Mr. Speaker, this is the first I hear of this. I know nothing about it. I think the member is obligated to give me some details regarding what she is talking about. I know nothing about this.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 69% of the vote.
Privilege November 26th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, this is the first I hear of this. I know nothing about it. I think the member is obligated to give me some details regarding what she is talking about. I know nothing about this.
Canadian Wheat Board Act November 20th, 1997
Anyway, what is the bottom line on Bill C-4, the Canadian Wheat Board bill we have before us? The bottom line is that it does not solve the problems with the Canadian Wheat Board. None of the proposals that have been brought in address the division, the problems or the big issues that concern farmers.
Should the Canadian Wheat Board have the exclusive jurisdiction over grains like wheat and barley? Farmers want control over their property. How does the bill diffuse the division that exists? Not one speaker on the Liberal side has addressed that serious problem. It does not in fact.
Then we have the other underlying issue of property rights which my colleagues have adequately addressed and I will not take the time to do so. I appeal on behalf of all farmers to the government to listen. Our city cousins should take note of the debate that is happening here. Without their help we cannot get rid of this discriminatory legislation.
If I lived in Quebec and hollered “separation” if you did not pay attention to what I want, I would probably get some attention. However, if I am a farmer from Saskatchewan I am not getting that attention. I am not about to holler “separation”. Surely to goodness we can have some fairness in the country.
If I was an aboriginal and I wanted to suddenly export all my grain, would the government suddenly listen? The bottom line is that it is not fair. I showed the certificate earlier.
Because of the inaction of the government the Canadian Wheat Board will be destroyed. I have in my hands a statement that reads “the constitutionality of the Canadian Wheat Board is going to the courts in February 1998”. Why? It is because the government has not addressed the serious problems that exist.
“Property rights will be the focal point of the challenge. However discrimination may prove to be the trump card”, this person says. This will be a very important case with regard to property rights in Canada. The bill of rights, United Nations conventions, common law and international investment agreements concerning this issue all address property rights. If we do not look at the amendments that the Reform Party is putting forward we will lose our wheat board for those who truly want it as a marketing agency. There should be some concern about that.
I one to talk about process. There was an argument about the legislation being sent to the committee before second reading. Now we are reporting it back from committee. We were assured there would be many witnesses and those witnesses would be listened to. I want to ask a question of the government. How many substantial changes were made to the bill because of the witnesses and their testimony? I sat there and I listened. I looked at the bill and those concerns were not addressed. It is a slam in the face to democracy.
It is important to listen to the witnesses and not simply to go through the formality. Listening means that we hear what is being said. The parliamentary secretary to the fisheries minister sits here casting cat calls with a smirk on his face but not hearing what we are saying. That concerns me greatly.
If the board were to become more accountable it might change the way it operates. We are asking for that. Producers want to be assured that will happen.
I have many other remarks but I will have to wait to finish.
Canadian Wheat Board Act November 20th, 1997
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I apologize.
Canadian Wheat Board Act November 20th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the member is just trying to interrupt me. I hope I get some extra time.
I saw that document. It was illegible. The Table apologized and was going to try to get me one that I could read. I was here when it was tabled.
In any event the point I am trying to make in relation to all this is that it is not fair. There is a blank on these applications to export wheat or barley. The export licence asks the number of tonnes to be exported, who wants to export it and so on. Then it says exported under the export licence application dated and that it was grown in the province of. If three words appear in that line an export certificate will not be granted. Those three words are Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. It is as simple as that.
Do you get the point I am trying to make, Mr. Speaker? It is undemocratic. It is not fair. That is the point we are trying to make.
I listened to my Bloc colleague this morning. He began by saying he supported Bill C-4. I thought everything they are saying contradicts the fact that they are supporting Bill C-4, very flawed legislation. I began to ask myself why they were supporting Bill C-4.
Could it be that it continues to guarantee the Canadian Wheat Board can determine that grain from the prairies will be shipped through the sea ports of Baie Comeau or Montreal rather than through the port of preference for the people in my constituency, that being Churchill?
Would he agree with a board controlled by the federal government that shipped products from Quebec through the prairies? I do not think he would agree with that any more than lawyers would agree to a lawyer's board. Nor would the Bloc want to have all of their products shipped through the prairies if that were not cost effective.
