Madam Speaker, New Democrats vote yea.
Lost his last election, in 1997, with 28% of the vote.
Department Of Canadian Heritage Act December 15th, 1994
Madam Speaker, New Democrats vote yea.
Department Of Canadian Heritage Act December 15th, 1994
Madam Speaker, in consultation with my colleagues in the New Democratic Party we are voting nay.
Department Of Canadian Heritage Act December 15th, 1994
Madam Speaker, New Democrats will be voting yea.
Department Of Canadian Heritage Act December 15th, 1994
Madam Speaker, New Democrats vote nay.
Department Of Canadian Heritage Act December 15th, 1994
Madam Speaker, New Democrats present in the House today vote nay.
Rural Post Offices December 14th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the government to maintain its presence in rural Canada through the operation and ownership of federal buildings in these small communities.
In my own constituency at least three communities, the town of Wilke, the town of St. Walberg and the village of Loon Lake, have federal buildings on their main streets that currently house the post office. On several occasions over the last four years these buildings have been offered for sale by the department of public works but no buyers have been found.
It appears that the federal government wishes to jeopardize postal services in these small communities by selling off the buildings that house those post offices giving Canada Post the opportunity to relocate into retail franchises.
The public works department and Canada Post have the same minister. I call on him to support rural Canada.
Canada Grain Act December 9th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, very briefly, the message that the Canadian Wheat Board commissioners brought forward is the message that I was also discussing in my constituency and so were the candidates who were running for the advisory committee.
I did not see the Canadian Wheat Board commissioners bringing forward any new information to the debate.
Canada Grain Act December 9th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I have heard the hon. member's speech before. I did not hear a question in what he put. However, I do have a couple of comments to make in response to the hon. member for Vegreville.
I could not help but think as he was speaking today and as I have heard him say in this House recently since the advisory board elections were completed that when you lose on substance you appeal on the basis of process.
In this case the Canadian Wheat Board advisory elections, at least in my part of the country where I had the great opportunity to talk not only to the candidates running but to many of the farmers responding, were very much discussed on the basis of support for the monopoly powers and enhanced powers of the Canadian Wheat Board or dual marketing.
Again, even in my own area the debate on the farm and in the coffee shops was not concerning itself with process but on substance. In the end when the ballots were counted the substance of the debate I think was quite clearly heard in that those who support the monopoly and enhanced powers of the Canadian Wheat Board were successful.
The member for Vegreville indicated that in some cases less than 40 per cent of farmers voted. Certainly this is not a low number in terms of wheat board elections. This is a very good turnout in terms of the history of the Canadian Wheat Board advisory elections.
I believe that every farmer had the opportunity to express an opinion and certainly those who did not quite often, as we know in politics, represent those who are satisfied. Only when those who are disgruntled vote in large numbers do we recognize the protest in their voices.
A turnout of 40 per cent in which the majority supported the Canadian Wheat Board indicates that those who did not vote would also likely support the wheat board.
I was concerned that the member for Vegreville indicated that he recognized improprieties in the voting. I am sure that on behalf of the minister of agriculture and all Canadians I would ask the member to name those he knows were involved in the improprieties and ensure that the elections are conducted fair and square and that those who are aware of the improprieties and problems that may exist within the system bring them forward to those who can act on them.
Canada Grain Act December 9th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to third reading of Bill C-51, the Canada Grain Act amendments. At the same time I express to the minister of agriculture my continuing support for the Canadian Wheat Board. I point out to him, as I know he is aware, the results of the recent wheat board advisory committee elections.
The minister must know by now that wheat board supporters won 10 of 11 seats, or perhaps I should say the supporters of dual marketing lost all but 1 of 11 seats up for election. As far as farmers and grain marketing are concerned it would appear that farmers think the Canadian Wheat Board is doing a fine job of marketing western grain and want it to continue doing a successful job.
It is incumbent upon the government to accept the wishes of the western farmer as expressed by this vote, which was virtually a referendum on the issue of the future of the Canadian Wheat Board, and begin issuing statements in support of the board.
