Garry Breitkreuz

[Supply, June 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, one of the questions the member raises is why we are discussing it at this time. He knows very well that the report from the grain marketing panel has not yet been tabled and Parliament will not be sitting all summer. When else do we debate it? We debate it whenever we have the opportunity. That is quite obvious. We pressed for this debate and we finally got it.

Why do we raise this issue? Because farmers do not trust a government which says it is going to support farmers and then as soon as it is elected it removes the Crow subsidy with no inkling at all that this is going to happen. That was one of the problems.

[Supply, June 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, this is question No. 5. Surveys have been taken in my riding and over 80 per cent of the people want the Canadian Wheat Board. They like the Canadian Wheat Board but they see the Liberal government destroying the board by its inaction.

That same 80 per cent of the people want some very key and important changes made. Reform has been listening and addressing those changes. There is a great suspicion that some of the decisions that are made by the Canadian Wheat Board favour eastern interests and because the wheat board is not open and accountable we have no way of knowing. It is not controlled by farmers.

I will give you one example. Farmers suspect that a lot of the grain is shipped through Thunder Bay and the Lakehead and goes out through the east because it benefits eastern interests and is controlled by politicians and bureaucrats in Ottawa. We have no way of knowing whether that is true. Farmers would like to see the port of Churchill utilized a lot more because it has great advantages. This Liberal government has talked the talk but does not walk the walk in investigating and using the port of Churchill.

The buck stops right with this agriculture minister who refuses to address this issue and open up the wheat board, make it accountable and controlled by farmers. I do not see how they can argue against it. There is a glaring contradiction in the fact that they vehemently defend the status quo of the Canadian Wheat Board and at the same time say we have an open marketing panel that is going to address the issue. You cannot have it both ways.

[Supply, June 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, finally I get to ask three and four. They will be from a different member, but if you do not get answers, I guess it does not matter who does not give you the answers.

Whose wheat is it? Does the wheat belong to the government, to the Canadian Wheat Board or to the farmer? The reason I ask that is why not let farmers control their own affairs? Why do we need to have the government intervene in their affairs and have this heavy-handed way of controlling absolutely everything that is happening in the wheat marketing situations?

In my third question, I would first like to know whose grain is it?

The last question I am going to ask comes because of the glaring contradiction in what the members are saying about the grain marketing panel and what they are saying about the Canadian Wheat Board. They are vehemently defending the Canadian Wheat Board and then say they have this open and accountable grain marketing panel that is going to deal with this situation. That is obviously a contradiction.

They cannot extol the virtues and say that everything has to be kept the way it is and only tinker a little bit and then say that it is a completely open and accountable process in the grain marketing panel. They cannot be impartial if they have already entrenched our position and appointed the people with no input from Reform as to who is going to sit on that panel and have input into that. Those are the two questions I would like to see answered.

[Supply, June 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the debate since it began today. Four glaring questions remain unanswered by the government which I would like to pose at this time. I would prefer to do them one at a

time but I will probably have only one chance to rise. I hope the hon. member for Souris-Moose Mountain has a pencil handy.

Is it fair that corn producers can sell their corn in Ontario wherever they wish? Is it fair that Quebec farmers can sell their wheat for $9.50 a bushel to the mills in Ontario but a Saskatchewan farmer cannot access that? Saskatchewan cannot sell their wheat in Ontario but other people can. Does the hon. member think that is fair?

Is it fair that farmers cannot have a direct say in what happens to their product? The Liberal government promised a plebiscite in the last election on barley marketing and never carried through with it. Farmers have had no direct say in this question. Is it fair that they are not allowed a direct say in this question?

I have a third question.

[Petitions, June 19th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, the last group of petitions which I wish to present contains seven petitions signed by 97 people of Yorkton-Melville.

The petitioners pray that Parliament not amend the Constitution to remove the rights of denominational schools. They ask Parliament to refer the problem of educational reform back to the government in Newfoundland and not to set a precedent for other provinces.

[Petitions, June 19th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am also presenting a petition opposing the approval of the synthetic bovine growth hormone known as rBGH or BST. The petition has 35 signatures representing constituents from my riding of Yorkton-Melville.

The petitioners call on Parliament to stop the use and sale of rBGH in Canada until the year 2000. The petitioners also ask that an independent study be conducted to examine the effects of the drug in order to answer some serious health and economic concerns.

[Petitions, June 19th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, the next group contains 67 petitions signed by 937 Canadians from Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta.

The petitioners are opposed to the inclusion of the term sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act. The petitioners feel that homosexuals are already protected by law and that the inclusion of that term would only lead to special rights for homosexuals.

[Petitions, June 19th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I have a large number of petitions to present. I have grouped them into four categories. The first group contains 64 petitions signed by 1,424 concerned Canadians primarily from the provinces of Saskatchewan and Ontario.

The petitioners wish to draw to the attention of Parliament that over 100,000 therapeutic abortions are performed each year in Canada at a cost of over $50 million per year. Since Canadians deserve a say in how our scarce health care dollars are spent and which health care procedures they consider essential, the petitioners call upon Parliament to support a binding national referendum to be held at the time of the next general election to determine whether or not Canadians are in favour of federal government funding for abortion on demand.

[Canada Customs, June 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the revenue minister is covering the ag minister's behind here. I think the revenue minister knows the courts found these people innocent. The revenue minister has publicly stated she has no sympathy for farmers who have had their trucks seized. Now she has no respect for court decisions or property rights.

These farmers are being denied the use of their property and the right to due process of law.

When will the minister show some respect for property rights guaranteed these farmers under the Canadian Bill of Rights when it guarantees every Canadian the right to the enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law?

[Canada Customs, June 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, prior to the Sawatzky decision, Canada Customs under the direction of the Canadian Wheat Board seized a number of trucks and property belonging to farmers from the Yorkton-Melville constituency.

Since Mr. Sawatzky was found innocent, it would seem the government no longer has any authority to hold the trucks seized before the government quickly closed the loophole.

My question is for the minister of agriculture. When will these farmers have their private property returned to them?