What if farmers want it?
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 69% of the vote.
Canadian Wheat Board Act February 17th, 1998
What if farmers want it?
Canadian Wheat Board Act February 17th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to pose a couple of question to the hon. member for Palliser.
The member said that Reformers are against the board. That is blatantly false. Let us look at the amendments I have proposed to protect the board. One of the amendments would provide farmers with the opportunity to opt out of the board, if they so chose, for a period of five years and to serve two years notice if they want to opt back in.
That would protect the board from court cases, even those court cases going on right now involving property rights. It would also protect the board against international agreements that would destroy the board. The present position the minister has put forth with Bill C-4 and with the board will destroy the board.
Would the member for Palliser comment on the opt out clause that would allow farmers not to sell their barley or wheat or both to the board, if they do not wish to? Does he see that as dual marketing?
In relation to that question, if farmers want that option what would he then say? The reason I ask is that I went back to my constituency, a constituency that used to have an NDP representing it but no longer does because of this concern. My constituents gave me a very clear indication of where they stand on the issue. We had from 83% to 87% support for the amendment, the compromise between dual marketing and the monopoly that presently exists.
For the member for Palliser to say that we are against the board is blatantly false. We are representing farmers. This is what farmers want. It is false for the government to have the arrogant attitude that it knows what is best, that it will protect farmers and so on. That member is lining up with the government with regard to this and that is wrong. What does he say when 83% to 87% of farmers want that option? Is the government not obligated to carry that out?
Also I want to refer to property rights. The hon. member made comments about the National Citizens' Coalition and so did the minister. The minister said that the National Citizens' Coalition indicated that the issue of Japanese internment, the confiscation of Japanese property and so on, was a very similar issue. The Canadian Wheat Board minister indicated that issue was raised by the NCC. That was false. The government used the argument that the confiscation of Japanese property was justified during the war and so is the Canadian Wheat Board confiscation of farmers' property.
Does the member believe that farmers should turn over their wheat and barley and then buy it back in order to gain control over it? Does he feel that property rights in Canada should be strengthened? Does he feel it is right for the board to take the property farmers have worked for, sweated over and took all the risk for and simply give it to the government to do anything with or to buy it back from the government? Does he agree with either of those two statements.
Canadian Wheat Board Act February 17th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, what motion? He has not put a motion in front of us. That is ridiculous. I have not seen anything. I ask him to show us the motion.
Canadian Wheat Board Act February 17th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. We are asking him on this point of order to identify who objected because we did not object. We were not in the House. We would like to know, when he makes an accusation like that, to whom he is referring. That is a point of order.
Questions On The Order Paper February 13th, 1998
How much has the government spent implementing all the provisions passed in Bill C-68, an act respecting firearms and other weapons, which received royal assent (Chapter No. 53) on November 8, 1995; and ( a ) provide an accounting of how this money has been spent; ( b ) provide information on how many federal employees are working on the implementation of this statute and what part of it they are working on; and ( c ) provide a revised estimate of the total cost and number of federal employees needed to implement the provisions of this statute in each province and territory?
Division No. 72 February 12th, 1998
moved:
Motion No. 42
That Bill C-4 be amended by adding after line 16, on page 18, the following:
“24.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 45:
45.1 (1) A producer may, in the form prescribed by the regulations, elect to be excluded, with respect to one or more types of grain, from the operation of this Part, for a period of not less than five years.
(2) An election under this subsection may be terminated only by two years notice in the form prescribed by the regulations.
(3) The Corporation shall establish procedures to preserve the identity of grain from producers who have made an election under subsection (1) and to prevent co-mingling of grain from producers who have made such an election.”
Division No. 72 February 12th, 1998
moved:
Motion No. 38
That Bill C-4, in Clause 22, be amended
(a) by replacing line 36 on page 16 with the following:
“39. If producers of any grain sold and,”
(b) by replacing line 12 on page 17 with the following:
“separate account, and distribute to them in an equitable manner any balance remaining in the separate account after such payments have been made.”
Questions On The Order Paper February 11th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On September 25, 1997 I placed Question No. 18 on the order paper. It asks how much the government has spent implementing the provisions of Bill C-68 and for a revised estimate of the total cost of implementing that piece of legislation. In accordance with Standing Order 39(5)(a) I asked for a response within 45 days.
My constituents have been waiting 139 days. When can I tell them to expect an answer to this straightforward question?
Back in 1995 the Minister of Justice made bold statements that it would cost only $85 million over five years to implement Bill C-68. News reports are now speculating that the cost is already more than $200 million.
Could the government end the speculation and tell us how much it has spent so far and how much it will cost taxpayers in the future? When can I expect an answer to my question?
Abortion February 10th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, a million babies, give or take a few, have lost their lives in the last 10 years. Is parliament horrified? No. Is the media in an uproar for the government to do something? No.
Thanks to the Supreme Court of Canada and weak-kneed politicians, Canada has been without any restrictions on abortion for 10 years. Not only are there no restrictions when a woman can get an abortion between the time of conception and until the baby emerges alive from the birth canal, but the government has forced taxpayers to pay for the killing of these one million babies.
I have introduced a motion that would at least put a stop to government funding for abortions, a measure which two-thirds of Canadians support.
My private members' Motion No. 268 calls for a binding national referendum at the time of the next election to ask whether or not voters are in favour of government funding for medically unnecessary abortions.
I urge every member who feels strongly about saving the lives of tens of thousands of helpless infants to support this motion and to help me convince the House to make it votable.
Canadian Wheat Board Act February 9th, 1998
moved:
Motion No. 45
That Bill C-4 be amended by adding after line 40, on page 21, the following:
“30.1 (1) The Auditor General for Canada Shall examine the operations of the Corporation over the five year period ending December 31, 2002 and shall determine whether the Corporation has met its object as described in section 5, and report to the Minister thereon no later than September 1, 2003.
(2) The minister shall cause the report to be laid before both Houses of parliament on one of the first three days on which the House next sits.
(3) The report shall be deemed referred to such committee of the House of Commons as is established to consider matters relating to agriculture.
(4) Unless the committee has reported to the House and the House as concurred in the report or amended the report and concurred in it as amended by December 31, 2003 and the report or amended report is in a form that concludes that the Corporation has substantially met its object for the five year period, this Act is repealed on June 30, 2004.
(5) If the Governor in Council determines that the process described in subsections (1) to (4) has been delayed by emergency circumstances, the Governor in Council may, by order, defer the repeal of this Act by a period not exceeding twelve months.”