Debates of June 19th, 1996

Questions On The Order Paper

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

In the organization of the Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) service delivery network, the important element was maintaining high quality service for clients. The committee recommended four Human Resource Centres of Canada (HRCC) be located in various areas of the Mauricie region-Trois-Rivières, Shawinigan, Louiseville and La Tuque.

The location of the administrative centre had to be put in a place that was accessible to all offices and that offered the best opportunity for realizing savings in overhead.

The taxation data centre in South Shawinigan met these requirements as it is centrally located in the region and is a federally owned building. In addition to maximizing utilization of Government of Canada space, this choice enables the department to continue the reduction of costs by sharing services, systems and resources with other departments. The Mauricie region has no other Government of Canada sites that offer similar advantages.

The committee also discussed establishing the administrative centre in Trois-Rivières, primarily because of the department's existing lease commitments in the area. Given the lease expiry date (1999) and the need to plan for longer term reductions that were set for the Quebec region, it was obvious that administrative resources had to be concentrated, as soon as possible, in sites that were owned by Government of Canada. The location of the administrative centre for the Mauricie region in Shawinigan will enable the department to save a minimum of $3.7 million over the next 10 years.

Question No. 23-

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Can the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Human Resources Development indicate the rent and rent-related costs of the Human Resources Development Canada premises in the Bourg-du-Fleuve building on rue des Forges in Trois-Rivières, as compared with the anticipated costs of that department's moving to, arranging, and settling into new premises to be located in the Shawinigan area according to the government's plan?

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development]

Further to the federal government's mandate to reduce space and accommodation costs, Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) is proposing to combine and relocate the Trois-Rivières and Shawinigan Human Resource Centres, the Reseau Office, the InfoCentre and Unemployment Insurance Telecentre to the Shawinigan-Sud Fiscal Centre on April 1, 1997. The relocation provides the opportunity to share space and services with Revenue Canada which is currently located in the Fiscal Centre.

The relocation to Shawinigan-Sud results in a requirement for reduced space at a combined annual rent of $490,451.00 (a saving of $386,279.42 per year over the current rental costs). All fit-up, moving and renovation costs are estimated to be $633,180.00; however, the long-term savings will offset these costs to the Government of Canada. Please see chart shown below for breakdown of costs and savings.

Question No. 38-

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

With respect to the government's potential $ 1.5 billion liability to settle pay equity complaints dating back to 1984: ( a ) what provisions has the government made to fund this potential liability going back 12 years, to 1984 and ( b ) how are private sector compensation and benefit levels for persons performing similar functions factored into the Treasury Board's evaluation when considering ``equal pay for work of equal value'' in the public service?

[Ovid Jackson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board]

(a) In the 1995 budget, cabinet instructed the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Justice to negotiate a settlement with the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) on terms similar to the agreement with the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC). Funds have been set aside to resolve pay equity complaints and any overlap will be offset through reallocations as per the expenditure management system regulations.

(b) The legislation does not require the government to consider the wages paid in the outside labour market for similar occupations. Equal pay for work of equal value focuses on the compensation and benefits relationship of male and female workers who are performing work of equal value within the same establishment. Pay equity is about internal equity.

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

The questions as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.

[John Richardson, Liberal, Perth—Wellington—Waterloo, ON]

I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

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

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

I wish to inform the House that, because of the ministerial statements, Government Orders will be extended today by 12 minutes.

It is my duty, under Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway-fisheries; the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby-hazardous waste.

Motions For Papers

[John Richardson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.

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

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Supply

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

moved:

That this House urge the government to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act to include a special two year opting out provision permitting those prairie producers who believe they are missing market opportunities the flexibility and choice to market their wheat and barley outside the jurisdiction of the board.

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to move the motion in the House today that this House urge the government to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act to include a special two year opting out provision permitting those prairie producers who believe they are missing market opportunities the flexibility and choice to market their wheat and barley outside the jurisdiction of the board.

The Canadian agriculture sector has proven over the years that it is prepared for the challenges it faces. We have seen this in the past and we will continue to see it in the future. If there is a need for a disease resistant breed or variety of seed, Canadians develop it. If there is a need for better farm equipment, Canadians invent it. If there is a need for an irrigation system, Canadians build it. If there is a need for more soil nutrients, Canadians apply them. If there is a need to produce more food, Canadians work harder and longer.

There have always been doubters and naysayers when it comes to agriculture in Canada. When Palliser was surveying the prairies in the 1800s he said the land in southern Saskatchewan and Alberta was too poor and dry for farming. Today that land has turned into a bread basket for the world. Why? Because farmers saw the potential.

Today the doubters are saying we cannot grow this type of wheat because the growing season is too short, or we cannot produce grains from the land because it is vulnerable to wind erosion when it is cultivated, or we cannot water our stock because it is too dry. Canadian know-how has resulted in the development of varieties that mature more quickly, the invention of no till drills to combat erosion, and the development of some of the best irrigation systems in the world. Apply a little Canadian ingenuity to a problem and 99 times out of 100, Canadians can fix the problem.

