Ralph Goodale

[Small Business Loans Act, February 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order pertaining to the votes we will take in a few minutes on Bill C-4.

There have been certain discussions among all the parties in this House about the possibility of removing from the draft bill those detailed provisions which deal with additions to or subtractions from the Canadian Wheat Board's current mandate on the condition that members consent to the tabling now of a new provision in the law that would ensure that no minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board could attempt to change the wheat board's existing mandate either to enlarge it or to reduce it without first having conducted a democratic vote among the relevant producers and also having consulted with the wheat board's new board of directors.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you seek the unanimous consent of the House to allow such a proposal, which I have discussed with each opposition critic, to be deemed to have been duly moved and seconded and ordered to be voted on along with all the other amendments we are about to consider in a few moments.

[Atomic Energy Control Board, February 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the control board is currently satisfied that Ontario Hydro's nuclear facilities are being operated safely, but it has called for significant improvements in management and operations to ensure that the required margins of safety will not be compromised in future.

At the request of the AECB, the chairman of Ontario Hydro will attend the next control board meeting, which is scheduled for February 19 in Ottawa. The public may be assured that the AECB will monitor the situation very closely. If there is any evidence to cause any source of concern, the control board will not hesitate to impose restrictions.

[Trans-Quebec And Maritimes Gas Pipeline, February 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the contract to which the hon. gentleman refers is one that was discussed amply with potential Canadian suppliers. It turned out, following those discussions, that there was not a supplier in Canada that was in a position to provide the material up to the necessary specifications.

On the general point about whether or not the Sable offshore projects will be an advantage to Canada, that was reviewed by an independent panel which concluded undoubtedly that the project would carry major benefits for the Atlantic region and for the entire country.

[Cape Breton Development Corporation, February 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the loud and vacuous antics of the NDP yesterday made it impossible to deal seriously with what is obviously a serious issue for the people of Cape Breton.

With respect to Devco let me simply quote what I said over two months ago to a Senate committee. One could only have a rational discussion about privatization vis-à-vis Devco once commercial viability has in fact been achieved. We are not yet to the point where commercial viability has been achieved and accordingly it is entirely hypothetical to contemplate the notion of privatization.

That is what I said before the Senate committee and the NDP should at least catch up with the Senate.

[Privilege, February 5th, 1998]

I went further when I appeared before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food to discuss Bill C-4 last October. I told the committee that I had consulted with farm groups about election methodology and I asked that committee the exact same questions that I asked the farm groups. So Parliament was fully informed and engaged and there was no complaint from the opposition for over three months.

The farm groups responded seriously and substantively both in writing and on January 21. I cannot help it if the Reform Party did not respond, even though it was specifically invited to do so through a parliamentary committee.

I will refer briefly to two remarks made on Tuesday by Reform members. The member for Peace River said: “The minister publicly stated that he wants the board of directors in place before this legislation has been debated properly on the floor of the House of Commons and passed”. In fact I have repeatedly stated the exact opposite. The board of directors cannot be in place. Democracy and accountability cannot be achieved for the Canadian Wheat Board unless and until Bill C-4 is finally debated and passed.

The member for Prince George—Peace River said: “I think it is high time that this House demonstrate to the ministers and their departments a little democracy over bureaucracy”. I agree. That is what Bill C-4 is all about, empowerment and democracy for prairie farmers. Surely a minister consulting with those farmers about how to get there is no question of privilege.

[Privilege, February 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in relation to an alleged question of privilege raised last Tuesday by the member for Prince George—Peace River pertaining to Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act.

Let me begin by expressing my appreciation to you, Mr. Speaker, for ensuring that on this alleged point the government side is heard in this House in response to the five interventions that were heard from the Reform Party.

I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that in relation to Bill C-4, there has been no contempt of this House nor any contempt for the office or the authority of the Speaker.

