Debates of June 8th, 1995

Criminal Code

[The Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker]

In my opinion, the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Speaker]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Secretary of State (Parliamentary Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that there has been an agreement pursuant to Standing Order 78(2) with respect to allocation of time for the report stage and the third reading stage of Bill C-85, an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and to provide for the continuation of a certain provision.

I therefore move:

That, in relation to Bill C-85, an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act and to provide for the continuation of a certain provision, not more than four hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage of the said bill and not more than four hours shall be allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the said bill, and at the expiry of the time provided for each stage, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purposes of this order, and in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the report stage or the third reading stage, as the case may be, of the bill shall be put forthwith andsuccessively without further debate or amendment.

[The Speaker]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Speaker]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[The Speaker]

I declare the motion carried.

Canadian Wheat Board Act

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

moved that Bill C-92, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, before I get into the substance of my remarks today I should advise the House that in a few minutes I have to attend a meeting of the cabinet and I regret that I will not be able to remain for the entire debate this morning. I extend my apologies particularly to the official spokespersons for the opposition parties. They may rest assured I will from the record in Hansard read very carefully what they have to say about this important legislation.

As I open debate on Bill C-92, certain amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act, I begin with a sincere request to all hon. members to help facilitate in the House the timely passage

of various pieces of agricultural legislation now before Parliament.

In addition to Bill C-92 I think of the amendments to the Farm Improvement and Marketing Co-operatives Loans Act, FIMCLA, which will double to $3 billion the volume of agricultural loans from the private sector financial institutions which can qualify for government guarantees, thus enhancing the availability of loan capital for farmers across the country.

By the end of July we will have bumped up against the existing $1.5 billion ceiling for FIMCLA loans across the country. To avoid a hiatus in this very useful program Parliament needs to enact the proposed amendments to raise the ceiling before we adjourn for the summer and I certainly trust that can be done.

I think of the amendments to our dairy legislation which will provide the legal framework to allow the Canadian dairy industry to implement certain price pooling techniques beginning this fall.

This initiative is essential to enable our dairy industry to position itself to comply with new international trade rules coming into effect this year under the new GATT. Again, time is very much of the essence. Parliamentary approval before the summer recess is vitally important.

With respect to both the FIMCLA amendments and the dairy amendments there is virtually unanimous support among all the various stakeholders in our agriculture and agri-food sector and there is obviously clear urgency.

I ask all hon. members and also our colleagues in the other place to ensure these amendments are fully completed before we rise for the summer break.

The same arguments apply to Bill C-92. These amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act are urgent. They need to be in place before August 1, 1995, the beginning of the new crop year in western Canada. They enjoy broad support among the majority of farm organizations.

In effect we are moving ahead with these amendments at this time in direct response to the requests of those western farm organizations. I trust my parliamentary colleagues will co-operate in facilitating timely passage.

Bill C-92 deals with the long standing system by which freight costs are pooled among prairie farmers under the Canadian Wheat Board marking system. Under this system western Canadian grain producers share common costs of shipping their wheat and barley from Canadian export ports to market destinations around the world.

The ports traditionally used as the points of departure for our overseas sales have been Vancouver and Thunder Bay because the world market value of grain in store at each of these two locations, one going east and the other going west, have been effectively the same.

Over the past decade or so changes in international marketing patterns have altered that historic equilibrium between Vancouver and Thunder Bay. In relative terms the effective world market value of grain in store at Thunder Bay has declined while the comparable value at Vancouver has increased.

To restore the balance in export values between grain moving west and grain moving east the eastern point of departure needs to be located in the lower St. Lawrence region, not at Thunder Bay. This change carries several different implications for prairie farmers in the returns they will receive on their wheat board sales.

Overall it will increase the amount all wheat and barley producers receive because the wheat board's total freight costs will be reduced. This will happen because the board's pooled costs will no longer include the seaway charges. The board's costs will be calculated from the lower St. Lawrence instead of Thunder Bay. The net result will be a general price improvement across the prairies of between $5 and $7 a tonne.

At the same time it needs to be noted that for producers in Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan who ship their grain east, their domestic shipping costs to get their grain into final export position will increase because they will absorb their own costs to the lower St. Lawrence and not just to Thunder Bay.

Going in the other direction producers in Alberta and western Saskatchewan who ship their grain west will no longer cross subsidize a portion of the domestic freight bill for more easterly located producers. They will pay only their own costs going to the west coast.

For many years farmers in the western part of the prairies have complained that the use of Thunder Bay as the wheat board's eastern point of departure for export sales was both unrealistic and unfair in that it added costs to those western producers and they were bearing those costs unfairly.

Farmers in the eastern part of the prairies have acknowledge this anomaly in the freight pooling system but they have worried, understandably so, about the higher domestic costs they would face if the eastern point of departure were shifted from Thunder Bay to the lower St. Lawrence.

Many discussions on how to fix the problem fairly have been held over the years dating back at least to 1985.

In our February 1995 federal budget we served notice that the time had come to implement a solution. We proposed to provide a final period of time for final consultations with all of the stakeholders with the necessary changes to be made as ofAugust 1, 1996.

Since the budget over the past three months intensive discussions with prairie farm organizations, the grain companies and co-operatives, the wheat board and provincial governments have led to a strong consensus that this issue can and should be resolved more quickly.

The industry has told me we should begin implementing the change in the freight pooling system on August 1 of this year, not next year, with the full impact to be phased in over three years.

As we said at the time of our February budget, a portion of the federal government's multiyear, $300 million transportation adjustment fund will be utilized to ease the impact of the freight cost pooling change on those most affected, namely farmers in Manitoba and in the eastern part of Saskatchewan.

For the 1995-96 crop year, since this change is being announced at a relatively late date and farmers have already made their production decisions for 1995, the available federal assistance will be designed as compensation to offset a very significant portion of the affected farmers' increased costs in the eastern prairies. For two additional years the federal assistance may be more flexible and more in the nature of adaptation encouragement in the affected area. This was the consensus of the western grains industry.

I have undertaken to try before the end of June to be very precise about the portion of the $300 million fund which will be available over the next three years to help address the impact of the pooling change.

While we are still working on all of the necessary calculations, I have informed the western grains industry I would estimate the available funding for this purpose to be in the order of some $100 million in total spread over a three year period. Depending on how we are able to apportion that very substantial sum year by year this level of transitional funding has a high level of industry support.

