Ralph Goodale

[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.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few remarks to address precisely to the subject matter of Motion No. 3.

Once again the member who has just spoken and others have tempted me to broaden the discussion this afternoon. I will not do that. There will be ample opportunities for that. I will

welcome those opportunities and if hon. members want a sneak preview of some of my views and opinions on the subject they seem to be amply reported almost on a continuous basis in the media so they can whet their appetites on those observations and we will get to the main subject matter in due course.

There do seem to be some animal noises coming across the way from the opposition members. Sometimes it is difficult to determine the distinction between their heckling and their speeches. I trust the speeches will have more substance than the animal imitations that seem to be emerging from the opposition members at the present time.

That type of conduct does tend to trivialize the subject matter that is under consideration. I prefer to remain serious about it.

With respect to Motion No. 3 the proposal is essentially for a tabling of the annual report of an arms length, not for profit private organization. That is a rather unusual proposition because the Western Grains Research Foundation is an arms length, not for profit private organization. It represents 12 farm organizations in western Canada. It may represent in due course more organizations than that because as I understand it other organizations are expressing very sincere interest in joining the WGRF because of the good work that it does. It does represent those private sector producer based organizations.

It will operate with producer and not taxpayer funds. That is essentially what the check off procedure is all about.

Bearing in mind that the agency we are talking about in terms of the WGRF is a private, not for profit, arm's length organization. Bearing in mind that organization will operate with producer funds, not taxpayer dollars, it seems to me that a different type of accountability is appropriate.

Accountability obviously is important but it must be of a different kind than one would think of if we were speaking of a purely government institution. The foundation is operated by producers and is accountable to producers. The program that is proposed in Bill C-50, it seems to me, does not require excessive control by the House of Commons or by any government agency. It should have that kind of accountability which the WGRF in the proper exercise of its responsibilities considers to be appropriate.

In these circumstances the avenue that should be pursued is simply this. Every year when the report from the WGRF becomes available there should be a notice published in the Canada Gazette indicating that annual report has now been produced and it obviously is available for inspection. That is a more economical and appropriate way to deal with this requirement of accountability in the case of the WGRF.

At the same time I would again point out the nature of the WGRF. It is an organization involving 12 western farm organizations. They have a board of directors and they are accountable to their membership. They have developed this whole program in very close consultation with farmers. There is a very real discipline and a very real form of accountability built right into that structure because it is producer based and producer driven through those farm organizations that make up the WGRF. The board of directors of the WGRF is representative of those farm organizations.

In addition to that kind of accountability which will certainly ensure the publication of the kind of annual report that is appropriate and necessary in the circumstances, I think it would be sufficient for us to simply publish a notice in the Canada Gazette every year noting that the annual report is available for inspection if needed. In addition, it would seem to be logical that a summary of that annual report could be provided in the ordinary course through the publication known as ``Grain Matters'' which is broadly distributed to all Canadian Wheat Board permit book holders across western Canada.

The annual report will include statements concerning revenues and expenses as audited and other statements as may be necessary to provide and to ensure full transparency.

I would also note in conclusion that when Bill C-50 was in committee it was strengthened by allowing for agreements between the minister and the research funding agency. That agreement is now provided for in a prior amendment to Bill C-50, section 33(1)(6). That particular agreement will provide for another form of accountability. All of those factors taken together sufficiently address the point and make the amendment proposed in Motion No. 3 unnecessary.