Debates of Nov. 2nd, 1994

Canadian Wheat Board Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing-Social programs reform; the hon. member for Beaver River-Ethics; the hon. member for Mackenzie-Child care; and the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona-Railway workers.

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

moved:

That Bill C-50, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 47, on page 2, the following:

"(5.1) The research funding agency shall not distribute moneys received by it pursuant to subsection (3) to persons or plant breeding centres for a research purpose unless the research funding agency, after reasonable inquiries, has determined that the information to be sought by the research is not and is not likely, as a result of other research, to become available to holders of certificates."

Mr. Speaker, the second amendment we wish to present in the House this afternoon, seconded by the hon. member for Lotbinière, is aimed mainly at preventing duplication by the various organizations that are awarded research contracts and also any duplication of research carried out by the Research Branch of the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Under Bill C-50, the Canadian Wheat Board will be responsible for distributing monies received as a result of deductions from producer income. The Board will distribute such monies among the various centres engaged in developing new and improved wheat varieties.

The purpose of our amendment is to make it clear that the agency must, after reasonable inquiries, have determined that the information to be sought by the research is not, and is not likely, as a result of other research, to become available to the producers. In other words, we must make sure we are not paying twice for the same research. To do so, we need consultation between the research funding agencies.

Take the example of Agriculture Canada conducting research on possible alternate processing of red wheat. If the Canadian Wheat Board does not make the necessary inquiries, it might provide funds to an agency in order for it to carry out similar research, and producers would end up paying twice for research seeking the same information.

This measure would also oblige Agriculture Canada to carry out its research mandate on behalf of producers. If private agencies wish to receive research funds from the CWB, they will clearly have to align their research activities with the interests of producers, who ultimately are the ones making the recommendations. Thus, if Agriculture Canada does not carry out its mandate well, independent research agencies will step in to meet producers' needs.

The Canadian Wheat Board will be obliged to increase the amounts given to independent agencies and to increase the contribution from producers, who will again pay for a duplication of services. If producers see their contributions increasing unduly, that would be a good sign that Agriculture Canada was not meeting the needs of the clients it serves, because private agencies would have to take over the department's work.

As set out initially in the bill, however, the measure allows Agriculture Canada to diversify its areas of research. If, for example, grain production picked up substantially and for this reason more research than earmarked for the sector was necessary, another sector might suffer. This could happen to dairy producers, for instance.

This bill give producers a chance to have research conducted on demand. With the element of information we are adding, it would be very interesting to see that organizations eligible for CWB grants do not need such grants because the Minister of Agriculture satisfies any requirement this farm production sector may have. It could mean that other sectors are probably being neglected.

Our proposal is designed to prevent Agriculture Canada from focusing on one single aspect of grain production in terms of research. One potential risk that should be kept in mind and could be countered with our amendment proposal is that larger producers end up running the show at the expense of smaller ones. Insofar as the voluntary contribution is based on the number of tonnes of wheat sold, larger producers will inevitably make larger contributions to this fund because they produce more than the others.

If research is not adequately suited to the needs of smaller producers, the Canadian Wheat Board will be able to react to this threat. Since it will be monitoring the research activities, it will know exactly what is the fruit of the research it is supporting.

In closing, I would like to point out that initiatives such as those put forth with respect to Bill C-50, which show a commitment on the part of producers to assume responsibility for themselves, are encouraging. To sit idly by and wait for the department to resolve our problems is not a very effective approach, in my view.

The cautionary measure we want to include in this bill is simply aimed at greater protection. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food must not see this measure as an excuse to neglect his duty to Western grain producers to promote research.

In closing, may I remind you that producers will contribute to this research fund on a strictly voluntary basis. If the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food ever abuses the good faith of grain producers, he will live to regret it. There will be a protest movement, producers will withdraw, and he will end up financing research and development by himself.

Partnership is another key to success in research and development. When producers are directly involved in research, development, or co-operation, they co-operate wholeheartedly. Farmers, as is well known, are the workers who show the most solidarity in Canada, or at least in Quebec. I personally can tell you that if the Minister of Agriculture still thinks that he has a monopoly on truth, he is sorely mistaken.

