Gerry Ritz

[The Budget, February 26th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a question on the government's debt reduction policy. She talked about the old 50:25:25 program but what I see in the budget documents is a $3 billion contingency fund. If there is enough money left out of that, barring any other glitches to the economy or whatever, it will be applied to the debt.

Over the next three years the maximum we would see paid down on the debt is $9 billion according to my math. In that same three years, interest on the debt will accumulate to almost $140 billion. I am wondering how she gets some sort of balance or fairness out of that for taxpayers.

[The Budget, February 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as the parliamentary secretary for foreign affairs, I just wonder whether he would care to comment in that in the budget document the government talks about spending for foreign affairs at $2.2 billion and for health at $.9 billion. I wonder how it can justify those priorities to the Canadians standing in waiting lines at hospitals.

[The Budget, February 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, after all the hype and the headlines what real change has this budget brought about?

Canadians still pay the highest personal income taxes in the free world. We still have a $583 billion national debt, a second mortgage of $77,000 per Canadian family. Government spending has never been higher in Canadian history.

It did not have to be this way. After all, we had a surplus.

Why did the finance minister blow this money on more spending instead of real tax relief and real debt reduction?

[Bill C-28, February 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question to the Prime Minister is why was the finance minister allowed to sponsor this bill.

[Bill C-28, February 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister is the owner of Canada Steamship Lines. The more money it makes, the more money he makes. It is therefore completely unethical for the finance minister to have sponsored Bill C-28, which could see him personally profit millions of dollars.

My question to the Prime Minister—

[Bill C-28, February 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the facts are clear. The finance minister sponsored a bill through which his company made profit. The ethics watchdog was called in a day late and a dollar short to cover up this clear violation. His entire investigation was kept in house.

Given these facts, why does the Prime Minister put the finance minister's personal gain ahead of government ethics?

[Bill C-28, February 18th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister's department has clearly broken ethical standards by having, first, the minister himself sponsoring a tax bill, potentially saving his company millions of dollars, then hiding this clear violation from the ethics commissioner.

How does this minister expect Canadians to believe his next piece of legislation will not have another sweetheart deal?

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

Madam Speaker, I am happy once again to speak on behalf of my constituents and all farmers across the west who are really after only one thing in this debate: freedom of choice.

If it has not been made clear by all the members who have spoken over the last days and months that the government still fails to understand what is bothering thousands of farmers who attend meetings to express their frustrations with this bill, then let me make it absolutely clear. Western producers demand a say in how the products of their labour are dealt with.

Members opposite will claim that this venue is being given to them by this bill in the form of a semi-elected board. They do not explain why this board cannot be completely elected. They fail to make a logical case for why its president must be a creature of the government or why it must continue as a western Canadian monopoly that forces otherwise free citizens to hand over their property with compensation based on arbitrary and secretive business dealings.

My colleague from Yorkton—Melville has put forward an amendment to allow farmers to opt in and out of the Canadian Wheat Board. His amendment will put the freedom of choice into the hands of the producers so that with proper notice they can decide to participate in the board or seek a better deal elsewhere if that is what seems in their best interests.

Some might argue if we have farmers opting in and out and deciding one year to include a particular grain and a few years later to take it elsewhere, that we will undermine the ability of the board to conduct its business over the long term. But this amendment prescribes certain limits. The farmer must opt out for a minimum of fives years and give two years notice of opting back in. This is not a case of leaping in and out on a whim. This is a case of letting well informed and self-motivated farmers decide their own future.

The member for Brandon—Souris earlier today made an excellent case on the position of oat growers in western Canada since oats have been taken out from under the board. Some might argue that if everybody is acting independently this will undermine the pooling concept and lead to chaos. Certainly our colleagues on the left will throw up their hands and say that Reform is advocating a return to the 1920s, just before the depression that made some of these government organizations necessary.

They are the ones who are stuck in the early decades of this century when farmers were lucky to have telephones. The modern reality is that farmers have access to more knowledge in a few seconds than some of our colleagues have obviously taken advantage of in the last few years. The days of government paternalism are gone. They have been swept away by the Internet and the satellite dish. It is about time the government got the message.

All those who support the Canadian Wheat Board are just as free to continue to use its services as they are now. If the Canadian Wheat Board is the great provider that they desire, obviously they will be encouraged to continue to stay there. If large numbers of farmers vote with their feet to find a better service elsewhere, this should be a clear indication that changes are called for in the board or even in the government's approach to what it tries to do for these producers.

We have myriad examples of government departments believing that it is in their best interest to keep information to themselves rather than let private citizens make up their own minds about what they want. The more compulsory a government action is, the less it wants anybody to know what it is up to.

We have amendments before us to put the activities of the board before the auditor general and to make it open to the Access to Information Act, both of which the government rejects. Along with today's motion to arbitrarily limit debate we cannot help but believe the government and the wheat board have something to hide.

Fearing possibility that farmers might truly have a democracy and decide for themselves, the Reform Party does not want to see destruction of the wheat board. We simply believe that it must behave the way a public service should: voluntarily, openly and with full accountability to the producers it is meant to serve. If it is not strong enough to stand solidly on its own merit and falls by the wayside, the producers have spoken.

[Division No. 72, February 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to speak to the Group No. 5 amendments on Bill C-4.