The ongoing discussion about how to change the Canadian Wheat Board has been under way both in this House and across the prairies for at least 25 years. It has been especially intense since the early 1990s when the former Mulroney government tried at that time to diminish the wheat board without reference to Parliament and without substantive consultations with farmers.

When I inherited those problems after the 1993 election, I was determined to follow proper procedures inside Parliament, especially in relation to that broad and often fractious western farm community within which there are deeply divided points of view.

The Reform Party of course has the opposition luxury of siding with only one side in the debate. As minister I have to try to build some consensus. One of my common practices in trying to do so is to consult extensively with interested stakeholders and to try very hard to keep them in the loop with ample information as events move along. Through Parliament and through countless public and private meetings, hearings, panels, letters, pamphlets, surveys, e-mails, faxes and the Internet, we have made an exhaustive effort to keep farmers up to date with what is going on with respect to wheat board changes, to answer their questions and most importantly to solicit their advice.

The straight forward meeting with farm leaders which I held on January 21 and which is the Reform Party's sole source of complaint in this alleged question of privilege was part of that open, inclusive and transparent effort to gain the benefit of producer input.

Surely it is ludicrous to suggest that a minister may not even meet with a broad cross-section of interested stakeholders to consult them on matters of vital importance to their livelihoods if a piece of legislation on the same subject happens at that moment to be before Parliament.

The rules do not say that ministers may only consult with the opposition or only with the groups of which the opposition approves. Similarly the rules do not constrain the opposition from meeting outside Parliament with any groups it may want to consult.

In his intervention last Tuesday, the member for Yorkton—Melville admitted that he had done just that the very next day after my meeting. The member for Portage—Lisgar has had meetings about the details of Bill C-4 and many other Reformers have done the same. Their extra-parliamentary meetings to discuss Bill C-4 while that bill is pending before this House are not a breach of privilege. They are not in contempt and neither am I.

Surely adequate consultation with stakeholders is completely consistent with and fundamental to the democratic process. It cannot be a legitimate source of complaint on either side of this House.

In what I have written or said about Bill C-4 in relation to my January 21 meeting or otherwise, I have tried to be crystal clear that the debate in this House is obviously ongoing and that the bill is not yet passed. I suspect that came as no surprise to farmers. If the details change, then there will have to be further consultations again. But in the meantime there is no gag order on any member of this House to prevent them or me from talking with farmers about what is being proposed.

The opposition has urged on a number of occasions that we implement the essence of the 1996 report of the Western Grain Marketing Panel. The essence of that report is a change in corporate governance to create a board of directors for the Canadian Wheat Board with the majority of those directors to be elected by farmers.

When I met with farm leaders on January 21, that is what we were talking about, how to do it right, how to respond to the essence of the panel report.

Last September I asked all the major western farm groups to give me their practical advice on this issue. Many responded with detailed written suggestions including the very right wing organization whose cause the Reform Party is now espousing in this alleged question of privilege.

[Cape Breton Development Corporation, February 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the rudeness of the member is rather startling.

The answer is a feasibility study is being conducted by a private sector firm on its own initiative and no decision will be taken by Devco or by this government until we get that information.

[Cape Breton Development Corporation, February 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, a private sector firm has made a proposal and is studying the feasibility of the concept. I have not received—

[Points Of Order, December 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the question from yesterday to which the hon. gentleman has just referred was a question directed to me in the House.

On that same point of order, let me say that I am very pleased to hear the member's apology in respect of Mr. Vollman. I am certain that Mr. Vollman is even more pleased that the record has been corrected and that there is no slur against his character or his reputation. I thank the hon. gentleman for having the courage to recant on this point. I hope that all hon. members will be very cautious when dealing with the reputations of people in this House.

[The Environment, December 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to tell the House that the Government of Canada is fully on track, not only to meet but likely to beat its commitment to cut greenhouse gas emissions from its own government operations. That commitment was to get to 20% below 1990 levels by the year 2005.

Based on our progress to date, total greenhouse gas emissions from federal facilities will be down 18% by the year 2000 and 27% by 2005.