Jay Hill

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to listen to the lone Tory from out west. It is really encouraging that he is trying to encourage the eastern members of his party to come on side, to Reform's position on the Canadian Wheat Board and we certainly support his efforts in that regard.

My question revolves around the fact that this minister, as the hon. member so eloquently put it, came into this House with an 11th hour amendment at the last point. He has had a year and a half with this legislation. We had it at committee. We have had the travelling road show during the last Parliament and yet he comes in at the 11th hour and accuses the opposition of trying to somehow not better the bill by some opposition members denying unanimous consent to put forward this amendment.

I had some consultation, as did the hon. member, with the minister a couple of hours before he proceeded to bring into the House his last minute amendment. Is his understanding the same as mine that it would not substantively change the inclusion-exclusion process, merely put it into a different part of the act?

Second, will the fifth party be supporting my amendment to send this back to committee? At that time the hon. minister, like all other members of this House, will have ample opportunity to put forward whatever amendments he sees fit once the bill is back in committee.

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

But we do have some credibility on this issue and if the hon. parliamentary secretary across the way would like to shut up for a minute, he might be interested in learning something.

With this bill I would like to say that someone recently said to me that the minister is taking care of western Canadian grain farmers about like Alan Eagleson is taking care of hockey players. It was not me who said that. That is a western Canadian who has viewed this issue and this debate over the last year and a half.

I would like to take the House and the viewing audience, certainly western Canadian grain farmers watching this debate today with interest, on a trip down memory lane. I believe it will be time well spent for me to take the members of this House step by step down this long dead-end road.

For many of my Reform colleagues this is a story with which we are all too familiar. They have been listening to farmers, processors and any other stakeholders in the grain industry. Reformers have an intimate knowledge of the setback these organizations and individuals are facing because of this dismal piece of legislation.

However, for those Canadians who are new to the debate, primarily those in eastern Canada who are fortunate enough to fall beyond the reach of the almighty Canadian Wheat Board I have an obligation to tell them this story detailing a lack of accountability, misrepresentation and arrogance by this very government.

I will not pick up the story where it actually began because that date is hard to pinpoint. Discontent and frustration have been brewing for many years among western grain farmers who are forced to sell their wheat and barley through the Canadian Wheat Board. The Canadian Wheat Board was formed in 1935 as an interim measure to control pre-war inflation. It was not until 1943 that the board was given monopoly powers by the government when farmers refused to sell to the Canadian Wheat Board because they were getting much better prices on the open market. So it was a short term wartime inflation controlling measure. That is how the monopoly came into existence.

In modern times many farmers have long felt that they are better prepared and better equipped to market their grain outside the board. Capability aside, many simply want the freedom to make the attempt, willingly accepting any consequences that might arise.

Under the wheat board farmers must blindly hand over the product of their labour and accept the resulting payments that stem from decisions by government appointees who have no accountability to the prairie farmers.

After all, the Canadian Wheat Board is exempt from the Access to Information Act and from audits by the Auditor General of Canada. The minister referred to this during his speech. Both these democratic mechanisms exist in any other federal body in order that Canadian taxpayers can exercise their right to question the use of their tax dollars. For western wheat and barley growers not only are their tax dollars potentially at stake but their entire livelihood.

Is the Canadian Wheat Board getting the best price for farmers' grain? Is the Canadian Wheat Board performing responsibly in the best interest of farmers and to ensure the viability and survival of the grain industry? Is the Canadian Wheat Board acting ethically in its domestic and international business? Is the Canadian Wheat Board really the most cost effective and efficient marketing agent for western Canadian grain?

These are the types of questions the auditor general would ask and would analyse were he given the task of auditing the Canadian Wheat Board. These are all simple and reasonable questions for which the shareholders of any other organization could expect to get a response.

This accountability blackout has prompted farmers to organize mass protests and acts of civil disobedience. More serious protest has come in the form of law breaking as some farmers take desperate measures to carry their grain across the U.S. border to access higher prices. Instead of taking actions to remedy this dispute the federal government has pursued the harshest of fines and jail sentences. Western grain farmers join rapists and drug dealers in prison. In fact, it is worse than that. Farmers languish in prison while rapists receive conditional sentencing and get off with community service.

