Debates of Nov. 3rd, 1994

Questions On The Order Paper

[The Deputy Speaker]

I wish to inform the House that, because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 15 minutes, pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)(b).

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-38, an act to provide for the security of marine transportation, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Marine Transportation Security Act

[Fernand Robichaud, Liberal, for the Minister of Transport]

moved that the bill, amended, be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)

[Fernand Robichaud, Liberal, for the Minister of Transport]

moved that the bill be read the second time.

(Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.)

[The Deputy Speaker]

This is a new procedure, colleagues, which is why we have confusion up here.

[Joe Fontana, Liberal, London East, ON]

Point of order, Mr. Speaker. You alluded to the fact that it was a new procedure with respect to Bill C-38. I do want to thank all members of the House who worked on this bill at the standing committee for their co-operation. That is why this bill is moving so positively through the House. I convey that message of thanks to all members of all parties.

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

Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think you would find unanimous consent to proceed with third reading of Bill C-50 at this time. If that could be the next item of business called, I think it would be appropriate.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed with third reading of Bill C-50 at this time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Canadian Wheat Board Act

[Fernand Robichaud, Liberal, Secretary of State (Agriculture and Agri-Food]

moved that Bill C-50, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, grain production in Canada has never been a static industry. From the time wheat was first introduced to Western Canada in 1812 by the Selkirk Settlers in Manitoba's Red River Valley, the crop has been in a state of change. It has been adapted and improved to meet the needs of producers and consumers. Producers are always looking for improvements in qualities such as plant vigour, early maturity, resistance to shatter and resistance to rust. Consumers, in turn, look for the qualities they need to use the product in a variety of ways.

Here in Canada, we have been successful in breeding new crop varieties to meet these changing needs. Since the early 1930s, over 600 new crop varieties have been introduced. Canada has set international standards for quality with the wheat and barley we have developed. Still, as the needs of consumers and producers have become more finely focused, more sophisticated plant-breeding techniques have become necessary. While our research scientists may find varieties which fill our current needs, we cannot afford to rest on our past successes. Our grain crops must be able to adapt to the requirements of an ever-changing world.

For producers, it is important that the crops grow efficiently with excellent field performance.

From an environmental standpoint, this means high-yielding crops so we can free land resources for other uses. It also means crops which require reduced amounts of pesticides, fertilizers and other chemicals to reach their maximum potential.

The results of continued research allow prairie farmers to effectively produce the grain crops our customers demand. The need for this research comes from our industry and from producers. Grain growers across the prairies have told the minister that they want to play an important role in research since the results of research directly affect their operations and their livelihood.

This is why the Minister of Agriculture recommends amending the Canadian Wheat Board Act to allow voluntary levies to be deducted for the express purpose of supporting plant breeding research. An amendment is necessary since such deductions are not possible under the existing Canadian Wheat Board Act.

This check-off program has been developed in close consultation with the 12 prairie farm organizations that make up the Western Grains Research Foundation. These supporters include the United Grain Growers, Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association, Manitoba Pool Elevators, Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, Alberta Wheat Pool, Prairie Canola Growers Council, Flax Growers Western Canada, Keystone Agricultural Producers, Western Barley Growers Association, Oat Producers Association of Alberta, Canadian Seed Growers Association and Unifarm. Scientists from universities and from the department have also participated in planning this program.

With the passage of Bill C-50, research funds would be generated through voluntary levies on wheat and barley sales.

The proposed check-off program would apply a voluntary levy of 20 cents a tonne on wheat and 40 cents a tonne on barley. It is anticipated that this would generate about $4.7 million annually in funds to be applied directly to wheat and barley plant breeding research. This would be in addition to the over $21.5 million on wheat research in the 1993-94 crop year and a further $8 million on barley research which this government is already committed to.

Levies would be applied to producers' final payment cheques from the Canadian Wheat Board and placed in a special account. Funds from this account would be transferred to the Western Grains Research Foundation (WGRF), which will administer the research funding program. It is important to note that in maintaining our fiscal responsibility to all Canadians, this new program will create no new agency, institution or bureaucracy. This means that more producer dollars will go to research.

The administrative structure already in place at the Canadian Wheat Board would be used to collect the levy and a proven producer-driven research funding agency would distribute the funds. Total incremental administrative costs associated with this program are estimated to be in the range of 2 per cent of total levies collected.

By using structures already in place, we would be able to maximize producers' investments in research. The Foundation will report to all CWB permit book-holders so that they can see whether it is using their funds wisely. In a sense, the ultimate accountability of this program is that it is voluntary.

If a CWB permit book-holder does not agree with what the Western Grains Research Foundation is doing, he can withdraw from the program. The Foundation needs to demonstrate to producers that it is using their funds wisely, in order to maintain their support. At this point, I should add that the WGRF, a federally chartered public organization, has a proven track record in supporting effective pure research.

The importance of the investments made by our grain producers in research cannot be overestimated. This research has the potential to increase yields by 15 per cent, which could translate into additional gross earnings of $400 million a year for western grain farmers. This $400 million is not hyperbole, especially when you consider that a one-bushel-per-acre increase in wheat yields in Western Canada at today's prices would increase revenues by $100 million.

This program will help Canada remain competitive in the international market and help us maintain our position with other exporters. Just as important, research like this will help further the development of value-added products in the grains sectors. I mentioned earlier the increased income of potential international customers. It is these value-added products which will give us a distinct advantage when we are dealing with these customers, and it is research which will give Canada an advantage in developing new products.

This initiative is an excellent example of industry taking the lead in research funding. It also illustrates this government's willingness to address needs Canadians themselves have identified and to form strong partnerships for the good of all Canadians. With producers and government working together, all Canadians will share in the benefits of this program. I therefore recommend that the House approve Bill C-50, amending the Canadian Wheat Board Act to allow voluntary levies to be deducted in support of this important research program.

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

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to thank and congratulate my colleague from Beauséjour, the Secretary of State for Agriculture and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans, for his great history lesson on the development of Western Canada.

He traced its evolution from 1812 through the dark years of the economic crisis in the 1930s to the subsequent development of 600 new wheat varieties.

We are participating in this afternoon's third reading of Bill C-50 in the light of the discussions held and the amendments debated a little earlier this week. I doubt we will learn anything new today. We covered all the bases and I am still convinced that this bill could be improved.

This bill amending the Canadian Wheat Board Act did not in the end give rise to a great debate. There was a good exchange of ideas but nothing revolutionary, although it is unusual to see the producers themselves propose that deductions be made from their earnings in order to finance wheat and barley research. This initiative of Western farmers deserves to be encouraged and commended.

