Debates of Nov. 2nd, 1994

Questions On The Order Paper

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

With respect to the World Cup Soccer games and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), ( a ) did CBC submit any bid for TV broadcasting in Canada for the 1994 games, (i) if yes, how much did it bid, (ii) if no, why not and ( b ) will CBC commit itself to compete for broadcasting rights in Canada for the 1998 World Cup soccer games?

[Michel Dupuy, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

(a) no; (ii) the CBC did not bid for any of the 1994 World Cup soccer games because its summer schedule was already very heavily committed to sports, particularly the 100 hours of coverage from the Victoria Commonwealth Games; (b) at this point it is too early for such a decision.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary has been answered.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Shall the remaining questions stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motion For Papers

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the notice of motion for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The parliamentary secretary requests that the notice of motion be allowed to stand. Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-50, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, as reported (with amendments) from a committee.

Canadian Wheat Board Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

Here is the Speaker's ruling on Bill C-50. Five motions in amendment are listed in the Notice Paper at the report stage of Bill C-50, an Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act.

Motions Nos. 1, 4 and 5 will be grouped for debate and voted on separately. Motions Nos. 2 and 3 will be debated and voted on separately.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1, 4 and 5 to the House.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

moved:

That Bill C-50, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 10, on page 2, the following;

"(1.1) The Board shall recommend to the Governor in Council a rate to be fixed for deductions pursuant to subsection (1) after consultation with persons or organizations that in the opinion of the Board represent the holders of certificates and the Governor in Council shall take into consideration the recommendation of the Board in fixing a rate for deductions pursuant to subsection (1)."

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

moved:

That Bill C-50, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 43 to 46, on page 3, with the following:

"by giving notice in the application for a permit book for the period that no deduction should be made for the period."

[Vic Althouse, NDP, Mackenzie, SK]

moved:

That Bill C-50, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 14 to19, on page 4,with the following:

"33.5 A deduction fixed by the Governor in Council shall apply at the same rate to all holders of certificates in the designated area."

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the two amendments that we propose regarding Bill C-50, an Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, are cautionary measures. Indeed, some protection must be provided to agricultural producers.

The purpose of the bill is to allow the Canadian Wheat Board to make deductions from wheat and barley producers' final payment cheques. The purpose of these deductions, or check offs, is to finance plant breeding research. Contributions will be made on a voluntary basis.

Since the bill meets the expectations of western producers, we can only applaud this initiative which imparts a responsibility to agricultural producers. However, some provisions deserve a closer look and we should even be prepared to amend those if need be. This is the case with the provision concerning check offs for research.

The initial provision provides that the Canadian Wheat Board shall, with the approval of the Governor in Council and at such rate as is fixed by him, make the deduction. The danger with this provision is that the Governor in Council may unnecessarily increase the deduction and reduce the federal government's own research budget, thus forcing producers to shoulder a heavier burden. In that case, agricultural producers would have to make a greater contribution to research funding.

Based on the original rate, that is 40 cents on each tonne of barley sold and 20 cents on each ton of wheat sold, and based on the assumption that 90 per cent of farmers will voluntarily participate in this funding scheme to promote research and development, contributions should total $4.5 million.

The Canadian government currently provides between $17.4 and $17.5 million. Consequently, a total amount of about $22 million could be allocated to research on wheat and barley in the four western provinces. Again, my fear is that cabinet might decide to increase farmers' payments and lower the federal government's contribution. Should that happen, farmers would have to fund a greater proportion of the research and development budget. I may recall that in a speech made here in the House, Eugene Whelan, a former Liberal Minister of Agriculture, who has made quite a name for himself throughout the world, said that there is a return of seven dollars on every dollar invested in research and development in the agricultural industry.

The government should invest now in research and development, because no bank in Canada will give us a better return on our investment. The government could, of course, take advantage of this opportunity to cut its research budget as a deficit reduction measure, in the knowledge that it can tap the incomes of grain producers for the funding it needs.