While the proposed freight pooling changes are now scheduled subject to parliamentary approval to begin to come into effect on August 1, 1995, the same date on which railway subsidies under the Western Grain Transportation Act will come to an end, it should be clear the cost changes which result from the pooling issue are separate and apart from the WGTA changes; the two should not be confused.

The WGTA subsidy is being eliminated for four very strong reasons: to comply with new world trading rules, to increase grain transportation efficiencies, to end freight rate discrimination against greater diversification and value added economic growth, and because the WGTA subsidy in excess of $560 million each year is no longer sustainable in the face of a $500 billion government debt.

By contrast, the freight pooling system has never involved a government subsidy. It has constituted instead a hidden form of cross subsidization among different groups of farmers, with those in Alberta and western Saskatchewan absorbing some freight costs on behalf of those in Manitoba and in the eastern part of Saskatchewan. Bill C-92 will end this anomaly. The cross subsidization will be phased out and significant transitional funding will ease the impact on those most affected.

Like the other agricultural bills I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, Bill C-92 enjoys good support among the stakeholders in our agricultural sector. It is very time sensitive and must be enacted before Parliament adjourns later this month.

I invite all hon. members to ensure its passage in a prompt and timely manner.

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

Madam Speaker, you will agree it is quite an honour for the official opposition critic for agriculture and agri-food to speak to a bill introduced by the Minister of Agriculture himself.

The purpose of Bill C-92 is to amend the Canadian Wheat Board-often referred to as the CWB-Act. It proposes to change the way transportation costs are shared by Prairie wheat and barley producers. As a result, prices paid by the CWB to farmers will more closely reflect actual transportation costs.

Currently, the calculation is based on the distance between the farm and so-called pooling points. In other words, from the farm to the port of delivery. The two pooling points are now Vancouver and Thunder Bay. The cost of shipping grain through the St. Lawrence Seaway from Thunder Bay is paid by the Wheat Board. This means the cost is shared by all Prairie producers, irrespective of the port they happen to use or their geographical location.

Of course the port of Thunder Bay does not have the facilities to handle large ocean-going vessels. Wheat and barley will be loaded onto ships that can negotiate the locks and the Great Lakes, and the wheat will be transhipped in one of the ports on the St. Lawrence. The bill does not say which ports. It just says "in the lower St. Lawrence region". The lower St. Lawrence is pretty big. The hon. member for Beauséjour will appreciate that these ports could include Sept-Îles, Baie-Comeau, Trois-Rivières, Quebec City, and Montreal. And there are other ports along the St. Lawrence.

For instance, it could be Baie-Comeau. The grain will then be transferred to huge ships with up to three times the capacity of those coming from Thunder Bay.

The cost of shipping grain through the St. Lawrence Seaway from Thunder Bay is paid, as I said earlier, by the Canadian Wheat Board. This means the costs are shared by all Prairie producers. Producers from the western Prairies who send their grain west to the port of Vancouver are paying part of the cost for farmers from the eastern Prairies whose grain is shipped through the St. Lawrence Seaway. In other words, western Prairie farmers are subsidizing eastern Prairie farmers.

Bill C-92 will shift the pooling point from Thunder Bay to the St. Lawrence Seaway. You will remember, Madam Speaker, if you were listening carefully, but I will repeat, nevertheless, that it is not spelled out which ports along the St. Lawrence Seaway will be part of this new pooling point, but I am told it might be Sept-Îles, Baie-Comeau, Trois-Rivières, or Quebec City, and possibly other ports along the St. Lawrence.

In this way, eastern Prairie farmers who send their grain through the St. Lawrence Seaway will pay the real cost instead of being subsidized by western Prairie producers. This change will have an impact on the price Prairie farmers will get for their grain.

The amount the CWB pays all wheat and barley producers in general will increase. It will increase because the CWB will no longer pay the cost of transportation from Thunder Bay to the St. Lawrence Seaway, since transportation costs are combined and deducted proportionately from market revenues distributed among all producers. This will affect prices.

In the future, they will be calculated from St. Lawrence ports, rather than from Thunder Bay. Producers in Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan shipping their grain east will pay increased domestic shipping costs, because they will now have to assume the real costs of shipping via ports on the lower St. Lawrence and not just via the port of Thunder Bay.

However, producers in western Saskatchewan and Alberta will no longer have to subsidize a part of the domestic transportation costs of producers living further east. Farmers in the western prairies have been saying for years that the Canadian Wheat Board's choice of Thunder Bay as the point of departure for exports to the east was unrealistic and meant additional and unfair costs for them. I agree with them. Farmers in the eastern prairies have always been aware of this anomaly, but are, understandably, somewhat anxious about the way it is being changed, because it will certainly lower their returns.

This change could take effect this August 1-in two months and three weeks, approximately-if Bill C-92, which we are discussing this morning, is adopted. The bill would indeed affect the returns of producers in various regions. A producer in the eastern prairies living in Brandon, Manitoba, for example, will have a $5.81 a tonne decrease in returns. He was previously dealing with the port of Thunder Bay, but will now have to use a port on the Lower St. Lawrence, which will decrease his returns by $5.81 a tonne.

When there is talk of a decrease of $5.81 per tonne, you must admit, Madam Speaker, that things are getting lean. Producers'net returns are being pared to the bone. The initial freight deduction would increase from $20.34 per tonne to $31.14 per tonne. However, due to a $4.99-almost $5-per tonne higher return from the CWB because of the elimination of the pooled shipping costs, the net effect would be a $5.81 per tonne decrease in returns. If you subtract $20.34 from $31.14, you get $10 and some loose change, minus the $4.99 per tonne producers will not have to pay, hence a decrease in returns of $5.81 per tonne, as I said before.

Obviously, when you look at it on a per tonne basis, it does not amount to much, but for a big grain producer, it adds up to a very substantial amount. The first example was located in the eastern portion of western Canada, in Manitoba. However, if we go further west, and take the example of a producer located near Calgary, Alberta, his return would not decrease but increase by $4.99, let us say $5 per tonne.

And yet, in Calgary, the initial freight deduction would remain the same at $22.19, because freight is still deducted to Vancouver only. However, with the increase in the CWB pool return because of the elimination of the pooled shipping costs from Thunder Bay, since all producers were contributing an additional amount, the net effect for producers in the Calgary area would be a $4.99 per tonne increase in returns.

