Leon Benoit

[Department Of Agriculture Act, October 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that very much.

[Department Of Agriculture Act, October 19th, 1994]

Yes, that is right, Mr. Speaker.

[Department Of Agriculture Act, October 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In the din I did not hear the speaker ask for the next presenter this evening and I was prepared to give a presentation on Bill C-49.

[Department Of Agriculture Act, October 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the member about the Farm Credit Corporation. The member referred to a particular program that the Farm Credit Corporation offers.

I would like to ask whether the Farm Credit Corporation is needed any more. I have heard from managers, directors and members of the credit unions that they would like to fill the lending gap or would like to be lending the money that Farm Credit is lending now. They are asking if there really is a need for the Farm Credit Corporation and that is the first question I am asking you.

The second question is along the same line. There is considerable money which should be available to farmers in any farming community. This money comes from retired farmers and in particular from within that community. Unfortunately what is happening now is retired farmers are concerned enough about the economy and the future of agriculture that they are investing the money mostly outside of the country now. This is as a direct result of the lack of resolve on the part of finance ministers for the past 10 to 20 years to eliminate the deficit and reinstate in Canada an air of confidence in the economy.

My question to you is do you believe it might be a wiser move to get rid of Farm Credit and use that as part of the budget balancing funds and indeed make that money available through private investors by creating this more positive atmosphere?

[World Food Day, October 17th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, October 16 marks the 14th celebration of World Food Day. Governments got together and said they were in favour of food. This is ridiculous. What do governments have to do with food? Farmers produce food, other business people process and market food.

In Canada every day is food day. In this country for the most part at least, with a few notable exceptions, markets operate as they should. Prices tell farmers what customers want. Prices tell farmers what should be grown. Prices tell stores what to sell and customers what to buy.

I am not saying things are perfect here in Canada. There is still far too much government involvement in our industry, there is no doubt about that. Governments have too much say in marketing boards. There are too many interprovincial trade barriers and too many bureaucratic hoops for farmers to jump through in order to make a decent living.

Here where people are free food is abundant. Throughout the world there is a large discrepancy between what is being produced and what is needed. Unfair trade practices, for example the export enhancement program in the United States and the common agriculture policies in the European Union, prevent free markets from operating as they should.

Why are the countries of the former Soviet Union suffering from hunger? It is because they are still suffering from the effects of a centrally planned economy.

When governments stay out of the way, people co-operate to produce plenty. When governments get involved things go wrong; supply is short, prices are too high and markets are skewed. Would you let the post office feed you? World Food Day is not a recognition of what governments have done. It recognizes what governments have failed to do. Government involvement in agriculture should be reduced to a minimum. This is essential to the growth of the future of the agriculture industry in Canada and indeed around the world.

If governments would get out of the way we would be well on the way toward minimizing world hunger.

[Department Of Agriculture Act, October 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a very brief comment in support of my colleague's amendment to this piece of legislation and I would really like to express a concern that I have with regard to the government's resistance to accountability and its resistance to clarification in this act.

I am really upset that it is not willing to accept better accountability and in the case of this amendment clarification which is clearly justified and which the parliamentary secretary has said is there in other acts. I hope this amendment will be accepted by those on both sides of the House.

[Department Of Agriculture Act, October 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on the difference of opinion between the parliamentary secretary and the hon. member for Malpeque. In this case I clearly support the hon. member for Malpeque. He is looking for more accountability from the government. I do not believe that anybody in the House should be opposed to that.

In terms of what the parliamentary secretary said with regard to part III of the estimates providing all the information that is necessary to make the government accountable, I disagree fully with that. I challenge any member on the other side of the House to sit with me and answer my questions about part III of the estimates, especially when it comes to connecting part III of the estimates with part II. There is a big gap there. You cannot make the connection with the information that is given.

I challenge any of those members to answer the questions I put to them with regard to connecting part II and part III of the estimates. I believe that the parliamentary secretary and the party opposite should allow this amendment to go ahead. It will improve accountability. The argument of the parliamentary secretary that these reports are not available for eight to ten months, or have not been in the past, does not carry any weight with me.