Farmers in my area want more grain shipped from Churchill. Because it costs less, they would be able to put more money in their own pockets. However, the Canadian Wheat Board controls their wheat and barley and the route by which it will be shipped.
I have something else to reply to from this morning. I was shut down by the Speaker but I think it needs to be mentioned. The member said that we were insulting the House by raising some of the points we have in relation to government controlling this and all that.
Do members know the biggest insult? The people in my riding are saying it. It is not that we rise on points of order and that the minister does not have courtesy. One of the greatest insults to the House is that the government is not listening. We have not had the minister responsible for the wheat board here one minute yet.
Canadian Wheat Board Act November 20th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, anybody who was in this House for the last two days would know the relevance of what I am saying. We are discussing the Group No. 2 amendments which apply to only three provinces. They are very undemocratic. They control only farmers. I am drawing an analogy and I am going to continue.
The lawyer board I am advocating, analogous to the wheat board, would not allow lawyers to market their services outside this area. It could only market its services to certain customers, not to everyone. The lawyer board would control profits. It would prevent lawyers from making certain contracts because the lawyer may make too much money. The board should not, however, be allowed to be audited by the auditor general. If the funds are not being properly managed that should not become public.
How many lawyers would protest would not matter. They would be forced to pool all their returns and distribute them equitably, except for those who could maybe manipulate the system and get outside it.
Any lawyer who was caught marketing his services outside the designated area would have his property confiscated, be put in jail, in leg irons and handcuffs. He would be strip searched every three days because he marketed his services in a way that the government did not want him to. He would be kept there for five months even if it meant changing the law within an hour.
Lawyers would be limited on where they could deliver their services. Lawyers would have quotas, limits on how many clients they could have. If after 50 years of this lawyer board they thought it was an undemocratic lawyer board and the government felt some pressure to change it, the government could come up with a question that would have a predetermined outcome to keep control over lawyers by the board and the government.
The question would probably read something like this, if we could ever get lawyers or anybody to agree on that kind of question. Do you want lawyers to be paid adequately for their services? What do we think lawyers would say? Lawyers would probably say yes. Then the government would come around and say that means they want to have a lawyer board. That is how fair the question was that the government asked.
I am trying to make a point that relates directly to the amendments. Why does the government single out one particular area of the country, discriminate against one narrow sector, the agricultural sector? Why does it not pick lawyers. Why does it not start having a lawyer board and put control on them?
There is something very seriously wrong here. I am very concerned about this issue. I have worked on it.
This morning I asked a Liberal member to table a piece of paper. I do not have it yet. I happen to know what is on it in any event, or I would not have asked for it.
Canadian Wheat Board Act November 20th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I would like to propose a lawyer board at this time. Rather than a wheat board, I think we should have a lawyer board in Canada.
All lawyers' services should be marketed through a central agency and this central agency should have its contracts approved by government. It should apply only to the lawyers in Ontario and Quebec and these lawyers should not be paid directly. All earnings should go through a central fund.
Canadian Wheat Board Act November 20th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, do you know what the biggest insult is right now? The minister responsible for the wheat board and the agriculture minister are not here.
Canadian Wheat Board Act November 20th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the appropriate thing would be to call for a quorum.
Canadian Wheat Board Act November 20th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe I am entitled to have the member table the grain certificates to which he referred in his speech. Those certificates apply to the provinces of Ontario, Quebec and all other provinces that are not prairie provinces which have the right, without charge, to export their grains.
I wonder if he could table them so that the House could see how unfair the certificates are. Those provinces can export their grain with these certificates but the other three provinces cannot. I believe the hon. member should table them immediately.
Petitions November 20th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the second set of petitions I would like to present comes with signatures of 52 Canadians from Manitoba and British Columbia. It is most appropriate for these petitions to be introduced on national child day.
These citizens of Canada support retention of section 43 of the Criminal Code which states: “Every school teacher, parent or person standing in the place of a parent is justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child who is under his care if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances”.
The petitioners believe the government is weakening the role of parents in determining what is in the best interests of the child by continuing to fund research and court challenges by people who advocate the removal of section 43. So your petitioners request Parliament to affirm the duty of parents to responsibly raise their children according to their own conscience and beliefs and retain section 43 in Canada's Criminal Code as it is currently worded.