Therefore why does the minister of agriculture listen to all the negative whiners who cry that the Canadian Wheat Board will be destroyed if prairie farmers have a choice as to whether they market their own wheat and barley through the Canadian Wheat Board or outside of the board? Frankly, I do not know the reason other than the obvious conclusion that they have no confidence in the board which is a conclusion I do not share.

I could focus my speech on the past and in great detail explain past shortcomings and failures of the board, such as the creation of the board as a wartime act to keep prices to producers low, or how the board literally missed the boat on barley sales last year, or how the board fails to serve niche markets adequately. In all fairness, others could point to the successes of the board, such as large sales of wheat to communist China, the former Soviet Union and Brazil.

The point and purpose of this debate is not to see which side of the ledger can chalk up the most impressive total. The purpose of this debate is twofold. We need to ask and answer the questions: Can dual marketing work in the Canadian prairies? Should producers be compelled against their will to market wheat and barley through a state run marketing agency? This is the crux of the matter. This is at the root of the debate that is gripping the prairies at the current time. It is important that this House come to grips with those two questions.

I want to address the question of whether or not a dual market will work. A functional dual market in Canada is a workable and viable option. Just to define what a dual market is, it really means the right or the ability to market in a pooled account where farmers share together the proceeds from the sale of that grain or to market their produce individually, either through a marketing agency such as the Canadian Wheat Board or outside of that directly on a cash for purchase or cash sale basis.

Dual marketing could be accomplished in Canada. It would be far more easy to accomplish that than it was to put a human on the moon, or to split an atom, or to get an NHL hockey team for Saskatchewan, or perhaps even a bit facetiously, to get a winning team here in Ottawa.

We currently have dual marketing for feed grains. It is a matter of fact. Farmers have the option to go through the board to market their feed grain or they can do it independently from the board. There has been a dual market for barley in the past. On August 1, 1993 the Government of Canada removed from the control of the Canadian Wheat Board the sole authority over barley sold into the United States.

Although a continental barley market was a short lived 40 days, it showed that a dual market system was in fact viable. During those 40 days it was estimated that between 500,000 and one million tonnes of barley were sold into the United States. Prior to this 40 day record level of sales, the most feed barley the Canadian Wheat Board ever previously sold in one entire year was 240,821 tonnes and the average annual sales were close to a mere 98,000 tonnes. While other factors played into the increased barley sales to the U.S., such as the severe weather, it still illustrated the important market for prairie barley in the United States.

There is also a form of dual marketing in Australia under the Australian wheat board. This is not a concept that has not been proven and tried. The domestic grain market in Australia is now deregulated. The Australian wheat board pricing options offer a range of pools for wheat and other grains. It also offers forward contracts for a fixed price or a minimum price requiring active involvement in overseas futures markets. With Australia's move toward a deregulated system, the Australian wheat board has assumed many of the characteristics of private grain traders in the services that it offers to its suppliers and customers. As well, the greater flexibility of the operations of the Australian wheat board has increased the commercial orientation of grain growers.

Can a dual grain marketing system work in Canada? I believe the answer is yes. There is no doubt that some reforms to the Canadian Wheat Board Act will be required. This is not a negative option but a constructive one. The board needs to be reformed regardless of whether or not grain marketing moves to a dual system.

Should farmers be able to opt in and out of the board at will? This is a question I hear debated across the prairies from the grain elevators to farm meetings that I have attended. Maybe or maybe not.

Today's motion simply calls for producers who wish to market outside of the board to have that choice for two years. We are not talking about opting in or out. We are talking about producers opting out and staying out for two years, out altogether, no holds barred. It would be a test case allowing both sides in the argument a chance to prove their point. If dual marketing works, let it continue.

The minister has not allowed a prairie-wide plebiscite to decide this issue. Having broken his promise on this issue, I urge him to save face and allow the simply worded plebiscite: Do you want to continue having the choice to voluntarily opt out of the Canadian Wheat Board for a two-year period voted upon at the expiry of the first two years?

There was a plebiscite on this issue but it was not initiated by the minister of agriculture or the current government. It was initiated by the province of Alberta. I believe some of my colleagues from the province of Alberta will elaborate on whether or not farmers knew what the question meant, what it actually stood for, and what the consequences of a yes or a no vote would mean.

In that plebiscite the participation was high. Nearly 16,000 farmers cast their votes, a far greater number than in the vote for the advisory board elections which were held a couple of years previous to that. These are the percentages of producers who wanted marketing choice, to be able to market outside of the Canadian Wheat Board: barley producers were 66 per cent and wheat producers were 62 per cent.

