Debates of June 17th, 1996

Income Tax Budget Amendment Act

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, before you make your decision on the amendment. If there is any doubt on the acceptability of the amendment I refer you to Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 568, which states:

It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed.

This omnibus bill deals with various tax acts including the Income Tax Act and the Canada Shipping Act. The registration of ships under foreign flag is in the shipping act which the bill amends. It is a matter of the Income Tax Act which the bill also amends. The bill deals with the closing of a tax loophole. I refer to the section of the bill that addresses the family trust issue. Flying flags of convenience is but another loophole of the rich that needs to be addressed.

The government should not go ahead with this bill but come forward with a bill that addresses all loopholes and the flags of convenience issue in particular.

I refer to Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 733:

There are limitations on the types of amendments that can be moved on third reading. They must be relevant to the bill which they seek to amend.

My amendment is relevant to the Income Tax Act and the Canada Shipping Act which the bill seeks to amend. The citation goes further and says that the amendment:

-should not contradict the principle of the bill as adopted on second reading.

The bill addresses a major controversial loophole of the rich, that of the family trust. My amendment addresses a loophole of the rich as well. As I mentioned earlier my amendment addresses acts that are covered in the bill.

Citation 670 of Beauchesne's outlines some criteria for a reasoned amendment. Section 2 of the citation states:

It may not propose an alternative scheme.

My amendment does not do this. In fact I want to expand on the closing of tax loopholes for the rich. Citation 670(5) of Beauchesne's states:

It may express opinions as to any circumstance connected with the introduction or prosecution of the bill-

While we are looking at the Canada Shipping Act and the Income Tax, we should be looking at the issue of flying flags of convenience and close that loophole for the rich and powerful.

The amendment is in order because it relates to the bill. Yet it will open the debate on the issue of legally avoiding paying taxes. It may be legal but it certainly is not pro-Canadian. It is a loophole that must be looked at in the same light as the family trust issue.

It is shameful that some people in the country are willing to reap the benefits that are-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. The comments that have been made are debate. Beyond the submissions from the hon. member for Vegreville with regard to citations 568, 733 and 670, I would only ask him if there are any others and to refer to them very succinctly and briefly. There are none.

In consultation with our table officers, the Chair rules that the amendment is not in order.

I draw the House's attention to Beauchesne's sixth edition, article 568:

It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed.

In my consideration the issue of flying flags is a new issue which goes beyond the scope of this bill.

I equally draw to the attention of the House Beauchesne's sixth edition, article 671:

The following rules govern the contents of reasoned amendments. (1) The principle of relevancy in an amendment governs every such motion. The amendment must "strictly relate to the bill which the House, by its order, has resolved upon considering"-

Therefore respectfully I thank the hon. member for Vegreville who obviously took a great deal of time and effort in preparing his argument. In this instance the Chair is not in agreement and has ruled this amendment is not in order.

Resuming debate on Bill C-36. Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

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

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The vote will take place tomorrow at 5.30 p.m.

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Lévis, railway safety.

On the Order: Government Orders:

May 3, 1996-The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food-Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food of Bill C-34, an act to establish programs for the marketing of agricultural products, to repeal the Agricultural Products Board Act, the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act, the Advance Payments for Crops Act and the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Agricultural Marketing Programs Act

[David Anderson, Liberal, for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

I move:

That Bill C-34, an act to establish programs for the marketing of agricultural products, to repeal the Agricultural Products Board Act, the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act, the Advance Payments for Crops Act and the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be referred forthwith to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

[Jerry Pickard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to begin debate on the motion to refer Bill C-34, the agricultural marketing programs act, to committee before second reading.

The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has asked the House to approve this procedure because he wants the committee to ensure that all members with any interest in this legislation have opportunity to be heard.

During the 1993 election campaign we made commitments to give MPs greater influence in the legislative process. By moving to proceed directly to committee on this bill, we are following through on those commitments.

Even though we consulted extensively across the country with this bill, we are following this procedure to make sure no thoughts or concepts are overlooked.

The objective of Bill C-34 is to provide a common legislative base for financial marketing programs in agriculture and to reinstate provisions for interest free cash advances.

Currently, the efficient and orderly marketing of agricultural commodities is supported and encouraged through four acts, one of which is the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, developed to assist producers marketing Canadian Wheat Board crops, wheat and barley by providing them with cash flow soon after harvest when marketing bottlenecks often occur.

