Gerry Byrne

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise on a point of privilege and ask the Speaker to review this charade that members of the Reform Party are conducting. We are trying to conduct debate in the House. They are reciting false standing orders. This is not parliamentary procedure.

Why do members of the Reform Party not want to stand to debate the bill? Why do they insist on heckling? Why do they insist on interrupting the proceedings of the House? Why do they engage in such frivolous, irresponsible behaviour? This is my speech.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am confident and assured that all members of the House will be keenly attuned and attentive to what I have to say. I know they want to hear members of the House speak common sense. I am sure it will be refreshing for them to hear it for a change because they certainly have not been practising it.

I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Faced with increased competition in ever evolving markets and bottom line pressures, western Canadian grain farmers are ready for important change. They have said clearly they want the Canadian Wheat Board, but they want it to be more democratic, more responsive and more accountable to them.

The Government of Canada is delivering on that request. Bill C-4 represents the biggest changes in western Canadian grain marketing in more than 50 years. Allow me to explain what these changes are.

For the first time ever, western Canadian grain producers will be responsible for directing the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board, a $6 billion corporation doing business in more than 70 countries around the world, one of the top 10 Canadian exporters and our country's biggest single earner of foreign exchange.

Under Bill C-4 the system by which the Canadian Wheat Board is currently run by government appointed commissioners will end. It will be replaced—

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe the Speaker will agree with me that it is not the conduct of this House to make reference to the presence or absence of members in this Chamber.

[European Common Market, February 16th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for raising the important issue of non-tariff trade barriers which prevent the export of Canadian forest products with bark and needles to the European community.

I recognize that the member for South Shore has particular interest in Christmas trees as he, I understand, is a grower. The issues involved are much broader and affect the forest products industry as a whole. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources I take the motion quite seriously.

The Canadian government has been working with Christmas tree growers, indeed the entire forest products industry, to preserve existing markets and to develop new market export opportunities.

This sector is of vital importance to the Canadian economy. Ten per cent of the world's forests are Canadian and there are well over 300 forest dependent communities across Canada. All in all 840,000 people rely directly or indirectly on the forest for their livelihood.

In addition, Canada ranks first in the world in terms of forest products exports. Products ranging from world class light weight coated paper to engineered panels for home construction are a vital component of Canadian exports. Forest products producers, especially those with expanding production, face the constant challenge of finding and securing new markets. The Government of Canada wants to help them rise to this challenge.

Christmas tree growers in British Columbia, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Quebec already supply millions of Christmas trees every year to world markets. These Christmas trees are already being exported to the United States, Central America, Greenland and even the Caribbean. Increasingly Christmas tree farmers have been looking even further abroad to find new markets for their natural products.

The federal government supports these efforts just as it backs other Canadian industries taking advantage of globalization. The establishment of the World Trade Organization and the expansion of free trade in both North and South America have delivered on promises of open markets. This new dynamic is helping Canadian businesses grow and prosper in every part of our country.

Even so, barriers to trade remain. It takes constant vigilance and ceaseless work to prevent creeping protectionism from reducing access to markets opened by freer trade. As tariffs have fallen, countries have turned to non-tariff barriers such as health and environmental regulations to restrict or even ban imported products which are challenges to domestic industries in Canada.

The Prime Minister and the government have worked hard to open up markets and remove trade barriers for Canadian exporters. That was in evidence during the many team Canada missions he successfully supported around the world. That is also the case on the other side of the Atlantic in Europe.

Over the last 10 years the Government of Canada has contested the way the European community uses health and environmental or phytosanitary regulations to prevent certain imports. No one questions the right of governments to protect the health, environment and safety of their populations, but in many cases these regulations are unnecessarily restrictive. One example is the restriction imposed on the Canadian softwood lumber shipped to Europe.

The majority of countries also require that imported wood products be free of bark. This kind of non-tariff trade barrier is increasingly coming into play while international agreements are being implemented to expand trade and promote economy growth.