I remember that former Liberal Minister of Agriculture Eugene Whelan-who left his mark, as all parliamentarians will agree-once told us that every dollar invested in agricultural research and development brings in $7. This is an investment that even you would not hesitate to make, if you could lend your money to a bank in return for a 700 per cent profit.

At the very beginning of the process involving this bill, we had an informal meeting with senior officials from Agriculture Canada. They explained to us that this bill was based on an initiative of Western grain producers. Of course, my colleague from Beauséjour insisted several times that the amendment to the Canadian Wheat Board Act was a voluntary initiative of these farmers who, by filling out a form specifically designed for this purpose, could opt out of contributing to the private research fund.

Officials from the Department of Agriculture estimate the participation rate at 90 per cent. I was, I admit, very surprised to hear that 90 per cent of them would agree to pay 40 cents a ton on barley and 20 cents a ton on wheat to set up a private research fund.

However, I would advise my colleague from Beauséjour, the Secretary of State, as well as the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to be very vigilant because, although 90 per cent is a lot, 10 per cent of farmers will benefit from research and development but without paying for it. If participating farmers are pushed around, they will opt out. And if the participation rate drops to somewhere around 50 per cent, it will no longer make any sense for these farmers to contribute voluntarily.

At first glance, it would seem very inappropriate for the Bloc Quebecois to go against the will of producers, who wish to take control of their future. What they want is simple. They are prepared to take a part of their profits and invest it in wheat and barley breeding research.

This bill is necessary because it will allow the Canadian Wheat Board to make deductions from wheat and barley producers' final payment cheques for the explicit purpose of plant breeding research. The Minister of Agriculture tabled Bill C-50, an Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, because the Board does not currently have the right to make such deductions.

The check-off will be made on the payment at the time of delivery. The rate is currently set at 40 cents for one ton of barley and at 20 cents for one ton of wheat. These rates were arrived at by estimating research costs, in millions of dollars, and dividing the total by the number of tons bought. I was surprised to see that, although the bill only refers to wheat, the amendments will affect wheat and also automatically barley, because of the regulations. It seems that two distinct funds will be set up, one for wheat and one for barley.

The rates which I just mentioned will be fixed by the Governor in Council; they will not be specified in the act. That provision will allow certain classes of grain or certain provinces to be excluded. For example, Alberta will not participate in the check-off program for barley, since the Alberta Barley Commission already makes such deductions.

If necessary, the amount of the deduction will simply be changed by order in council. Again, I tell the minister and his parliamentary secretary that if they are too greedy and if they lower the government's contribution in order to force greater direct funding from agricultural producers, they might see a number of these farmers withdraw from the program.

Since the issue was raised when the member for Mackenzie tabled his amendment, I will state my position again. If the CWB starts competing with a province and jeopardizes its efforts, it would be preferable for that province to be able to opt out of this voluntary contribution program.

Based on the 90 per cent participation rate anticipated by the minister, the Board expects to collect $4.7 million, that is $3.8 million for wheat and $900,000 for barley. That money will be used to finance research on four basic aspects: wheat and barley breeding, as well as ways to improve acre yield. I may point out that finding a way to increase the yield per acre of wheat or barley by only one bushel would mean an additional $100 million earned.

As anyone in business will tell you, your profit is not on the first hot dog but on the last one you sell that day. Farmers know perfectly well that when they start taking the crop off a field, the first bushel does not pay but the last bushel is pure profit. The same applies to milk. The last cow you milked pays for that meal at a restaurant or a show on the weekend.

The third component would be to enhance the resistance of varieties to disease and parasites and the fourth, to find new varieties that are better able to meet new market demands.

There is still one question: Why is Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's research budget unable to meet the needs of grain producers? Why? The government tells us that the budget for research is $18.7 million. In that case, why should producers pay for parallel research? Please do not misunderstand me. I think it is an excellent idea to encourage producers to take the initiative and go ahead with solutions which they know will be to their advantage.

However, the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food should not use the private sector as a way to get out of its commitments or, even worse, let it run the show.

A few weeks ago, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food tabled a bill that clarified his department's role, including its involvement in research and development. Despite this restructuring, Western grain producers will conclude that they have to pay twice to get the kind of research they need. We moved an amendment in order to solve that problem, and to avoid duplication between research made in centres which will get contracts and research being done by the Department of Agriculture.

Under this bill, the Canadian Wheat Board would distribute money received through deductions to research centres breeding new strains of wheat and improving existing ones.

Under our amendment, the agency would have had to make enquiries and determine that the information being sought by the research would not become available as a result of other similar research. We are just trying to avoid paying twice for the same research.

As taxpayers, producers already pour $18.7 million into research and development projects on wheat and barley. However, they will have to invest an additional $4.7 million to direct the research according to their own priorities.

The Department of Agriculture maintains that, with the research and development budget being eroded, it is important that the private sector takes over. Unfortunately, I am always afraid that, over the years, we will see the emergence of a certain mindset, and that the federal contribution to research and development activities will diminish while that of the producers will increase. This a real threat, and only time will tell if the Bloc Quebecois was right to be so concerned.

Research and development are key elements to our staying competitive on foreign markets, and it is no secret that in order to increase our exports, we will need to produce more at a lower cost.

It is important to encourage such initiatives. The private sector, that is the producers as well as the industrial entrepreneurs, must play a more active role if research and development activities are to increase. However, it is crucial that the government fulfil its mandate, by continuing to finance research and development on a fair basis. In this case, we are talking about subsidizing a private research organization.

This research agency is the Western Grains Research Foundation and it has already studied the issue. In the grain industry, there are some benefits to private funding for research projects which I would like to list. It meets specific needs identified by those who finance the research activities.

However, we must be careful so that the bigger producers do not get to control the research at the expense of smaller producers. Since voluntary contribution is based on the number of tons of wheat sold, the main producers will, of course, invest more. With the amendment we proposed, the Canadian Wheat Board would have had to check the research being done before awarding the contracts.

Then, if the research being conducted did not sufficiently meet the needs of small producers, the Canadian Wheat Board would have been able to do something about it, since it would have known what research it wanted to further. Also, the information remains confidential.

But whatever we say about it, the fact is that two elements can influence the choice made by grain producers. First, the budget allocated by the department for this purpose is not enough. Even though the department advocates new market opportunities, it does not provide the tools needed to access new markets. Second, the research and development projects on wheat and barley that the department is financing do not reflect the priorities of the industry. This goes to show that the needs of the industry are somewhat misunderstood.

