Ralph Goodale

[Agriculture, November 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I point out to the hon. member that it was a previous Liberal government that provided the first electoral process with respect to the Canadian Wheat Board, that is the election of the advisory committee.

As far as future changes that might take place within the corporate government structure is concerned, it is a subject on which farmers will be having discussions this winter. I will be very interested to hear the varying points of view from farmers on that particular approach to corporate governance.

One of the technical matters that the hon. member should bear in mind concerning the difference between the Canadian Wheat Board and the Ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board is that under the Canadian Wheat Board system we have the provision under federal legislation for government financial guarantees concerning initial payments. That obviously is a substantial financial distinction between the operations of the two boards and indicates why in some circumstances the methods of corporate governance might well be different.

[Canadian Wheat Board, November 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I probably spend the majority of my time as minister of agriculture listening very carefully to farmers.

From time to time they are represented by their official organizations. On other occasions and very valuably, individual farmers take the opportunity to raise concerns with me either in person, by mail or in public meetings of various kinds.

The input from farmers is the most valuable advice that a minister of agriculture can receive. It is important to note the distinction between the valid and legitimate advice and opinion that is offered by farmers and the sometimes rather twisted point of view one hears from the Reform Party.

[Canadian Wheat Board, November 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that very interesting proposition is one of the ideas that will be discussed during the winter in the forum we are conducting with respect to marketing systems in western Canada, particularly the operations of the Canadian Wheat Board.

Other marketing agencies around the world could be examined as models for their precedential value in corporate governance, matters relating to marketing systems.

It is an idea that a number of farmers have suggested. In some studies conducted previously four or five years ago the idea was advanced as an alternative in terms of corporate governance. It is an idea I am sure farmers will want to explore very thoroughly and I am determined to provide them with the opportunity to do that.

[Agriculture, November 18th, 1994]

The simple reason, Mr. Speaker, that the decision with respect to special crops takes some time is that there are a good many farmers in western Canada who disagree with the proposals that have been advanced.

It is important to thoroughly analyse all of the various options that are available for the regulation of special crops. The issue is one of the level of protection that ought to be provided under the law to ensure that farmers have security in dealing with special crops dealers. That is the issue we are examining among other technical ones having to do with special crops.

It is very important to ensure that the appropriate regulatory structure be put in place and not one that is too onerous upon farmers or upon the industry.

[Agriculture, November 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to know exactly what the hon. member is getting at, except I have an inkling it has to do with marketing systems in western Canada. Obviously the government believes in democracy.

With respect to the issue of marketing systems, as the hon. member knows, that is a subject upon which different farmers in western Canada hold profoundly different opinions. There has been a variety of meetings, rallies and demonstrations on the subject on both sides of the issue.

That is why I have undertaken to provide the opportunity for a very thorough forum through these winter months. Farmers from the different points of view on the issue will have a full opportunity to discuss that matter in an open, logical, objective fashion and not with the excesses of rhetoric that we hear from the Reform Party.

[Grain Transportation, November 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I dealt with that subject at some length in a speech I delivered last week at the annual convention of the United Grain Growers in Calgary. In order to save time, I will be happy to send the hon. member a copy of my speech.

I will tell him what is happening at the present time. As the Minister of Transport and I committed some months ago, we are presently engaged in a final round of discussions with farmers and farm organizations about future reform measures affecting the WGTA. Indeed, later today I will have the opportunity to discuss that subject with the prairie ministers of agriculture. Over the course of the next couple of months the Minister of Transport and I will be canvassing all of the major farm organizations in the country.

Our objective is to finalize the government's position with respect to the WGTA so that we might present recommendations to our cabinet colleagues early in the new year.

[Agriculture, November 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised two issues in her question, one having to do with the U.S. countervailing duty on live Canadian hogs exported to the United States, and the other relating to the risk of pseudorabies in U.S. hogs imported into Canada.

It is important to note that one is a very serious trade issue and the other is a very serious health of animals issue. Both are important but they should not be linked together.

On the countervailing duty issue the government has worked very closely with the Canada Pork Council and Canada Pork International on a variety of market access and trade issues. We will continue to do so, especially with respect to our fight against that U.S. countervailing duty on Canadian live hogs.

The pseudorabies issue, which I emphasize is a separate issue, is a complex health of animals concern. Evaluation of the information on the potential consequences of imports from the United States is what our department is engaged in at the present time.

We would consider permitting imports only when we can be totally satisfied that our stringent health and safety standards will not in any way be compromised.

[International Trade, November 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, there are two parts to the hon. member's question. One of those relates to the wheat agreement recently signed between Canada and the United States.

The hon. member characterizes it as a bad deal. He ought to know that the volume of access that we have secured by this agreement is higher than any other year in history except one year in which U.S. production was distorted by the worst flooding in 300 years.

This is a high level of access that we have secured for Canadian wheat. Those who argue the contrary should explain why they would take about $150 million out of the pockets of Canadian grain producers by forcing them into a trade war situation.

With respect to the quota situation dealing with supply managed products, those items were under discussion with the United States at the end of last year and the beginning of this year. The United States preferred in the month of June to focus exclusively on the wheat issue. It will at some point I presume in the future again raise these issues with Canada.

However, it is our view that tariff equivalents that we have filed under the GATT agreement are perfectly legitimate and proper in the context of international practice. If they should be challenged by the United States we have indicated that we will defend the Canadian position.

[Agriculture, November 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's aggravation about this particular situation can be exceeded only by my own.

The federal government is very disappointed by the U.S. government's continued use of the export enhancement program, which is a major market destabilizing export subsidy. Not only are we concerned by the recent U.S. announcement allowing for the subsidization of 2.6 million tonnes for barley and malting barley, Canada finds particularly distressing the 50,000 tonne allocation of U.S. barley to South Korea.

Canada is in the process of considering the form and the content of the appropriate protest to be lodged with the United States about this allocation. The Minister of International Trade and I will be pursuing that issue at the very earliest opportunity.

As the hon. member pointed out this is especially aggravating because it was Canada that worked very hard to achieve the opening in the Korean market. It is disturbing, to say the least, to see the United States attempting to undermine that through the use of export subsidies. We will make the Canadian position abundantly clear.

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

moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.