On the other side of this debate there are grain farmers who are content with marketing their product through the Canadian Wheat Board and we recognize that. They have every right to choose that course. Many are comfortable with the return on their grain received from the Canadian Wheat Board. They enjoy the security and do not wish to venture into marketing their own grain. These producers are alarmed by the lobbying efforts of other farmers attempting to gain the right to market outside the board.

As a result there exists in western Canada a very divisive and often emotional debate on the future of the CWB. This dispute has caused rifts in normally close farming communities and even amid families themselves.

One thing that all sides agree on is that something substantial must be done. That includes compromise for both sides and a view to other domestic and international pressures which are coming into play.

Way back in 1994 western grain farmers thought they had actually caught a glimpse of leadership when the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, then the agriculture minister, hinted publicly at a sweeping review and consultative process to help find solutions to this controversy.

It was a fleeting glimpse indeed. The minister dithered and delayed and promised and made excuses until finally, just when farmers were beginning to give up, he at long last announced the establishment of the western grain marketing panel in July 1995. It was a long wait indeed.

The usefulness of the panel was at first questioned by some because of the significant number of government appointees on the nine person panel. In addition, the panel was not to begin its work until January 1996. But there were some good choices on the panel and many felt that, criticism aside, the panel was indeed a good idea. It meant hope for change, even if it had to come nearly two years after the minister's first promise of action.

The western grain marketing panel was not to report its findings until June 1996.

The mandate of the panel was indeed encouraging. It was to explore the issue of single desk selling versus dual marketing, CWB accountability to farmers and realistic planning in light of international pressures to name but a few.

The panel held 15 workshops across Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta in January 1996. It conducted 13 days of formal public hearings and received 150 oral and written submissions.

On July 9, 1996 the western grain marketing panel released its recommendations on the reform of the Canadian Wheat Board. Key recommendations in the report addressed the underlying issue of freedom of choice and CWB powers.

The panel unequivocally rejected proposals that the current powers of the CWB be preserved and that the board's jurisdiction be expanded. It rejected those proposals.

It called for a removal of feed barley export sales from the board monopoly as soon as possible. The report concluded that farmers should have the freedom to choose to remove at least 25% of their sales from the pool and ask for forward cash prices from the board.

Organic grain was to be removed from the board. The report clearly stated that the jurisdiction of the wheat board not be expanded to other grains, oilseeds or special crops.

These recommendations all had one central theme, reduce the jurisdiction of the CWB and under no circumstances allow it to meddle in other grains.

Reaction to the panel's report was fairly positive. Legal challenges to the CWB were being rethought as many expected, incorrectly as it turns out, that the minister would table legislation to enact the panel's recommendations.

Since the election of 1994 one of the biggest issues the minister encountered was the demand for a plebiscite to determine whether barley should remain under the CWB monopoly. Once again, true to form, the minister dithered, delayed, promised and made excuses.

Meanwhile the province of Alberta got tired of waiting for the federal Canadian Wheat Board minister to take action. On December 6, 1995 the Alberta government held its own plebiscite on the CWB. Of Alberta's 15,000 grain farmers who voted, 62% voted in favour of marketing their wheat outside the CWB. Fully two-thirds or 66% voted in favour of selling their barley to any buyer, including the wheat board.

Alberta grain farmers voted for the freedom to choose. They voted to control their own destiny.

The two questions on the voting ballots were direct. There was the real question of choice, did farmers wish to sell their grain to any buyer, including the wheat board. It outlined choices which included the Canadian Wheat Board.

The minister continued to procrastinate. He even attempted to deter the Alberta government from holding its plebiscite. This is what he had to say about the results of the Alberta plebiscite, which were nothing short of astounding. The minister said the results were interesting from an academic point of view.

I do not believe the Alberta farmers who took the time and effort to exercise their democratic privilege of voting in that plebiscite thought of it as academic. We could only hope that the minister's election to the House of Commons was academic. Grain farmers might not be in this unfortunate position today.

Let us fast forward to the months following the release of the western grain marketing panel's report. By October it had become clear that the panel had not told the minister what he wanted to hear, so he intended to ignore many of its recommendations. For the minister it became a matter of having tried that but, not liking the answer, he was going to try something else where he had more control over the answer. That is how the minister finally decided to hold the long awaited plebiscite on the Canadian Wheat Board.