I realize that all this talk about increasing and decreasing returns might be very technical for my colleagues in the House. But the many western grain producers who are listening to us this afternoon understand perfectly well what I am talking about. They know what it means to gain or lose $5 a ton; it is not an inconsequential amount. If they sell a ton of wheat for $135, a difference of $5 represents an additional income, or a loss, of 3.5 to 4 per cent, and a difference of 3.5 or 4 per cent is very important. Unions are fighting these days for new collective agreements with a 2 or 3 per cent wage increase, and they often have to go through several months of strike to get that.

Since we of the Bloc Quebecois came to Ottawa, 18 months ago already, our position on the transport subsidies has always been very clear. We strongly support deregulating. A system which conceals true prices with subsidies given left and right only brings the type of results we see today, that is a major distortion of markets. And that is exactly what we experienced.

The rail system, as it now operates, is proof enough of that. The criteria used to determine if a railway line should stay open are not the same in the west and in the east. In Western Canada, surprisingly enough, and I want to point this out to my Quebec colleagues in particular, a railway line is supposed to operate in the best interests of the public; in the east however, and especially in Quebec, it must be cost effective.

Let me mention the case of the Quebec Central Railway line which goes from Sherbrooke, through Lévis, to Vallée-Jonction and then from Vallée-Jonction to Lac-Frontière and St-Georges de Beauce, a total distance of 382 kilometres. Quebec Central always neglected its clients and gave poor service on that line; so it lost its clients one after the other. In my opinion, this was planned, to prove to the National Transportation Agency that the Chaudière-Vallée line was not viable. Finally, last year at about this time, Quebec Central, through its parent company Canadian Pacific, requested and obtained permission from the National Transportation Agency to abandon this line.

Of course, politicians, economic stakeholders and the regional county municipalities protested against this abandonment because, once more, we in this great and beautiful country of ours were up against distortions and double standards.

A secondary line similar to the one I mentioned which goes through Thetford and East Broughton, in my riding, would not have been abandoned in the west even if it had not been viable, because it would have been in the public interest. There is a double standard.

The result is that some railway lines, in Quebec especially, which served small and medium size municipalities were abandoned to offset the financial losses of other secondary lines in the west. Needless to say, we will be supporting Bill C-92, because we are in favour of people paying the real cost of transportation, and because we want to put an end to the market distortions that we presently have.

This morning I was at a sitting of the Standing Committee on Agriculture where we heard witnesses representing dairy farmers. I knew that a litre of milk cost about $1.06 but this morning I learned that there was a threshold price of 98 cents, below which the retailer cannot sell his milk, and a ceiling of $1.09, above which the same retailer cannot sell. Most consumers believe that the dairy producers get about 70 cents or 75 cents on this amount of $1.09.

Could you tell me, madam Speaker, what portion of the $1.05 or $1.09 that you probably paid for your litre of milk yesterday goes directly to the producer? This is not a trick question, Madam Speaker. You do not have the slightest idea, and this is not surprising. If I were to ask the same question to the vast majority of my hon. colleagues in the House, most of them would not be able to tell me what portion goes directly to the dairy producers.

Personally, I thought that the producer was getting 50 cents, but it is not even that much. This morning, we were told that the producer was getting 56 cents. You might say that it is more than 50 cents, but on that amount, the producer must pay the transportation costs from his farm to the dairy, or 18 cents. So, if you deduct 18 cents from the 56 cents, you end up with 38 cents.

So the producer gets 38 cents for each litre of milk he produces. Did you know that big dairies have to pay some fees to the retailer to be able to place their product on the display racks? You did not know that. It is very costly.

So a producer gets 38 cents per litre and the dairy will pay up to 20.5 cents to the store owner. The farm producer must feed, milk, and tend the cows, and keep them in a clean environment, which is costly and brings him only 38 cents per litre, whereas the retailer gets 20.5 cents per litre. This is totally unfair. Unfortunately, the vast majority of consumers are not aware of these facts.

I see my colleague from Charlesbourg, who is a veterinarian, and who treated several dairy herds in his practice. He was probably not aware of the fact that dairies have to give 20.5 cents to be able to sell their milk.

I would also like to point out that, in Canada, almost 80 per cent of the markets are shared between four main distributors, four main grocery chains. So they can decide, for example, whether they want to have the products of a particular dairy in their store or not.

In the end, who foots the bill? The consumers. Every year, I see dairy producers asking for an increase. I suppose that in August, the Canadian Dairy Commission will be hearing from the dairy producers that they want to get an increase. They will explain, in great detail, the effects of the 30 per cent cut in subsidies, which will come into effect in a few weeks or a few months, as well as the increase in production costs. I can assure you that the increase will be much more than only a few cents and a small fraction. The increase will have to be justified, when in fact there is no need to justify it to anyone.

I want to get back to Bill C-92. Furthermore, the amendment made to the bill does not involve taxpayers' pockets in any way. In fact, what it involves is a change in the system that affects only the grain growers. So, it is only a matter of setting transportation costs more fairly to reflect reality.

Though we can easily see that this amendment is more suited to the wishes of producers in the western part of the prairies than of those further to the east, we would be severely judged if we interfered in the internal business of grain producers.

However I have doubts about some clauses. By lowering returns of eastern prairie producers, Bill C-92 could well cause a reduction in quantities of grain shipped through the St. Lawrence Seaway. It would be very useful to know the extent of this possible reduction in order to be able to prevent the loss of too many jobs in the ports of the St. Lawrence Seaway.

I would appreciate very much if somebody on the other side, and I am thinking in particular of my colleague and friend for Beauséjour, could respond to this legitimate concern of stakeholders.

The other curious aspect of this bill is that it allows for the use of the grain transportation adjustment fund which, worth $300 million. Around $100 million could be allocated to ensure a smooth transition. At the outset, a $300 million fund over a five-year period was put aside for western grain producers. But in the next three years $100 million will be spread between Thunder Bay and the ports of the St. Lawrence Seaway and there is talk of spending some $40 million for the 1995-96 crop year starting at the end of summer.

This fund was meant to help producers adjust to the new situation, not to maintain the illusion, I repeat, the illusion that freight subsidies are still in place. Fortunately the agriculture minister said a few words about that earlier.

You know, in Quebec, we thought that this government was much more generous towards western grain producers than towards farmers in the east.

Western farm owners or tenants will receive $1.6 billion in direct subsidies. Considering that, in the west, 35 per cent of farms are leased, will this money be given to the owner or the tenant? No decision has been made yet. This $1.6 billion equals $18 an acre, and it is tax-free. Quite a gift.