The amendments proposed in this House by the Bloc Quebecois, the Reform Party and my colleague from Mackenzie-some of which I think are relevant-are not meant to thwart the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. On the contrary! It is to help him and at the same time to help farmers in the four western provinces. Of course, the Bloc Quebecois has nothing to gain politically in this matter, but we are doing it as members of the Official Opposition and we are also acting in accordance with the old principle that if your neighbours are prosperous, you will also benefit and live well.

With that, I call on my colleagues in the Reform Party and the NDP and the Minister of Agriculture to read this amendment carefully. I ask the minister for once not to say no just because it comes from the opposition. I ask him for once to try to assess it for what it is worth and to support this motion.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Frontenac would, I believe, require that the funding which is gained from the check off on wheat and barley which passes through the Canadian Wheat Board is spent on research.

If this motion did put in the hands of the Western Grain Research Foundation the responsibility to ensure that there is no duplication in research, then I would support the motion. However, this motion puts this responsibility in the hands of the Canadian Wheat Board through the Canadian Wheat Board Act. A responsibility that should be in the hands of the foundation will now be in the hands of the Canadian Wheat Board.

A brand new level of bureaucracy will be added to the process. The Canadian Wheat Board certainly is not the one you would want to add to as far as bureaucracy is concerned because it is a very large bureaucracy. It would be counter productive to have the Canadian Wheat Board as it is set up now deciding whether there was duplication in funding.

I believe it would be a big mistake to give the Canadian Wheat Board control and get it involved in the process of allocating funds. For that reason I cannot support this motion.

The Canadian Wheat Board is a monopoly that is not accountable to anyone it seems. I said the other day that it is not even accountable to God because it thinks it is God. Certainly it is an organization that has power beyond what the farmers who pay for the operation want.

The Canadian Wheat Board ought to be run by an elected board of directors and farmers across western Canada, as proposed by the Reform Party. That type of organization could be involved in making a decision such as this but certainly not the board as it is.

I strongly oppose this motion because it adds another level to the decision making. That level is the Canadian Wheat Board which is a large bureaucracy and one which would make this bill, which I support, not as good.

[Vic Althouse, NDP, Mackenzie, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I was not going to intervene on this motion until I heard the member for Vegreville. I wonder if he was speaking to motion No. 2 because he does not seem to have read it the way the hon. member for Frontenac wrote it.

We should remind ourselves that the research funding agency that is mentioned in the motion by the hon. member for Frontenac is to be the Western Grains Research Foundation. If members look at the section of the act where this all starts, the deductions for research portion on page 2 explains that the board collects the funds and then turns it over to this research funding agency.

The motion we have before us from the member for Frontenac directs that the research funding agency, which will be the western grains research fund, shall distribute funds to persons who will make the results of their research available to the people who contributed to it, namely the producers. I do not see anything wrong with that. This is something that should pass as a matter of course. However I realize the way some bureaucracies work and some funding works it does not always happen.

I do not know if the people who contribute to the check off for research in Alberta necessarily know what varieties of plants their deduction money has gone into. Neither do I know if the designation of research is the same in each case. In the bill it is quite clear that the funding will be for plant breeding research. It is not clear what the deductions are in some of the other provinces.

I hope the research granting agency, which is the western grain research fund, will make certain that it collects the same amount per tonne from producers in Alberta as is collected from producers in Saskatchewan, British Columbia or Manitoba. Whether it comes from a different collecting group should be irrelevant, but I hope that the same amount of moneys for a tonne of grain goes into the research granting agency from Alberta producers as is coming from Saskatchewan or Manitoba producers.

If that does not happen a lot of screaming and yelling will be going on by producers in Saskatchewan if this duality that the minister appears to be willing to support and which apparently the Reform Party is willing to support results.

If we cannot have fairness in the funding of research and openness to the point of allowing the people who pay for it know what the results are, then we are on a long, slippery slope into another form of taxation and another way for government to opt out of providing the kind of research dollars that it ought to have supplied in the first place.

I have one other thought as I look at motion No. 2. Since this money is being collected directly from farmers to finance this plant research I would hope that when a variety is developed that those same farmers will not be asked to pay fees under plant breeders' rights for the privilege of growing the variety they paid to produce.

I believe that is what the member for Frontenac is trying to avoid. If we know what varieties our money has produced as a result of the deductions from our grain sales then we should not have to pay plant breeders' rights on those varieties because we have already paid for them once, thank you very much.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will take just a few moments to comment on the amendments in front of us this afternoon, motions No. 2 and 3, before we conclude the debate.