To preclude this possibility, we in the Bloc Quebecois suggest that the CWB conduct consultations with individuals and organizations that represent certificate holders so that the board itself can make recommendations on the rate of deduction to the Governor in Council, who would then consider such recommendations when the time comes to fix the rate as provided in subsection (1) of the Act. In addition to providing safeguards for producers, this would also benefit consumers who, in the end, have to pay, because if the producers have to spend more on research, consumer prices may very well be affected.

This amendment will require genuine consultations with the principal parties, people in the industry who are in the best position to know what a reasonable deduction would be and what our research and development needs are. In any case, I may remind the House that farm producers in the four Western provinces are entirely free to say yes or no to this voluntary deduction, which will be used to collect $4.5 million for research and development. Should the Governor in Council start throwing his weight around, I assume farm producers will simply decide not to participate.

The amendment also gives producers some say in determining the amount of the deduction, and since this bill is a response to their initiative, it is entirely fair that this should be the case.

We are aware that the Canadian Wheat Board, an agency established to defend the interests of producers, consults producers on decisions as important as setting the deduction rate. But this is only to make it automatic and include it in Bill C-50.

I would go as far as saying that our amendment proposal will give the Canadian Wheat Board enhanced legitimacy vis-a-vis the Governor in Council, as it should be the case on the issue before us today.

My proposal is clear: to allow those who are the most qualified to set the rate of deduction do so. These are my arguments in favour of Motion No. 1 and I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleague from Lotbinière, who sits with me on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, for seconding Motions Nos. 1 and 2.

Now, turning to the famous Motion No. 4 put forward by the hon. member for Vegreville, it is important to note that this motion introduces two significant changes to Bill C-50. First, we eliminate the red tape and make life easier for producers.

I imagine that the situation is no different in Western Canada than in Quebec. In my riding, indeed everywhere in Quebec, producers and voters ask us ten times a week: "Why make things so complicated?" This is one such case. When it comes to withdrawing from the deductions plan, why make life difficult for our farm producers? What my colleague from the Reform Party, the hon. member for Vegreville, is proposing here makes a lot of sense. It will cut the red tape.

Motion No. 4 deals with the procedure for opting out of the voluntary deductions plan to support research. The bill provides for filing a separate notice to withdraw from the program, whereas it is suggested here that this notice be given in the permit book that producers have to fill in when they sell their crop to the board. There should be space provided at the bottom; you check off one or two boxes and there you have it.

This makes life easier for producers who do not wish to contribute to research, and spares doing unnecessary paperwork. But there should be a space provided specifically for this purpose inside the book, in order not to make life unduly difficult for the board.

I would like to conclude by saying that, with this amendment, producers will have to decide whether or not to continue contributing to the research fund at the wrong time of the year. That is to say, when they see their income for the year. But since this is the risk you take with a voluntary contribution plan, I will vote for this amendment.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the three amendments in the first package today, amendments 1, 4 and 5.

I will start with amendment No.1 which puts in this bill a requirement for consultation with the people who would be affected by research done with the money collected through this fund established by the Canadian Wheat Board.

There is need for consultation. Certainly my concern with that amendment is that by putting it in the act it may lead to more consultation than is necessary. I say that because in this case the check off is refundable. Because of its refundable nature I suggest that when the research foundation is setting the level of funding it should be careful to make sure that the level is reasonable.

Because of the refundable nature I think this amendment is not needed and may cause a lot of extra bureaucracy beyond what is necessary. For this reason I do not think I can support this amendment, although I do recognize the need for consultation.

Another concern is that it still leaves the power to make the decision in terms of the level of the check off in the hands of the governor in council. The power should be left strictly in the hands of the Western Grains Research Foundation, the organization that will allocate the funding for research. For that reason I cannot support that amendment.