However, the vote was limited to the marketing of barley. More important, the question was designed to get the minister the outcome he wanted. Unlike the Alberta plebiscite, the federal vote gave barley growers just two choices, either they were for the Canadian Wheat Board or they were against it. Barley was to be either in or out, no in between. It was a simple question, simply deceitful.

The minister and everyone else involved in or knowledgeable about the Canadian grain industry knows that asking this question was missing the point entirely. The reality is that most farmers do not wish for the complete elimination of the Canadian Wheat Board from the grain business. They just want the monopoly to be removed.

The barley question entirely missed the point and has been the focus of the controversy for several years. It was just one more example of feigned consultation by this government.

The barley vote results were announced on March 25, 1996. Given no alternatives and no choice, 62.9% voted to keep the barley under the Canadian Wheat Board. Imagine what the result would have been if the question had been properly asked. Had they been offered more options, many farmers would have easily voted differently. After the results became known, Canadian Wheat Board supporters hoped for a truce in the wheat board dispute.

It did not come. Discontent was even more inflamed due to the injustice of the minister's barley question. Any hope for progress in the controversy through the legislative avenues available were dashed when on December 3, 1996 Bill C-72, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, was introduced in the House. This bill was the predecessor to the bill we are debating today, Bill C-4. None of the recommendations by the western Canadian grain marketing panel I outlined earlier was contained in Bill C-72.

I see I only have one minute left. I could go on and on about the dismal history of this bill and how it came to be. However, in the closing minute I have I want to refer to the fact that the minister reportedly said that we on this side of the House had put forward an amendment at report stage to have the Canadian Wheat Board adhere to the Auditor General of Canada.

The fact is this minister has been constantly holding up that the existing auditor does exactly the same job as the Auditor General of Canada. That is simply false. It is not accurate. In light of that, I would like to move the following motion:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following therefor:

“Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be not now read a third time but be referred back to the standing committee on agriculture for the purpose of reconsidering clause 8 in section 9 to ensure that the board show such particulars and furnish such information as requested for the purpose of an audit by the auditor general; and provide such records and information as requested under the Access to Information Act in so far as the records and information requested have been in the process or under the control of the corporation for at least three years before the day on which the request is received by the corporation and that the corporation shall continue to be a government institution within the meaning of the Access to Information Act”.

I believe it is in order. If this motion is agreed to and the bill is referred back to the committee then the hon. minister could introduce any amendment—

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree and I thank the House for indulging me. I assume it is because hon. members do not want to listen to me for 40 minutes.

I would like to clear up a potential misunderstanding. The hon. minister said in his presentation that some of the people involved in this debate did not know a bushel of barley from a bucket of rice.

I refer to that because part of the problem with the debate is that the Reform Party or the official opposition has been subject to allegations right from the beginning that somehow we are out to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board, that we are the enemies of the Canadian Wheat Board. I would like to elaborate on that point for a couple of minutes.

Currently there are 59 members in the Reform Party caucus. About half our caucus or 30 of them have farm backgrounds. They grew up on farms. They have friends and family members actively farming in western Canada. At least half of those, or 15 to 20 members, were actively farming before coming to this place. Some of them were very large commercial farm operations and enterprises.

It angers me when we are constantly bombarded from the government benches that somehow we do not have any credibility, that we are the enemies of the Canadian Wheat Board, that we want to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board. This is the type of nonsense that we listen to on a daily basis and have been listening to for a year and a half.

I do not have time to go over each member's background but in deference to them I would refer to just a few.

The hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain, a riding in Saskatchewan for those who might be viewing the debate today in TV land and do not know where that riding is, has been a grain farmer for more than 30 years. He has 648 acres cultivated, another 320 acres in pasture and another 320 acres of grazing leased.

The hon. member for Lakeland, Alberta, who will be splitting my time this morning, grew up on a farming ranch. He has been a grain farmer for 28 years. He has 1,000 acres cultivated and now crop shares because he does not have time to actively farm full time because he is a member of Parliament.

