Bill C-39 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act, chapter 22 of the Statutes of Canada, 1998 and chapter 25 of the Statutes of Canada, 2004

This enactment amends the Canada Grain Act by
(a) clarifying the Canadian Grain Commission’s objects;
(b) combining terminal elevators and transfer elevators into a single class of elevators called “terminal elevators”;
(c) eliminating mandatory inward inspection and weighing as well as some requirements for weigh-overs at elevators;
(d) extending the right to require the Commission to determine the grade and dockage of grain at process elevators and grain dealers’ premises;
(e) eliminating the Grain Appeal Tribunals;
(f) eliminating the Commission’s ability to require security as a condition for obtaining or maintaining a licence;
(g) creating additional regulatory powers for the Commission;
(h) modifying enforcement provisions and creating certain new offences; and
(i) ensuring that some of the requirements and procedures set out are clarified and modernized and that certain language is updated.
The enactment also amends An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act and the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act and to repeal the Grain Futures Act as well as another Act, and includes transitional provisions and coordinating amendments.

Canada Grain Act

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague certainly has a valid point when it comes to the issue of bonding. There is no doubt about it. There are many mid-level and smaller producers in that particular situation. In my case, they are mostly harvesters in the fishing industry. Many of them become exposed to all of the losses at the upper levels. That is an unfortunate part about it.

In his speech, my hon. colleague for Malpeque said that it changes the mandate from being in the interests of producers to being in the interests of the industry. He talked about one other thing and this will add some credence to what my hon. colleague from the NDP is talking about. He did mention that the hoist amendment came in several months ago. In that period of time, the message was that we needed some fundamental changes, more so than what the government was considering. Nothing was done. It is a pattern that has been going on for three years now.

The reason why the opposition is taking such a strong stand against the bill is the government's failure when it comes to primary producers. Nowhere is that evidence of failure more clear than this particular bill, which is a rehash of the last one, going from Bill C-13 to Bill C-39.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

It is getting serious, as my hon. colleague across the way can attest to. This is a serious issue.

The problem with this and I commend the NDP, the fourth party in the House, as I have affectionately called it before, for doing this. We agree with it. During the talk about the new Fisheries Act, the NDP members too were with us so it was a re-run of Kill Bill volume one and Kill Bill volume two, I suppose.

I would implore the House to do the most responsible thing which is to take this piece of legislation, Bill C-13, not much change since Bill C-39, off the order paper. Bring it to the producers and the stakeholders involved. They will certainly give it a good vetting. In that way we will have the confidence when returning to the House that we do have the support of the vast majority of the producers and the industry. That way the amendments that the Conservatives so earnestly seek to achieve would be done with a broad consultation. They may complain it may take a little more time and it may cause a few headaches among the bureaucrats in Ottawa, but certainly at the end of the day we can hold it up as a gem, something that is going to be crystal clear, something that is going to be used for the benefit of all agricultural interests across this country.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Yes, he wins hopefully some day good governance.

The government had the opportunity to make the changes to the legislation a year ago when we called for it, and it has failed to do so. As a matter of fact, I think the term is miserably.

Remember that this is the same government that violated the law in its effort to undermine the Canadian Wheat Board. It has refused to allow western grain farmers to have a vote, a plebiscite, to determine the future of the CWB. Trust is not something that we have in the current government, especially on this specific issue.

The minister is already claiming he is about to amend his own legislation, although, if the bill is passed, this so-called commitment will not be contained in the legislation. On the issue of inward inspections, the government has indicated it is removing the role of the CGC.

The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, in a unanimous report, acknowledged that mandatory inward inspection is not a universal requirement, while outward inspection and weighing is. The committee stated in its report, again one supported unanimously, that:

...several strong factors seem to support optional inward inspection; the inward inspection requirement is already not universal; optional inspection would not affect producer rights of access to the terminal and [for emphasis] producers and the Canadian Wheat Board should not be unduly affected financially if a proper publicly supported infrastructure and pricing system are put into place in light of the public benefits of maintaining an inward inspection capability.

The fact is that while the government is removing the inward inspection provision, the work called for by the committee has never been done, despite what has been happening.

A recent study of the Canadian Grain Commission found the following issues with respect to the loss of the inward inspection. I would point out to my hon. colleagues that this is a very important point.

