House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 69% of the vote.
Canadian Wheat Board Act February 17th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting. I wonder if this member is a lawyer. He told us that there were 1,200 that were opposed but he never told us how many were in favour of Bill C-4. We know on the prairies how many are in favour.
With regard to his second point, he talked about the $6 billion industry. If that is in fact the case, is it not worth continuing?
Canadian Wheat Board Act February 17th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I hit a nerve. He will not reveal to us how many responses he gets. Out of those 200,000 he will not tell us how many responses he got.
I will tell you what happened in my riding. He says why do I not table this information. It has been published in the paper.
Canadian Wheat Board Act February 17th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, what I want to know is how many responses did he get out of the 200,000.
Canadian Wheat Board Act February 17th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I need one clarification. How many responses were returned?
Canadian Wheat Board Act February 17th, 1998
Thank you.
This bill will create even more inequities. That is the point I am trying to make. I do not understand why this government does not trust farmers to make their own decisions and manage their own affairs.
The minister keeps saying the amendments put forward will put the Canadian Wheat Board at risk. If farmers who have to live with it want these amendments, why does the government not approve them? It is their money. It is their property, is it not?
That brings me to the second main point I would like to make in this small length of time the government has given me to talk. My question is: Whose grain is it? Who has taken the risks to grow it?
Mr. Speaker, you may not be aware, but I have introduced a bill in Parliament to strengthen property rights. I feel that is a fundamental issue and it is going to be the thing that is going to eventually destroy this board because of Bill C-4. Farmers are getting tired of having to hand their grain over to the board and then if they want it they have to buy it back. That is happening in Canada. Mr. Speaker, you look at little doubtful about that. It is happening in this country. Really it is.
The farmers take all the risks. They grow the grain, they have all the input costs and when they harvest the grain they cannot own it. They have to turn it over to the board if it is wheat and barley and is grown in one of the three provinces. If it is grown in Saskatchewan, Alberta or Manitoba they do not own that grain. If it was grown someplace else, in certain regions of British Columbia, they could own it. But they cannot own it if it is grown in certain districts.
The farmers cannot own their own grain. They have to turn it over to the board and if they want it they have to buy it back. Of course they cannot buy it back for the same price. They have to pay a much higher price because the board does not want them to make that profit.
Section 1(a) of the Canadian Bill of Rights says every individual, including prairie farmers, has the right to life, liberty, security of the person and the enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law. This government is breaking that right. It is removing it from farmers. It is depriving them of the enjoyment of their property.
It is not just on wheat and barley. Because farmers cannot control that, it devalues their land. I will not go into the explanation of how it does that but if you are growing a product and you cannot reap the full benefits of that product, you actually devalue the land on which it is being produced. That is happening in the prairies today.
The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 17 says everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others and no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property. It is wrong for this government to arbitrarily deprive farmers in only three provinces of their property and only in a narrow area.
I have heard members opposite argue that they do not have to grow wheat and barley. What a display of ignorance. You have to know what the economy of the prairies is. You have to know something about crop rotation. You have to know that the options these farmers have are very limited and they have no choice. And this government takes away even the choice that they do have and would like to have. Even the United Nations says it is wrong. It is despicable that the federal government used lawyers and its power to override property rights on the prairies.
In this last minute I would like to appeal to the people of Canada, our city cousins who may be listening to this and do not understand the problems that are being experienced by a few people on the prairies and how this government is running roughshod. These farmers are not crying for separation. They are not saying “We do not want to be part of Canada”. All they are saying is “We want to control our property”. That is what they are asking for.
I appeal to the people in all the other constituencies in Canada to listen to this debate today and help us out. We cannot do anything because we do not have representatives in government. We do not have the power to change this and so we need the help of the Canadian people.
I have much more that needs to be said about the property rights issue. Could I get unanimous consent to finish my speech? I realize the government has imposed time allocation.
Canadian Wheat Board Act February 17th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, can my time be extended when they interrupt with these frivolous comments?
Canadian Wheat Board Act February 17th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I referred to the convenient absence of the minister.
I asked the minister and I asked the chairman of the committee how much opposition to Bill C-4 there would have to be before the government would withdraw the bill. They never answered that question.
The opposition out there in the three prairie provinces is horrific. I have already stated that and I will not go into it. During the Christmas break and before, I asked farmers what they would like to see done. The minister has given the impression that there are two sides in this debate and they cannot be brought together. That is blatantly false. I went to the farmers and the farmers talked among themselves.
