Jean-Guy Chrétien

[Supply, June 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my distinguished colleague from Prince Edward Island, the hon. member for Malpèque, is right. All things considered, I must admit he is right. But I would like to remind him that the Canadian Wheat Board, like the Canadian Dairy Commission, is not without fault.

I would also like to remind my distinguished colleague that, because he plays a major role on the agriculture committee, he could suggest to his minister, to his government, improvements to the Canadian Wheat Board, because you cannot be unaware that the Canadian Wheat Board is criticized, reviled and hated by almost a third of western farmers.

So it must be admitted that there is a malaise, the initial malaise. Farmers have no role at all on the advisory board, the one that was created and on which 11 members sit. They are listened to out of politeness, when in fact they are the most directly concerned.

You know, when I see the chairman, even if his curriculum vitae is 12 pages long, if he has never driven a tractor, if he does not know what one is, even if he has gone to school for years and has two or three doctorates, he does not know anything about agriculture or growing grain, and he is going to fall on his face.

Those best qualified to manage are farmers. Why do co-ops work so well in Quebec? Because the president is a farmer in the co-op. In fish co-ops, the president is usually a fisherman. He is not the village doctor, he is a fisherman.

So, whether it is under the present government or the one before it, it does not matter. When I look at the appointments made in my riding to the joint committee to examine complaints regarding unemployment insurance, now known as employment insurance, I think political patronage is involved. When you look at the list of these appointments, I think it would be good if one of them had seen an unemployed person or had had to fill out a time sheet at least once in his life.

Take the issue of improving transportation. The hon. member for Malpèque feels that a little improvement in transportation is required. You know, Mr. Speaker, Canadian wheat and barley account for 23 per cent of all exports sold throughout the world. We are therefore important, because close to one quarter of the world's exports come from our country. We have a major role and we should be a little more aggressive on foreign markets and go after other parts of the market and eventually, as the member for Malpèque said so eloquently a few minutes ago, increase, maximize prices, with the result that farmers would get better prices.

I will conclude by saying that the government could improve the operating method of the Canadian Wheat Board, and thus satisfy, I am sure, a large number of the 120,000 western grain producers. Obviously, not everyone can be satisfied, but when close to a third of grain producers are unhappy and would like to opt out for two years, something is wrong.

Once again, in closing-

[Supply, June 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your good memory. Indeed, I had eight minutes left when we ended the debate at 5.30 p.m.

Since I delivered the essential part of my speech on the motion of the Reform Party member, I will take the few minutes I have left to discuss the creation of the CWB.

First, let us not forget that western Canada would be totally different had it not been for the Canadian Wheat Board. When the board was first set up in 1919, immediately after the first world war, agriculture in western Canada was going nowhere. All Canadians tightened their belts and the Canadian Wheat Board was established.

The board lasted barely a year, but it helped improve somewhat the sales of wheat and barley produced in western Canada. The Canadian Wheat Board was abolished immediately after that. In 1935, during the depression, again nothing was happening in western Canada. Wheat crops were burned in the fields.

It became vital to have an agency that would look after the sale and supply of grains. The Canadian Wheat Board was re-established. However, between 1935 and 1943, membership was optional. Farmers were free to join or leave the CWB. When the second world war broke out, in 1939, there was a shortage of supply and membership became compulsory for all farmers. The situation has remained the same since.

Mr. Speaker, I saw you react when, a moment ago, I talked about 1919, 1935 and 1943. You are still a very young man and you were not even born in 1943, but it must be said that the Canadian Wheat Board provided enormous services to all western farmers. In other words, everyone benefited from it.

However, for the benefit of our Quebec constituents, I would like to draw a comparison between supply management in the dairy, egg and poultry sectors, and the Canadian Wheat Board.

Take, for example, supply management of milk. In Quebec, as in Ontario or any other province, wherever a farm is located, the farmer receives the same amount for his milk as if he were right next to the town or the processing plant. It is the same, in the West, for grain producers.

In Quebec, we must respect our quota, just as my colleague from Prince Edward Island must respect his quota or pay the penalty. Obviously, a farmer who wants to be difficult could say that supply management is not good and that he would like 10 more cows, that he has a large farm, that he could buy out his neighbour and feed 10 more dairy cows, and thus substantially increase his net revenue. But if he does that, he will interfere with supply management. Since we are living in a society, we must play by the rules of the game.