If they have not been done quickly enough in the past let us change the rules. Let us make the report available at the same time as the estimates, very quickly. I would hope the report would be much more complete than reports have been in the past. I would hope it would include enough information to make that connection between part II and part III of the estimates so that we in the House and people across the country can truly understand how the department is spending the money. Now it is certainly unclear no matter how much study you do in this area.

I strongly support the hon. member for Malpeque in his amendment. I hope the government will not refuse the accountability we need in this House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for the hon. member for Malpeque.

First I want some clarification. The member said we condone the law breaking that is going on by farmers shipping wheat over the border to the United States without a wheat board permit. This is absolutely untrue. He is deliberating distorting what Reform has presented.

As well the member said that the Reform Party is out to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board. He knows he is distorting the truth. We are not out to destroy the wheat board.

I have three questions. Does the member's party support him in his left wing purely socialist view in regard to the Canadian Wheat Board? Does the member believe that farmers should determine how they run their organization, the Canadian Wheat Board, or does he hold his strong socialist principles in such esteem that he refuses to give farmers control over their organization?

My last question is with regard to the advisory committee representing 110 permit book holders. What power does it have? I will answer that one because he will not. It has no power whatsoever. Why not elect a board of directors that has power?

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

Madam Speaker, just to clarify matters for the member who just spoke, I did say very clearly that Reform supports the bill. I also said that the bill is a very small change to the Canadian Wheat Board compared to what we need. We need substantial, wide sweeping, major changes to the Canadian Wheat Board. I was just pushing for these changes to happen, some time in my lifetime I would prefer, and the sooner the better.

I just got a call from my assistant who said she had taken a call from a constituent who was wondering who this Bill Checkoff is and what team he plays for. Does he play for the Edmonton Oilers? He did not really know. She explained that no, it is a check-off bill we are talking about, not Bill Checkoff, a hockey player. I just wanted to clarify that.

The hon. member mentioned a figure for the number of dollars spent in research in agriculture. What benefit is derived from those dollars spent? I would prefer her to talk about the benefit derived and not so much the number of dollars spent, as though we are bragging about the number of dollars spent. I would like to ask the member to respond to that. What was the benefit?

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

Madam Speaker, it is truly a pleasure to be here today to speak to Bill C-50, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act.

The purpose of the bill is to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act to allow a refundable check-off from wheat and barley which will be taken from the producers' final payment for the explicit purpose of plant breeding research.

I would like to start by summarizing provisions of the bill. The bill would allow deductions from the farmer's final payment checks for each pool period unless the farmer files with the Canadian Wheat Board to be exempted from the deduction. It places revenue into a special account set up and administered by the Western Grains Research Foundation.

The Canadian Wheat Board must estimate how much money it will take from farmers to put into the account and then estimate the share for the research agency. The Canadian Wheat Board will then give the money to the research funding agency after paying the administration costs to the board for administering the fund.

The research funding agency would then distribute the money received to persons or plant breeding centres engaged in the research into new varieties of wheat and barley. An additional reserve account will also be set up into which a portion of the money collected will be put. This reserve account is there to cover the costs of research contracts if there are insufficient deductions in a particular pool period.

An annual report must be submitted to the agriculture minister on its operations and affairs no later than the end of June, three months after the end of the previous fiscal year.

The deductions would start immediately and would be retroactive to August 1, 1993, with farmers having to file notice before February 25, 1995 if they decide that they want to have their contributions deducted or refunded.

The governor in council may make exemptions to the program on the basis of the class of wheat sold or on the province or region in which the wheat was produced.

The rationale behind the bill and the assumed benefits are to give producers a role in supporting and directing agriculture research. It will give farmers control to more closely link agriculture research to farmers' priorities and to marketing priorities and needs, and to develop new wheat and barley varieties which will assist the competitiveness of Canadian farmers by providing $4.7 million in additional research money which certainly seems to give a good payback to farmers.

Another rationale behind the bill is to develop new market opportunities and to improve farm income to reduce unit production costs. This is a rationale behind the bill.

I do have some concerns about the bill. The first is a concern about the possible overlap in deductions. There are some farmer groups such as the barley commission in Alberta which have check-offs in place now. Will there be an overlap with the wheat board check-off? It is a concern. There is no fixed levy and the rate of the levy may be increased in the future. That is a concern as well.

