Debates of Nov. 20th, 1997

Canadian Wheat Board Act

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

I hear a voice in the wilderness telling me that there have been substantive changes. I suppose that the reference will be to this remarkable new elected board, a board which will be ruled in effect by appointees from Ottawa who will tell them what to do, when to do it and how to do it. With 10 elected members, the government need only get three of those ten to agree with their appointed hacks and they will have the majority. This is democracy?

The CEO is a government appointee. Give me a break. This is not democracy. This is pseudo-democracy. This is a Soviet type of democracy, if I may use the term loosely.

This brings me to the point that we do not have questions and comments at report stage. I did want to make a comment to the hon. member for Wild Rose when he was expressing surprise at the discrepancy in sentencing of people who committed serious criminal offences and those who broke the wheat board regulations.

I would suggest to him that he should read a very excellent book entitled The Gulag Archipelago in which it is spelled out very clearly that in the prison system in the Soviet Union the people who were most severely dealt with were those who had committed political crimes. Ordinary criminals who merely robbed, raped, or killed people were treated relatively leniently even in the camps. However, it was the political criminals who were nailed to the wall. I think the hon. member should take that into consideration. It is very easy to explain if one stops and thinks about it.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we in the New Democratic Party caucus support the preamble in Bill C-4 and, quite frankly, do not understand why the government is so opposed.

There is no question that the agriculture sector is an integral part of the Canadian economy. There should be no question that we need an organization that will work to secure the best financial return for all producers.

Grain producers in Canada recognize the value of marketing their product through one body. They recognize the value of working together and having a system that gives small and large producers opportunities and viability.

Producers have survived tough economic times because of the wheat board. I believe that the Canadian Wheat Board has the support of the majority of producers and there are very few who have not supported the wheat board.

I and my caucus will continue to encourage changes that will see the board fully elected by producers as well as the chair and CEO appointed by the board. I urge the government to work in that direction.

I am not going to go on and on without having anything worthwhile to say. However, I do want to mention that for the sticks and stones throwing between potato producers, grain producers and someone else, I think it is extremely important that we work to unite this country and to understand the different areas of the country, whether it be the east, the middle east or the west.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was under the mistaken impression growing up that this was a free country. I listened to what the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands was saying about the Gulag Archipelago and the treatment of Soviet citizens who dared to challenge the government. That was their crime. It was not that they challenged another member of society. It was not that they committed serious criminal acts but that they dared to challenge the government and paid the price.

That is why we see the disparity of treatment in this country. When anybody dares to challenge the government by directly defying what the government has ordered shall be, they will pay a very severe price indeed. I started out by saying that I thought this was a free country. As I grew older, I began to recognize that we actually live in a police state, and we do. We have environment police, we have tax police, we have land police, we have regulatory police. We even have in this country egg police and milk police.

Can you imagine the serious circumstances of the Canadian people if by God we did not control the production of eggs and we did not control the production of milk, butter and cream? What a threat to our national security that would be.

The only thing that we do not have is pork police. We should have because we know about all the pork that goes on on the other side.

As a person who lives on the west coast of British Columbia, and there is virtually no grain farming taking place in the riding I represent, I come to Ottawa and I get to understand the grain issue a little more. I find out that we have grain police and we have a country where a man or a family on their own piece of land, which they own and have bought and paid for, grows a crop, reaps that crop and sells it where the government tells them they are not allowed to sell it. What does the government do? As my hon. colleague said, it takes them away in shackles and chains, fines them tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, confiscates their equipment and just about drives them out of business.

This is not marijuana or heroin or cocaine. We are talking about grain. What does the government do? It takes the people and treats them like that.

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you can get away with this kind of treatment of your citizens for a time. The Liberal Party members are the ones who dreamed up the egg police, the milk police and the grain police. They want the government to control all aspects of our lives. There are also the gun police—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

On a point of order, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that it was not the Liberal Party. It was a request from the producers themselves calling for national products marketing agencies and these requests were abided by in terms of living up to the wishes—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The Chair thanks the hon. member for that point of clarification. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Skeena.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, all I have to do is remember people like Eugene Whelan when I think about the kind of Liberal approach to managing and controlling all aspects of our economy and the kind of marketing boards that were set up by the Liberals in the sixties and the seventies. We all remember the trainload of rotten eggs.

