Debates of April 18th, 2005

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-40, an act to amend the Canada Grain Act and the Canada Transportation Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Canada Grain Act

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand today on behalf of the producers of Battlefords—Lloydminster to discuss Bill C-40. This is the first chance we have had to look at the bill. It is a fairly innocuous piece of legislation, just a few little paragraphs that comprise the bill, but the effects are far-reaching.

We need to have rules based trade. No one will argue with that. The problem I find, time after time, is that Canadian producers seem to be held to a different standard from other producers in the world. We always seem to be getting the short end of the stick. I am not sure if that is because we bargained in bad faith or that we have turned in too easily and allowed other countries to overrun the system that we work with here.

I have some major concerns with this little piece of legislation. No one has a problem with the WTO and with good, sound rules based negotiations and trade around the world. The problem is how do we do that without having these sidebar deals constantly caught up in trade actions that take years to come to agreement and hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars in hurt that we, as Canadians, seem to face on many different levels. I have some real concerns with being forced to make these changes as quickly as we are being asked to do so.

The government knew this was coming down when it starting forming legislation in September. It finally got around to doing this now. This has to be in place by August 1, the start of the next crop year, or we will face sanctions. There is no doubt in my mind that someone will pull the pin and we will face sanctions. The concern I have is the government wants us to treat this as housekeeping, look the other way and let it go through.

A lot has been made about the so-called consultative process that the minister undertook through his parliamentary secretary. The parliamentary secretary had a few meetings across the country. He lands at an airport, books a room in a hotel, invites three or four people from around the area to make a presentation, jumps back on an airplane three hours later and he is on to the next venue. That is not really a consultative process. We need to talk to a myriad of farm organizations, not just the ones that are government-friendly.

The Minister of Public Health introduced the bill, which I found a little strange in that the agriculture minister is here. He was here in question period. It was strange to have the Minister of Public Health from downtown Toronto introduce a bill that really has far-reaching effects on my producers in western Canada.

There was not a lot of agricultural intelligence in that speech. I am sure it was a canned speech from Agriculture Canada. She talked about the glowing results of what we are looking at. It just did not go anywhere. I asked a question about the billion dollar bail-out about which she was going on and on and she did not have the answer. I would have thought that if she was appointed and gave a glowing recommendation of this last announcement, she would have some idea about the aspect of the delivery and how far along it was, but she did not. I suppose someone forgot to give her that sheet.

Bill C-40 talks about doing three things. The government will now require, under the Canadian Grain Commission, entry permits, but there is no timeline in place as to how and when that will happen. We know that this will face the oversight of the other countries, especially the United States to which this is targeted, on August 1. However, we have no idea what form those permits will take, how they will be authorized, what the chain of command will be and what the bureaucracy will shape up to be. That is a concern.

The Grain Commission has become a real thorn in various parts of western Canada in the way it is operating. It is very secretive. It cuts back services, yet gets more and more money in its budgetary process. We have some major concerns with that as western farmers.

Another thing the bill talks about is blending. A person has to have permission from the Grain Commission whenever this is done. We have always had a blending aspect, but my concern is that we are losing the capacity to do that on the prairies. The Grain Commission really only wants that done at port. That could potentially cost my farmers hundreds of millions of dollars in a crop year by not being able to blend like we do.

The member for Macleod made the argument earlier, and I totally agree with him, that we have far too many grades and too complex a system in the country. We are graded at the various levels in protein and so on under milling wheat, yet when it goes into the boat to head off to Japan or whatever country is lucky enough to buy our product, it goes back in as milling wheat, period.

We clean it to export standards on the Prairies at these big huge terminals we built. When it gets back to the coast, then they are allowed a different standard and they tend to load garbage back into the hold of the boat.

I have heard complaints from the Japanese who import about stratified boatloads of Canadian grain that I have sold at a certain grade, cleaned to export standards, the 1% dockage or less that I am allowed. It is cleaned, but when it gets to the coast, they are allowed up to 4% on certain grades and they dump in lumber, bottles, crap and corruption. We had loads rejected at the other end a few years ago because of deer droppings.

If anybody knows how many times that grain has gone up and down an auger and an elevator and through machinery into trucks and back and forth to town before it got to Japan, one would wonder how that product could still be mixed in with the grain other than somebody bought the screenings and dumped it back in the boat after the farmer was done.

Part of the major concern I have is at what point along that chain do I no longer own and am answerable for it. I have dumped it in the pit at my elevator, however many miles away from my farm. We are fortunate because my farm is very close to some large terminals. Six months, eight months later, I can get a letter back from somebody saying, “We have now rejected your malt barley because”. How do I fight that?

In my role as an MP, I have had four of those instances come to the attention of my office. We have had three of them overturned and forced the company to take the hit, not the farmer. When is it no longer my product?

That is why I look to organizations like the Wheat Board, which is supposed to be there to help me. Lately it is not doing a lot of that. A gentleman by the name of Ken Ritter heads up the Wheat Board. Ken and I ran against each other in 1997. We get together a couple of times a year and I often kid Ken . I say to him that I supposedly won, but he got the better job. He gets to go home nights. His paycheque looks as good or better than mine. He does not have 75,000 people to whom he has to answer. His job can disappear, so can mine. That is the game we play.

I do not see a lot farmer farm gate-friendly resolutions coming out of the Wheat Board, the Canadian Grain Commission and a lot of the government programs out there. Therefore, I am very concerned about the bill and the impact it could have.

When we look at the blending and how we have to keep track of all the products now, under the legislation we have country of origin labelling inserted into Canada through the back door. There is a big uproar over why we would want to do that, and the cost of that labelling, but there it is. This is going to happen.

I do not know how they will do that without grain confetti or something. A few bushels here and there get blended off, but we do not run a separate train car or a separate truck for a few bushels of product. We tend to blend it and make the run pay. I am not sure how we will enforce that. I think we will see a tremendous amount of paper chase. A lot of bureaucrats will be happy with this. However, it will cost my producers a lot more in lost revenue because they will have to pay for it.

The third and final thing that is affected, and it is a sleeper issue, is the rail cap. This only affects board grains basically and it really will negatively affect our delivery, especially closer to the U.S. border. I know the member for Macleod made that point earlier about peak times when we need our grain moving. Right now there is no grain moving. He talked about the amount of elevators and granaries on the farms that were full. He is absolutely right, the system is plugged.

We have road bans on now in western Canada because of the spring thaw. We just had some more rain and snow up in our area so those bans will be on for longer than we would like. Farmers will then be in the field and forced to haul their grain while they try to do other portions of their farm work such as spraying in June and haying in July. Then we have the end of the crop year and they have been unable to move their product because they have not had the time to do so. However, will the cars be available?

This is a major concern in that the captive states in the north tier of the United States will, through this bill, be able to haul into the south part of Canada and use our rail system to get it to port. They will not like the turnaround times, but it does give them an extra access they do not have at this point. I know in the system, Portland. They drive right out on Roberts Bank and drop right into the containers that go off shore. We do not. We handle the grain three or four more times before it gets into the container.

I am not sure they are going to like the turnaround time or the freight rates, but the problem I have with this is that the rail cap was supposed to help western farmers access the 13,000 cars that the federal government owns and is in the process of supposedly rolling over to the Farmer Rail Car Coalition. It is a major concern at this point because then we would no longer control access to those cars to the same extent we do now, which is questionable.