Second is the Advance Payments for Crops Act, which is to assist producers who market all storable crops other than Canadian Wheat Board wheat and barley. Third is the Agriculture Products Co-operative Marketing Act, designed to encourage producers to process their products co-operatively. Fourth is the Agricultural Products Board Act, used to facilitate intergovernment sales and to purchase products from domestic markets to be sold at a later date when the market is not under pressure.

These acts were all developed at different times. They reflect the domestic, North American and world markets and marketing systems which were in existence when they were created. Although these different acts have served farmers well, many farmers and farm groups have found it confusing to have four different pieces of legislation.

They have also expressed concern that the present legislation does not treat all producers equally. For these reasons the government is proposing to replace the four acts by one new piece of legislation called the agricultural marketing programs act.

This legislation is the end result of extensive consultations throughout the sectors. The federal government consulted more than 80 producer groups directly for their input on Agriculture and Agri-food Canada's financial programs. We also asked over 160 producer groups and other organizations including provincial governments to review a summary report from the consultation process and give us their comments.

The proposed act takes into account as many of the suggestions expressed by producers as possible. It has received widespread support among the producer groups.

The new legislation responds to the needs of producers. It will treat all commodity groups and all regions of the country alike. At the same time, the new act is flexible enough to meet the needs of producers who operate under different and diverse marketing systems throughout the country.

Another important point is that the new act will tighten administrative controls, thereby reducing administrative costs. It will also eliminate inconsistencies and inequities between the two previous advance payment programs. This new act is thus in line with the government's commitment to increase budgetary efficiency and get the structure of government right.

This new act also fulfils the promise we made in the last federal election campaign and repeated in the February 1995 budget to introduce a statutory interest free advance program to replace the current cash flow enhancement program which expires next year.

I emphasize that the program will be statutory. It will eliminate the uncertainty that cash strapped producers faced in the past while waiting for government to announce whether interest free cash advances would be temporarily granted.

Like any other industry that operates in a competitive environment, farmers need to sell their products in order to pay their bills. Cash flow problems sometimes force them to sell their crops and products right after harvest when prices are not generally favourable.

The new act will provide cash advances to farmers, allowing them to sell their products not necessarily at harvest but at a later time. This allows producers to sell their output when prices are better instead of dumping the products on the market at the same time, a practices which depresses the prices.

The agriculture marketing programs act will avail cash advances up to $250,000 to qualified producers. With the first $50,000 interest free, the balance will be lent a preferential rate, generally less than the prime rate.

The new legislation will also benefit co-operatives. The pooling provisions will be maintained in the new act but will be streamlined to encourage more producers to market co-operatively and to get into the value added processing so they can increase their revenues.

The pooling provisions establish an anticipated selling price for the pooled product and offer a price guarantee of up to 80 per cent of that price. This will help co-operatives avoid serious losses in the event of a significant, unexpected downturn in prices. The price guarantee will also allow co-operatives to negotiate larger loans with lower interest rates from financial institutions.

The new act will also deal effectively with compliance problems experienced under the Prairie Grain Advance Payment Act.

In recent years, the act has experienced a significant rate of defaults. Although an effective inspection campaign has greatly reduced the default rate, producers have asked the federal government to find a permanent solution to this problem so that they can have confidence that all other producers are complying with the law.

The new act will reduce the number of defaults and thus restore producer confidence. The bill stipulates that producers who default will have to pay all reasonable costs of collecting that default. In addition, producers will pay interest on the default advance from the date the advance was issued until it is completely paid. Finally, they will not be able to get another advance under any other permit book or any other business organization until previous advances and any other defaults are fully repaid.

It is only fair to the majority of producers who fulfil their commitments that these procedures be tightened up. In fact, many of these measures have already been implemented administratively and have produced positive results. Defaults have dropped from $64 million in the 1993-94 crop year to under $10 million in the 1994-95 crop year.

With the implementation of this bill, defaults will be kept at acceptable levels through legislative rather than administrative means. This will result in significant savings to the taxpayer.

Since the majority of these changes in the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act are directed at the reduction of defaults, processors who participate in the program will probably not notice any changes compared to the Advance Payments for Crop Act or the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, programs of the last few years.