The hon. member for Yellowhead, Alberta, grew up on a farm and farm grained for 30 years. He has 1,000 acres cultivated and still actively farms. His sons are increasingly involved in the family operation.

The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville, Saskatchewan, who spoke moments ago grew up on a farm. He has been a grain farmer for seven years. He has 900 acres cultivated and 100 acres in pasture. He currently leases out his farm but he still lives on the farm.

The hon. member for Athabasca, Alberta, grew up on a farm. He has been a grain and cattle farmer for 35 years. He has 1,000 acres cultivated, 500 acres in pasture and has currently leased out his farm.

I grew up on a farm in British Columbia in Peace River country. I farmed grain and grew grass seed and canola for 20 years full time. My brother and I have 3,000 acres. We expanded the family farm over a number of years to eventually have 3,000 acres under cultivation. I recently sold my interest to my brother who still farms that farming operation in B.C.

The member for Selkirk—Interlake, Manitoba, grew up on a farm and has been a cattle rancher for 30 years. He has 250 acres cultivated and 3,800 acres in pasture. He still actively farms when he has time away from his MP duties.

The member for Portage—Lisgar, Manitoba, grew up on a farm and for 35 years has had a mixed farming operation. He has 1,900 acres cultivated, 500 acres in pasture and currently leases out his farm to family members.

The member for Wetaskiwin, Alberta, grew up on a farm and has had a mixed farming-ranching operation for 30 years. He has 850 acres cultivated, 90 acres in pasture and currently leases out his farm on a share basis.

The member for Peace River, my counterpart in the Alberta Peace River area, grew up on a farm and has farmed for 30 years. He is a grain farmer with 2,000 acres cultivated. He still actively farms with his son. I could go on, but I picked those members at random.

During report stage we were accused of saying that members opposite should not be allowed to speak. We were trying to encourage them to speak. They did not want to take part in the debate. Only three or four of them rose the whole time we were on report stage amendments.

We were not saying that because they come from Newfoundland or New Brunswick or Toronto they should not be part of the debate. We were trying to say that we have a bit of credibility on this issue. That is what we were trying to say. Reform members have a very serious interest in this issue. We have a lifetime of experience talking about the Canadian Wheat Board.

We encourage fishermen, people with a background in business, doctors, lawyers and Indian chiefs to be involved in the debate and to put forward their opinions. It is the same as when we put forward our opinions on other issues that we might not have a personal background in.

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

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to seek unanimous consent of the House to split my time with the hon. member for Lakeland.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister claimed in his comments that the official opposition denied permission. I was not in the House at the time but my understanding is—

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

moved:

Motion No. 48

That Bill C-4, in Clause 36, be amended by replacing lines 22 to 27 on page 24 with the following:

“(5) Section 9 of this Act comes into force on the date on which the first directors elected assume office pursuant to section 3.08 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, as enacted by section 3 of this Act.”

Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that the government might lead off debate, especially on this group of amendments. It is so typical of the government's arrogant attitude and how it has approached debate on this bill that it will not put members forward to debate these amendments. It is absolutely despicable. I hope and pray that the western Canadian farmers who are following this debate are taking note of the complete disdain with which the government has treated this debate over the last number of days. There are hardly any Liberal members in the House. The few in the House have not even addressed the issue. They are not interested in having an honest, open and proper debate on the 48 amendments which have been put forward, and they are very substantive amendments.

I notice the member for Malpeque, a Prince Edward Island potato farmer.

The big issue in this set of amendments is contained in Motion No. 43 which was put forward by my colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party to remove the inclusion clause. If there is one clause in Bill C-4 which has raised the ire across the board of western Canadian farmers it is the inclusion clause. The government knows it. There were many submissions and presentations made to the government in committee and across the land against the inclusion clause, and yet the government and the hon. member for Malpeque will not stand to defend it.

The reality is that people from coast to coast in this country who are involved in the farming communities know that the member for Malpeque should be down at the other end of the House. He should be in the NDP caucus. The only reason he is not is he knew he could never run for the NDP in Prince Edward Island and have a hope of getting to the House of Commons, so he decided to run as a Liberal.

As a past president of the National Farmers Union we know where his thinking is. We know that he wants more state control of agriculture in Canada. He wants expanded control of the Canadian Wheat Board. He wants more control, just as the hon. member from Regina just said. They want more crops brought in under the Canadian Wheat Board, more farmers in jail, I would assume.

