Len Taylor

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 3rd, 1994]

Mr, Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party, I concur that we would accept the application of the vote taken on Motion No. 4 to Motion No. 3 that is before us.

We would like yes votes to apply to the members for Kamloops, Winnipeg Transcona, Mackenzie, The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, and Regina-Lumsden.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think it is important while we are on this subject of deferring the votes until tomorrow morning that the House realize that the minister of agriculture is before the standing committee on agriculture at nine o'clock tomorrow morning. The deferral of the vote until ten o'clock tomorrow morning simply cuts short the amount of time that the minister would have in front of the committee. I wanted to bring that to the attention of the House.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few words on this motion. I will take up where the minister of agriculture left off in his remarks. The minister of agriculture indicated this was not the time to talk about the future of the Canadian Wheat Board. In fact he said, and I think I quote him correctly: "Now is the time to hold my fire".

I could not help but think that on this side when one holds one's fire and when one is fed up, it leads only to indigestion. We do not want this issue to be lapped without the proper debate in this place that it deserves.

I remind the minister of agriculture that members of his party campaigned in my province and others one year ago, some of whom were elected on a campaign of supporting the Canadian Wheat Board and enhancing its powers.

The red book has a commitment toward marketing boards and the support of the Canadian Wheat Board. There were numerous news releases issued a year ago from Liberal candidates and now sitting members indicating support for the Canadian Wheat Board. I do not believe that at this time when the future of the Canadian Wheat Board is under so much pressure that the government, especially members who campaigned the way they did, and particularly the minister can hold their fire on this very important issue.

As it stands, my constituents are firmly behind the Canadian Wheat Board and I will speak for them as often as I can to ensure that the Canadian Wheat Board supports the farmers, the producers of western Canada and all the communities those farmers and producers support throughout my constituency in western Canada.

I want to indicate that on this motion the member for Vegreville has made an interesting intervention and with a couple of clarifications I believe I will now be able to support the amendment he has brought forward and I urge the government to do the same.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I will take just a few moments to comment on the amendments in front of us this afternoon, motions No. 2 and 3, before we conclude the debate.

I could not help but notice a few moments ago, when the minister of agriculture rose to speak on motions No. 1, 4 and 5 and the following interventions by a number of members on this side of the House, including myself, that many of the issues we raised were not addressed in his responses in reply.

In particular, I was expressing the support of my constituents in northwest Saskatchewan for the strengthened and enhanced Canadian Wheat Board.

I hope the minister takes an opportunity before the end of the day to express to the House, to producers in Saskatchewan and the prairies his support and his party's support for a strengthened Canadian Wheat Board, a marketer of Canadian grain.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, coming from the west you realize that the Canadian Wheat Board has long benefited the producers in western Canada. It has always found premium markets for Canadian grain. Those premium markets occasionally come close to the Canadian border as they do today.

Those people, including the Reform Party, who support dual marketing of grains forget that the premium market is not always across the Canada-U.S. border. The premium market is sometimes in Japan or Saudi Arabia. With the agricultural situation in China today it is quite possible that the premium market may exist there in the near future. Under no circumstance could any of the dual marketers survive without the Canadian Wheat Board in a marketplace that is dominated by a nation outside of North America. In any case I hope the minister of agriculture would take a moment to discuss that.

More to the point of the amendments, I could not help but add my voice to that of the member for Mackenzie who just talked about plant breeders' rights. Members of my constituency a few years ago were opposed to the introduction and passage of the plant breeders' rights legislation. They said at that time the legislation would lead to a greater concentration of agricultural breeding in the hands of multinational corporations and other corporations that would push up the cost of producing agricultural products, grains in particular. When the costs of producing the product increase and the results of plant breeding are tied in with fertilizer and chemical production of any kind, then the input costs rise as well.

My constituents are now seeing a possible tie between legislation that perhaps turns some of their contributions to plant breeding over to those individuals or corporations which may financially benefit from their breeding programs at the expense of the producer. This is a situation to which the government should pay very close attention because we cannot jeopardize public supported research in grain varieties to benefit the corporations to the detriment of the producers and the industry.

I have spent a great deal of time as the New Democratic Party's environmental critic working on issues of population and the environment. These issues have helped me to understand that the need for agricultural product must be increasing with the increasing populations. Whether we are feeding grains to people or whether we are feeding grains to cattle, fish or other sources of protein or food for human consumption, the growing of grain will become very important to the future of the world as populations increase.

