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.