Let us have a look at what witnesses, the few we had time to hear from, said about the inclusion clause when they appeared before the standing committee on agriculture last fall.

The prairie pools sent a written request to the minister by association which can demonstrate that it is the predominant organization which exists solely to represent the producers of that commodity in the designated area. They want it very clearly defined who is going to initiate including more commodities under the control of the Canadian Wheat Board.

Even the prairie pools have some serious concerns about this inclusion clause. United grain growers say no to the inclusion clause. Western Canadian wheat growers say no. Canadian canola growers, no; flax growers of Western Canada, no; the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, no; oat producers of Alberta, no. The list goes on and on. Virtually every group of witnesses, every farm organization that appeared before the committee said no to the inclusion clause and yet does it make any difference? Are they listening over there? They are still there.

I would like to remark on what has happened over the last little while with this bill, the reality. I spoke on Monday. I raised a question of privilege on this very issue, because what we have seen is this government and this minister, the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, showing complete disdain, a lack of respect for this institution. That is the reality of what has happened. He is just proceeding as though this bill is law to the extent that because we have so many western Canadian farmers in the caucus of the official opposition in this House who wanted to speak to this bill, wanted to properly debate the amendments, actually brought in closure today to shut down debate. They do not want to hear from western Canadian farmers.

There is a group that has grown up from grassroots western Canadian farm organizations specifically to fight this bill. The thing that unifies it is the inclusion clause. That is the one thing that unified all these groups under a common umbrella. They said no, we certainly do not want that. Yes, we want to see change with the Canadian Wheat Board, but we certainly do not want to see it expanding its already mandatory powers over wheat and barley to other commodities such as canola or flax, things marketed on the free market right now.

Let us look at the organizations that make up this coalition against Bill C-4. Included are the Alberta Canola Producers Commission, the Alberta Winter Wheat Producers Commission, the B.C. Grain Producers Association, an organization that I was very proud to be the president of for a number of years when I was actively farming. I probably shovelled more grain that ended up in Canadian Wheat Board cars than most members on the opposite side have ever seen in their lives.

Also included are the Canadian Canola Growers Association, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Canadian Oil Seed Processors Association, the Flax Growers of Western Canada, the Manitoba Canola Growers Association, the Oat Producers Association of Alberta, the Ontario Canola Growers Association. Even Ontario canola growers are in on it because they are concerned about this. Others are the Western Barley Growers Association, the Saskatchewan Canola Growers Association, the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association and the Winnipeg commodity exchange. They all joined together to try to fight Bill C-4, largely because of this inclusion clause.

I would add that this meeting I referred to in my point of privilege last week, the meeting that the hon. minister for the Canadian Wheat Board held in Regina on January 21, some of those organizations I just read out were invited to attend that meeting. And what happened at that meeting?

The majority of those organizations invited urged the minister to drop the inclusion clause brought forward because of one member, the hon. member for Malpeque who joined the House and perhaps will join in the debate. We welcome him and we would like to hear from him in this debate later on. Those organizations walked out in complete disgust. They wanted to discuss the bill and the ramifications of this bill on western Canadian farmers. The reality was the minister was there to discuss how to hold the elections. We had not even voted on how many directors there would be.

There is an amendment that has been put forward by me on behalf of the Reform Party to have all 15 directors elected. We are not going to vote on that until next Monday evening. Yet the minister holds a meeting in Regina and invites farm groups to discuss how to go about holding these elections, as though this bill were already law. We wonder why the Parliament of Canada has become irrelevant in the minds of so many Canadian citizens. It is because of the arrogant attitude of ministers like that.

What happened at this meeting? The majority of those groups walked out in complete disgust. It is interesting that both the premier of Alberta and the premier of Manitoba wrote to the Prime Minister about this inclusion clause. I have copies of the letters. They wrote scathing criticism of this inclusion clause that the socialists obviously support judging by the heckling coming from that end. They join their other Liberal brothers in trying to support this state run commodity organization.

Unfortunately my time has expired. I would like to go on for considerable length discussing this, but that's life.