Yields must increase. Therefore the transfer of support and resources to the producers of the grains must also exist to ensure that we have a steady supply from this part of the world where grains grow so well and to ensure the transfer of the benefits of that growing to the areas of the world where populations are also growing.

For that reason alone, even though it is not fully intended in Motion No. 2, I would look favourably upon Motion No. 2 as it appears before us. Obviously, from my remarks I hope the minister of agriculture will have some additional matters to think about as he looks to additional legislation and perhaps even additional amendments to this legislation in the future.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words on these amendments as they have been grouped today.

I am particularly pleased that the minister of agriculture has indicated that he wishes to listen to all the presentations before responding. I certainly respect that position. I am quite appreciative of the fact that the minister is present today and that he is

taking note of what is being said in response to these amendments.

I would like to take advantage of that circumstance to indicate that the majority of farmers I have talked to throughout my constituency have asked me on as many occasions as I can to speak strongly in favour of a strengthened Canadian Wheat Board and to convey to the minister their concerns that the current debate about the future of the Canadian Wheat Board is one that they have expressed opinions upon for numerous years by their continual support for the board and its activities.

In fact they would prefer a bill in front of the House today that did not deal with check off but dealt with expanded powers for the Canadian Wheat Board, powers that included marketing jurisdiction for oats as in the past and perhaps for canola and other products as well.

On behalf of many hundreds of producers in my constituency who have discussed this matter with me, I would certainly urge the minister to consider bringing forward another bill in the near future to take into account those very issues of expanding and enhancing the jurisdiction and role of the Canadian Wheat Board.

In particular, I want to add a few words to what my colleague from Mackenzie said in direct response to the amendment, Motion No. 5, that he has put in front of the House for consideration and debate today. That concerns the application of the check off to all holders of certificates within the designated area.

The member for Mackenzie spoke very well. I support his arguments about the need for the act to have a blanket application to producers supplying the Canadian Wheat Board with product for sale and therefore not dealing with the exemption for certain Alberta producers who as the member for Vegreville indicated already have a check off in place.

Perhaps when the minister makes his remarks he could address this issue and give the House some information about why the check off for Alberta producers exists in the first place.

I wonder if we know specifically what the Alberta check off is for. We know that the federal check off proposed in the legislation is for breeding research, that the funds that are collected will go specifically for research into plant breeding. Is the Alberta check off for the same specific purpose? If not, why are the Alberta producers not participating in this breeding research program?

Will Alberta producers not benefit from the research that will be commissioned by the WGRF? We do not know if Alberta has plans to continue in perpetuity the check off within that province for its producers.

Under this legislation, if for any reason the Alberta check off were discontinued, would Alberta producers continue to enjoy the exemption allowed by the current legislation or do they automatically get picked up by this legislation?

I believe that we need the blanket provisions. Alberta producers should recognize that the benefits that they would receive under this program are the same as if they were living anywhere else in Canada.

I want to reiterate the point that my colleague from Mackenzie made because it is a most appropriate one. When we look at the way other federal legislation has applied, the Goods and Services Tax Implementation Act is a very good example.

If we applied the same principle to agricultural check off programs as we applied in the introduction of the GST, we would find that the GST would apply only in the province of Alberta, the only province that did not have a pre-existing tax in place as a result of other legislation.

All the provinces, with the exception of Alberta, have a sales tax. If the federal government was applying tax appropriately across the country then obviously the GST could not have applied in other provinces, only in Alberta. It is an interesting point and I think the minister of agriculture might want to give some indication whether or not he would agree with or support that premise.

It is obvious that I am anxious to support the amendment put forward by my colleague from Mackenzie. I look forward to additional legislation that may come forward from the minister of agriculture concerning a stronger and enhanced Canadian Wheat Board.

[Petitions, November 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by a number of residents of various parts of Canada. The petition presented to me states that Canadians for several decades have been provided home delivery of their mail not by privatized post offices but by Canada Post post offices.

Further, the recent introduction of supermailboxes has further reduced and eroded post office services that all Canadians have come to expect as a normal federal government service.

Therefore the undersigned petitioners pray and call on Parliament to end privatized postal outlets and reinstate full postal services and products normally provided by Canada Post through sub post offices.