Inward weighing and inspection that would still be required would be less trustworthy and more expensive.

The grain system would lose an important early detection system for contaminated grain. Eliminating inward inspection by public officials would increase the likelihood of contaminated grain being co-mingled with larger quantities of clean grain. Shipments to Canadian and U.S. markets would lose an important level of protection against contamination. Grain shipped to these markets could bypass official inspection.

Inward inspection provides quality assurance information that makes outward inspection more efficient and certainly more cost effective, in this particular case.

Replacing public sector inspectors with private contractors--which is quite prevalent nowadays, some to the positive and certainly some to the negative, but at this point I will stick to the negative--many of whom would be reliant upon private grain companies for business, would undermine the perceived reliability of the information derived from inward inspection.

With respect to the diminished role of the CGC, the study prepared by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives found, for example, with respect to the port of Vancouver, the following problem, bearing in mind Vancouver and Prince Rupert, as of December 2007, moved almost 1.2 million tonnes of grain through its facilities.

At a typical Vancouver elevator, CGC weighers routinely process the unloading of 5 to 100 rail cars during a shift. Documentation on these cars, the parcels, weights and anomalies, and other relevant information, is provided by the weigher to the elevator at the end of each day. Such information is very important, not just in the event of disagreements, but in the routine operations of the elevators. It is unclear how this data would be gathered, and by whom, if public inward inspection were eliminated.

The government has to explain why it has decided, prior to the legislation to downgrade, as expressed in the estimates for the commission under the section which describes the activity as providing “consistent and reliable grain quality”, as we talked about before, “and grain safety assurance to meet the needs of domestic and international markets”, the forecast spending for 2011-12 will be $23.4 million. In 2007, the planned spending was $50.2 million. By the CGC's own records, the government will reduce the ability of the CGC to do its job by a whopping $26.8 million.

The staffing at CGC will be reduced from 664 in 2007-08 to 421 in 2009-10.

Bill C-13 would remove the ability of producers who appeal through the grain appeal tribunal. According to a recent Library of Parliament study, under the provisions of the Canada Grain Act, a person dissatisfied with the initial grading may have up to three appeals under the act. Under the scheme which is proposed now in Bill C-13, a person dissatisfied with the grade, an inspector assigned, would have just one appeal and that, of course, would be to the chief grain inspector or his or her delegate.

These are the fundamental reasons the Liberals agree in principle with what is happening with the hoist amendment.

Indeed, under the provisions of the bill, the chief commissioner or any person delegated by the chief commissioner, which is an indication of the ability to possibly contract out that particular responsibility, will have the authority on any appeal. At the same time, Bill C-13 would remove the ability of farmers to have recourse to the courts.

However, according to a Library of Parliament analysis of the use of provisions such as those we talked about that are contained in Bill C-13 which attempt to remove the ability of farmers to have recourse to the courts, the issue is not that clear cut.

According to the Library of Parliament report, the wording of the privative clause in Bill C-13 appears on its face to preclude any appeal or review of a decision of the chief grain inspector. However, that is not the effect the clause would have.

The Library of Parliament states, based upon its research that Parliament and the provinces may not, through legislation, preclude the superior courts from exercising their supervisory jurisdiction. At a minimum, the government must carefully reconsider its attempt to restrict the ability of Canadians, the courts in the face of clear evidence that it might not be able to legitimately do so.

The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food called for a comprehensive cost benefit report from the government on the proposed changes the government was suggesting, and that was in 2006, with respect to the changes in service for grain inspection. To date, no such report has been produced by the government as to the real impacts of their changes on the primary producers specifically.

The government has indeed failed to produce that report. Yet again this is more evidence why more information and consultation is needed, which belies the true spirit of what we normally call a hoist amendment or, as some people from the east coast of the country would call affectionately, giving it the boot.

Even though this legislation has not received even second reading, the chief commissioner of the CGC, according to a report in The Western Producer, published February 23, 2009, sent a letter to industry indicating that it would end inspection services at prairie primary elevators this summer and would close three service centres and reduce staff.

The transition away from on-site inspection services means that the CGC will no longer provide official grading and weighing on grain shipments from the Prairies to terminal facilities nor for export shipments to the United States or domestic mills.

