Len Taylor

[Louis Riel, November 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday of this week Metis people across Canada held ceremonies to recognize the 109th anniversary of the hanging of Louis Riel for treason. Unfortunately Riel has been portrayed as either a traitor or a madman. In fact he was a founder of Manitoba, a member of the House, and a teacher who fought racism and unsympathetic authorities as he championed the cause of human rights.

Riel fought hard for Metis rights and worked to voice the concerns of early western Canadians. He was a man who inspired and carried Metis dreams in 1885 and refused to abandon his people. In doing so he gave all aboriginal people the will to push forth and fight for their dreams and beliefs.

This week is a good opportunity for Canadians and members of the House to remember all of the Metis and aboriginal people who have made the country a better place to live. Louis Riel and the other great Indian leaders such as Chief Poundmaker and Chief Big Bear died for what they believed in and passed on a proud legacy which continues to be carried by the Metis and aboriginal people today.

[Access To Information, November 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising tonight as frustrated as I am angry.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, because I am a New Democrat I do not have the opportunities to ask questions of ministers in this Chamber as often as I would like. I consider it an honour and a privilege when I am called upon to raise matters with ministers of the crown on behalf of my constituents and Canadians everywhere who share my views.

However, when a minister refuses to respond with a correct answer when he has it at his fingertips, he is not only wasting my valuable time, he is also wasting the time of the Chair and he is insulting the Canadian people.

On Tuesday, November 15, I asked the Minister of Agriculture to clarify his position with respect to grain transportation financing in Canada. There were conflicting reports from government printed in the media. Because the issue of the Crow benefit is of incredible importance to the farmers and the communities that they support in northwest Saskatchewan as well as across the prairies, I thought it was appropriate to clear the air and let farmers who are now just starting to plan next year's crop know where they stand going into that crop year.

Those conflicting reports were numerous. During the month of October when he was touring Asia, the Minister for International Trade said he wanted Canada to eliminate all farm export subsidies including the Crow benefit and indeed prohibit any new ones.

At the same time, the federal Minister of Transport said he was looking for ways to reduce spending within his department and the Crow benefit appeared to be on the block. Late last week the minister's deputy minister, Mr. Nick Mulder, told the semi-annual meeting of the Canadian Grains Council that it is time to update Canada's railway policy, including the grain subsidies. In fact he said that if Transport Canada had its way a new transportation policy would include a significant change in the Crow benefit method of payment. To quote Mr. Mulder, he said:

The view is that we ought to make a method of payment change sooner rather than later; we have to move in another direction.

During the recent political convention of the Saskatchewan Liberal Party in Saskatoon, the delegates voted on a transportation motion and decided it was time to pay the farmer rather than the railway. Therefore I thought, since the minister of agriculture had been saying that as far as he was concerned the issue was one to be resolved in consultation with farm groups, that it was time the minister came forward with his own thoughts on the matter.

On Tuesday afternoon of this week I asked the minister if he was the defender of the Crow benefit and if it was the federal government's intention to keep grain moving by rail by ensuring that the Crow benefit remained in place. The minister did not surprise me by saying once again:

Over the course of the next couple of months the Minister of Transport and I will be canvassing all the major farm organizations in the country so that we might present recommendations to our current cabinet colleagues early in the new year.

The minister did not answer my question but at least he was consistent in his answer. Mr. Speaker, you can understand my surprise and my anger when I picked up the newspaper on Wednesday morning to read that on Tuesday night, barely five hours after the minister of agriculture had answered my question, he met with prairie ministers of agriculture and told them that the Crow benefit was on its deathbed. The federal government will betray the commitment to thousands of prairie farmers and introduce legislation early in the new year to end payments to the railways in favour of payments made directly to producers.

A great number of farmers in northwest Saskatchewan and I continue to support the Crow benefit. We want the federal government to maintain the current method of payment. It would appear the minister, the cabinet and the Liberals across the way are not prepared to listen or even understand our concerns. We are also appalled that when he had a chance to put his position on the table in the House of Commons where it belonged, the minister of agriculture chose to conceal that information until he was in a private meeting later that day.

An issue of this importance deserves the attention of the House. Our time in question period is too valuable to be ignored, and it appears that is exactly what this minister of agriculture did on Tuesday.