Amendment No. 4 is the Reform amendment which, as the Bloc member has stated very clearly and very well, would simplify the process that farmers would have to go through in order to get a refund for their research funding.

This amendment would put on the permit book application form, which every grain farmer receives every year, another box and require the farmer to check off the box if they want to get a refund on their check off for this particular year.

Some argue that it is really not a problem for a farmer to write a letter for a check off. As a grain farmer I know that farmers are inundated with stacks of letters and requests, a tremendous amount of book work they do not ask for. This would just be another piece of paper, another duty, another responsibility, another process they would have to go through to do business. I think there is far too much government interference right now. Certainly farmers would appreciate this simplification of the process. I believe simplifying the process of refund would be very worthwhile in this bill.

Amendment No. 5 put forth by the NDP is really asking for the wheat board to have complete control to interfere with check offs that are presently in place. For example, right now the western barley growers have a refundable check off through the Alberta Barley Commission. Barley farmers selling barley in Alberta already have a check off in place. This amendment would require that the people selling barley would have a check off by the wheat board as well as by the Alberta Barley Commission. For that reason it would cause a double check off or would cause the barley growers to give up their check off.

It is a general Reform principle that the closer to the people one can put decision making, the better the decision will be. In this case I believe it would be better to leave it in the hands of the barley producers in Alberta, just as an example, instead of requiring that all the check offs are done through the Canadian Wheat Board.

I cannot and will not support this amendment because it is just another move to put the power in the hands of this huge bureaucratic monopoly. I can in no way endorse that. Leave it in the hands of the Alberta Barley Commission for example.

I will leave my comments at that. I certainly look forward to speaking on this bill again at third reading.

[Vic Althouse, NDP, Mackenzie, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this grouping of amendments.

One is from the member for Frontenac. He proposes to set up a group with whom the wheat board would consult before setting the rate of the deductions that are provided for under this act. I commend the hon. member for his concern about consultation. However I remind him and the House that there is a group that provides consultation and advice to the board now. It is the advisory committee and the board would be asking for that group's advice.

The board will also be asking for advice and recommendations from the Western Grain Research Fund. It makes certain there is no duplication in the research efforts that go into plant breeding and the research programs that gravitate around plant breeding, whether it is to establish what methods and levels of fertilization should be utilized or what genetic changes should be searched for in order to avoid disease and to get better productivity and yields and to come to fruition in a shorter growing period.

Therefore there is in place already the kind of organization the hon. member for Frontenac envisions. I am sure it will be put to that purpose.

With regard to Motion No. 4, essentially the member for Vegreville is proposing to make it fairly simple for people to opt out of paying into this program. I have no personal problems with that. I would remind the hon. member that if he is going to support the idea of raising money for research through check offs that asking people if they want to save some money when they are applying for their permit book will almost always get the response: "Of course I want to save some money. I will not bother allowing the check off to occur". It will depend on how that part of the application form is drawn to the farmers' attention as to whether they do or do not decide to participate in the check off.

My motion proposes that a deduction fixed by the governor in council shall apply at the same rate to all holders of certificates in the designated area. First there should be a little bit of translation as to what that means.

Holders of certificates are people who are eligible for a final payment under the wheat board for the four pools that exist for various types of barley and wheat. These are people who will have a final payment accrue to them at the end of the crop year when there is a surplus that has accrued from the sales and marketing activities of the wheat board. That surplus is distributed on the basis of how many tonnes of each grade and variety the farmer delivered.

This act is proposing to take a certain amount from each of those pools which would go into specific research which would be designated and allocated by the Western Grain Research Fund. This works in conjunction with the other granting agencies which set out the programs that will receive public funding for research, whether it is for plant research as in this case, or for engineering or other disciplines throughout the country.

