Jean-Guy Chrétien

[Budgetary Policy, November 28th, 1994]

That is double talk.

[Budgetary Policy, November 28th, 1994]

Certainly not.

[Budgetary Policy, November 28th, 1994]

Shame.

[Auditor General's Report, November 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.

In his report, the Auditor General criticizes the defence department for mismanaging its capital assets and wasting over $100 million per year in the process.

Given the magnitude of the problem and the need to reduce government spending, will the Minister of National Defence demand that the senior officers of his department provide him with a plan to quickly correct this totally unacceptable situation?

[Grain Export Protection Act, November 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the bill introduced by the hon. member for Lethbrige deals with grain tranportation from the point of production to the point of export.

If we go back a little, we find that this bill has its origin in a work stoppage which occurred last February at the port of Vancouver. To better understand the scope and the reasons of this bill, we must go back in time.

On January 27, in Vancouver, representatives of the Longshoremen's Union and management failed to come to an agreement. The union decided to go on legal strike at the port of Chemainus on Vancouver Island. Two days later, on January 29, management reacted by imposing a lock-out. On February 8, that is 10 or 11 days later, the Minister of Human Resources Development had this House pass Bill C-10 forcing longshoremen back to work. That bill imposed a settlement of the labour dispute. It provided for the appointment of an arbitrator to whom both parties where to submit their final offers. He would then choose one of the two which would be the new collective agreement.

This way of doing things is contrary to the bargaining process since it totally rejects one of the two offers. The object of bargaining is to find a compromise fair to both parties.

At the time, my colleague from Mercier had proposed an amendment which would have made the bill more in keeping with the spirit of collective bargaining. She was proposing to let the arbitrator choose parts of both offers to construct a final offer which would contain elements proposed by both parties. As I said, the essence of bargaining is finding the right compromise.

The amendment of my colleague from Mercier was rejected by the Liberals opposite who argued that their basic idea was the best, and rejected also by Reformers who considered that this bill did not go far enough. They will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the bill before us today espouses the same logic. They want to settle once and for all labour disputes affecting the export of grain.

To this end, the bill proposes two measures. The first one is to forbid employees to strike and employers to lock them out, if this strike or lock-out would cause cessation of work by any employee whose work is essential to any stage of the progress of grain from the premises of the producer of the grain to export. The second one is to make grain transportation an essential service.

This is the crux of the matter. Is grain transportation an essential service? You will understand that, for our part, we too are sticking to the same logic as last winter and spring by vigorously opposing this bill.

By removing the right to strike and to lock out, bargaining powers are reduced to nothing. We recognize that grain export constitutes a special case. Last winter, the strike was having devastating consequences for western producers: the grain shipped to port could not be loaded on the 25 foreign ships waiting for their cargo. Some even sailed to an American port to

get their cargo. Obviously, when Canada does not meet its grain export obligations, it has a serious impact on the industry. But we believe that this is not the way to solve the problem.

Many strikes in this industry have ended in ad hoc legislation by the governement. Earlier today, I learned, much to my surprise, that since 1966, in 28 years, no less than 13 ad hoc bills have been passed in order to settle disputes in the port of Vancouver. This is an average of a little more than one ad hoc piece of legislation every two years. Serious questions have to be asked. What is happening there? What is the matter?

Is management taking advantage of those employees? How come the federal government has had to intervene 13 times to settle directly a labour dispute? Mr. Speaker, this might make you smile, but I have a friend who is getting divorced for the sixth time. I told him: "Listen, there is a problem. It is either you or the women you choose. Either you do not know how to choose your girlfriends or you are the problem".

Thirteen bills in 30 years, that denotes a serious problem. I suggest to members of the Reform Party that labour relations should probably be looked at. There is probably a problem in that famous seaport, if not in all the west coast harbours, because it is not normal to have labour strikes every two years.

I have been on strike before, and I was proud of it. An employee on strike loses his salary. His ultimate goal when striking is to put an end to some injustice.