Members opposite could say that is just Alberta and not all of the prairies. The province of Saskatchewan also initiated a poll which surveyed Saskatchewan producers. Saskatchewan is a province that strongly supports the Canadian Wheat Board. I want it on record in the House that I support the Canadian Wheat Board.

The first question asked whether or not the participants in the survey supported the board. About 80 per cent of the respondents said that they did support the Canadian Wheat Board.

They were also asked: Does the Canadian Wheat Board generally get the highest prices for Saskatchewan producers? Forty-three per cent said yes and 47 per cent said no. Saskatchewan producers were divided on whether or not they thought the Canadian Wheat Board got them the very best prices available.

They were also asked if they agreed that participation in the Canadian Wheat Board should be made voluntary, which is what we are talking about today in terms of whether we should permit dual marketing. Fifty-eight per cent said that participation in the Canadian Wheat Board should be made voluntary. This was in the province of Saskatchewan, the province that the minister of agriculture resides in. Thirty-six per cent disagreed. We now have the minority ruling the majority. The 36 per cent group has its way and the 58 per cent group of Saskatchewan producers surveyed is being left out in the cold.

Other questions in the survey included the level of support for allowing the direct sale of grain to a domestic food market. I outlined the scenario which occurred in Australia. About 70 per cent offered support for the concept of dual marketing at the domestic level. If they asked about a continental market, in other words a dual market into the United States, support dropped. In Saskatchewan it was about 50 per cent. Half of producers wanted to be able to market directly into the United States outside of the board and the other half did not.

The last question I will put on record was the question: Should the federal government have less control and influence over the Canadian Wheat Board? That is another whole subject. A resounding 67 per cent of respondents felt the federal government should have less of a hold over the Canadian Wheat Board. Only 25 per cent of the respondents disagreed with that position.

It seems clear there is growing support in the prairies for the concept of a voluntary nature to marketing wheat and barley. the minister of agriculture on several occasions has stated that once there is a dual grade marketing system we cannot go back. He has mentioned that in this very House. Can the minister supply the evidence that would support his claim? I believe the minister is more interested in maintaining and expanding his empire than allowing farmers the option to market their own grain as they see fit.

Are farmers prepared to meet the challenges of marketing their grain independently from the Canadian Wheat Board? The unequivocal answer is yes. Can dual marketing work? Again the answer is yes. Let us at least try it.

This leads me to the second question I asked earlier: Should producers be compelled against their will to market wheat and barley through a state run marketing agency? The answer to that question is obvious. It should be no. It is not morally right and perhaps it is not even constitutional. The case has never come before the courts because the wheat board has used delaying tactics to prevent dealing with this issue.

Let me use a hypothetical case to prove my point. What if all of the authors in Canada had to market their books through a state run publisher? I can hear the argument the state run publisher would use to support his existence: "A single book seller will get the highest price. There is no way a mere author could know who wants to buy his or her books, so he would be at the mercy of the multinational publishers who would underprice his book. There would never be any censorship, even if the book blasted the state run publisher or the government that controlled it. Trust me".

They would say: "By the way, we will sell your hard cover, illustrated, well written book and we will sell that cheap paperback novel to the customers and then we will average the return and give you half the proceeds after we subtract our selling commission and shipping and handling costs. Oh, no, we must not tell you what our costs are. That may give those other cheap shot publishers some sort of an unfair advantage. An advance? Oh, no, not an advance, not until the first books hit the stores. We will settle up after the final copy has been sold, both yours and the cheap paperbacks".

Members know full well that Canadian authors would scream at 100 decibels if they were subjected to such an unreasonable marketing scheme for their product. Yet farmers are branded as greedy and ignorant if they question the monopoly powers of a single desk seller.

Farmers realize their wheat or barley is not really their property. Farmers realize they have to share the return of their labour in a pool account with other producers. Nobody lets them share the cost of producing these commodities. That is never considered.

Some farmers protest. They are scorned by the minister. They are harassed by Canada Customs and the RCMP. If need be, the law is quickly changed to keep them in check.

The rigidness of the Liberal government is making martyrs out of those who challenge the current system. The minister and the Liberal government are the ones threatening and weakening and potentially destroying the Canadian Wheat Board. I want to reiterate that fact.

It is not the Farmers for Justice, those who cross the border, who are destroying the wheat board. It is the minister of agriculture and the unwillingness of the Liberal government to reform the board which is causing the board to fall into disrepute.

I know there are many people who work within the Canadian Wheat Board who want to see it reformed. I wonder why the minister is dragging his feet. Why will he not enter the 20th century-we are almost into the 21st century-and build a marketing agency for the 1990s and not be stuck with one designed for the 1930s?

It is those with the courage and confidence to propose constructive change who will secure a future for the Canadian Wheat Board and also provide farmers with the choice they are demanding.

