Wayne Easter

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 19th, 1997]

If members will just give me a chance I will explain why. It should be obvious. I cannot see why the other parties have fell for this line by the Reform Party which is just a strategy that over time, through legal challenges to the board, will in fact undermine the board. That is the real strategy here. Let us put it on the table and call a spade a spade.

Before I go too far with the Reform Party opposite, I do want to correct a matter that my friend, the hon. member for Frontenac, said. He talked about the commissioners who have been appointed to the wheat board over a number of years. He was fairly critical of those appointments. I think the record shows that the appointments by various governments of commissioners to the wheat board over time have been excellent in that the wheat board has always been able to return to producers the maximum that is in the market and most times has outdone the open market.

As far as the motion by the member for Yorkton—Melville, what does the preamble really mean? Let us be serious on this. How does it really stand up in law? We know in the past, and it is clearly on the record in many places, that the Reform Party has never been a strong supporter of the Canadian Wheat Board. It gives it lip service but it tries to undermine it at every stead. I believe it was last year when the barley producers were violating the laws of Canada that some of these members opposite were actually supporting those producers in terms of trucking barley across the United States in a law breaking venture.

How can we trust the Reform Party in terms of what it is really trying to do concerning this piece of legislation?

Maybe, as I said a moment ago, there is a subtle strategy at work here by the Reform Party in which it is trying to use a preamble to the bill to set the stage where the Canadian Wheat Board will be challenged legally time and time again. Look at the amendment. It reads “whereas, whereas, whereas”. Finally, in the “therefor” we get to it stating the exact same thing as the government is saying in terms of enacting the bill.

One usually uses “whereas” at a political convention for resolutions. We are not doing this for a political convention. This is a superior piece of marketing legislation for a marketing organization that has always stood by the farm community. This is legislation that empowers the Canadian Wheat Board and, through empowering the Canadian Wheat Board, it empowers the grain producers of western Canada to maximize returns in the marketplace with, of course, as we have done in the past, the backing of the Government of Canada in terms of guarantees on borrowing, credit guarantees, initial price guarantees and the authority to be a single desk seller and thereby be able to maximize returns to producers in competition to other players in the international marketplace.

Let us just take a moment in terms of the preamble and compare it to what has happened in the past with the wheat board. I turn to the Canadian Wheat Board 1995-96 annual report “Marketing for the Future”. In a corporate profile this is what it said:

The Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) is the marketing agency for western Canadian wheat and barley growers. The CWB markets these grains in the Canadian market to more than 70 countries around the world with the goal of attaining the best price possible.

That is what it says in its corporate profile now. It does not need to be said in terms of preamble to the legislation. Annual sales revenue ranges from $4 billion to $6 billion depending on grain prices and the amount of delivery by farmers.

This makes the Canadian Wheat Board the largest single wheat and barley marketing corporation in the world. Imagine that, marketing on behalf of Canadian producers with that kind of market power and market authority. All proceeds from sales less Canadian Wheat Board marketing costs are passed back to farmers. In that sense western Canadian farmers are the Canadian Wheat Board's only shareholders.

Let me again turn to the comments made earlier by friend from Frontenac when he was critical of those wheat board commissioners. We expect the new board will be able to do similar things.

A performance evaluation, which was also outlined in this wheat board report, indicates how well it has been able to do. That is why we need this kind of legislation, so that it can continue to do those kinds of things for western grain farmers. I quote: “A performance evaluation conducted during the 1995-96 crop year showed Canada ranks highly with its customers in such areas as quality of product, customer service, technical support and dependability of supply”.

On the point of the dependability of supply, if we went with some of the resolutions proposed by the Reform, you could not assure yourself, as a marketing agency of supply, because you would never really know what was happening with that supply area. With the kind of authority we have under the wheat board you can depend on that kind of supply and you can market intelligently, not just boom and bust, as the members opposite are basically saying we should do.

Another study study conducted by three economists showed that the Canadian Wheat Board's single desk system generates an additional $265 million per year in wheat revenue for farmers, thereby enhancing Canada's competitiveness. It also showed the Canadian Wheat Board provides a low cost marketing service to farmers.

This shows what the Canadian Wheat Board has been able to do in the past with appointed commissioners. This legislation, although giving farmers more say in terms of the management of the Canadian Wheat Board, sets the stage to ensure it has more say and the kind of authority to continue to market in that way into the foreseeable future.

Another point is how low, because of these efficiencies, the Canadian Wheat Board is able to keep its administration expenses, down to 0.7%. That is remarkable for one of the largest marketers around.

We cannot support this legislation because I think the Reform Party in this preamble is playing games. I am surprised the NDP and the Bloc and the Tories fell for these kinds of subtleties. Certainly these kinds of decisions are better left to the board of directors to decide what is in the producers' best interest rather than providing a heyday for lawyers bringing law suits that challenge the Canadian Wheat Board decisions as not being in the producers' interests.

That is the real game Reformers are playing. How many lawyers are over there in your camp anyway? I thought you were trying to represent producers here, not the legal community? That is what I thought but obviously that is what you are up against.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 19th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I must oppose this particular amendment to the preamble.