If an employee loses money, the employer should also lose money. I barely had time to say half of what I had in mind, but I will conclude by saying this: unfortunately, the Bloc Quebecois will vote with the government and against the Reform Party, because this bill does not agree with our policies.

In Quebec, we know about essential services, and we associate them with hospital workers, firemen, and policemen, but not with seaports. If we were to let longshoremen become essential services, tomorrow it would be the bulk milk carriers, the day after, workers in feed mills, because people would say: "Oh, those poor cows, sheep, pigs and hens will have nothing to eat!"

Mr. Speaker, obviously this does not make sense, members of the Bloc Quebecois will simply vote against this legislation and support the Liberal Party, in order to defeat the Private Members' bill presented by the hon. member for Lethbridge.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to thank and congratulate my colleague from Beauséjour, the Secretary of State for Agriculture and Agri-Food, Fisheries and Oceans, for his great history lesson on the development of Western Canada.

He traced its evolution from 1812 through the dark years of the economic crisis in the 1930s to the subsequent development of 600 new wheat varieties.

We are participating in this afternoon's third reading of Bill C-50 in the light of the discussions held and the amendments debated a little earlier this week. I doubt we will learn anything new today. We covered all the bases and I am still convinced that this bill could be improved.

This bill amending the Canadian Wheat Board Act did not in the end give rise to a great debate. There was a good exchange of ideas but nothing revolutionary, although it is unusual to see the producers themselves propose that deductions be made from their earnings in order to finance wheat and barley research. This initiative of Western farmers deserves to be encouraged and commended.

I remember that former Liberal Minister of Agriculture Eugene Whelan-who left his mark, as all parliamentarians will agree-once told us that every dollar invested in agricultural research and development brings in $7. This is an investment that even you would not hesitate to make, if you could lend your money to a bank in return for a 700 per cent profit.

At the very beginning of the process involving this bill, we had an informal meeting with senior officials from Agriculture Canada. They explained to us that this bill was based on an initiative of Western grain producers. Of course, my colleague from Beauséjour insisted several times that the amendment to the Canadian Wheat Board Act was a voluntary initiative of these farmers who, by filling out a form specifically designed for this purpose, could opt out of contributing to the private research fund.

Officials from the Department of Agriculture estimate the participation rate at 90 per cent. I was, I admit, very surprised to hear that 90 per cent of them would agree to pay 40 cents a ton on barley and 20 cents a ton on wheat to set up a private research fund.

However, I would advise my colleague from Beauséjour, the Secretary of State, as well as the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to be very vigilant because, although 90 per cent is a lot, 10 per cent of farmers will benefit from research and development but without paying for it. If participating farmers are pushed around, they will opt out. And if the participation rate drops to somewhere around 50 per cent, it will no longer make any sense for these farmers to contribute voluntarily.

At first glance, it would seem very inappropriate for the Bloc Quebecois to go against the will of producers, who wish to take control of their future. What they want is simple. They are prepared to take a part of their profits and invest it in wheat and barley breeding research.

This bill is necessary because it will allow the Canadian Wheat Board to make deductions from wheat and barley producers' final payment cheques for the explicit purpose of plant breeding research. The Minister of Agriculture tabled Bill C-50, an Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, because the Board does not currently have the right to make such deductions.

The check-off will be made on the payment at the time of delivery. The rate is currently set at 40 cents for one ton of barley and at 20 cents for one ton of wheat. These rates were arrived at by estimating research costs, in millions of dollars, and dividing the total by the number of tons bought. I was surprised to see that, although the bill only refers to wheat, the amendments will affect wheat and also automatically barley, because of the regulations. It seems that two distinct funds will be set up, one for wheat and one for barley.

The rates which I just mentioned will be fixed by the Governor in Council; they will not be specified in the act. That provision will allow certain classes of grain or certain provinces to be excluded. For example, Alberta will not participate in the check-off program for barley, since the Alberta Barley Commission already makes such deductions.