Before I conclude, I want to say a few words about the amendments that were before the House yesterday afternoon. You see, a political party cannot pretend to know everything. Acting in a very fair manner, the Bloc Quebecois came up with two amendments to Bill C-50 in order to help farmers. My colleague for Vegreville also presented, on behalf of the Reform Party, two amendments that make a lot of sense and are very fair, and my colleague for Mackenzie also put forward an amendment to Bill C-50.

This morning, I watched very closely the results of the vote and, to my surprise, the government party, led by the minister, defeated all five amendments thanks to its majority. I admit that the opposition may sometimes move conflicting amendments that do not agree but, in this case at least, it seems to me that we found a very positive way to lend a hand to the government party, not to criticize but to improve its bill. It refused. It said no.

For example, we asked the minister to submit the report of the Canadian Wheat Board to us, the elected representatives, within 15 days following the day he receives it. This was a suggestion from my colleague for Vegreville. It seems to me that elected representatives like the hon. member for Frontenac, the hon. member for Vaudreuil and the hon. member for Vegreville should not have to wait six months before seeing this report. A fifteen days delay would have been reasonable. No. The government does not want restrictions or limits. Could it be that it has something to hide? Why did it refuse? The fact is it refused.

I will conclude by stressing how important it is to avoid duplication and overlap of research projects conducted by the department and by the private sector even if it is stated that research plans will be discussed between concerned stakeholders to avoid such a thing. It would seem that the projects funded will be complementary but, unfortunately, there is nothing to that effect in the law.

Again, I urge the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to better protect the interests of the farmers across the country and especially in Quebec. You see, Bill C-50 will not be costly for the public purse. Bill C-49 neither, but it will not do a lot of good. All it did was to change the name of the department from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

I dream of the day when the Department of Agriculture will take concrete steps to make our farmers whose living depends on supply-managed products feel secure. Quebec farmers are a bit worried about the implementation of the GATT agreements on January 1, 1995, less than two months from now.

I was reading this morning a press release from the Department of Agriculture announcing the elimination of the surtax on beef imports from New Zealand and Australia. This 25 per cent surtax was abolished on October 7. In May, the minister had increased import quotas to 85,000 tons of beef carcasses from New Zealand and Australia.

And I was interested this fall in the sale of our young steers. I kept track of what was going on in Quebec, particularly in Sawyerville, Victoriaville, Princeville, Sainte-Marie de Beauce and Saint-Hyacinthe, and our producers were proud because, for once, we could sell our cull cows, that is our dairy cows that are no longer productive. These cull cows are sold for beef. The price was 60 to 62 cents a pound and up to 65 cents in some cases. Immediately after the minister announced the elimination of the 25 per cent surtax, the price dropped.

In the case of slaughter calves, they sold for $1.25, $1.30 and up to $1.35 at the beginning of September, but as soon as meat processors were informed of the elimination of the 25 per cent surtax, the price started to drop to a point where, today, Quebec producers sell their steers for about the same price as in 1980. Fourteen years later, the price per pound is the same while production costs continue to increase.

I was visiting a farm last week and the producer showed me a small plastic container that is used to milk cows. He told me that, on average, he breaks about two of these a year and that he has to be very careful. That small plastic container looks like a plain drinking glass. He showed it to me and asked: "How much do you think this plastic container costs, Jean-Guy?" Obviously, I gave a higher figure than what seemed a fair price: "Seven or eight dollars". That was not it. The salesman from Laval was there. The farmer said: "It is not $7 or $8. You know, farmers are used to that. Spare parts are always very expensive". The real cost, as indicated on the bill, was $45.

I told him: "The day you break that small plastic container, Laurent, you would be better not to get out of bed, because with that mishap, your profit for the day is gone". He agreed. The same thing is true for tractors and farm machinery. It is always amazing. Input and operating costs keep going up, but there has been no increase in beef prices over the last 14 years.

The Minister of Agriculture is trying to justify the reduction and elimination of the 25 per cent tariff on beef imports from New Zealand and Australia. In conclusion, I fear that, once the GATT agreement is in force and tariffication applies, as is the case with negotiations with our neighbours- Tariffs have been set at a very high level, I agree, and they will deter imports, but let us take cheese, for example.

Right now the tariff on cheese in 287 per cent under the GATT agreement that should normally come into force on January 1. If we prove to the Minister of Agriculture there is not enough cheddar cheese in Canada, he will order a lowering of the tariff from 287 to 100 or even 40 per cent or he will simply do as he did for the New Zealand beef and will abolish it altogether.

That is a real concern. I said earlier I was looking forward to the day when the Minister of Agriculture will rise in this House and change the legislation in order to give a feeling of security to farmers. Nearly 85 per cent of all farmers in Canada have to work outside their farms to make ends meet. Only 15 per cent of the agricultural community can earn a living with farming.

We cannot say agriculture is sick, but we can certainly say it is not healthy. There is discontent, serious discontent, and it is undoubtedly one of the reasons why it is so difficult for farmers at retirement age to find someone, whether one of their children or someone else, to buy the farm at a fair price and to take over the business.

There are no new farmers to take over the business, and when you look at the way things are, when you look at the future with open eyes, you realize that maybe young people are right to wonder whether there is still a future on the farm.

I am one of those who believe there might be a future in farming, but our governments would have to take a stance and stick to it.

Just think about what happened as recently as last winter, when we negotiated with the United States for the export of durum wheat. We had a flush in our hands, we had everything we needed to win on that issue, but we lost. We just lost. Will it always be like this? In the course of negotiations, we give some, but we also win some.

In the case of the durum wheat, it was a perfect case. We lost it. In Quebec, our farming industry is based almost entirely on supply management. Quotas will disappear, after tariffs have been set at a rather high level. We hope that it will not be dramatically reduced year after year, because our Quebec farmers would be thrown on welfare or unemployment or onto the streets. We do not know exactly what will happen to quotas, but for many farmers they were their pension funds. I do not know what will happen six years down the road, when the value of quotas will be virtually down to zero.