To conclude my remarks, we live in what is ostensibly a free country, but we continue to encroach on the freedoms and the rights of citizens by such things as the grain police. Members opposite might think that this is humorous but I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there will be a day of reckoning for treating people like this. There is going to be a time when this is no longer tolerated. I cannot say how that will come about. I cannot say when it will come about. But I can say that you cannot treat your citizens like this on an ongoing basis without serious repercussions.

I would ask hon. members in this House today who are going to be voting on this bill to consider the ramifications. This is an issue that is very important to many people in the prairie provinces in western Canada and we cannot treat them like this. We cannot expect them to continue to live in a civil society on these kinds of terms and conditions.

With that, I will conclude my remarks and thank the House for its indulgence.

[Inky Mark, Reform, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand in this House and bring the concerns of the farmers of Dauphin—Swan River. As you know, my riding is very agricultural-based. There are farmers right through it, from one end to the other.

During my short break at home I heard many concerns about the new bill, about the attempted change to the Canadian Wheat Board. I must say that the majority of the farmers in my constituency support the Canadian Wheat Board, but they want real change. They want change that is going to impact the farmers' lives.

One comment that has been raised continuously is: Why is it that we, the producers of the crops, have no control on how it is marketed, no control on the price, no control on the transportation to market? I really have no way of responding to these types of questions because the Canadian Wheat Board is a very big monopoly that basically dictates. It is very paternalistic in its approach.

Farmers in Dauphin—Swan River are asking for a real change that will bring about real democracy. The purpose of the Canadian Wheat Board should be for the benefit of the grower and the producer, not the people who live in Ottawa who sit in this House.

Another concern that is raised continuously in my riding is the question: Why are farmers that are trying to market their product across the border treated like criminals?

As you know, in this country we really do not have a justice system, not the way the courts operate. These farmers are treated in the worst way, worse even than criminals, by far. That is a question that is continuously raised. These people probably did break the law as it exists today in transporting their products to market, but we need justice in this country. We have to treat them in a fair and equal way.

As my colleague indicated previously, that is the political crime that they have committed by doing this. Anyway, the people of Dauphin—Swan River feel that this is not fair. It is not fair to treat people in this manner.

The third concern is about the Canadian Wheat Board and the control of the direction of the full grain and how they market the grain and how they transport it out of this country. As you know, the port of Churchill with the amendment to the Marine Act is becoming part of the private sector and also, with the privatization of CN, it is going to be a big plus for the province of Manitoba in terms of exporting grain.

Considering that the port of Churchill was built in the thirties, someone at the federal level had a vision for the farmers of western Canada back in 1930. We have lost that vision over the last 60 years. That port is totally underutilized.

The big advantage of using the port of Churchill as I have vented in this House is that it is 6,800 kilometres shorter to European markets than it is from the Thunder Bay port. Yet, over the last 60 years this port has been totally neglected. In fact this year the Canadian Wheat Board has shipped, I believe, less than 400,000 tons through the port of Churchill.

Therefore, on behalf of the farmers, the wheat board has to increase the amount of grain that it ships out of this country. It is high time that the grain started moving north and south instead of east and west at a cost to the farmer.

Shipping grain through the port of Churchill will save the farmer of western Canada $20 per ton and that $20 will go in the pockets of the farmers, which will in effect improve the local economy and in effect will increase what goes into the pockets of Ottawa as well.

There is no doubt that the Canadian Wheat Board has been a good thing in the past.

I mean in the past because I am reminded by older farmers who went through the tough times of the 1930s and the pre-war period that the wheat board was there for their protection. Today we live in the 1990s.

This is the age where governments talk about entrepreneurship, Internet technology, the shrinking global economy. There is no doubt that there are many farmers out there who can ship their own products much more effectively and efficiently than a monopoly.

I am not saying that the government should not be marketing the product but I believe the farmers in Dauphin—Swan River want that option. They want an option to market their product on their own.

It is all about accountability. The constituents of Dauphin—Swan River are looking for accountability with the new Canadian Wheat Board accountable to the farmers and not to the politicians in Ottawa. They want accountability through the organization's being more transparent and they also want more options.

The final analysis is that they want the Canadian Wheat Board to work on behalf of the farmers and not on behalf of big business and government.

[Gerry Ritz, Reform, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a western Canadian farmer certainly concerned with the future of our grain industry.

The quality of life on western Canadian farms is definitely tied to the power of this unaccountable wheat board. There is a growing dissension with the market status quo on the prairies today.