If necessary, the amount of the deduction will simply be changed by order in council. Again, I tell the minister and his parliamentary secretary that if they are too greedy and if they lower the government's contribution in order to force greater direct funding from agricultural producers, they might see a number of these farmers withdraw from the program.

Since the issue was raised when the member for Mackenzie tabled his amendment, I will state my position again. If the CWB starts competing with a province and jeopardizes its efforts, it would be preferable for that province to be able to opt out of this voluntary contribution program.

Based on the 90 per cent participation rate anticipated by the minister, the Board expects to collect $4.7 million, that is $3.8 million for wheat and $900,000 for barley. That money will be used to finance research on four basic aspects: wheat and barley breeding, as well as ways to improve acre yield. I may point out that finding a way to increase the yield per acre of wheat or barley by only one bushel would mean an additional $100 million earned.

As anyone in business will tell you, your profit is not on the first hot dog but on the last one you sell that day. Farmers know perfectly well that when they start taking the crop off a field, the first bushel does not pay but the last bushel is pure profit. The same applies to milk. The last cow you milked pays for that meal at a restaurant or a show on the weekend.

The third component would be to enhance the resistance of varieties to disease and parasites and the fourth, to find new varieties that are better able to meet new market demands.

There is still one question: Why is Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's research budget unable to meet the needs of grain producers? Why? The government tells us that the budget for research is $18.7 million. In that case, why should producers pay for parallel research? Please do not misunderstand me. I think it is an excellent idea to encourage producers to take the initiative and go ahead with solutions which they know will be to their advantage.

However, the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food should not use the private sector as a way to get out of its commitments or, even worse, let it run the show.

A few weeks ago, the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food tabled a bill that clarified his department's role, including its involvement in research and development. Despite this restructuring, Western grain producers will conclude that they have to pay twice to get the kind of research they need. We moved an amendment in order to solve that problem, and to avoid duplication between research made in centres which will get contracts and research being done by the Department of Agriculture.

Under this bill, the Canadian Wheat Board would distribute money received through deductions to research centres breeding new strains of wheat and improving existing ones.

Under our amendment, the agency would have had to make enquiries and determine that the information being sought by the research would not become available as a result of other similar research. We are just trying to avoid paying twice for the same research.

As taxpayers, producers already pour $18.7 million into research and development projects on wheat and barley. However, they will have to invest an additional $4.7 million to direct the research according to their own priorities.

The Department of Agriculture maintains that, with the research and development budget being eroded, it is important that the private sector takes over. Unfortunately, I am always afraid that, over the years, we will see the emergence of a certain mindset, and that the federal contribution to research and development activities will diminish while that of the producers will increase. This a real threat, and only time will tell if the Bloc Quebecois was right to be so concerned.

Research and development are key elements to our staying competitive on foreign markets, and it is no secret that in order to increase our exports, we will need to produce more at a lower cost.

It is important to encourage such initiatives. The private sector, that is the producers as well as the industrial entrepreneurs, must play a more active role if research and development activities are to increase. However, it is crucial that the government fulfil its mandate, by continuing to finance research and development on a fair basis. In this case, we are talking about subsidizing a private research organization.

This research agency is the Western Grains Research Foundation and it has already studied the issue. In the grain industry, there are some benefits to private funding for research projects which I would like to list. It meets specific needs identified by those who finance the research activities.

However, we must be careful so that the bigger producers do not get to control the research at the expense of smaller producers. Since voluntary contribution is based on the number of tons of wheat sold, the main producers will, of course, invest more. With the amendment we proposed, the Canadian Wheat Board would have had to check the research being done before awarding the contracts.

Then, if the research being conducted did not sufficiently meet the needs of small producers, the Canadian Wheat Board would have been able to do something about it, since it would have known what research it wanted to further. Also, the information remains confidential.