If you find a $100 bill in the street, you put it in your pocket and do not declare it on your tax return. This is about the same thing. It is a gift, a present from the Liberal government.

Personally, I think it is too much, but grain producers think it is not enough. Liberals saw that in the Manitoba elections. They were almost sure to win, but only managed to get a few of their candidates elected. A real slap in the face. I have more fingers than I need on this hand to count the Manitoba Liberal members. My colleague for Chicoutimi reminds me that there are three of them.

According to opinion polls, the Liberal Party of Canada seems to be very healthy. We could try to find reasons for that. But once in the booth, it seems that Canadians often change their mind. We will see tonight, at 8 o'clock, if the policies and openness of this government really reflect reality when we know the results of the Ontario election.

A few weeks ago, in Ontario, Ms. Lyn McLeod was on cloud nine survey after survey; some of them gave more than 55 per cent of the votes to her Liberal Party. I remember that many of my colleagues in this House were bragging during statements by members. They were saying that Ontarians are intelligent, nice, that they know what they are doing, so they will vote for Lyn McLeod and the Liberal Party in Ontario.

Today, Ontario Liberals have changed their tune. Now, they say that Ontarians are being exploited, that they are naive and do not get the message. That is funny, they are not nice Ontarians any more. Six weeks ago, they were beautiful, nice, smart and today, they are not as much.

There are 99 federal ridings in Ontario. Only one is represented by one of my Reform colleagues, 98 out of 99 are Liberal. Does that really reflect reality? I do not think so. I had the opportunity on several occasions to go to Toronto in the last months. I was able to see that the Liberal Party was not enjoying the fine reputation that some here seemed to be bragging about.

I am inviting the hon. member for Beauséjour to my apartment tonight to watch the election results on the French information network in a friendly atmosphere.

To complete my remarks on Bill C-92, the $100 million to be allocated for adjustment purposes should be available only over the next three years. Farmers should not become dependent on this fund-it should not become a kind of antibiotic-since we might as well go back to the WGTA we have lived with for 98 years, which everyone wanted to revoke but did not dare do so for fear of creating uncertainty.

In three years, this $100 million will be gone, but it would be a shame if producers were left high and dry. This approach may simply delay the problem for three years. Why is this fund not used to really help people adapt or take early retirement?

We in the Bloc Quebecois will support Bill C-92, to compensate a little for market distortion, but this does not mean in any way that Bill C-92 does not have flaws that could perhaps be corrected.

Since I still have a few minutes left, allow me to get back to the problem facing most farmers in Quebec, Ontario and the maritimes. I referred earlier to the amounts the federal government is going to give western grain producers. There is a tax-free $1.6 billion, the $300 million adjustment fund to be spent over five years, and another $1 billion to promote agricultural exports.

The Minister of Agriculture is being very honest. He said earlier that the main purpose of reducing, of revoking the WGTA

is to diversify western agriculture and create value-added industries. Nothing could be better than creating value-added industries for our agricultural products. This is not a Canadian invention. All the countries in the world want added value, not for Canada but for themselves.

The proof is that Japan does not buy canola oil; it buys canola and makes its own oil, fats and margarine. That is quite normal. The Japanese are not crazy. I understand perfectly what they are doing. They come here and buy our wheat, but do their own milling and make their own flour. They do not buy wheat flour in bags. They do the value adding in their own country. They do not come here and buy loaves of bread just to please us. They buy wheat from us and bake their own bread at home.

We will have to play our cards right and, more importantly, be innovative in creating new products and carefully protecting the manufacturing processes, so that no one can come and copy them. So, every one is in favour of value adding, but the concern Quebecers and Ontarians in particular have is that federal subsidies could be used to diversify western agriculture, which would then compete with us on our own markets. I discussed this matter with two colleagues from the Reform Party; one is from Western Canada and the other from Ontario.

Of course, that is more or less what they are up to, but as long as I sit in this house, rest assured, Madam Speaker, that I will look after the interests of the people of Quebec, particularly those of the riding of Frontenac whom I represent. At the risk of ruffling the feathers of our western colleagues, I will say out loud what we, Quebecers, know how to use our brains.

I should point out that there is a new phenomenon at work in this House, and I hope that the people of Quebec will not repeat the mistake they made in 1970, 1972, 1976 and 1978, when they elected to this place 74 Liberal members-you are right, Madam Speaker, to whisper the figure to me-out of a maximum of 75, the exception being my pal Roch LaSalle, who had to run a one-man opposition from Quebec in this place.

We have seen what good it did Quebec to be represented by so many good Liberals, who were supposed to stand up for us. Just think of the War Measures Act. My hon. colleague will no doubt remember that, while there were only a handful of FLQ members, 498 people were arrested without any warrant, and detained for weeks. Tactics used in Russia and others totalitarian states were applied in Canada in the days of the good old Liberal Prime Minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

Léopold Corriveau, the member who represented my riding at the time, voted for the War Measures Act, a bludgeon law only fit for totalitarian states. Yet, any time a totalitarian state implements such measures, the Canadian government, the world leader of democratic governments, is the first to protest and make representations against them.

Last week, in the region where I live, young people from my village were collecting money to buy postage stamps to send letters to Latin-American countries, on behalf of Amnesty International, asking that prisoners of conscience, not to say political prisoners, be released.

I still admire Pauline Julien, but I admired her even more when I was a teenager, for her wonderful songs. Her husband, the late lamented Gérald Godin, was jailed under the War Measures Act. That very feeling man told himself: "In the next election, I will run against the man who contributed to having me unfairly imprisoned, and I will win". That man was one of your friends, Robert Bourassa, in 1976. He was soundly defeated in a French-speaking riding of Montreal's east end by Gérald Godin, who had been illegally jailed under the War Measures Act. That legislation had been supported by 74 Liberal members, with only one opposing it. This is a real shame.

Quebecers' motto is "Je me souviens", I remember. We do remember, but we are very ashamed.

I am pleased to participate in the debate on this bill, but it makes me relive all these episodes, and all the injustices done to Quebec in the past.

I do hope that the day is soon coming when Quebecers will have a country of their own, collect their own taxes, draft their own legislation, and manage their own affairs as they see fit, and I also hope that there will be nothing untoward that we would live to regret for the rest of our lives. Liberal members opposite will have to live with the War Measures Act of 1970 for the rest of theirs.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am here today to debate Bill C-92, which is a bill to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act. I find I have today less energy and less enthusiasm for debate and participation in the House than I should have and would normally have.

