Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your intervention to try to provide some order in the House. It is certainly an arduous task.
Reform members opposite hold 57 seats. However only eight of them are currently filled. The question arises as to whether they are truly in tune with and feel that the bill is important. We do.
As farmer elected representatives the directors will be responsible to their electorate. They will listen and respond to the needs of producers. If they do not, they will not likely gain re-election. That is something to which Reform members should pay attention as they will be facing that reality.
That is the essence of accountability. The directors will have real power to direct all the business and affairs of a new and reformed Canadian Wheat Board. The directors will have the power to review all the Canadian Wheat Board sales and financial data, bar none. They will have the power to select their chairperson. They will have the power to set their own salaries, as well as those of the chair and the president. If necessary, they will have the power to recommend that the president be fired if he is not doing a satisfactory job.
The government's role in Canadian Wheat Board operations will change from one of paternalism to one of partnership. It will continue to provide financial guarantees. It will continue to ensure that those guarantees do not become a drain on the public treasury, something with which Reform members, given their position on fiscal restraint and accountability of government, would agree.
Farmers in the Canadian Wheat Board have also asked for more options in how grain is marketed and paid for. Bill C-4 will provide the Canadian Wheat Board with ways to operate more flexibly.
Subject to the approval of the new board of directors, which will be a majority of farmers and producers, the Canadian Wheat Board would be able to make cash purchases of wheat and/or barley, adjust initial payments whenever market conditions warrant, close and pay out pool accounts at any time, issue negotiable producer certificates, provide an early pool cash-out option, fully use modern risk management tools, make payments to producers for their grain storage and/or carrying costs, facilitate deliveries to condo storage systems and receive grain through on farm mobile elevators.
Under Bill C-4 farmers will be empowered to decide whether any grain should be added to or removed from the Canadian Wheat Board's marketing mandate.
Let me stress that if farmers want to remove a grain from the Canadian Wheat Board's existing mandate it can be done, subject to three conditions. First, the directors recommend it. Second, the Canadian Grain Commission approves an identity preservation system to protect quality standards. Third, if the exclusion is considered by the directors to be significant, there must be a vote among farmers to approve it.
Balancing the exclusion clause is an inclusion clause. To add a grain certain conditions must be met. The government must receive a written request from an association, all of whose members are producers of the grain in question and which represents the producers of that grain throughout the designated area. The request would be made public. Interested parties would have 120 days to comment to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.
The board of directors must then consider the addition. If producers approve of the idea, there must be a vote among producers of that grain to ratify it. The point is that farmers themselves, not the politicians, will decide if the Canadian Wheat Board's marketing mandate is enlarged or reduced.
With the passage of Bill C-4 the future of the Canadian Wheat Board will truly be in the hands of western farmers. For that very reason, this bill deserves full support of all members in this House.
I wish to take a few moments to further discuss the issue which has generated quite a bit of media attention. That is the calls from some groups for the Canadian Wheat Board to disclose detailed information about its operations and have the Canadian Wheat Board subject to the provisions of the Access to Information Act.
On the surface such a request would seem to be one which every Canadian would probably have little difficulty in supporting. However, if we look at it from the farmers' point of view, as with most issues, careful examination reveals that there is more to this question than simply catching a headline in the newspaper, which is what the Reform party is all about. I will address these issues one at a time.
First I wish to make it clear that the Canadian Wheat Board is not presently subject to the provisions of the Access to Information Act. This is a fact and one which the government will not dispute. I would point out that entities such as the Export Development Corporation and Canada Post are also not covered by the Access to Information Act. However the reasons for this situation are logical and well founded, contrary to the allegations that some groups have been making to the media lately about this particular issue.
The Canadian Wheat Board was not included in the schedule of the Access to Information Act so that the wheat board operations and records would not be subject to significantly greater levels of public access and scrutiny, not from the farmers, but from the private sector grain companies against which it must compete. Information in the hands of competitors can be quite dangerous. Information in the hands of farmers, which is what it will be when the board of directors is elected by the farmers, is quite helpful. That is a good change.
This is not to say that the Canadian Wheat Board is an entirely closed shop. The Canadian Wheat Board is audited every year by one of the country's largest and most respected private sector accounting firms. This is a requirement placed on the Canadian Wheat Board by Parliament. The audited financial statements must be tabled with Parliament by March 31 every year.