If too much milk is produced, prices will drop and the market will be flooded-no pun intended. There must be self-discipline. A farmer could well say that it is more profitable to produce milk in the summer because the cows go to pasture and do not need as much feed as in the winter, and no supplement. It costs much less to produce milk in the summer, cows give the same in the summer as in the winter, so let us produce more milk in the summer and less in the winter and our net revenue will go up. But you drink milk in the winter as well as in the summer, so dairy producers must produce milk 12 months a year, 365 days a year.

The West is using the same principle that led to the creation of milk pools. You have the quality of the wheat and barley, the percentage of nutritional fibre, and so on. So, the Government of Canada created the Canadian Wheat Board, which would appear to be the equivalent of the Canadian Dairy Commission.

Supply management has the advantage of regularizing farmers' revenues, and the same is true for the Canadian Wheat Board in the West. What is good for all Canadians, consumers, producers and also processors is that a quality product is produced year round at a very competitive, very reasonable price.

What is offensive in all this is that today's debate focusses essentially on western grain producers. I would like to draw your attention to this, Mr. Speaker, and to call on your objectivity. Quebec has 24 per cent of the population and represents 17 per cent of Canada's agricultural scene, which grows by 25 per cent if we take into account the value added in the processing of such things as milk into yogurt, butter and cheese. However, Quebecers paid and continue to pay the cost of the Western Grain Transportation Act, which varied between $560 million and $1 billion depending on the year. Quebec paid its share of 24 per cent.

When the WGTA was repealed in the west the government released $2.9 billion in compensation and adjustment allowances of all sorts. Quebec is paying 24 per cent of this generous subsidy. The department of agriculture, the Minister of Finance, are preparing to cut subsidies to milk producers in this country over five years. Quebec is home to 47.5 per cent of Canada's industrial milk producers. No compensation is being provided.

Do you realize that Quebec receives barely 8 per cent of the budget of the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, if we take away the $107 million in subsidies to industrial milk producers? The budget of the department of agriculture for Quebec-8 per cent. We produce 17 per cent, so it is less than 50 per cent, and if you include the value added, we top 24 per cent. So, we receive barely a third of what we should be getting.

This then is another example of the double standard that may be found very often in this country. I am taking this opportunity to criticize it before you, Mr. Speaker, knowing that this is the right time in this opposition day when we can talk about all agricultural matters.

In closing, as regards the Canadian Wheat Board, the subject today, the fact of people opting out temporarily for two years, is, in my humble opinion, twisted, even sick. Imagine a milk producer who wants to opt our for two years, test the waters, check things out elsewhere, and who realizes that it is not worth the effort and comes back to the pool with his colleagues. No.

Mr. Speaker, you are in good health. There is a group drug insurance plan that costs you $1,000. You say that in any given year you pay $50 for medications, because you are never sick. You are not in the group plan. After a year or two, you become terribly sick. You go and ask whether they will let you in so it will only cost you $1,000. It does not make sense.

I think this motion is not votable. If it were, the Bloc Quebecois would not support it because it lacks thought.

[Supply, June 19th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I bow to your directive. I shall resume and complete my address in a few minutes with the eight minutes left to me.

In closing for now, I will say that the advisory committee can play a significant role, since it is made up of 11 members appointed by the producers. These are, generally, 11 grain producers and they know what grain production is all about. Unfortunately, their power is virtually nil. More on this later.

[Supply, June 19th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to rise in the debate on the motion by the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster in this opposition day.

First, we should stress the importance the Reform caucus appears to be giving to the Canadian Wheat Board, since last week there was a full dress debate in this House, a very technical one, however, on the operation and the internal workings of this para-public organization.

We are forced to acknowledge that the spirit of this motion transcends the confusion and incoherence reigning within the Reform Party, which is even hoping to form the government at the time of the next elections. It is rather distressing to see what the Reform members in their efforts to defend the interests of the people in the west. It is a bit like having a member for Quebec or Ontario demanding an end to supply management in the case of eggs, poultry or milk.