We could not say no to a farmer from North Dakota, South Dakota or Montana who wants to make use of those same cars up into Canada. If he gets an elevator that will take his grain, under this bill we have to allow it. That is another concern in having access to those railcars: timely access to them. It may or may not put in jeopardy the whole Farmer Rail Car Coalition bid, because there will be some major drain on those cars. People have talked both sides of the fence in allocation of cars. This adds to that muddied water, let us say, in car allocation so that it is not in the best interests of our farmers in western Canada.

The U.S. has a vested interest in doing that, but the Americans also have access to the Mississippi River. They barge grain down at virtually no cost at all. Upgrades and maintenance required on the Mississippi are done by the Army Corps of Engineers. They use it as a training exercise. No cost goes back to the overhead for WTO compliance for American farmers. That is quite an ace in the hole. It makes a big difference. If the Americans start to load up our rail system plus having the ace in the hole of the Mississippi system, my guys are hit twice. That is why I have some major concerns.

I have no problem with this bill going through to committee, but I certainly want to see a full and open debate and a good strong witness list coming forward so that we can get this done in time for the August deadline.

We have another bill before committee right now. Bill C-27 is tying us up and does not have a snowball's chance in hell of passing before this session ends in the spring, election or not. No one other than the CFIA likes that bill. I would argue very strongly that the committee drop its hearings on Bill C-27 and get right into Bill C-40 if we are to make that deadline. This is something that we are going to have to do to hit that implementation.

Rules based trade is fantastic. My concern is that we seem to get mired down and continue to think that we are hewers of wood and drawers of water. We think that bulk commodities are all we can do in western Canada. A lot of this WTO compliance is targeted to our bulk commodities, as are the complaints, for that matter. If we were allowed to value add, to process that product on the Prairies, and if farmers owned those processing plants, we would see an extra $1 or $2 a bushel in added revenue, plus then we would be shipping a processed commodity that would not face all of this rigmarole under the WTO.

This would also get us into the emerging markets in the Pacific Rim that do not have the infrastructure to process. We could start to fill those markets. Right now we are not filling those markets. They do not want bulk grain. They want flour. They want malt ready to go into their malt plants that they have started to develop over there. They want the durum flour and pasta. We need to start filling those markets. This legislation does not help that out at all.

We really have to wonder whose side the government bureaucrats organizing these things are on. Are the bureaucrats thinking this through or are we just going in there being the white knight and signing all these international agreements while our producers here in Canada take the hit?

We are seeing emerging markets and emerging producers such as Brazil coming forward. They can produce twice the product for half the cost because they do not face the taxation and regulatory burden that my guys do, but we have to compete with them out there in the global market. Now, with WTO agreements and so on, I am going to have to start competing with them for the domestic market here in Canada. That is great. Good for them. Come on strong, I say, but let us get a level playing field. When they are starting to be the world supplier on several different commodities, how do they still fall under this developing nation preferred status and get the gold key to my domestic markets here in Canada?

Someone has to start to think this through and look after my farmers first, not someone else. As much as we like to see them coming forward as well, it cannot be on the backs of my farmers.

I do not really see how this rule change is going to help my producers in any positive way at all. Certainly until we get some amendments, as the member for Haldimand—Norfolk said today, this bill has no chance at all of getting through in time for the August 1 deadline.

Whose fault is that? Is that our fault for giving the bill due diligence as we should? Or is it the fault of the government, which agreed to this in this short term timeframe and is trying to push it through in the dying days of this session? Or in an election for that matter, it will try to point the finger and say, “You put our guys at risk”. No, the risks are in the day we signed on to this stuff. That is my concern.

In 2002 there was a very fulsome report on the grain commission and the whole grain trade. No one has yet seen a copy of that report. It has been hidden away. I asked for a copy of that report over two months ago at the agriculture committee. I finally got a letter back. The clerk of the committee showed it to me at the last committee meeting, last Thursday. We got a reply from the government. The government will get the report to me just as soon as it has a chance to translate it.

As far as I remember, the Official Languages Act was in place in 2002, so if that report was tabled as it was supposed to have been and as we were told it was, it is already in both official languages. The government is stalling. There are things in the report the government does not want us to see. Let us imagine that: these guys are being secretive.

[An hon. member]

Have they ever done that before?

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

Time after time, and I do not suppose the Prime Minister had lunch with that group either.

The government talks about the consultative process that the minister and his henchman have undertaken. They did not talk to anyone I know. I had three phone calls this morning from people who knew the bill was coming forward: one from the Canadian Wheat Board, one from the Western Grain Elevator Association, and one from the Inland Terminal Association, which I have worked with on different things in the House. They are all saying, “For God's sake, do not let this thing go through until we have a chance to come and talk about it”.

So when the member who introduced the bill this morning stood up and gave us the wonder list of organizations the government talked to, organizations that agree with this, they are saying they are not on that list. They have no problem with being WTO compliant; the words that were used were very carefully chosen. These people are all in favour of being WTO compliant, and they are, but they are not in favour of being compliant to this Liberal government that is trying to sneak this in through the back door in its dying days.

We are going to stand up and say no. We are going to ask for a full consultative process; it is going to happen before anything like this moves forward.

[Diane Ablonczy, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague makes a formidable advocate for the farming community.

My question for him is the following. With the bill so badly flawed, why was this introduced? Why was a better bill not introduced? I do not understand how the government could put forward a bill that so badly misses the mark in meeting the needs of farmers. I would like an explanation, because I really am in disbelief that this could happen.

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

Madam Speaker, I guess it leads to the whole problem that producers in Canada face. For the last 12 years, that government over there has never understood the validity and the value of the farm gate. Far more of its efforts go toward the agrifood side, the processing sector, which is alive and well in this country.

As for the farm gate, the farm family struggling out there has never found favour with this government. If we were to check into the last election and the ones before that one, we would see that when they had a choice on election day, rural areas of this country have not elected a person from the government side in the last little while. Rural areas do not see this government as farm gate friendly. All of these programs are developed by people in the Ottawa bubble who have probably never even seen a cow, let alone harvested grain, and have no idea of what is involved in making that happen, no idea of the sweat and anguish that goes into this thing we call agriculture now.

Canadian farmers are carrying a $50 billion debt load. There are many reasons for that. One of them is the huge transition phase in which we find ourselves in going global, but the problem is that we do not have the backstop of our own government in order to make that change.

The European Union, the Americans and even the Brazilians are doing a far better job of backstopping their farm gates than this particular Liberal government ever has or ever will, because the Liberals just do not understand it.

[Dale Johnston, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on a very well researched and well presented speech. The farm community is very fortunate to have someone of his calibre to advocate on its behalf.

I do have a question for him. My understanding is that if measures are not taken by August 1 Canada would be in a position where there could be retaliation through the WTO. Could the member explain to the House and for those who are watching today what he thinks the possibility of retaliation is, what the extent of it could be and of course what effect it would have on producers?

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

Madam Speaker, here is my concern, which was talked about on the Liberal side in regard to the WTO challenge to the Wheat Board this last time around, a challenge for the 10th or 11th time. Supposedly we won, but it is like the fight in the schoolyard: we should see the other guy.

If we won, why are we forced to put in these almost punitive actions against our own producers? If we won, why are we doing that? Why are we looking at our rail cap other than in a positive way where we really get into the nuts and bolts of it and make it better for producers? Why are we changing our blending programs if that is not to the betterment of our own Canadian producers? On access to markets, if it is not going to benefit my own guys, why would we be doing it if we won the so-called challenge?

