Wayne Easter

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

Mr. Speaker, I tried to get up on a point of order and I might even have been out of order.

I do seriously believe that the allegation the member made is very serious and very wrong. I believe his heart is certainly in the right place in terms of fighting for farmers in the farm community, and I think he sees some good points in the Canadian Wheat Board as well. Probably he is not as in favour of it as I am, but he knows there are some very good points.

To accuse the Government of Canada of asking the Farm Credit Corporation, a crown corporation which operates with its own mandate, to push a farmer against the wall financially is a wrong allegation. I would ask the member if he has information to back up that allegation to table it. He is seriously wrong on that point.

The member raised the issue of salaries. The Canadian Wheat Board is a major $6 billion operation. It maximizes returns to producers. It is the paramount selling agency for producers around the world. It is a model which we should be emulating in other industries. I would ask the member what he sees as a legitimate level for administration expenses, including the salaries of board members.

The fact of the matter is that in 1995-96 in the pool accounts the administration expenses of the Canadian Wheat Board on $5.8 billion worth of sales were only .7%. That is a very efficiently run operation. To pull out figures like he is doing is absolutely going with the kind of rhetoric which Reform tends to go with.

What level does the member see as being efficient?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a quite an allegation when the member claims that the government asks FCC to send a bill—

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

Maybe the hon. member did not hear me correctly. These are groups and individuals calling for or supporting an inclusion clause during hearings of the House of Commons committee on agriculture. That is what we were talking about.

Maybe the member for Egmont could summarize what he said by explaining again, because they never heard him the first time, how he sees the board being more accountable under this new system under Bill C-4.

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

Madam Speaker, obviously with the questions coming from the other side, those members have not listened to what the chair of the committee and the hon. member for Egmont have said. Clearly they have not listened. If the rhetoric we hear from the other side in this debate is the same as they are telling producers, it is no wonder they are confused.

I have been fortunate enough to have followed this debate in the first hearings. We held hearings in western Canada. I was very fortunate to have attended those hearings. At them we had support for this bill, in particular the inclusion clause, from Canadian organic certification co-operatives, Canadian registered organic producers marketing, the Saskatchewan Catholic rural life ministry, the National Farmers' Union, the Canadian Wheat Board advisory committee, the Saskatchewan women's agriculture network, pro-Canadian Wheat Board campaign, the sustainable agricultural association, the Government of Saskatchewan, quite a list of individual presentations in support of the inclusion clause.

My question, because obviously the members opposite were not listening—

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

Madam Speaker, we have heard a fairly slanted view of history from the hon. member.

I would like to answer one question he raised at the end of his speech. He said where was the government the last six months. The government has been consulting, listening and meeting with producers on this issue since 1993. I happened to be on the last committee which held hearings in western Canada. That is where some of the changes came from.

The hon. member for Brandon—Souris began his remarks by talking about free enterprise. He believes in free enterprise and he believes in choice. Let me submit to him that if he believes in choice, why is he opposing the inclusion clause? That gives producers a choice other than the Winnipeg commodity exchange and the open market.

The fact is the Canadian Wheat Board is making the free enterprise system work to the advantage of Canadian producers. It is collective selling. In any market the lowest seller sets the price. The Canadian Wheat Board is ensuring that Canadian producers do not compete against each other in the international marketplace. As a result, the returns are pooled and the maximized returns are given to the producers. That is good marketing management. I am surprised that members opposite do not support good marketing management.

The member also talked about marketing techniques which the Canadian Wheat Board has not kept up. Nothing could be further from the truth. He lives in Alberta, but I do not know if he has ever been in the offices of the Canadian Wheat Board. It is marketing intelligence and marketing at its best.

Study after study has been done. The wheat board report talked about the additional $265 million per year in wheat revenue which the Canadian Wheat Board obtained for producers because of collective selling over what the open market would have brought in. That is good marketing. It is using techniques. It is using a war room in terms of marketing, finding out what its customers are doing and maximizing the returns to producers.

Would the member not agree that this bill, improved as a result of consultations and discussions, offers choice, both in terms of excluding and including crops? It offers the choice which he claims to support.

Does he also not agree that this bill puts producers in charge of their own destiny and in charge of their own industry?

Those are the kinds of improvements which came about as a result of committee hearings. If we look at the original Bill C-72 and compare it to Bill C-4 and its conclusions we will see that producers are now in charge when previously they were not. Would he not agree?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a question to put to the member that might clear up the last point of argument. The member opposite said that it was basically a communist proposal and asked why we do not turn everything over to the government.

Would the hon. member agree, whether it is hog marketing or grain producing, that producers have clearly shown that their choice is to market their product in this fashion? They have shown that time and time again.

What is happening over there is all smoke and mirrors. Farmers have clearly shown time and time again that they want this system of marketing, that they want the Canadian Wheat Board, that it is a paramount marketing agency. Would the member for Palliser agree?

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

The member asks why all the wheat board advisory members do not support Bill C-4. They all support the inclusion clause. There is a little difference of opinion on the advisory board in terms of whether some of the things in this bill would weaken the board.

The bottom line is that this bill, with the election of a board of directors and in offering more choice through the inclusion clause, puts farmers in charge of their own destiny. The party opposite should be supporting farmers' taking charge of their own destiny.