In essence, before Bill C-13 has been approved by Parliament, the CGC has decided to begin implementing the reduction in services it provides to western grain producers. That is very important. If nothing else, this is a demonstration of contempt for the legislative process by the chief commissioner of the CGC.

As a final point of concern, the minister announced that as of August 1 KVD will be removed. That is kernel visual distinguishability. It will be removed, according to what the minister announced on August 1. The minister was warned in January by senior officials, just weeks before his announcement of February 11, that farmers could suffer a negative impact of this removal and Canada's reputation for quality grain could indeed be undermined. The reason given by the officials, including his own deputy minister, was that no adequate system has been developed to replace the KVD.

The western grain industry needs a strong CGC. What is currently proposed in Bill C-13 is a worst case scenario. Removing the CGC from both inward and outward inspections is next to worst because it considerably weakens the role that the CGC plays.

Therefore, the following amendments should be made to Bill C-13: one, CGC-administered producer security should be reinstated; and two, if inward inspection becomes optional, the CGC should accredit and audit private service providers who would be responsible for inward inspection. A key part of this accreditation and audit process will be to institute clear CGC accountability for differences between inward and outward risk.

Therefore, I conclude that part of my speech by outlining three essential elements.

One, our support for the hoist motion is a signal to the government that it cannot simply bring in legislation which it is well aware does not enjoy the support of the House without any effort made at all to amend it.

Two, Bill C-13 is Bill C-39 from the previous Parliament. Remember that legislation was debated more than a year ago and the debate clearly indicated the government should reconsider its direction on undermining the CGC. It had a year to do so and it has failed to take that opportunity. This particular vote is not a vote against reform of the CGC, but it is indeed a vote against the arrogance of the government.

Let me illustrate that by bringing up a point about a particular case with the hoist amendment and what we did prior to this, about two years ago. I will go back to an example that we use. The lack of consultation was so pervasive. It became abundantly clear upon introduction in the House, as producers in the case of this bill, or fishermen in the case of the Fisheries Act, called us time and time again with questions and concerns. We were inundated at the time. The big thing was that the Conservatives insisted that consultation was taking place. We called the people whose names were provided to us and they said that was not necessarily the case; all they had received was a letter informing them what to do. Therein lies the arrogance.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, with a reception like that from my hon. colleague across the floor, I might decide to run in politics some day.

I do want to thank the House for allowing me to speak on this issue. Certainly at the eastern end of the country, it is not as large an industry as it is in places such as western Canada, but there is a multi-million dollar industry for agriculture in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are affectionately nicknamed the rock, so if we can grow it on the rock, my goodness, it just says how good our farmers actually are.

To a great degree, that certainly does put me in a unique position, to say the least, so I would like to thank again all my hon. colleagues for allowing me this time.

I would also like to say that the principle reason for supporting a hoist motion which will effectively remove Bill C-13 from the order paper for this session is that the government has known for more than a year that all three opposition parties have expressed strong opposition not to reforming and improving the Canada Grain Commission, but to being complicit in its undermining and ineffectiveness. Therein lies the gist of the hoist motion to take this from the order paper.

There is a history of that type of mechanism here in the House that we have used on occasion. As a matter of fact, a couple of years ago we moved it during the introduction of the Fisheries Act. There was a tremendous amount of opposition toward it, and not only opposition but questions as to how it would affect each and every person. Instead this thing was rammed down the fishermen's throats in much the same way that we are seeing a pattern that continues with this particular situation now with Bill C-13.

In this particular situation, we see a similar pattern occurring here, because what the hoist motion does is take it away for a while. We can then consult with it and bring it across the country as a good starting point for the type of effective changes that we need. In this particular case, that is why we support the hoist motion.

Our concerns with the legislation are these.

The government has to date shown no inclination to amend the legislation, in spite of the fact that during debate on Bill C-13's predecessor bill, Bill C-39 in February 2008, the official opposition as well as the Bloc and the NDP raised the concerns referred to above, indicating clearly the need for consequential amendments.

On the issue of the producer payment security program, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, who is responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, told this House that while the government is eliminating the practice of CGC holding security deposits from grain dealers, under the producer payment program, he confirmed that the government has developed an alternative:

We understand and we know that there are concerns across the country with regard to these proposals.