The plan focuses on producing new crop varieties. However, for reasons of efficiency, farmers should probably be moving to completely different crops in some cases. I think it is important that this be considered. If the money is simply not in the agriculture department's budget for this type of research then I have a concern that the department should do some priorizing regarding research projects under its existing budget and not merely download this expense on to farmers.

Another concern is that in the last Auditor General's report it was revealed that research efforts within the department of agriculture were very poorly co-ordinated. It is important that is worked on and not just allowing a separate fund to deal with the targeting of research money.

There would certainly be an increase in the cost of administering the program. There would be new administration costs taken from research funding. This is always a concern and I think it has to be carefully monitored.

The Reform Party and I do support the bill, however. The reasons for our support are that the contributions to the research fund are automatic, although they may be refunded on an annual basis upon a written application by the farmer. We propose that the application for refund be made easier by having a box on the Canadian Wheat Board permit application form which gives farmers a choice of whether they want to take part and want to have the deduction refunded.

Another reason for support is that farmers and industry representatives seem to support the program. There seems to be widespread support among farm organizations certainly, and there is some support among farmers.

Another reason for support is that the program will bring an additional $4.7 million of research to be targeted for wheat and barley, which has already I believe taken a bit of a hit in terms of research funding due to research money going into research on other crops such as peas, lentils and canola.

The research funds I believe will be in the hands of farmers and farm organizations; they will direct the funding. It is certainly a positive step any time we can get farmers, the people who are going to benefit from the research directly, involved in allocating the funding. That is a possible move.

Again the Reform Party supports the bill. We will be proposing some amendments in committee. We will do that when this matter is discussed in committee.

I am extremely disappointed that any bill which opens the Canadian Wheat Board up to discussion was not far more broad and substantial. If there is any doubt at all that there is a need for major reforms of the Canadian Wheat Board then I would like to demonstrate with the scenario I am going to present now.

Last Thursday on a farm in southern Manitoba a group of seven RCMP officers, special officers and customs officials arrived at a farmer's door, knocked on the door and seized a wide variety of documents from a farmer. In a neighbouring town the same morning at the same time another group of RCMP officers, special officers and customs officials arrived at a door of another farmer and seized documents.

What heinous crime had these farmers committed to have this large group of RCMP officers, special investigators, customs officials seizing their documents? Was it a drug bust? Were they suspected of some kind of embezzlement? Was it a crime like that? No. The crime they were accused of was shipping grain to the United States without a Canadian Wheat Board permit.

Canada signed a free trade agreement with the United States which allows for free movement of wheat and barley across the United States-Canadian border. We signed the free trade agreement but the crime those farmers were accused of was shipping wheat or barley across the border without a Canadian Wheat Board permit. Now that is a heinous crime.

The government, the minister of agriculture and the revenue minister are using these heavy handed tactics on farmers who are only trying to make their business profitable and in one case to save the farm which is close to being foreclosed by the Farm Credit Corporation. Instead, why does the government not change the law that applies to the Canadian Wheat Board which prohibits farmers from taking advantage of the free trade agreement? I think the crime is that the government refuses to act in spite of a groundswell of support among farmers for these changes.

I believe that we do need major reforms to the Canadian Wheat Board. These reforms must centre around giving farmers direct control over their organization which they fund. Farmers pay the complete operating costs for the Canadian Wheat Board.

The Canadian Wheat Board was set up for farmers. It was much needed when it was set up and it probably still has an important function to serve but farmers must be given control. No longer is it good enough to put the control of the Canadian Wheat Board in the hands of government appointed commissioners.

The change must start by having farmers elect a board of directors so they gain control of their Canadian Wheat Board. Beyond that I am not sure the direction in which the board would go. Farmers have told me some of the things they would like to see, but it is up to them to determine the change once they do get control.

I propose that shortly after the board of directors is elected a mechanism should be put in place with different options for how the Canadian Wheat Board would look. These options can be put forward to farmers and they can decide what the make-up of their organization will be and what it will look like.