We witnessed in the House less than an hour ago an action that makes me sad and angry at the same time. What we have seen is the Liberal government, a government that campaigned on a more open and honest type of government, a government that campaigned on improving the democratic system in the House, invoke closure on three bills that are very important to Canadians and that Canadians want to be debated fully in the House.

One of these bills is Bill C-41, the bill that will allow the courts to impose greater sentences on those convicted of crimes motivated by hate. Hate can be based on many-

[Glen McKinnon, Liberal, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I would like to question the relevancy of what the member is speaking on in connection with Bill C-92.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I request the member for Vegreville relate his remarks to the bill before the House.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Madam Speaker, as members will see as I go along, one of the aspects I deal with in regard to this legislation is the lack of democracy in the Canadian Wheat Board. That is related to this bill. I make these comments and they will be tied in to my presentation later.

I can understand the member's not wanting me to bring up the issue of closure. He should be ashamed. It is important that I do, and it will strengthen my argument later when I talk about the lack of democracy in the Canadian Wheat Board.

Three bills now have had closure invoked by the Liberal government. They are bills that are very important to Canadians and they should have full debate in the House.

This follows on the heels of the corruption we have seen in the government on the part of the heritage minister, which has not been dealt with by the Prime Minister, who would have called for the resignation of the heritage minister had he been willing to deal with this issue the way he should. It really makes it difficult for me to gather any kind of enthusiasm to debate any bill, including this bill, Bill C-92, having to follow that kind of performance on the part of this government.

I will discuss Bill C-92 today under three basic categories. First I will talk about what the bill is, what is in the bill and what should be in the bill. Second, I will talk about the impact on grain farmers and on the grain industry of this legislation if it is passed as it has been presented. Third, I will talk about how this bill fails to deal with the broader changes that are needed in the Canadian Wheat Board, including the democratic changes I alluded to.

The bill is another attempt to tinker with a system that needs major change. I am talking about the Canadian Wheat Board, an organization which I think Reformers support. I believe there is widespread support in the Reform Party for the Canadian Wheat Board and our policy demonstrates this. There is also widespread support for reform of the Canadian Wheat Board particularly to make it more responsive to farmers who after all pay for the full cost of operating the board and whom the board exists to serve.

The bill is a move in the right direction and will providea move toward a more market driven and more transparent system, at least in this one very narrow area of freightpooling. However, this bill is tinkering with the system when we should have broad legislation which would completely change the Canadian Wheat Board as it exists today.

The tinkering is because of other changes that have been implemented in the transportation system with the trade agreements in the grain handling system. I believe even these changes are not wanted by the minister and certainly not by the Canadian Wheat Board, but they are needed to keep up with the times.

Bill C-92 if passed will make changes to the Canadian Wheat Board Act which will allow changes to the Canadian Wheat Board's freight pooling system. Farmers from eastern Saskatchewan and all of Manitoba will pay higher freight costs, while farmers from western Saskatchewan and Alberta and the Peace River block of British Columbia which is in the Canadian Wheat Board area will pay lower freight costs. This change in freight costs will reflect more accurately the actual cost of moving the grain from these locations. In this regard the bill does provide a move in the right direction.

I have many concerns about the bill. It includes very little in terms of detail. The bill will allow for the changes which will make the freight costs that farmers are paying much closer to what the market would indicate they should be but there is very little in the bill that will ensure these changes will take place. There is nothing in the bill that says it must happen. There are only changes that will allow it to happen. This is of great concern to me. Any changes that are made will be made by order in council, by the minister and cabinet.

While there is some background information on the numbers and the specifics of the changes, there is very little detail of this in the legislation. We will push for amendments that will add some certainty to the legislation as to just what kinds of dollar changes will be made in the freight costs for farmers across western Canada with regard to wheat board grain.

The bill only applies to board grains which are wheat and barley for export. It does not apply to all the other grains and special crops that farmers produce.

I will go over in a bit more detail what is included in Bill C-92. The stated purpose of the bill is to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act to change pooling points on which initial payments are based from Thunder Bay and Vancouver to points in Canada designated by the governor in council and to establish

a deduction from the initial payments that reflect the relative transportation cost advantage of each producer.

Through the bill, which will be effective August 1 if it is passed by the House before the session ends, the federal government will change how eastward grain transportation costs are paid. That means eastern prairie farmers who ship through the St. Lawrence seaway will have to pay the full cost of movement, or at least close to the full cost, within three years.

In the past, all prairie farmers have shared the costs of shipping Canadian Wheat Board grain through pooling. The extra cost of shipping Canadian Wheat Board grain through the seaway system, which is on average $22 a tonne, has been pooled. Not only are the farmers who are shipping their grain through Thunder Bay and on down the St. Lawrence paying the extra costs, but all farmers within the wheat board designated area who ship grain to the board are sharing the costs through the pool.

That means all farmers, in particular the farmers from western Saskatchewan and Alberta, have been receiving less for their wheat and barley than they should have been. Farmers from eastern Saskatchewan and Manitoba have been receiving more than they should have been. This has been done by pooling the freight costs so that all farmers take an equal deduction from their price for the cost of freight. I have many concerns about this being done and I will discuss some of them later.

Originally the government planned to change the eastern pooling points next year. However, at least according to the minister, several Manitoba farm groups have called on him to make the change effective at the start of this crop year which begins on August 1.

The minister claimed that the farm groups which have been encouraging him to make the change have said they need the change in order to bring more certainty to the system. In other words, they say they want to know what will happen and they want to know now. They want to know how much more it is going to cost them. That is coming from the farmers in Manitoba who are going to pay more. That is the way the minister of agriculture explained the need for making the change this crop year on August 1 rather than next year.

It is commendable that the minister would want to allow this kind of certainty to at least creep into the Canadian Wheat Board freight pooling system. It is unfortunate that the same kind of certainty will not be in place when the changes are made to the WGTA, in terms of moving grain by the rail system. That uncertainty will be there until 1999, the year before the maximum freight rates may be lifted. The decision will not be made until the year before the rates can be lifted and that leaves a lot of uncertainty in place. I encourage the minister to be as concerned about the uncertainty caused by that change which was implemented by the budget as he is about the change to the pooling of freight through the Canadian Wheat Board.