All this to tell you that the Bloc Quebecois, despite the flaws in Bill C-50, will vote for it, because that is what farmers want. They are the ones who demanded it. Of course, the bill is not perfect. But, between asking for perfection and voting against it, the Bloc Quebecois has chosen to support it, even if it means amending it next year, because with time, we will see what goes wrong with Bill C-50.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to be speaking on Bill C-50, a bill to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act. In my presentation today I will talk about the bill itself, what is in the bill. I will talk a bit about the improvements that should have been made to the bill, some of the amendments that were put forward but unfortunately were not made. I will talk about the missed opportunity at a time when the Canadian Wheat Board Act has been opened up to change and the real missed opportunity because there were not more substantial changes made to the bill.

I will start today by talking about the bill itself, Bill C-50, the bill to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Canadian Wheat Board by allowing refundable check offs on wheat and barley on sales of wheat and barley to the board.

This refundable check off is to be used for plant breeding research. I will summarize some of the provisions of the bill. The bill would allow for deductions from the farmer's final payment checks for each pool period, unless the farmer filed each year to the Canadian Wheat Board to be exempted from the refundable check off, from the deduction. The bill places this revenue in a fund with the Canadian Wheat Board which will be distributed to the Western Grains Research Foundation.

The Canadian Wheat Board must estimate how much money it will take from farmers per tonne for the grain to provide the $4.7 million it wants to raise from this bill for research, again funding that will be directed to the Western Grains Research Foundation.

The research funding agency would distribute the money to people or organizations for research based on what the board of directors for the foundation determined.

There will be an additional reserve account set up which will put money into a special fund, a contingency fund intended to cover shortfalls from any particular year, shortfalls in funding, in case of a higher opt out rate or poor production on the prairies or just lower shipment levels through the Canadian Wheat Board.

There is to be an annual report provided to the minister from the Western Grains Research Foundation each year and under the present provisions of the bill, the bill that we are going to vote on, this report must be presented by the minister within six months. One of the amendments I will talk about later states this report should be made public more quickly and the report should be made public as soon as it is presented to the minister from the foundation.

In terms of the rationale behind the bill, the purpose for the bill, it is assumed that the benefits will be accrued to farmers for the following reasons. It will give farmers a role in supporting and directing research into new varieties of wheat and barley. It will link more closely the wishes of the agriculture industry, in particular farmers but others as well. It will give them more responsibility in directing where the research funding goes. I think this is an important part of this bill.

It will provide $4.7 million of additional research for development of new varieties of wheat and barley, varieties which will be grown in western Canada.

It may improve the development of new marketing alternatives, new marketing opportunities through the development of better varieties that are more readily marketable. Hopefully it will improve farm income through increased returns to farmers and a higher profit margin to farmers.

That is the intent of the bill. Reform does support this bill. I support this bill and the Reform Party supports this bill for the following reasons. We believe that research does benefit farmers and we believe that research money collected through the Canadian Wheat Board presented to the Western Grains Research Foundation will benefit farmers. Not only do we believe that but many farm groups believe that and have supported this bill.

In talking to individual farmers in my constituency it seems that most individual farmers also support this refundable check off that will go to research.

There are some conditions put on this and really some hesitation on the part of farmers, I have found. They hesitate because the number of check offs on the sales of their commodities is increasing all the time and they are concerned that there are too many.

Farmers do recognize very well the importance of research. Farmers are willing to do their part in directly funding research. Farmers are also becoming concerned about the number of check offs, and this is another one.

I believe the support is there but it is becoming hesitant and I think with new check offs there will be strong resistance at some point.

This bill would have been improved substantially through amendments that were presented. I would like to speak briefly first about the second Bloc amendment, Motion No. 2. I believe the intent of that amendment was good. Reform did not support that amendment because the interpretation which we got from the legislation was unclear. Because of that we just found that we could not support the amendment.

I think the intent would have been to ensure that the Western Grains Research Foundation funding is not duplicated, is not already done somewhere in Canada or somewhere else. Overlap and duplication would have been prevented.

I think the intention of that motion was good but again, because of the way it fit into the legislation, we found that it was unclear. We were afraid that the Canadian Wheat Board would have been given the responsibility of making sure that money spent by the Western Grains Research Foundation was not on research already being done.

We were afraid-I was certainly concerned-that the Canadian Wheat Board would be given that responsibility. We do not want the wheat board to be involved in any way other than providing a convenient collecting mechanism.

Reform put forward two amendments to the bill, both of which I believe would have strengthened the bill. The first one was accountability. What we proposed is that the minister's report which he receives from Western Grains Research Foundation would be made public in a very short time through this House. I believe that accountability is needed. The hon. member for Malpeque on previous bills has pushed for a very similar type of accountability.

Our second motion was to simplify the process that farmers would go through to opt out of making their contributions to the wheat board and ultimately to the research foundation through this check off. What we proposed was adding one small box to the Canadian Wheat Board's permit application form which a farmer could check off if they wanted to opt out of the program for that year.

Some in the industry and some other members in this House opposed that method of opting out because they said that it is too easy to do. I am very concerned when government supports action whereby a bureaucracy interferes unnecessarily with decision making.

In other words, in this case the people who opposed our amendment to make this easy said let us make it more difficult for farmers to opt out through added bureaucracy. I believe that is morally wrong.

In too many places in our lives and especially in the lives of business people we have government interfering through the bureaucracy to make business more difficult to do. I am really quite upset that this motion was not supported, especially considering the reasons that were given for not supporting this motion.

I believe these two motions and the intent of the second motion would have substantially improved this bill but they did not pass.

What I would like to talk about now is the missed opportunity. The Canadian Wheat Board Act was opened. Why did we not make substantial changes to the act?

My colleague, the member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, and I went to a Canadian Wheat Board rally in Regina about two weeks ago. What did we see at this rally? Did we see a bunch of radical farmers out to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board, this body which has been a very important body in western Canada for marketing grains? No, that is not what we saw.

We saw very reasonable people speaking on changing the Canadian Wheat Board to improve it, to make it better for farmers. After all, this organization exists for farmers and it is funded by farmers. It is their organization. They wanted improvement.

I want to just talk about what a couple of speakers said at this rally in this regard. One gentleman talking about needed changes talked about how the Canadian Wheat Board was established in the first place. It was established originally in the 1930s. It disappeared and came back during the war under the War Measures Act as a monopoly.

That is when the wheat board first gained its monopoly power. It was in 1942 under the War Measures Act. It gained monopoly power so that Britain in particular could buy cheap food from Canadian farmers. Like so many pieces of legislation, instead of having a grandfather clause which would have the legislation end after a certain period of time it just continued.

Again I want to say that the Canadian Wheat Board has served a useful purpose. When the Canadian Wheat Board was set up we had a situation in the world first of all in western Canada in which farmers had a very poor communication system, very poor transportation and the grain buying companies were taking advantage of farmers because of the world they lived in, with poor information, poor transportation.

