Mr. Speaker, you have spoiled my fun. I was looking forward to correcting you on that. The name of my constituency changed from Vegreville to Lakeland and I am quite proud and delighted with this change.
I am also delighted that I can be here taking part in a debate on a motion like this regarding a change to the preamble, which was brought forth by the member for Yorkton—Melville.
I believe by bringing this amendment to the legislation before the House, he has initiated some very important debate on an extremely important issue. We need that and I am proud to be able to represent the farmers of Lakeland constituency and I believe beyond that to some extent on this extremely important issue.
Before I get started on my comments, I would just like to make a comment on the comments of the member for Hamilton—Wentworth. One of the comments he made was that a preamble is needed only if the legislation in unclear. He has got that right. This legislation is unclear.
We have asked for clarification. We have suggested clarification. We have put forth perhaps 30 amendments or more to try to clarify this legislation. Had the government done its job and had its members listened to farmers in the process, we would not have to do that. We would have clear legislation.
Unfortunately we do not, therefore we have to debate this preamble. In fact, one of the changes we called for was a change to section 5 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Section 5 is the part of the act that deals with who the board exists for. Section 5 says that the wheat board exists for the Government of Canada.
We proposed changes under Bill C-72. Bill C-4 is the reincarnation of Bill C-72. We suggested a change to section 5 so that it would clearly state in that section that the wheat board exists for the benefit of farmers.
This government has entirely refused to accept that change. I am upset by that. Farmers in my constituency are upset by that and this is a change we have to make to this legislation before it is passed. We know it will be passed somewhere down the road.
We will do everything we can of course to see to it that this bill does not pass because it is unacceptable. I want to get right to the group of amendments that we are debating here, which is the preamble. It was presented by the member for Yorkton—Melville.
I hear the member for Malpeque across the floor shouting some comments again. I want the record to show that it was that same member for Malpeque who refused an emergency debate on ending the postal strike just a few minutes ago in this House. I think that is intolerable.
We should not have a postal strike in this country, but I digressed. Let the record show that it was the member for Malpeque who in fact refused that this House allow that debate.
Back to the group of amendments that we are debating. What this group of amendments does is state clearly that the wheat board exists to maximize profits to grain farmers in western Canada. That is what this group of amendments will do and that is important because the current wheat board act does not state that.
In fact, it states clearly that the wheat board exists for the pleasure of the Government of Canada. I want to talk a little about that because there are some very important points to be made. We cannot assume that the wheat board will always do what is in the best interests of farmers.
I will go through a bit of history in the little time I have to demonstrate that very clearly.
I will start before the turn of the century. To market grain for our farmers, we had a series of co-operatives spring up. The Grain Growers was the first co-operative which became the United Grain Growers down the road with several amalgamations. The purpose of the growers was to maximize farmers' profits.
Later we had the prairie pools come in, Saskatchewan and Alberta. The purpose of those organizations was a little different. It was to maximize profits but also to share profits equally amongst members, to pool, to do what the wheat board now does. This was the purpose of the first prairie pools, to pool profits. Something else other than just maximizing the individual profit of a farmer came into the situation.
When we look a little farther down, in the late twenties what happened was the prairie pools were getting into trouble with their pooling. At the same time as holding back grain from market, hoping the prices would rise, the pools also speculated on the Winnipeg commodity exchange. Because of that they got into severe economic difficulty and went to the Government of Canada for a bailout. The bailout was the first version of the Canadian Wheat Board. Even the first version of the Canadian Wheat Board was not a monopoly. Farmers had a choice, which is exactly what we are calling for.
One of the important cornerstones of the pools was for farmers to have a choice. There would be no mandatory pooling in any grain or within the members of the co-operative, no mandatory pooling. That was something carried over to this first wheat board.
It was during the war to help with the war effort. I think it was somewhat justified although some people including people who became very important members of the Liberal cabinet later, like Mitchell Sharp, said that it was debatable whether the monopoly should have been put in place. There certainly was debate about that from Mitchell Sharp. In a book he wrote quite recently he condemned the monopoly of the wheat board staying in place after the war. He was somewhat less judgmental of the board during the war. Even important Liberals in the not too distant past have opposed this monopoly for the board.
Clearly the mandate of the Canadian Wheat Board during the war was not to maximize profits for farmers. The mandate was to get grain for the war effort at affordable prices. That was clearly the mandate.
Until the end of the war most Canadians, even a lot of farmers, were willing to tolerate that. Farmers care about this country. They were willing to do their share to help with the war effort, more than their share. That is so true.
After the war the monopoly was maintained for five years. Canadian farmers lost hundreds of millions of dollars through the maintenance of this monopoly. They had no choice but to market through the monopoly, and again, it was to help the war effort. Yet the burden was not spread amongst all members. After the war farmers paid a dear price for the board not having the express goal of maximizing profits. That was intolerable.
This monopoly was enshrined in the seventies into the wheat board act. Since then we see that there is nothing that states the purpose of the board is to maximize farmers' profit in the act. That is why this preamble is so important. It is not enough. We need it clearly stated in the wheat board act itself that the reason for the wheat board existing is to maximize profits. This legislation does nothing to help that situation.
I would like to close on a comment on what the debate is in western Canada. The debate is not whether we keep the board or not. A vast majority of Canadian western farmers want the board.
However, they do not want the monopoly. They want the freedom to choose whether they market through the board or around the board through their grain company or on their own to a customer, whether the customer be in Canada or somewhere else in the world. That is the debate. Polls have shown that a majority of western Canadian farmers favour giving farmers a choice in marketing grain.
These polls have been tabled at committee and are available. The proof is there. What we must do with this legislation is amend it so that farmers have that choice, a choice which I think is given to people in all other businesses, and the ability to choose whether they want to market through this government institution or in some other way.
I am looking forward to the rest of the debate on the amendments to Bill C-4.