The member for Lisgar-Marquette last week tabled a bill to change the internal audit system of the Canadian Wheat Board. Overall this bill was in response to an obvious need for the CWB to be transparent and efficient to the thousands of farmers it represents and who depend primarily on its actions and marketing expertise.

So here we have one of his fellow party members introducing a motion that nullifies the member's commendable efforts to directly help farm producers, who simply swallow the decisions made by the Canadian Wheat Board more often than not.

We are well aware that this organization's basic aim is to promote Canadian wheat in the international marketplace and thus obtain the best possible prices. In these terms, the direct effect of today's motion would be to cause greater damage to producers wanting to make their own way in this jungle of grain speculation, more than it would be to really provide profitable wheat and barley marketing opportunities, as the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster would have us believe.

The motion undoes, after many long and difficult years, the considerable efforts put out by the industry to maximize profits in the sale of Canadian wheat with the simple aim of maintaining production standards. The reforms proposed for the internal operation of the Canadian Wheat Board bear witness to the desire of all interested parties to find a better commercial niche for wheat producers.

I have a question: would it really benefit producers to free up the market so that each of them could go as far as their ambitions would take them? Knowing the vulnerability of this industry personally, and particularly all the factors outside of simple grain production, I can only say that this measure would mean financial suicide for any individual wanting to go it alone.

How can we consider making a special provision whereby producers could choose not to have their crops marketed by the CWB for a two-year period, when this marketing is the board's essential function? How will we explain the return to the collective of farmers who, having tested the market, recognize that the real profits to be made arise from the marketing efforts of the Canadian Wheat Board?

This alternative defies understanding. It would allow producers to compete, to a certain extent, with their colleagues, until such time as they understand that the real financial advantage lies in agricultural and commercial union. Is this morally acceptable? I strongly doubt it.

If we looked for a different image to express the same idea, the first one to come to mind would likely be the parable of the prodigal son, for this situation is rooted in the frustrations of a number of producers operating businesses along the Canada-US border. The temptation to sell their harvest directly to local mills is strong, given the attraction of on-the-spot payment in American dollars.

This practice is completely acceptable in a period of prosperity and economic growth. But what would become of this mercenary attitude if, overnight, the price of wheat fell dramatically?

It is important to remember that this situation is entirely plausible and that one of the reasons the Canadian Wheat Board was created was to play a stabilizing role. The Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly on the sale of wheat creates a significant balance for producers, who can thus count on an income that is constant and independent of market fluctuations.

During prosperous periods, it is legitimate to question the relevance and benefit of remaining within an organization governing all areas of production, which, to make matters worse, do not correspond to current modern practice. However, it is becoming essential to take a much more moderate, and often much less dramatic, approach to the issue. And, while we are on the topic, I would like to reiterate my scepticism regarding the rationality of such an initiative. The financial security of many grain producers is involved, without mentioning the impacts that will result from the coming passage of Bill C-38 on mediation in the case of farm debt. We will see a tightening of conditions of eligibility for government support in cases of debt. We should not mistakenly plunge farmers into a situation that could drive them to bankruptcy.

For the benefit of farmers and members of the public in Quebec, I would like to give a brief overview of the Canadian Wheat Board, because it has authority over four provinces only, three in their entirety and one partially.

Grain producers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and some parts of British Columbia are affected and governed by the Canadian Wheat Board.

The board exports 23 per cent of all world exports. 23 per cent of world exports of wheat and barley are governed and exported by the Canadian Wheat Board and have passed through its hands. It is the granary of the world.

The objectives of the Canadian Wheat Board are important and are comparable to those of the Canadian Dairy Commission, which is well known to everyone in Quebec. It is the Canadian Dairy Commission which is responsible for marketing and buying all the industrial milk produced in Quebec, which represents 47.4 per cent of Canada's total production.

The primary purpose of the Canadian Wheat Board is therefore to maximize the revenues of 130,000 grain producers, whose harvest it sells.

The Canadian Wheat Board obviously needs certain powers, and is, for example, the sole marketing agency for wheat and barley destined for export or for human consumption. Clearly, this means that each bushel of wheat Canada exports must go through the CWB. Bushels of wheat destined for human consumption in Canada must go through the CWB. Therefore, wheat and barley that will be fed to animals, for example, is not governed by the Board.