This week in the House of Commons the minister of agriculture was given the opportunity to congratulate the elected members of the advisory board and to declare his personal support for the work of the board. Instead, he chose to repeat the line that he must continue consulting with farmers.
Let me quote the minister from the December 7 edition of Hansard , as reported at page 8784. He said:
I do not think it would be fair to say that the vote is the be all and the end all. I do not think it would be fair to say it is the absolute last and ultimate word. It is one very important piece of evidence which is clearly supportive of the Canadian Wheat Board.
I appreciate the acknowledgement of the evidence in front of the minister, but I believe the minister must accept the wishes put before him. Therefore I say the consultation must now be concluded. Farmers have had the best opportunity they will ever have to declare support for the board and they have taken it. They support the board. They have demonstrated they support the board. The minister must not now only acknowledge it; he must act on it.
Today, however, we must also deal with the government's amendments to the Canada Grain Act. I express my support for the act and the amendments before us today, although there are additional amendments that could be made to further strengthen the act and how it applies to farmers.
Basically the latest changes in the grain act were proposed in response to changing industry conditions and as a result of producer group recommendations. They also reflect the findings of the federal government's 1992-93 regulatory review that supported deregulation and a more market responsive grain industry, a review I have taken some issue with.
Primary producers are becoming increasingly vulnerable to exploitation by various trading interests as protective legislation is systematically deregulated. Deregulation represents the transfer of power from the public to the private sector. A loss of public power means a loss of sovereignty, a loss of opportunity for redress when something goes wrong. The more deregulated the industry the more vulnerable we become and therefore ironically the more regulated we need to be. What a situation.
As members are aware the Canada Grain Act is administered by a special operating agency, the Canadian Grain Commission. Its services are provided to clients on a cost recovery basis. It is responsible for establishing and maintaining grain quality and for regulating the grain handling system.
The bill before us is designed to deregulate elevator operation charges, provide more flexibility to producers in moving their grain, and tighten licensing and liability provisions. It gives grain producers the primary responsibility for securing payment for their grain shipments from elevator operators and grain dealers licensed by the commission. It also imposes greater responsibility on licensees of the commission for making such payments.
According to some who have studied the bill, it attempts to find a balance between promoting competitiveness and at the same time maintaining quality. On the one hand, in attempting to streamline the inspection process the amendments reduce the regulatory power of the grain commission. On the other hand, the grain commission is able to prescribe more activities in its
role of protecting producers and grain quality. The grains industry in Canada has a long and arduous history.
The bill in front of us is the latest in a long list of amendments that have come before parliamentarians over the years in many different attempts to improve the movement and storage of grain.
For the record it is important for us to take a look at that history. Members of the House may find it interesting to note that the need for legislation was first recognized by a private member of the House and first presented as a private member's bill in 1898. Farmers represented a great power in the House of Commons at that time. When the private elevator companies were accused of cheating in weighing, grading and deducting for weed seeds, discriminating as to whose grain they accepted and of price fixing, it did not take long for Parliament to act.
A royal commission was appointed in 1900. Later that year, on the eve of a general election, Sir Wilfrid Laurier's government enacted a majority of the commission's recommendations. The 1900 Manitoba Grain Act established a grain commission to license elevators, to bond elevator agents and grain buyers, to approve handling tariffs, to inspect records and to settle disputes.
Is it not interesting that the need to regulate came at a time when the grain trade was dominated by competition from many grain companies growing like crazy and operating in a completely unregulated marketplace?
Deregulation is a direction the previous Tory government wanted us to take and it seems to be the direction the current government wants to continue. However it is a direction fraught with danger and all of us must proceed with a great deal of care.
The first amendments to the Manitoba Grain Act came in 1902 in response not only to a good crop but to apparent blackmail from the railways that were not supplying grain cars to the elevators for the movement of grain.
Another royal commission was called in 1906 in response to allegations against the grain companies. This commission verified the allegations and recommended 50 additional amendments to the act. These amendments include making elevator companies liable for damages for weight frauds, requiring samples of all bins to prevent grading fraud, paying farmers for the commercial value of screenings, and authorizing the grain commissioner to order equitable distribution of cars and to dismiss agents for fraudulent practices.