But whatever we say about it, the fact is that two elements can influence the choice made by grain producers. First, the budget allocated by the department for this purpose is not enough. Even though the department advocates new market opportunities, it does not provide the tools needed to access new markets. Second, the research and development projects on wheat and barley that the department is financing do not reflect the priorities of the industry. This goes to show that the needs of the industry are somewhat misunderstood.

Before I conclude, I want to say a few words about the amendments that were before the House yesterday afternoon. You see, a political party cannot pretend to know everything. Acting in a very fair manner, the Bloc Quebecois came up with two amendments to Bill C-50 in order to help farmers. My colleague for Vegreville also presented, on behalf of the Reform Party, two amendments that make a lot of sense and are very fair, and my colleague for Mackenzie also put forward an amendment to Bill C-50.

This morning, I watched very closely the results of the vote and, to my surprise, the government party, led by the minister, defeated all five amendments thanks to its majority. I admit that the opposition may sometimes move conflicting amendments that do not agree but, in this case at least, it seems to me that we found a very positive way to lend a hand to the government party, not to criticize but to improve its bill. It refused. It said no.

For example, we asked the minister to submit the report of the Canadian Wheat Board to us, the elected representatives, within 15 days following the day he receives it. This was a suggestion from my colleague for Vegreville. It seems to me that elected representatives like the hon. member for Frontenac, the hon. member for Vaudreuil and the hon. member for Vegreville should not have to wait six months before seeing this report. A fifteen days delay would have been reasonable. No. The government does not want restrictions or limits. Could it be that it has something to hide? Why did it refuse? The fact is it refused.

I will conclude by stressing how important it is to avoid duplication and overlap of research projects conducted by the department and by the private sector even if it is stated that research plans will be discussed between concerned stakeholders to avoid such a thing. It would seem that the projects funded will be complementary but, unfortunately, there is nothing to that effect in the law.

Again, I urge the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food to better protect the interests of the farmers across the country and especially in Quebec. You see, Bill C-50 will not be costly for the public purse. Bill C-49 neither, but it will not do a lot of good. All it did was to change the name of the department from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

I dream of the day when the Department of Agriculture will take concrete steps to make our farmers whose living depends on supply-managed products feel secure. Quebec farmers are a bit worried about the implementation of the GATT agreements on January 1, 1995, less than two months from now.

I was reading this morning a press release from the Department of Agriculture announcing the elimination of the surtax on beef imports from New Zealand and Australia. This 25 per cent surtax was abolished on October 7. In May, the minister had increased import quotas to 85,000 tons of beef carcasses from New Zealand and Australia.

And I was interested this fall in the sale of our young steers. I kept track of what was going on in Quebec, particularly in Sawyerville, Victoriaville, Princeville, Sainte-Marie de Beauce and Saint-Hyacinthe, and our producers were proud because, for once, we could sell our cull cows, that is our dairy cows that are no longer productive. These cull cows are sold for beef. The price was 60 to 62 cents a pound and up to 65 cents in some cases. Immediately after the minister announced the elimination of the 25 per cent surtax, the price dropped.

In the case of slaughter calves, they sold for $1.25, $1.30 and up to $1.35 at the beginning of September, but as soon as meat processors were informed of the elimination of the 25 per cent surtax, the price started to drop to a point where, today, Quebec producers sell their steers for about the same price as in 1980. Fourteen years later, the price per pound is the same while production costs continue to increase.

I was visiting a farm last week and the producer showed me a small plastic container that is used to milk cows. He told me that, on average, he breaks about two of these a year and that he has to be very careful. That small plastic container looks like a plain drinking glass. He showed it to me and asked: "How much do you think this plastic container costs, Jean-Guy?" Obviously, I gave a higher figure than what seemed a fair price: "Seven or eight dollars". That was not it. The salesman from Laval was there. The farmer said: "It is not $7 or $8. You know, farmers are used to that. Spare parts are always very expensive". The real cost, as indicated on the bill, was $45.