The issue remains that the legislation, as it stands, will eliminate this provision without any alternative being established to replace it.

The Minister of Agriculture himself, according to a broadcast news wire story from March 5, is reported to have stated that the government will only remove the producer payment protection program when a better alternative is in place. That is interesting.

In fact the Minister of Agriculture was quoted directly in The Western Producer from March 12, when he answered a direct question as to whether farmers would be protected in relation to the bonding issue. He said:

Absolutely. We're not going to leave you hanging with nothing. We'll keep the program that's existing in place until something new comes along.

Here is what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture acknowledged as the flawed nature of the legislation. This is from page 1214:

We understand and we know that there are concerns across the country with regard to these proposals, and we are certainly more than willing to work with the opposition at committee.

That is what is interesting, “at committee”. What the minister has said is not that Bill C-13 needs amending, but that a key element in this bill cannot proceed given the failure of the government to develop an alternative.

The question is this. Can the minister and the government be trusted not to implement the removal of the bonding issue until a better alternative is in place?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal Party welcomes the hoist motion moved by my hon. colleague, because it has become increasingly evident that the government is not listening to the concerns expressed by the opposition in the House about the bill. Certainly it is clear that the government is not listening to the concerns of the primary producers.

The parliamentary secretary got it all wrong in his last remarks. The reason the opposition is taking such a strong stand against the bill is the government's failure when it comes to primary producers. Nowhere is that evidence of failure more clear than it is with this bill.

The government has not listened to any of the producers' concerns that were expressed during the committee hearings. It has not listened to the concerns that were expressed by producers on the original bill, Bill C-39. It has not listened to the concerns of producers between now and when Bill C-13 came into being. Obviously, the government is not listening to primary producers in this country. Therefore, the opposition parties are left with no choice but to try to bring the government to its senses and give us something that shows it is listening to producers and their concerns and not just to industry.

Calls are coming in every day from producers concerned about the bill. In fact, the principal reason for our supporting the hoist motion, which as stated by the parliamentary secretary, and I agree, will effectively remove Bill C-13 from the order paper for this session, is that the government has known for more than a year that all three opposition parties are concerned about it. Over the course of that time the amount of concern being expressed by primary producers, by the farm community, is unbelievable. I have not seen anything like it in my time in terms of the avalanche of concerns coming forward from industry on this particular bill.

There is strong concern, not about reforming and improving the Canadian Grain Commission, but about being complicit in its undermining and ineffectiveness. I do not want to see myself, my party does not want to see itself, and I understand that the other opposition parties do not want to see themselves as being complicit in undermining the Canadian Grain Commission and undermining its effectiveness for primary producers.

The major reason for the need to have this bill removed and reconsidered, redrafted and resubmitted is that the extent of the harm this legislation would do, given the extent of the amendments to the Canadian Grain Commission, are beyond the most recent parliamentary review of the activities of the Canadian Grain Commission. That review was conducted by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food after having heard from stakeholders across the country.

This morning the official opposition held a press conference on this very matter. The need for this press conference was that we have seen from the current government the ultimate in incompetence. It did not listen to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, which held hearings several years ago. The government introduced former Bill C-39, which was severely flawed. The government had concerns coming forward from producers and opposition parties. It failed to address those concerns and introduced a new bill, Bill C-13, which was substantially the same.

Since it was first introduced in Parliament, information is getting out to our producers on how bad the bill is, and we are being inundated with calls telling us to kill the bill, to get rid of it. Therefore, this morning the official opposition held a press conference in which we said that Parliament must at its earliest opportunity block the government's Bill C-13, which is proposed amendments to the Canada Grain Act. At the press conference I outlined many of my concerns with the bill and I will list them quite simply and shortly.

It changes the mandate from being in the interest of producers to being in the interest of industry. It takes away the bonding requirement of companies which is there to protect producers. Producers sell half a million dollars of grain to a grain company and they get no protection in terms of that company being bonded. A producer could go broke as a result.

There is the whole issue of inward inspections, which my colleague from the fourth party outlined is really an issue of food security and food safety. I will get to that in a moment. The Canadian Wheat Board expressed some concerns a while ago in a press release it put out. If the CGC does away with inward inspection, it will have to be handled in some other way. The problem is, when it is handled in another way, who will handle those costs and take all the risks? It will be the primary producers.