The farmers discussed the issue and came back to me with suggestions. Members know what I did with those suggestions. There was quite an internal kerfuffle in this House for me to get them drawn up and not simply have them sent to clerks. I went through all that and I had those amendments properly drawn up, which the majority of farmers agreed on.
I took the amendments back to the farmers and gave them several weeks to consider them. They went over them and I have already related the support there was for those amendments.
For the mandate of the board to be to maximize profits rather than orderly marketing, there was 97% support. And the minister said that they really do not know what they are thinking, that they do not know what they are talking about, that they are just farmers off in the prairies. How arrogant, how undemocratic can someone be, to ignore what these farmers want? The farmers were willing to allow for a five year opt out clause. In fact the support was 83%.
The minister said that both sides could not be brought together. How come I could do it? How come when I consulted widely I was able to do that in my constituency? How come when the farmers asked for an auditor general to examine the books of the board, I got 86% support for that?
Something is not ringing true in what the minister is saying. He is giving the impression that both sides cannot be brought together. That is blatantly false.
What good has it been for me to work hard and to bring farmers together and to get them to agree? What good has it done? Nothing. I might as well have taken a holiday in Mexico. It would have done as much good because the minister did not listen.
The Canadian Wheat Board minister said that this issue cannot be agreed on. I have proven him wrong. He will not answer the question about who is supporting him. There is virtually nobody. Look at the facts. Producers are opposed to this. But it is not just producers. Public letters from the Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee have been put in all papers on the prairies.
The Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee is elected by producers to sit on the Canadian Wheat Board and they are opposed to this. What level of opposition is needed? Here there are people who are in the know, who are on the inside of the Canadian Wheat Board structure saying that they do not want Bill C-4. Is it not abhorrent? We might as well all take a vacation in Mexico the way this government listens. It is absolutely ridiculous.
I have a half hour speech that this government is forcing me to make in 10 minutes so I have to go through things very quickly.
Canadian Wheat Board Act February 17th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I might as well be in Mexico. I might as well join the senator down there. Mr. Speaker, you are the only one who is really listening to what I have to say. The government is not listening. We are essentially talking to ourselves in this place, so I might as well be in Mexico. It would do as much good.
There were 48 amendments proposed to this bill and not one was accepted. That is very significant.
Has the minister answered any of our questions? Has he been here to listen to the debate and to answer any of our questions? Not one. Therefore I went to some other avenues. I wrote him public letters and I never got a single answer. I might as well be in Mexico. I have worked very hard on this issue for a long time.
Canadian Wheat Board Act February 17th, 1998
Madam Speaker, on a point of order, some of the things the member is citing are blatantly false. We are talking about Bill C-4. Those people are not in support of it. The Government of Saskatchewan does not support Bill C-4.
Canadian Wheat Board Act February 17th, 1998
Madam Speaker, I have a couple of very simple questions for the chairman of the agriculture committee.
How much opposition would there have to be to Bill C-4 before the government would withdraw the bill and send it back to committee? Does it matter what producers on the prairies think, or is the government going to simply ram it through?
The reason I ask is that by accident it was delayed over the Christmas break and I was allowed to go back and consult with the producers of wheat and barley. They told me clearly what they thought about it. I have ample evidence, which I have already talked about, that clearly points out they do not want Bill C-4.
How high does the level of opposition have to be before the government would withdraw it? Would it have to simply be 35%? Would it have to be 50%? Would it have to be 75%, or would it have to be over 80%?
The reason I ask is that it is over 80%. We have taken surveys. We have checked with people on both sides of the debate and they do not want Bill C-4.
What do they want? They want some of the amendments we have put forward. I know how they feel. I gave them ample opportunity to examine the amendments. Ninety-seven per cent of them want a preamble to the bill to change the mandate of the board. Yesterday the government nixed all 48 of the amendments put forward.
How many wanted an opt out clause: 83%. How many wanted a sunset clause and the auditor general to check it: 86%. How much opposition does there have to be?
The second question ties in with the first one. So far the government has not allowed the auditor general to measure the performance of the board against its mandate. It continues not to allow it. It says that it allows an auditor to look at the books, but the government well knows that auditor does not do what the Auditor General of Canada does, that is measure whether it is meeting its mandate.
Why does the government hide the fact that some employees get a $120,800 annual salary, a $110,635 annual salary, a $119,113 annual salary, a $129,999 annual salary or a $115,000 annual salary? The Auditor General of Canada would expose that kind of stuff. Why is the government hiding that information from farmers?