Sales, to put this in context, vary between 3 and 6 billion dollars annually, so the Board is an important economic power.

The Board's composition upsets me a bit, because of the notorious political appointments. You know how these go. Members of the board of referees of your local CEC, or members of the unemployment insurance office, now the employment insurance office, are political appointees. Usually they are good friends of the regime. The Board is composed of a chairman, a vice-chairman and three commissioners appointed by the government through an order in council.

[Supply, June 19th, 1996]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Supply, June 19th, 1996]

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

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

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

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

[Farm Debt Mediation Act, June 17th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, my remarks in this debate at the second reading stage of Bill C-38 are essentially based on ethical and philosophical considerations as a result of my parliamentary obligations as agriculture and agri-food critic for the official opposition.

This statement may seem a bit obscure, but you will soon understand my point of view in light of the information I will give you.

Bill C-38 to provide for mediation between insolvent farmers and their creditors will provide an important legal base for resolving conflicts of a financial nature. This new act will repeal and replace the Farm Debt Review Act, making administrative procedures easier for farmers and providing for a more equitable settlement for creditors.

At first glance, we have to salute this initiative by the department which seems to show greater concern for all agricultural producers. Several agricultural groups, through their executive committees, have supported this piece of legislation. The Bloc Quebecois will probably do the same when Bill C-38 is sent to committee for clause by clause study.

There are, however, some apprehensions on the part of producers who will inevitably find themselves in financial difficulty some day. Bill C-38 will replace the Farm Debt Review Act, which gave producers having financial problems the opportunity to benefit from the economic expertise of the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food in order to avoid even more serious problems. In other words, the department offered an indebtedness prevention service, as well as the technical tools and the support needed to recover from these difficult situations.

In this perspective, it looks like producers will benefit from a more complete support from the department, but only in cases where the producer will no longer be able to call the shots. In other words, the farmer using the provisions of Bill C-38 will be at the mercy of his creditors.

To put it another way, in order for a farmer to benefit from this new bill, he will, to all intents and purposes, have to have his neck in a noose. At that point, he will be at the end of the road, whereas before he could start to look at the possibilities before being in debt up to his ears.

This, then, is the ethical and philosophical dimension I was mentioning at the beginning of my speech. How can the government refuse, or at least limit, the recourse open to an individual faced with a potential crisis? It would perhaps be an idea to look more closely at this aspect of the bill, which on the whole is innovative and in line with the modern current that has characterized the agricultural sector in this country for a number of years now.

We know for a fact that the government's initiatives to reform this sector of agricultural legislation are part of a move to put its fiscal house in order.

In fact, this amendment will permit savings of a million dollars. This is a huge amount, given that in 1995-96 the government invested $3.2 million in this regard. One million over three million, or 33 per cent, represents a huge amount percentage- wise. For the size of the country, one million is not such a large amount, but still it is a beginning. It is a step in the right direction.

However, it is vital to ensure that this savings is not achieved at the expense of citizens in dire financial straits. For if that were the case, this measure would no longer be laudable or profitable. In fact, one may wonder if the social costs of this measure would not be greater than the resulting savings.

On another point, Bill C-38 calls for abolition of the offices responsible for mediating between the producer and his debtors, replacing them by a similar body of another organization. Looking at this in the precise terms of the bill, the mediator's responsibility would in future fall to a single individual appointed by a regional administrator, himself appointed by the department and responsible for implementation of the act at the regional level.

Needless to say, this alternative opens up the possibility of another ethical problem of considerable scope, relating to the appointment of a public servant responsible for default mediation, and leaves the door wide open to a sort of latent patronage. It is logical to assume that certain hiring criteria might be formulated so as to work around the requirements of the Public Service Employment Act.

In this connection, it is vital for there to be a public debate on the appointment of these administrators, so as to ensure that no advantage may be taken of the appointment. There must also be assurance that there will be a pool of mediators, to avoid the same people being used every time.

The same logic applies to the designation of the appeal committees, also to be set up by the minister. Without becoming totally paranoid, the official opposition is entitled to call for more details on these specific aspects of the bill. We support the principle according to which Bill C-38 will give more responsibility to producers in managing their own affairs, particularly since this legislative measure will have the effect of generating a million dollars worth of savings.

