Cliff Breitkreuz

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

Madam Speaker, I am sure the member from Manitoba who just spoke is familiar with the tremendous diversification in the prairies, and probably right across the country, that has been occurring for the last 20 years or more. The most recent I know of is in Alberta with the production of hay for export, more specifically timothy and alfalfa. There is a tremendous amount of tonnage going to places around the world, across the Pacific to Japan, Taiwan, the Middle East, the United States, Britain and North Africa.

Another one, of course, is canola, which the member would know more about. In the last 20 years or so canola has really bit into the Canadian acreage of what is sown in the spring. It is a major commodity for many producers in western Canada.

Peas and lentils are pulse crops. Tremendous strides have been made in developing these crops as well. Oats is another one. Since oats have been taken off the wheat board, they have been processed and shipped as pony oats right around the world, especially from Alberta.

Once the regulations were gone, beef just went through the ceiling. My home province of Alberta has over 50% of Canada's beef which is exported to the south, whether alive or in boxes it does not matter. There has been a tremendous growth in that particular sector.

Hog products are the same, especially once the marketing boards were gone. There are hog barns going all over the western provinces taking advantage of that particular sector.

We then have wheat. Now these sectors have increased phenomenally over the last number of years. They are not controlled and do not come under the control of the board, and the Canadian Wheat Board especially in terms of the grains. However, what has happened to wheat? This statement is from the wheat board. Its 10-year export forecast for wheat shows a decline in market share.

Let me just read out exactly where the wheat board stands or Canada stands in this particular situation on the increase in wheat exports. The export of wheat from Argentina will increase by 67% over the next 10 years. The export of wheat from Australia shows a 39% increase. The export of wheat from the European Union shows a 25% increase. Where is Canada? Canada is at 15%, lagging behind most of the major wheat exporting countries.

I am wondering how the member can reconcile the crops that are not under the Canadian Wheat Board flourishing while the crops, particularly the wheat, under the Canadian Wheat Board are lagging behind with a dismal record. I would like the member to respond to that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is a very important bill for the government, or so it says, yet I only see five members in the House and would call for a quorum.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to some of the rather absurd comments of the member for Palliser. He said that Reform members were speaking out of both sides of their mouths. That is absolutely, blatantly false. My colleagues brought him up short on that comment.

If the member for Palliser is so interested in monopolies, why did the NDP government in Saskatchewan get rid of the hog board monopoly and hang on to the wheat board monopoly?

[The Other Place, February 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the patronage packed parliamentary senior citizens home, called the other place, is due for renovations. The desks, paintings and chandeliers can stay in the red chamber but the mouldy Tory and vacationing Liberals must go.

Senator Ron Ghitter, the red Alberta Tory, should be the first. This hand picked appointee should be shamed out of office. Last year he only worked half time but still cost taxpayers a cool $155,000. Mr. Ghitter sits in the seat once held by Stan Waters, Canada's first elected Senator.

Senator Ghitter, do the honourable thing and let your name stand in a Senate election.

[Journalism, December 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, last week Diane Francis wrote about Quebec terrorist Ray Villeneuve. On Friday in her member's statement the separatist member for Laval Centre referred to patriotic Canadian editors and columnists as stalinizers.

To equate thoughtful journalism to Stalin the slaughterer is shameful. Stalin murdered millions of innocent people. My ancestors and other Canadians who fled Russia are disgusted and insulted by the separatist's comments. How dare she minimize the memories of such a murderous madman.

Convicted killer Villeneuve and his guerrillas continue to threaten innocent people. Senior citizens, for heaven's sake, are being beaten in the streets of Quebec by separatist thugs while our justice system stands idly by.

Villeneuve brags about taking hammers and bombs to federalists. The separatists should be attacking the hammer and sickle techniques of Villeneuve, not the media that are merely reporting the facts.

[Supply, November 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the notion the member has put forward. I would agree that the leaders of the day at the Charlottetown and the Meech Lake accords had a tendency to say one thing in one part of the country and another thing in another part of the country. Of course, that is dishonest and deceptive and it is not the way to bring about a unified country.

We have put a lot of meaning into the whole term distinct society.

[Supply, November 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where there were 64% who voted in favour of sovereignty. He also made the statement that we do not put meaning to the whole business of distinct society. Obviously the member has not been listening. We have put a lot of meaning into the whole notion of distinct society and that is why we do not like to see it entrenched in the Quebec constitution.

[Supply, November 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we have gone from talking about the whole unity issue to the national health standards issue. I really do not know what connection that really has with the whole business of talking about national unity. We support a standardized health care system across the country. We support the Canada National Health Act.

[Supply, November 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Manitoba for giving up some of his time so that I could speak.