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

moved:

Motion No. 40

That Bill C-4, in Clause 22, be amended by adding after line 27 on page 17 the following:

“39.2 (1) The Corporation shall establish a plan for wheat pricing which shall have the following features:

(a) a producer will be able to hedge a specified portion of his or her wheat on a recognized grain exchange in Canada or in another country;

(b) the quantity of wheat hedged by the producer under paragraph (a) will be delivered to the Corporation prior to the maturation of the futures contract entered into by the producer under the hedge;

(c) the Corporation will assume ownership and responsibility for the hedged position upon delivery of the wheat to the Corporation.

(2) The Corporation shall establish, annually, the portion of each producer's wheat which each individual producer will be allowed to hedge under this program.

(3) The Corporation shall establish the terms and conditions under which the hedge position of the producer is to be assumed by the Corporation.”

Mr. Speaker, I cannot let this opportunity pass without making reference to the fact that the government has brought in time allocation. The way in which the government has treated this very important legislation has been absolutely reprehensible right from the very beginning.

In my speech at third reading, which will probably be next Tuesday, I will outline for the House, for the viewing public and most important for the western Canadian farmers exactly what has transpired over the last year and a half and how the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and the government have handled this very important issue.

In debate on the last group of motions the hon. member for Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington made some absolutely outrageous statements which cannot go unnoticed. He said that the majority of growers are satisfied with the status quo.

That was the statement he made which clearly shows the fantasy world Liberal members live in when it comes to the Canadian Wheat Board and how it affects the livelihoods of western Canadian grain farmers.

I will now discuss the motions in Group No. 6. There are six motions listed under Group No. 6, Motions Nos. 35 to 40, inclusive. I will primarily address Motion No. 40 which I put forward and which was supported by my colleague from the progressive Conservative Party.

One of the unique things about this is that the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board has accomplished the near impossible. This was referred to during the November debate of this bill at report stage. It was also referred to this morning by an NDP member. The minister has alienated almost every western farm group with the way he has bungled this issue from the very beginning. It is no small accomplishment to get everybody in western Canada angry with you, but he has managed to accomplish that.

I would like to pay some tribute to the farm organizations, some of which have banded together to form an ad hoc group called the coalition to fight Bill C-4. That is the level of intensity springing up across western Canada as farmers are trying to get this government to reconsider. I thank those groups for the time, energy and considerable expense they incurred to bring forth proposed amendments to Bill C-4.

It is unfortunate the government does not respect this contribution. This is obvious because these groups that represent the majority of grain producers were not consulted when legislation was drafted in the first place and because the Liberals rammed the legislation through committee, allowing minimal time for witnesses to testify. Then today they invoked time allocation to limit MPs' opportunity to properly debate these substantive amendments.

I assure those groups from both sides of the debate, those content with the status quo in the Canadian Wheat Board and those calling for significant change, that their efforts have been valuable and very much appreciated by me and my Reform colleagues. Their submissions and input have guided us in our approach to Bill C-4. I thank every last organization and individual who made submissions to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, wrote letters to MPs and called to express their views on this important legislation.

One of these groups came up with an ingenious amendment that seeks to meet the needs of all parties involved with the Canadian Wheat Board. This amendment provides voluntary opportunity for risk management. It allows other producers to maintain their exclusive use of the Canadian Wheat Board to market their grain.

I was so impressed with the amendment proposed by the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association that I thought all MPs should have the opportunity to debate it as an amendment to Bill C-4 in the House of Commons. It is known as the cash pricing option. I will guide members through it as outlined by the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association in the brief it submitted.

The proposed amendment to the Canadian Wheat Board Act would allow producers to forward price 25% of their wheat production. They would use the same recognized futures exchange used by the wheat board for pricing and hedging of prairie wheat, that is Minneapolis for spring wheat and Chicago or Kansas City for hard, red winter wheat.

The option would work in this manner. The producer would first commit to a deferred delivery contract or sell a futures contract for part or all of his 25% allotment. Sometime before the futures contract month becomes a cash month, the producer would deliver his wheat either to an agent of the board at a country elevator or to a landed basis location, that being a terminal or a processor.