[Endangered Species, November 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this morning the Minister of the Environment released a discussion paper concerning endangered species in Canada. I too commend her for recognizing the seriousness of the situation as well as the need for consultation in developing federal legislation.

My question recognizes that there would have to be co-operation between federal, provincial and aboriginal leaders before federal legislation could be effective.

Would the minister give us some idea as to what type of consultation she has planned and what specific date she has in mind for the introduction of federal legislation?

[Post-Secondary Education, November 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the federal Liberals' review of social programs is giving every indication that funding to universities and colleges throughout Canada will be cut and the individual cost to post-secondary students will increase.

Saskatchewan Premier Roy Romanow said of the federal government: "From our point of view the federal government is saying that debt is no good for government but it is okay for students".

Yesterday my colleague from Winnipeg Transcona reminded us that as a nation we are expecting Canada's young people to pay off a national debt not of their making and now it seems we encourage them to accumulate personal debt as well in the process.

If education, knowledge and skills are required to provide the basis for a healthy economy, the role of government must include ways to increase accessibility to the institutions that can make education, knowledge and skills available.

[Grain Transportation, November 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask about a number of contradictions which surround the government's position on grain transportation subsidies.

The Minister for International Trade says that the Crow benefit should go and the sooner the better. The Minister of Transport says he wants his department to cut the subsidy and last week his deputy minister said: "As far as the Crow is concerned, the government has to move in some other direction". Even the minister of agriculture acknowledged that cuts must be made but he keeps giving the public signals that he is the defender of the Crow in cabinet.

My question for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is this. Is he defending the Crow benefit from attack? Is he prepared today to clear the air and let prairie farmers know that it is the federal government's intention to keep grain moving by rail by ensuring that the Crow benefit remains-

[Aboriginal Veterans, November 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to aboriginal veterans.

On Friday, November 11, at eleven o'clock in the morning, I attended a Remembrance Day ceremony hosted by the Poundmaker Cree First Nation in honour of all aboriginal veterans. It unveiled a a special memorial cairn and laid wreaths following a Remembrance Day service.

I congratulate the people of Poundmaker for taking this initiative. At the same time I take this opportunity to remind the people of Canada of the great contribution aboriginal people made to Canada's armed forces and their participation in World War I, World War II and the Korean conflict.

I also remind the federal government that aboriginal veterans have grievances that have not yet been acknowledged by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

I hope that before next Remembrance Day these grievances are properly and adequately addressed.

[Ethanol, November 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in a recent announcement that the government may ban the octane boosting gasoline additive MMT by January, the Minister of the Environment suggested that this ban would foster the development of safer grain based ethanol alternatives and that Canada plans to promote the development of ethanol in other countries.

I support the development of the ethanol industry in this country, including specific proposals from communities such as Big River and Turtleford in my own Saskatchewan constituency.

In this regard I would urge the Minister of the Environment to take action that would support community based ethanol development in Canada, including extending the present 8.5 cent per litre federal excise tax exemption for ethanol.

[Points Of Order, November 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to clarify matters that have appeared in the press today which may have an impact on question period or later in the day in the Chamber.

The New Democratic Party caucus has for some time expressed concern about its ability to raise issues in question period on behalf of those Canadians who are looking for alternative views and questions to be discussed in this place.

This week as a caucus we have taken a specific analysis of question period to the Speaker. That analysis is currently being examined by the Speaker and the clerks at the table. As a caucus we are waiting for the Speaker to complete his review of our concern. We are then prepared to meet with the Speaker to discuss how we can improve our access to question period to ensure the views of all the people who voted for us in 1993 and who support us today are heard in this place.

Our caucus concerns remain, but as a caucus please let it be understood that it is not our intention to imply in any way the Speaker is or has shown any favouritism during question period.

On behalf of the New Democratic caucus in Parliament and as the House leader for the New Democratic Party, I say that we are looking forward to continuing our discussions with the Speaker.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, November 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have just a couple of minutes this afternoon to discuss the bill in front of us dealing with the Department of Canadian Heritage.

I am the critic for aboriginal affairs for the New Democratic Party. In that capacity I have had a number of dealings with the Department of Canadian Heritage. The department inherited a number of the programs from the former secretary of state which dealt with aboriginal people, their programs and activities.