Farmers know they can market their own produce. Talk to the canola, oats or potato growers and the cattle producers. Give those who wish to market wheat and barley the same freedom to do so, come what may. Let those who are happy to market through the Canadian Wheat Board pool their returns free from the worry or stress that comes from the pressures of the traditional market.

I was asked by a reporter today that if this measure passed would I market my grain through the wheat board or would I market it outside the board. I said it would depend on who gave me the best options. I think that is wonderful. Right now there is no competi-

tion. The wheat board can basically do whatever it wants. If I had an option to market through the board or outside the board, I would look at what was proposed and what the final pool return was and what the buyers of the grain outside the board offered. Then I would make a decision which would provide me with the best bottom line in my business. That is what farmers are asking for and that is what a responsible government would provide for prairie producers.

In a free and democratic society there are treasured freedoms and rights as well as responsibilities and requirements. We should obey the law but the law should guard our rightful freedoms. Our laws should respect the rights of Canadians to market legal goods to whomever they choose.

The Western Grain Marketing Panel will soon be providing its report to the minister. Conveniently the report will be tabled after the House recesses for the summer. The tabling of this report will not be an excuse for inaction on the part of the minister. If the minister fails to remove the monopoly powers of the Canadian Wheat Board he fails to respect the principles of ownership, democracy and fairness, and the principle of keeping his word. Simply put, if he does not act, he fails. That is why the Reform Party moved the motion:

That this House urge the government to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act to include a special 2 year opting out provision permitting those prairie producers who believe they are missing market opportunities the flexibility and choice to market their wheat and barley outside the jurisdiction of the board.

We will have an opportunity to hear a response from the minister. I would like to see a positive response which looks at reform of the board, that has confidence in a board that can function in a continental market or an international market and in a domestic market, one that is open to competition, one that would roll up its sleeves and face the challenges ahead of it, not one that would bury itself away in a defensive little corner in a shell and not be open to the challenges facing us in marketing our products in the 21st century.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, we really have to stretch our imagination to come to any kind of conclusion to support this kind of motion. The member talks about if the minister acted on the motion. If the minister acted on the motion we would be irresponsible as a government in terms of what the member is proposing.

The member talked a lot about choice. What Reform is really prepared to do in terms of the choice here is throw an entire industry with a worldwide reputation for reliability and quality into chaos. That is what it is prepared to do with this motion in order to satisfy the short term demands of a few law breakers.

His proposal would not take us forward, as he is proposing. He should learn a little from history. It would move us back to the late 1800s and 1920s when the grain robber barons and the railway monopolies were able to take advantage of farmers. That was why the Canadian Wheat Board was created in the first place. I think the member knows this.

I have have a unique experience in that I am from eastern Canada and when I was president of the National Farmers Union I could not at first understand why western farmers were so enamoured with the Canadian Wheat Board. They were so supportive of it. I examined in detail the Canadian Wheat Board. Perhaps the member should examine in detail the Canadian Wheat Board.

He talked about dual marketing. He talked about moving barley to the United States. Does he not recognize that yes, there was more barley moved but in the final analysis it was shown it was sold at a lower price.

Does the member not recognize the advantage of single desk selling? We cannot have orderly marketing and dual marketing working side by side. It does not work that way.

If we move away from the single desk selling of orderly marketing what we are really allowing is Canadian farmers to compete against each other in terms of driving prices down. The orderly marketing of single desk selling gives strength and marketing power to producers, and the hon. member should recognize that.

Does the member not recognize that the pooling system allows all producers to take advantage of the booms and to limit bad prices when they occur and that the nation as a whole benefits?

I want to table some facts. We did not get many facts from the member in his presentation. I encourage him to read the Kraft, Furtan and Tyrchniewicz report. It concluded based on the analysis of the Canadian Wheat Board performance that additional revenues for wheat sales averaging $265 million per year, or $13.35 per tonne, would be lost if the single desk were replaced by multiple sellers.

It estimated that the Canadian Wheat Board added between $557 million and $690 million per year, or $27.84 per tonne to $34.50 per tonne over what multiple sellers would have realized in wheat marketing between 1985-86 and 1993-94. The member should realize those are some of the facts.

Dual marketing, to which the Reform Party's proposal would lead, would destroy-

[An hon. member]

It scares the hell out of you.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

The member says it scares the hell out of me. It scares the devil out of farmers. There is no question about it because they support strongly the Canadian Wheat Board system.

The Reform Party's proposal would destroy the ability of the Canadian Wheat Board to work effectively in producers interests. Anybody with any sense in terms of economics knows the lowest seller establishes the price.

Does the Reform Party not realize this motion will destroy the ability of the Canadian Wheat Board to operate effectively in producers' interests, thereby undermining farmers as a whole in terms of maximizing returns?

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

Madam Speaker, I hope I have as much time to answer as the member had to rant and rail.

I addressed most of the answers in my speech. I was very clear to underscore that I did not want this to become a spitting match to see who could run up the highest score. Obviously we can talk about a lot of ways the wheat board has failed. That is not the purpose of the motion. The purpose of the motion is to break the log jam we are currently in.