I am pleased to speak on the issue of this whole business of uniting our country.

I am greatly perplexed and disappointed that after 30 years of all kinds of wrangling, this whole business has not yet been resolved. Actually, I am not surprised that an agreement to our national dilemma has evaded us. Hopefully this will become evident in my comments.

After all this time, energy, money spent and lost opportunities, where are we in our national debate? Where are we in our national discourse on the Quebec separation issue? After all these talks, where are the results? After three decades have our discussions led to new goals and a new vision for our country? Have we as Canadians developed a sense of patriotism toward our homeland? The questions beg the answers.

Indeed, our country certainly seems to be in a quandary. For almost two generations our country has been adrift like a rudderless vessel on a stormy sea, tossed hither and yon by the forces of deceit, dishonesty, deception and destruction and all the time undergirded by the contradictions of apathy and appeasement and all the time bringing our nation closer to the brink of disaster where the very fibre of our country is being stretched to the breaking point.

Through all these years what really has the fuss been all about? What has been that elusive thing that seems to be beyond our reach and our grasp? Has the 30-plus years of a one-sided debate centred around the issue of equality, the equality of provinces or the equality of citizens? Has the debate been centred on the devolution of federal powers? Has the ongoing debate been about the building of a new Canada? Or, has this long, drawn out debate, unbalanced I may add, centred around the rebuilding of Canada based on the two founding nations concept and its ill-conceived child, a distinct society?

Is that what the debate has been about? It certainly seems to me that that is precisely what the debate has been about for about 30 years. Debate has been about the notion of two founding nations, two societies based on language and culture, on French and English, on making one language and culture in Quebec, on making Quebec a distinct society.

It should be no surprise, based on these concepts, the concepts of two societies and a distinct society for one of them, that the whole notion was doomed to a dismal failure. The focus has been misguided and the mark was missed completely.

The outcome of the two nations concept was predicted 35 years ago by a former Alberta premier when he stated “You talk about this two nations idea long enough and that is probably what you will end up with”. Just look around. Some would say that is pretty much where we are today.

The two nations concept and its manifestation, distinct society, produced the idea that confederation was to serve the ends of two language groups, French and English. If we follow that kind of reasoning to its logical conclusion, what do we come up with? It would mean that Canada would not really be a federation of 10 equal provinces at all but consist instead of two societies, one being a distinct society, Quebec, and the other nine provinces combined to be the other society.

The spokespeople for the old line federal parties argue that to put such a clause in the constitution would be to merely recognize the sociological fact that Quebec is the homeland of the French language and culture and that Quebec has its civil code which is of course distinct from the English common law. No one can dispute these sociological facts. They are there for everyone to see, but that is largely irrelevant. It is irrelevant to the debate on whether this kind of clause ought to be in the constitution.

The problem arises when describing these sociological facts, civil code, French language and culture, denominational schools, with a broad brush definition like distinct society and to put these words in the constitution.

This is the nub of it. If we put Quebec as a distinct society in the constitution, we are then asking the courts to give those words meaning. There is no constitutional basis or constitutional history to give support and credibility to the concepts of two founding nations and distinct society. No Fathers of Confederation, not even the French speaking Fathers of Confederation, said anything of two nations and distinct society. They talked very little of language as well.

There is no ringing declaration in the BNA Act that Canada wants to be a bilingual and bicultural country. Nothing in the Constitution of 1867 suggests bilingualism or biculturalism. There is one important section in that act on language. It is section 133 which states that English and French may be spoken in the House of Commons and in the courts established by the Government of Canada, in other words the Supreme Court and the federal courts, and that the two languages may be used in the National Assembly in Quebec. Subsequent language and cultural laws came much later under the hand of Mr. Trudeau, with little constitutional basis for it until provided for in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982.

Entrenching distinct society in the constitution for Quebec would encourage provincial governments and that province to carve out more jurisdictional areas unavailable to other provinces. For example, Quebec could establish its own radio and television commission.

The great constitutional expert Eugene Forsey wrote that Quebec could assume powers in banking, copyright, patents, railways, citizenship, criminal law, foreign affairs, plus others possibly, if the distinct society clause would be entrenched in the constitution. Legislation will be passed and when challenged by the courts, Quebec will argue “This is a necessary ingredient for us. We must have that because we are a distinct society”. Quebec marches onwards toward separation a phenomena dubbed as incremental separatism.

There is a much better resolution to this issue of unity. It will ensure that legitimate constitutional aspirations of Quebec are met.

[Parks Canada, November 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, since the Heritage Minister shut down Banff and Jasper airstrips, pilots have been ticketed. Last week a plane loaded with Parks Canada officials landed in Banff and was not ticketed. Why were they not ticketed? Why are they flying above the law?