One of the programs that the department has inherited that has bothered me in its response for some time has been a program dealing with aboriginal education. I wanted to take the opportunity here, with the minister in the Chamber and the debate on this bill, to bring to members of this House and to the minister's attention some correspondence which I received in recent months concerning the treatment of aboriginal people by the department. When government asks members of Parliament for approval to do anything with relation to the department I think it is important that we understand some of the ways in which the department has responded to us in the past.

I have in front of me a two paragraph letter, in fact the paragraphs are reasonably lengthy, addressed to me from the president of the Saskatchewan Indian Cultural College.

I would like to read the two paragraphs. The president of the Saskatchewan Indian Cultural Centre is Linda Pelly-Landrie. She writes:

The Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations and its affiliate institutions, Saskatchewan Indian Cultural Centre, Saskatchewan Indian Federated College and Saskatchewan Indian Institute of Technology have been actively seeking the financial resources required to develop curriculum for our First Nations. While various government departments have acknowledged that First Nations instructional and resource materials are essential to the retention and achievement of First Nations students, all contend that they are not adequately resourced and cannot finance our projects. Yet, the Department of Canadian Heritage has offered $500,000 to Mondia Editeurs and an affiliate, Micro Intel, two non-aboriginal firms out of Montreal, a contract to develop CD-ROM curriculum materials pertaining to the aboriginal peoples of Canada.

Enclosed please find correspondence relating to the project proposed by the Department of Canadian Heritage. We ask that you review this material carefully and intervene on our behalf. Not only is offering a contract of this nature to non-aboriginal firms contrary to the government's commitment to the First Nation's inherent right to self-government, it is an insult. Adding to the insult is the demeaning and paternalistic manner in which the Department of Canadian Heritage has dealt with First Nations representatives on the project. We are the experts in determining First Nations curriculum content and the most capable of managing and controlling a project of this nature. Furthermore, we have demonstrated expertise in developing and producing quality instructional materials. Therefore, it is our contention that this project should be contracted and controlled by a First Nations institution organization.

I want to quote from a couple of paragraphs of a letter that Ms. Pelly-Landrie wrote to the hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage earlier this year on the same project. In the letter she indicates that the cultural centre had met earlier in the year with the minister of Indian affairs with a proposal for resources to develop curriculum programs for First Nations people. They were informed that the financial resources were extremely limited and that their project request could not be met.

She goes on in her letter to the minister to indicate that the awarding of the contract for half a million dollars to the non-aboriginal group in Montreal is most objectionable:

Projects of this nature should be awarded to aboriginal people to promote the principles of Indian self-government and to encourage true partnerships between the federal government and First Nations governments.

We believe that First Nations have contributed significant changes to education. Indian control of Indian education is a principle to which all First Nations continue to strive for, as the ultimate goal to educational change, and improvement. The federal government must also be respectful of our commitment to develop and implement education for our people.

I trust that you will take immediate action to review this proposed project, and that measures will be taken in the future for the full involvement of aboriginal people to determine the development and implementation of such projects.

These letters seem to have been ignored by the minister and the department. The project was awarded to the non-aboriginal firms.

At the same time as Ms. Pelly-Landrie's letters were being circulated, another letter in support of the Saskatchewan centre has been drafted and sent to the minister from the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, the Indian governments of Saskatchewan, signed by vice chief E. Dutch Lerat of Saskatchewan.

The letter deals with this particular CD-ROM project and the treatment received by the aboriginal community on its request:

The First Nations of Canada have political and institutional structures which represent them on all matters of intergovernmental nature.

The First Nations are nationally represented in all such matters as languages, curriculum and cultural heritage by the First Nations Cultural Centres Executive Council (FNCCEC) of the Assembly of First Nations.

Your Department, over the strenuous objections of the First Nations of Canada, has recently awarded a contract for Aboriginal Curriculum Development to a non-Indian Business-Mondia Editeurs of Montreal.

The project involves a computerized Aboriginal Curriculum Project referred to as CD-ROM.

The First Nations have been invited to participate on a sub-contractual basis for a minuscule portion of the contract, although this is not the real issue I wish to raise.

In the pre-election Liberal Party Aboriginal Platform announced by the Prime Minister on October 8, 1993, your Government made a number of important commitments.