In conclusion, I believe this new legislation represents real progress for our farmers who get a more stable operating environment and progress for our taxpayers who get a more effective use of their tax dollars.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this afternoon in the debate on Bill C-34, tabled in this House on May 3 by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. This bill to establish programs for the marketing of agricultural products was a measure long awaited by both the producers themselves and the many agricultural product marketing boards.

I would, therefore, like to provide some clarifications on the nature of my speech itself, with respect to the considerable impact of this bill. On the one hand, I wish to voice my support of this legislative measure, with its substantial favourable impact on the fate of producers as they make their way through the bureaucratic complexities which characterize the agricultural sector of this country.

On the other hand, I seriously question whether the government is truly concerned about agriculture and agri-food. The minister himself could testify as to just how many legislative rectifications need to be made to the Canadian agricultural sector to bring it in step with the autonomist trends of this modern era.

In this connection, Bill C-34 represents a praiseworthy effort by the minister to facilitate access by producers to simple and effective means of marketing their produce with a view to maximizing profits.

An in-depth examination of the bill, however, has pointed out certain shortcomings in the very spirit of this draft of the bill.

I want to point out one thing which strikes me as an out and out paradox, relating to a lack of analytical rigour on the part of the government. I will spare you the detailed explanation of the implementation of this bill in order to give you a brief indication of what the government will have to justify in order to have this legislation unanimously approved.

With regard to the budgetary aspect of Bill C-34, it should be noted that $120 million will be allotted to the advance payments program over three years. Needless to say, this element of the bill is the basis for a cash payment to all farmers in this country.

However, there is a rather obvious inconsistency in the way the government markets these same crops. Let me explain. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada will use huge sums of money to facilitate the marketing of annual crops. But this money comes from the income protection programs envelope. You will agree with me that this is a rather huge inconsistency. The government is simply hiding the cuts it is forcing on a category of taxpayers, who are already in a precarious financial position.

In this context, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's income protection programs envelope for the 1997-98 crop year will be 30 per cent less than estimated, easily some $250 million, or a quarter of a billion dollars. I agree that the government should keep on putting its financial house in order, but not at any cost. In my opinion, this way of hiding cuts is shameful.

Farmers from Quebec and western Canada are no fools. They have already been subjected to the deceitful actions of the department since 1992, but always in exchange for false hopes. If we really calculate the amounts that are to be allocated to the various programs in this bill, we get two results. First, we see there is a shortfall to really fund the government's initiatives.

In the second case, we get the financial provisions that are outlined in Bill C-34, a bunch of details that are only meant to complicate the administrative framework and thus make its passing easier, because of the urgency of the situation.

However, I want to salute the government's initiative for wanting to update the programs for the marketing of agricultural products. I agree with the general thrust of this bill and I admit that, if it had not been for the deficient budgetary aspect that I have outlined earlier, I would support this piece of legislation without any hesitation.

In that context, I hope the government will take into consideration the factual aspects I have mentioned. It is in the interest of its credibility toward a major segment of the population in this country, and particularly, in the interest of its honour and integrity. Recently, some farmers in my riding asked me with a totally disenchanted attitude: "When the Minister of Finance tables his budget, does he do so with the intention of deceiving Canada and Quebec taxpayers? We often hear this question from farmers".

Beyond all partisan considerations, it is important to legislate in the real interests of the people. Farmers must deal with a situation that varies with weather conditions. So, it is important to make sure they have a minimum of stability and, particularly, to ensure the numbers that are presented to them accurately reflect their circumstances.

That is in essence the position we will defend here with my colleague, the member for Québec-Est. So, on the whole, we will give our support to the government for the quick passage of Bill C-34, since while there are some deficiencies, of course, by and large, the bill is acceptable.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Reform caucus on the motion to refer Bill C-34 to committee prior to second reading. Bill C-34 is the Agriculture Marketing Programs Act. It is the replacement for several advance payment for crops acts that are currently on the books.

This process is new to this Parliament. We have had good experiences and bad experiences when we have referred bills to committee prior to second reading. I would hope this would be a good experience. I have the assurance of the chair of the agriculture committee that we will be allowed to hear witnesses on this bill prior to going through clause by clause. I would like to presume that the committee will give us adequate time to hear witnesses and debate the bill clause by clause.

