Garry Breitkreuz

[Supply, February 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated what the member had to say. I cannot agree with everything of course. I used to support the NDP at one point earlier in my life. However, I found out that its policies do not work and I became much more realistic.

One of the concerns the people of Saskatchewan have is that one of our main exports is young people. Why is that happening? Why are the young people leaving Saskatchewan? It is plain and simple. There are not any jobs available for them. Very few jobs are being created in that province.

Why are there very few job opportunities? Saskatchewan has the highest taxes in the country. What would happen if there were broad based tax cuts?

Let us lay politics aside. Let us forget about the left and the right and all the rest of it.

The question I have for the member is what creates real jobs in this society?

It is good to talk about education. However, in Saskatchewan we have a very low unemployment rate. Why? Because there are very few people looking for jobs. There are very few people left in that province because there are very few job opportunities. I agree with the member that there should not be cuts to education. We should not be making our young people pay the price for the debt and the high taxes.

However, what creates real jobs in this country? It is not more government programs. I hope the member would agree with that. Would the member agree, as has happened in many places around the world, that if we reduce taxes we begin to allow investment to take place and we allow people to keep their money so they can buy goods and services that produce real jobs.

Would he agree that is the main problem which young people face today? Education is important, but they can have all the education in the world and it will do them no good when it comes to getting a job.

What creates the real jobs in this country? That is the debate we should have. Let us lay politics aside and find out what creates the real jobs. That is what we should be doing in this place.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I said that the minister has the power to appoint the chief executive officer. He said something completely different. I said that the power rests within the minister to appoint the chief executive officer and he is—

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

Madam Speaker, I have made one observation. Many of the members opposite have not answered our questions. A couple of days ago we asked a question with regard to the CEO of the Canadian Wheat Board.

Many people watching probably do not realize that with Bill C-4 the minister has actually retained and increased his power to manage the board. He has left the most important appointment, the appointment of the chief executive officer, in his hands. He has the power to appoint that person. With that power the chief executive officer can make decisions from day to day in the workings of the board that farmers have no control over.

The Canadian Wheat Board is not the biggest problem farmers have. Farmers have huge problems with the transportation system and with the heavy taxation this government imposes upon them. Farmers pay an inordinate amount of tax. It is terrible.

In terms of the transportation problem, the chief executive officer can continue to dictate where the grain will be sent. At the present time in my riding farmers are very concerned that the Canadian Wheat Board has been forcing them to ship their grain through Thunder Bay and through Vancouver. They could save $25 to $30 a tonne by shipping it through Churchill. But they always get the answer from all the people in the wheat board that for one reason or another they cannot ship it through Churchill. If the government is giving control to the farmers, it has refused to answer why the farmers cannot appoint the CEO who would be directly accountable to them.

Does this member have any comments on what I have just said? This is a very critical question which the government has left unanswered. I see no people over there ready to jump up and answer it because I know they cannot. Just like all the other questions we have asked, they cannot answer.

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

Madam Speaker, the member opposite made some points with regard to the election of the directors. Ten would be elected by farmers and five by producers under Bill C-4.

The member is from Ontario. The Ontario wheat board is completely controlled by farmers. Why would he have a different standard in this regard? That is not my question. It is more of a question I asked previously.

He referred to an export licence. Has he ever seen that export licence? The export licence he is referring to, which the Canadian Wheat Board has the power to veto or whatever, has a blank on it. If you put three words in the blank you cannot export your grain. What are those three words? I am wondering if the hon. member knows. If you put Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba in the blank you have no control over their grain; you do not own it.

The member is from Ontario. If you put Ontario in that blank, there is not even a charge for it and away you go. You own the grain and you can export it.

What does the member think about the form he referred to? Does he think that export licence is a way to maintain equality in this country? Is that fair? How is he representing his constituents when he supports Bill C-4? I know that farmers on the prairies see this as a big government, Ottawa controlled wheat board.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If he raises a question of privilege I may comment on it.

What question of privilege did he raise and what particular edition of Beauchesne's is he—-

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I made it abundantly clear in my speech that I support the board, and all the amendments that were introduced were to support it.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened to the rhetoric of the last few minutes with great interest. During the campaign the member said “if elected, we will hold the government accountable”. Yet every single speech I have heard from him and other NDP members in this House has mentioned the Reform Party. They are constantly analysing Reform Party policies.

Could the member give some explanation of why he did not talk about Bill C-4, the bill before the House? He should recognize that farmers are supportive of the board but a vast majority of farmers, over 80%, are opposed to Bill C-4. Not once in his speech did he recognize that people of Saskatchewan, his rural constituents, are opposed to Bill C-4. He did not express any of their concerns with regard to this bill. I have many articles from the Western Producer that he could read. They are written by strong wheat board supporters who would like to have the wheat board held accountable for its performance, for higher returns, for more information, for more openness.

I do not understand why NDP MPs are not speaking up on behalf of their constituents. The board should be accountable and these NDP members should be accountable.

What is his position on Bill C-4?

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

Madam Speaker, this is a red herring. That is not what farmers have been asking for. Farmers want a wheat board that is accountable. They want a wheat board that will allow the auditor general to look at the books. For this minister to twist that—

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

Mr. Speaker, farmers are becoming aware of what some of those salaries are. They are becoming aware that some of those people are being paid $120,800, $110,635, $119,000, $113,000. When I looked through the list I could not find many under $50,000 and most of them were over $60,000. The average farmer earns much much less than that. That is what concerns them. They want the auditor general to look at the books.

Did the member see the information his colleague referred to when he questioned me just before his speech? Did he see that information? If that information is being hidden from us, why? We have a right to know.

I would like to make this point in conclusion. There is a way to solve the dilemma this government is in. Government members are saying that the support we say we have for our amendments is not there, that the opposition to Bill C-4 is not there.

Put Bill C-4 to the test. Put it before farmers. Let them vote on it. There is no need to rush this through. We have until the fall before the directors will be put in place. Support our Reform amendment and let farmers tell this government directly what they think of Bill C-4. Why not do that? Is it not a good thing to do? It affects them.

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

Mr. Speaker, let the record show that government members would not allow this question period to be extended so that they could answer that question. They have not tabled anything in the House. They have not told us how many people were in support of it.

On the second point, why we are limited to 10 minutes, it is because they invoke closure. They do not allow open debate. They talk about it being a $6 billion industry. If that is the case, why are they not debating it?

We who represent the farmers, the producers on the prairies, have no other option but to split our time so that we can speak up on behalf of our constituents because the government is limiting our time.