The results of this audit can be found in the Canadian Wheat Board's annual report. It is not a closed shop secret. This annual report is public and is freely available to anyone who asks for it. These audited financial statements are also filed with the Auditor General of Canada.
Although this audited financial report does not provide details on salaries for specific employees, overall figures for salaries are included. This is consistent with common practice in both public and private sectors. The information provided through the annual report would also permit producers and others to calculate what percentage of the overall Canadian Wheat Board marketing costs are attributed to salaries.
The question of whether salaries of individual employees should be made public has been an issue not only with the Canadian Wheat Board, but with many other Canadian and U.S. companies. In arriving at a solution to this question it is necessary to weigh an individual's right to privacy. However, while there are no specific salary figures given, the salary ranges for all employees are available to farmers on request.
In addition, under the provisions of Bill C-4 the 15 member board of directors would be entitled to complete disclosure of all CWB facts and figures. With their full knowledge of the Canadian Wheat Board and its global competition, as well as the interests of grain producers in obtaining additional information, the directors would be in the best position to assess what information should be made public and what for commercial reasons should remain confidential.
A substantial amount of information about the Canadian Wheat Board's recent performance is also available to any interested individual through grain days, the annual series of 12 information meetings which the Canadian Wheat Board holds across western Canada. I note this year's series of meetings kicked off on January 19 in Hussar, Alberta and wrapped up on February 5 in Humboldt Saskatchewan.
Some groups have criticized the fact that the office of the auditor general does not examine the Canadian Wheat Board's books. These groups would have us believe that the Government of Canada or the Canadian Wheat Board is trying to hide something. As usual, nothing could be further from the truth than what the Reform is saying.
As already noted the Canadian Wheat Board currently retains an independent firm of chartered accountants to audit its operations. As such the Canadian Wheat Board is audited with the same rigour as any other commercial organization, private or public, and probably with more rigour than is the Reform Party as a national institution and organization.
It is worth pointing out that the Canadian Wheat Board audit is conducted in accordance with the standards established by the accounting profession which are the same criteria used by the auditor general in reviewing the public accounts of Canada.
There are a number of factors that support continuing the practice of retaining a private firm to audit the Canadian Wheat Board's operations.
Under Bill C-4, the Canadian Wheat Board would cease to be an agent of Her Majesty and a crown corporation, both of which would reduce the justification for involving the office of the auditor general whose traditional mandate is to audit public institutions.
It is worth noting that the Canadian Wheat Board does not receive any direct financial appropriations from Parliament. Loan guarantees provided to the Canadian Wheat Board are approved by the Minister of Finance and as such are audited by the auditor general when the accounts of the Department of Finance are audited. Thus the auditor general is in a position to evaluate and provide commentary on any current or potential consequential effects of the Canadian Wheat Board operations on the CRF.
Some private sector users of financial reports take comfort in the fact that the private sector auditors, unlike the office of the auditor general, are liable under law for negligence and professional misconduct. This consideration would surely be of interest to any of my hon. friends across the way who are always interested in ensuring that people are liable for their actions under law.
Hon. members opposite have made the suggestion that we need to understand the process of auditing. It is obvious they do not understand it. A suggestion has come forward from this side of the House, unlike that side of the House which has provided no commentary whatsoever. They just crack for the sake of cracking like little barking dogs.
Let us bring the auditors of the Canadian Wheat Board to committee. Let us find out what the chartered accountants who audit the Canadian Wheat Board are all about. That positive idea comes from this side of the House. Let us talk about what the chartered accountant profession is all about. Let us talk about a professional organization. Let us talk about the great job those accountants do for the Canadian Wheat Board.
It is worth getting into the topic instead of just sniping and sniping and sniping like the barking cranky little dogs we know they are. We are prepared to put our money where our mouth is and let us get to work.
The new board of directors would be able to direct the Canadian Wheat Board's private sector auditor to conduct special audits just as the auditor general may choose to do. There would be no advantage to having the auditor general doing this job. In view of the commercial environment within which the Canadian Wheat Board operates, it is more appropriate that the audit be performed by a professional chartered accounting firm.
On closer examination, the best solution is to place responsibility for accountability with a board comprised of a majority of democratically elected farmers.