The hon. member for Malpeque talked about his great experience with western agriculture-I am sure, coming from Prince Edward Island. He suggests that only through the Canadian Wheat Board do we have reliability. That is a slap in the face to canola producers who have had to leave wheat to keep their farms above water. They would have gone broke during the tough years of the eighties and nineties had they not been able to market outside the Canadian Wheat Board.

My father was a pioneer on the prairies. When he was a lot younger than I am now he had to load 60 bushels into a wagon and pull it 26 miles with horses. There was one buyer at the end of that trip. Whatever that buyer offered him for the grain was the price he had to take. If he did not want to take it, he had to drive the 60 bushels all the way back to the granary. It did not make sense. He could not even phone ahead. There were no fax machines. There was no modern method of communication. That was in the 1920s.

Now we are almost in the 21st century. We have fax machines. We have more marketing options available than my father could have dreamed of when he was driving those bushels to market.

Dual marketing has been done and it can be done. The member has the attitude that it cannot be done. I guess he cannot do it. That is fine. That is his problem, not the problem of the prairie producers. I mentioned that Australia uses dual marketing. It has been done in Canada. It has worked. It has not been a problem.

The member said that if we do not market through the Canadian Wheat Board the mark will be set by the lowest price. That is not the case in other commodities. It certainly was not the case with canola. It certainly was not the case with peas. It certainly is not the case with potatoes. I wonder why it happens to be the case with wheat. It does not make sense. What is it about wheat? Is it because it is a different colour than potatoes or flax? Is it because it is a different weight than barley or oats? Is that why it will draw the lowest price? I wish the member would get his facts together and be a little more forthright with members in the House.

I mentioned there is a log jam. There is a big fight going on in the prairies. The minister of agriculture is upset because people are crossing the border without getting wheat board permits as required under the wheat board act.

Why do we not do something positive to fix this mess rather than continuing the fight? Why do we not let these people out of the wheat board if they want to market elsewhere?

There was a member of the Liberal Party who was not very happy with what the Liberal Party was doing about the GST. That member had the right to get out of the Liberal Party and sit as an independent member, but the Liberals will not allow prairie producers in western Canada the option to market on their own. If they do worse, that is their problem but they should at least have the same right as the hon. member for York South-Weston who got out of the Liberal caucus.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened with considerable interest to my colleague and I am delighted to see almost all the members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture in this House. As you are indicating I have very little time left, I would like to ask a question of my colleague in the Reform Party in order to really grasp this afternoon's issue.

Can a farmer, who has opted out for two years, return to the fold within the Canadian Wheat Board?

In other words, suppose I regularly pay my life insurance premiums and I am bursting with good health. Suddenly I decide to take a chance for the next two years and not pay my life insurance premiums in order to save a little money and then, two or three years later, pick up my life insurance policy again without penalty.

Could my Reform Party colleague enlighten me so I might really understand the issue? Can the wheat grower return to the Canadian Wheat Board after a two-year hiatus?

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Frontenac makes an excellent and very valid point. I thank him for the question.

Simply put, the motion calls for a two-year opting out period, at which time we would review whether the member for Malpeque was right that dual marketing could not work or whether in fact the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster was right that dual marketing could work.

Some people would suggest that once they are out they should be out for life. Others would say they should be able to hop back in and market through the board or out of the board at will. We think that probably something in between is the right option. We are suggesting a two-year opting out period after which we can evaluate the effectiveness of a dual market and allow those who were out back in if they wanted. Others could opt out if they wanted after the two-year period.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate today. It is one of those very rare occasions when the Reform Party has turned its attention in the House to an agricultural issue.

Until very recently, day after day, week after week, month after month would go by when the Reform Party would hardly even mention anything having to do with agriculture. Suddenly in the last couple of weeks its members have asked a flurry of farm questions and have proposed this opposition day on the Canadian Wheat Board.

I suggest it is no coincidence that all this sudden attention follows a rather scathing article in the Western Producer newspaper on the prairies which tore a strip off Reformers for ignoring their agricultural constituencies.

I welcome whatever woke them up. I am glad to have the opportunity to discuss a serious and complicated matter, the serious and complicated business of western Canadian grain marketing.

This is a hugely complex and important topic. It involves a multi-billion dollar sector of the Canadian economy and the backbone of the prairies. It involves the livelihoods of 130,000 farm families across western Canada. They are spread across four provinces on over 80 million acres of farmland, in a dozen different land quality zones, producing upward of 35 million tonnes of wheat and barley every year, the best quality in the world, and delivering that grain to over 900 individual country elevator points, to hundreds of exacting Canadian buyers, and by truck, rail and ocean freight through at least five different ports to loyal customers in over 70 countries around the world. All that is in the face of always tough and sometimes fiercely predatory global competition dominated by some of the biggest transnational corporations in the world and all too frequently distorted by the meddlesome subsidies of foreign treasuries.