Upon delivery of the wheat, the grain company holding the deferred delivery contract would give its futures contract to the Canadian Wheat Board. The Canadian Wheat Board would then buy back the futures contract and execute the cash side, that is sell the cash wheat to any customer it desires. The producer's settlement would be the futures price adjusted for exchange rate minus basis deduction from the Canadian Wheat Board. As well, the producer's settlement would be adjusted from base grade specs of the futures contract for grade, protein, moisture, and so on.

This cash pricing option would allow farmers to trade one quarter of their wheat in exactly the same way in which they presently trade canola, flax, rye and oats.

Under this proposal every farmer would have an equal opportunity to participate. Farmers who would forward price the maximum 25% are also taking on the risk that they may not get the best price. No one hits the market highs all the time. But farmers would have better ability to manage price risk and manage cashflow, especially in years when the initial price is set extremely low, like this year.

Farmers would gain assurance that they are getting the world price, and that is important for farmers who have become accustomed to dealing with the secretive Canadian Wheat Board. Many farmers are suspicious that the Canadian Wheat Board system does not deliver the world price.

The cash pricing option would have a number of other consequential benefits that the Liberals, if they would bother to pay attention, would find very attractive. The threat of border runs and civil disobedience that we have seen frequently would be reduced by allowing farmers access to the better prices they can see in the U.S. market.

As the Liberals struggle to put out fires in trade skirmishes with the U.S., this amendment would reduce trade irritants for the federal government by showing that Canadian grain coming into the U.S. is at world price.

All these advantages would be found, while at the same time single desk selling is maintained, reassuring those who favour this approach.

This amendment embodies the true spirit of compromise. It is a step in the right direction that boldly yet wisely seeks to progressively develop the western Canadian grain marketing system. Yet it also provides security to those who believe single desk selling is in their best interests.

I believe it is obvious that this amendment is worthy of serious consideration by all MPs in this House. While the opposition to the government's version of Bill C-4 has been loud and prolific from all sides of the issue, a group of Canadians has brought to us a mechanism with which to resolve a dispute. Producers are willing to give it a try. Members of this House should ensure they get that opportunity.

I have just enough time to wrap up by saying how appalled I am on behalf of all opposition MPs, as the agriculture critic for the official opposition in the House of Commons today, that this government would move to bring in time allocation again, as we saw it do so often in the 35th Parliament.

I cannot let it go without saying that I think western Canadian farmers are going to be watching this debate. I am sure they have watched with intense interest up until today. I think the move today to shut down debate with one day of debate for report stage remaining today and one day only for debate at third reading is absolutely reprehensible, and this government should certainly be embarrassed, if nothing else.

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

All they do is check the numbers.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 9th, 1998]

moved:

Motion No. 47

That Bill C-4, in Clause 36, be amended by deleting lines 6 to 21 on page 24.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to get up and address the group 5 amendments to Bill C-4, the Canadian Wheat Board Act.

At the outset of my remarks directed at the group 5 amendments, I would note that a lot of the comments we have just heard from the government side really indicate, as the member from Vancouver just indicated, how little the Liberals actually understand their own piece of legislation. I do not believe the comments over the past half hour indicate that they have even read the amendments we are supposed to be debating.

Indeed the parliamentary secretary, when he rose a few minutes ago, spoke for his 10 minute allotment and never once mentioned the amendments. All he did was rant and rail against Reform's trying to raise issues on behalf of Canadian farmers.

As with the other groups, there are a number of amendments in group 5, about 16 or 17. Obviously no individual speaker trying to address 16 or 17 substantive amendments to a piece of legislation can do them justice in a mere 10 minute speech. However, I will try to direct my comments at some and bring up some other issues about Bill C-4 that I feel are relevant.

One of the amendments contained in group 5 is Motion No. 22. This commits the Canadian Wheat Board to operating in the best interest of farmers. Previously the Canadian Wheat Board has simply been committed to orderly marketing. A lot of my colleagues remarked about that during their recent presentations today and the fact that it follows up on a previous amendment, I believe Motion No. 1, proposed by my colleague from Yorkton—Melville, which was to add a preamble to the bill that would kind of set the stage for the legislation itself and the fact that the Canadian Wheat Board Act should be there to operate in the best interest of the farmers who fall under the act. That would make sense.

