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.