I could not help but notice a few moments ago, when the minister of agriculture rose to speak on motions No. 1, 4 and 5 and the following interventions by a number of members on this side of the House, including myself, that many of the issues we raised were not addressed in his responses in reply.

In particular, I was expressing the support of my constituents in northwest Saskatchewan for the strengthened and enhanced Canadian Wheat Board.

I hope the minister takes an opportunity before the end of the day to express to the House, to producers in Saskatchewan and the prairies his support and his party's support for a strengthened Canadian Wheat Board, a marketer of Canadian grain.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker, coming from the west you realize that the Canadian Wheat Board has long benefited the producers in western Canada. It has always found premium markets for Canadian grain. Those premium markets occasionally come close to the Canadian border as they do today.

Those people, including the Reform Party, who support dual marketing of grains forget that the premium market is not always across the Canada-U.S. border. The premium market is sometimes in Japan or Saudi Arabia. With the agricultural situation in China today it is quite possible that the premium market may exist there in the near future. Under no circumstance could any of the dual marketers survive without the Canadian Wheat Board in a marketplace that is dominated by a nation outside of North America. In any case I hope the minister of agriculture would take a moment to discuss that.

More to the point of the amendments, I could not help but add my voice to that of the member for Mackenzie who just talked about plant breeders' rights. Members of my constituency a few years ago were opposed to the introduction and passage of the plant breeders' rights legislation. They said at that time the legislation would lead to a greater concentration of agricultural breeding in the hands of multinational corporations and other corporations that would push up the cost of producing agricultural products, grains in particular. When the costs of producing the product increase and the results of plant breeding are tied in with fertilizer and chemical production of any kind, then the input costs rise as well.

My constituents are now seeing a possible tie between legislation that perhaps turns some of their contributions to plant breeding over to those individuals or corporations which may financially benefit from their breeding programs at the expense of the producer. This is a situation to which the government should pay very close attention because we cannot jeopardize public supported research in grain varieties to benefit the corporations to the detriment of the producers and the industry.

I have spent a great deal of time as the New Democratic Party's environmental critic working on issues of population and the environment. These issues have helped me to understand that the need for agricultural product must be increasing with the increasing populations. Whether we are feeding grains to people or whether we are feeding grains to cattle, fish or other sources of protein or food for human consumption, the growing of grain will become very important to the future of the world as populations increase.

Yields must increase. Therefore the transfer of support and resources to the producers of the grains must also exist to ensure that we have a steady supply from this part of the world where grains grow so well and to ensure the transfer of the benefits of that growing to the areas of the world where populations are also growing.

For that reason alone, even though it is not fully intended in Motion No. 2, I would look favourably upon Motion No. 2 as it appears before us. Obviously, from my remarks I hope the minister of agriculture will have some additional matters to think about as he looks to additional legislation and perhaps even additional amendments to this legislation in the future.

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

During the course of the debate this afternoon on the various motions that we have had before us members opposite have invited me in my responses to go quite a distance beyond the precise subject matter that is the focus of the debate today.

While I am indeed tempted to respond at length and in a wide ranging way to some of the remarks that have been made by all of the speakers this afternoon on Motions Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5, I will continue my practice of restricting myself to the precise

subject matter that forms the point of the debate and save the wider ranging commentary for another time.

The fact that I do not happen to mention some of those other things should not be taken as any kind of disinterest in the subject matter. I am simply holding my fire.

Motion No. 2, the further proposed amendment by the member for Frontenac, is directed to the point that research efforts funded by the proposal in Bill C-50 should not be duplicative or overlapping. I take that as a valid point. Unfortunately, the proposed amendment would really not offer any assurance of no duplication and no overlap other than just comfort language. Quite frankly, I do not think that is realistic. The avoidance of research duplication in reality is a primary objective of the Western Grains Research Foundation. To this end, the foundation has already established a very close working relationship with both public and private research establishments, including a very close working relationship with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada researchers.

Further to this the foundation has consulted with and it intends to work with existing producer-funded research programs-for example, Alberta barley-to ensure that there are not turf wars started and that research efforts are co-ordinated.

Since this type of co-operation and co-ordination of research is already an established practice, it would not be useful in my view to proceed with the motion contained in Motion No. 2. Incidentally, I would add that in its present form I believe the amendment is unenforceable in any event.