Another problem with the bill is appeals on grades and weights. The chief grain inspector would have the ultimate authority, and the government even put in the bill that there is no appeal to the Federal Court. Imagine that. There is no appeal to the Federal Court. There is no way farmers who have faced an injustice can get to the justice system to appeal the decision made by an arbitrary regulatory authority. That is absolutely crazy in a democratic system such as ours.

This morning at our press conference, we said that the bill has to be stopped in the interest of the farm community. Our House leader said that there are three options. We could simply vote down the current Conservative motion asking for approval in principle; we could adopt a so-called hoist motion, which is the one we are talking about, which has been put forward by another party; or we could move a reasoned amendment. According to the rules of the House of Commons, any one of these three options would effectively kill the bill. There is no question that the bill must be stopped.

This is grain legislation. People in downtown Toronto and downtown Vancouver or even downtown Charlottetown probably do not understand the need for such strong regulatory actions in the grain industry.

As I said earlier in my remarks, Canada has become the number one supplier of quality grains around the world. We are recognized as the top supplier of quality grains in the world, as a result of the efforts of the Canadian Grain Commission and certainly the producers in producing the kind of grains they produce.

To make the issue relevant to consumers and people in urban Canada, I would say that while functioning, regulatory systems tend to be invisible until tragedy occurs. It is only after somebody dies, either from drinking bad water or food or whatever, that people recognize the need for a regulatory system in the background to protect the interests of all.

In an article in the Edmonton Journal written by Scott Sinclair and Jim Grieshaber-Otto, this is what they said on another issue:

Citizens rightly expect their governments to protect them and to act in the public interest. Too often governments fail to do so, instead responding to corporate pressure to weaken regulations so that businesses can cut costs and increase profits. Recent outbreaks of food-borne illnesses -- listeriosis in Canada, melamine contamination in China, and salmonella poisoning in the U.S. -- underline the dangers to the public of cutting back on government oversight and inspections in the food system.

They went on to say:

Yet these lessons seem to be lost on the Conservative federal government, which is threatening another of Canada's highly successful regulatory systems. Legislation now before Parliament -- Bill C-13 -- would gut Canada's world-class grain regulatory system.

They go on to talk about some other points in the article saying that what the government is really doing is increasing the risk of catastrophic financial loss to producers and also that the government is more interested in creating opportunities for transnational corporations than in protecting Canadian farm and consumer interests. I certainly would agree with those points.

With the pressure from the farm community, we have no choice but to support this hoist motion because the government has not listened. It had the opportunity since it first introduced the legislation to at least tell us what it was going to do. Instead, we hear statements from the minister along the lines of, “Don't worry, we will fix it”.

Canadians now know full well that they cannot trust the Prime Minister and the government. A statement saying it will fix it at some future date is just not acceptable. We have not seen any intention on the part of government that there is anything in the wings, behind the scenes, that is going to propose to amend this legislation in a proper way.

Let me speak a little more about inward inspection, which is a critical issue in terms of the legislation itself and why it is necessary to effectively close down this bill.

On the issue of inward inspection, the government has indicated it is removing the role of the CGC. The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, in a unanimous report, acknowledged that mandatory inward inspection is not a universal requirement while outward inspection and weighing is. The committee stated in its report, again supported unanimously:

--several strong factors seem to support optional inward inspection: the inward inspection requirement is already not universal; optional inspection would not affect producer rights of access to the terminal; and producers and the Canadian Wheat Board should not be unduly affected financially if a proper publicly supported infrastructure and pricing system are put into place in light of the public benefits of maintaining an inward inspection capability.

The fact is that while the government is removing the inward inspection provision, the work called for by the committee has never been done. The government has not done the work called for by the committee itself.

To just go on a little further, the government has to explain why it has decided, prior to the legislation, to downgrade, as expressed in the estimates for the commission under the section which describes the activity as providing “Consistent and reliable grain quality and grain safety assurance to meet the needs of domestic and international markets”, the forecasting spending. In 2011-12 it will be $23.4 million; in 2007-08, the planned spending was $50.2 million. By the Canadian Grain Commission's own records, the government will reduce the ability of the Canadian Grain Commission to do its job by $26.8 million.

