new century.

I have some quarrels with one area however. I particularly do not like the number of appointments that are going to be made available. It seems that this is a possible flaw in the bill in that it could be offset by the number in the harbour authority in having other people come on to the authority.

I would like to mention to the hon. member for Churchill that when we put forth the idea of the union people being included on the port authority, the argument was that they were never themselves asked to become a part of the port authority. If we look at Motion No. 1, we will also see that the hon. member was in favour of supporting that motion, so the same thing goes for the municipal authorities. They were not named either but they can be asked to make their presence on the board.

If we look at Motion No. 1, this clause seems like it unjustifiably inflates the boards of some port authorities and therefore could possibly have an imbalance on the people who serve on a given board. For that reason I think this is a bad motion. We will be opposing this motion because it would render them unbalanced in favour of municipal governments. This bill is not designed to favour municipal governments. It is designed to favour the operation of the harbour boards in co-operation with the municipal governments where the harbour is located. As a result of that I cannot support Motion No. 1.

Regarding Motion No. 2, it seems that this is redundant since the granting of letters patent will deal with the existing port authorities. Those things will vary even within the same province. It may vary between Port Alberni and so on. It seems to me that this somehow limits the growth. I do not think Bill C-9 is designed to limit the growth of the port authorities, or curtail the economic advantages they may have. Rather, the bill I believe is designed, and it certainly has been a long time in the making, to strengthen the economic viability of each port.

Motion No. 3 in actually talking of users, the term “users” as such is not adequately defined anywhere in the bill. I just thought users were people in the business world availing themselves of the use of the port. Whether that needs further definition I do not know but I do not think it is necessary.

Regarding Motion No. 12, I really feel that the motion put forth by my hon. colleague would unduly restrain, shackle or hamper the activities of port authorities. Again I want to make sure that the port authorities would have the opportunity to take advantage of the talented people who sit on the boards, the inputs from the various people, and that the port authority grows.

For the first four amendments under Group No. 1, while I do not doubt that they were put forward with very good intentions, I do not think we can support them. I think they are hampering the general welfare and somehow dampening the purpose of Bill C-9.

[People's Tax Form Act, November 27th, 1997]

I am not a smoker either, but boy there would be something to pay.

For the last five years or six years the people in western Canada who smoke pay at least $3 more for a package of cigarettes. We have never had any big complaint about that, but with this government it seems to matter where the complaints come from. That is what makes the difference.

This would be one of the cheapest public relations jobs this or any government could possibly do. We could possibly lead the world in the way of getting an electronic opinion from the people that we serve.

We should support the bill. We should discuss it further. I will turn the rest of my time over to my hon. colleague from Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

[People's Tax Form Act, November 27th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague who shares the southern borders of our province, the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands. The day after the June 2 election one of the press people came to me and said “What do you suspect will happen in the House when you get there, given the fact that there are four opposition parties and the Liberal Party, the governing party opposite”.

I said to that young reporter “I expect that it is going to be 240 versus 60”. That is the way it has been. When we bring common sense legislation in, we see 240 lining up to vote against the 60 people that come here.

I come from the highest taxed province, Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan is the highest taxed province in Canada right now. When I hear people talking about this being very expensive to have one electronic sheet placed in everybody's income tax forms, to be filed through electronic machines in each province on the computer, any government should welcome this. They would have more public opinion than a thousand town hall meetings and they would have it every year in April. By April they would know what the people across Canada are thinking. They would know that the thoughts of British Columbians differ from those of the maritimes. At least they would have before them a truly volunteered opinion coming before them at very little cost.

No one in this House can say that this is an expensive measure as far as democracy is concerned.

If any government were to take a look at a sheet coming in like this, they could look down at the constituency of my colleague and see that 88.8% of the people are opposed to government expenditures in the matter of gun registration. The amount of money that they would save in gun registration over the next five years would pay the bill of the tainted blood inquiry and Canada could walk away free.

We spend more money because some brainwave comes into existence with no feeling toward the public whatsoever. Any government that really wanted to be truly representative would say “We can do this in a minute. We can have this ready in April. We can have a form filled out and it would come through. It would not have to be touched. It would be automatically recorded and there the government would have the party's opinion”.

I wonder what the people of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec would think if the people in the four western provinces were paying $2.90 for a package of cigarettes and here they were paying $5.70. I am sure they would be complaining.

[Anti-Personnel Mines Convention Implementation Act, November 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, on an evening like this one it is difficult for someone to stand and try to say something that has not already been said. I am pleased to support the bill. I am also pleased to know that the support in my constituency, which is a large one, would be unanimous.