Some chairmen have been rather autocratic and undemocratic but I have confidence that the chair of the agriculture committee will allow adequate input in this bill and if amendments are needed they will be given the due consideration they should have and perhaps receive the support of the committee to come back in an improved format.

It is obvious this is not the most controversial piece of legislation facing the House. The fact that the introductory speech by the government side was made by the parliamentary secretary to the minister rather than by the minister indicates this is not an earth shattering change in legislation that will impact on agriculture.

Rather than being controversial a better word for this bill may be that it is diversionary. It is trying to divert attention from some shortcomings of the minister of agriculture and his government on to ground that it is less controversial and may find broader support from the industry.

It reminds me a little of the scene where some person is going to eat a cookie on his plate and the shyster sitting beside him points to something either real or imaginary out the window and says: "Did you see that over there?" Of course, when the potential consumer of the cookie looks out the window, the shyster grabs the cookie and quickly eats it.

I believe the minister of agriculture is trying to divert some attention away from some problems he has by bringing forward legislation that is not of primary importance to the industry.

Some might ask what are some of the issues that are being avoided? In a debate like this it would be appropriate to bring those forward at this time. Perhaps the bill we should be debating, rather than referring this to committee, is a bill to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act. There is far more interest, certainly on the prairies, in reforming the Canadian Wheat Board Act than in reforming an Advance Payments for Crops Act such as what Bill C-34 is doing.

One just has to look at what is happening in the prairies where normally law-abiding farmers are taking wheat and barley across the U.S. border without the permits they are asked to have by the Canadians Wheat Board. One may ask: "Why is this happening?" It is not because the Advance Payments for Crops Act is not adequately working under the Canadian Wheat Board. There have been some changes to the act depending on which administration has been in power over the past few years.

Year in and year out there have been advance payments for crops on the books, yet farmers are still trying to move their products south into the United States without using a Canadian Wheat Board permit. We might want to ask: Why is that? Perhaps we need to make amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act which would alleviate some of this tension and alleviate the seizure of property by customs officials and the RCMP.

Why is this happening? Why is this not the priority of the Liberal government? Why is this not the issue we are debating rather than Bill C-34? Why are homes being invaded by customs agents and the RCMP? Maybe this is a serious situation and we should be

looking at it but of course, the minister is in no hurry to look at the situation.

The Canadian Wheat Board sponsored a conference in Saskatoon to try to stimulate diversification and the value added concept. It came up with a wonderful scheme of putting $10 million forward to help farmers diversify by implementing new business plans. Again it was a diversionary tactic, like Bill C-34, to get away from the real issue which is the fact that the government does not have a business plan. In the meantime, markets are being missed and producers are being miffed.

Instead of debating Bill C-34 perhaps we should have been looking at the reform of supply management. That might be an issue which is front and centre with a lot more producers than the issues which are dealt with under Bill C-34.

The Liberal government opposed NAFTA prior to the election. It actually goes all the way back to the 1988 election. Liberals said that NAFTA was a terrible deal and should not be signed. The Liberals said that if they ever got into power they would certainly fix NAFTA in a big hurry. That was their number one priority, a priority far greater than tinkering around with the advance payments act.

The Liberals finally got into power in 1993, but they totally forgot their promise to change NAFTA. They did not even go back to the table to renegotiate NAFTA like they said they would. Instead they went to the GATT table and broke another promise. They did away with article XI of GATT. They indicated to the supply managed industry that they would not do that but they did it anyway. The supply managed industries are wondering whether Bill C-34 might be a diversionary tactic to get producers' eyes off some of the problems and uncertainties facing the supply managed industry.

The Liberals even failed when they signed the GATT agreement to table an addendum to GATT indicating what their position was on the tariffs which had been agreed to as they regarded NAFTA. It certainly looks like a bit of a slip-up to me.

Now we have a U.S. challenge to our tariffs under NAFTA which is going before a dispute settlement panel. We expect the results to be tabled sometime in August. That is a far more important issue to producers. They would like to see the government acting on that rather than on this issue.

The Crow buy-out and some of its problems are far more of a concern to the industry than is Bill C-34.

