Ralph Goodale

[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.

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

During the course of the debate this afternoon on the various motions that we have had before us members opposite have invited me in my responses to go quite a distance beyond the precise subject matter that is the focus of the debate today.

While I am indeed tempted to respond at length and in a wide ranging way to some of the remarks that have been made by all of the speakers this afternoon on Motions Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5, I will continue my practice of restricting myself to the precise

subject matter that forms the point of the debate and save the wider ranging commentary for another time.

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.

Motion No. 2, the further proposed amendment by the member for Frontenac, is directed to the point that research efforts funded by the proposal in Bill C-50 should not be duplicative or overlapping. I take that as a valid point. Unfortunately, the proposed amendment would really not offer any assurance of no duplication and no overlap other than just comfort language. Quite frankly, I do not think that is realistic. The avoidance of research duplication in reality is a primary objective of the Western Grains Research Foundation. To this end, the foundation has already established a very close working relationship with both public and private research establishments, including a very close working relationship with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada researchers.

Further to this the foundation has consulted with and it intends to work with existing producer-funded research programs-for example, Alberta barley-to ensure that there are not turf wars started and that research efforts are co-ordinated.

Since this type of co-operation and co-ordination of research is already an established practice, it would not be useful in my view to proceed with the motion contained in Motion No. 2. Incidentally, I would add that in its present form I believe the amendment is unenforceable in any event.

I conclude by saying that I fully understand the spirit of what the hon. member is trying to achieve. I think it is achieved otherwise through the WGRF and I cannot recommend this particular amendment to the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed and appreciated the opportunity to listen to the remarks that have been delivered by all members with respect to three of the motions that are before us, Motion No. 1, Motion No. 4 and Motion No. 5.

I will confine my remarks at this point in the debate to those three specific motions. I understand we will have a chance later this afternoon to talk about motions 2 and 3.

First, with respect to motion No. 1 proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, this motion would in effect impose a duty for the Canadian Wheat Board, not the Western Grains Research Foundation, to consult with respect to the amount of levies and to make certain recommendations.

The motion would effectively make the Canadian Wheat Board more than simply an administrator of the check off program. In the development of this program proposal and in the lengthy consultations with farm organizations, it was recognized that the Canadian Wheat Board is a marketing institution and not a research agency. Therefore the role of the board in this particular research initiative should be purely administrative.

This has been explicitly discussed and agreed to by all of the farm organizations involved in this initiative.

The Western Grains Research Foundation as a matter of practice consults with its membership on all significant business matters. In turn, the member organizations that are a part of the WGRF consult with their producer membership to gauge support for all of the foundation's activities.

It was that kind of consultation that resulted in the accumulation of a very broad base of farmer support for the check off proposal presently contained in Bill C-50. Should there be any discussion in the future about altering the levy rates from where they will originally be established, there is an obvious and ready mechanism to consult with producers and with producer organizations. That mechanism is the Western Grains Research Foundation, its board, its member organizations and their broad based farm membership at the grassroots level.

This amendment in effect would contradict the agreement and the consensus that exist for implementation of this particular research initiative. Therefore it is not possible for the government to support the amendment because it would contradict that consensus and that agreement.

In addition, we view the amendment as unnecessary in any event because that ready consultative process is already in place through the apparatus and the means of the WGRF.

Motion No. 4 proposed by the Reform Party has to do with the method by which a producer could effectively opt out of the check off procedure.

The resolution that is proposed in motion No. 4 really deals with an operational matter, the method of operation for the check off program. It seems to me that is something which producer groups should decide upon for themselves.

It is my understanding that the Western Grains Research Foundation board of directors has reviewed the motion that is before us at this moment in Motion No. 4. It has considered very seriously the arguments and the rationale put forward by the Reform Party and by others who support the motion. The board of directors of the Western Grains Research Foundation has decided that it would by far prefer to retain the opt out mechanism which is envisaged in the bill and envisaged in its business plan.

The rationale for taking this position on the part of the WGRF is really three fold. First of all, when a person merely has to put a check mark in a box, opting out may be done without a lot of serious consideration going into that decision. Support for agricultural research is in the view of the government and in the view of the WGRF a serious matter and it is important that a conscious decision be made by producers whether to participate in the program. Merely ticking off a box in the wheat board permit book application form may not provide the opportunity for that serious consideration.

Second, writing a letter by a prescribed date is not a very onerous obligation. It does show that the individual has given some thought to the matter and has made a conscious decision to opt out and that evidence of that conscious decision is in the form of the letter.

Third, the opting out mechanism that is envisaged in the bill and in the business plan for the WGRF is consistent with virtually all other existing check off mechanisms and procedures. It is obviously consistent with the wishes of the WGRF and the 12 farm organizations that make up the WGRF.

This is my final point with respect to motion No. 4. It is also important to recognize this amendment would effectively restrict the producer's ability to opt out, to make that judgement call to one specific moment in time. That moment in time would be when the permit book application form is actually being filled out.

The other procedure as we have envisioned it under the terms of the bill and under the business plan of the WGRF would allow the producer more time and more flexibility with respect to making this decision. If the producer had to just tick off the box on the permit book application form, that decision would have to be taken effectively 18 months before the check off would become effective.

The check off becomes effective when the final payment is made, which is basically in January after the end of the crop year. The permit book application form must be filled in before the crop year begins, about 18 months prior to the date upon which the check off would occur. It seems to me that is a time gap that is unreasonable and limits the producer's flexibility and the timeliness of the producer's decision.

Accordingly, for those reasons we are not in a position to support Motion No. 4.

Finally, with respect to Motion No. 5, I certainly would agree with the general comment that the check off systems presently available in the province of Alberta are somewhat less focused in their objectives and more costly in terms of their administration than the check off system being proposed in Bill C-50.

However, the scope of Bill C-50 effectively embodies an agreement that has been reached among 12 producer organizations in western Canada. Part of this agreement, this consensus among producers, is that the activities of the WGRF check off system will not impinge on other established check off schemes.

In developing the consensus necessary to implement this program, the WGRF directors were in unanimous agreement that the program should not overlap upon the activities of other existing check off programs. This means that where existing check offs are in place with respect to Alberta barley and Alberta soft wheat, the WGRF will not make a check off.

The WGRF and existing agencies that are funded by other check offs have agreed among themselves that they will co-operate with each other. They will co-ordinate their research activities to make sure that research dollars from producers, whether collected under one check off or the other check off, are used in the most cost effective and efficient manner to the advantage of grain producers.

This is essentially a producer decision about a producer program. It is not appropriate in my opinion to alter the program in a manner that explicitly contradicts the consensus upon which the program was developed. Part of that consensus at the outset was that there should be no overlap.

I appreciate the comments that have been made by hon. members on Motions Nos. 1, 4 and 5. I regret for the reasons I have already stated the government is not in a position to support these motions. I acknowledge that in putting forward these motions to amend Bill C-50, hon. members have done so in a conscientious and sincere manner. Their close attention to the subject matter is much appreciated.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do intend to speak with respect to both groupings of amendments. However, with the permission of the House I would prefer to wait until all relevant comments have been made so that I could respond to them all together, once I have heard all members of the opposition on the points they wish to raise.