When we close the House tonight and go home we do not expect to hear the blast of a gun. We do not expect to hear an explosion of a land mine. We live in relative peace and quiet. However, as we pass the bill, and it will be unanimous, there are people in Canada tonight who are not as easy as we are about weapons that are being concealed within our country. People know about them but apparently there is no legal way or legal effort to stop it.

A mine is one of the easiest things to conceal and bring into the country. Nothing could be easier to hide and bring into the country than a small plastic mine. We know from fact that many illegal guns are being smuggled into Canada every day.

I was on the plane with a chap from the city of Cornwall who mentioned the illegal smuggling that takes place there. He talked about it being the smuggling capital of Canada. I asked if there were any chance that mines were being smuggled into Canada? He answered: “Why not? They are bringing guns in. Why wouldn't they be bring mines in?”

When the bill passes I would like the House of Commons to take a moment to think about the build-up of weapons, the arsenal being built up in Canada. Having spoken to police officers in Saskatchewan and the man I met on the plane from Cornwall, maybe we have a land mine that is ready to explode.

I am pleased by the great work that has been done in the House by the minister and my colleagues. I am pleased to support the motion. I hope all Canadians will look around them to ensure these weapons of destruction and those who possess them will be dealt with expediently and that we in Canada do not relive anything that has been experienced by many parts of the world.

On behalf of my constituents I am pleased to say that I most assuredly will support the bill.

[Highways, November 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, each year the government opposite takes $5 billion out of the motoring public in fuel taxes. Of that $5 billion it returns to the provinces something in the order of 6%. As a result we are finding provinces going out in co-operation and tolling roads.

My question is for the Minister of Transport. The Canadian Automobile Association has stated on numerous occasions that 20% of the taxes being returned from that fuel tax would solve our problem. When will the minister return 20%—

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

We are not going to tolerate this. If the government does not want to listen, then it had better start listening to a $6 billion industry which is being controlled from Ottawa. They dictate the transportation route.

We have a new era also in communications. Most of these young farmers are on the Internet. They know what is going on. You cannot fool them anymore by Bill C-4.

I want to say this. This bill, if not amended, is doomed to die. Maybe it will get passed in this House. But as we go into the new year and into the new century, this type of ancient marketing, a monopolistic marketing on the international trade that we have today and unless a farmer is given some freedom, will self-destruct and nobody will be to blame. That phoney document says that the Canadian Wheat Board, the document the government is so proud of, does not always sell grain in the best interests of the farmer. That is exactly why were are here.

It is too bad the country cannot see and hear what we are trying to do. We are trying to preserve an industry that is a billion dollar industry, although we do not have as many people involved in the industry. We want to save it. This government is going to destroy it by this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify one important thing for my colleague who who has just spoken.

The Canadian Wheat Board and the movement and selling of grain has never been subsidized, never since the beginning of the Canadian Wheat Board. The contingency fund is not a subsidy fund. It is a fund that the western Canadian farmer eventually pays if he does not pay it up front. I want to make that clear.

When I began my study of this, I went back and read two very important books on the history and origin of the Canadian Wheat Board. Depending on the history book, the origin of the board and the purpose for its beginning are dubious. But this is 1997 and we are soon going into a new year, soon going into a new century and we are still trying to move grain under a board which is completely out of date.

Today there is a whole new generation of farmers. These young people do not have just $20,000 invested. Many of them have $3 million and $4 million invested. They know what is going on in the country and what is taking place with sales around the world. They know when the Canadian Wheat Board is selling grain. They know that they are being taken.

I want to say that all but two letters that have crossed my desk have stated that people are very afraid of this new bill. Why are they afraid? It is because of the inclusion clause. Western Canadians are afraid of the inclusion clause.

Some may argue that if they want in or out, they have to have the same regulations. They got out of the business of growing wheat for the simple reason that they did not want to be mastered by a wheat board which was made in Ottawa, not made in western Canada.

It is a real fear that they have. We have a new era of farmers. They are going out. They are growing different crops. The real fear of the young person who is coming on is what they are doing in the way of specialty crops such as the canola crop flats and so on. Some dingbat of an organization is going to give them the idea, let us include it and put it to some phoney vote, and I want to say phoney. Every person in western Canada would tell you that the latest vote was a phoney. It was phoney because it was an all or nothing at all vote.

While those people will tell you that it was a major victory for the wheat board, it was a major disgrace for the wheat board. It was 37%. I would like to tell you if that same vote was held today it would be 47%. In a year's time it will be 57% if the government continues with Bill C-4 the way it is.

They are going to kill themselves. Do not blame the Reform Party for that. Blame nobody but yourself. We are the new era of transportation. We have huge boats that come in the harbour of Prince Rupert. Most important, western Canada should now have the right to dictate where its grain is going and to what transport facility. Whatever brings the most dollars back to the farmers of the west, that is the route the grain should go. If we can fill the terminals in Halifax and in Montreal by going through a cheaper route, then it is the God-given right of western producers to have their grain sent that way.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak on this topic, the most important topic in my entire constituency. Interest in the bill is growing and growing and growing every week.