If Bill C-34 is passed in its current form, it will be another Liberal broken promise. I have in my hand a letter from the Prime Minister. It was written when he was Leader of the Opposition and is dated September 8, 1993. The letter is to the Ontario corn producers. He talks about the advance payments for crops act and the changes which his government, if elected, would bring forward.

The letter reads: "In May we announced that we would bring back the interest free cash advance program by statute and we would make it a working capital program by providing half of the maximum $50,000 available to producers after seeding in the spring and the remainder in the fall". That is not in the bill. I have looked through the bill and it is not there. It is all after harvest, after the crops are in the bin. There is no provision for half of the advance payment to be made after seeding.

If the bill is passed in its current form, it will be yet another Liberal broken promise. Perhaps the Liberals will bring forward an amendment because of this oversight or perhaps they had no intention of keeping that promise. However, I suggest they look at it. I also suggest they should get their priorities straight as far as the industry is concerned.

[Rose-Marie Ur, Liberal, Lambton—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to lend my support to Bill C-34 and the motion to refer it to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food prior to second reading.

Bill C-34 represents a commitment made in the red book and reiterated in the February 1995 budget to reinstate federal statutory authority to make interest free cash advances to farmers across Canada.

The new law, which is long overdue, will be known as the agricultural marketing programs act or AMPA. It will among other things replace by statute the previous government's ad hoc cashflow enhancement program which is due to expire next year. It is very important to have this act in place by statute. In doing so we will be providing security for our farmers.

Bill C-34 is an amalgamation of four existing acts: the Advance Payments for Crops Act, the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, the Agricultural Products Co-operative Marketing Act and the Agricultural Products Board Act and one ad hoc program which I have already mentioned, the cashflow enhancement program.

Besides being confusing, producers were not being treated equally under the four acts. In order to overcome this confusion and unfairness, the new agricultural marketing programs act will treat all commodities groups alike. In this way, inequities and irregularities of the previous programs have all been eliminated. Simply put, cash advances give farmers the flexibility to meet their expenses after harvest and before crops are sold, despite what may be untimely market limitations or unfavourable prevailing prices when cashflow is desperately needed.

In Canada these cash advances have traditionally been interest free until 1989 when the previous government removed that feature from the law and left interest charges to be decided on an ad hoc basis from year to year through the cashflow enhancement program. The results have been far from satisfactory, creating confusion, instability, anxiety and unfairness. In order to make this new legislation more effective, it has been divided into three particular programs: the advance payments program, the price pooling program and the government purchases program.

Under the advance payments program, which is covered by clauses 4 through 25 of the bill, the maximum allowable advance payment to producers will be $250,000, the first $50,000 of which would be interest free. If there should be a crop disaster due to abnormal weather conditions or disease, an emergency advance payment of $25,000 could be paid but in such a case the minister would not be liable for the interest.

This part of the bill is fairly similar to the Advance Payments for Crops Act but it would also make adjustments in order to take into account the specific situation of grain producers under Canadian Wheat Board jurisdiction. Under the bill and unlike the situation under conditions now in force, advance payments would be paid directly to producers, not the Canadian Wheat Board permit book holders. As well, clause 14 would allow the use of cash purchase tickets as advance payments to producers under CWB jurisdiction. This particular example illustrates just how flexible the new act will be to meet the needs of producers who operate under a wide range of diverse marketing systems throughout Canada.

In cases where a producer who defaults on his obligations with a partner, a member or a shareholder of another association, the association would not be eligible for advance payments and vice versa. For greater clarity, the rule applicable to associations between spouses, parents or children would be the same rule which is applicable to Revenue Canada income tax returns.

One important objective of Bill C-34 is to reduce defaults on repayments which have unfortunately cost taxpayers heavily over the years. Defaults on repayments under the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act have reached several million dollars. The bill would provide that producers who defaulted on repayments would have to pay all recovered costs and interest on outstanding advance payments. As well of course they could not obtain other advance payments nor avoid repayment by setting up another company or business. Obtaining a new Canadian Wheat Board permit book would not allow a grain producer to avoid the obligation to repay advance payments which were obtained by using another permit book.

Although eligible crops are listed in clause 2 of the bill, the following criteria would also apply: the crop would have to be harvested and stored; it would have to be possible to store the crop in its unprocessed form; the producer would have to retain ownership of the crop; and the producer would have to be responsible for marketing the crop. In some sectors of agriculture, particularly horticulture, these criteria have been perceived as being overly restrictive since many products are difficult to store in their unprocessed form or are acquired immediately after being harvested.