The Canadian Wheat Board, as did the wheat pool, served a very useful purpose in dealing with this problem. Back then we were dealing in a world where we had central desk buyers and central desk sellers. It worked well having a central desk seller selling to a central desk buyer. What wheat really was at that time was basically one commodity with a few different grades. This wheat board was marketing a fairly uniform commodity to a world that was not all that concerned with getting exactly a certain quality or a certain type of wheat. Under those conditions the wheat board worked well.

What has happened is that the marketplace has changed. The world has changed. Now we have farmers who have extremely good communication systems. We have wheat which is no longer just wheat but is dozens and dozens of different commodities.

Buyers buying wheat want a very specific product and we are looking at dozens of different products. Are we selling to central desk buyers any more? No, we are not. There are very few central desk buyers in the world so what we have now are mini-sellers because farmers want to become more active in selling. Grain companies servicing farmers want to become more active in selling outside of Canada as well. We have these mini-buyers and mini-sellers funnelling through the Canadian Wheat Board and the Canadian Wheat Board not selling to few buyers but selling to many buyers.

We have the wheat board now which has become a funnel which takes a product from mini-sellers and sells to mini-buyers and again it is not just wheat or barley. There are many different, very specific products that these buyers want. We live in a different world.

I believe that the Canadian Wheat Board still can serve a useful purpose and so did these farmers at the rally. They said they were not out to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board, they were out to improve it. They talked about a voluntary wheat board and I thought they presented their case for a voluntary wheat board as they called it very well.

There was one other farmer who really explained very well some of the problems we have with the board as it is. This story is going to sound really silly to anyone familiar with the grain industry but it is true. This farmer talked about his own situation. He had built a flour mill on his farm. He was processing flour, wheat, strictly from his farm. He was selling flour all across western Canada but he was selling specialty flour so he had to mill this flour from a very select type of wheat, his own wheat.

The problem is that to operate within the law he has to market his wheat through the Canadian Wheat Board to sell to his mill. It is absurd but it is true. Not only that, he would only be allowed to sell as much wheat as the quota levels would allow. In spite of the fact he is milling his own wheat in his own mill he would be restricted by a quota level. It is absurd but that is what has happened.

This story I believe demonstrates very well why we need to open the Canadian Wheat Board to change, to positive change, to changes that farmers support.

This rally in Regina would have been an excellent meeting for the minister to have attended as it was in the minister's riding in Regina. It was really unfortunate I think and the farmers felt really cheated that the minister was not there. They were very pleased to see us there. They saw MPs who do understand there is a need for change to the Canadian Wheat Board.

I want to ask a question of farmers and other small business people, managers, owners. Would a farmer or another small business person allow a government agency to come in and manage their farm? They own the farm and they fund it. How many small business people would allow a government agency to come in and manage their operations? I say very few.

The Canadian Wheat Board is owned by farmers, funded by farmers and is supposedly for farmers. Then why on earth is it managed by government appointed commissioners? That is exactly what is happening and it does not make any sense.

With regard to the Canadian Wheat Board, farmers want to be able to elect a board of directors. Recent polls have shown that over 90 per cent of western Canadian farmers want an elected board of directors to replace the government appointed commissioners. Does that sound so unreasonable?

The minister must act very quickly to allow for a farmer elected board of directors. After the farmers have elected the board of directors, the farmers should be allowed through referendum to determine what type of wheat board they want to serve them. They could choose to keep the board as is, which they certainly will not do from everything I have heard. They could choose to eliminate the board completely, which they certainly would not do from everything I have heard.

There is a new movement to completely eliminate the board. I do not believe it is a strong movement. I do not believe a majority of farmers support it. I believe the options that would be chosen are somewhere in between. The first option would be to open the wheat board to competition on a continental basis. A continental market in barley and wheat is the first realistic option.

The second realistic option would be to open the Canadian Wheat Board to competition anywhere in the world. More and more farmers are supporting this all the time.

Another possible option would be to open the board to competition but allow the Canadian Wheat Board only to buy in export positions. It would eliminate the interference that the Canadian Wheat Board has in our transportation system, car allocation system and grain marketing system. It would let it stay in place to do its job in the export market. I believe it could serve a useful role in that regard.

Let farmers decide that. It is not for me to decide. If they have another option that suits them, let them put the option forward to be voted on in a referendum. Let them choose the option they want.

I would like to ask a rhetorical question: Why is the minister so opposed to making the changes that farmers want? I am not going to try to say what his motives are for refusing this change.

I would like to end today with a story. It is a story about a farmer I know who is the anxious type. Some say he has an attitude problem. To relieve his anxiety, on Sunday mornings he goes out to his road. He calls it his road because he was the one who pushed to have it built and the one who pushed to have it paved. He likes to go to the end of his driveway and on to his road on his five-speed. On Sunday mornings the road is his. There is a curve down the road. He likes to get the car going about 100 before he gets to the curve and by the time he hits the curve have it up to 140. It makes him feel good; it relieves his anxiety.

One Sunday morning he went out on his road, started to accelerate, and what does he see around the bend? A car was coming down his road on Sunday morning. He was upset. He was more anxious than ever. He started down his road and the approaching car swerved. He said: "My God, a drunk on my road on Sunday morning". As the car got closer he saw that it was a lady driver. He said: "Oh my, a lady driver on my road on a

Sunday morning". As the car got closer, the lady stopped the car and opened her window. He slowed down but did not stop. As he went by he heard the lady shout "pig". He was really anxious then and said: "sow" and he went on. He was more anxious than ever and hit the curve at 120 and as he started to accelerate into the curve he hit the pig.

When that story was told to me it was to demonstrate how an attitude problem can interfere with the ability to change, but I am not so sure that is the only way to interpret the story.

I believe that pig in the way of that farmer is in fact government. The biggest interference farmers have with doing business is government. Certainly, if that pig is not government, that pig and other pigs are being dropped in front of farmers by government and are interfering with them doing business. I believe government must stop dropping these pigs in front of farmers and other business people.

In closing, we support Bill C-50, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board. We would have liked the bill amended, but I believe it is supported widely by farmers and I am looking forward to the legislation being enacted.

[Vic Althouse, NDP, Mackenzie, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak at third reading of Bill C-50. I note several of the previous speakers have wandered considerably off the topic of the bill.