If the minister were to hold meetings in the west, he would find the people attending would most certainly have different things to say. Our input costs are rising. The end of the Crow drastically increased our transportation costs. Canadian Wheat Board grains are backlogged and plugging the system.

As a result, farm returns are now non-existent. As a result of wheat board policies, we also find that we are not allowed to bring our feed grains and so on into different marketplaces. Interprovincial trade and access to these markets is not there for us.

The hon. member from Manitoba talked about using the port of Churchill. That may also give us cheaper access into the maritimes with our feed grains for their poultry and hog industries. Those types of things are not done now under our wheat board system.

There are many sections and subsections of Bill C-4 that farmers in my riding on both sides of this issue agree are fundamentally wrong, mainly the continuation of the unaccountability to producers of their board.

The cash purchase clause that they are trying to put in through Bill C-4 circumvents the final payment values derived through the pooling system that we have now. The board, as it is shown in Bill C-4, would consist of 15 directors, 10 elected and placed at the discretion of the minister. That is a major point. Four are then appointed by the minister to sit on this board and the president or CEO is appointed on the recommendation of the minister.

All these people are there at the discretion of the minister and can be removed at any time should they go against the minister.

The Canadian Wheat Board also may indemnify from, in layman's terms remove, any legal liability or responsibility for the actions of its employees. This section goes on to say that this also covers the employees' heirs and legal representatives and would cover all costs, charges and expenses included in amounts paid to settle or satisfy a judgment. No one is accountable. This clause certainly protects the board over the producers it serves.

The Canadian Wheat Board annual operations plan will be submitted to the minister and will require his approval before it can be implemented. This certainly would seem to circumvent the elected portion of this board.

For the record I certainly do not oppose the Canadian Wheat Board concept in principle. However, when I see the entrenched lack of accountability of the board in this bill, my constituents, through me, can do nothing but oppose it until it can be amended for a positive impact on the depressed industry we see in western Canada.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak on Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board. I wish it were to be some real amendments because I think the Canadian Wheat Board is mired in the last century and has yet to come into this century and we are just about to go into the next one.

I hoped this organization would have wanted to bring itself up to date and that the minister would have wanted to bring the organization up to date to address the global marketplace in which we now live.

My interpretation of this bill is that it is just a reiteration of where the board stands. The bill maintains the board with arm's length monopoly powers when many farmers wish the board could be opened up. We do live in a free society, and I emphasize that. But for some reason this government wants to maintain that every farmer in the three provinces of the prairies shall sell his grain to the board with no alternative opportunities. Yet farmers in Ontario can operate differently. And I thought it was a free country.

I find it rather strange that we would say you have only one buyer and no other buyer for your grain when there are people around the world who would like to participate and purchase our grain. There are buyers in the United States we know would like to buy our grain, but we have to give it to the wheat board.

That is a travesty and an insult to the farmers on the prairies who are part of the great bread basket of the world, who have worked hard to produce a wonderful environment and a way of life that sometimes involves struggle. And the wheat board sits there with more and more powers and makes some noise about trying to get itself modernized, but when we take a look at the intent of the legislation nothing has happened. The minister knows it but the minister will not say it. All he wants to do is to entrench that little monopoly.

If monopoly is not bad enough, we have to add secrecy on top of that. The auditor general is not allowed to look into the workings of the wheat board. The legislation prevents him from doing that. Access to information that allows anybody access to government documentation allows us to ask questions about government but we cannot ask questions about the wheat board. The law says that we cannot ask questions about the wheat board and have them answered because we are specifically denied access to the Canadian Wheat Board and what is going on there. Yet it is a monopoly that is protected by the government.

The Canadian Wheat Board does not report to Parliament. It does produce an annual report but it does not report to Parliament. It cannot be investigated by the auditor general. An individual cannot ask questions through access to information. It is a complete and absolute closed door shop and we as parliamentarians and as Canadians have no idea what is going on in that organization but we are being asked to endorse the status quo. Surely we as parliamentarians have the right to know what is going on in that organization.

This perfunctory thing that we are going to have a few elected members on the board I do not think will change very much because those members' hands will be tied. The minister will have a majority on the board. It is fine for the minister to tell us that this will be great stuff since he will be opening it up for elections. But if they are a minority on the board, the minister can get what he wants. That is how he can maintain his ironclad policy of no information about the board.

