Mr. Speaker, as I did during the debate on the grain legislation, I must start right out by admitting that, as a Quebecker, I have difficulty feeling concerned by this bill.
It is my impression that this is a bit like life in a big family, with its ups and downs, its squabbles, its unspoken words, its misunderstandings, and all the arrangements that are made between the members of a big family.
It is perfectly normal, because the Canadian Wheat Board and the bill to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts mainly concerns the western provinces.
I have looked at this bill carefully from the economic point of view, as a representative of Quebec, to see where our interests lay and the points where we would have to defend ourselves, if there were any. Like many of my colleagues, I had problems with the inclusions and the exclusions, but overall, throughout the debate, I never felt totally concerned by it.
So what do I do under such circumstances? I look at whether all farmers or all agriculture can benefit from it and I try to direct the discussions toward that.
But since the debate has dragged on, I found myself obliged to broaden my horizons and I started to read the western newspapers in order to convince myself of how absolutely important this debate was for the western farmers and also how it was limited to that framework.
I have just heard one of my colleagues saying “But how can the other provinces not be interested?” I think it is a historical fact that a Canadian Wheat Board was created for the areas where there was wheat.
I remember, also, that during the 1970s—I can talk about the past—very little grain was produced in Quebec. It was only for farm use, and we produced traditional grains, mainly oats and barley. It was in the 1980s that the government of the time, formed by the Parti Quebecois, decided to increase farm consumption and to focus on export.
Obviously there is no comparison between western granaries and Quebec production, although we have made a considerable improvement in the range of grains we grow and we have even exported bread wheat.
That said, our marketing is naturally done in the free market, since we are not the same sort of player as the provinces whose prime agricultural production is grains.
We are in agreement generally with the bill, because we always agree with proposals for organized marketing of agricultural products. This is the focus of the debate, too, organized marketing versus the free market, with the advantages the Canadian Wheat Board has created over time, that is, a reliable product in terms of price, quality and delivery.
Importers needing to mix animal feed need to know who they are dealing with and to be sure of a uniform quality product. Over the years, the Canadian Wheat Board has earned such a reputation.
Today, we are to vote on the amendments the Senate has proposed to the bill. There are technical amendments, two of which are of interest to us because they are points we raised along the way. There is the new clause 8.1 and clause 36.
The following is added after the existing paragraph in clause 8.1:
8.1 Within two years after the day this section comes into force, the Auditor General of Canada may commence an audit of the accounts and financial transactions of the Corporation for such fiscal years as the Auditor General considers appropriate and a report of the audit shall be made to the Corporation and the Minister.
Many people wanted this addition, so that the accounts can be audited. This is an additional guarantee of good management, and will probably also reassure producers dealing with the board.
I will not linger over the deletion of lines 31 to 40 on page 17, because this has been debated extensively. This paragraph removes the exclusion of any class or grade of wheat, or wheat produced in any area in Canada. This clause may be questioned over the years.
Clause 47.1 of the bill, which was amended, reads as follows:
The Minister shall not cause to be introduced in Parliament a bill that would exclude any kind, type, class or grade of wheat or barley, or wheat or barley produced in any area in Canada, from the provisions of Part IV, either in whole or in part, or generally, or for any period, or that would extend the application of Part III or Part IV or both Parts III and IV to any other grain, unless
a) the Minister has consulted with the board about the exclusion or extension; and
b) the producers of the grain have voted in favour of the exclusion or extension, the voting process having been determined by the Minister.
Obviously, greater participation by producers is desired, and if this does not come about directly, these clauses will give bodies producing specialized grains, whether wheat or barley, a say.
The amendments introduced by the Senate do not pose a problem for the Bloc Quebecois. Some of them even reflect the wishes of the opposition and of certain producers.
I therefore do not feel I have the right to speak at greater length, since I said at the outset that this affected us little, if at all. We will therefore be voting in favour of the bill, as amended by the Senate.