I conclude by saying that I fully understand the spirit of what the hon. member is trying to achieve. I think it is achieved otherwise through the WGRF and I cannot recommend this particular amendment to the House.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question!

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion is deferred.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

moved:

That Bill C-50 in clause 2 be amended by replacing line 39 on page 3 with the following:

period ending on December 31, and the Minister shall lay the report before the House of Commons on any of the first fifteen days on which the House sits following the day the Minister receives the report.

Mr. Speaker, amendment No. 3 is about accountability. The Western Grains Research Foundation is required under this legislation to report to the minister once a year. All we are asking for in this amendment is to require that any report to the minister is made public through the House of Commons. That is the intent of the motion.

I cannot possibly see how this government would be against this accountability. I do not know why a report from a body such as the Western Grains Research Foundation should be kept under cover. I do not know why it should not be a public document.

The Western Grains Research Foundation, I just want to acknowledge, has an annual report that is made public every year but that does not necessarily mean that the report that it sends to the minister is the same report.

That is why I want this report which is sent to the minister every year made public through this House. That is what the intention of this motion is and I believe that is what it would do if it was passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on Motion No. 3, moved by the hon. member for Vegreville. First, I would like to say that we support that proposal to the effect that a report must quickly be tabled in the House of Commons.

For reasons of transparency, annual reports submitted to every minister must be tabled in the House, so that all parliamentarians can quickly have access to them. If our good friend the Minister of Agriculture receives a report, he should not keep it to himself for months. We, members of the opposition, have a right to see that report as quickly as possible. As you all know, if a report is made public after a six-month delay, it has lost a great deal of its timeliness. It no longer generates the same interest.

The proposal made by the hon. member for Vegreville makes a lot of sense. As regards agriculture we, members of the

opposition, work primarily for the agricultural community and, in doing so, we also work for the 28 million Canadian and Quebec consumers. Indeed, we do not work exclusively for the agricultural community. We work for everyone, and that includes producers and consumers.

If the minister believes in transparency for his party, he should support the motion tabled by the member for Vegreville. In its original bill, the government merely proposes that a report be tabled to the minister as soon as possible. If there is still some fortitude left in this House, if transparency is really a concern, as the Prime Minister mentioned again today, why not accept that it be done within two weeks of the minister receiving the said report?

Right now, the government's transparency somewhat resembles the St. Lawrence River, you cannot see anything a few centimetres below the surface. The proposed amendment is very interesting because it does not put pressure on the agency, but on the minister. Indeed, it suggests that the minister shall lay the report before the House within fifteen sitting days of the day the minister receives the report.

All of us elected representatives from Quebec and Canada have the right to have access to the report within fifteen days.

Since such a wish can be easily granted, I wonder how anyone could oppose an amendment making a minister accountable to the House of Commons.

Therefore, it will be for the sake of transparency and efficiency that we, in the Bloc Quebecois, will support the motion presented by my colleague for Vegreville.

To conclude, I will use the few minutes I have left to comment on Motion No. 5. I must say that I am rather puzzled by the amendment proposed by the member for Mackenzie. Considering that section 33.1 recognizes the principle of distinct wheat classes, the amendment he proposes would only allow the Governor in Council to exclude the province or the area where a given class of wheat is produced.

In Alberta, since farmers can already contribute to a similar program for barley, offered by the Alberta Barley Commission, the proposed amendment would eliminate the monopoly and encourage competition between that organisation and the board.

The argument is justifiable, since the results of the subsidized research funded by the board would also benefit Alberta and also because farmers who support the board might prefer that it manage their deductions.

However, if the Governor in Council no longer has the authority to exclude a province, provincial initiatives will immediately be cast aside.

This is why, as you can imagine, I have a great deal of difficulty supporting motion No. 5. When a province, like Alberta, is ahead of the federal government, it is essential that its initiatives be respected.

This is why members of the Bloc Quebecois cannot support the motion of our colleague from the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Mackenzie.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a few words on this motion. I will take up where the minister of agriculture left off in his remarks. The minister of agriculture indicated this was not the time to talk about the future of the Canadian Wheat Board. In fact he said, and I think I quote him correctly: "Now is the time to hold my fire".

I could not help but think that on this side when one holds one's fire and when one is fed up, it leads only to indigestion. We do not want this issue to be lapped without the proper debate in this place that it deserves.

