by Garry Breitkreuz, MP (Yorkton-Melville) - January 12, 1998

The government’s legislation to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act (Bill C-4) is between a rock and hard place - no one likes it with the exception of Ralph Goodale and his bevy of bureaucrats who drafted the bill. The question is: Can the bill be salvaged? The answer is yes. But the government would have to do something unprecedented - start listening to farmers.

The answer is staring the Minister in the face. All he has to do is take a long hard look at the 48 amendments being proposed by all the opposition parties and ask his Liberal colleagues to adopt the most reasonable ones.

I was raised on a farm, I have been a farmer, and my family, friends and neighbours are farmers. Since entering politics in 1992, I have been listening to what farmers have been saying more closely than ever before. Ralph Goodale’s problem is that what farmers are telling him is not reflected in his amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act. If he had been listening, his plebiscite question would have asked, "Do you agree with the recommendations of the Western Grain Marketing Panel?"

Farmers aren’t telling me they want to get rid of the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB). But I have had hundreds and hundreds of farmers tell me they want more choices to market the grain they grow and they want the Wheat Board to be more accountable to producers. Prairie farmers particularly resent the fact that the government forces rules down their throats while farmers in the rest of Canada have the freedom to market their produce with little or no government interference. Bill C-4 is in big political trouble because it fails to give farmers what they have been asking for.

Here are some amendments worth serious consideration. I would sure like to know what grain producers think about these measures before the debate of this legislation gets going again in the House of Commons in February.

My first amendment would add a preamble to the Act, setting a framework for the legislation to follow. This ensures everyone knows exactly what is expected of the legislation, namely to serve the needs of producers, not the needs of politicians and bureaucrats.

My second group of amendments would change the object of the Act from orderly marketing to maximizing the financial return to producers. On October 28, 1997 Ralph Goodale, Minister Responsible for the CWB, said in the House of Commons, "...the Canadian Wheat Board in every market in the world extracts the very best price it can possibly get for the farmers of Canada." If the Minister honestly believes this to be true, then he should wholeheartedly support my amendment.

Currently, section 5 states that, "The Board is incorporated with the object of marketing in an orderly manner, in interprovincial and export trade, grain grown in Canada." I find it odd that the Act gives the Board authority to market grain grown in all of Canada but the government imposes its monopoly powers only on farmers in the prairie provinces. Why is a government monopoly good for grain growers in the west but not good enough to force on farmers in the rest of Canada?

At least, my amendments would make sure prairie farmers are getting the best return a government operated monopoly can get for them. As the Wheat Board Act is worded now, all they are guaranteed is orderly marketing, not the best prices!

My third amendment would allow producers to voluntarily exclude one or more types of grains they produce from control of the Act for a minimum of five years. This amendment protects every farmer’s rights and freedoms regardless if they hold pro- or anti-Wheat Board views. Those that support the status quo, don’t have to do anything. Farmers that want out can get out but they must stay out for five years and can only get back in by giving at least two years notice. This should give ample time for the Board to adjust their marketing plans and forecasts.

This opting-out clause also guarantees that the Board will be more accountable to the producers. As it stands now, if farmers aren’t happy with the way the Wheat Board operates all they can do is complain, and complain and complain. My amendment would give producers a real choice plus it protects the Board from future challenges under international free trade agreements and ultimately the Board’s destruction.

If the Board starts to see too many farmers opting-out, then they know they are not providing the service they promised. This would force the Wheat Board to operate just like any other business - either provide a quality service or lose your customers (in this case their suppliers). Not even the Auditor General could provide better accountability than this one amendment. Farmers tell me that competition improves performance. I think it’s time to find out who’s right, the government or the farmers.

My fourth and final amendment is what is commonly referred to as a sunset clause. It would require the Auditor General to examine the Wheat Board’s operations over a five year period to determine if the Board has met its first priority as described in my amended section 5, namely, "to secure the best financial return to the producers by marketing grain in an orderly and coordinated manner."

The real benefit of a sunset clause is that it forces the government and Parliament to revisit this legislation in five years to make sure it is still needed and that it is achieving the objectives established by Parliament. Seems like all legislation should have a sunset clause.

When the House of Commons returns after the Christmas break, Bill C-4 will be one of the first bills up for debate. The government still has time to do the right thing. Just once it would be nice to see democracy work for the benefit of western grain farmers. Now you know what I think, I need to know what you think.

Garry Breitkreuz, MP, (Yorkton-Melville)
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
Phone: (613) 992-4394 Fax: (613) 992-8676
E-Mail: breitg@parl.gc.ca