CANADA VOLUME 135 S NUMBER 061 S 1st SESSION S 36th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Tuesday, February 17, 1998 Speaker: The Honourable Gilbert Parent CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) All parliamentary publications are available on the ``Parliamentary Internet Parlementaire'' at the following address: http://www.parl.gc.ca 3975 HOUSE OF COMMONS Tuesday, February 17, 1998 The House met at 10 a.m. Radio Television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, has refused to license religious broadcasters but has at the _______________ same time licensed the pornographic Playboy channel. Prayers The petitioners beg parliament to review the mandate of the CRTC and direct it to administer a new policy with respect to _______________ religious broadcasting. EMERGENCY PERSONNEL ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am D (1005) pleased to present a petition signed by a number of Canadians including people from my riding of Mississauga South. [English] The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that police ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS officers and firefighters are required to place their lives at risk on a daily basis, and that employment benefits for them do not often Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President provide sufficient compensation to the families of those who are of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to killed in the line of duty. Also, the public mourns the loss of police table on behalf of the government several order in council appoint- officers and firefighters killed in the line of duty and wishes to ments. support them in a tangible way when their families are in a time of * * * need. The petitioners therefore ask Parliament to consider the estab- GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS lishment of a public safety officers compensation fund for the Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President benefit of families of public safety officers who are killed in the of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to line of duty. table the government’s response to some petitions. * * * * * * QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER [Translation] Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Parliamentary Secretary to President INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand. Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed? pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to table, in both Some hon. members: Agreed. official languages, the report of the Canadian section of the International Assembly of French-Speaking Parliamentarians, as _____________________________________________ well as the financial report of the meetings of the IAFSP executive, held in Pointe-à-Pitre, Guadeloupe, December 14 and 15, 1997. GOVERNMENT ORDERS * * * [English] [English] PETITIONS CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT CRTC Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.) Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr. moved that Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Speaker, I have a petition from residents in my riding of Eston, Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read Saskatchewan. They draw attention to the fact that the Canadian the third time and passed. 3976 COMMONS DEBATES February 17, 1998 Government Orders He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to open this third a global market share for Canada that is close to 20%. Strengths reading debate on Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat like a reputation in the eyes of our customers for being the very Board Act, a set of proposals which will bring about the biggest best in the world in terms of intrinsic quality, cleanliness, consis- changes in the Canadian Wheat Board in more than 50 years. tency, technical support, dependability, contract execution and customer service. Strengths life verified price premiums in many markets and operating costs as low as a nickel per bushel. The great public debate about western grain marketing has been ongoing across the prairies for at least 25 years. Some would say even longer. It reached a high boil in the early years of this decade In aggregate terms, it is an operating structure that costs less per after the Mulroney government attempted to diminish the CWB year than the amount of money the Canadian Wheat Board earns on through a combination of benign neglect, sabotage and mandate its annual interest rate savings because its credit rating is so strong. reductions without parliamentary authorization and without any meaningful consultation with farmers. This was the situation that Bill C-4 also responds to a strong desire among farmers for our government inherited when we came to office at the end of Canadian Wheat Board modernization and change. It democratizes 1993. the wheat board’s governance. It deepens the wheat board’s accountability. It enhances the wheat board’s flexibility, creating more options and speeding up cash flows. It empowers producers D (1010) with greater control over what their marketing agency does and does not do. Our first 18 months in government were devoted to successfully That is what Bill C-4 is all about, putting farmers in the driver’s defending Canadian grain trade against unwarranted attacks from seat like never before. It follows close to three years of sincere south of the boarder. Then in the summer of 1995 we set up the effort to try to accommodate competing points of view. western grain marketing panel to bring some focus to a prairie grain marketing argument that was generating far more heat than light. The debate has been intense, and that is not surprising. It is perfectly normal for farmers and farm organizations to hold strong views about grain marketing legislation and to express themselves This was the commencement of a consultative process which vigorously. That is their right. was probably the most exhaustive and exhausting in the history of the western grains industry. Countless meetings, hearings, semi- But it is regrettable that some totally extraneous lobby groups, nars, surveys, focus groups, questionnaires, votes, pamphlets, non-farmers in effect, have attempted to pervert the legitimate petitions, faxes, e-mails, Internet messages, personal and public debate about Bill C-4 with a grossly irresponsible disinformation letters and good old-fashioned phone calls. More people had more campaign. The worst has been the national citizens’ coalition, a opportunity to participate in this very public and transparent non-farm group of well heeled right wingers led by a fallen process than ever before, and literally thousands did so. Reformer who wouldn’t know a bushel of barley from a bucket of rice. It has spent tens of thousands of dollars disseminating false All the advice we received was valuable, but much of it was and misleading propaganda. conflicting. The most vocal participants in the debate exposed sharply polarized views among different groups of farmers with D (1015 ) little scope for consensus in between. What some would consider basic marketing freedom others regarded as a policy straight-jacket and vice versa. The NCC’s latest ideological abuse has been an absolutely indecent attempt to link the Canadian Wheat Board to the intern- ment of Japanese persons during the second world war. That notion The most extreme lobbyists typically argued for government to is utterly abhorrent. It betrays the NCC’s true intent and that of listen only to them, that only their views were worthy of consider- those who would associate with the NCC in a mindless crusade, ation and all others should simply be ignored. But government does financed handsomely in secret to destroy the Canadian Wheat not have that luxury. Board and to settle for nothing less. Bill C-4 represents an honest attempt to find some reasonable The NCC’s tactics try to make a virtue of knee-jerk extremism common ground. It safeguards our grain marketing strengths. and intolerance. I have no intention of dignifying its allegations Strengths like the shear size and marketing clout to go toe to toe with any reasoned response. with the biggest and toughest in 70 countries around the world and to come out a winner for Canada. Strengths like being a $6 billion Where I do want to concentrate is on those legitimate questions enterprise, this country’s fifth largest exporter and Canada’s big- which come from genuine farmers who want to know what Bill C-4 gest net earner of foreign exchange. Strengths like the ability to will mean to them. I have compiled a list of such questions, about transform our 6% or 7% of global wheat and barley production into 10 or so, to which I want to respond in full detail. February 17, 1998 COMMONS DEBATES 3977 Government Orders Question one: Will the Canadian Wheat Board become more to create their own internal audit committee just like any private accountable to farmers? The answer is emphatically yes. sector company. For the first time in its history the Canadian Wheat Board will be The argument has been made by the Reform Party that the run by a board of directors. There will be 15 directors in total. auditor general should replace Deloitte & Touche as the CWB’s Farmers will take control over their marketing agency by directly auditor. That is a bit of a strange twist since such an arrangement electing 10 of those directors, a two-thirds majority. The elected would link the CWB closer to government, which is a complete directors will reflect the views of farmers in CWB decision contradiction of the Reform Party’s basic philosophy.