I want to make a quick allusion to the story we just heard concerning the man who presumed it was his road and all the problems he got into as a result of that false assumption. That is one of the basic problems of many people who are opposed to the wheat board and want what they call change. They too fall into the trap of making false assumptions about reality.

The man presumed that it was his road and that no one else should be on it on a Sunday morning. What they presume is that the wheat board is just another buyer, just another grain company in the market, when in fact it is marketing the grain for all growers in western Canada. Once they get their heads around that space it will begin to make a lot more sense. That is one of the difficulties of my friend from Vegreville and his colleagues.

The bill deals with how to finance plant breeding. It is a further proposal by government, following some proposals of the last government and some that were put forward in the Trudeau administration, to extract itself from publicly financed plant breeding. Publicly financed plant breeding has a long history in Canada, going back well over a hundred years. When John Wise was the minister of agriculture we celebrated a hundred years of plant breeding under the Department of Agriculture in Canada.

In my region of western Canada it was an extremely exciting initiative that was taken more than 100 years ago. Without the publicly sponsored plant breeding effort that occurred at the central research station in Ottawa and the varieties that were developed for early maturing hard spring wheat, my region would not have had a reason to exist in the world of agriculture.

The varieties that existed prior to that time were not suitable for my region with its relatively short growing season. The development of Marquis wheat attracted the population there and made it possible for it to be economically viable. It made agriculture on the prairies the bread basket of the world, according to publicity at the turn of the century. Of course we were never that big.

Many countries grow more wheat and more grain than does Canada, but few countries export as much of their production as we do. We export about 80 per cent of our production. None of the other countries are forced to do that because they have larger populations and consume it at home.

Because of this we developed the marketing institutions to which some of my friends in the House have been referring. Essentially we built on that success by continuing the publicly financed breeding program to get around diseases that came up, rust that developed and insects that developed over time. As the region continues to grow grains, some of these pests and hazards insert themselves into the land and into the environment. It is a constant struggle to change varieties so they will be resistant to insects, pests, rusts, fungi and so on.

I noticed the minister made reference to the fact that it was possible to get as much as a 15 per cent increase in yield due to plant breeding. It is on paper and it is in the test plot. However when we go on to the farms and start dealing with the exigencies of the overall environment and the climactic changes that occur over time, it requires a lot of other attendant improvements in agriculture to keep yields up. Some older varieties will still yield almost as well as the newer varieties by using the techniques available now.

The advantages have been better but have not been terribly dramatic. They have been incremental to the point of producing huge benefits when compared to the pittance invested in them. Any economic research on the cost and benefit of plant breeding shows that for every $1 put in there is as a conservative estimate a minimum of $7 to other estimates that run as high as $15 or $20. The payback is extremely high. In spite of that, previous governments, administrations and popular wisdom have it that government has to get out of plant breeding and there has been a constant cutting back of share of the department's investment in that area.

We have not kept up publicly financed plant breeding and because we have not done so government has come up with various ways of assuaging its conscience about it. During the late seventies and early eighties they talked about plant

breeders' rights. The last government finally implemented plant breeders' rights. That has paid the developers of new varieties for their cost and trouble by virtue of giving them what amounts to a patent to extract a fee from anyone who uses their varieties of seed during the next 15 years.

On top of that we have the bill before us proposing to extract what some people call a voluntary payment and what others call a refundable payment from each tonne of grain sold in the wheat board region through the wheat board. The act does not say so, but the government indicates its intention is to extract $20 per tonne on all wheats and $40 per tonne on all barleys from the final payment paid out in January, following the closing of the previous crop year's pool. Producers would have the option before the end of February to inform the board that they wanted their deductions sent to them rather than to the research foundation if they disapproved of the activities of the research foundation.

It is difficult to oppose a proposal that permits individuals to make up their own minds on whether they want to submit payments to such a scheme.

I want to make it quite clear to the House that what we are doing here as governments, as politicians, as ministries of agriculture, is layering one more cost on to farmers that was not there 20 years ago. Farmers are now financing plant breeders, first as taxpayers through public financing albeit not quite as adequate as it could be because of government cutbacks. We are asked to finance plant breeding through the payments under plant breeders' rights for the use of the newly developed seeds. Now we are being asked to finance plant breeding a third way by a check off on our sales of wheat and barley through the Canadian Wheat Board.

I think that we have a right to ask how many more times we have to keep up this financing. The clear beneficiaries of this increased productivity are the consumers of the product. My friend from Frontenac indicated that it is the last bushels that create the profit, and that is true, but it is those last bushels that are used to depress the price. As we increase our production the supply is increased and the price for all of the production begins to fall.

The beneficiary of this increased production is always the consumers. They have been getting cheaper and cheaper food. The cost of groceries and basic foods that go into the groceries has been falling all through this century.

That has not been the case for a whole lot of other commodities and things that we use. Even housing has gone up in that period of time. With regard to transport, I hark back to just 15 or 20 years ago in making comparisons since today at the agriculture committee we were talking about cattle prices. In 1977 I remember buying a new car. It cost me I think seven 800-pound steers to buy a brand new car. It was a full size car, had everything going for it. Today that car would take something in the order of 25 or 30 800-pound steers.

We were being told in the committee that cattle prices had held up pretty well. They certainly have, have they not?

The technology for cars has changed somewhat. I saw an article in the press recently which said that because of demands from government for environmental improvements to the emission controls and other requirements by government, the cost of a car is now about $4,500 more than in 1977. This was for all the technical improvements. If everything else were equal the car would be about half the price that it is now.

When I look at what labour received out of that car between 1977 and today, it gets about the same amount of money. The input in hours has dropped dramatically but labour gets about the same amount of money. Somewhere there has been a doubling of the real price of that car and the beef has dropped in what it will really buy to about a third. It has dropped two-thirds. Eight would buy a car and now it takes 25.

I just present that to show that consumers have taken real advantage of the productivity of agriculture. I do not see the rationale for farmers to continue to have to pay a bigger and bigger chunk of the research to make productivity gains that consumers are going to benefit from.

I think there will be a great deal of angst among farmers when they see the amount of deduction that there will be on their final payment cheques after January 1996.

A lot of them will have to think long and hard whether they want to have their research deduction returned to them or go into the research group. One of the things that will be a factor for farmers in Saskatchewan and Manitoba at least will be the fairness of the extraction process.

Members will know from the debate yesterday that there has been a special dispensation granted to Alberta and some B.C. producers because they have a different form of deduction already in place. Their deduction is for research in general. It is not for plant breeding research specifically.