The Ontario corn producers were one of the three farm groups that had requested that advance payments be made at seeding time and that advance payments be set at 70 per cent rather than 50 per cent of the value of the crop.

I must reiterate that this act is primarily based on equity among crops, regions and producers right across Canada.

As for spring advances not being included in the act, it is important to remember that consultations for this bill involved over 160 producer groups across Canada. Most of these groups were either neutral on the issue or opposed the concept of spring advances.

The great majority of producer groups felt that spring advances would change the focus of the advance payments program in such a way that the current focus of marketing would be changed to one of simply supplying operating credit. The producers felt that this would ultimately reduce the benefits and increase the costs of the program to unacceptable limits.

The act will establish a new risk sharing program where the delivery agent's liability for defaults will be based on the history of defaults. It will range from 1 per cent and 15 per cent instead of the current 2 per cent for the Advance Payments for Crops Act and no liability for the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act. The act will also define more clearly the crops and eliminate potential overlap with the price pooling program.

The new legislation will permit producers to continue to use price pooling mechanisms while the approval process for these provisions will be greatly streamlined. Since the bill in clauses 26 through 30 would delegate authority to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food subject to the annual concurrence on general terms and conditions by the Minister of Finance, it would thus remove the requirement for the appointment of auditors and professional accountants for each agreement.

Having removed these layers of red tape, the federal government could much more easily establish a minimum guaranteed price for all products sold out of a pool by grade, variety and type of product. This guaranteed price would cover the initial price to producers and the operating costs of the pool.

As for the government purchases program contained in Bill C-34, the act will incorporate the provisions of the Agriculture Products Board Act. The act will maintain the ability of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada to buy and sell agricultural products when unusual marketing conditions exist while removing another layer of bureaucracy, that is, the requirement for the agricultural products board.

In closing, I would like to briefly summarize the benefits that would come about once the agricultural marketing programs act is scheduled to come into force January 1, 1997. There will be one act instead of four to deal with the financial agricultural marketing programs in Canada, thus reducing current crop and regional inequities, inconsistencies in program administration, and overall program costs. Financial marketing programs will be easier for producers to accept. All producers will be able to obtain cash advances under the same administrative requirement. Defaults will be reduced by better screening before issuing advances, by improved controls, improved collection methods and stronger penalties for defaulted advances.

The act will be consistent with current government policy to recover administrative costs, increase risk sharing with participants, combine legislation which shares a common base and reduce program costs through less bureaucracy.

An overwhelming majority of farm producers and their organizations across Canada have shown widespread support for the direction the government is proposing to take on these issues. I encourage members in the House to do likewise by supporting the motion to refer Bill C-34 to committee prior to second reading so that my colleagues and I can give this bill our undivided attention.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is with great interest and a strong sense of duty that I rise today to speak to Bill C-34, the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act.

I am happy to see that the purpose of this bill is to combine four existing acts to make it easier to market agricultural products. These acts are: the Advance Payments for Crops Act, the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, the Agricultural Products Cooperative Marketing Act, and the Agricultural Products Board Act.

Bill C-34 also includes the cash flow enhancement program. If my party, the Bloc Quebecois, generally supports the objectives of Bill C-34, it is because this bill is essentially consistent with farmers' demands and seems more in keeping with Quebec's values and agricultural development model.

There is, however, a major inconsistency in how payments are charged to the budget. Clauses 25 and 30 are financial in nature. Through these two clauses, the government hopes to pay farmers under the advance payments program and the price pooling program.

We learned that, under the advance payments program, farmers would receive $40 million a year over three years, for a total of $120 million. What hurts the most is that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada will take the money to be spent on the marketing program out of the budget earmarked for income protection.

This transfer, this misappropriation of funds from the budget will reduce the amounts available to protect farmers' income. Unfortunately, by taking this action, the federal government will once again reduce Quebec's share even further.

Whether you like it or not, Quebec's share of the funds allocated to income protection programs for farmers is already lower to what that province is in a position to demand and obtain, given the relative weight of agriculture in the "belle province".

History seems to be repeating itself: Quebec is always more heavily penalized at the end of the day.

