Madam Speaker, before speaking on the motion put forward by my hon. colleague from Kindersley-Lloydminster, I would like to comment on the confusion that seemed to exist among the hon. member's colleagues in the Reform Party reflecting in essence his party's view of the thrust to be given the many legislative changes on agriculture.
It is disappointing to see the reluctance of the Reform Party and especially the ideological barriers colouring its rather limited contribution to the ongoing debate in the Quebec and Canadian agricultural sector.
Now, moving to serious matters, to Bill C-34. While the motion before us today was amended a number of times in the past few days, it still contains elements that run counter to the concern the government must have for farm producers.
We are aware of the fact that Bill C-34 involves developing programs for the marketing of agricultural products, which means having products to market, which provide a profit for producers, at a fair price to consumers. This means, for the producers, having more effective tools to recover the costs associated with operating a farm.
The amendment put forward by my hon. colleague from the third party removes two of the elements that form the very basis for this bill. It would eliminate the government's role as regulator of the agricultural market as set in clause 31 of the bill and ensure impunity in the case of refusal to provide information leading to a better analysis process in order to properly define the principles underlying clause 31.
I get the impression that, through Bill C-34, my hon. colleague is trying set a kind of precedent in order to apply the principle in the debate on restructuring the Canadian Wheat Board. I must tell my
hon. colleague from the Reform Party, however, that any such legislative change can in no way apply to the Canadian Wheat Board because of its status and prerogatives. In this context, what the hon. member is asking in his motion is to limit the important contribution of the government in stabilizing costs in the agri-food sector.
Concretely, this enables the government to maintain the price of a given product at a certain level in the event of crop failure or, conversely, when harvest is too good and plentiful.
To illustrate the problem, we could take the example of the 1988 maple syrup production. You may recall that, in 1988, record amounts of maple syrup were produced. Consequently, maple syrup producers found themselves with barrels of grade A1 and even AA syrup that they could not sell even for less than a basic price, to at least cover their operation costs. In the case of maple syrup, the government had decided to support prices by buying up maple syrup surpluses from producers, and thus avoid a price drop. Stocks were stored, to be put on the market later, at a time of relative shortage, or in a year when production would be much more limited. This is why the price of maple syrup fluctuates very little from year to year. The Reform member seems not to know this basic economic rule.
Based on the same approach, the second motion of the Reform member seeks to ensure impunity for an action preventing the government from obtaining information that might be necessary to fulfil its role of price stabilizer. Obviously, and you will agree with me, this way of thinking is totally unacceptable, since it defeats government efforts to make things better for farmers.
The member's logic is even more flawed when you consider the high level of confidentiality governing this type of government intervention. From an administrative point of view, no one has any business knowing someone's personal situation, since the substance of this bill is to take action for the good of farm operators, based on a global and collective vision.
Before concluding, I remind the House that Bloc Quebecois members were and continue to be in agreement with the general principle of Bill C-34. However, we strongly oppose the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster. We care too much about farmers, given their role, to risk a lowering of their industry's standards of operation.
In conclusion, I ask Reformers to reconsider their opinion and their position, for the good of consumers and farm producers.
Should there be a very bad crop, prices could increase unduly and eliminate a number of farmers. In three, four or five years, there could be a shortage of farmers, or else prices could remain unusually high.
For the good of the general public and of farmers, consumers and processors, it is important to support the substance of Bill C-34 and to oppose the two amendments proposed by the Reform member.