Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to participate this morning in this debate on Bill C-51, an Act to amend the Canada Grain Act.
Bill C-51, this bill to amend the Canada Grain Act we are debating this morning will not cause much of a stir. The proposed amendments are rather technical and are aimed at increasing efficiency in the administration and operation of the Canadian Grain Commission and the grain industry.
The Canadian Grain Commission is responsible for the implementation of the Canada Grain Act. It is required to establish and maintain standards of quality for Canadian grain and to regulate the handling of grain in Canada.
The bill before us has a triple objective: first, to improve the competitiveness of the grain industry; second, to ensure better protection for producers when they do business with grain dealers and big companies; and third, to protect taxpayers more adequately.
Last Saturday, I had the chance to meet with greenhouse tomato producers in my riding, and one of them told me this story that I would like to share with you this morning. Here is how the story goes: tomatoes he sells 70 cents per pound to the supermarket and delivers himself because he handles the marketing are sold minutes later at the same location not for 79 cents per pound, not for $1.39 per pound, but-listen to this- $2.39 per pound.
So, this greenhouse producer said: "You know, I have to work four months to grow my tomatoes before I can sell them at 70 cents per pound, but all the owner of this supermarket has to do is to keep them in his refrigerator or display for 24 or 48 hours to make a net profit of $1.70 per pound".
Producers are sometimes believed to pocket the biggest share, but they are not the ones. In this case, there was no intermediary; this producer handles marketing himself, yet the tomatoes he gets paid 70 cents a pound for, the very same tomatoes sell for $2.39 per pound, just 24 to 36 hours later.
Coming back to Bill C-51, in order to increase competition, the commission will no longer have to set maximum elevator charges. Such deregulation will come about gradually however, and the commission will retain the discretion to set a ceiling through regulation. It will also have the power to investigate complaints and, of course, settle them. We are told that this will give elevator operators more flexibility in setting their prices based on market conditions.
If there is a problem, the board reserves the right to set a ceiling. Producers must enjoy sufficient protection so that the time needed to handle their complaints does not push them into bankruptcy.
Some of the amendments have aroused concern, however, since the regulations that go with the bill will have a very big impact on the bill itself. We hope that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food will table the regulations in committee so that we can assess the impact of the bill before us this morning.
Furthermore, it is unlikely that the deregulation provided for in this bill will lead to a rise in consumer prices. Let me explain. The Canadian Wheat Board pays producers based on the price it gets on the international market. The government for its part, after assessing the market outlook, sets a base price it is committed to paying to producers.
In the last several years, the base price has been set at a very low level, which minimizes the government's obligation to reimburse producers in case sales collapse on the international market. When the international price is higher than the initial price, the board pays producers the difference. If the reverse is true, the difference is paid by the government. It should be pointed out that production or transport costs have no impact on the initial price level.
In the event of a significant decline in the market price, producers will rely on the income support program that includes the Gross Revenue Insurance Plan and the Net Income Stabilization Account. If the market price remains stable but production costs rise, producers will dip into their Net Income Stabilization Accounts. This account is financed by producers' premiums. Up to 2 per cent of his gross revenue is matched by the federal and provincial governments and a further 20 per cent that is not matched can be added.
The producer receives interest on the invested funds at 3 per cent above the market rate. He draws on his account if his profit margin is less than the moving average of previous years. As a result, the operators would have to overcharge considerably to lower the producer's profit margin; the producer could then draw on his stabilization account.
It is therefore unlikely, but nevertheless, should it occur, taxpayers would have to supplement a drop in the producer's net income with matching payments. Deregulation also allows producers to use private rather than public transportation to take grain from one province to another. That is something new.
Madam Speaker, let me now show you and this House how this everyday bill is a perfect example of the gulf between Quebec and the rest of Canada. Since most grain growers are in Western Canada, logically the associations representing them should be consulted about the impact of the bill before us, C-51.
Out of curiosity, I went to find out what Quebecers are thinking. The producers who should be concerned, Quebec's grain growers, are not. The reason is very simple: they are mainly under provincial legislation. So Quebec producers again have to deal with two levels of government. For example, the primary elevators are in provincial jurisdiction, while the transfer and process elevators are in federal jurisdiction.
The Government of Quebec has authority for everything concerning the domestic market, including the shipment of grain. Outside Quebec borders, federal jurisdiction takes over. There is a long list of such waste of time and money in every sector and department.
In terms of the grain required to feed its cattle, Quebec is 70 to 80 per cent self-sufficient. Here, I must pay tribute to the former Quebec Minister of Agriculture, my friend Jean Garon, with whom I had the pleasure of working on several occasions. By the time he left the agriculture department, in 1985, he had increased the province's self-sufficiency to over 80 per cent.
The other 20 to 30 per cent comes from Ontario or the United States. These percentages clearly show why Quebec producers have concerns other than those addressed by this legislation. Their situation is completely and totally different. Since the federal government gives us so many opportunities to make suggestions, I will make one this morning: Why does the Minister of Agriculture not look at the problem experienced by maple producers, considering that 86 per cent of all the maple syrup on this planet comes from Quebec?
The monies invested in that sector by his department are absolutely insufficient. In my riding of Frontenac, where exceptionally good quality maple syrup is produced in great quantities, producers are lamenting over the fact that their syrup is still being sold at the same price as ten years ago. Because there is a major surplus, they have no choice but to accept the price offered to them. Their latest idea to dispose of their stock is to sell maple syrup to be used in ice cream, in the form of maple sugar bits. This product is extremely popular right now in the U.S., in Canada and of course in Quebec. There is also maple syrup yogurt. I do hope, however, that nobody finds a way to replace maple sugar or syrup by a substitute which will taste the same but will not be the real thing and may well not be much cheaper.
I urge you, Madam Speaker, as well as hon. members in this House, to sample the cakes made with maple syrup by the bakery in Saint-Méthode. You have? Good. These are made with real maple syrup and not a substitute. Last spring, when I visited that bakery, they were proud to tell me that they had already used 500 barrels of maple syrup.
Now, if the federal government would only look beyond what it is doing in Western Canada for farmers and realize there is a case for investing in research and development in Quebec. This morning I mentioned the maple syrup industry. There are other examples of areas where Quebec is well ahead of the other provinces or other countries. Milk production is case in point, since Quebec is responsible for 48 per cent of Canada's milk production.
So why not invest more to develop the potential of a sector that already has an excellent record? We in the Bloc Quebecois have no objection to the measures being sought by Western farmers, and we have no objection to their excellent association supporting such measures. We have conducted consultations and checked our facts, and Bill C-51 appears to have the approval of Western farmers. Farmers in Western Canada are in the best position to know what is good for them. It is only fair to give them the tools they need to develop their potential.
In turn, we would like to see the same respect shown for the choices Quebecers will make in this coming year. Let the people who know what is best for them decide what kind of future they want.
Madam Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity, and I can assure the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food that all Bloc Quebecois members in this House will support Bill C-51.
