Ray Speaker

[Taxation, October 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, due to the higher than expected interest rates the budget projections of the government are off by as much as $10 billion. To make up this shortfall the government has only two choices: cut spending or raise taxes.

Last weekend the Deputy Prime Minister said that social programs spending cuts would not go to reduce the deficit. I ask the Minister of Finance: Should Canadians take this as a sign that the government is preparing to break its deficit reduction pledge, or is the government planning to raise taxes as much as $10 billion?

[The Deficit, October 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the government does not want to tell the Canadian people where it stands on this issue and whether it is ready to face its responsibilities.

Will the Minister of Finance indicate whether his economic statement which I understand is to be released in mid-October will advise the Canadian people that the government has enough courage to reduce spending in social policy areas to deal with the deficit of this nation?

[The Deficit, October 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, just last Thursday in this assembly the Minister of Finance said the savings from the social policy review would go to cut spending and indicated that to this assembly.

Would the Prime Minister indicate whether that is the policy of the government? If it is not it should be made clear to Canadians here today.

[The Deficit, October 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting in this House that the government and the Bloc fight over who is going on a trip when the finances of this country are in grave difficulty.

The finance minister has indicated in this House that the savings from the social policy review would go toward reducing the deficit. The Deputy Prime Minister has said that the savings from the social policy review would not go toward reducing the deficit.

Will the Prime Minister indicate to this House whether the savings from the social policy review will go to reducing the deficit, yes or no?

[Canada Grain Act, October 4th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, in short, the minister of agriculture has not made it clear to farmers, particularly western farmers and those under the Canadian Wheat Board, that a referendum is a possibility and an option. It is not clear that it is there.

It would be good if the government made a statement that there would be a referendum, that in the preamble or in preparation for the referendum there would be major hearings and major submissions to the standing committee on agriculture of the House to determine what the question would be, the content of the question, and what the implications of the answers would be following the referendum.

At the present time we are unsure of the sequence and the pattern of commitment of the government. If it would make the commitment we could move ahead.

[Canada Grain Act, October 4th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, it certainly gives me pleasure to enter into the debate on the Canada Grain Act, Bill C-51.

It is the second opportunity I have had in this assembly to speak on one of the agricultural bills, the former being Bill C-50 which we debated last week.

In Bill C-50 we took in this House steps that would increase producer control over agricultural research. When we look at Bill C-51 in comparison it is a bill that grants the Canada Grain Commission greater operational flexibility and promotes enhanced competitiveness in the grain industry. Those are certainly both worthy objectives to support for an entity that is responsible for a very important aspect of our grain industry in this country. It is important to give it those kinds of responsibilities.

We in the Reform Party will be supporting this bill today as we did with Bill C-50. We will also take the opportunity in these debates to outline some of our broader concerns about where agriculture is headed in Canada. In particular, we would like to emphasize that government created boards and agencies like the Canadian Wheat Board, which were originally designed to assist and help the Canadian farmer, are becoming an entity, increasingly becoming an impediment to the free market system. They should come under scrutiny and review at this time.

Since the details of Bill C-51 have already been discussed and thoroughly enumerated in this House, I will make one or two quick points about one feature of the legislation before taking this opportunity to broaden my focus on other subjects relative to agriculture in Canada.

The aspect of Bill C-51 that I wanted to comment on was the provision which removes some of the interprovincial trade restrictions faced by farmers. Clause 25 repeals the restriction

of transporting grain from one province to another and repeals the restrictions on transport of grain by public carriers.

The measure is a step in the right direction, but one has to ask a very important question at this time: Why should there be any restrictions on trade within Canada at all at this point? Why can we not have open boundaries and free movement in this country where all Canadians should share and have equal opportunity? That is an important issue that must be addressed not only by this federal government but by each of the provinces as we work together to enhance the agricultural industry.

There are more barriers to interprovincial trade in Canada than there are barriers to trade between the nations of the European Community. That has already been mentioned by one of my colleagues. What is the rationale for the Canada Grains Commission to have any restrictions for grain movement to and from Canada enshrined in this legislation?

For that matter, why are Canadian farmers being prevented by the Canadian Wheat Board from taking full advantage of the international trade opportunities created by the signing of GATT or NAFTA? Should the Canadian Wheat Board not also be forced to eliminate some of the restrictions that it is placing now on farmers?

I said in the House the other day that we should raise some of those restrictions for the farmers so they can enter into a freer trade market or determine their own markets. There should be certain restrictions or a certain framework placed on the farmers if and when they wish to deal through the Canadian Wheat Board on some certain aspects at a future time.