The resource envelope for income protection programs at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada for fiscal year 1997-98 is $600 million, that is $250 million or 30 per cent less than the $850 million allocated before the budget came down. If the federal government goes ahead with this misappropriation of public funds, by dipping into funds allocated to income protection programs, in three years, the shortfall in this envelope will be $120 million.

To put it clearly and briefly, it is indecent to use part of the funds allocated to farming income protection to finance the advance payments program, which, must I remind the hon. members, is essentially an agricultural marketing program.

What link, if any, could there be between the advance payments program and the income protection program? None.

Let us be clear about something. When the Minister of Finance, the hon. Paul Martin, tables his budget, does he do so with the intention of deceiving the taxpayers in Quebec and Canada? Should the budget not reflect what was planned? That is what logic-others would say common sense-dictates anyway.

Instead, following this government's reasoning, are we to understand that the figures provided mean nothing, since they no longer apply to what they were originally supposed to apply? This is terrible. I am dismayed.

If the federal government, through the appropriate department, uses funds intended for the income protection program to finance the advance payments program, which is an agricultural marketing program, why should amendments not be made now to change this?

First, a real political will is required to change the situation and make sure that the funds taken for the advance payments program come directly from the budget earmarked for agricultural products marketing programs.

The government should allocate more money for marketing programs and it should stop cutting and diverting funds from one envelope to the other. This is a simple but vital solution.

It would ensure that, in the future, Quebec farmers would enjoy better income protection. An amount of $120 million could also be subtracted from the budget for income protection. However, this would recreate the current situation, in that less money would be available to concerned Quebec farmers, in a proportion more unfair than for the other nine Canadian provinces. Others will also suggest the government should allocate new money for agricultural products marketing programs, along with a transfer of money from the budget for the income protection programs.

This would be a partially acceptable solution. These are the reasons why the Bloc Quebecois is asking the federal government to make the necessary changes. It must correct the situation and ensure a fair treatment to Quebec farmers.

Simply put, the government is being asked to take the money for the advanced payments program from the budget allocated for the income protection programs. As you know, this is a major irritant for Quebec farmers.

Moreover, given the new eligibility rules, Bill C-34 would exclude any form of collective Indeed, one of the eligibility requirements for producers must be rejected, especially the one that lets producers decide when they will sell their products, because the products subject to a pooling system would then be excluded. VEGCO Inc., from the province of Quebec, is among those that would be hard hit by such a measure.

Finally, I agree with the federal government using the taxpayers' money to efficiently streamline its programs, provided that all farmers get the same benefits and meet the same requirements. However, there is something very wrong with the way the money is allocated and if the government of the current Prime Minister can get away with it, it will further reduce Quebec's share of the income protection programs.

I think it is important to stand up for Quebec farmers and to point out that the government is trying to stifle the people and not only in agriculture. Quebec is losing money because the federal government is withdrawing its support from several programs and we wonder what is going on not only in agriculture, but in other areas as well, like shipping, the Tokamak project and other initiatives in Quebec from which the government is withdrawing its financial assistance and support.

We have the feeling the federal government is withdrawing more and more money from its projects and facilities in the province of Quebec. Why? I wonder if the government does not have a plan B for the economy, where it would put pressure on all economic sectors.

However, I feel better knowing that farmers, at least in the beautiful province of Quebec, are very well organized with UPA and are increasingly better able to develop and defend their marketing system, not only in North America, but also in Europe and throughout the world.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-34, the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act.

As members before me have explained, the bill takes four acts and puts them together into one. We would think this would result in cost savings in administration. The departmental briefing claimed that putting the four programs together would result in administrative savings of somewhat over $1 million. We will have to wait to see whether those savings actually come about, but I do not have a lot of faith that there will be savings in administration.

I have a concern with the administration of the bill. If the record of the government in administering its programs does not improve, the administration of the program will be a disaster. We could look, for example, to the Crow payout program that was put in place by last year's budget. Under that program 75 per cent of the money to be paid out should have been paid out by the end of January. We are still not up to the 75 per cent expected payout level. If the record on the administration of the programs does not improve, the program will be of little use to farmers.