I am proposing this motion because the act as written now permits some parts of the wheat board designated area, which for those who do not know what that is, it is essentially the prairie region plus the mountain valleys and the valleys running into Thunder Bay in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. It is essentially the northern end of the great plains region. The climate and the soil and the farming technique there is such that most of the varietal research that will be done will be only applicable to that region. Therefore the plant varieties we develop for that region are usually of no application to regions in the rest of Canada. It is a nice, clear cut area whose economic interest in the area of plant breeding is basically the same.

The province of Alberta has decided to take a check off for barley and some types of wheat. That exists and is possible under provincial legislation. It is Alberta's constitutional right to do so. If we are going to take an action as a federal Parliament with a federal program, it should apply to all of the area the program is designed to cover. There should not be written into the law the ability for some regions to opt out. If some regions want to use their powers under the Constitution to do a similar thing, so be it.

We have plenty of examples of how that has been applied. For instance, when the GST was applied it was applied at the same rate right across the country, even though it was a tax on consumer goods and some of the provinces already had consumer taxes on consumer goods. However there was no recognition that because for example Newfoundland had a 9 per cent provincial sales tax that we would not bother to collect it in Newfoundland because those taxpayers were already contributing to the tax system in Newfoundland.

I think it is inappropriate for us to put forward federal legislation that will apply to all of the wheat board designated region that covers as I said basically the northern plains of North America. That is a very concise and well-defined region that has very clearly defined needs because of climate, geography and agrology for basically the same services. It makes no sense to have a separate rule for growers of some crops in some of the provinces.

Therefore, I would expect that there would be considerable interest in the House to try to apply the rules equitably and fairly across all the regions. I presume I would get support for this very logical motion.

Alberta growers may wish to continue with the activities they have been carrying out under their check off system which is different in many respects from the check off for research that this program is collecting for. As an example, the Alberta program only contributes less than half of their collected moneys to actual research and the the rest is either held in trust or used for administrative costs. With this program however we have been assured by the promoters at the department of agriculture that virtually all of the funds will be allocated for research through the Western Grain Research Fund.

If my amendment does not pass, I do not think it is fair for the contributors in Alberta under the proposal to contribute a lesser amount to the research needs of the area and still benefit from the activities of the surrounding areas. Barley growers in Alberta will benefit just as much as barley growers in British Columbia or Saskatchewan from the research that is done on barley varieties. Yet if we go along with the way the bill is currently drafted without my amendment they will be paying less toward research for the same benefit as everyone else gets.

I have no objection to Alberta growers taxing themselves by means of a check off to perform their political, administrative, and other activities the fund is now engaged in. However they should not expect the rest of us in the other provinces to finance the research and to give them the benefits from barley research they will get by opting out.

I urge members of the House to support this motion because it makes sense, because it is fair, because it is the cheapest way to get the most bucks for research. This will work if Alberta farmers pay the same rate as Saskatchewan farmers, as Manitoba farmers, as farmers in the rest of the wheat board designated area. I urge support for this because I think the only way the federal government and the federal jurisdiction can continue to receive the kind of respect this country ought to receive is if we treat them all in an equitable manner.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Colleagues, it is now the turn of the government to speak. I do not see anybody standing on the government side. I take it there is nobody wishing to speak. Is the minister of agriculture intending to speak? It would be his turn to speak now.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I do intend to speak with respect to both groupings of amendments. However, with the permission of the House I would prefer to wait until all relevant comments have been made so that I could respond to them all together, once I have heard all members of the opposition on the points they wish to raise.

[Jean Landry, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois wishes to express its concerns about Bill C-50, an Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, which provides for deductions from the board's wheat sales in the four Western provinces and from barley sales in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia.

We certainly agree with the principle that this sector should contribute to research and development and with an initiative that could generate close to $5 million for plant breeding research on wheat and barley. Especially since this initiative was put in place by the producers themselves, who will thus remain competitive with their counterparts in countries where plant breeding research is strongly encouraged. I am thinking in particular of American, European and Australian producers, who played a leading role in reviving government plant breeding programs. That is why a deduction program is vital to Western producers.