Two of those commitments are directly applicable to this issue:

"A Liberal Government, with the participation of Aboriginal Peoples, will establish an Aboriginal Educational Institute and networking facility that will co-ordinate and build upon initiatives in Aboriginal Curriculum Development for Aboriginal and Non-Aboriginal Schools, Standards, Development, Distance Education, Aboriginal Languages, Teacher Orientation and the Special Needs of Many Communities such as Literacy, Adult Basic Education and Special Education".

"The Liberal Platform on Aboriginal Economic Development includes measures such as procurement policies that stimulate the growth of Aboriginal Businesses".

An example given with respect to this policy goes on to state:

"A fixed percentage of Federal contracts be allocated to competent Aboriginal Government and Businesses".

I must seriously challenge your commitment to the Red Book Policies in light of the way in which your Department has handled this matter. The entire integrity of your Aboriginal platform is seriously called into question.

A key point of contention surrounding this contract is that your officials have ignored the competency of existing First Nations Institutions and Businesses-for example, the Saskatchewan Indian Cultural Centre, an accredited member of the Saskatchewan Book Publishing Association and, in fact, the current Chairman of the Association is a staff member from our Cultural Centre.

First Nations must be given first consideration in all matters related to Aboriginal Curriculum and Cultural Projects including the application of Technology such as that represented by the CD-ROM project.

In conclusion, I read from the the concluding paragraphs of the letter sent to the minister earlier this year:

The question now that arises, then is, how can there be money for a non-First Nations organization to develop First Nation's curriculum when there is none for our First Nations?

I think it is very important in our consideration of the Department of Canadian Heritage that we examine carefully the ways in which the department and the ministry are treating the people of aboriginal descent in our country and respect the wishes of the aboriginal community in developing a strong aboriginal curriculum that meets its needs as brought to the minister by the community.

I believe this is an important matter that requires the attention of all members and I thank the House for its time this afternoon.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on third reading of Bill C-50, legislation that will produce a voluntary producer levy or check off program for plant breeding research.

I have a number of comments to make today, some of which are based on the bill before us, some of which are based on the debate that we had yesterday in this Chamber specific to report stage of the bill and as well some comments about the Canadian Wheat Board which I believe is central to this debate and is crucial to the future of agriculture in this country.

First I would like to address the specifics of the bill which are before us for third reading today. Essentially, as we have heard in this Chamber already, the federal government has launched an agriculture initiative, depending on how we want to look at it, either as a tax grab from farmers or an opportunity for farmers to participate financially in the development of new grains research.

The new legislation proposed here sets out what is called a voluntary producer levy or check off program to support plant breeding research programs for wheat and barley.

As the minister of agriculture indicated in the Chamber during his comments at second reading, if passed the legislation would call for the first collection of this levy to take place in January 1995.

The idea of the check off is not a new one. It is already in practise for beef and hog producers and as a concept has been endorsed by many of western Canada's grain organizations. This is however the first time that a check off has been applied across the board for wheat and barley production.

According to the minister of agriculture there is general agreement for this idea among producers. The agreement is on principle more than it is on practice. While this bill sets out a particular practice we as members of Parliament are called upon to examine how that practice will be implemented and what it means rather than on the general principle.

Here is how the bill is supposed to work. Western producers of wheat and barley will pay levies of 20 cents per tonne of wheat and 40 cents per tonne of barley delivered during the crop year. The first levies will be deducted from the Canadian Wheat Board final payments beginning with those for the 1993-94 crop year. Those final payments in the ordinary course of events for 1993-94 would be made in January 1995.

Based on projected deliveries the check off is expected to bring in, according to the minister of agriculture, an estimated $4.7 million for additional research. That research would be co-ordinated by the Western Grains Research Foundation, a

federally chartered public organization that has been co-ordinating research in this field for the past 10 years.

Under the terms of the new legislation the foundation would be accountable to producers by having to report annually to all prairie permit book holders, by giving an accounting of the money received and how it has been used to accomplish its research goals.

The new program is not intended to duplicate or replace current check off programs already in place in some provinces and, as has been mentioned numerous times in the Chamber over the last two days, certain Alberta grain producers will be exempt from the levy.

I think it is worth repeating what was said yesterday. The check off in Alberta is somewhat different than the check off being proposed nationally. If one were to compare the reasons for bringing in the legislation as it is today and apply it to the implementation of the goods and services tax from a few years ago, the implication would be that any province with a pre-existing tax would be exempt from the GST and those that had no pre-existing tax would be levied the GST.