It is almost perverse in what we will face after August 1, because these guys did not see this coming. These deals are cut; the Doha round, Qatar and all these different things have gone on for the last number of years. Did they not see this coming? It just flies in the face of logic how they would not be prepared for actions taken by another government, especially the Americans as we thumb them in the eye constantly and kick them in the shins on different issues. Then these guys wonder why this type of thing happens.

We are facing these punitive duties on pork, on beef and on softwood lumber, and it is all because of processing. Once we process the pork and beef and so on, it moves. We have let the capacity in this country go. The government has talked about some measures to kick that open and start it, but one has to apply, get the money, run for two years and go broke, and then the government program kicks in. How twisted is that? There is nothing in there talking about tax incentives. There is nothing in there talking about two lines of processing. We have easily ramped up the 30 months and under cattle processing, but the older cows are still standing in the pastures wondering what is going on. These guys just do not get it. We need two different lines.

We need the Wheat Board out of our face in western Canada so that we can grind our own wheat and our own durum and start to set up a few more malt plants and so on without paying freight and elevation charges to Tidewater.

Let me give an example. As a former farmer, I used to haul our barley to the Biggar malt plant, 40 miles north. We did it with our own trucks and we paid the freight, but when I sold it to the Biggar malt plant 40 miles away I had to pay freight and elevation to Tidewater, Vancouver or Thunder Bay, and it never went there. It never went in an elevator and it never went on a railway, but I had to pay those horrendous charges and still pay the freight to get it there myself.

A friend of mine, Bob Chapel, was running the plant at that time. He said he was forced to work within the Wheat Board umbrella and he said at that point malt barley was at a low of about $2 a bushel. He said that whether it was $2 or $12 it made no difference on the price of his malt; the barley was that small a portion of the whole formula.

There are movements we can make, but with the Wheat Board standing on us we are not allowed to make those changes. I cannot for the life of me understand why western Canadian farmers alone face those restrictions when no other farmer across Canada does. Why are we not allowed the same openness and choices that everybody else has? I cannot for the life of me understand that.

This particular piece of legislation again targets western Canadian farmers far more than anybody else across the country. We have to do due diligence on this and make sure it is done properly.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-40, which partially reforms the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board.

I would point out immediately to viewers, to Quebeckers and to Canadians, that section 147 of the Canada Transportation Act, which applies to the Canadian Wheat Board, among others, pertains to grain grown in western Canada. Quebec, therefore, is not directly affected by Bill C-40.

The bill pertains to grains grown outside the country and imported into Canada. This could affect Quebec somewhat, however the aspect of transportation in the west does not. Still, the subject is of direct concern to us as it involves the Liberal government's handling of agriculture generally.

I recently attended a talk by Jacques Proulx, president of Solidarité rurale au Québec and former president of the Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec. He made it clear to his audience, very nicely and very politely, that, even if Quebec and Canada produced nothing, we would be lacking nothing. Clearly, we would be deluged by foreign products. The issue is their price and quality.

As our population is not the world's biggest, we must make sure we produce everything we need here at home. If we do not, we will be at the mercy of other countries that do not perhaps set the same high standards for food quality, even though we still have a lot to learn and a lot to do to ensure good quality foods on our table.

This is important, because the aim of Bill C-40 is to comply with a decision by the World Trade Organization. That is always very difficult. In fact, we have had a number of reversals before the WTO. We have also had some successes in other areas. There is softwood lumber, for example. Finally, the successes aside, there is always some hesitancy. We keep wondering whether we always have to agree and be the first to comply with WTO decisions.

I can understand my colleagues from the Conservative Party, among others, when they say we should look at the bill closely, take the necessary time to consider it and hear witnesses. I agree with them on that. Even though, in principle, we have to comply with WTO decisions, we still have to be extremely rigorous in how we interpret these decisions, in how we choose the type of intervention we will use and the impact it will have on our productions. I can understand them.

Bill C-40 proposes three decisions that will lead to three major changes to the industry. First, the grain entry authorization requirement has been dropped. This decision was made following a complaint filed by the Americans. Foreign grain entry no longer requires authorization from the Canadian Wheat Commission.

This means the borders are completely open. I can understand that grain growers in Canada are worried. There will need to be witnesses heard in committee to ensure we are not harming the industry more than we are helping it with this bill.

The second measure has to do with the authorization formerly required for the famous mixed grains. It will be replaced by information only and by labelling. It will ensure that grain products in Canada are labelled “grains from Canada only” and that they are not mixed with foreign grains. Finally, the required authorization is replaced with simple information. This opens the markets to foreign grains even more. Again, I can understand the industry questioning the pertinence of this change and the obligation to conform to it so quickly.

The third measure deals with the railway companies' maximum revenue entitlement. This is a cap on the revenue railway companies can earn from the movement of grain. There was a revenue cap for domestic grain, but not for foreign grain. Shipping foreign grain probably cost more than shipping domestic grain. Now, a cap is imposed on foreign grain as well. This means that the cap for the movement of Canadian local grain will apply to our foreign competitors.

I can understand the concern of industry and producers, because the border will now be wide open. What impact will that have on the industry? We will have to be very vigilant, and the House can count on the Bloc Québécois. While this situation does not primarily affect Quebec, it can affect the entire agricultural industry. As hon. members know, and we can never stress it enough, in Quebec, what matters to Quebeckers is that the producers be the ones making marketing decisions about their production. That is why we have a very strong supply management system in three sectors in particular: dairy, table and breeder eggs, and poultry. Some sectors are supply managed and subject to quotas.

So, it is important that I explain what supply management is and how Quebeckers are protecting their agriculture. Having said that, I want to come back to the statement made by Jacques Proulx, the president of Solidarité rurale and former president of the Union des producteurs agricoles. It is true that, even if we did not produce anything, there would be no shortage of food on our tables, but at what price and what quality? We have to take charge.

That is why, in Quebec, there is this strong will to have the agricultural community, the producers themselves, decide how they want to handle the marketing of their products. This way, they can ensure the best quality and some degree of profitability, to avoid experiencing the kind of situations we are witnessing now. This is disastrous for agriculture across Quebec and Canada.

The mad cow crisis and the problems facing grain and large-scale producers are very serious and are hurting the entire industry. If we go along with the WTO, given what is happening with the Canadian Wheat Board, will this apply to production in Quebec and supply management? Will the Canadian government abolish the whole supply management system and, one day, introduce a bill in the House to that effect? That is the problem, and that is why we object so strongly to this bill.

Once again, I want to explain what the management of products such as eggs and poultry involves: it is based on import control; by limiting foreign imports, we protect domestic markets and reduce the risk of price fluctuations tied to increased supply.

The first measure in managing supply is to control imports.

The second measure is to control prices. By controlling retail prices, we can ensure better prices for consumers, without government subsidies to the industry, in addition to providing producers with a more stable income. For example, the price of a quart of milk is set by a national board, so as to ensure reasonable profitability for producers. The last measure is production control, or quotas. By controlling domestic production, we can ensure stable income for producers and good retail prices.

This is the system. It is a whole. We cannot get rid of one part of the whole, because this would create a total imbalance. This imbalance would call the entire system into question and would weaken it. Consequently, we would no longer be able to meet our own needs for these products. We would be at the mercy of other countries. Some of you will say that all these products should not be subject to any import standards so as to ensure the best price. When would it end?

