Mr. Speaker, I want to address a couple of points and provide some information that might be helpful as this debate goes forward.
The hon. member from the New Democratic Party who spoke last wondered out loud about the size of the contingency fund. He intimated that he could not get a proper answer as to how large the contingency fund might be.
It is a reasonable question but I think if people are in possession of the facts, they will understand that the answer to that is that no one really knows exactly how large that fund will be. It will depend on the decisions made by the board of directors.
Members have to remember that 10 of the 15 directors will be elected by farmers. People from the Reform Party always have real difficulty in listening to facts.
If I could just proceed, the size of the contingency fund will depend on decisions made by the board of directors. For example, how much use will they make of cash buyouts or the early cash pools?
It depends on what the board of directors does. If it does not use those options very often, it could be that the contingency fund will be quite small. However, it could choose to use the extra tools which we are giving it, the tools which farmers have wanted. One of the reasons for the bill is to give the farmers and the wheat board more flexibility. If it chooses to use those options very seldom, chances are the contingency fund will be quite small.
With respect to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Brandon—Souris, his proposal concerning the contingency fund would rob the board of one more flexible tool. If we considered his motion, the only way that a contingency fund could be built up would be through the route of check-offs. The way the bill is written now profits could be used from the sale of bonds, debentures, notes and other financial instruments to credit the contingency fund.
Is the Reform Party saying “No, we should not give the board of directors those options. No, we want to handicap it. We want to tie its hands”? Let us get serious. Surely the board of directors should have as much flexibility as possible.
The hon. member for Brandon—Souris has proposed in his amendment to get rid of the exclusion clause. What is the exclusion clause about?
It has the same principle as the inclusion clause. It sets down a set of rules for orderly procedures. If someone wants to take a grain away from the wheat board, under this bill there will be a set of rules and much of the uncertainty will be removed. Would farmers not want that? I think they would. But not the Reform Party. It does not want any rules or procedures.
The exclusion clause sets out a procedure. The inclusion clause does exactly the same thing.
The bill is seeking orderliness, a set procedure. If we talk in those terms to most farmers, they will understand that there is a need for rules so they will know exactly where they stand. Right now, if someone wanted to exclude a grain from the wheat board, what is the rule? It is all up in the air. The bill addresses that issue.
It is the same thing with inclusion. What rules are there to add a grain to the board? There are no rules. That is what the bill is about.