Consistency is needed. We need the minister to make some decisions which will add certainty to the agriculture industry. I commend him for doing it in this one narrow area.

In terms of transitional assistance, a fund which came about as a result of this budget, $300 million was put in place for a transition fund. It is meant to be used to help different sectors of agriculture deal with the change in the freight rate.

Nothing in the bill states this but through discussions the department has said that about $100 million of this $300 million in transition funds will be paid to farmers in Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan over a three year period to help them deal with the added freight costs they will find themselves covering out of their own pockets. This is reasonable because it is an additional burden put on the Manitoba farmers even above the burden of paying full costs which, as a result of this budget, have been put in place for all western farmers.

All western farmers will be paying the full freight costs as of August 1. With this change, Manitoba farmers will be paying an additional cost of approximately $6 a tonne. It would be extremely difficult for the farmers to deal with this starting on August 1 of this year. The transition money being paid to these farmers is reasonable. I know some of my colleagues will talk about a concern they have about there being enough money left in this fund to help alfalfa and timothy shippers deal with the radical changes they face in their industry.

I have talked about what is in this legislation. Now I will talk about what is not in this legislation as it applies to the government achieving the goals it has laid out through this legislation.

As long as there is a Canadian Wheat Board where there is a price pooling system in place, it will be necessary to have a pooling schedule for freight. It is necessary for that system to work.

There are very few specifics in this bill regarding the exact nature of the new freight pooling system. For instance, there us very little information about the decision on the actual catchment areas, which will be smaller areas of pooling within these catchment areas, and what they might look like. There have been some proposals put forth but there is no certainty in these. We do not know for sure what the catchment areas will look like.

If the government decides to put in place the national grains bureau recommendation for catchment areas, then there will be four catchment areas for wheat: the west coast, the east coast, Churchill and the U.S. There will still be freight pooling within these areas. Why are we not moving toward a system that fully

reflects the marketplace and the cost to farmers? Why are we just tinkering and going part way? However, it is definitely a move in the right direction.

If the government goes with the national grains bureau proposal on malting barley there would be two catchment areas, the west coast and the United States. Again, it is a move in the right direction even though it does not go far enough.

It is appropriate at this time to explain clearly what this freight pooling does and how it relates to the price pooling which operates under the Canadian Wheat Board. The freight pooling as I explained before causes all farmers who sell grain through the Canadian Wheat Board to pay an equal amount of the freight bill, even if after looking at the market signals they should be paying less, or perhaps more.

This has lowered the price in the price pool which gives all farmers an equal price for their wheat. It has lowered the price by the same amount no matter what the freight costs are. Clearly to have this price pooling system work there must be some kind of a freight pooling system in place. Otherwise it would be extremely difficult though not impossible for the wheat board to calculate the payments which go to all farmers.

To explain a bit more about the pooling system I will give a brief summary from a background document which, while not part of the legislation, is said by the department to be what the legislation is based on. It is a summary of two proposals put forward by the National Grains Bureau and the Canadian Wheat Board.

The first proposal comes from the National Grains Bureau. Under its proposal all producers would be deducted a decreasing freight amount moving east or west of the west coast catchment area.

The proposal was widely discussed in the payment producer panel report. The payment producer panel was established by the Conservative government and was continued by the Liberal government. Unfortunately its proposals really were not considered when the changes were made to the Western Grain Transportation Act which is what this panel was discussing.

The National Grains Bureau proposal was later modified to include shipments through Churchill and directly to the U.S. market. The relative proximity of a producer to these markets would determine the basis for the deduction. That is the National Grains Bureau proposal.

The second is the CWB '85 proposal, as it is called. This proposal recognizes the general equivalence of west coast and St. Lawrence ports in terms of sales returns. It recommended that the eastern pooling point be changed from Thunder Bay to the St. Lawrence. That is what will happen if the legislation is passed as the department says it will.

However this proposal will not work under the current circumstances because of the higher demand for grain from customers in the Japan and Saudi Arabian markets. The proposal will not work until a balance can once again be achieved between the east coast and the west coast shipments.

The Canadian Wheat Board proposes to devise a system of pooling based primarily on the National Grains Bureau model. The Canadian Wheat Board is hoping that because of the increased transportation costs inherent in the National Grains Bureau proposal, producers will compare returns from pool accounts for wheat, durum, feed barley, malt barley and non-Canadian Wheat Board crops and eventually diversify, based on anticipated future rates of return.

The Canadian Wheat Board wants to move toward the CWB'85 proposal as constraints on the west coast catchment area are reduced. It believes in the long term this will be a viable option.

In a nutshell those are the two proposals which were outlined in the background paper given to the committee and to MPs who were interested in Bill C-92.

I will now comment on how the Liberals are trying to rig the entire system in order to keep the Canadian Wheat Board as a monopoly seller even though it is really no longer practical or viable.

The bill seeks to make a new pooling system with the same type of structure, except using smaller catchment areas, so there is an advantage, but using the same type of system. Instead of making major changes to the whole wheat board system and to the freight costs to farmers, the government has chosen to try to modify the old system. Too often this is the type of thinking that creeps into a bureaucracy. It is certainly here in this bill. It is unfortunate because it really does fulfil all of the changes that are needed.

One of my concerns about this legislation is that we really do not know the details. The background paper is there, but it is not part of the legislation.

That summarizes what is in the bill and what is missing at least as it relates to what the stated purpose of this bill is. I would now like to discuss the impact of this legislation on farmers and on the grain industry if it goes forward as it is proposed.

This change reflects at least partially the actual cost to farmers of shipping from different points on the prairies, again limited because they are still pooling within each of the four catchment areas.

At least it moves in the right direction. I will demonstrate using some numbers from the background paper for wheat and for barley. First for wheat. Wheat being shipped from Winnipeg, Portage la Prairie, Brandon under this new proposal will cost

farmers about $5.80 more per tonne than it does under the present system.

On the other hand, farmers from Medicine Hat, Lethbridge, Calgary would pay about $5 a tonne less than they do under the present system. Therefore it will cost about $6 more for farmers in western Saskatchewan and Manitoba, depending on which catchment area they are in, and farmers in southern Alberta will receive $5 more for their grain. The amount in other areas depends on which catchment area farmers are in.