This business is no child's play. It is big business. It is deadly serious. It is a business in which despite all the odds Canada has established an absolutely unmatched reputation for excellence, especially in the last 50 years since the second world war. It is no accident that period of global success coincides with the existence and the longevity of the Canadian Wheat Board.

The board is not a buyer of grain. The board is a seller of grain. It sells wheat and barley on behalf of all prairie producers. Through the board farmers maximize their marketing clout so they can compete effectively around the world from a position of combined strength backed by the world's best grain standards, the world's best quality control system, the world's best market intelligence network, the world's best weather surveillance system, the world's best market development techniques, and the world's best before market and after market customer services.

These characteristics which are part of the Canadian Wheat Board system have generated remarkable customer loyalty and respect. They have helped to earn premiums from the marketplace. They have gained and retained market share for Canada.

In total prairie farmers account for about 6 per cent or 7 per cent of the world's grain production, but they occupy about 20 per cent of the world's grain markets. The board has accomplished this within the confines of world trading rules and regulations.

At the behest of the United States, the activities of the Canadian Wheat Board have been investigated not once, not twice, but at least three different times. Each time the board has been vindicated as a fair trading organization.

Our global customers have strong words of support for the Canadian Wheat Board. I have met with them in person in places like Beijing, Tokyo, Singapore and Sao Paulo. They have told me how they value their longstanding relationship with the CWB built on quality, reliability, consistency, mutual trust and respect.

They have told me that if Canada did not have the CWB but had a system like the one in the United States, for example, we would lose much of our distinctiveness. We would not have many of the qualities which set us apart and put us a cut above the rest. We would not have the key element of product differentiation which now helps us stand out in the marketplace. They might as well buy their supplies from Minneapolis, Kansas City or New Orleans.

This same sentiment about the board was echoed not long ago in Canada by Mr. Ken Beswick. A couple of months ago Mr. Beswick resigned as a Canadian Wheat Board commissioner in a dispute with the board about barley pricing. He was forthright in his criticisms that are clearly on the public record, but he was also forthright in his praise.

Just to balance the record, let me quote from the May 9 edition of the Manitoba Co-operator newspaper:

Beswick says he is, and always has been, a staunch supporter of the Canadian Wheat Board as a single desk marketing agency for export wheat and barley. He also says the so-called continental market proposed by some is just another word for an open market. While the feed and barley trade would likely see little effect of an open border, Beswick said he has become convinced it would be bad news for the malting barley producer.

The dynamics of the marketplace would probably cause Canadian prices to fall going into the U.S. market, Beswick said. We saw that, (during the brief time the border was open in 1993) and I think it would happen again.

I was one of the people who said it wouldn't happen and I was wrong-In a candid interview last week, Beswick condemned the extreme views which have polarized the industry between those who want no change to the board and those who want it eliminated. I have no patience at all for the lunatic fringe, he said. I think they do not help and I really lament what has happened to the industry I have spent my entire life in.

I think there are people out there who are not talking about the right things, he said. There are people who are taking my resignation from the board as something it was not.

I am in no way saying the board is not an effective marketer, he said. I think that it is among the best in the world at marketing grain. It stands toe to toe with the heavy weights out there in the global environment and I think from my window at the board I would not advocate the elimination of single-desk status.

The article concludes with the following quotation:

The single-desk seller is a powerful way to be. It is a powerful, powerful marketing tool in the world.

A number of questions obviously occur in the course of the debate. Do farmers on the prairies readily acknowledge the strengths in the marketing system we now have in place? Do they maintain the collaborative will to combine their strength through single desk selling? Or, would they prefer to go it alone as 130,000 individual sellers? What is precisely and commonly agreed upon as the definition of dual marketing? Is it physically possible to have the best of both worlds? Is it feasible to have two quite different marketing systems functioning effectively side by side without the one interfering with or undermining the other?

What about those apparently attractive spot market prices that appear from time to time across the border in the United States? The Canadian Wheat Board system now captures those prices for distribution among all prairie producers, together with all returns received by the board from every other market worldwide. In this day and age is that pooling principle still valid in the minds of farmers? Or, should individuals be enabled to collect those spot prices by themselves and for themselves, leaving a somewhat diluted price pool for everyone else?

In any given year the volume of wheat and barley we can move into the U.S. market is in the order of approximately two million tonnes, but we produce over 30 million tonnes. Relatively speaking, then, how much should we be preoccupied with the American market that obviously has some access problems for us? How much should we change our system to seize U.S. opportunities when they present themselves if that in some way compromises our global capability?

Are there distinctions to be drawn among wheat, durum, feed barley and malting barley in the way in which each of them is marketed? What about wheat board corporate governance, accountability, audit procedures, public information, flexible pricing, flexible pooling, value added processing or niche markets?