I remind the minister of agriculture that members of his party campaigned in my province and others one year ago, some of whom were elected on a campaign of supporting the Canadian Wheat Board and enhancing its powers.

The red book has a commitment toward marketing boards and the support of the Canadian Wheat Board. There were numerous news releases issued a year ago from Liberal candidates and now sitting members indicating support for the Canadian Wheat Board. I do not believe that at this time when the future of the Canadian Wheat Board is under so much pressure that the government, especially members who campaigned the way they did, and particularly the minister can hold their fire on this very important issue.

As it stands, my constituents are firmly behind the Canadian Wheat Board and I will speak for them as often as I can to ensure that the Canadian Wheat Board supports the farmers, the producers of western Canada and all the communities those farmers and producers support throughout my constituency in western Canada.

I want to indicate that on this motion the member for Vegreville has made an interesting intervention and with a couple of clarifications I believe I will now be able to support the amendment he has brought forward and I urge the government to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a few remarks to address precisely to the subject matter of Motion No. 3.

Once again the member who has just spoken and others have tempted me to broaden the discussion this afternoon. I will not do that. There will be ample opportunities for that. I will

welcome those opportunities and if hon. members want a sneak preview of some of my views and opinions on the subject they seem to be amply reported almost on a continuous basis in the media so they can whet their appetites on those observations and we will get to the main subject matter in due course.

There do seem to be some animal noises coming across the way from the opposition members. Sometimes it is difficult to determine the distinction between their heckling and their speeches. I trust the speeches will have more substance than the animal imitations that seem to be emerging from the opposition members at the present time.

That type of conduct does tend to trivialize the subject matter that is under consideration. I prefer to remain serious about it.

With respect to Motion No. 3 the proposal is essentially for a tabling of the annual report of an arms length, not for profit private organization. That is a rather unusual proposition because the Western Grains Research Foundation is an arms length, not for profit private organization. It represents 12 farm organizations in western Canada. It may represent in due course more organizations than that because as I understand it other organizations are expressing very sincere interest in joining the WGRF because of the good work that it does. It does represent those private sector producer based organizations.

It will operate with producer and not taxpayer funds. That is essentially what the check off procedure is all about.

Bearing in mind that the agency we are talking about in terms of the WGRF is a private, not for profit, arm's length organization. Bearing in mind that organization will operate with producer funds, not taxpayer dollars, it seems to me that a different type of accountability is appropriate.

Accountability obviously is important but it must be of a different kind than one would think of if we were speaking of a purely government institution. The foundation is operated by producers and is accountable to producers. The program that is proposed in Bill C-50, it seems to me, does not require excessive control by the House of Commons or by any government agency. It should have that kind of accountability which the WGRF in the proper exercise of its responsibilities considers to be appropriate.

In these circumstances the avenue that should be pursued is simply this. Every year when the report from the WGRF becomes available there should be a notice published in the Canada Gazette indicating that annual report has now been produced and it obviously is available for inspection. That is a more economical and appropriate way to deal with this requirement of accountability in the case of the WGRF.

At the same time I would again point out the nature of the WGRF. It is an organization involving 12 western farm organizations. They have a board of directors and they are accountable to their membership. They have developed this whole program in very close consultation with farmers. There is a very real discipline and a very real form of accountability built right into that structure because it is producer based and producer driven through those farm organizations that make up the WGRF. The board of directors of the WGRF is representative of those farm organizations.

In addition to that kind of accountability which will certainly ensure the publication of the kind of annual report that is appropriate and necessary in the circumstances, I think it would be sufficient for us to simply publish a notice in the Canada Gazette every year noting that the annual report is available for inspection if needed. In addition, it would seem to be logical that a summary of that annual report could be provided in the ordinary course through the publication known as ``Grain Matters'' which is broadly distributed to all Canadian Wheat Board permit book holders across western Canada.

The annual report will include statements concerning revenues and expenses as audited and other statements as may be necessary to provide and to ensure full transparency.

I would also note in conclusion that when Bill C-50 was in committee it was strengthened by allowing for agreements between the minister and the research funding agency. That agreement is now provided for in a prior amendment to Bill C-50, section 33(1)(6). That particular agreement will provide for another form of accountability. All of those factors taken together sufficiently address the point and make the amendment proposed in Motion No. 3 unnecessary.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question!

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.