As farmers we cannot have our cake and eat it both with a board that is created by government and also by utilizing the free market. There must be a trade off when we have that kind of opportunity.

Reformers have already made it clear that there is a need to reform the Canadian Wheat Board. However, this is just one example of the agricultural issues that need to be addressed in this assembly.

When considering the agricultural sector, it is important to note that on the major questions of the day, it is the farmers who are leading. We heard that very clearly from the minister in his presentation earlier to this assembly. The legislation before us has been farmer directed, farm organization directed and I certainly appreciate that.

We often find in this circumstance that we as government scramble to keep up with some of the farm attitudes. This is certainly very typical in the discussion regarding the Canadian Wheat Board at the present time.

I looked at an article in the Financial Post that talked about the direct sales of grain to American markets that are classed as illegal under the Canadian Wheat Board at the present time. Those sales to the American markets now represent about 20 per cent of the total volume of Canada's grain exports to the U.S.

We can only hope that this massive display of somewhat civil disobedience on the part of Canadian wheat farmers will convince the government that changes must be made to the practices of the Canadian Wheat Board. Again, it is a situation in which farmers are leading, finding markets, maintaining their economic stability as farmer but we as government have not looked at the circumstances and reacted in a positive way.

The trend is similar with the restrictions on the movement of grain from east to west and on the government's reluctance to create a continental barley market. In both instances, fed up farmers have decided not to wait around for the government to make changes. They are going ahead and doing it themselves. Then, as a government, we are reacting. As an assembly here we must get ahead of the circumstances and be able to respond to the farmers when they see that there is a need.

In this latest example, I read with interest that the minister of agriculture has now promised the Canadian grain farmers a chance to debate the future of the Canadian Wheat Board at a special forum to be held this fall. I commend him for that.

I also encourage him to go one step further and hold a referendum on the issue of the Canadian Wheat Board's selling monopoly. It is clear that Canadian agriculture has changed a great deal since 1912 when the Canadian Grain Commission was established.

This next decade will be a crucial time for the agricultural sector. As farmers prepare to make the adjustments required by GATT and free trade, they need a government prepared to assist them and help them gain the competitive edge to compete in an increasingly global marketplace. That is the environment in which we must prepare ourselves, the global marketplace. It is not just Canada. It is not just the United States. It is the global marketplace in which we work as farmers today.

Reform has worked hard to create a comprehensive and balanced agricultural strategy capable of supporting the needs and challenges of the 21st century. We intend to elaborate on those in this assembly.

The Liberal government on the other hand-I look at this with some disappointment-seems to be moving from one crisis to another and legislation that comes before this House seems to be motivated through the public service, albeit a point of view by the farmers or farm organizations rather, than from the legislators of this assembly.

I look at Bill C-50 and Bill C-51 and they are good pieces of legislation in their own right but not in the broader context of what we have to do as leaders in the agricultural field. They are

modest pieces of legislation which only seek to fine tune and present some of the parts of an agricultural regime.

When will the government respond to growing pressures originating both within and outside Canada and bring forth the major broader legislative initiatives that are necessary for the farmers of this country?

[Goods And Services Tax, September 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In the House and in the red book the government promised to scrap or replace the GST with no increases in tax levels to individual Canadians.

Could the minister stand in the House today and give assurance to Canadians that promise will be honoured in any new tax plan involving the GST or the introduction of other kinds of taxes?

[Goods And Services Tax, September 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is time for accountability. The government promised to scrap the GST. When will the Minister of Finance announce a plan?

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, September 27th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I certainly can only respond in a general sense rather than in a specific sense.

My understanding is that the Alberta barley growers have as their purpose and function to promote their organization and to make contributions to research. To say that they are just a political body I would not agree with that. They are trying to make a case that the wheat board is not serving their purpose.

More of a concern about the Canadian Wheat Board comes from individual barley producers who are financing their own campaign against the wheat board. They are entrepreneurs who feel that they can market on their own and can develop a market in the United States and other places in the world. They would like the opportunity and privilege to do so. What we should do in the Canadian Wheat Board legislation is allow for that to happen.

We cannot have producers having their cake and eating it. There would have to be some kind of a provision that if a producer wishes to do it on their own and go out into the free marketplace as an individual producer then they have to take that risk and not be able to all of a sudden jump back into the Canadian Wheat Board when something looks better in that case. Therefore there has to be some kind of a trade-off done through the Canadian Wheat Board legislation.

I believe that Alberta producers want to play their part in research and development, specifically in barley.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, September 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to enter into this debate. I would like to make my points of view known with regard to Bill C-50 and possibly make some remarks on some of the issues that have been raised in this assembly.