I think about the people who have stood up for democratic rights in Canada. We have seen people in China stand up for democratic rights who were sent off to jail. The whole world stood up and claimed it was an outrage that people who stand up for their rights in China should go to jail and be punished severely by the state. Yet we have farmers standing up for their rights in this country who are saying all they want is the right to sell what they produce to a buyer who is prepared to buy their produce. They have had to go to jail and what outrage have we seen from this government?

I have not even heard a murmur from the government as it applies the heavy arm of the law and drags these people off in chains and puts them in jail as they stand up for their rights in a democratic and free society to sell what they produce to a buyer who wants to buy their product. Is that so bad? Apparently so. Apparently it is bad because this government is not prepared to introduce legislation which is going to give them the opportunity to sell their produce in a free and open market.

NAFTA, the world trade organization and the GATT are all organizations to build opportunities for free trade where we can buy and sell our goods, our produce and our services across the country and around the world, but not the prairie farmers. Ontario farmers yes, farmers in other provinces yes, but not the prairie farmer when it comes to producing grain for human consumptions and grain for export.

It is ludicrous that any government should take this dictatorial attitude today. It is an offence and an affront to democracy and to all of Canadians that farmers would be locked into this type of situation.

I want to let the government know that I am upset because I believe in openness and accountability in government. I look at the bill, section 313, which deals with indemnification. This was a proposal being brought forward by the government. It says “the corporation shall indemnify present or former directors or officers who acted—against criminal charges”. I know that they have backed off a little on committing. Rather than “shall” indemnify, it is “may” indemnify. To me that is not a reversal. It just says if we feel that it is in our own interests we will indemnify these people against criminal actions if they act honestly and in good faith.

It even goes on to say “—in case of a criminal or administrative action or proceeding that is enforced by monetary penalty believed on reasonable grounds that the conduct was lawful”. Just as long as they think or stand up and say “I think my conduct is lawful” the board will indemnify them.

I have heard of lots of situations when people have been in court and have said “I thought I was on the right” and the court says “no, you were on the wrong”. They are left with a sentence and the cost of their own defence. But we now find that the government is going stand behind, if it so chooses, past and former people who have committed illegal acts, maybe with good intentions. Lots of people have found themselves on the wrong side of the law with good intentions. What is the phrase, the road to that place is paved with good intentions, and we may all get there but hopefully we don't. Let us hope we do not. Let us hope the government does not get there either.

I am really concerned about the wheat board and the fact that it is wrapped in a cloak of secrecy that is ironclad. We can get no information out of this organization. This government is doing nothing about it in a free and democratic society. People who want to do something today get dragged off to jail in irons. I emphasize in irons. I talked to several RCMP in my riding, one who had 20 years service on the force. He said there was only one occasion that he had to drag an offender off to jail in irons. He was a rather violent offender.

[An hon. member]

Did he get caned?

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

I am not sure whether he got caned but he certainly got locked up in irons and presumably locked up elsewhere for a long time.

The point is that farmers from Saskatchewan and Manitoba were taken away in irons. These were non-violent people. We have seen all kinds of demonstrations on the west coast and elsewhere.

I hope the government takes these points very seriously and amends the legislation to make it a lot more tolerable than it is.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the bill. It appears the government is trying to ram through a bill that will strengthen the dictatorial powers of the Canadian Wheat Board and will give it a tremendous amount of power to operate within a scope that is pleasing to it.

I am not from a prairie part of the country, but it has always been my assumption that the Canadian Wheat Board had a responsibility to operate in the best interest of prairie wheat farmers. If this is the case certainly the bill we are debating today does not do that. It gives the Canadian Wheat Board the power to operate in the best interest of itself and of its political influence in the House.

The government of the day is dominated by members from the province of Ontario and other provinces that are not involved with the Canadian Wheat Board. They have a lot of authority in the debate and will have the power of the vote by sheer numbers. The government is influenced by a part of the country that has no particular interest in the Canadian Wheat Board because it does not apply to the growing of grains in those other provinces. They will ram through a bill that will impose a detrimental effect on wheat farmers on the prairies and in the west.

I have some personal knowledge of the operation of the Canadian Wheat Board. I return for a moment to the fact that it should be assumed the purpose of the Canadian Wheat Board is to get the best possible price for grain products for prairie farmers.

If that is the case it would only seem logical the wheat board would be willing to sell products on behalf of farmers in a manner that would be in the best interest of farmers, which means whoever approaches with a proposition that would bring a good price for the product.