In closing, I would like to draw your attention to the way the mediator is appointed. Care would have to be taken to avoid repetition-and with this I shall close-of the often disgraceful actions taken in the Canada Employment Centres, particularly when it comes to appointing the chair and the members of an arbitration committee. Often people are appointed merely on the basis of their political opinions, people who have never been near a real live unemployed person.

I trust that the mediator will have a better idea of what a producer is, what indebtedness is.

[Agricultural Marketing Programs Act, June 17th, 1996]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, June 11th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-212, introduced at first reading stage on March 1 by the hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette. This bill, whose purpose is to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, contains interesting provisions, which, unfortunately, we will not be able to debate in this House.

Indeed, it has been agreed to make this bill a non votable item, when in fact it has substantial impacts on western Canadian grain producers. In this context, my desire to speak on the subject reflects my constant concern to ensure the fair and effective representation of producers and the Canadian farm industry as a whole.

The primary objective of this bill is to change the procedure used to audit the Canadian Wheat Board's financial statements. At present, this administrative operation is carried out by the private accounting firm Deloite and Touche. The bill introduced by the hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette would see this responsibility transferred to the Auditor General of Canada.

At first, we may wonder what the use is of setting the whole legislative process in motion for a simple matter of administrative jurisdiction. But there are much more important considerations involved than it might seem at first glance. The sophistication of this proposal could considerably improve the internal working of the Canadian Wheat Board.

Whether we are dealing with the management of human resources, the control of administrative expenditures, or even the implementation of resolutions relating to promotional activities, an audit by the auditor general would uncover some details that inevitably escape the attention of private sector experts.

It is not necessary to stress that the Canadian Wheat Board is, first and foremost, a parapublic agency in charge of maximizing profits for Canadian grain producers. As with other government agencies, it would be normal and essential for the government to have a say in the administration and operation of this parapublic body.

Of course, those opposed to this reform will raise simple arguments like the fact that, as a commercial venture, the Canadian Wheat Board has some room to manoeuvre that amounts to a right to use discretion. I understand full well this aspect of the issue, and I wish to point out that I fully endorse this principle.

I want to stress that this bill is not aimed at giving the government the right to interfere in the private affairs of wheat producers. On the contrary, the auditor general could provide monitoring services going well beyond a simple financial audit by a private firm.

The annual tabling of the auditor general's report is a major event allowing the government and all taxpayers to see how public affairs are managed.

By shedding light on the operation of government agencies through rigorous, in-depth analyses, the auditor general puts himself in a good position to make recommendations aimed at optimizing the operation and structure of these agencies. This would benefit the CWB, as its relatively large structure as well as the broad impact of its actions inevitably hide some shortcomings that outside auditors like Deloitte & Touche cannot see.

I do not want to leave any doubt as to the quality of the work done by these specialized firms. Quite the contrary. My point has more to do with the basic principles of performance and efficiency, in an era of budget cuts. So, the auditor general would submit a detailed report to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, in which a series of recommendations would be included to improve CWB's initiatives in all its fields of activities.

I am not trying to convince the House to make the CWB accountable to Parliament. It already is. However, this bill would make it more accountable to wheat producers, who depend on the soundness of the board's decisions. In fact, I could tell you about several western producers who, every day, have to put up with constraints imposed by the CWB regarding the marketing of their crop.

The complex internal procedures of the board generate widespread slowdowns in the negotiation of tariffs and the marketing of crops. This type of problem is not noticeable to private independent auditors, for the simple reason that it is beyond the scope of their mandate. However, getting the auditor general involved could remedy the situation, for the benefit of all Canadian producers.

Before concluding, I remind members of this House that the bill is not a votable item. This means that rejecting it could result in the shelving of a measure that would benefit the whole industry. There is a relatively strong consensus and we must show that we can legislate without being guided only by partisan considerations.

In conclusion, Bill C-212, moved by a Reform Party member, proposes a measure which would not cost anything to this government, which could promote transparency, and which would at least give western grain producers the guarantee that the Canadian Wheat Board is well managed.

[Committees Of The House, June 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois insists on dissociating itself from the views of the government regarding the new regulations for biological food production. You will find therefore, appended to this report, part of the dissenting report of the Bloc Quebecois.