These are among the many questions in the debate about western grain marketing which require a thorough and thoughtful airing. They do not require bombast and bluster, not rumour and innuendo, not abusive language from the Reform Party or from those who would wilfully ignore the law. The issues are too serious. The consequences are too profound to play fast and loose on questions about grain marketing.

I know different groups of farmers hold widely differing views on these very serious issues. They hold their respective views with a great deal of conviction. The debate among farmers about these issues has been unfolding across western Canada for the better part of 25 years with varying degrees of intensity from time to time. The debate has become particularly acute in the past three or four years.

I hear from each side in the debate virtually every day. I listen very carefully to farmers on all sides. Last summer it was clear the debate about western grain marketing was quite literally going around in circles.

One day last year two opposing groups of farmers of equal size turned up at my constituency office in Regina to picket against each other. They formed a big circle and went around and around the office building, all of them picketing against each other together.

The debate lacked focus and structure. It lacked the most rudimentary foundation of a common base of factual information. It generated far more heat than light. It was all geared to lobby me and the government to a particular point of view when it should have been aimed toward farmers themselves, to persuade one another.

In these circumstances in July of last year I established the western grain marketing panel to give the whole discussion some reasonable framework. The panel consists of nine very strong individuals. Bill Duke and Avery Sahl from Saskatchewan, Jack Gore, John Pearson and Wally Madill from Alberta, Owen McAulay and Jim Leibfried from Manitoba, John Neufeld to provide the national grain trade perspective, all under the able chairmanship of Mr. Tom Molloy from Saskatoon with Murray Cormach from Winnipeg as executive secretary.

Anyone with any familiarity with western grain would recognize and acknowledge the vast depth of knowledge and experience represented by this eminent group of Canadians and their broad diversity of personal opinions from one end of the spectrum to the other. They have worked diligently and constructively together, taking on what was admittedly a very tough assignment. They have conducted themselves throughout this assignment with the utmost of integrity.

I asked the panel to do four things. First, to research, prepare and publish the necessary information to provide farmers and other stakeholders with all the facts about everything that is involved in the complicated business of grain marketing.

Second, to conduct a prairie wide series of open townhall meetings to ensure that everyone has reasonable access to all the relevant facts and figures and a full and fair opportunity to ask questions and express their opinions.

Third, to hold formal public hearings at which all of the various sides in the marketing debate can advance their arguments, present their supporting evidence and be examined and cross examined to draw out all the options, all the pros and cons, all the benefits, all the consequences of one marketing system versus another.

Fourth, to submit a report indicating what the panel has heard from farmers, what areas of consensus exist and what might be done to deal with those issues on which there is no consensus.

The first three of those tasks have been fully and successfully completed. The fourth and final task, the report, is in its final stages of preparation. It should be available within a couple of weeks.

This brings me to the peculiarity of the Reform motion that is before the House today. To have this marketing discussion can be useful but the Reform motion does not make a lot of sense, calling as it does for an arbitrary, pre-emptive strike by way of a legislative amendment on the eve of the western grain marketing panel report in just a couple of weeks.

We should not now pre-empt the process. We should not now cast aside the panel, ignore the input and the hard work of all of those who have participated, including several hundred farmers across western Canada. Even the Reform Party itself and the member who is sponsoring today's motion appeared before the panel and did not at that time make the proposal that he is advancing today.

When I set up the panel it was a serious initiative. It was not smoke and mirrors. It was and is intended to produce sound results. I hope and expect it will do so when we see the report very soon. Should there be changes in the grain marketing system? The answer to that question is obviously yes. Many ideas have been put before the western grain marketing panel. The Canadian Wheat Board has suggested several kinds of change. Strong board supporters in other political parties, like for example the premier of Saskatchewan, have also acknowledged the need for change and modernization. The important thing is to get it right. That is what the western grain marketing panel is all about: changes that make sense to the largest possible number of farmers in a fair, conscientious and thoughtful way.

When all of the facts have been aired, when everyone has had an opportunity to have their say, when all the arguments have been weighed carefully and all the information is in and analysed, that is what the western grain marketing panel is supposed to do. Once it provides its report we will all be in a position to make the kinds of decisions that are needed for the future.

Madam Speaker, may I conclude with one final thought? In making those decisions, let us be prudent and let us make sure that we do not end up throwing the baby out with the bath water.

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

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is partially right, and I can therefore state that the Bloc Quebecois will support this opposition motion 80 per cent, if I may put it that way.

The minister must, however, admit along with me that, over the years, the Canadian Wheat Board ought to have given some thought to modernizing itself a bit, to bringing in some improvements as the year 2000 approaches. For example, the political appointment of its membership ought to be re-examined. I have looked at the CVs of the president, the vice-president and the three members. Impressive as they are, there is something missing.

