Thursday, February 5, 1998
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CANADA VOLUME 135 S NUMBER 053 S 1st SESSION S 36th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Thursday, February 5, 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 3401 HOUSE OF COMMONS Thursday, February 5, 1998 The House met at 10 a.m. When I inherited those problems after the 1993 election, I was determined to follow proper procedures inside Parliament, espe- _______________ cially in relation to that broad and often fractious western farm community within which there are deeply divided points of view. Prayers 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 D (1000) to consult extensively with interested stakeholders and to try very hard to keep them in the loop with ample information as events [English] move along. Through Parliament and through countless public and private meetings, hearings, panels, letters, pamphlets, surveys, PRIVILEGE e-mails, faxes and the Internet, we have made an exhaustive effort MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD to keep farmers up to date with what is going on with respect to wheat board changes, to answer their questions and most impor- The Speaker: Colleagues, the day before yesterday the member tantly to solicit their advice. for Prince George—Peace River raised a question of privilege. In that question of privilege the Minister of Natural Resources was The straight forward meeting with farm leaders which I held on named. I asked the House to give me time to gather more January 21 and which is the Reform Party’s sole source of information and to hear—I hate to use the word rebuttal—but at complaint in this alleged question of privilege was part of that least a response from the Minister of Natural Resources. He is here open, inclusive and transparent effort to gain the benefit of with us now and I would like to hear what he has to say. producer input. D (1005 ) Surely it is ludicrous to suggest that a minister may not even meet with a broad cross-section of interested stakeholders to Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and consult them on matters of vital importance to their livelihoods if a Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr. piece of legislation on the same subject happens at that moment to Speaker, I rise in relation to an alleged question of privilege raised be before Parliament. last Tuesday by the member for Prince George—Peace River pertaining to Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board The rules do not say that ministers may only consult with the Act. opposition or only with the groups of which the opposition approves. Similarly the rules do not constrain the opposition from Let me begin by expressing my appreciation to you, Mr. Speaker, meeting outside Parliament with any groups it may want to consult. for ensuring that on this alleged point the government side is heard in this House in response to the five interventions that were heard In his intervention last Tuesday, the member for Yorkton—Mel- from the Reform Party. ville admitted that he had done just that the very next day after my I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that in relation to Bill C-4, meeting. The member for Portage—Lisgar has had meetings about there has been no contempt of this House nor any contempt for the the details of Bill C-4 and many other Reformers have done the office or the authority of the Speaker. same. Their extra-parliamentary meetings to discuss Bill C-4 while that bill is pending before this House are not a breach of privilege. The ongoing discussion about how to change the Canadian They are not in contempt and neither am I. 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 Surely adequate consultation with stakeholders is completely early 1990s when the former Mulroney government tried at that consistent with and fundamental to the democratic process. It time to diminish the wheat board without reference to Parliament cannot be a legitimate source of complaint on either side of this and without substantive consultations with farmers. House. 3402 COMMONS DEBATES February 5, 1998 Routine Proceedings In what I have written or said about Bill C-4 in relation to my departments a little democracy over bureaucracy’’. I agree. That is January 21 meeting or otherwise, I have tried to be crystal clear what Bill C-4 is all about, empowerment and democracy for prairie that the debate in this House is obviously ongoing and that the farmers. Surely a minister consulting with those farmers about how bill is not yet passed. I suspect that came as no surprise to farmers. to get there is no question of privilege. If the details change, then there will have to be further consulta- tions again. But in the meantime there is no gag order on any The Speaker: Colleagues, while the minister was making his member of this House to prevent them or me from talking with statement today, I heard cries from the other side that this was farmers about what is being proposed. debate. I myself did not think this was any more debate than the interventions of the other members in this matter. The opposition has urged on a number of occasions that we The points have now been put before me. Allegations have been implement the essence of the 1996 report of the Western Grain made by one side. Now we have heard the other point of view from Marketing Panel. The essence of that report is a change in the other side. As to the specific allegation itself, I want to review corporate governance to create a board of directors for the Cana- specifically what the member for Prince George—Peace River said dian Wheat Board with the majority of those directors to be elected in his question of privilege concerning the specific allegation. by farmers. Other opinions were presented to back it up and there may be some other facts that I want to take into consideration. I now have the When I met with farm leaders on January 21, that is what we minister’s statement. I have heard both sides. I will have a look at were talking about, how to do it right, how to respond to the all the material that is in front of me and I will come back to this essence of the panel report. House with a decision. Last September I asked all the major western farm groups to give Mr. Dick Harris: Mr. Speaker, in the minister’s long and me their practical advice on this issue. Many responded with exhausting preamble he referred to hardworking farmers who are detailed written suggestions including the very right wing orga- concerned about their livelihood as radical right wing factions. I nization whose cause the Reform Party is now espousing in this would ask that the minister with— alleged question of privilege. The Speaker: I see we are getting a little into the debate and I am sure that all hon. members will want to give me time to review D (1010 ) just exactly what has been said. For the time being we will let this sit. I will come back to the House with a decision. An hon. member: This sounds like debate now. _____________________________________________ An hon. member: That is debate. Hon. Ralph E. Goodale: I went further when I appeared before ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS 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 D (1015) and I asked that committee the exact same questions that I asked the farm groups. So Parliament was fully informed and engaged [English] and there was no complaint from the opposition for over three months. GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the The farm groups responded seriously and substantively both in Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, writing and on January 21. I cannot help it if the Reform Party did pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in not respond, even though it was specifically invited to do so both official, languages the government’s response to four peti- through a parliamentary committee. tions. 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 CANADIAN PARKS AGENCY ACT of Commons and passed’’. In fact I have repeatedly stated the exact Hon. Andy Mitchell (for the Minister of Canadian Heritage) opposite. The board of directors cannot be in place. Democracy and moved for leave to introduce Bill C-29, an act to establish the accountability cannot be achieved for the Canadian Wheat Board Canadian parks agency and to amend other acts as a consequence. unless and until Bill C-4 is finally debated and passed. He said: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to table on behalf The member for Prince George—Peace River said: ‘‘I think it is of the Minister of Canadian Heritage a bill entitled an act to high time that this House demonstrate to the ministers and their establish the Canadian parks agency which will modernize the February 5, 1998 COMMONS DEBATES 3403 Routine Proceedings framework for preserving, protecting and expanding national multi-denominational services.