However, we are entitled to ask a few questions. While the government really meets this sector's needs by promising to contribute to the research fund, it should not withdraw later because it is a producers' initiative. We must see to it that our interests are truly protected.

That is why the Bloc Quebecois proposed amendments to this bill which, as you will see, my colleagues from other parties will readily approve. Again, they are aimed at protecting producers' interests.

The first amendment provides that it should be clearly stated in the act that the board must consult with producers before changing rates, for example. If it seems obvious to you, then the government should have no objection to putting this in writing in the act. This would provide extra protection for producers. We must ensure that the Canadian Wheat Board always consults producers' associations before recommending changes in deduction rates. The democratic right of any association of producers to be consulted should be respected.

The second amendment is necessary to prevent the department's research projects from duplicating or overlapping the industry's. We are told that those concerned in the farming community will discuss the research plans in order to avoid duplication and overlap and ensure that the funded projects are complementary. The bill says nothing about this and that is why this amendment is essential. We in Quebec have seen too much wishful thinking to believe that the government will always act logically. The Minister of Finance has told us often enough that the government's financial resources are limited. A good way to avoid wasting public funds is to make duplicate research impossible.

We all want to reduce the deficit. When an opportunity to avoid waste presents itself, we should seize it! If you refuse to adopt this amendment, the people will judge you and you will be accused of lax handling of the funds provided by the producers. What we are asking for is a simple effort so that the government does not subsidize the same research activity twice. Show some resolve to end waste-that is what the people expect of us in general and the government in particular.

The Reform Party presented two motions with which we agree. Having the minister table a report will show that the producers and the government actually co-operate. However, we consider the fifth amendment unacceptable. Alberta set up its own program and, considering that we keep asking the government to put an end to duplication and overlapping, we would be ill-advised to let that government impose its program on a province which already funds research through contributions from its producers.

It would be useless to compete with the provincial initiative in Alberta. Quebec's example should be eloquent enough to understand the absurdity of such overlapping. In our province, the federal government never stopped trying to control agriculture. It has been told time and again that the Quebec government already supports farmers. Yet, the federal government is involved in market development as well as in research activities, even though the Quebec government is already looking after these aspects. The same is true for activities related to the inspection of agricultural products. Let us reject this amendment so that Alberta can avoid such problems with overlapping.

As for the other amendments, the bill would become a lot more acceptable if they were supported. As we say back home, you cannot be against virtue.

[Len Taylor, NDP, The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words on these amendments as they have been grouped today.

I am particularly pleased that the minister of agriculture has indicated that he wishes to listen to all the presentations before responding. I certainly respect that position. I am quite appreciative of the fact that the minister is present today and that he is

taking note of what is being said in response to these amendments.

I would like to take advantage of that circumstance to indicate that the majority of farmers I have talked to throughout my constituency have asked me on as many occasions as I can to speak strongly in favour of a strengthened Canadian Wheat Board and to convey to the minister their concerns that the current debate about the future of the Canadian Wheat Board is one that they have expressed opinions upon for numerous years by their continual support for the board and its activities.

In fact they would prefer a bill in front of the House today that did not deal with check off but dealt with expanded powers for the Canadian Wheat Board, powers that included marketing jurisdiction for oats as in the past and perhaps for canola and other products as well.

On behalf of many hundreds of producers in my constituency who have discussed this matter with me, I would certainly urge the minister to consider bringing forward another bill in the near future to take into account those very issues of expanding and enhancing the jurisdiction and role of the Canadian Wheat Board.

In particular, I want to add a few words to what my colleague from Mackenzie said in direct response to the amendment, Motion No. 5, that he has put in front of the House for consideration and debate today. That concerns the application of the check off to all holders of certificates within the designated area.