When it comes to advance payments it is absolutely necessary for the administration to be simple and done very quickly, or it really defeats the purpose of getting cash into the hands of farmers in the fall before they can actually sell the crops. It is often a problem to sell crops in the fall to get cash to pay bills. The purpose of the program is to get the money into the hands of farmers more quickly. If the administration is slowed, as I suspect it might be just looking at the record of the government, it is a step backward. We will just have to wait to see what happens in that regard.

The bill touches on changing the Canadian Wheat Board. The Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act is currently administered by the Canadian Wheat Board. With this change the program would become one of the four programs under the Agricultural Marketing Programs Act.

We need an awful lot more than just tinkering with the Canadian Wheat Board Act. I remember back to the time when I was a very little tyke in around 1960. After harvest started my father, finally having grain to sell and desperately needing some money for school supplies and other things, lamented the fact that the Canadian Wheat Board did not provide a quick enough avenue for marketing his grain. Even back then, 35 or 36 years ago, he wanted a choice either to ship through the wheat board or on his own somewhere else so he could get the cash when he wanted it and when he needed it. That was denied him then. Here it is 35 years later and still western Canadian farmers are being denied what obviously should be theirs: the right to market their grain in any way they see fit whether it be through the Canadian Wheat Board or on their own in some other fashion.

It seems to be absurd. It is so absurd I cannot understand it. Last Thursday and Friday I was campaigning in the Hamilton East byelection. I went to a door where someone asked about the Canadian Wheat Board and why farmers were not given the ability to market on their own. Even the people in the heart of Canadian cities are finally understanding how ridiculous the situation is when farmers cannot market their own grain, their own product. It is time some serious action was taken and not only tinkering.

I remember when I left university in 1974 that there was talk in the agricultural faculty about changing the Canadian Wheat Board Act and the Canadian Wheat Board so that farmers would have more control. The wheat board was causing problems even then. The students at the university could see a need for change. Starting back then, 30-plus years ago, I actively started campaigning for changing the Canadian Wheat Board. I was not for getting rid of it and I am still not for getting rid of it. I want to change it so that it is accountable to farmers and farmers have the option to ship around it.

Over all these years many of my friends and people I got to know have been very actively campaigning for change to the Canadian Wheat Board, and there has been no significant change whatsoever.

Finally, this past year the Government of Alberta took the initiative to stand with farmers against the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly. A fair plebiscite was held and a very high percentage of commercial farmers turned out. The result was overwhelming. Two-thirds of farmers voted to support the removing of the monopoly on barley marketing and 62 per cent voted to support the ending of the monopoly on wheat.

The farmers in Alberta have decided. They have made up their minds and the case is closed. It is now just a matter of the agriculture minister carrying out what these farmers want. They know it is their right. They voted for the ability to market either through the board or on their own.

Still the agriculture minister fights by throwing out these minor changes to the Canadian Wheat Board which do not solve the

problem. He keeps saying: "Wait for the results of the marketing panel". I can tell the House what the results are going to be. They will be just as I said they were going to be before the panel began. The panel will not lead to changes to the Canadian Wheat Board that farmers want. There will be tinkering and there will be talk of substantial change. Still the wheat board monopoly on wheat will not be ended as a result of this grain marketing panel.

It is a sad thing. Why should Canadian farmers be denied the right to market their product? They raise it. Nobody else pays the cost of putting the crop in, the sweat and the work it takes to seed and carry the crop through until harvest and then harvest that crop. Nobody else takes the incredible risks that farmers take to produce a crop.

The government does not take risks for farmers, so why on earth are they being denied the right, and it is a right, to market their crops the way they see fit. It is time we got beyond the tinkering.

There will come a time when farmers will be so upset and frustrated by the lack of action that they will say: "Get rid of board. We do not want any part of it anymore".

Why will the minister not act before that happens and head off the complete elimination of the board? I do not believe that is what the majority of farmers want. They want the right to either market through the board or on their own. They want a choice. What other industry does not have that choice? I cannot think of one. What is the hold up? Why the resistance? Does it have something to do with what is going on inside the Canadian Wheat Board? Is there something going on inside the board which is not open to access to information? I have applied through access to information many times to get information about the Canadian Wheat Board. I cannot get it. Is that why? I cannot answer that.

The agriculture minister had better act on this quickly or the Canadian Wheat Board will cease to exist. I think that would be too bad.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

On division.