All the funds from this deduction will go into developing new plant varieties. We are told that perhaps 2 per cent will be used for administration purposes. The rest will be transferred directly for scientific work on developing new plant varieties.

We know from the public annual statement on the Alberta check off for instance that much less than 50 per cent of the funds collected are even allocated to research and there is no distinction made as to whether the research is economic research, marketing research or actual plant development research.

We have one set of oranges and one set of apples coming in for these deductions. Yet the government refused to make a change yesterday and so did the established parties in the House. They did not see any problem with this. They seem to be quite happy that Manitoba and Saskatchewan producers will pay 20 cents a tonne for plant breeding research. Alberta producers will pay an unspecified amount for research. They will pay the 20 cents for wheat but not for barley research.

We will be paying 40 cents. What will they be paying? Nobody seems to know. As long as that stays very fuzzy, there will be a lot of people saying: "Why should I contribute? If Alberta farmers are going to be getting the same benefits from those new plants as I am, why can they not pay the same amount?" We were trying to have that dichotomy straightened out in the act. Yet the government refused to take any action on it.

One of the problems that this federal government always has is a problem of treating people in each region the same within the region. I would argue that it failed this test miserably yesterday when it proposed to continue with this bill.

I find it very difficult to see why we should be pushing for support for this bill. I find it very difficult to go out and tell my producers that this is a good bill for them when I see that we are simply taking step three as a way of continuing to back off public responsibility for plant breeding and put it on to the hands of producers.

It is really a form of government offloading on to producers. It becomes a form of additional directed taxation that is a bad precedent to begin with. I have great difficulty supporting the whole concept that has been put forward in this bill.

It is laying out a system that is inequitable. It is treating some farmers different than other farmers who live in the same region and who will all benefit the same from the research. It is putting what amounts to a third tax on producers who have some interest in upgrading the genetic material that they work with.

It is also true that the final consumer is the one who reaps all the benefit from that new research. I find it very difficult to justify making an additional charge to the producer in those instances.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on third reading of Bill C-50, legislation that will produce a voluntary producer levy or check off program for plant breeding research.

I have a number of comments to make today, some of which are based on the bill before us, some of which are based on the debate that we had yesterday in this Chamber specific to report stage of the bill and as well some comments about the Canadian Wheat Board which I believe is central to this debate and is crucial to the future of agriculture in this country.

First I would like to address the specifics of the bill which are before us for third reading today. Essentially, as we have heard in this Chamber already, the federal government has launched an agriculture initiative, depending on how we want to look at it, either as a tax grab from farmers or an opportunity for farmers to participate financially in the development of new grains research.

The new legislation proposed here sets out what is called a voluntary producer levy or check off program to support plant breeding research programs for wheat and barley.

As the minister of agriculture indicated in the Chamber during his comments at second reading, if passed the legislation would call for the first collection of this levy to take place in January 1995.

The idea of the check off is not a new one. It is already in practise for beef and hog producers and as a concept has been endorsed by many of western Canada's grain organizations. This is however the first time that a check off has been applied across the board for wheat and barley production.

According to the minister of agriculture there is general agreement for this idea among producers. The agreement is on principle more than it is on practice. While this bill sets out a particular practice we as members of Parliament are called upon to examine how that practice will be implemented and what it means rather than on the general principle.

Here is how the bill is supposed to work. Western producers of wheat and barley will pay levies of 20 cents per tonne of wheat and 40 cents per tonne of barley delivered during the crop year. The first levies will be deducted from the Canadian Wheat Board final payments beginning with those for the 1993-94 crop year. Those final payments in the ordinary course of events for 1993-94 would be made in January 1995.

Based on projected deliveries the check off is expected to bring in, according to the minister of agriculture, an estimated $4.7 million for additional research. That research would be co-ordinated by the Western Grains Research Foundation, a

federally chartered public organization that has been co-ordinating research in this field for the past 10 years.

Under the terms of the new legislation the foundation would be accountable to producers by having to report annually to all prairie permit book holders, by giving an accounting of the money received and how it has been used to accomplish its research goals.

The new program is not intended to duplicate or replace current check off programs already in place in some provinces and, as has been mentioned numerous times in the Chamber over the last two days, certain Alberta grain producers will be exempt from the levy.

I think it is worth repeating what was said yesterday. The check off in Alberta is somewhat different than the check off being proposed nationally. If one were to compare the reasons for bringing in the legislation as it is today and apply it to the implementation of the goods and services tax from a few years ago, the implication would be that any province with a pre-existing tax would be exempt from the GST and those that had no pre-existing tax would be levied the GST.

In that case if the same principle were applied in 1990 as the one that is being applied here on the check off in 1994 only the province of Alberta would be subjected to this federal levy and the other provinces would be provided with an exemption. It is an interesting scenario to say the least.

The program as proposed in Bill C-50 is also voluntary so that producers who choose not to participate may opt out if that is their preference. Any producer wanting to opt out may do so on an annual basis simply by putting that request in writing.

In introducing the legislation the agriculture minister says he expects 90 per cent of western grain farmers to participate in the program but he gives us no indication at all on how he has calculated that figure.

There has been as fair amount of criticism in the House over the last couple of days about the program. For those who have reviewed its components and have not liked what they have seen in the specifics of the bill, the arguments focus somewhat on the fact that plant breeding research in Canada has always been publicly funded. The new legislation simply gives the federal government an opportunity to withdraw from providing adequate funding, perhaps some time in the future, because they will say the producers themselves are being taxed through the levy for the necessary funding.

Of course the minister of agriculture in his opening remarks denied that this would happen but there is certainly no protection in the existing funding in the legislation to guarantee the federal government's commitment to publicly funded research. Therefore, without that type of legislative guarantee it is difficult to accept the word of the minister.

At the same time if farmers opt out in numbers greater than the 10 per cent the minister has already calculated the financing pool will be diminished. Actually it will be uncertain from year to year because the financing pool will have to be calculated only on the amount of money that is collected and if farmers can opt out on an annual basis it will be difficult to calculate the entire financing pool on an ongoing basis.

Therefore the research institutions commissioned to do the research will not know from year to year what level of funding they will be able to receive. There is also the unfairness that some producers will pay for the support of research and want to contribute to it but all producers will benefit from that research whether or not they paid into it in the first place.

This alludes to the exemption provided to certain Alberta producers who will get the benefit from the research even though they do not pay into it.