Canada recognizes that countries have the right to prevent the movement of foreign pests, but the Government of Canada also takes the position that trade restrictions have to be reasonable and in line with the real risks to health or the environment. In addition those risks have to be calculated on the basis of sound scientific research and not unfounded fears.

This is why the departments of foreign affairs and international trade, agriculture and agri-food and natural resources Canada have led the way in providing hard data on these types of issues.

I am pleased to inform the member for South Shore that the study proposed in his motion is being undertaken. Canada has already launched a joint study with the European commission to reduce trade barriers and to facilitate trade. This study is one of the provisions of the joint Canada-European Union action plan signed by the Prime Minister in December 1996.

Under this process Canada has identified European regulations which restrict the entry of Canadian products, which act as trade barriers and which must be addressed.

I assure the House that the Canadian government has been making strong representations to the European commission in an effort to resolve these issues. At the same time Canada is keeping all its options open including provisions of the World Trade Organization.

While the Canadian government is working diligently to open up world markets including Europe, it also has to be recognized that this is a two way street. Canada has its own regulations which protect Canadian forests, farms, lakes and people from imports which could lead to disease and animal and plant pests gaining a foothold in Canada.

Canada is confident however that its phytosanitary regulations are based on sound science and are aimed only at significant risks. This means that Canada cannot dismiss the European concerns about importing green Canadian softwood products. This is why the Canadian government is committed to working with the Canadian forest products industry to convince Europeans that there is no significant risk.

The Canadian forest service of Natural Resources Canada has already generated a wealth of knowledge about forest pests and effective measures to control them. The research conducted by the Canadian forest service is cutting edge and will continue to serve Canadians well.

The work is demanding and time consuming. There are no quick and easy answers to these types of issues. Opening up the European market for Canadian forest products is a challenge but one that will be met, with the potential to bring great benefits to Canadians. The Canadian government is prepared to invest the time and the energy to pursue this very worthy goal.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 12th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand to speak today to the debate on this group of motions put forward.

I think it is very timely that we take into consideration actually a group of motions, because that is exactly what Reformers are trying to do. They are trying to lump in a whole bunch of issues, cloud the entire issue so that they do not understand it and they are hoping and praying that nobody else will.

Categorically their attempts have failed to confuse those who do not support the wheat board. They have failed to confuse those who would try to follow in those particular paths.

We heard from the member for Calgary West who asked this House to support a great Canadian institution by basically rendering it immobile and ineffective through their motions. However, this House will not do that. This House will protect a great Canadian institution for the benefit of producers whom it serves, and that is exactly what we intend to do.

Several members of the Reform Party suggested in this House that what really will happen here is that this Canadian Wheat Board as being an instrument of the federal government, as they declare, will actually be under sanction, particularly under threat by international forces, by international trade tribunals because it is an overly effective trade mechanism for the farmers of western Canada. That has basically been the allegation on the floor, that the Canadian Wheat Board will be under threat by foreign players because it is too effective an instrument in terms of international trade. It has an unfair trading advantage.

Put this into perspective. We have heard from the hon. members opposite that the Canadian Wheat Board is an ineffective organization, that it does not work in the collective best interests of farmers. Yet these same members say that the Canadian Wheat Board will be under attack by international interest because it is too effective a competitor in the international marketplace. That just does not seem to make sense, quite frankly.

I think the hon. member for Calgary West probably spent a little too much time down in the United States of America following Mr. Newt Gingrich's bandwagon, and I think he knows exactly what I am talking about. When he starts to defend the United States of America's ability to come in and try to dismantle a great Canadian institution, probably for its benefit and not for the benefit of western Canadian farmers, I am a little suspicious of that. I wonder exactly what is the intent. Quite frankly, I think the Canadian Wheat Board has to be strengthened and should be strengthened, which is what Bill C-4 is about to do.

The official opposition and a number of groups that oppose Bill C-4 have said that the federal government has ignored the Western Grain Marketing Panel and its recommendations. They have accused the government of not listening to the panel that was selected. This is clearly not the case. I would like to indicate the extent to which Bill C-4 reflects the recommendations of the Western Grain Marketing Panel.