The member for Mackenzie spoke very well. I support his arguments about the need for the act to have a blanket application to producers supplying the Canadian Wheat Board with product for sale and therefore not dealing with the exemption for certain Alberta producers who as the member for Vegreville indicated already have a check off in place.

Perhaps when the minister makes his remarks he could address this issue and give the House some information about why the check off for Alberta producers exists in the first place.

I wonder if we know specifically what the Alberta check off is for. We know that the federal check off proposed in the legislation is for breeding research, that the funds that are collected will go specifically for research into plant breeding. Is the Alberta check off for the same specific purpose? If not, why are the Alberta producers not participating in this breeding research program?

Will Alberta producers not benefit from the research that will be commissioned by the WGRF? We do not know if Alberta has plans to continue in perpetuity the check off within that province for its producers.

Under this legislation, if for any reason the Alberta check off were discontinued, would Alberta producers continue to enjoy the exemption allowed by the current legislation or do they automatically get picked up by this legislation?

I believe that we need the blanket provisions. Alberta producers should recognize that the benefits that they would receive under this program are the same as if they were living anywhere else in Canada.

I want to reiterate the point that my colleague from Mackenzie made because it is a most appropriate one. When we look at the way other federal legislation has applied, the Goods and Services Tax Implementation Act is a very good example.

If we applied the same principle to agricultural check off programs as we applied in the introduction of the GST, we would find that the GST would apply only in the province of Alberta, the only province that did not have a pre-existing tax in place as a result of other legislation.

All the provinces, with the exception of Alberta, have a sales tax. If the federal government was applying tax appropriately across the country then obviously the GST could not have applied in other provinces, only in Alberta. It is an interesting point and I think the minister of agriculture might want to give some indication whether or not he would agree with or support that premise.

It is obvious that I am anxious to support the amendment put forward by my colleague from Mackenzie. I look forward to additional legislation that may come forward from the minister of agriculture concerning a stronger and enhanced Canadian Wheat Board.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-50 and the amendments. In particular, I would like to address my comments to amendments Nos. 4 and 5. First I would like to go back a little bit and share with the House my history of involvement with a check off program in the riding I am pleased to represent.

One position I held prior to being elected to this exalted place was with an organization called the B.C. Grain Producers Association. I was a founding member of the organization. I was the first vice-president when it was first formed and subsequently became president of that organization. Over the years, as any struggling organization does, we had to try and sell memberships and raise money to keep the organization running. We had a number of ongoing projects.

One we always wanted to get involved in was in the area of varietal trials and research at local levels. There were always problems with the government operated research farms in areas that did not necessarily conduct research applicable to the Peace River region of British Columbia. We wanted to carry that

research one step further by conducting trials in our area on a field scale.

Over a number of years we came up with a plan to lobby the provincial government to allow the B.C. Grain Producers Association to enact a check off that would automatically come off producers' cheques at the time their product was delivered to the elevators. This check off is now in place and has been for a number of years. It is working quite well, I might add.

I would like to address some concerns that have been raised by my colleague from Vegreville and other members. One real strength of the operation of the check off in the B.C. Peace has been that it is local and is administered at a local level. In other words, the farmers have the option of electing councillors to a regional council that oversees how the money is spent. The problem my colleague from Vegreville mentioned was that once you go beyond that and have a bureaucracy in some distant place administering the money, there is concern with the local producers that they lose control of how that money is spent and whether they get the best bang for the buck, so to speak.

Local producers supported the check off because they could visibly see how their money was being spent. As we moved forward and were able to purchase specialized equipment for plots to expand different varieties of wheat, barley, canola and other grains, we could readily drive by the fields in our area and see how different varieties were producing in comparison to one another. That was a real benefit to the producers.

Subsequently we found that there were very few people who opted out at the end of the year because the check off was and is fully refundable. However, what we found, because it was a local organization, was that at our annual meetings we could certainly do a good selling job to the local producers of what they were getting for their investment. Subsequently we found that very few wanted their money back out of the check off pooling fund.