The change for feed barley is even more dramatic. Feed barley is a lower priced commodity. Under this proposal, farmers in the Winnipeg, Portage la Prairie, Brandon area will pay anywhere from $16 to $18.50 a tonne more to ship their grain than they have in the past, whereas farmers from Medicine Hat, Lethbridge and Calgary will pay $7 to $8 per tonne less than they do under the present system.

The change will cause the freight cost paid by farmers to reflect more closely the actual cost of moving the grain. Therefore this is a move in the right direction.

The third area I will discuss is what this bill fails to do in reforming the Canadian Wheat Board. I certainly cannot talk about everything it fails to do but I want to talk about the points that are most relevant to this bill.

I begin by reading an open letter to grain farmers that I sent to papers across western Canada. This letter was picked up by most of the weekly papers across western Canada and some of the larger papers.

I want to read the letter. It certainly ties in with the importance of making the wheat board more democratic:

Over the past year, the Canadian Wheat Board has been greatly debated by both farmers and national media. The publicity and discussion surrounding this issue has resulted in a polarization of public opinion. Farmers who support changing the Canadian Wheat Board are immediately branded as board destroyers. Farmers who do not support changes to the Canadian Wheat Board also find themselves under attack by those who strongly favour change.

During meetings with farmers and farm groups, I have been promoting a mechanism for building a bridge across the gap that separates those who favour changes to the board and those who are opposed. It is a mechanism which all farmers could support. I believe the first real step toward meaningful change to the Canadian Wheat Board is through a farmer elected board of directors which would replace the current system of government appointed commissioners and an advisory board that has no real power.

Farmers should be given the authority, which is rightfully theirs because they pay the bills, to decide what type of wheat board they want. An elected board of directors would replace the current system of government appointed commissioners and shift control away from the federal government to farmers.

Within 6 to 18 months of electing a board of directors, farmers should be given a chance to democratically examine their organizational and jurisdictional options. This will allow grain farmers to carefully consider and vote on a variety of market opportunities.

These options could include introducing greater domestic and international market competition, allowing the purchase of wheat and barley on either a cash basis or a pool basis and allowing the board to operate as a seller from export terminal positions only, which would take the board completely out of the car allocation and grain handling process. These and other issues would be decided directly by farmers through referendum.

An elected board of directors would submit their proposals for initial crop payments to Parliament as the commissioners do now. Elected representatives would then vote to determine if these payments were reasonable. The purpose behind the measure is to provide a government check on the otherwise independent board by having Parliament approve initial payments and loan guarantees because taxpayers' dollars are involved.

Farmers themselves will have their own ideas regarding the Canadian Wheat Board and how to make it work better for farmers. All of these proposals must be considered.

Several people have asked what my personal position is regarding possible changes to the board. I support the concept of opening the board up to competition. However, it is not up to me or the federal government to decide on the future of the Canadian Wheat Board. This decision must be made solely by western Canadian grain farmers.

The Canadian Wheat Board will be a subject of continued discussion until the democratic rights of Canadian grain farmers are restored and they are given a real choice in how their organization will run in the future.

An elected board of directors is the only real option for the federal government. After all, who can argue with democracy?

It has become apparent from what we have seen in the House today that the government can argue with democracy. We do not have a functioning democracy in Parliament and we must get a functioning democracy in the House. The Liberals must uphold their promise in that regard.

They must also make the changes necessary to allow farmers to democratically control the future of the Canadian Wheat Board and to decide what the wheat board should be. Why should government make these decisions? Why should the farmers marketing board be answerable to the minister and be directed by the minister rather than by farmers? It makes no sense.

This issue has been a very emotional one for several reasons. Farmers who remember when the Canadian Wheat Board came into place know that it served a very useful function.

At the time the Canadian Wheat Board was established there was a lack of competition in the grain buying business in Canada. Farmers never had a properly functioning marketplace. There was no competition at a lot of delivery points. Farmers were at the mercy of the grain buyers because the information system in place today was not there. Today's transportation system was not in place and farmers were largely hauling grain

by wagon. It would be too difficult to take a load of grain home again after they had delivered it to the elevator. Therefore, they really were at the mercy of the grain buyers.

When the wheat board came into being it served a very useful purpose. It still does but it is a different purpose now.

The people who remember what the wheat board gave them when it came into place in 1935 tend to forget the changes that have been made since. They also forget the reality of the marketplace we live in now, with good information sources and relatively good transportation to get the grain from the farm to the elevators.

People also forget that when the wheat board was developed in 1935 it was a voluntary board. Farmers had a choice. They could choose to deliver to the Canadian Wheat Board and share in the pool price or they could choose to ship to a buyer to any market and completely bypass the board. That is the way it was when the Canadian Wheat Board was established.

In 1943 under the War Measures Act the wheat board was given a monopoly. Why was it given a monopoly? I found it very interesting to read the newspaper articles and to read the discussion in the House that surrounded this change in 1943 that gave the wheat board its monopoly. This change was made by order in council; it never passed through Parliament.

The change was made to the Canadian Wheat Board to make it a monopoly so that the war effort in Canada and in Europe would be helped. Grain prices at the time were increasing rapidly and the government was finding it too expensive to ship grain to Europe to help with the war effort and to feed the troops in Canada. The choices it had were to borrow more money to pay more for the grain or to make the wheat board a monopoly buyer in the Canadian market. Through order in council it chose to make the wheat board a monopoly buyer in the Canadian market, which it has remained until today, even though the circumstances are much different today.

When people discuss the Canadian Wheat Board there is a lot of talk about the monopoly selling aspect of the board. The wheat board does not have a monopoly on sales. It sells into a market with a lot of competition. Grain companies from around the world compete on the sell side. There is no selling monopoly. The only monopoly the Canadian Wheat Board has is on the buy side. Farmers have been forced to sell grain through the board since that order in council passed in 1943 for any grain, any wheat or barley being sold for export and for wheat being used for domestic purposes in Canada.

This has been an emotional issue for some time. A second reason this has been an emotional issue is that people are generally afraid of change. I will give a few quotes from a paper given by Dr. Larry Martin to the B.C. egg producers in March. I sincerely hope the quotes I use allow the content of his paper to be brought forward. It is a commendable paper. He is talking about change in agriculture generally, not just this change that is being proposed to the Canadian Wheat Board. Dr. Martin says the biggest obstacle to Canadian agriculture competing over the next decade is farmers themselves. The change in thinking that is needed is that the agriculture industry in place today nowhere nearly reflects the agriculture industry that will be in place 10 years down the road.