When we no longer produce what goes on our tables—when our markets have been completely destroyed—perhaps then retail prices would be lower. However, what about when we are at the mercy of foreign markets?

We will have nothing left to use as a guide, and will be totally at the mercy of foreign business and industry. Perhaps that is when people will understand what the supply management and other systems in place in Quebec are all about, involving joint plans with other products as they do, potatoes for instance, where the joint plan is in the process of being revised, and will become increasingly strict, with a system that will gradually head toward supply management.

The problem is that, when all these approaches are abolished, there comes a day when industry needs to be subsidized. Supply management means there is no industry subsidy, and independent revenue is possible. This needs saying more than ever. I am proud to be able to refer to Friday's decision to adopt a Bloc Québécois motion on supply management in committee. In short, the federal government must at all times support supply management at the WTO. That is the objective and that is what the Bloc Québécois wanted, and still wants.

There is no guarantee that the government will take such action just because a motion has been adopted in this House. It is a matter of providing the government with our opinion. What we have today is a bill that will change the Canadian Grain Commission and the entire industry. It is therefore up to the producers, and those who represent their ridings, to take great care, in the west in particular, to ensure that the Liberal government does not go too far and set itself the objective of no longer protecting the interests of the farmers of Canada and of western Canada, but rather of playing by the WTO rules.

This has, of course, been brought up by the Quebec dairy, egg and poultry producers in connection with supply management. There are instances where Canada has been tolerant, despite decisions that have been taken, cheese sticks and whether or not they are dairy products, butter oils. There is a whole system in Canada that attempts to show we are open to foreign markets, that we allow certain products in, that we have tightened up the law because anything that contains more than 50% dairy products cannot enter Canada.

It is possible to get around this by fractioning milk products. There are high performance machines that fraction milk products to a point where they can enter Canada as derivatives, even if it means reconstituting them in Canada to finally put them on the market. This technology exists and is currently used. Milk is broken down into derivatives with a milk product content of less than 50%, and then allowed into Canada, and all this is done openly.

The industry takes notice. It makes recommendations to the federal government. The Liberals wait, listen, check the market. The problem is they are wasting too much time. I will say that the Prime Minister is a case in point, with his new title as Mr. Dithers that suits very well the handling of agricultural issues. The industry complains, asks for changes and, in the end, the government dithers, waits, examines, listens while our industry is being penalized. I hope that, with Bill C-40, the western grain industry will not be penalized by this laxness, this approach of never knowing where you are going.

That is the problem: the government does not know where it is going, or where it is coming from for that matter. We have seen it with the sponsorship scandal. We are realizing that, with their approach, they were having problems knowing where they were coming from. It is very hard to know where you are going when you do not know where you are coming from. That is the problem with the Liberal Party. Now, the entire agricultural industry is waiting to see what the Liberal Party will do in the WTO negotiations. Let me just give an example taken from the brief the Government of Canada submitted to the WTO in August 2002. This brief was presented at a Liberal caucus meeting held in Saguenay in August 2002.

The Liberal Party targeted the problem. I quote: “The problem: negotiations involve compromise”. A document that begins with “The problem: negotiations involve compromise” makes it clear from the outset that our system perhaps is not up to standard. In other words, in negotiations, compromises will have to be made.

Reading further: “Supply-managed producers of eggs, poultry and dairy products, the textile and clothing industry, and certain service sectors will probably object to any changes that would lead to increased foreign competition.” Liberal supporters are being told that all these people will hold huge demonstrations to show their opposition to change of any kind and that the good Liberal Party must resist to ensure standards are met. These are the men and women at the heart of our farming, textile and service industries they are talking about, the core of our economy, and they say these people will resist. That is to be expected.

If the government adopts the whole WTO system, jobs must not be lost totally to the outside in the end, and we must not become consumers only, because then we will be producing nothing. That is the problem.

When documents begin this way, and bills, such as C-40, are introduced, vigilance is essential. We must make sure the industry understands the issues very well, that all the relevant witnesses will be called to appear in committee and that the necessary time is taken. Nothing is perfect, but the broadest possible range of opinions must be obtained from people with various levels of involvement in the industry to ensure the right decision is made so that we are not relying solely on imports and that we are not just buyers or consumers because we will not be producing anything anymore. That is often the problem of countries with 30 million inhabitants facing competition from countries of 300 million, 400 million or 500 million or all of Europe.

So we have to be careful. We have to be firm in our discussions. This is the problem with the Liberal Party: it is dithery, unsure of where it is headed, never firm in its stance. It must state strongly that we are a consumer society, but want primarily to maintain our production, including farm production. We must be able to feed ourselves by producing what we put on the table. This is a major advantage of a society, and one we must keep.

That is why, even though we are open to Bill C-40 and we are interested in taking part in the debate, we are trying to make sure that the debate in committee will be comprehensive and that all relevant witnesses are called so that the grain industry in Canada, once this bill is passed, is not weaker than it was before. There must be no repercussion on all the other sectors. The government must not take advantage of the situation to weaken this industry, in the name of the WTO, only to come back later—even if Parliament passes the Bloc Québécois motion not to call into question supply management—and table a bill in this House to do the exact opposite, in the name of the sacrosanct WTO.

The government knows full well that a rigorous approach is needed in a country as vast as ours, which is less heavily populated than other competitors. We must protect our industry on behalf of our fellow citizens. In the short term, they could face terrible competition in the food sector and one day our agricultural production could disappear. The future would be very difficult for our children and our grandchildren. One day they will be angry with us for making decisions in this House that jeopardize but one part of agriculture in Quebec and Canada. The food we eat is far too important. We must maintain control of it for the sake of future generations.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

Before proceeding with questions and comments, it is my duty, pursuant to 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 Saskatoon—Humboldt: Equalization Program; the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, Employment Insurance.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened closely to the hon. member. He never used to be a demagogue. Of course, he also used to be a Liberal. No doubt, at the time, he was not a demagogue, because that would have been a contradiction. However, since then, he has changed his position with regard to his party and also, clearly, with regard to demagoguery.

I must tell the hon. member that the bill before us today does not weaken the role of the Canadian Wheat Board. If the member was listening carefully to my remarks a bit earlier today,—and I am sure that he was—he would know that the tribunal ruled in favour of Canada. The United States appealed that decision and Canada won again on appeal.

It is important for us to pass this bill before the deadline to ensure that we can continue to protect the Canadian Wheat Board. We are not abandoning it. This bill seeks to better protect it.

The hon. member attempted to draw a parallel between that and milk supply management. Last Friday in this House I asked a question of the Minister of International Trade, in which I asked him to take all necessary steps particularly under GATT article 28 to block those who want to erode the supply management system. The minister replied very clearly and I will share his reply with the hon. members. He first of all congratulated me. I will spare you that part. He then said the following.

Let me assure the House that the Minister of Agriculture and I will work as hard as we possibly can, leaving no stone unturned, to protect supply management and our milk producers. The number one thing that we have to get through is the WTO negotiations where we have worked to date, along with the supply management, to protect those industries.

So on Friday, in response to my question, the minister confirmed the government's commitment to protect supply management.