The other argument is on the accountability of the process. It is acknowledged that the foundation must report on how it is spending the money for research but if producers disagree for any reason there is no mechanism in place for them to appeal those spending decisions and it is always after the horse has left the barn, after the door has been closed. You can only comment, perhaps publicly, and not direct or influence the way those decisions will be made. Therefore true accountability does not exist.

As the member for Mackenzie mentioned a few moments ago there is an important concept here that every member of the House and all producers in Canada must keep in mind and that is the principle of research into grains production is an important public policy matter and as such we should do whatever we can to ensure that there is as much public funding and public accountability in the process as possible.

Yesterday I indicated during report stage debate in what became in a sense a conversation with the minister of agriculture that the importance of the Canadian Wheat Board has never been more in question among Canadians. We are hearing in the news a considerable amount of discussion about the future of agriculture and the future of the Canadian Wheat Board because a number of producers in Canada, particularly producers near the American border, have been expressing discontent with the marketing practices of the Canadian Wheat Board.

I think it is important during this debate about amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act that we do keep in mind how important the Canadian Wheat Board is and the role that this Chamber and the minister of agriculture must play in providing some support for the Canadian Wheat Board, the organization that we as producers and as members of Parliament have created in order to assist in the sale of all Canadian wheat and barley. Perhaps, as I suggested yesterday, we should as well be

considering changes that would allow for marketing of oats and canola and perhaps even some other grains in Canada.

Yesterday the minister of agriculture responded to one of my concerns by saying that he did not want to engage in a broader debate about the Canadian Wheat Board. Then he qualified his statement by saying, and I quote from Hansard of yesterday at page 7579, pertaining to a broader discussion about the wheat board:

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.

He is simply holding his fire. I wonder how long he intends to do that. How long does the minister intend to remain silent about his personal commitment and the commitment of this government to the Canadian Wheat Board?

I say that because just the other day the Canadian Wheat Board in an unusual statement came forward to defend itself in the face of some of the attacks. I quote the information officer of the Canadian Wheat Board, Miss Deanna Allen: "The board is under personal attack. If others are rallying farmers to rethink what they have, then let them think on accurate information".

The Canadian Wheat Board is arguing that those who are calling for dual marketing in Canada are doing so not with accurate information. If the minister of agriculture has information like the Canadian Wheat Board has which can add to the debate, I think it is very important that the minister not hold his fire in this regard but rather engage in the debate and bring forward not only the information but the opinions that are needed to support the strong Canadian Wheat Board in its work.

I will quote from the Canadian Wheat Board's defence of its activities in its releases from last week. Mr. Richard Klassen is the board commissioner with the Canadian Wheat Board. Mr. Klassen says in response to the U.S. market:

"The U.S. is a premium market. It is one of the few premium priced markets left in the world. It offers a high return because it is unaffected by the price discounting subsidies imposed by the U.S. and the European Union. U.S. customers are also usually willing to pay a premium for Canadian wheat because of its high quality".

The down side is that market is not large enough to accept all of the 24 million tonnes of wheat and barley that western Canadian farmers want to export. The board as a result must sell into other markets that do not offer as high a return. The prices from these sales are what lower the overall return to farmers.

"The question is really who should receive the commercial premium often available in the U.S. Should these premiums go to individual farmers or grain companies who access the U.S. directly, or should those premiums be shared among all grain growers in western Canada?".

The answer is through the Canadian Wheat Board all western Canadian farmers benefit from the premium market, whether it is in the United States this year and next year or whether it is in Japan or China or Europe or Saudi Arabia in the future.

I also want to indicate that I found the comments of the minister of agriculture the other day quoted in the Regina Leader-Post of October 27. The headline on the newspaper article was Goodale is determined''. The agriculture minister saidCanada has a historic right to duty free access into Europe for a million tonnes of high quality wheat and almost a million tonnes of barley''.

The minister of agriculture is wanting to have a stronger Canadian presence in Europe and is willing to fight for it. That market in Europe will not be accessible without a strong Canadian Wheat Board. If the minister of agriculture is anxious to fight for Canadian markets in Europe, he should be willing to fight for the Canadian marketing arm that gives us that access here in Canada.

Those concerns of mine are shared by numerous constituents of mine, all of my constituents who have phoned me recently. One of my constituents was fortunate enough to be at a meeting organized by the National Farmers' Union in the United States just a couple of weeks ago, Mr. John Clair from Radisson, Saskatchewan, also a member of the Canadian Wheat Board advisory committee; a committee that I would strongly advise the government take a look at and see if it cannot turn that into more of a board of directors than an advisory committee so that the elected wishes of the producers are more influential in the decision making of the Canadian Wheat Board.

Mr. John Clair was at a meeting in the United States, a meeting that involved a number of farmers in Glendive, Montana. Mr. Clair says that he is more convinced than ever after that meeting that the Canadian Wheat Board should be left intact and keep its export monopoly.

Quoting Mr. John Clair recently in an issue of the Western Producer from October 20, Mr. Clair says: They''-meaning the Americans-said if there was a dual marketing situation in Canada, they would push to have the border closed immediately''.

In other words, if Canadian farmers are given the opportunity by the Canadian government to just cross the border unimpeded with every truck load of grain that they can, the Americans as they have on so many other trade issues would immediately retaliate and close the border to all Canadian grain.

That means any premium market that was accessible by the Canadian Wheat Board or any farmer immediately closed and there would be no access to those premium dollars to any Canadian farmer whether we can sell into that market or not.

Mr. Clair also mentioned that the people he talked to looked at the dual marketing supporters in Canada as quite naive about their circumstances and even our own. Again I quote Mr. Clair: "They seem to assume it is just a great big pit we can drop wheat into". In other words, the American market is just there for all the wheat that we can put into it.

Mr. Clair says in a tremendous year, we can sell maybe 10 per cent of our crop to the United States. That means 90 per cent has to go some place else. There is nothing more true than that statement.

I remind the minister of agriculture and the government that in the agriculture supplement to the red book they made a very strong commitment to the financial security of Canadian farm families, a commitment that extends to the value of the Canadian Wheat Board.

Basically the comment from the red book is that Canada's agri-food industry needs policies and programs such as supply management, the Canadian Wheat Board and stabilization to minimize the impact of market price fluctuations.

On this day I call on the minister of agriculture and the government to, as they have with everything else in this place, stick to the commitment of the red book and maintain policies such as the Canadian Wheat Board to minimize the impact of marketplace price fluctuations on Canadian farmers.

[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 yeas have it.

[Some hon. members]

On division.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)