I told him: "The day you break that small plastic container, Laurent, you would be better not to get out of bed, because with that mishap, your profit for the day is gone". He agreed. The same thing is true for tractors and farm machinery. It is always amazing. Input and operating costs keep going up, but there has been no increase in beef prices over the last 14 years.

The Minister of Agriculture is trying to justify the reduction and elimination of the 25 per cent tariff on beef imports from New Zealand and Australia. In conclusion, I fear that, once the GATT agreement is in force and tariffication applies, as is the case with negotiations with our neighbours- Tariffs have been set at a very high level, I agree, and they will deter imports, but let us take cheese, for example.

Right now the tariff on cheese in 287 per cent under the GATT agreement that should normally come into force on January 1. If we prove to the Minister of Agriculture there is not enough cheddar cheese in Canada, he will order a lowering of the tariff from 287 to 100 or even 40 per cent or he will simply do as he did for the New Zealand beef and will abolish it altogether.

That is a real concern. I said earlier I was looking forward to the day when the Minister of Agriculture will rise in this House and change the legislation in order to give a feeling of security to farmers. Nearly 85 per cent of all farmers in Canada have to work outside their farms to make ends meet. Only 15 per cent of the agricultural community can earn a living with farming.

We cannot say agriculture is sick, but we can certainly say it is not healthy. There is discontent, serious discontent, and it is undoubtedly one of the reasons why it is so difficult for farmers at retirement age to find someone, whether one of their children or someone else, to buy the farm at a fair price and to take over the business.

There are no new farmers to take over the business, and when you look at the way things are, when you look at the future with open eyes, you realize that maybe young people are right to wonder whether there is still a future on the farm.

I am one of those who believe there might be a future in farming, but our governments would have to take a stance and stick to it.

Just think about what happened as recently as last winter, when we negotiated with the United States for the export of durum wheat. We had a flush in our hands, we had everything we needed to win on that issue, but we lost. We just lost. Will it always be like this? In the course of negotiations, we give some, but we also win some.

In the case of the durum wheat, it was a perfect case. We lost it. In Quebec, our farming industry is based almost entirely on supply management. Quotas will disappear, after tariffs have been set at a rather high level. We hope that it will not be dramatically reduced year after year, because our Quebec farmers would be thrown on welfare or unemployment or onto the streets. We do not know exactly what will happen to quotas, but for many farmers they were their pension funds. I do not know what will happen six years down the road, when the value of quotas will be virtually down to zero.

All this to tell you that the Bloc Quebecois, despite the flaws in Bill C-50, will vote for it, because that is what farmers want. They are the ones who demanded it. Of course, the bill is not perfect. But, between asking for perfection and voting against it, the Bloc Quebecois has chosen to support it, even if it means amending it next year, because with time, we will see what goes wrong with Bill C-50.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on Motion No. 3, moved by the hon. member for Vegreville. First, I would like to say that we support that proposal to the effect that a report must quickly be tabled in the House of Commons.

For reasons of transparency, annual reports submitted to every minister must be tabled in the House, so that all parliamentarians can quickly have access to them. If our good friend the Minister of Agriculture receives a report, he should not keep it to himself for months. We, members of the opposition, have a right to see that report as quickly as possible. As you all know, if a report is made public after a six-month delay, it has lost a great deal of its timeliness. It no longer generates the same interest.

The proposal made by the hon. member for Vegreville makes a lot of sense. As regards agriculture we, members of the

opposition, work primarily for the agricultural community and, in doing so, we also work for the 28 million Canadian and Quebec consumers. Indeed, we do not work exclusively for the agricultural community. We work for everyone, and that includes producers and consumers.

If the minister believes in transparency for his party, he should support the motion tabled by the member for Vegreville. In its original bill, the government merely proposes that a report be tabled to the minister as soon as possible. If there is still some fortitude left in this House, if transparency is really a concern, as the Prime Minister mentioned again today, why not accept that it be done within two weeks of the minister receiving the said report?