Many aspects of the bill, such as those providing more flexibility payment options for farmers, would allow the Canadian Wheat Board and its client producers to do many things it cannot do today. However, the decisions to implement or not to implement these services would rest where it should, with the farmer controlled board of directors.

With respect to the panel's specific recommendations regarding the Canadian Wheat Board, the first recommendation was that the amendments should accommodate restructuring the governance of the Canadian Wheat Board in accordance with a number of specific guidelines.

Certainly Bill C-4 would restructure the Canadian Wheat Board from being a crown corporation with five appointed commissioners only, to a mixed enterprise where farmers would control the majority of the board of directors. I will get to that a little more when I talk about the specific recommendations of this panel.

The panel's second recommendation was to permit the Canadian Wheat Board to make cash purchases. That is in Bill C-4.

The third recommendation as to permit the Canadian Wheat Board to make payments to farmers for grain storage and for carrying costs. That is in Bill C-4.

The fourth recommendation was to allow deliveries to farmer owned condo storage without regard to the delivery quotas or contracts. That is in Bill C-4.

The fifth recommendation was to permit the Canadian Wheat Board to purchase grain from other than an elevator rail car or from other origins. That is in Bill C-4.

The sixth recommendation was to allow for pool accounts to be terminated or paid out at any time following closure of that pool. That is in Bill C-4.

The seventh recommendation was to allow for the assignment of negotiable producer certificates. That is in Bill C-4.

The eighth recommendation was to clarify the board's authority to utilize risk management tools including futures and auctions in dealing with the farmers and customers. That is in Bill C-4.

The recommendations that deal with the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board that came from the Western Grain Marketing Panel are all contained in Bill C-4.

The panel recommended that the Canadian Wheat Board should be governed by a board of directors of not less than 11 and not more than 15 elected and appointed members. It went on to recommend that the board should be composed of a majority of farmers, a minimum of three representatives from the trade and a minimum of two representatives from the federal government.

Bill C-4 follows that recommendation very closely. There would be 15 directors with a two-thirds majority elected by farmers. There is no requirement in Bill C-4 that the trade be represented on the board of directors as a number of groups have expressed concern about individuals with financial interests in the grain trade being on the board. The government would appoint five directors from within the industry, the financial sector, academia or other backgrounds.

Another recommendation of the panel on governance was that there should be a modern corporate structure under which a chief executive officer would be hired and would be responsible for the overall operations of the Canadian Wheat Board, reporting to the board through its chairperson. This recommendation has been largely fulfilled in Bill C-4. There would be a chief executive officer responsible for overall operations. There would be a chairperson of the board. The one difference is that the chief executive officer would be a member of the board itself.

Another recommendation from the panel was to ensure a rapid and smooth transition to the new governance structure. The panel recommended that the first members of the board of directors should be appointed.

This recommendation was in Bill C-72, but when that bill did not pass it was decided that, in order to live up to the commitment to have the board of directors with elected members in place by the end of 1998, Bill C-4 could dispense with the interim board of fully appointed members. That change in Bill C-4 has been well received.

Another recommendation was that the Canadian Wheat Board advisory committee should continue to function until all farmer members of the board are elected. In Bill C-4 the Canadian Wheat Board advisory committee would continue until its term is up, which is expected to be the same time as the new members of the board of directors will be ready to take office.

Finally, there was a recommendation that a mechanism be established which makes it possible for the Canadian Wheat Board to begin development of a capital base. Bill C-4 goes part way in that direction in that there is a provision for a contingency fund that is limited to three uses. It could not be used to make investments in facilities, but the contingency fund partly goes in the direction of this recommendation.

If we look objectively at the 13 recommendations that were made by the panel with respect to the Canadian Wheat Board, Bill C-4 in many cases follows them exactly. In other cases it follows them quite closely.

Bill C-4 is the mechanism for farmers to decide themselves through whom they elect to the board of directors, or in some cases through a vote of farmers, to what extent wheat and barley would covered under the Canadian Wheat Board or in an open market system with or without the participation of the Canadian Wheat Board. As well there is a provision in the bill that provides a process for farmers to add oats, canola, flax and rye to the jurisdiction of the wheat board with or without export control provisions.