From second hand experience I know that over the last three years the Canadian Wheat Board was approached to supply large quantities of barley and grain at the top level of pricing for the day. These were to be cash deals. There was no government to government financing involved. It was cash on the barrel head.

The Canadian Wheat Board would not supply the product. It would not take the products it had in the elevators and sell it through this additional source of marketing for cash money at a higher than average price.

To make matters worse, I have absolute knowledge that the sales offered to the Canadian Wheat Board never went through any of the other sources of established marketing of the Canadian Wheat Board. They were lost to other countries that supplied the same product to customers willing to pay cash to the Canadian Wheat Board, if it would sell it, but it would not sell it.

They not only lost several cash deals. They not only lost finding another source of marketing for their product in addition to what they already had. They not only lost the opportunity to have a clean sale with no government financing required. They lost the sale, period. It never happened. The purchase went to another country.

I have been in business all my life, not in the grain business but in business. If those in the private sector have a product to sell, they want to sell it where they get the best price for it, the cleanest deal and the best benefit for their business. Certainly that is not the case with the Canadian Wheat Board. It cannot be the case with the Canadian Wheat Board based on the examples I have expressed today.

It begs a question. How on earth could a government, which happens to be the Liberal government of the day and the Tory government before it, support an organization like the Canadian Wheat Board which has shown by example that it does not work in the best interest of prairie farmers?

I am happy to see there are Liberal members in the House today who have a direct interest in this matter and who have a responsibility.

[Some hon. members]

One Liberal.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Oh, one Liberal. That shows just how much the Liberal government is interested in what the people of Canada have to say. We are truly representing the farmers from the prairie provinces over which the Canadian Wheat Board has jurisdiction. It shows how much the Liberal government cares about representation on this side of the House on this very important issue.

We are talking about the livelihood of western Canadian grain farmers. We are talking about the livelihood of families. We are talking about the buoyancy of the economy in the prairie provinces. Those farmers depend on good prices for their product. They depend on good markets for their product.

In huge numbers they would like to have the ability to grow agricultural products and sell them without having the government in their face every step of the way and so that they get maximum value for the fruits of their labour.

This has to do with rights. We are talking about the right of Canadian citizens to work hard, to toil long hours at their occupation, which in this case is farming, and to expect the harder they work the more they will be rewarded. Is that too much to ask?

Bill C-4 takes away that right. It gives the Canadian Wheat Board more power to say to prairie farmers that it does not care how hard they work. It does not care how big their farm loans are. It does not care how many kids they have to educate. It does not care how many mouths they have to feed.

The government will tell them how much money they can make from what they do for a living. That is what it is telling prairie farmers by way of the bill. That is simply unacceptable. I am embarrassed for the Liberal member in the House today, who is not from the prairie provinces incidentally. The member sits and represents the government on this line of thought. It takes away our right to succeed as a result of our hard work and labour.

The government has been famous for being in the faces of Canadians and holding them back from success and opportunity. This is simply one more example of that.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier there was a question from a member of the Reform Party directed to the member for Essex—Kent with reference to the export licence for wheat and barley. I have a copy of that export licence and I would like to table it.

While I am on my feet, in terms of transparency of records, I refer members opposite to the Canadian Wheat Board annual report which clearly shows the wheat board has obtained—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The hon. member wishes to deposit this paper.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are debating a matter of very grave importance to the people of western Canada. We are debating legislation over which people can go to jail.

For the last two hours there have never been more than two Liberal members in the House and that is shameful.

[Some hon. members]

Shame.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today on the report stage of Bill C-4, an Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

The approach I took in examining this bill is that it concerns—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands is rising on a point of order.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, we do not have a quorum.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Ring the bells.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

We now have a quorum.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying before the call for a quorum, I am pleased to speak today on the report stage of the Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

I approached this bill by asking myself what type of impact this kind of a bill would have on Quebec. Certainly, at this point western farmers are the main ones concerned, but I have analyzed the bill within this context: what sort of comments, suggestions, proposals for amendments would the farmers of Quebec have to make if the agricultural sector in Quebec were affected by this bill? I was struck first of all by the dichotomy surrounding the necessity of organizing the wheat trade. In my region, no one denies the pertinence of this. However, there are significant elements missing between the desire to organize the wheat trade properly and what this bill contains.

The first thing is that the bill does not give sufficient power to farmers or board members, to those who make their living selling their wheat, to those who have to live with the effects of government policies in this area.