Secondly, as the hon. member is well aware, we also held a division on this motion which originated with one of his colleagues, and the government members supported it. We all collectively supported the motion calling for protection of the supply management system. Even a little earlier today I referred to it. The text of the motion by his colleague, the hon. member for Montcalm, which we all supported, including the ministers present, reads:

That, in the opinion of the House, in the current World Trade Organization negotiations, the government should not agree to any concession that would weaken collective marketing strategies or the supply management system.

Then, his colleague's amendment, which reads:

and should also seek an agreement establishing fair and equitable rules that foster the international competitiveness of agricultural exporters in Quebec and Canada.

There is the motion and the amendment proposed by his colleague, which we all supported. So, with all that support, the hon. member ought not to be claiming today that the bill before us weakens our systems. It is intended to give them an even more solid foundation.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, first, I have not caught the Liberal disease but my colleague, who probably has it, may one day succumb to it.

I want to remind him that the reason the Bloc Québécois has introduced a motion in this House, is certainly not because we were satisfied with what the minister in question said when he went before the WTO.

It is precisely because of Canada's brief to the WTO that the Bloc has introduced this motion. I am grateful that the government, shortly before an election either very soon or this fall, has decided to rally. The problem is that we cannot trust it. I remember a passage from the brief, which was translated into French,

The problem: negotiations involve compromise.

Supply-managed producers of eggs, poultry and dairy products, the textile and clothing industry, and certain service sectors will probably object to any changes that would lead to increased foreign competition.

It has already been acknowledged that there will be changes. All the good partisan Liberals should know that the industry will indeed experience some ups and downs and we have to be prepared.

The problem is that although the hon. member for Montcalm introduced this motion and it was unanimously passed by the House—and I am very proud of that—we have to make sure the Liberal government stops beating around the bush and starts defending the agricultural industry so that, regardless the negotiations, we do not always end up losing, but winning for our farmers and Quebeckers.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Madam Speaker, like my colleague I believe very strongly that we should do everything possible to nurture and protect agriculture in all its extraordinarily diverse forms in Canada.

If we think of Quebec and Ontario, it is amazing to consider that at one end there are wine growing areas and at the other end there is salmon farming and seal hunting. Commodity groups in those provinces alone are absolutely extraordinary and each of them is different. Grains and oilseeds farmers have particular needs. There are also farmers involved with soft fruits, greenhouse industries, and market garden industries. My riding has beef, sheep, and goat farmers. There is also a very large bison herd.

We have to nurture all of those industries not only this year or next year but nurture them in such a way that each of those areas remain attractive to farmers. The success of us feeding ourselves depends on the success of farmers in all of these areas.

My colleague mentioned the point that this is a small country. Canada has a population of 31 million people. There is only a certain amount that 31 million people can eat even if they eat five meals a day.

The province of Quebec is by far the largest province in this huge country of ours. We have an incredible amount of productive land, some of it in production some of it not. We have a moral duty to produce food for the world.

I wonder if my colleague would care to think aloud, perhaps a little philosophically, about how we, as a small country, could produce vast quantities of food for the rest of the world. How could we do that on the world scene?

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I understand the dilemma my Liberal colleague faces. In order to guarantee exports, we have to allow imports.

Bill C-40 will allow foreign grain entry without authorization. I can understand why our Conservative colleagues are wondering whether the industry will be well served. That is why I was saying that although we may be in favour of the bill, all the stakeholders have to have a chance to be heard in committee and any decision made has to enhance our industry, not hinder it.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening with interest to this debate as it has unfolded here today. I will take the opportunity to remind those listening what the debate is all about before I address some of these issues and give the views of my constituents.

The bill that we are discussing is Bill C-40. It is a small bill that amends the Canada Grain Act and the Canada Transportation Act. Those two acts are being amended with some minor adjustments to Canada's system for handling and transporting foreign grain and grain products in Canada. These measures of course will reflect a recent decision made by the World Trade Organization dispute settlement body.

I want to point out that this decision was released in April 2004. The decision ruled in favour of Canada on the Wheat Board issue and in the rail car allocation issue but against Canada on three things: the rail revenue cap, the grain entry authorization and the grain mixing issues. That is what is being dealt with by this bill. Canada did not appeal the policy issues which it lost. The U.S. appealed its decision when it lost in regard to the Wheat Board.

The deadline that was created as a result of this is August 1, 2005. The government has delayed until the eleventh hour and now seeks to quickly rush through this bill. That is why we as Conservatives will have to hold our noses and support this as we have to do it at this point, but we will try to make an amendment. Hopefully the government will consider to have a review of this entire issue because there are huge concerns, as my colleagues have pointed out.

The American government has requested that the WTO examine the consistency of certain activities of the Canadian Wheat Board and other policies affecting the importation of grain and whether they adhere to WTO rules. I have just explained how these rulings came to be and the deadlines involved.

Now let me talk about the substance of this bill. This bill amends the Canada Grain Act to remove the requirement that authorization must be sought from the Canadian Grain Commission before foreign grain can enter licensed grain elevators. That authorization requirement will be removed. It no longer has to seek the approval of the Canadian Grain Commission.

The second thing Bill C-40 does is amend the Canada Grain Act and Canada grain regulations to remove the requirement that operators of licensed terminals or transfer elevators must seek the permission of the Grain Commission to mix grain. Third, it amends the Canada Transportation Act, so that the railway revenue cap will be extended to imported grain.

This bill, of course, will have the greatest impact on the Prairies, the western Canadian grain industry. I would like to point out, before I go further in my remarks, that one of the things desperately needed when we make these international agreements, and I think we have to do this for the future, is to negotiate mechanisms that more quickly resolve disputes. Some of these issues in regard to trade drag on and on, disrupt trade, and have a very negative effect on people who are involved in the particular industry that is under dispute.

International trade agreements like NAFTA and the WTO will only work for us if we can make the appropriate changes in Canada to adjust to them. We signed these agreements many years ago, but yet have failed to properly make them work for us because we do not ensure that our economy and the industries involved in these negotiations are structured to take advantage of these free trade agreements.

Market economics often do not drive the process, yet they should. We have to make a lot of regulatory changes in Canada to adjust to the new realities of our trade agreements, yet we have not properly done that.

I agree with my colleagues who have said that we need to have people come before our committee and explain to us what needs to be done. I also wish, while I am on this topic, that the government would be as quick to fix our agriculture programs, especially the CAIS program, as it is to fix other problems. Here we have something being rushed through. Liberals quickly address it, but we have huge problems in the agriculture industry, such as the CAIS program, which is a huge problem for farmers. It is very costly but not addressing some of the issues that are on the farm in a timely fashion.

As I talk about the regulatory changes that have to be made, let me point out that we have already had two major commissions, the Estey commission and the Kroeger commission, who made recommendations in the nineties to fix our grain handling and transportation system and the Wheat Board. They made very good recommendations and yet the government failed to implement these. This is the problem. We study these things and then we do not make the changes that we should make, and then all of a sudden we are rushing through things like this when we would not have to do so if we would have made the proper changes that we should have made ahead of time.

One of my colleagues pointed out that we need to go to a more commercial transportation system and I would agree with him. We have problems within our system and one of those is that the Canadian Wheat Board takes charge of our grain but then has to negotiate with the railroads. I will point out a little later on how that has created huge costs for farmers because we are not using a more commercial transportation system to drive the process. And it can be done.

Australians have made the necessary adjustments. Their farmers have opened up their wheat board and privatized it. They can buy shares in it and it has helped them. It has not hurt them. The scare tactic that if something is opened up or changed, it will destroy our marketing system is not true. In fact, the reverse may be true, that if we do not make some of these changes, it is going to have a very negative effect upon us.