Right now, the government's transparency somewhat resembles the St. Lawrence River, you cannot see anything a few centimetres below the surface. The proposed amendment is very interesting because it does not put pressure on the agency, but on the minister. Indeed, it suggests that the minister shall lay the report before the House within fifteen sitting days of the day the minister receives the report.

All of us elected representatives from Quebec and Canada have the right to have access to the report within fifteen days.

Since such a wish can be easily granted, I wonder how anyone could oppose an amendment making a minister accountable to the House of Commons.

Therefore, it will be for the sake of transparency and efficiency that we, in the Bloc Quebecois, will support the motion presented by my colleague for Vegreville.

To conclude, I will use the few minutes I have left to comment on Motion No. 5. I must say that I am rather puzzled by the amendment proposed by the member for Mackenzie. Considering that section 33.1 recognizes the principle of distinct wheat classes, the amendment he proposes would only allow the Governor in Council to exclude the province or the area where a given class of wheat is produced.

In Alberta, since farmers can already contribute to a similar program for barley, offered by the Alberta Barley Commission, the proposed amendment would eliminate the monopoly and encourage competition between that organisation and the board.

The argument is justifiable, since the results of the subsidized research funded by the board would also benefit Alberta and also because farmers who support the board might prefer that it manage their deductions.

However, if the Governor in Council no longer has the authority to exclude a province, provincial initiatives will immediately be cast aside.

This is why, as you can imagine, I have a great deal of difficulty supporting motion No. 5. When a province, like Alberta, is ahead of the federal government, it is essential that its initiatives be respected.

This is why members of the Bloc Quebecois cannot support the motion of our colleague from the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Mackenzie.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 2nd, 1994]

moved:

That Bill C-50, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 47, on page 2, the following:

"(5.1) The research funding agency shall not distribute moneys received by it pursuant to subsection (3) to persons or plant breeding centres for a research purpose unless the research funding agency, after reasonable inquiries, has determined that the information to be sought by the research is not and is not likely, as a result of other research, to become available to holders of certificates."

Mr. Speaker, the second amendment we wish to present in the House this afternoon, seconded by the hon. member for Lotbinière, is aimed mainly at preventing duplication by the various organizations that are awarded research contracts and also any duplication of research carried out by the Research Branch of the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Under Bill C-50, the Canadian Wheat Board will be responsible for distributing monies received as a result of deductions from producer income. The Board will distribute such monies among the various centres engaged in developing new and improved wheat varieties.

The purpose of our amendment is to make it clear that the agency must, after reasonable inquiries, have determined that the information to be sought by the research is not, and is not likely, as a result of other research, to become available to the producers. In other words, we must make sure we are not paying twice for the same research. To do so, we need consultation between the research funding agencies.

Take the example of Agriculture Canada conducting research on possible alternate processing of red wheat. If the Canadian Wheat Board does not make the necessary inquiries, it might provide funds to an agency in order for it to carry out similar research, and producers would end up paying twice for research seeking the same information.

This measure would also oblige Agriculture Canada to carry out its research mandate on behalf of producers. If private agencies wish to receive research funds from the CWB, they will clearly have to align their research activities with the interests of producers, who ultimately are the ones making the recommendations. Thus, if Agriculture Canada does not carry out its mandate well, independent research agencies will step in to meet producers' needs.

The Canadian Wheat Board will be obliged to increase the amounts given to independent agencies and to increase the contribution from producers, who will again pay for a duplication of services. If producers see their contributions increasing unduly, that would be a good sign that Agriculture Canada was not meeting the needs of the clients it serves, because private agencies would have to take over the department's work.

As set out initially in the bill, however, the measure allows Agriculture Canada to diversify its areas of research. If, for example, grain production picked up substantially and for this reason more research than earmarked for the sector was necessary, another sector might suffer. This could happen to dairy producers, for instance.