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

Madam Speaker, I do welcome the opportunity to speak on group 7 motions of Bill C-4.

This section of motions especially relating to the inclusion clause seems to have provoked a lot of yelling from Reform members. Sadly, their yelling is based on scare tactics and misinformation. Their comments are generating a lot more heat than light on the subject at hand, Bill C-4, and what it will do for the farm community. In their efforts to mislead western farmers, some members opposite have attacked me personally and where I live and what I produce. They do so on the basis that they believe I authored the so-called inclusion clause.

The fact is I did not author the inclusion clause. Western Canadian farmers authored the inclusion clause through the hearings that we held in western Canada last spring. That is who authored the inclusion clause. They demanded choice in terms of putting other products under the Canadian Wheat Board.

Members opposite talked about the member for Peace River. He said he was at some hearings. Yes, I will admit I saw him at some hearings. I was at them all. The members of the previous standing committee on agriculture were at them all. We heard what individual after individual farmer had to say to us in terms of wanting to strengthen the Canadian Wheat Board by having the opportunity through a democratic process to put more products under it.

There is no question why the vast majority of farmers want to see the Canadian Wheat Board strengthened and expanded. It is easy to see why they have such great faith in the Canadian Wheat Board, and I will turn to the study by Kraft, Furtan and Tyrchniewicz on a performance evaluation of the Canadian Wheat Board. They conclude in their study: “The results show that Canadian Wheat Board marketing averaged an increase to the wheat pool account of $13.35 per tonne, or $265 million per year for the 14 year period over what would have been realized by multiple sellers”. That is a pretty good performance, and that is what farmers want to see more often.

They believe strongly in the Canadian Wheat Board principles, single desk selling, price pooling, guarantee of prices and guarantee on borrowings by the Government of Canada.

Contrary to what has been said, what the inclusion clause allows is an opportunity for farmers with no choice currently but the open market to look at another option, that of single desk selling.

I was not surprised at all when the Winnipeg commodity exchange came before the agriculture committee which I was at and attacked this bill strenuously. Of course it would attack it, because when the open market fails and the Winnipeg commodity exchange fails, it does not want farmers to have a choice to go another approach of marketing, which is single desk selling through the Canadian Wheat Board. That is the reality.

The member for Peace River has said this many times as did the member from Prince George earlier. I quote the member for Peace River: “There is a growing mood that people want choice”. He talked about choice many times, and that is what the inclusion clause does. It puts farmers in charge of their own destiny through a democratic process. It gives them the choice of another option in terms of marketing. That is what farmers demanded during our committee hearings.

I have been called a potato producer so many times, although I do not grow potatoes, because I happen to currently live in Prince Edward Island. This impression they are trying to leave is because I am a strong supporter of the Canadian Wheat Board. Because I do not live out west they think I do not know anything about it. I would like any Reform member opposite to stack up against my list of staying at homes in western Canada over a 17 year period in community after community in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and B.C. and talking to farmers around the kitchen table.

When I went out west, first as president and organizer of the National Farmers Union, I to ask in my own mind why people so strongly supported the Canadian Wheat Board. What was this instrument that they had such great faith in? They talked about the history of how the grain companies used to rip them off and how the Canadian Wheat Board has been part of their salvation in terms of being one of the paramount marketing institutions in the world today since its beginning in 1935.

As a result of this, I studied that extensively. I spent time in the Canadian Wheat Board offices. I spent time in farmers' homes and I believe very strongly that there is very strong support. Votes on the Canadian Wheat Board have shown that there is strong support for the Canadian Wheat Board.

I am very proud to stand in the House, having served for 11 years as president of an organization mainly centred in western Canada, in support of the inclusion clause going into Bill C-4. That is what farmers demanded and when farmers demand something this government tries to act on it and give them that choice.

I want to speak on one other motion, Motion No. 46, the access to information request. The amendment under Motion No. 46 would require the Canadian Wheat Board to reveal far more information about its business transactions than does any of its competitors. The obligation to disclose commercially sensitive information would place the Canadian Wheat Board at a disadvantage when it negotiates contracts with international buyers.

Under this bill, the new board of directors will have access to any and all information it wishes to see concerning the Canadian Wheat Board operations and sales contracts.

There are other government operations that are not subject to the Access to Information Act. The Export Development Corporation, which is also involved in international trade, is an example. Producer elected directors will be able to decide what information could be released to producers without compromising Canadian Wheat Board operations.

I would like to point out that the Canadian Wheat Board has not been secretive. In fact, it has been very open. The Canadian Wheat Board is currently engaged in its annual grain day meetings where the commissionaires of the wheat board travel to towns across western Canada to meet with and answer the questions of farmers. The Canadian Wheat Board has a 1-800 service to answer farmers' questions. It issues a detailed audited annual report which is second to none. In fact, I asked at committee if we could such see a detailed audited annual report of the Reform Party. I have not seen that come forward yet. It is one of the most open annual reports of any organization. It has opened its books up completely to independent academics so they could evaluate the board's performance.

The farmer elected advisory committee members also have access to Canadian Wheat Board information.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member took out of context what was said by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans today. Clearly what the minister said was that there—

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member referred to me as a potato farmer. I am not a potato farmer. I was president of the National Farmers' Union and I spent 12 years in western Canada dealing with this issue. I do not like my name being taken in vain by this member.