As we know the bill has as its main purpose to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act. It allows members of the House to look at the Canadian Wheat Board in its broader sense and make some judgments and certainly make our points of view known in this assembly with regard to those matters.

Bill C-50 is set before us with one specific purpose. It allows a voluntary deduction from the final payment cheques of wheat and barley producers for the purpose of plant breeding research programs. That should be the focus of our discussion but certainly other items could be raised in the general arena.

When we talk about a voluntary check-off we should also recognize that this is somewhat of a taxation on producers. The producers of the country should have some kind of right to determine whether they accept it or not.

We know that in bringing the legislation forward a number of industry representatives have given support to the program and that is good. The farmers involved in those organizations have been consulted and we think that is good as well.

We recognize the driving force behind the legislation has not been the government in total, even though it may take credit for it through its red book. Rather, the Western Grains Research Foundation has initiated it and through a variety of actions has made it possible that the amendment has come before us today.

That research organization is made up of 12 prairie farm organizations. It certainly has done some excellent work in the area of funding research for Canadian farmers.

A number of successful WGRF funded research projects have already been undertaken at Agriculture Canada Research Centre located in my constituency of Lethbridge. I would like to recognize those here today.

There is a communication to the hon. member for Vegreville from the chairman of the board of directors of the Western Grains Research Foundation. Mr. Roy Piper indicated that the Western Grains Research Foundation since its incorporation in 1981 had been working toward improved funding of grains related research.

"We now provide grants of about $1 million annually. An accumulative total of our grants paid and committed through 1996 is $11.5 million". He goes on to say: "Of this amount, 50 per cent has gone into projects in plant breeding in wheat, barley, canola, pulse crops and plants. Most of this money has been paid to Agriculture Canada research stations and the Universities of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta". I can only commend the organization for providing that support. A number of benefits have certainly occurred to us as farmers.

In my constituency one project should be of note. Research funded through the research grants is going on in the area of biological control of the Russian wheat aphid, which if allowed to continue to spread could be very devastating to our grain production in southern Alberta and other parts of Canada.

One of the other items of note is a funded project at the University of Alberta. They are applying biotechnology to reduce green seed in canola. We all recognize that having green seed in our canola certainly downgrades the canola and downgrades the net return to the Canadian farmer.

The Reform Party is supporting Bill C-50 largely because of the support expressed for it by the major stakeholders in the grain industry and because of the excellent work since 1981 of the Western Grains Research Foundation and the projects it has funded.

The central feature of the bill as has been recognized and outlined by the minister is the voluntary nature of the program. Western wheat and barley producers would voluntarily pay levies of 20 cents a tonne on wheat and 40 cents a tonne on barley. I do not think there is any necessity to go into detail but this then makes it incumbent upon the government in terms of accountability for this tax.

The request is 20 cents per tonne on wheat and 40 cents per tonne on barley. It is my hope there will not be an abnormal increase in that funding imposed by the government. If there is any kind of increase in funding it should be done with the co-operation of not only the farm organizations we have talked about today but also Canadian farmers as well, because it is a tax. It is a cost to us as farmers.

There is also the inclusion of an opt out provision. That opt out provision is expected to have a number of beneficial outcomes. It introduces a degree of market discipline that is difficult to create in a bureaucratic setting. The voluntary aspect of the program-and I hope it does not change-allows farmers who disagree with how the WGRF operates or with how it is allocating its funds to effectively withhold their contributions until the research foundation responds to their objections. This should help to ensure that the research foundation acts in a responsible and a very responsive fashion.

Another benefit provided by the voluntary nature of Bill C-50 is that it provides a degree of flexibility for the farmers depending on their needs and their interests. Hard-pressed farmers would not be forced to contribute to the program nor would farmers who have had an unexpectedly bad harvest be expected to contribute. Likewise, if farmers do not feel they will benefit from the research being conducted, they cannot be compelled to participate.

As my colleague from Vegreville explained earlier, the Reform Party will support Bill C-50 both because of the voluntary nature of the check-off and because of the support it has received from the farmer groups in the Western Grains Research Foundation. However, there are some aspects of the bill that raise concern in my mind.

A potential problem is that Bill C-50 might be looked at by government as a way to shift the cost of its research and development responsibilities to the farmers. According to the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food the $4.7 million that is expected to be generated each year by the check-off for plant breeding research is in addition to what the government already spends on agricultural research and development.

In other words this is not a reallocation of funds from within the current budget, but rather an additional research and development initiative controlled by a private sector organization that is designed to complement the existing government research efforts.

When taking this into consideration with the effects of inflation government support for agricultural research has decreased in recent years. If the government makes further cuts to agricultural research programs then the impact on the research foundation program will be seriously undermined.