This bill give producers a chance to have research conducted on demand. With the element of information we are adding, it would be very interesting to see that organizations eligible for CWB grants do not need such grants because the Minister of Agriculture satisfies any requirement this farm production sector may have. It could mean that other sectors are probably being neglected.

Our proposal is designed to prevent Agriculture Canada from focusing on one single aspect of grain production in terms of research. One potential risk that should be kept in mind and could be countered with our amendment proposal is that larger producers end up running the show at the expense of smaller ones. Insofar as the voluntary contribution is based on the number of tonnes of wheat sold, larger producers will inevitably make larger contributions to this fund because they produce more than the others.

If research is not adequately suited to the needs of smaller producers, the Canadian Wheat Board will be able to react to this threat. Since it will be monitoring the research activities, it will know exactly what is the fruit of the research it is supporting.

In closing, I would like to point out that initiatives such as those put forth with respect to Bill C-50, which show a commitment on the part of producers to assume responsibility for themselves, are encouraging. To sit idly by and wait for the department to resolve our problems is not a very effective approach, in my view.

The cautionary measure we want to include in this bill is simply aimed at greater protection. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food must not see this measure as an excuse to neglect his duty to Western grain producers to promote research.

In closing, may I remind you that producers will contribute to this research fund on a strictly voluntary basis. If the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food ever abuses the good faith of grain producers, he will live to regret it. There will be a protest movement, producers will withdraw, and he will end up financing research and development by himself.

Partnership is another key to success in research and development. When producers are directly involved in research, development, or co-operation, they co-operate wholeheartedly. Farmers, as is well known, are the workers who show the most solidarity in Canada, or at least in Quebec. I personally can tell you that if the Minister of Agriculture still thinks that he has a monopoly on truth, he is sorely mistaken.

The amendments proposed in this House by the Bloc Quebecois, the Reform Party and my colleague from Mackenzie-some of which I think are relevant-are not meant to thwart the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. On the contrary! It is to help him and at the same time to help farmers in the four western provinces. Of course, the Bloc Quebecois has nothing to gain politically in this matter, but we are doing it as members of the Official Opposition and we are also acting in accordance with the old principle that if your neighbours are prosperous, you will also benefit and live well.

With that, I call on my colleagues in the Reform Party and the NDP and the Minister of Agriculture to read this amendment carefully. I ask the minister for once not to say no just because it comes from the opposition. I ask him for once to try to assess it for what it is worth and to support this motion.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the two amendments that we propose regarding Bill C-50, an Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, are cautionary measures. Indeed, some protection must be provided to agricultural producers.

The purpose of the bill is to allow the Canadian Wheat Board to make deductions from wheat and barley producers' final payment cheques. The purpose of these deductions, or check offs, is to finance plant breeding research. Contributions will be made on a voluntary basis.

Since the bill meets the expectations of western producers, we can only applaud this initiative which imparts a responsibility to agricultural producers. However, some provisions deserve a closer look and we should even be prepared to amend those if need be. This is the case with the provision concerning check offs for research.

The initial provision provides that the Canadian Wheat Board shall, with the approval of the Governor in Council and at such rate as is fixed by him, make the deduction. The danger with this provision is that the Governor in Council may unnecessarily increase the deduction and reduce the federal government's own research budget, thus forcing producers to shoulder a heavier burden. In that case, agricultural producers would have to make a greater contribution to research funding.

Based on the original rate, that is 40 cents on each tonne of barley sold and 20 cents on each ton of wheat sold, and based on the assumption that 90 per cent of farmers will voluntarily participate in this funding scheme to promote research and development, contributions should total $4.5 million.

