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.