Motion No. 23, securing the best financial return for the producers is a unique concept. We have a farm crisis in western Canada and a lot of it comes down to the fact that the bottom line is in the red and not in the black.

On October 28, 1997 the minister responsible for the wheat board said in this House in a query to my compatriot for Yorkton—Melville “I can assure him however that the Canadian Wheat Board in every market in the world extracts the very best price it can possibly get for the farmers of Canada”. I will repeat that, the very best price it can possibly get.

All these amendments do is change the object of the Canadian Wheat Board Act so that it matches more exactly what that minister is telling us in the House and telling Canadians the purpose of the act is. If the minister honestly believes that the Canadian Wheat Board extracts the very best possible price, then he should wholeheartedly support these amendments.

Currently section 5 states “The board is incorporated with the object of marketing in an orderly manner in interprovincial and export trade, grain grown in Canada”, let me repeat that one portion “grain grown in Canada”. I find it odd that the act gives the board authority to market grain grown in all of Canada but only imposes its monopoly powers in the prairie provinces.

Why is the government monopoly good for grain grown in the west but not good enough to force on farmers in the rest of Canada? Could it be they do not really want it? Are we not as smart or as capable to handle our affairs in the west? Do we not have a stake in our own marketing? We grow it, we take the risks, we like to have a share of the gravy at the other end.

If this government monopoly is supposedly serving farmers' marketing needs in the west so well, I find it odd that farmers in the other provinces are not demanding that the wheat board take over their marketing too. The fact that it is not happening illustrates why western wheat and barley producers are so frustrated. They are being discriminated against. They are being forced to sell their grain to the government controlled monopoly while farmers in the rest of the areas in Canada can sell to whomever they wish.

At least these amendments would make sure that the prairie farmers are getting the best return that a government operated monopoly can get for them. As the wheat board act is worded, all they are guaranteed is orderly marketing, not good marketing.

These amendments would improve on the existing wording by saying the purpose of the Canadian Wheat Board in the orderly and co-ordinated marketing of grain is to maximize, and I underline maximize, the financial return to the producers it serves.

The first amendment, Motion No. 1, adds a preamble to the act to clarify the reasons why we have a Canadian Wheat Board and that the first priority of that board should be to secure the best financial return to producers. People from all political stripes can identify with that one. The board must be accountable to those farmers for that performance.

The second amendment, Motion No. 23, changes the wording of section 5 of the act to state “The object of the corporation is to secure the best financial return to producers of grain in Canada by marketing grain in an orderly and co-ordinated manner”. It also adds to section 5 that the board carries out this marketing activity “on behalf of the producers of the grain”. Put their interests first.

It is a sad day that my colleague from Yorkton—Melville has had to draft such an obvious amendment to put the best interests of the producers ahead of the rights of this marketing board.

This change in the object or purpose of the act resulted in three consequential amendments.

The first amendment, Motion No. 28, concerns clause 7 of the bill. Section 7 of the act is being amended to ensure that grain sold or disposed of is not only sold for a price the board considers reasonable, but that it must be done in order to fulfil the new objective of maximizing the financial return to farmers. What a concept that is.

The second consequential amendment, Motion No. 29, also concerns clause 7. It directs any profits from the sale of grain back to the producers rather than have the profits paid into the government's consolidated revenue fund which is kind of like putting them in a sinkhole.

The third consequential amendment, Motion No. 39, concerns clause 22 which is found at pages 16 and 17 of Bill C-4. It would ensure that undistributed balances would be paid back to the producers who are entitled to the payment rather than just being designated to the government's vague term “for the benefit of all”.

Motion No. 45 would insert a sunset clause. The last amendment is what is commonly referred to as a sunset clause. It would require the auditor general to examine the wheat board's operation over the five year period ending December 31, 2002 to determine if the board had met its first priority as described in the new amended section, namely to secure the best financial return to the producers by marketing grain in an orderly and co-ordinated manner.

At this point the auditor general is not allowed to have a peek at the books, but he is allowed to look at other areas, like defence, CSIS and the RCMP, which are also highly political and could lead to problems. Why can he not look at the wheat board?

The auditor general's report on the wheat board's operation would have to be delivered to the minister no later than September, 2003. The minister would have to table the report in the House and in the Senate where it would be referred to a committee of the whole. This sunset clause would repeal the Canadian Wheat Board Act if it had not lived up to its mandate over that five year period.

This is another accountability measure. If the people who are running the wheat board, whether elected or appointed, know that their performance will be measured independently by the auditor general after that timeframe, they will make absolutely sure they are securing the best financial return for the producers. Their jobs are in the balance. Some accountability exists.

The real benefit of a sunset clause is that it forces the board, the government and Parliament to revisit this legislation every five years to make sure it is still needed and that it is achieving the objectives established by Parliament.

No producers have a problem with a marketing agency, a monopoly in this case, which is transparent and accountable to them serving their best interests. If the Canadian Wheat Board was truly accountable to the producers, we would not be having this debate today, nor will the debate stop after the government rams through this legislation.

[Medical Research Council, February 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, recently the Medical Research Council announced its grants. None of these grants found their way to Saskatchewan where a world class cancer centre is located. Meanwhile, the heritage minister announces multimillion dollar handouts to ballet and opera companies.

Does this mean this finance minister's new spending priorities are on dancers rather than cancers?