[Committees Of The House, November 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is the member reading the report or tabling the report? I think he is taking too long to table the report. He seems to be reading it.

[Euthanasia, November 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I might say on Bill C-4 that what we are trying to do is come up with a bill which producers have asked for. They continue to want us to be able to appoint the expertise in marketing that we did under the last bill.

Is there no depth to the disrespect for a political opponent to which the member for Brandon—Souris will stoop for cheap political gain? The member opposite has nothing of substance to say. He reverts to an attack on the character of the individual in an effort to belittle the individual Mr. Ron Fewchuk.

Although I am responding to this question on behalf of the government in my capacity as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Mr. Fewchuk happened to be my seatmate in the last Parliament.

Mr. Fewchuk as a member of Parliament was not loud nor bombastic. He did not use malicious comments to attract headlines like the member opposite is trying to do. He did not try to manipulate the media like the member opposite is trying to do. He held a quiet conviction and he did his job.

Mr. Fewchuk brings years of experience to the job of president and will serve the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation very well indeed. He is a skilled entrepreneur and former parliamentarian with diverse experience in business and local government. He has 18 years ongoing experience as a successful business owner-operator and 16 years experience as a commercial bait fisherman and outfitter. He has a long history of local leadership, including 15 years of elected service as reeve, deputy reeve and councillor of the rural municipality of St. Clements. He is well qualified.

[Lloyd Lockerby, November 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am most pleased to offer congratulations to Mr. Lloyd Lockerby who last week was inducted into the Atlantic Agricultural Hall of Fame.

Born in Hamilton, P.E.I., Lloyd attended Prince of Wales College, graduated from MacDonald College in 1938 and received the governor general's medal for top standing.

He was employed as an agricultural representative with the provincial department of agriculture and returned full time to the family farm in 1943.

Lloyd's successful prize winning beef operation consistently wins top placings at provincial, regional and national shows. His fox herd breeding stock, shipped worldwide, has become internationally known for its superior quality.

Lloyd's commitment to his community has been long and admirable. He served as leader of 4-H for 21 years, as president of Kensington Co-op, director of Amalgamated Dairies, as well as on several provincial boards.

My heartiest congratulations to Lloyd, his wife Jean and their family.

[Fisheries, October 31st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, as the government has moved forward in terms of getting its financial books in order we have had to make cutbacks in certain areas.

Conservation does remain a priority of the federal government in terms of the fishery. We have been able to do things in a fiscally responsible manner, maintain conservation and ensure that the hatcheries are there for the future because of the arrangements we have been able to work out.

[Fisheries, October 31st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it has been well known for some time that the Government of Canada would divest the fish hatcheries. We have done that after talking with the fishing communities.

In most cases fish hatcheries have been sustained by developing a partnership in some cases with provincial government and in some cases with fishery associations.

We are looking to the future in terms of continuing to utilize hatcheries and keep them operating through those kinds of partnership agreements.

[Vcn Marine Radio, October 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I want to inform the member that we are not closing the station but rather it will be operated from Rivière-au-Renard. There will be no change in the level of service to the fishermen in the area. In fact we have established that safety will remain a priority for those fishermen involved.

[Supply, October 23rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, when the member mentioned New Democrat I thought he really meant new. What we heard from the member for Acadie—Bathurst was similar to what we heard earlier from the member from B.C. It was rhetoric about the minister not going into the area.

I will have to establish those facts because the minister travelled extensively in the member's riding, meeting with fishermen, the Sea Coast Advisory Board, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for New Brunswick, the Maritime Fishermen's Union, the P.E.I. Fishermen's Association and the Nova Scotia fishing groups. He was down to the joint meetings on fisheries.

I would wager a guess that if the member does not know the minister was in the area maybe the minister has spent more time in Atlantic Canada trying to resolve the problems than the member has spent in his own riding, from the sound of things.

He talks about New Democrats. I would like to see them come up with new ideas and give us some proposals we could consider rather than the rhetoric they are throwing at us.

We moved on the EI issue to try to protect fishermen and the fishing communities, and we in fact have.

With regard to the motion today we on this side of the House have begun to bring forward a comprehensive national fisheries policy that demonstrates a real commitment to resource allocation and conservation. We have shown leadership on resource sharing with foreign interests. The turbot question is a prime example.

We are showing sensitivity to the individuals, families and communities that are affected. TAGS was an example. There were some problems but we were there when we were needed and we will continue to be there when we are needed in the future.

What new solution will the member propose rather than misrepresenting the real facts?

[Supply, October 23rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my mistake. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans met, as I said, with the senators of Alaska, Oregon and Washington state, with Secretary Daly and senior state departmental officials in Washington, with fisheries and environmental organizations, with Governor Knowles of Alaska, and the list goes on and on.

As we already know, this strong pressure from Canada goes right up to the prime minister. We have appointed special representatives who will report to the prime minister and to the president on this issue. The minister and the government have been fully engaged in efforts to resolve the Pacific salmon treaty dispute, doing everything we can within our power while the members opposite want to talk about political rhetoric. It amazes me.