Does anyone remember Feb 18 1998?
Liberals push CWB bill through; now in Senate
By Barry Wilson
Ottawa bureau
The federal Liberals on Monday night used their parliamentary majority to force an end to debate on the Canadian Wheat Board reform bill.
On Feb. 17 the bill went to the senate unamended. The senate will spend several weeks considering the bill.
At the last moment in the House, the Liberals offered a ompromise to prairie groups opposed to the "inclusion" clause which would
allow new grains to be added to board jurisdiction on the initiative of farmers.
Opposition MPs rejected the offer.
The Liberals proposed to amend the bill to eliminate the ability of farm groups to initiate a vote to include other grains under the board monopoly.
Only the government, with the voted support of farmers, could launch
such a vote. Farmers would have to agree in a plebiscite.
CWB minister Ralph Goodale said in a Feb. 16 interview the key was
that farmers remain in control of the process.
But in the end, Opposition MPs vetoed the proposed change. Because the Liberals left it to the last moment to compromise, they needed unanimous parliamentary support to proceed.
It was not available as the vote was held on Monday evening.
The Liberals guaranteed that by cutting off debate.
Goodale's compromise offer did not divert opposition anger from the government decision to cut off debate on the controversial bill.
A coalition of prairie commodity groups, opposed to the legislation
because it does not end the board monopoly, predicted that the decision by the Liberals to cut off debate on a western bill will be seen on the prairies as dictatorship.
"This will badly damage any chances the Liberals had to rebuild on
the prairies," Reform agriculture critic Jay Hill said in an nterview.
He said opposition arguments likely would have been completed after another three or four days.
"They are going to unleash a lot of criticism to save a few days of House time," said Hill. "And since the elections aren't going to be held until fall anyway, they really have until the end of June to pass this bill. What's the rush?"
The legislation will create a CWB run by a 15-person board of directors, 10 elected by farmers in a November/December vote. It will give the board flexibility to purchase grain at spot prices outside the pool and and end the government guarantee on initial price adjustments.
Goodale justified the decision to end the debate by insisting that after more than two years of discussion in the country and Commons debate, Reform arguments had become repetitive delaying tactics.
"The issue is the proper and expeditious management of time of the House of Commons," he said in an interview. "It's time for the House to take a decision. The basic principle here is that for farmers, democracy delayed is democracy denied."
Reform Party leader Preston Manning predicted the Liberals will pay a price for their decision to end debate.
"This bill is controversial," he said in an interview. "A lot of people want amendments. It may be considered smart politics in the short run to cut off debate but I think it will be bad agriculture policy in the long run."
Liberals push CWB bill through; now in Senate
By Barry Wilson
Ottawa bureau
The federal Liberals on Monday night used their parliamentary majority to force an end to debate on the Canadian Wheat Board reform bill.
On Feb. 17 the bill went to the senate unamended. The senate will spend several weeks considering the bill.
At the last moment in the House, the Liberals offered a ompromise to prairie groups opposed to the "inclusion" clause which would
allow new grains to be added to board jurisdiction on the initiative of farmers.
Opposition MPs rejected the offer.
The Liberals proposed to amend the bill to eliminate the ability of farm groups to initiate a vote to include other grains under the board monopoly.
Only the government, with the voted support of farmers, could launch
such a vote. Farmers would have to agree in a plebiscite.
CWB minister Ralph Goodale said in a Feb. 16 interview the key was
that farmers remain in control of the process.
But in the end, Opposition MPs vetoed the proposed change. Because the Liberals left it to the last moment to compromise, they needed unanimous parliamentary support to proceed.
It was not available as the vote was held on Monday evening.
The Liberals guaranteed that by cutting off debate.
Goodale's compromise offer did not divert opposition anger from the government decision to cut off debate on the controversial bill.
A coalition of prairie commodity groups, opposed to the legislation
because it does not end the board monopoly, predicted that the decision by the Liberals to cut off debate on a western bill will be seen on the prairies as dictatorship.
"This will badly damage any chances the Liberals had to rebuild on
the prairies," Reform agriculture critic Jay Hill said in an nterview.
He said opposition arguments likely would have been completed after another three or four days.
"They are going to unleash a lot of criticism to save a few days of House time," said Hill. "And since the elections aren't going to be held until fall anyway, they really have until the end of June to pass this bill. What's the rush?"
The legislation will create a CWB run by a 15-person board of directors, 10 elected by farmers in a November/December vote. It will give the board flexibility to purchase grain at spot prices outside the pool and and end the government guarantee on initial price adjustments.
Goodale justified the decision to end the debate by insisting that after more than two years of discussion in the country and Commons debate, Reform arguments had become repetitive delaying tactics.
"The issue is the proper and expeditious management of time of the House of Commons," he said in an interview. "It's time for the House to take a decision. The basic principle here is that for farmers, democracy delayed is democracy denied."
Reform Party leader Preston Manning predicted the Liberals will pay a price for their decision to end debate.
"This bill is controversial," he said in an interview. "A lot of people want amendments. It may be considered smart politics in the short run to cut off debate but I think it will be bad agriculture policy in the long run."