[Petitions, November 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present this afternoon, pursuant to Standing Order 36.

The first petition is signed by a number of constituents of The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, all members of the Ukrainian Catholic Women's Organization in The Battlefords.

The petitioners draw the attention of the House to the following: Decriminalizing assisted suicide or legalizing euthanasia could lead to a reduction of patient-physician trust and respect, the degrading of the value of human life and the erosion of moral and ethical values. Palliative care is active and compassionate care which can relieve the pain and suffering of terminally ill persons and families without the dangers of suicide.

Therefore the petitioners pray that Parliament continue to reject euthanasia and physician assisted suicide in Canada and that the present provisions of section 241 of the Criminal Code of Canada which prohibits the counselling, procuring, aiding or abetting of a person to commit suicide be enforced rigorously, and that Parliament consider expanding palliative care that would be accessible to all dying persons in Canada.

[Social Security Programs, November 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in response to the offer from the government benches about applying the vote. There would be consent from this corner of the House on behalf of New Democrats but we would like our vote registered as an affirmative, as a yes vote in this case.

[Canadian Wheat Board, November 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of agriculture has stated that the debate surrounding the future of the Canadian Wheat Board is an important one. In response he has announced a process which will include asking farmers what they think.

Consultation is important. Indeed just two years ago farmers were consulted in what was then known as transportation talks wherein a vast majority of farmers and rural residents spoke in favour of maintaining the crow benefit and strengthening the Canadian Wheat Board. Then more than 13,000 rural Saskatch-

ewan residents attended a rally in Saskatoon, the vast majority again sending the message to Ottawa that a strengthened wheat board was necessary to protect the positive future of agriculture in Canada.

The minister of agriculture and his party have in the past expressed strong support for the Canadian Wheat Board. In light of consultations that have already occurred, I urge the minister to stand firmly behind the board and its long term commitment to farmers.

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, October 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I seem to have achieved something extra to what I wished. I was suggesting that when the House sits next I would conclude my remarks. However I am quite prepared to do so now.

I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words on this very important bill. I have had a considerable amount of influence over the bill during the last four years. I am very much aware that the bill has been at least seven years in the making. When it was first proposed to the previous Parliament by the now leader of the Bloc Quebecois and then Minister of the Environment, I happened to be the New Democratic member responsible for environmental protection issues. Therefore I was asked by my party to sit in on discussions of Bill C-78 and to represent the New Democratic Party throughout the committee process on the piece of legislation.

I was quite taken by the responsibilities I was given at that time because the House will recall there was a great deal of criticism of Bill C-78.

The government began at that point a process that I think should be recommended for many other pieces of legislation. What began with Bill C-78 was something called a prestudy of the bill. In other words before the bill was introduced in the House the specific bill was presented to the parliamentary committee to have a look at it and allow for some intervention before the government actually introduced it and before the government would claim ownership of the wording of the bill.

The prestudy process gave us an opportunity to examine the bill without the partisan interventions that occur often when sides dig in on a debate and will not yield any ground. The prestudy phase of Bill C-78, short as it was, began the process of openness about the bill.

When Parliament of the time prorogued and the new Parliament began, the bill was reintroduced as Bill C-13. I had hoped at that point that with the prior work that had been done by the parliamentary committee Bill C-13 would have been amended by the government before being introduced into the new session. That not being the case, we were given an indication that the bill would be amended in committee with the approval of the government.

We began the process of amending the bill. Again something happened in committee that I am very proud to say I was a part of. I would commend it to the government and to future governments as a way of dealing with legislation in a very non-confrontational way. The government indicated that it was prepared to accept amendments from the committee and we proceeded to approach the bill with that understanding. I submitted over 110 amendments to the committee for study.

The point that I want to emphasize is that the committee chose to bring in legal experts to sit with us in the committee while we went through that amending process. Two environmental lawyers who had appeared as witnesses were brought in by the committee, Mr. Bill Andrews and Mr. Brian Pannell. They sat around the table and advised members of the committee about the legality and the practicality of amendments.

It was a great exercise and one from which the committee benefited a great deal. In fact the country benefited a great deal from it because Bill C-13 was amended with their assistance. As a result the bill that has now been proclaimed by the government is the bill we amended. The member for Davenport being a member of the committee at the time, myself and others worked very hard to find the best possible bill in the spirit of compromise that needed to exist to achieve that result.