In this bill, could the government not have used the opportunity to make sure the farmers were given a voice, so that the reserve fund would truly be a management tool? We have experienced this in other areas where, because sufficient reserves were not made for hard times, the money is often taken from the consolidated revenue fund, and, when this is done, the people end up paying, even if they have nothing to do with this type of business.

The best example of that is what the Conservatives made us go through with unemployment insurance several years ago. There were no reserves, we had terrible deficits, and people who are contributing to employment insurance today are still paying for this lack of foresight.

We must avoid this type of situation in the area of the wheat sales. We could very well go through this type of experience again in the coming years because, we know from past experience that the wheat market can be very volatile. There can be some very good years and also some very bad years. Everything is linked to crop results in other countries and the buying power of other countries, to international politics. So there should have been a reserve fund ensuring solid management to balance variations between good years and bad years, and there is nothing on this in the bill.

At the beginning of my presentation, I said that I would address this bill by looking at its impact on Quebec, and there is a significant impact on oilseeds management. In Quebec, oilseeds represent a promising market. It is a market for which production could be increased in the future. When we look at this bill and when we consider that it could cover oilseeds, this is perhaps not the way of the future for Quebec, precisely because there are markets here, such as linseed or other products, that could be developed and that would become mixed up in a type of management that is not suitable for them. Interesting and well structured markets already exist for those products, and these markets are working well. This bill would raise a barrier in a sector that is already operational.

So things should not be mixed up. We should avoid adding barriers in areas that already work and we should ensure that the Canadian Wheat Board does not intervene in areas that are already well structured.

This is an important issue for Quebec farmers, and this is worth considering because we all know that agriculture is undergoing tremendous changes. In the past, there has been a lot of specialization in agriculture, since there was a sort of division in production: dairy products were mostly the specialty of Ontario and Quebec, especially Quebec; other products were the specialty of the west, and so on.

But with the expected changes to international agreements and the desire to diversify production in the various regions of Canada, we must make sure that we leave the door open to the future and do not put in place structures, legislation, and regulatory requirements that would then stand in the way of development in these sectors. We know that when bureaucracy gets a hold on a sector, it is very difficult to dislodge it. It would perhaps be better to do so something about this now.

There are other aspects to this bill that are of concern to Quebec's agricultural sector. They are not in line with Quebec's agricultural tradition. This tradition includes the Union des producteurs agricoles, a strong union highly representative of the agricultural sector and one which works in collaboration with government, which expresses its viewpoint and which is accustomed to being able to operate with a certain degree of transparency that is missing from the bill before us. If this spirit had been respected for matters such as access to information, real transparency would be possible. There would be a way of making information available, to ensure that those affected by Canadian Wheat Board management have access to it so they can assess whether the board is relevant and doing a good job and, on the basis of the information available, make representations to their elected representatives and to the government, and have something on which to base their assessment. There is no such provision in this bill.

In Quebec, the agricultural tradition is such that the federal government would have wanted to ensure, for instance, that the directors are elected by the producers, by those representing the industry. There is no such provision in the legislation.

While appearing to be open, the government is maintaining significant control over the Canadian Wheat Board. The terms and conditions for electing directors are set by the government. The president of the board is appointed by the governor in council on the minister's recommendation. Does that not leave the door open to partisanship? Would it not have been possible to find a way of ensuring that the president is selected without any appearance of conflict of interest or partisanship?

Those are some of the many questions we can ask ourselves about this bill as we consider a rather substantial amendment. Some major changes are being proposed, and this legislation will not be reviewed for a while. It will affect Canadian trade in wheat and several other products, as we can see and as I referred to earlier.

We must make sure it is a framework law that will facilitate operations in Canada's agricultural sector, that will facilitate the wheat trade, and that will allow the various regions to develop new products without having to face administrative obstacles or restrictions we can no longer afford in the current context of free trade.

All in all, this is a bill which had to be introduced. It would have been possible to make it acceptable with a number of changes. The government made some efforts, but not enough.

If the government does not support amendments—particularly the ones that we are proposing—that would make for more democratic and longer term management of the Canadian Wheat Board, so as to even out the good and the bad economic years, the Bloc Quebecois will have to oppose the bill.

I urge the government majority to listen to our arguments and accept those that are relevant. I hope we can state our views during the debate on the other groups of motions, particularly in these areas, and convince the government to adopt the best possible legislation for Canada's wheat trade.