I have many farmer friends in the U.S. and we compare our grading systems. I farmed for a few years and became quite familiar with it. They are flabbergasted at the archaic method that we use in grading. Very often someone takes wheat to the elevator, the agent there will look at the outside colour characteristics and a few other superficial things, and will grade the grain accordingly. This is so out of date. We have so many different grades that it almost becomes impossible to understand the system.

In fact, the 40 or 50 grades in our grading system tend to be quite arbitrary. When it comes to consumers trying to understand our system, they give up. It is not meeting the needs of a market driven economy and what we should have. For example, wheat should be graded on its milling characteristics, the quality of bread that it can produce. That is really not happening at this point. We have moved a bit to looking at the protein content and so on, but it is still not what it could be. Because the government has refused to implement the Estey and Kroeger commission reports, we have the problems before us.

I want to read some comments from a farmer in Wawota, Saskatchewan, which is not far from Yorkton--Melville. Keith Lewis writes:

The Grain Commission has become a problem for grain farming. In particular, the grading system. We've got just way too many grades and the segregation creates a lot of extra costs that really aren't necessary. The whole idea has to be looked at. I have talked to a number of grain farmers and we all agree that it is so difficult to manage separate grading factors.

Another problem is visual distinguishing. It is kind of unique to Canada. Our wheat has to be visually distinguishable. It is a factor that costs a lot of money.

We need to make the Canadian Grain Commission more relevant. In order to get a grade, the commission has to give it seal of approval. There are other guys able to do it, but it has to be the Grain Commission. The Grain Commission charges for all these services and in most cases it is not necessary.

There are a lot of issues that surround grading at the elevators-- inland terminals and elevators at the port. The fact that these people work for the Grain Commission and can go on strike when there are other privately-run agencies who can do the same job...Any time there is a disruption, it comes out of the farmers' pockets.

The Canadian Grain Commission is almost outdated, it's not relevant any more. We need to determine the role of the commission.

He makes some excellent points. There are other people who can provide the service. There are private corporations and private companies that can do the job probably for much less cost. Farmers are being saddled with these costs. They have no choice in the matter. They have to comply with this. Yet, it is not a service that is provided at the lowest cost to farmers.

I will not go through all the other points that he makes, but I think we have to listen to people like this who have experience with it and can point out to us the problems.

Another problem with the Grain Commission is that it is very secretive. Just like many parts of government we need to have more transparency. If we had that transparency, we could begin to make it work better.

Farmers are often forced to pay for this and yet they do not have any choice in the matter. If anyone else is interested in this I think the Hansard record will contain that letter.

I would also like to quote from a news release that was put out by the Western Barley Growers Association. I think it is useful for me to put this letter on the record as well because it points out other huge problems that we have.

We have the Liberal government opposite often defending what it is doing and saddling western farmers with its policies. I think this example is just unbelievable. It will point out that we have huge problems and we need to take another look at how we are dealing with the grains issue on the prairies. The title of the news release is “Canadian Wheat Board shipping fiasco costly for farmers”. It states:

“This backhauling of grain by the Canadian Wheat Board is turning top quality wheat into $80 per tonne wheat” said Douglas McBain, President, Western Barley Growers Association, when commenting on the fact that wheat in store in Churchill, Manitoba is now being reloaded and railed west to Vancouver.

I just want to interrupt this. The $80 per tonne is not a price that farmers can receive for their grain and still be economically viable. That is less than a quarter of what they should be receiving. People who are not familiar with this issue may not know that $80 a tonne for wheat is a deplorable price. In any event, I will go on to the next paragraph:

In November 2004, after shipping was closed for the season, the CWB moved wheat to Churchill. The farmers paid all costs of transportation and handling. That wheat is now being reloaded and shipped west to Vancouver to meet a sale commitment. The cost of extra elevations and handling and the additional rail freight charges could cost farmers another $100 per tonne.

“Why was this wheat shipped to Churchill in the first place, especially when the shipping season would be closed until sometime in June 2005?” asked McBain. “What we have here is the CWB calling contracts on wheat and putting it into commercial storage when they have no sale for it. This kind of action costs farmers some $80 million each year in storage costs with no one being held to account” said McBain.

Wheat and barley exported by the CWB is in the grain handling system some 40 days longer than canola which is handled outside the CWB (59 days versus 19 days).

“In western Canada we have a world class grain handling and transportation system which is capable of responding to market demands. If the system were allowed to function without CWB interference, farmers would save $80 million annually. This fiasco demonstrates that the CWB must be removed from any involvement in the gathering and shipping of grain” commented McBain.

It is astounding that wheat is taken from the Prairies, shipped all the way to a port in Churchill on Hudson Bay, put into the terminals there and then unloaded and taken all the way back to Vancouver. It is unbelievable that this kind of thing is happening. The cost is being borne by prairie farmers and they have no choice in the matter.

Let me also quote from a recent news release by the wheat growers and barley growers:

Farmers questioned Measner on the Board's recent decision to ship wheat from the ports of Churchill, Baie-Comeau and Thunder Bay to meet sales contracts at the Port of Vancouver.

“I don't think most farmers were satisfied with the explanation the CWB provided,” says WCWGA President Cherilyn Jolly. “Of course we understand the need to meet sales commitments, but there has to be cheaper options than shipping grain backwards all the way across the country.”

Canadian Grain Commission (CGC) Chief Commissioner Chris Hamblin discussed the many downgrading factors in the 2004 harvest. She also spoke about the CGC's view that the industry needs to retain KVD as the cornerstone of Canada's grain grading system. The Wheat Growers and Barley Growers responded with a joint resolution calling for changes in Canada's grading and marketing system to allow for grain to be purchased from farmers on the basis of its quality attributes, as opposed to its visual characteristics.

This is the point that I was making before. We have to change our grading system. The bill does not address some of the serious problems. That is why we, as Conservatives, will be asking for a review by the government of this entire issue. It just cannot be a review that then is forgotten and gathers dust on the shelf. It must be a review that is acted on. The Estey and Kroeger reports are now gathering dust on a shelf. We have to ensure that this report does not.

Let me continue the quote:

“KVD imposes too many restrictions on our ability to develop and market varieties that both farmers and our customers need,” says Jolly. “We need to move beyond a rigid visually-based grading system to one which is responsive to the quality traits that end-users are seeking.”

Saskatchewan Wheat Pool CEO Mayo Schmidt gave the keynote address last night saying we need to restore the profitability of wheat. Instead of it being a crop most farmers use to get rotation, we want to make wheat win. Schmidt stressed the global competitiveness of Canadian wheat will depend on greater research, improved market access, lower worldwide subsidies and a focus on product innovation.

That is why I was saying that we need to ensure that our international agreements begin to work for us. We need to make the changes here.

There are other things I could mention, but I think that members get the drift. We have to remove barriers that are restricting value added on the Prairies. The present structure is not working, and the wheat board is included in that structure. The claim is it does not hinder that in Canada, but when we talk to some of the people who really are involved in the industry, they will tell us otherwise.

In summary, we will be supporting Bill C-40. We will hold our noses and support this bill, even though there need to be a lot more changes. We are hoping the government will act as quickly to address many of the other problems in agriculture that do not seem to be on the top of its agenda. We will be pushing an amendment to Bill C-40 to have a review and make sure that Bill C-40 gets passed in time to comply with our agreement at the WTO.