The Canadian government currently provides between $17.4 and $17.5 million. Consequently, a total amount of about $22 million could be allocated to research on wheat and barley in the four western provinces. Again, my fear is that cabinet might decide to increase farmers' payments and lower the federal government's contribution. Should that happen, farmers would have to fund a greater proportion of the research and development budget. I may recall that in a speech made here in the House, Eugene Whelan, a former Liberal Minister of Agriculture, who has made quite a name for himself throughout the world, said that there is a return of seven dollars on every dollar invested in research and development in the agricultural industry.

The government should invest now in research and development, because no bank in Canada will give us a better return on our investment. The government could, of course, take advantage of this opportunity to cut its research budget as a deficit reduction measure, in the knowledge that it can tap the incomes of grain producers for the funding it needs.

To preclude this possibility, we in the Bloc Quebecois suggest that the CWB conduct consultations with individuals and organizations that represent certificate holders so that the board itself can make recommendations on the rate of deduction to the Governor in Council, who would then consider such recommendations when the time comes to fix the rate as provided in subsection (1) of the Act. In addition to providing safeguards for producers, this would also benefit consumers who, in the end, have to pay, because if the producers have to spend more on research, consumer prices may very well be affected.

This amendment will require genuine consultations with the principal parties, people in the industry who are in the best position to know what a reasonable deduction would be and what our research and development needs are. In any case, I may remind the House that farm producers in the four Western provinces are entirely free to say yes or no to this voluntary deduction, which will be used to collect $4.5 million for research and development. Should the Governor in Council start throwing his weight around, I assume farm producers will simply decide not to participate.

The amendment also gives producers some say in determining the amount of the deduction, and since this bill is a response to their initiative, it is entirely fair that this should be the case.

We are aware that the Canadian Wheat Board, an agency established to defend the interests of producers, consults producers on decisions as important as setting the deduction rate. But this is only to make it automatic and include it in Bill C-50.

I would go as far as saying that our amendment proposal will give the Canadian Wheat Board enhanced legitimacy vis-a-vis the Governor in Council, as it should be the case on the issue before us today.

My proposal is clear: to allow those who are the most qualified to set the rate of deduction do so. These are my arguments in favour of Motion No. 1 and I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleague from Lotbinière, who sits with me on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, for seconding Motions Nos. 1 and 2.

Now, turning to the famous Motion No. 4 put forward by the hon. member for Vegreville, it is important to note that this motion introduces two significant changes to Bill C-50. First, we eliminate the red tape and make life easier for producers.

I imagine that the situation is no different in Western Canada than in Quebec. In my riding, indeed everywhere in Quebec, producers and voters ask us ten times a week: "Why make things so complicated?" This is one such case. When it comes to withdrawing from the deductions plan, why make life difficult for our farm producers? What my colleague from the Reform Party, the hon. member for Vegreville, is proposing here makes a lot of sense. It will cut the red tape.

Motion No. 4 deals with the procedure for opting out of the voluntary deductions plan to support research. The bill provides for filing a separate notice to withdraw from the program, whereas it is suggested here that this notice be given in the permit book that producers have to fill in when they sell their crop to the board. There should be space provided at the bottom; you check off one or two boxes and there you have it.

This makes life easier for producers who do not wish to contribute to research, and spares doing unnecessary paperwork. But there should be a space provided specifically for this purpose inside the book, in order not to make life unduly difficult for the board.

I would like to conclude by saying that, with this amendment, producers will have to decide whether or not to continue contributing to the research fund at the wrong time of the year. That is to say, when they see their income for the year. But since this is the risk you take with a voluntary contribution plan, I will vote for this amendment.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 2nd, 1994]

moved:

That Bill C-50, in Clause 2, be amended by adding after line 10, on page 2, the following;

"(1.1) The Board shall recommend to the Governor in Council a rate to be fixed for deductions pursuant to subsection (1) after consultation with persons or organizations that in the opinion of the Board represent the holders of certificates and the Governor in Council shall take into consideration the recommendation of the Board in fixing a rate for deductions pursuant to subsection (1)."