Grain producers need to have some say over the operations of the board. Board membership ought to include people involved hands-on, the person who ploughs, the person who seeds, the person who harvests, the farm owner, who are best placed to offer suggestions and play an effective role on the board. You will, of course, reply that there is already an advisory committee made up of 11 farmers appointed by them, but it must be admitted that this committee is only advisory in nature, and often little heeded.

There would also need to be an examination of the aggressiveness of the Canadian Wheat Board on the international market. It seems that a number of farmers, not the majority, but 35 or 40 per cent of producers nevertheless, are questioning the board's aggressiveness in seeking new markets and therefore better prices, and that is a big enough number to raise some questions. If it were 1, 2 or 5 per cent, you could say: "It is always the same malcontents

complaining", but if one-third, or more than one-third, of the membership is involved, it is time to start asking some questions.

The same thing applies to shipping. Shipping could do with improvement, to raise user satisfaction.

Finally, the Department of Justice-and this is my final point-shares some of the blame. It seems a few growers sell their grain overseas on their own. There have been a few court cases here and there, but the government has dragged its feet in enforcing its own legislation. The legislation needs to be adhered to by everyone.

I would ask my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, in closing, if it is his firm intention to make improvements to the Canadian Wheat Board, in order to make it modern, efficient, and as acceptable to users as possible, in other words to the 120,000 western grain producers.

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

I could not help overhearing certain comments about restricting the member from making some comments in the House. I would like to remind hon. members that the rule pertaining to this motion is 20 minutes for a statement and 10 minutes of comments and/or questions.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, that verification is very timely and very helpful, thank you.

The question asked by the hon. gentleman from Frontenac is very important. As I said during my remarks, I have placed a great deal of faith and confidence in the integrity and hard work of the western grain marketing panel. We are now, quite literally, within a few days of receiving the panel's report. I expect it to be a very useful document.

Once I receive the report and we have all had a few days to digest it and come to understand it, it would be my intention to move as rapidly as possible to respond to what the report recommends. I believe that would be useful.

On the various topics that were covered in the hon. gentleman's comments, he referred to the modernization of the board. Of course that issue is before the western grain marketing panel, as well as issues related to corporate governance, issues related to accountability, issues related to public information.

It may well be that the panel would recommend some kind of method of electing a board of directors. That is a possibility. I do not know. That idea was recommended to the panel by some of the groups that appeared before it. Perhaps on reflection, the panel members will embrace that idea. They might not, but I am sure they are going to turn their minds to the general issues relating to corporate governance and accountability.

I imagine the panel will also have some things to say about the information needs and requirements of farmers to ensure that they have all the facts, figures and ongoing information about what the board is, what it is not, what it does, what it does not do and so forth, which is obviously to make sure that the board's clientele is fully informed about what it does on their behalf.

It is worth noting, as a final comment in response to this question, that four or five years ago, the Canadian Wheat Board commissioned a management study by the management consulting firm of Deloitte & Touche. Deloitte & Touche provided the board with a report on how the board, even within its current system of corporate governance, could improve a number of areas of management. The board has informed me that virtually every one of those recommendations from Deloitte & Touche have been implemented in the intervening years, and the board's operations have improved as a consequence.

While I may disagree with the hon. gentleman on the fundamentals of a few other issues, I appreciate the tone that was involved in his question on this particular topic. What I hope we are all seeking to do is to achieve the very best possible marketing system for farmers.

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

Madam Speaker, I think some of the frustration of my colleagues was over the fact that they thought when an opposition party put forward a motion on a supply day they might have been given the courtesy to question the minister first.

However, I agree with the minister's comments about going around in circles. Farmers have been going around in circles over these issues for a long time. The reason this is happening is simply because of the inaction on the part of governments to correct the problem, which is to reform our marketing system.

The minister went to great lengths to laud the qualifications of the members on marketing panel, and I am not going to challenge or dispute those remarks.

However, I question whether we will see much or any new material put on the table as a result of their deliberations. It would surprise me if they did not recommend a change in the structure of the board. If they do not do that, they have completely misread the industry. I suspect they would suggest some freedom in the domestic market if not broader.

I wonder why the minister went to great lengths to quote one person, Mr. Beswick, but seemed to ignore the polling results and the surveys and plebiscites I mentioned in my presentation which are as high as 66 per cent in Alberta and 58 per cent in Saskatchewan in favour of changes to the board and dual marketing. Why did the minister not address the concerns of the tens of thousands rather than the praises of one?

I would like an answer to the two fundamental questions I ask in my speech. First, does the minister believe dual marketing is impossible? He has talked about the philosophy of it and what he hears. I have said what I believe. I would like to hear what he believes.

Second, does the minister believe that a farmer should not have the right to sell his or her wheat or barley either to a pooled return account through the board or individually on a cash sale inside or outside the board? I would like to know his personal stand on those two issues. It is very important to the debate.