[Carol Skelton, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague talked so eloquently about what is happening in the farm communities. I would like him to tell the House more about what is happening to grain farmers in his area.

Some of the young people in that area know me and they have called me and talked of the things that are happening. I would like him to tell the House what the people in his riding are telling him about the grain industry.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to explain to our city cousins, so to speak, some of the problems that are experienced on the farm. Very often people in the cities will have the attitude that there are a few problems, that people tend to whine and complain, but it is really not all that serious, that people are still going to make a living from agriculture and so on.

I have never seen the situation in agriculture as serious as it is at this point. People have likened it to being worse than in the 1930s when agriculture was at a low point some 70 years ago.

One of the things that really strikes someone when visiting with farmers is that many of them have tried to adjust to the realities of the world situation. They have adjusted by changing their farm operations, but because the government programs that are supposed to provide for a level playing field are not doing what they are supposed to do, the farmers are in really tough shape.

Our major competitors have large subsidies. They support their agricultural industries. We as Canadians do not. That makes it very difficult.

I could describe in detail some of the problems that they have experienced. For example, a devastating frost last August 18 killed many of the crops in a band right across Saskatchewan. It was not an isolated area. Because the frost was untimely and because we had one of the coldest summers ever on record--global warming has not reached our province yet--the crops were not well developed. The frost that hit on August 18 and another one which hit at the beginning of September absolutely decimated the crops.

Wheat, which normally would have gone 60 bushels to an acre if there was a good crop in our area, went two or three bushels to the acre. In fact, the crop looked beautiful but because the frost stopped the wheat from developing, the kernels were virtually green and shrivelled and could not be harvested. They blew out the back of the combine. Farmers were unable to harvest some of those crops. The crops that they were able to harvest were not of a sufficient quality to command the price that would keep the farmers on the land.

Input costs have gone up and commodity prices have not followed. Commodity prices around the world remain depressed, partly because of the subsidies in other countries, but the input costs that farmers are experiencing right now are astronomical.

Natural gas has gone up in price. It is a key ingredient in nitrogen fertilizers. Those fertilizers have risen dramatically in cost. Farmers need to use those in order to grow their crops. Fuel costs are a major expense for farmers. Our city cousins know what has happened to the cost of fuel. It has a huge impact on agriculture.

If only farmers could get a decent price for what they sell, this would not have such an effect upon them, but because these factors are beyond their control, they are in big trouble. Other countries recognize the importance of keeping a large number of middle class farmers on the land. Europeans starved during the second world war. They know that agriculture is absolutely essential to a country. When times get tough, people want good quality food. If we do not do something about our agriculture crisis, we will regret it one day.

The difficulties on the farm right now are beyond the management of the farmers, who are trying to do their best. The border closure, the BSE crisis, has had a huge negative impact on agriculture. Many grain farmers in my area went into cow-calf herds to supplement their income. Those cow-calf herds of course did not in the last couple of years bring in the income that would have helped those farmers remain economically viable.

All of these things have an impact.

There is one more thing included in the question my colleague asked and that is youth: because of the difficulties experienced by farmers, young people are not entering agriculture. If we do not have a turnover of farmers, if we do not attract young entrepreneurs to the agricultural business, there will be nobody to take over when the time comes for people to retire.

We may think that is not a serious problem. We may think that somebody will come along. It is not easy to come in and take over a farm. People cannot simply go to university to study agriculture and suddenly become good farmers who are able to manage. It is something we have to grow into. Our youth need to be nurtured. They need to be attracted into it. Right now they look at agriculture and they do not see it as viable.

As an aside, it is also an essential part of Canadian culture, I believe. Many people do not realize how important the maintenance of our rural areas in Canada is to our culture as a country. I cannot go into that as it really does not relate to what we are talking about right now, but we need to ensure that we have a strong, viable rural Canada in order for Canada as a nation to be strong.

I hope that people listening will take this to heart. I appreciate the opportunity to make comments in this area.

[Dale Johnston, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments of my colleague from Yorkton—Melville. Certainly he knows whereof he speaks, because he is also in the agriculture business himself.

I realize this is a bit of a loaded question, but what relation does he see between the fact that this particular bill has not been dealt with before now and the fact that there is a great feeling of alienation in the west and particularly in his area? How does he relate the two?

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague. That is a loaded question. One of the issues I am always faced with is that the people in my area have the attitude that the government in Ottawa does not care about our problems. The government will put forward an act on the Canadian Wheat Board that will affect only Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba and it is passed by members in Ontario and Quebec who do not have to live under its auspices. It will put in place an agriculture program such as the CAIS program. It is supposed to address problems on the farm but does not work and the government does not fix it so it alienates the people in the west.

It is just one of a number of grievances people have. This is not just in the agriculture sector. We could go on. Let us go on to electing senators and the Prime Minister not appointing the senators picked by the people of Canada.

We have huge problems on the farm. When those problems are not properly addressed by the government here in Ottawa, that leads people to feel they need to separate from Canada in order to take charge of their own affairs. That kind of attitude is deplorable. It makes people have a very negative attitude to government, to those elected representatives who are sent here but do not seem to take seriously the problems people have.

When we deal with issues such as this one with the Canadian Grain Commission, we need to keep in mind that these problems affect real people. We need to deal with those problems even if we do not thoroughly understand them and they do not affect our region of the country. We still need to deal with them in a timely and fair manner.

[Dale Johnston, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak to Bill C-40 today. I wish to remind the House of what Bill C-40 is actually about. It is “an act to amend the Canada Grain Act and the Canada Transportation Act”.

One thing I noticed right off the bat is that this refers to the Canada Grain Act and the Canada Transportation Act, but really it is what I would call “the western Canadian grain act and the western Canadian transportation act”. It has very little if anything to do with Ontario. Ontario falls under a set of circumstances that is different from the western grain marketing system.

Agriculture is in a tremendous crisis and has been for some time. For the last four years we have dealt with droughts and low commodity prices. Since the spring of 1993 we have had to deal with the fact that the border has been closed, so any time that grain farmers are able to export their grain and make a profit doing so certainly is desirable. It is much more desirable than to have the government coming up with programs.

I have been a farmer for 35 years. I do not know of a farmer yet, and I have known a lot of them, who would want to have an income from the government. Farmers want to be able to raise their crops and their livestock. They want a market for their crops and livestock and they want to sell them at a decent price. A reasonable expectation of profit is all that farmers are hoping for.

As my colleague from Yorkton—Melville pointed out, it is becoming more of a struggle all the time. We are having a tremendously difficult time trying to attract young people to the farm and the agricultural way of life because that expectation of profit is simply dwindling all the time.

Bill C-40 seeks to make amendments in order to comply with the WTO ruling. Although my colleagues are much more versed in this, I find it rather unusual that we would in fact win the Canadian Wheat Board issue and the railcar allocation issue--we won them, but the U.S. immediately appealed--but be ruled against on the railcar revenue cap and the grain entry authorization and mixing issues. We did not appeal this and I am wondering why.

Why would Canada not appeal that? Why would we stand by and watch our neighbours to the south appeal the decisions that did not go their way while we simply stand back and accept the ruling that we did not win?

It is unfortunate that we are on such a short timeline on this bill. We need to have these amendments in in order to comply by August 1. My colleague from Haldimand—Norfolk has suggested that we amend this bill. I certainly hope there is time to do so. I am confident that the amendment will not only be an amendment but an improvement.