Then again in 1908 Parliament gave the grain commission full control of the cleaning, binning and shipping of grain from the terminals and the power to inspect terminal records and receipts.
The point of all this is that in the unfettered marketplace of the past farmers were being exploited or taken advantage of every time they turned around. If there is anything to be learned from our history, it is that farmers standing together with the help of their elected officials ensured that they received better and fairer treatment from the corporations then dominating the marketplace.
In continuing to look at our history we see that the farmers' need to take on the elevator companies and the railroads did not end in 1908. There were more amendments in 1912 and again in 1919 after the war when complaints over the handling and purchasing of grain again resurfaced.
Another royal commission was established in 1921 because the complaints against the corporation persisted. More changes were made and finally in 1930 things stabilized. The Canada Grain Act continues to be the basis of Canada's reputation in the world wheat market as a supplier of reliable, clean and consistently graded grain.
However, the political and economic struggle over grains did not end with the Canada Grain Act. The same forces which worked for greater farmer control in handling, storage and transportation also worked for control and fairness in marketing. The Prairie Co-Operative Pools were created in the 1920s and, finally, in 1949 the Canadian Wheat Board was formalized with monopoly control over marketing of western wheat, oats and barley.
Whatever changes are considered to the way in which grain is treated, it is very important to review history and take only those steps that acknowledge the lessons learned along the way.
Today in agriculture there are numerous changes taking place not only within Canada but around the world. The government we are facing seems to be pushing farmers again into a world of a more market oriented privatized industry where the corporations dominate and the farmers must compete not only against other countries but against themselves to participate in the marketplace.
In our fights to maintain a vision of a strong agricultural community with populated and productive rural areas, we find ourselves having to give up those things which make us strong.
The Crow benefit is under attack. The Canadian Wheat Board is under attack and certain protections offered by the Canadian Grain Commission are being discussed.
Just as in 1898 the farmers of Canada and the communities they support today need the support of the Parliament of Canada to ensure they are, each and every one, treated fairly in the marketplace.
There is a tremendous opportunity in the world today both for the export of bulk quality Canadian grain and in the process or value added sector. Canadian producers have to remain in the game through whatever tough times we have to face in order to be here when those opportunities come knocking at our door.
I urge the minister of agriculture to ensure Canadian farmers remain in the game. Give us the opportunities we need to stay on the farm, to reap the rewards of the opportunities coming our way in the future. Give us the opportunity to continue to ship to port under the terms of the Crow benefit. Give us the opportunity to continue marketing our grain under enhanced, not reduced, powers of the Canadian Wheat Board and give us the quality protection we need under the terms of the Canada Grain Act to ensure our reputation in the world marketplace is protected.
I believe the amendments put forward before us today in Bill C-51 allow us to provide some of the protections that are needed. That is why I will support the bill at third reading. I want to ensure the direction the government is taking in agriculture is changed to ensure that each of the farmers, each of the producers can continue to do the work they want to do for their families and their communities. I urge the government to take a strong look at our history and the value of the product coming off the farm to the future of our country.
Status Of The Artist Act December 9th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, on June 23, 1992 Bill C-7, an act respecting the status of the artist and professional relations between artists and producers in Canada, received royal assent.
The government repeatedly promises to reform social programs and the economy to meet the needs of the new economy. The Liberals say they are committed to restructuring and encouraging stable growth in the areas of self-employment and small business. Yet when it comes to action to implement a model to empower the self-employed worker the government has done nothing.
The legislative and regulatory approach in the Status of the Artist Act is nothing less than a crucial step and the foundation for this new self-employment based economy. The approach to labour relations in this act has the approval of the 2.3 million workers in the Canadian Labour Congress.
On Wednesday, more than two years after the law was enacted, more than 500 cultural workers rallied in Toronto to push the government for action. When will this government show its commitment to these small business entrepreneurs and the people who elected it?