They talked about patronage and politics, freedom and choice, farming and criminals.
For two days in mid-November, opposition MPs led by the Reform party used two scarce days of parliamentary time to talk about flaws in the Liberal’s Canadian Wheat Board reform legislation.
More talking time will have to be allotted before the legislation passes into law.
As the debate wandered into unrelated topics, Liberal MPs complained that opposition speakers were wasting time and violating the House of Commons rules of relevance.
Opposition speakers struck back by noting several times that there were no, or few, Liberals in the Commons as the talking continued.
Read Also
Agriculture ministers agree to AgriStability changes
federal government proposed several months ago to increase the compensation rate from 80 to 90 per cent and double the maximum payment from $3 million to $6 million
It is a regular part of the parliamentary political games, debate delay and sporadic attendance by MPs during routine debates that do not change the course or content of legislation.
Yet the Liberal absence, including CWB minister Ralph Goodale, became a focus of some Reform press releases and a new campaign tool by CWB opponents.
The Canadian Farm Enterprise Network, a splinter group from Canadian Farmers for Justice, issued a statement in late November alleging that Liberal MPs had been “ordered not to listen” to the debate.
They said it was a sign the Liberals were shoving an unpopular act down the throats of western farmers without concern for public opinion or the contrary arguments. Claims that Liberals care about western opinion are a “charade,” the group said.
Two days not enough
Meanwhile, back in the Commons, the debate about the wheat board bill lasted seven and a half hours over two days and featured arguments over how much authority Ottawa needs over the board, whether the government can be trusted to make appropriate selections to fill the five of 15 board seats set aside for appointments and whether the Liberals are trying to railroad western farmers.
At one point, John Harvard, Winnipeg Liberal MP and parliamentary secretary to the agriculture minister, said the Reform speakers were not interested in debating the facts about the benefits of the wheat board and the reforms Liberals are proposing.
“Any time we try to bring facts to the debate, what do we hear?” he asked. “A whole lot of hollering from a bunch of yahoos.”
Saskatoon-Humboldt Reform MP Jim Pankiw responded: “Coming from a bunch of crooks, that is not a bad comment … .”
He was cut off by the Commons speaker and later withdrew the comment.
When the two days ended, many Reform party amendments remained to be discussed and at least two more days would be needed. Canada Pension Plan changes and Canada Post back-to-work legislation took precedent.
For Goodale, it was a clear case of opposition obstruction.
“The opposition has chosen to be quite difficult,” he said. “I understood they would let it through in two days. It did not happen.”
He said the government, if it has to, would be willing to cut off debate in order to get the bill through Parliament. However, cutting off debate on a key and controversial western bill could create a prairie public relations problem for the Ontario-dominated Liberal government.
Reform agriculture critic Jay Hill said there was no agreement to pass the bill in two days.
He also said there was no deliberate Reform decision to hold up the legislation, hoping to force the Liberals to shut off debate and to pay the political price. However, there was a decision by Reform MPs to prolong the discussion and to expand it beyond specific proposals.
“What we discussed in caucus was to raise the profile of the issue,” he said.
“The way it was rushed through committee, there was little opportunity for Reform MPs to represent their people. Since this is one of the few opportunities available, we want to be sure they address all the issues and not just the amendments.”