I am certainly in support of the fact that this check off is totally refundable, as is the one in B.C. However, I am very concerned about the process. I think that is addressed in amendment No. 4 put forward by my colleague and the amount of the extra paperwork. In other words, make it as easy as possible for farmers to opt out of it because after all if it is not easy for them to get their money out they will view this as just another form of taxation, just another expense for them. They have to be convinced to see it as an investment in their future.

All of us in the agricultural industry certainly understand that we have to have and have to find the funds in these days of increasing problems with the government funds being available for research and development. We have to find them elsewhere. Producers are willing to do that as long as they can see the results. To do that we certainly want to pass amendment No. 4 which would allow that there would be as little paperwork as possible to allow the producers to opt out should they decide they are not getting the best investment for their dollar.

The other thing I would like to briefly touch on is the amendment as put forward by the hon. member for Mackenzie in allowing certain groups that already have a check off in place an exemption from it. We had concerns when we were holding meetings in our area of the B.C. Peace region trying to convince producers to come on board and support this thing. We actually had to pass a referendum of the producers before the B.C. government would pass the legislation to allow that check off. They insisted, and rightly so, that the producers supported the concept. To do that the B.C. Grain Producers Association had to go out and hold meetings and actually convince the farmers of the necessity of this and that it would certainly be worthwhile over the long haul.

We did that but one of the real concerns that was expressed to us time and time again was if we vote in favour of this what is to prevent next time another check off by the Canadian Wheat Board or the prairie wheat growers and the list could go on and on. That was the major concern that they voted for with the understanding that there would be no further check offs.

I am quite insistent that we should oppose amendment No. 5 put forward by the member for Mackenzie because it does allow those areas that already have an existing check off the option of trying to get the exemption and not having a double check off put in place.

With that bit of history with my involvement with the check off I thank you very much for the time, Mr. Speaker.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed and appreciated the opportunity to listen to the remarks that have been delivered by all members with respect to three of the motions that are before us, Motion No. 1, Motion No. 4 and Motion No. 5.

I will confine my remarks at this point in the debate to those three specific motions. I understand we will have a chance later this afternoon to talk about motions 2 and 3.

First, with respect to motion No. 1 proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, this motion would in effect impose a duty for the Canadian Wheat Board, not the Western Grains Research Foundation, to consult with respect to the amount of levies and to make certain recommendations.

The motion would effectively make the Canadian Wheat Board more than simply an administrator of the check off program. In the development of this program proposal and in the lengthy consultations with farm organizations, it was recognized that the Canadian Wheat Board is a marketing institution and not a research agency. Therefore the role of the board in this particular research initiative should be purely administrative.

This has been explicitly discussed and agreed to by all of the farm organizations involved in this initiative.

The Western Grains Research Foundation as a matter of practice consults with its membership on all significant business matters. In turn, the member organizations that are a part of the WGRF consult with their producer membership to gauge support for all of the foundation's activities.

It was that kind of consultation that resulted in the accumulation of a very broad base of farmer support for the check off proposal presently contained in Bill C-50. Should there be any discussion in the future about altering the levy rates from where they will originally be established, there is an obvious and ready mechanism to consult with producers and with producer organizations. That mechanism is the Western Grains Research Foundation, its board, its member organizations and their broad based farm membership at the grassroots level.

This amendment in effect would contradict the agreement and the consensus that exist for implementation of this particular research initiative. Therefore it is not possible for the government to support the amendment because it would contradict that consensus and that agreement.

In addition, we view the amendment as unnecessary in any event because that ready consultative process is already in place through the apparatus and the means of the WGRF.

Motion No. 4 proposed by the Reform Party has to do with the method by which a producer could effectively opt out of the check off procedure.

The resolution that is proposed in motion No. 4 really deals with an operational matter, the method of operation for the check off program. It seems to me that is something which producer groups should decide upon for themselves.