Motion No. 22 put forward my me on behalf of the official opposition would do exactly that. It would require that the Canadian Wheat Board operate in the best interest of the producers, not necessarily just to conduct orderly marketing of grain, which might often be in direct conflict to what would be in the best interest of producers.

Also in group 5 there are a couple of other motions, 28 and 29, put forward by my colleague from Yorkton—Melville, which are also substantive amendments that go toward ensuring that the Canadian Wheat Board operates in the best interest of farmers.

I would like to digress for a moment and talk about a question of privilege I raised a while back that was ruled on by the Speaker. I am not here tonight, especially at this late hour, to debate, nor do I even have the right to debate, that ruling. I am quite willing to acknowledge that the Speaker ruled on that question of privilege, but I would like to raise the issue because I have had no opportunity up until now to reply to the minister's statements connected to that question. The minister's argument for holding a meeting in Regina and having farm groups come to it over the Christmas break was that he was merely doing the same as I and my Reform colleagues. He was merely exercising his MP right to consult with Canadians about a piece of legislation, which is completely understandable.

However, I submit that is simply hogwash. The farm groups that went to that meeting told me that he had no intention to consult on anything concerning the bill.

The intention was to talk about the election of the directors, how you would go about electing the board of directors. In other words, once Bill C-4 is enacted, is passed into law, there will have to be regulations brought forward, as there is for all legislation once it is passed into law. He was merely there to try and get input into regulations.

My point, and I still believe this is relevant, is how a minister of the crown could conduct himself in a fashion that would lead one to believe the bill is already law. We are not going to talk about amendments as to how many directors should be elected versus appointed. We do not want to talk about that. We want to talk about how to actually accomplish the election.

I do not think that is right, and I believe most farmers do not think that is right. That is why the majority of the farm organizations at that meeting walked out in total disgust. Another farm group, I believe it was the National Farmers Union, was protesting outside the building where the meeting was being held.

There is another point I would like to make in the time I have left. In the debate today on the Group No. 4 amendments, by my calculations 19 Reform members of Parliament, four Liberals, one Bloc and a couple of NDP spoke to those amendments. The hon. member from the Progressive Conservatives says that he spoke. He did, as I did. He spoke in November when we adjourned the debate on the Group No. 4 amendments. I was referring to today. I think my numbers are fairly accurate.

What we are saying on this side is not that the government members should not be speaking, should not be standing in their place and addressing the substantive amendments. We are saying that they should be. Only four of them spoke, and as I already noted, one of them, the parliamentary secretary, did not talk about the amendments at all. All he did was rant and rave against those darn Reformers, how dare they use up time actually talking about legislation. What a concept, that we are actually here in this place to talk about legislation. How dare we. It boggles the mind.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on for hours, but I believe I only have two and a half minutes left.

I will wrap up the last couple of minutes of my much too brief talk on Motion No. 32. What would Motion No. 32 accomplish were it to be passed? Were the hon. members actually to read it, to try and understand it, to try and understand where western farmers are coming from on this issue, and actually vote for an amendment based on common sense versus how they are told to vote, Motion No. 32 would have the Canadian Wheat Board come under the auditor general so that he could actually perform an audit.

Interestingly enough, on the front page of today's Hill Times there is a story on how the auditor general had been requesting to audit the new CPP fund that is going to be set up under Bill C-2. As well he wanted to audit the Canadian Wheat Board under Bill C-4. That is exactly what this Reform amendment would accomplish.

As well it would bring the Canadian Wheat Board under access to information so that there would be true transparency. Western Canadian farmers—quite a number of whom I might add reside right here in the Reform ranks—could see what the Canadian Wheat Board was doing. They could put forward access to information requests and find out exactly what decisions were being made by the Canadian Wheat Board. I believe that makes sense.

I believe that when it comes to the votes on the report stage amendments what we are going to find is that the trained seals over there—and they have already used that term tonight directed at themselves and I am merely agreeing with them—will vote down these substantive amendments without giving them any thought whatsoever merely because somebody over there has told them how to vote.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 9th, 1998]

moved:

Motion No. 34

That Bill C-4, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing lines 6 to 15, on page 10 with the following:

“ 10. The heading before section 18 and section 18 of the Act are repealed.”