Nobody is disputing that producers have a role to play in supporting agricultural research. They are the ones who benefit directly from such spending and it only makes sense that they bear some of the costs. However, Canadian farmers need government support to survive in a global marketplace that is awash in agricultural subsidies. At a time when governments of the United States, the European Community and Australia are all increasing their financial support for plant breeding programs, the Canadian government should not reduce its own support.

Any attempt to make the WGRF an alternative to publicly funded research rather than a complement to it will adversely affect the competitiveness of Canada's agricultural industry. Today in the House the minister assured us that the government will not reduce its present contribution in terms of research and development in the area of wheat and barley. I respect him for making that statement in the House. As an opposition member and a member from the farming community of Alberta I intend to hold him accountable to the commitment he has made to this assembly.

As I said earlier one of the most attractive features of the bill is the voluntary nature of the check-off. The Reform Party would like to see this philosophy extended even further. We believe Canadian exporters of grain should not be forced to operate exclusively through the Canadian Wheat Board.

Reform is encouraging the implementation of special opting out provisions for entrepreneurs interested in developing special niche export markets. If individual farmers believe they can get a better price for their produce, especially barley, than the price negotiated by the Canadian Wheat Board then we believe they should be given the freedom to do so.

Instead of allowing farmers this freedom the present government has already demonstrated it will support the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly. The best example of this is what happened when farmers this year tried to take advantage of high prices in the American market. Rather than encouraging such a growth of an entrepreneurial spirit, Revenue Canada and the Canadian Wheat Board instead worked together to impose heavy fines on all prairie grain farmers attempting to transport grain into the United States for direct sale to customers.

When we in Reform talk about opting out provisions, be it for the plant research check-off in Bill C-50 or for the broader questions of farmers opting out of the Canadian Wheat Board pooling system of export of grain, what we are really talking about is choice. Farmers must be given the choice to control their own lives. The Reform Party has serious doubts about whether the Canadian Wheat Board as it is currently organized is capable of providing the flexibility and choice demanded now by Canadian farmers.

A good place to start is to undertake a review of the Canadian Wheat Board. I am not suggesting that the Canadian Wheat Board should be disbanded. There is a lot of support for the Canadian Wheat Board, but there is a lot of support for change as to how it operates.

For many years now the Canadian Wheat Board has played a vital role in assisting individual farmers to penetrate foreign grain markets. However I am suggesting it has a virtual monopoly over all sales. This virtual monopoly is unnecessary and serves only to stifle the initiative of those farmers who wish to market on their own.

Another aspect of the Canadian Wheat Board that should be reassessed is its undemocratic nature. Because the board of directors is appointed by the government there is no democratic way for producers who support greater freedom from the Canadian Wheat Board to influence its actions. Reformers believe that steps must be taken to democratize the Canadian Wheat Board. We have already had a discussion in the House about that.

The people who are now on the Canadian Wheat Board are political appointments. Most likely most of them were appointed by the last government. I am sure it is going to be the intent of this government as soon as it is possible to take those people out of their appointed positions and appoint its political friends. But where do farmers stand in that kind of action? Farmers do not have a role in determining who represents them and one of the most important boards in this nation, the Canadian Wheat Board, has a monopoly.

The present government appointment system should be changed to a board of directors consisting of producers elected through a fair and open electoral process. The first thing this would accomplish is to increase the legitimacy of the Canadian Wheat Board. Farmers would know they have had a means of influencing wheat board policy through exercising their vote. They would also be more likely to accept wheat board decisions made by a democratically elected board.

Flowing from this democratization would be the improved responsiveness of the wheat board. Not only would election of board members encourage candidates to listen to farmers' concerns but farmers would be in a position to hold wheat board members accountable at election time.

In conclusion, let me quickly review the main points I have tried to make here today.

Reformers have decided to support Bill C-50 for two reasons. First, we believe that the voluntary check-off provides farmers with a degree of flexibility and choice in how their money is spent and invested in their future. Second, we are optimistic that this will encourage the Western Grains Research Foundation to be responsive to farmers' concerns. As well, we support Bill C-50 because it allows producer organizations, in this case the Western Grains Research Foundation, to have more say over their own destiny. Decisions on how to spend the moneys raised by the check-off will be made by the private sector stakeholders, not by the government.

Finally I have argued today that much remains to be done to improve Canadian agriculture. Specifically there is need for a reform of the Canadian Wheat Board. By advocating the democratization of its board of directors we hope to encourage the

creation of a more flexible, more responsive Canadian Wheat Board for the farmers of Canada.