Bill C-40 is necessary to respect our international trade obligations. We recognize that this tight timeline certainly puts us under the gun. I really admonish the government because it did not do something sooner about this. I think it is a tremendously important issue, one that we should not rush through the House or take lightly or not give due and appropriate consideration to.

Our amendment would draw attention to concerns raised both by farmers and by the grain industry. I think that is what is important. It is not just the farmers who are concerned about this. The grain industry is very concerned.

What is also at stake is our credibility as an international supplier of a quality product. Canadians grow some of the finest quality grains and oilseeds in the world. As my friend from the Battlefords said, we have to clean it to a very high international standard. Once it reaches port we have to clean it down to 1% dockage, that is, 1% foreign material. Once it is loaded on the ship it can contain up to 4% of foreign material. I think that is totally unacceptable. I think it is damaging to our international reputation. It is also not fair to our customers, who then have to clean all the foreign material out of the grain in order to process it.

Our grain is used for livestock feed but most of our customers buy it for human feed, so as agriculturalists we should try our very best to keep it pure and clean. We should also expect that much from the people who handle it and ship it and certainly our customers should expect that.

I am interested to hear what my colleague from Haldimand--Norfolk has in the way of an amendment. Unfortunately, I do not have it in front of me. I would like to see it and I look forward to debating that too.

Other colleagues who have spoken on this issue have said they are going to have great difficulty supporting this legislation, but I do not think we have much choice. I think our backs are against the wall. We have to support this legislation in order for it to get through the House and in order to comply with these extremely short timelines.

The United States of course has been a big customer of ours as far as agricultural commodities are concerned. There is an onus on us to provide the Americans with a high quality product. Time and time again we have provided that high quality product and yet the United States has been challenging us under the WTO because it feels we are unfairly subsidized or for some financial reason. The United States challenges the WTO decisions, but we win these challenges over and over again. It does not seem that we benefit all that much from winning all these challenges. I have to agree with my colleague from the Battlefords who said we entered into this back alley fight but did not emerge as victors. We were beaten up pretty badly.

With respect to Bill C-40, I will go with the recommendation of our agricultural critic, who I think has been doing a great job on this file. I will be supporting the bill, but only in the hope that we can get an amendment to it and get agricultural products back on the front burner of Parliament.

I asked my colleague from Yorkton--Melville about western alienation. I really think the way this government has treated agriculture in general and western agriculture in particular has a lot to do with this whole feeling of western alienation. I am probably a bit off topic, but in the western alienation realm, let me say further that the way the Liberal government has treated the petroleum industry, the energy industry, which is largely in the west, has certainly contributed significantly to the feeling of western alienation.

The Prime Minister talked about fixing the democratic deficit. What is definitely a big part of the democratic deficit is the fact that western Canadians feel there is little or nothing being done to correct the injustices taking place as far as agriculture and, for that matter, petroleum and energy products that come out of the west.

We need the Canadian government to pay attention to our agricultural industry. It has reached the point where I own a farm and neither of my children want to have anything to do with running it. What will happen to it? Will it become part of a large conglomerate, a large factory farm industry, or will we expect young people to run it?

There is kind of a joke, and there is a lot of bitter irony in it, that says if farmers insists that their children stay home and farm, that is one of the most severe forms of child abuse. The fact of the matter is--

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

It's not a joke.

[Dale Johnston, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

As my colleague from Yellowhead says, it is not a joke. If people try to set their kids up in farming, what they do is saddle them with huge debt. They pay exorbitant prices with the taxation on fuels. They pay exorbitant prices for their machinery with the taxes and excise taxes, all that goes with buying machinery. They have very little expectation for profit. They can do almost anything else. They can train to become tradespeople and make many times more money and work far fewer hours.

My reason to speak to the bill today is to give my grudging support to it, but also to draw attention to the fact that agriculture has been and always will be the backbone of the country. Certainly we have manufacturing and service jobs and all the jobs in the information, tourism and energy sectors. Those jobs are all important, but without agriculture those people will go hungry. There is another old expression that says, “If you ate today, thank a farmer”. That is an absolute truth.

We have been neglecting the farm community far too long and have not placed high enough priority on its needs. We should be searching out markets for farm products. We should be helping to secure capital at least for individuals who want to set up packing plants, have good business plans and secure markets in other countries of the world. We should be helping people to realize that goal so they can kill off some of the old cattle that are plugging up our system and piling up more and more all the time. There are markets all over the world. It is a hungry world. People want beef and are willing to pay for it. We need an opportunity to realize that processing and packaging.

As my friend referred to earlier, we feel as though we are hewers of wood and drawers of water. To me that means we put everything in its most primal form and that is the wrong thing to do. When we ship raw product off our borders, we send jobs along with that product. There should be more processing in Canada. We should have more pasta and packing plants for beef.

Those markets are out there. All we need to do is have the packing and the processing capabilities of doing that. We need a farmer-friendly government to help that happen. We do not need its subsidies and we do not want to have it saying, “Check the mailbox because that is how you make your living”. They do not want to make their livings by checking the mailbox. They want to make their livings by a reasonable expectation of profits. I could go on and on.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Wetaskiwin on his passion. Agriculture is obviously something near and dear to my heart as well, and I thank him for sharing his concerns on this subject.

This morning we heard the minister, who presented this legislation and who led the debate, refer to numerous consultations that had been done with industry. She rhymed off at least a dozen different groups that she said had been consulted. Yet shortly after her presentation, a representative of one of those groups called my office and said that the group's definition of consultation was something different. Representatives of the group had attended a session, along with many others, and listened to one of the representatives of the government talk about the issues. They did not consider that consultation.

Would the hon. member for Wetaskiwin be willing to share with us his views on the importance of consultation, particularly in light of the amendment that I will be proposing, which is that a full review and study of the Canada Grain Act be conducted within 12 months and that review would include a complete look at the role, responsibilities and governance of any organizations that operate under that act, including but not limited to the Canadian Grain Commission?

[Dale Johnston, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, consultations are good, but we have to act on the consultations. Every time I go back to my riding, I consult with my constituents. They are not shy about sharing their thoughts with me and I am sure that is the same with all members, regardless of what side of the House they are on.

A formal consultation absolutely is worthwhile. I now have the amendment that our critic has put forth, and it is a very good one. We need to ensure that the people affected by this legislation have a voice in it. We need to ensure that they tell us how this affects them rather than have some bureaucrat in Ottawa tell them how we will fix their problems.

It only makes sense to me to have this review completed within 12 months. We need to talk to as many actual producers, not necessarily farm groups or interest groups or lobbies, who are willing to share their experiences with us and the problems they have encountered from first-hand experience.

We can get an awful lot of good information from the grassroots. If we go to the grassroots and talk to people, we will find out where the pitfalls are and where improvements can be made. I would concur with the comments of my colleague.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Wetaskiwin talked an awful lot about how agriculture is in crisis, that we are currently faced across this nation with a government that does not really know what happens on the land. He also talked an awful lot about the increased amount of regulations in the shipment of wheat, the cleaning of wheat and those types of things. I do not imagine that is helping the farmers with that project too much either.

We seem to have left the legislation to a very late date. Maybe he can help guess for the government's side as to why this was done? Why has it left this to hurry through when the August 1 date looms in front of us?