In that case if the same principle were applied in 1990 as the one that is being applied here on the check off in 1994 only the province of Alberta would be subjected to this federal levy and the other provinces would be provided with an exemption. It is an interesting scenario to say the least.

The program as proposed in Bill C-50 is also voluntary so that producers who choose not to participate may opt out if that is their preference. Any producer wanting to opt out may do so on an annual basis simply by putting that request in writing.

In introducing the legislation the agriculture minister says he expects 90 per cent of western grain farmers to participate in the program but he gives us no indication at all on how he has calculated that figure.

There has been as fair amount of criticism in the House over the last couple of days about the program. For those who have reviewed its components and have not liked what they have seen in the specifics of the bill, the arguments focus somewhat on the fact that plant breeding research in Canada has always been publicly funded. The new legislation simply gives the federal government an opportunity to withdraw from providing adequate funding, perhaps some time in the future, because they will say the producers themselves are being taxed through the levy for the necessary funding.

Of course the minister of agriculture in his opening remarks denied that this would happen but there is certainly no protection in the existing funding in the legislation to guarantee the federal government's commitment to publicly funded research. Therefore, without that type of legislative guarantee it is difficult to accept the word of the minister.

At the same time if farmers opt out in numbers greater than the 10 per cent the minister has already calculated the financing pool will be diminished. Actually it will be uncertain from year to year because the financing pool will have to be calculated only on the amount of money that is collected and if farmers can opt out on an annual basis it will be difficult to calculate the entire financing pool on an ongoing basis.

Therefore the research institutions commissioned to do the research will not know from year to year what level of funding they will be able to receive. There is also the unfairness that some producers will pay for the support of research and want to contribute to it but all producers will benefit from that research whether or not they paid into it in the first place.

This alludes to the exemption provided to certain Alberta producers who will get the benefit from the research even though they do not pay into it.

The other argument is on the accountability of the process. It is acknowledged that the foundation must report on how it is spending the money for research but if producers disagree for any reason there is no mechanism in place for them to appeal those spending decisions and it is always after the horse has left the barn, after the door has been closed. You can only comment, perhaps publicly, and not direct or influence the way those decisions will be made. Therefore true accountability does not exist.

As the member for Mackenzie mentioned a few moments ago there is an important concept here that every member of the House and all producers in Canada must keep in mind and that is the principle of research into grains production is an important public policy matter and as such we should do whatever we can to ensure that there is as much public funding and public accountability in the process as possible.

Yesterday I indicated during report stage debate in what became in a sense a conversation with the minister of agriculture that the importance of the Canadian Wheat Board has never been more in question among Canadians. We are hearing in the news a considerable amount of discussion about the future of agriculture and the future of the Canadian Wheat Board because a number of producers in Canada, particularly producers near the American border, have been expressing discontent with the marketing practices of the Canadian Wheat Board.

I think it is important during this debate about amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act that we do keep in mind how important the Canadian Wheat Board is and the role that this Chamber and the minister of agriculture must play in providing some support for the Canadian Wheat Board, the organization that we as producers and as members of Parliament have created in order to assist in the sale of all Canadian wheat and barley. Perhaps, as I suggested yesterday, we should as well be

considering changes that would allow for marketing of oats and canola and perhaps even some other grains in Canada.

Yesterday the minister of agriculture responded to one of my concerns by saying that he did not want to engage in a broader debate about the Canadian Wheat Board. Then he qualified his statement by saying, and I quote from Hansard of yesterday at page 7579, pertaining to a broader discussion about the wheat board:

The fact that I do not happen to mention some of those other things should not be taken as any kind of disinterest in the subject matter. I am simply holding my fire.

He is simply holding his fire. I wonder how long he intends to do that. How long does the minister intend to remain silent about his personal commitment and the commitment of this government to the Canadian Wheat Board?

I say that because just the other day the Canadian Wheat Board in an unusual statement came forward to defend itself in the face of some of the attacks. I quote the information officer of the Canadian Wheat Board, Miss Deanna Allen: "The board is under personal attack. If others are rallying farmers to rethink what they have, then let them think on accurate information".