Let me just summarize. With respect to the organization and operational tools of the Canadian Wheat Board, Bill C-4 follows very closely the recommendations of the Western Grain Marketing Panel.

Let it never be said in the House that the government does not listen to advice given by producers and those who are interested in the Canadian wheat industry.

[Corner Brook-Canada Winter Games, February 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the verbal gymnastics of the House Canadians are intently watching the performances of Canadian teams at the Nagano Olympics with some pride and satisfaction.

I want to introduce to the House another particular sporting event in which I take considerable pride. That is the Corner Brook-Canada 1999 Winter Games. Mr. Speaker, you are invited.

I want to introduce Corner Brook, Stephenville, Steady Brook, Pasadena and Deer Lake to the House. Communities on the west coast of Newfoundland are particularly ready to enjoy and to host all of Canada in a celebration of sport, unity and youth.

We are ready for these games. I ask members of the House to book their tickets early because it will be packed. We will see them there.

[Sable Island Gas Pipeline, December 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the best advice I could give the hon. member on this matter comes from the premier of Quebec in a letter he wrote to Premier Klein of Alberta in which he said we had agreed that the issues surrounding the transmission of natural gas are best left to the market and to the regulatory agencies to decide. The National Energy Board has provided advice. This government is reviewing the advice, but no decision has been made.

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the very special and meaningful conversations the hon. member and I have had regarding this issue. I respect his position on this. He spoke very eloquently and from the heart about a number of his own personal experiences. It has been most important and valuable to me to hear how he feels about it. I too went through the Catholic school system. I have a slightly different view than the hon. member, which we both acknowledge.

There are those in Newfoundland and Labrador who have been educated through the integrated education system. The integrated education system is a denominational system. It is basically the Anglican, United and Salvation Army churches that have come together and have provided religious education and as well religious instruction in a way which is not denominationally based. In fact it is a denominational education classification but it offers instruction which is not denominationally based.

I wish to point out something about the students who went to an integrated school next door. I found the moral integrity, the values that those students held and their personal development to be quite sound and strong. Frankly, they are very productive citizens in society. They are participating in a good structure of society.

Does the hon. member have any particular opinion about whether or not it is absolutely essential that denominations and denominations only participate in religious instruction? I found an example which we used in Newfoundland and Labrador in providing the current drafting of the term 17 amendment, the integrated education system, and it works quite well.

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I thought I was confused about the Reform Party's position on this issue before and now I am fundamentally confused.

Particular religious denominations are essential, not all, because in Newfoundland we had seven denominations which have entrenched denominational rights in terms of the educational system.

In reference to the process of forming legislation and law, what exactly is the member talking about? I would like to know if there is such a thing as catholic made criminal law and Jewish made criminal law and whether he would subscribe to that view or if there is law in the best interest of society and Canadians, and that law should apply to all Canadians equally, regardless of religious background of the drafters of the legislation.

I also ask if views held by constituents are valid only if they coincide with the views of the members opposite. Clearly this is a classic example, 73% of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador deciding an issue which is basic to their interests and basic to their values. They clearly articulated their values. I think we have some disagreement. We are citing now international charter on why it should not be imposed.

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Newfoundland), December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to this House that I am a member of the Roman Catholic faith and I voted in the referendum in a particular way. However, when it comes time to vote on this issue I will vote as a member of the House of Commons who is speaking on behalf of my constituency.

For the record, as a member of the Roman Catholic faith, I voted personally for the amendment. I will vote as a member of the House of Commons for the amendment because that is what my constituency said.

On another point, I would suggest the following to those members who are concerned this will have an impact on other constituencies and other provinces in the country. I point out one simple fact.

In 1987 we added the Pentecostal denomination to the schedule of denominations that were provided with specific rights. We did not at that time add other denominations in other provinces. We did not add the Pentecostal faith to the Ontario schedule. We did not add it to the Manitoba schedule. We did not add it to the Alberta schedule so—