Here are some of the quotes I thought were particularly good: "Look forward 20 years", Martin challenged, "and you won't recognize the Canadian agri-food industry. We are lucky to be living during the most exciting period for the industry. This is why we have to think seriously about how that change can be managed, because we have only that one chance to get it right". This is from the Canada Poultry Man magazine.

The other quote compares the American system in the supply managed industries, with very large operators, to the Canadian system, which has smaller operators. He says the smaller operators can still compete very well: "Small operations allow for industry flexibility, whereas larger U.S. companies may be low cost but can't switch quickly and have to market using the `here it is, buy it cheap and eat it' philosophy". This philosophy applies as well to the grains industry. Farmers need the ability, even though they are small operations, either directly or through the grain companies to sell to whomever they want, without the regulations and the unnecessary interference from government.

At second reading Reform will be supporting Bill C-92. However, we will be looking for amendments. We will be looking for changes and we will be proposing amendments in committee or in the House at the appropriate time.

[Glen McKinnon, Liberal, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise to speak in support of Bill C-92, which is a bill to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act. The bill will result in a fairer method of allocating freight costs among prairie producers of wheat and barley sold through the Canadian Wheat Board.

The change in freight cost pooling has been requested by the western grains industry and by those farmers who make their living doing what they do best, growing wheat and barley on the Canadian prairies. This change, once approved, will allow the

returns received by farmers from the Canadian Wheat Board to more accurately reflect actual market conditions and costs.

My hon. friends may be asking themselves just what wheat board pooling is, how it works and why it is being changed. At this juncture some background explanation may be instructive.

Currently producers within the Canadian Wheat Board who deliver grains to the board have deducted from their initial payment the freight costs incurred in moving their product to export position. That has traditionally been either Thunder Bay or Vancouver, whichever happens to result in the lower freight rate. For example, under the current pooling system producers in my home area, which is Brandon, who live closer to Thunder Bay, would have an estimated $20.34 a tonne in freight charges deducted from their initial payments as of August 1, 1995. A similar grain producer in the Calgary area would naturally be closer to the port of Vancouver and would have a freight deduction estimated at about $22.19. Grain being shipped to Thunder Bay faces an additional cost of about $20 a tonne to move from Thunder Bay east through the St. Lawrence seaway to final export position.

The additional costs are currently shared equally by all producers through the Canadian Wheat Board's pool accounts. For wheat, around $7 per tonne is paid by all producers out of the pool account to cover the additional expense.

The current pooling system means that income from the western part of the prairies is being transferred to the eastern part of the prairies. Even if the grain producer ships all their wheat to Vancouver, they are paying through the pool accounts to have eastern prairie grain transported from Thunder Bay farther down the St. Lawrence to ports that handle more export business.

Farmers in the western prairies are subsidizing part of those shipping costs for farmers in the eastern prairies. Clearly, the situation calls for change. A need for change has long been recognized by many throughout the industry. As some of the previous commentators on the bill have indicated, many producers have been afraid of embarking on a route that would enable such changes to occur. The driving force behind the change has come from industry and farm groups themselves. Parliament is merely carrying out the strongly conveyed wishes of those who work in and earn their living from the western grains industry. In addition, the four western provincial governments also support the necessary changes.

At this juncture some may be asking themselves why the government is carrying out its comprehensive reform to Canada's grain transportation system. More specifically, why is the grain freight cost pooling system being changed now?

There are at least four reasons why it makes sense to take action to reform the grain transport system. First, the new GATT agreement contains a number of rules against trade distorting export subsidies, including the WGTA, which all parties have recognized has been a distorting mechanism. If we do not make fundamental changes to our grain transport system, Canada could see itself being shut out of vital export markets.

Second, it is in our interest to develop a grain transport system that is more efficient, faster, and less expensive to operate. The savings that will come from such a system must be shared fairly and equally among all the participants, most especially by the farmers.

Third, Canada's prairie economy has been stifled for decades by a freight rate structure that promotes exporting of primary products and actively discourages diversification and value added processing. Until we end that discrimination, the west will be prevented from achieving its full potential.

Finally, this government and the people of Canada can no longer afford the luxury of annual rail subsidies of more than half a billion dollars, not when the government is facing a debt load of more than $500 billion and interest charges amounting to $120 million each and every day of the year.

For years now farmers in the western regions of the prairies have complained that maintaining Thunder Bay as the eastern pooling point was just not realistic and that it unfairly added to the cost borne by the producers in the western part of the prairies. For their part, the farmers in the eastern parts of the prairies have acknowledged this anomaly but have voiced concern about higher freight costs they would face if the eastern pooling point were changed from Thunder Bay to the lower St. Lawrence.

It is my belief that this bill strikes a careful balance between the interests of western and eastern prairie producers. It is a product of a long debate, going back as far as 1985, and more recent intensive analysis and close consultation involving the prairie farm organizations, industry, the provinces, and the grain cooperatives. This consultation has resulted in the proposed changes we are debating here today.

The grain farmers of western Canada have spoken. They have told us with a strong and united voice that there is a problem with the current grain pooling system, that the problem needs to be addressed, and that it must be addressed now.

We must act now. The freight pooling system has never involved a subsidy. It has involved a form of cross-subsidization of one group of farmers subsidizing those in another. These same producers are now telling us that they want this current arrangement brought to an end. The people have spoken. Change will be happening.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Madam Speaker, I ask the hon. member, who I think is from rural Manitoba, if grain farmers in his constituency support this change, which will add a cost to their shipping of grain of between $5 and $17 a tonne, depending on the grain and which catchment area they fall within.

Although I did not hear it in the member's speech, I would like to comment on his support for invoking closure on C-68 as well.

[Glen McKinnon, Liberal, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have no comment to make on any closure at any time on any bill. However, I was most pleasantly surprised by his first question asking my opinion, because he is the recognized economist in the grains business in Alberta. I appreciate the point he is raising.

There has been a strong recognition that Brandon, Manitoba, is one of the highest cost shipping points throughout the grain transportation industry. In order to allow the current farmers to maintain their position as farmers, they are recognizing that some transitions are going to have to be made over a period of time. There will be some shifts, some changes, some partnerships that will have to be struck.

My region probably leads western Canada already in diversification thrusts in terms of crop production. If members look into some of the data they will find Brandon-Souris is a strong agricultural area. I am hopeful it will continue to be so in the future.