The Canadian Wheat Board is arguing that those who are calling for dual marketing in Canada are doing so not with accurate information. If the minister of agriculture has information like the Canadian Wheat Board has which can add to the debate, I think it is very important that the minister not hold his fire in this regard but rather engage in the debate and bring forward not only the information but the opinions that are needed to support the strong Canadian Wheat Board in its work.

I will quote from the Canadian Wheat Board's defence of its activities in its releases from last week. Mr. Richard Klassen is the board commissioner with the Canadian Wheat Board. Mr. Klassen says in response to the U.S. market:

"The U.S. is a premium market. It is one of the few premium priced markets left in the world. It offers a high return because it is unaffected by the price discounting subsidies imposed by the U.S. and the European Union. U.S. customers are also usually willing to pay a premium for Canadian wheat because of its high quality".

The down side is that market is not large enough to accept all of the 24 million tonnes of wheat and barley that western Canadian farmers want to export. The board as a result must sell into other markets that do not offer as high a return. The prices from these sales are what lower the overall return to farmers.

"The question is really who should receive the commercial premium often available in the U.S. Should these premiums go to individual farmers or grain companies who access the U.S. directly, or should those premiums be shared among all grain growers in western Canada?".

The answer is through the Canadian Wheat Board all western Canadian farmers benefit from the premium market, whether it is in the United States this year and next year or whether it is in Japan or China or Europe or Saudi Arabia in the future.

I also want to indicate that I found the comments of the minister of agriculture the other day quoted in the Regina Leader-Post of October 27. The headline on the newspaper article was Goodale is determined''. The agriculture minister saidCanada has a historic right to duty free access into Europe for a million tonnes of high quality wheat and almost a million tonnes of barley''.

The minister of agriculture is wanting to have a stronger Canadian presence in Europe and is willing to fight for it. That market in Europe will not be accessible without a strong Canadian Wheat Board. If the minister of agriculture is anxious to fight for Canadian markets in Europe, he should be willing to fight for the Canadian marketing arm that gives us that access here in Canada.

Those concerns of mine are shared by numerous constituents of mine, all of my constituents who have phoned me recently. One of my constituents was fortunate enough to be at a meeting organized by the National Farmers' Union in the United States just a couple of weeks ago, Mr. John Clair from Radisson, Saskatchewan, also a member of the Canadian Wheat Board advisory committee; a committee that I would strongly advise the government take a look at and see if it cannot turn that into more of a board of directors than an advisory committee so that the elected wishes of the producers are more influential in the decision making of the Canadian Wheat Board.

Mr. John Clair was at a meeting in the United States, a meeting that involved a number of farmers in Glendive, Montana. Mr. Clair says that he is more convinced than ever after that meeting that the Canadian Wheat Board should be left intact and keep its export monopoly.

Quoting Mr. John Clair recently in an issue of the Western Producer from October 20, Mr. Clair says: They''-meaning the Americans-said if there was a dual marketing situation in Canada, they would push to have the border closed immediately''.

In other words, if Canadian farmers are given the opportunity by the Canadian government to just cross the border unimpeded with every truck load of grain that they can, the Americans as they have on so many other trade issues would immediately retaliate and close the border to all Canadian grain.

That means any premium market that was accessible by the Canadian Wheat Board or any farmer immediately closed and there would be no access to those premium dollars to any Canadian farmer whether we can sell into that market or not.

Mr. Clair also mentioned that the people he talked to looked at the dual marketing supporters in Canada as quite naive about their circumstances and even our own. Again I quote Mr. Clair: "They seem to assume it is just a great big pit we can drop wheat into". In other words, the American market is just there for all the wheat that we can put into it.

Mr. Clair says in a tremendous year, we can sell maybe 10 per cent of our crop to the United States. That means 90 per cent has to go some place else. There is nothing more true than that statement.

I remind the minister of agriculture and the government that in the agriculture supplement to the red book they made a very strong commitment to the financial security of Canadian farm families, a commitment that extends to the value of the Canadian Wheat Board.

Basically the comment from the red book is that Canada's agri-food industry needs policies and programs such as supply management, the Canadian Wheat Board and stabilization to minimize the impact of market price fluctuations.

On this day I call on the minister of agriculture and the government to, as they have with everything else in this place, stick to the commitment of the red book and maintain policies such as the Canadian Wheat Board to minimize the impact of marketplace price fluctuations on Canadian farmers.