Some of the things I have heard from farmers is that they want competition to be allowed with the Canadian Wheat Board. They want the freedom to take advantage of the free trade agreement by shipping their wheat and barley into the United States and other markets. That is what farmers have told me. Farmers have said that once competition is allowed to the Canadian Wheat Board but certainly not before, they would be open to the idea of the Canadian Wheat Board handling other grains and oilseeds and specialty crops besides wheat and barley but only after they have the right to compete.

Farmers have told me they want the wheat board to continue to guarantee loans on wheat sold abroad only as long as other countries continue to do the same.

Those are some of the things farmers have told me. Once again, I cannot understand why this government seems so opposed to giving farmers control over their organization. Why is it so determined not to have this happen? I do believe that farmers absolutely will not put up with it much longer. The movement is there. There are more and more groups and more and more farmers all the time who are supporting this change in the Canadian Wheat Board.

I am not talking about getting rid of the Canadian Wheat Board. I am talking about improving it so it truly works for farmers and not just for the sake of the organization itself. Make it democratic.

When talking about the wheat board the argument has been raised from time to time that one of the advantages of the Canadian Wheat Board is that because it is a monopoly, because it totally controls the export sales of wheat and barley, it should give farmers a better price. It has that bargaining power.

First, whenever there is a monopoly involved in a market the market does not function well. Second. when it comes to buying for export the Canadian Wheat Board does have a monopoly, but when it comes to selling it is competing against all the other sellers in the world. The monopoly argument just does not work. The wheat board is one in an oligopoly, many sellers all of which do have some influence on the market.

The argument along that line has changed since the wheat board was put into place. When the wheat board was originally put into place wheat was not nearly as diverse a commodity as it is today. Back then there were far fewer different grades and types of wheat and markets. Customers did not demand a very specific product. In the market today however there are dozens and dozens of different types of wheat. No longer is wheat just wheat. Customers are looking for a very specific commodity. This of course changes the influence of the Canadian Wheat Board.

Instead of looking at huge markets we are often looking at the smaller, harder to find markets which want a very specific commodity. I believe as do many farmers that the wheat board just does not do a good job in finding and taking advantage of those smaller markets. Farmers and their agent grain companies do a good job of that and they must be allowed to do that job. They must not be interfered with by the Canadian Wheat Board.

Let us realize that times have changed. Customers are very demanding in terms of the products. We are looking at smaller more lucrative markets. Let us change the board and allow farmers involvement to accommodate that.

Some have suggested that the first step in changing the board might be to put a continental barley market into place. This may well be a place to start but it does not go nearly far enough. It is interesting to note that both the minister of agriculture and the Prime Minister during the election campaign promised to hold a plebiscite on a continental barley market very shortly after the election. It was a promise. They thought it was a good idea.

I would like to know why they are not honouring their promise. Farmers also want to know and they want them to honour their promise now and that is only reasonable. Farmers expect the government to keep its commitment and honour its promise. I expect that, as do the farmers.

The government continually takes pride in talking about how it consults with people before it makes a decision. I am not going to talk about the general consultations in other areas, but I do want to talk about consultation in agriculture. The government's consultation in the area of agriculture has been almost exclusively with government organizations and with farm organization leaders.

Farm organizations are extremely useful bodies. They do a lot of good in promoting their particular commodity or their area of interest, but it is time for government to talk to farmers about what they want in terms of their future in agriculture.

There are plans for the committee to travel to study agriculture. The unfortunate thing is this plan does not allow for focused and organized consultation with farmers. Reform has put forth in committee over the past several months a very specific plan as to how this consultation program could be improved immensely.

We have proposed focus groups with properly trained conciliators running them to determine what issues are important to farmers, what issues they want to talk about. These focus groups would lead to a public consultation process, public meetings where everyone would be welcome but the discussion would be focused based on the results of the focus groups.

It would be a travesty and a misuse of taxpayers' dollars if this committee did not allow some type of process similar to what Reform has proposed. I am not saying necessarily we have the only process, but it will work and it will work much better than what the plans are now. I strongly encourage this minister to go ahead with that.

I will conclude by saying that we do support Bill C-50. Being as the Canadian Wheat Board Act has been opened up, it is a real shame there were not far more broad and sweeping changes. I compare this change to adjusting a rearview mirror on an old beat up car that really needs to be replaced with a brand new model. I encourage this government to go out and let farmers tell them what brand new model they want.