House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2019, with 41% of the vote.
Canadian Wheat Board Act November 20th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the member would refer to the point of order, he would recognize very clearly that the points he is raising are not on the topic in terms of Motion No. 1.
This ridiculousness can be carried too far. This member is filibustering and he is not even on topic.
Canadian Wheat Board Act November 20th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This member is far off base in terms of talking about Motion No. 1. He should be talking about what the motion is about. What does this have to do with Motion No.1?
Canadian Wheat Board Act November 20th, 1997
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier there was a question from a member of the Reform Party directed to the member for Essex—Kent with reference to the export licence for wheat and barley. I have a copy of that export licence and I would like to table it.
While I am on my feet, in terms of transparency of records, I refer members opposite to the Canadian Wheat Board annual report which clearly shows the wheat board has obtained—
Canadian Wheat Board Act November 20th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that it was not the Liberal Party. It was a request from the producers themselves calling for national products marketing agencies and these requests were abided by in terms of living up to the wishes—
Canadian Wheat Board Act November 20th, 1997
The most changes in its history.
Canadian Wheat Board Act November 20th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, with respect to this point of order, the hon. member was not talking about the specific certificates. He was talking about the fact that the Canadian Wheat Board has to authorize those export certificates for other areas.
Canadian Wheat Board Act November 20th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The member for Athabasca seems to be referring to me. I am Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and I am a beef and grain producer from Prince Edward Island.
Canadian Wheat Board Act November 19th, 1997
Madam Speaker, much more pleasant in any event to address my remarks to the Chair.
In closing I want to say that this piece of legislation is here in the best interests of producers. We have had the hearings. I have said three times that this preamble to the legislation is a very subtle way in which the Reform Party is really trying to undermine the real future of the Canadian Wheat Board.
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.