The environment committee is presently doing a massive study of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. I would commend the use of environmental legal experts when the committee sits down to conduct its final review of the act and write the report that must be written which may indeed result in some additions, changes or amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. I believe the process of utilizing legal experts was of great benefit to us.

Now we are at the point where after a year of waiting we have Bill C-13 proclaimed, the agency about to be established, a new environmental assessment process about to begin, some new regulations in place that are going to guide us through some very important assessment work into the future, and a couple of

amendments before the House to allow us again the opportunity to have a look at the bill.

I will raise it in committee as well, but I believe the three amendments I support, the three amendments in front of us, are not sufficient to make the bill the important bill it could be.

I mention a couple of things in this regard. The first is with regard to intervener funding. We have raised it a number of times in the House today. The intervener funding process is absolutely crucial to the positive workings of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act itself.

In fact, as we are well aware, proponents of projects generally have access to the capital they need to see that project through to completion. They budget for the preparation of environmental assessment reports. They budget for the public hearings that may take place. They are prepared to deal with that. However, without adequate intervener funding there cannot be adequate assessment quite simply because those who wish to challenge the proponent do not have the same access to capital as the proponent does and budgets for.

It is very important that we set out a very specific intervener funding process to ensure that it is not only adequate but indeed meets all the criteria that we have established in the past for an intervener funding program that works positively. I commend the government for seeing the need to move forward with intervener funding in more specific terms like this. I hope that in the committee we will be able to broaden that out.

I also suggest that the committee have another look at the regulatory process while looking at the act and there is the opportunity to review it. The regulatory process is what provides for the workings of the environmental assessment. The act sets out the guidelines but without the regulations the act is not much. The regulations make it work. This is why we have noticed and recognized that the regulation making process itself has been so controversial, so complex and has involved so much time.

Members of cabinet, industry, and the environmental community have all had input into the regulation making process. However members of the House of Commons speaking for all Canadians have not had the opportunity to respond to the final product they have produced. Unlike the act where we can debate parts of it, we can go to committee and study parts of the act, in terms of the specific regulations members of Parliament in the House of Commons do not have the same opportunities to challenge parts of the regulatory process.

It is time we looked at an amendment I raised two years ago in this very Chamber. It was an amendment similar to a clause in the existing gun control legislation that allows for members of Parliament and members of the other place to call before committee certain regulations for scrutiny. We should have a similar clause in the legislation that would allow us to call certain pieces of regulatory decisions and discuss them in committee.

The process of ultimate cabinet responsibility should also be examined. Although I am supporting the amendment about cabinet responsibility at the moment, I do believe that at a time when governments are demonstrating they cannot be trusted-we had a government in this country for nine years that proved that-we have to ensure it is Parliament and the people of Canada in the end who have a full understanding and responsibility for matters like this.

When a panel makes a decision based on a tremendous amount of information, the government should be looking very seriously at the results of that panel hearing. When cabinet makes a final decision on a panel recommendation members of the cabinet can never have read that recommendation but have been influenced by many members of industry who perhaps have been speaking to them in another context but have made their wishes well known. The secrecy of the cabinet room should not be the final arbiter of public environmental process.

In any case I do recognize the accountability of government through the cabinet process. As I say I support the amendment before us, but it is important that perhaps the committee look at this process and see if there is not another way of dealing with this very important and specific issue.

I believe very strongly in the concept of environmental assessment. I heard the witnesses who appeared before the committees on Bill C-78 and Bill C-13. Witnesses from the corporate community indicated very strongly that they wanted to see an environmental assessment process that was up front and took the issues on early and did not come at them after the fact.

The court rulings that have been made across the country have indicated clearly that the guidelines that existed and continue to exist until Bill C-13 was proclaimed were inadequate to meet the needs of the country. Therefore Bill C-13 although it is not the one I would have written had I been the Minister of the Environment is very much a bill that moves us forward. Certainly the amendments in front of us do that as well.

We have the opportunity to move this process forward a great deal further than the three amendments do. I hope the committee which will receive this bill at the will of the House at the end of my remarks tonight will look seriously at taking the bill a little further than the government is prepared to move at this point in time.

I appreciate the co-operation of the House in allowing me to finish my remarks. In that spirit of co-operation and compromise I will not abuse the time of the House.