It is my understanding that the Western Grains Research Foundation board of directors has reviewed the motion that is before us at this moment in Motion No. 4. It has considered very seriously the arguments and the rationale put forward by the Reform Party and by others who support the motion. The board of directors of the Western Grains Research Foundation has decided that it would by far prefer to retain the opt out mechanism which is envisaged in the bill and envisaged in its business plan.

The rationale for taking this position on the part of the WGRF is really three fold. First of all, when a person merely has to put a check mark in a box, opting out may be done without a lot of serious consideration going into that decision. Support for agricultural research is in the view of the government and in the view of the WGRF a serious matter and it is important that a conscious decision be made by producers whether to participate in the program. Merely ticking off a box in the wheat board permit book application form may not provide the opportunity for that serious consideration.

Second, writing a letter by a prescribed date is not a very onerous obligation. It does show that the individual has given some thought to the matter and has made a conscious decision to opt out and that evidence of that conscious decision is in the form of the letter.

Third, the opting out mechanism that is envisaged in the bill and in the business plan for the WGRF is consistent with virtually all other existing check off mechanisms and procedures. It is obviously consistent with the wishes of the WGRF and the 12 farm organizations that make up the WGRF.

This is my final point with respect to motion No. 4. It is also important to recognize this amendment would effectively restrict the producer's ability to opt out, to make that judgement call to one specific moment in time. That moment in time would be when the permit book application form is actually being filled out.

The other procedure as we have envisioned it under the terms of the bill and under the business plan of the WGRF would allow the producer more time and more flexibility with respect to making this decision. If the producer had to just tick off the box on the permit book application form, that decision would have to be taken effectively 18 months before the check off would become effective.

The check off becomes effective when the final payment is made, which is basically in January after the end of the crop year. The permit book application form must be filled in before the crop year begins, about 18 months prior to the date upon which the check off would occur. It seems to me that is a time gap that is unreasonable and limits the producer's flexibility and the timeliness of the producer's decision.

Accordingly, for those reasons we are not in a position to support Motion No. 4.

Finally, with respect to Motion No. 5, I certainly would agree with the general comment that the check off systems presently available in the province of Alberta are somewhat less focused in their objectives and more costly in terms of their administration than the check off system being proposed in Bill C-50.

However, the scope of Bill C-50 effectively embodies an agreement that has been reached among 12 producer organizations in western Canada. Part of this agreement, this consensus among producers, is that the activities of the WGRF check off system will not impinge on other established check off schemes.

In developing the consensus necessary to implement this program, the WGRF directors were in unanimous agreement that the program should not overlap upon the activities of other existing check off programs. This means that where existing check offs are in place with respect to Alberta barley and Alberta soft wheat, the WGRF will not make a check off.

The WGRF and existing agencies that are funded by other check offs have agreed among themselves that they will co-operate with each other. They will co-ordinate their research activities to make sure that research dollars from producers, whether collected under one check off or the other check off, are used in the most cost effective and efficient manner to the advantage of grain producers.

This is essentially a producer decision about a producer program. It is not appropriate in my opinion to alter the program in a manner that explicitly contradicts the consensus upon which the program was developed. Part of that consensus at the outset was that there should be no overlap.

I appreciate the comments that have been made by hon. members on Motions Nos. 1, 4 and 5. I regret for the reasons I have already stated the government is not in a position to support these motions. I acknowledge that in putting forward these motions to amend Bill C-50, hon. members have done so in a conscientious and sincere manner. Their close attention to the subject matter is much appreciated.

[Vic Althouse, NDP, Mackenzie, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since we will have to make a decision on how to vote on the basis of the minister's wonderful remarks, I wonder if he would tell us what method he is going to be using to assure that producers of barley, for instance, in Alberta will pay exactly the same amount into-

[The Deputy Speaker]

That is not a point of order.

Is the House ready for the question?