I wish to alert members to a statement once made by Edmund Burke. He said that the people never give up their liberties except under some delusions. Ever since the wheat board began it presented a delusion to many western Canadian farmers.

The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville emphasized the use of the word maximizing. If the returns to the farmers of western Canada are to be maximized, it involves another component, transportation. We will talk about that later.

I want to read to the House a statement made by a lawyer employed by the Canadian Wheat Board. This was before the Manitoba Court of Appeal.

I want to note carefully what he had to say: “To dispose of grain in the best interest of the federal government the wheat board has no obligation to obtain the best prices for the farmers”. That is what a lawyer for the Canadian Wheat Board had to say. You come west and try to sell the Canadian Wheat Board with statements like that.

Less than three months ago we had a major dumping of Canadian grain into the Iranian market at $15 a tonne less than the world price. We only found out about that just a few days ago. When the wheat board tells you that it has no obligation to maximize the return to the prairie farmers, that they exist only for the benefit for the government, at least it is speaking the truth.

The wheat board has its annual report out. I would like to read a few statements from that annual report. Historically the Canadian Wheat Board at numerous times has not marketed grain to ensure the maximum return to the farmers. Now hear what it had to say: “All proceeds from sales, less Canadian Wheat Board marketing costs, are passed on to the farmers”. If it is operating totally on behalf of the farmers then they had better take a look at what they are trying to do in Bill C-4. If the farmer is smart enough to grow the grain, he is smart enough to market the grain. This is phoney thing between five members, ten members, do not go out west and say that you democratized the wheat board. They will laugh right in your face. We all know what is going to happen.

A few years ago we had two very learned people who did a lot of work on this. I would like to read what they had to say: “Until World War II the Canadian Wheat Board was a government owned agency with a mandate to operate in the best interests of the producers”. That is before World War II. The next point is: “The role, structure and powers of the Canadian Wheat Board changed drastically during the war. It became the federal government's chief means of controlling wheat prices”.

The wheat board is in a position and it is attempting to control prices, not to do what my hon. member has in this amendment, maximize the prices. It has not been the responsibility—and we have enough evidence that it has not always sought out to operate in the best interests.

Let me read again from this report: “Its main aim was to limit grain price increases so as to safeguard the government's wage and price controls”. Who paid that price? The farmers paid that price and they paid heavily for that.

Point three: “When world market conditions began to push up wheat prices in 1943 the government granted the Canadian Wheat Board its monopoly powers to enable it to impose strict controls over grain prices”. The Canadian Wheat Board is doing exactly the same thing today.

This report, which came from two eminent scholars, said further: “The Canadian Wheat Board was the government's instrument of choice in the immediate post-war period to control wheat prices—into a peacetime market economy”.

Finally, it says that both Liberal and the Conservative governments extended the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly because they viewed wheat as a national strategy measure. Only wheat was used in this way both the Liberal government and the Conservative government. They used the wheat of the hardworking prairie farmers to the benefit not of the prairie farmers. That was not utmost in their minds.

I look at the dumping practices of the wheat board today and it is not accountable and it does not know where the grain is going. The farmer, like the hon. member, at least knew where the grain was going. We do not know where it is going. It dumps wheat on to a foreign market where there is no competition and sells it for less money. That is a terrible shame, and it exists today.

I want to draw attention also to the control of the grain industry by the government. We read that lawyers have said that the first responsibility of the Canadian Wheat Board is to the government and the producers are secondary. We out west are tired of that attitude. We are fed up.

Let me read: “Control of the grain trade by a government agency was consistent with the aims of those Canadian bureaucrats who were dictated to introducing the principles of Keynesian economics into the regulation of the Canadian marketplace”.

I know what the hon. member said. I know that people are saying that the act was made in Ottawa and therefore it must be good. Do not be fooled. They never adopted one single principle of the strategy committee that came before them. Not one principle is embedded in this new act. They predetermined what the act was going to be. They went through the phoney stage of talking to people. The bill is before us now without one single recommendation from the advisory board.

I say that this Canadian Wheat Board bill that we have today is going to do one thing for sure if it is passed. The number of people opposed to the monopoly of the grain market industry, the number of producers, is going to drop, drop, drop until we reach a real revolution on the prairies because of the government's monopoly in this bill.

I wish everybody opposite would come out to the prairies, talk to the people. It is a crying shame that an industry that brings billions and billions of dollars into this country cannot even control itself. The big bad government controls it.

It is a terrible shame. I beg them to read the bill and not to support it.