I have to ask the question: Is this a matter of the government cutting costs on the backs of primary producers and the safety of consumers in this country? Is that what the government is really doing behind closed doors?

Staffing, as a previous member mentioned, will be reduced from 664 FTEs in 2007-08 to 421 in 2009-10. Somebody, I believe it was the parliamentary secretary, mentioned earlier that there is employment insurance and so on and so forth. That is not the point. The point is these people are needed in the industry to protect producers in the public's interest. This is not just about money. This is about protection and regulations in Canadian society that are direly needed.

A recent study of the Canadian Grain Commission itself found the following issues with respect to the loss of inward inspection, and I will go through them.

First, inward weighing and inspection, that would still be required, would be less trustworthy and more expensive.

Second, the grain system would lose an important early detection system for contaminated grain. Eliminating inward inspection by public officials would increase the likelihood of contaminated grain being comingled with larger quantities of clean grain.

Third, shipments to Canadian and United States markets would lose an important level of protection against contamination. Grain shipped to those markets could bypass official inspection. That is worrisome.

Fourth, inward inspection provides quality assurance information that makes outward inspection more efficient and cost-effective.

Finally, replacing public sector inspectors with private contractors, many of whom would be reliant upon private grain companies for business, would undermine the perceived reliability of the information derived from inward inspection.

Those are comments from a recent study by the Canadian Grain Commission itself.

Now, should Canadians worry? Should we, as opposition parties, worry? Definitely, we should. But where is the government? Why is not dealing with these serious concerns?

With respect to the diminished role of the Canadian Grain Commission, the study prepared by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives found, for example, with respect to the port of Vancouver the following problem, bearing in mind that Vancouver and Prince Rupert, as of December 2007, moved almost 1.2 million tonnes of grain through its facilities:

At a typical Vancouver elevator, CGC weighers routinely process the unloading of 50-100 rail cars during a shift. Documentation on these cars, their parcels, weights, any anomalies and other relevant information is provided by the weigher to the elevator at the end of each day.

It goes on to show that their service is very important.

Let me conclude. The reason for the hoist motion that we are now supporting is really simple. Clearly, the government had ample opportunity to come forward with a bill that was amendable and made sense to primary producers. It has failed to do so.

Second, farmers are expressing their concerns about the current government. They are asking us, “Where are the government backbenchers?” “What are they doing?” “Are they trained seals or what?” “Why are they not expressing their concerns on behalf of their constituents?” They have concerns and this bill should be stopped in its tracks.

The bottom line is it is not amendable. The government has failed to do its due diligence and the opposition has a responsibility to hold the government to account. That is why we are supporting the amendment presented by the member opposite.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am so glad my colleague posed that question because it hearkens back to what I said during my speech. The opposition is not being open and forthright. Even in those comments, we hear that.

I will give an example. I mentioned this in my speech but he must have been busy reading something. In 2006, COMPAS was hired by the government to conduct a review. In 2006, the standing committee held hearings on the COMPAS report and it tabled its own reports. This was way back in 2006. Was there a hoist motion put forward at that time? Were there any kinds of blocking motions put in place? No.

In December 2007, Bill C-39 was introduced in Parliament by this government. That was a long time ago. The bill ended up dying on the order paper in September 2008, nine months later. That legislation was on the table for nine months. Did we hear these kinds of comments? Did we have a hoist motion to kill it? Did we have these kinds of outlandish remarks being made? Not at all.

Therefore, the question is actually for the opposition members. What is it that makes them feel so strongly about their position now, when for nine months in the last Parliament this was not an issue? They were willing to let this bill move to committee for proper review by committee and to allow the input of producers.

I will go back to this point. This legislation is aimed at helping our grain producers. In fact, throughout my speech I spoke about grain producers and how this will help our producers and lower costs. The member and my opposition colleagues should allow grain producers to come to the committee to comment on the legislation, but they are cutting this short. They do not want to hear from producers. Why is that? They are afraid of what they will hear. They are not interested in the input of Canadians. They want to kill the bill now before producers get a chance to speak out.

I will put this into context. What the agriculture minister was saying in the quote read out by my colleague was that we are open to working with the opposition and to working with producers to make this the best bill for producers. When they kill the bill outright like this, it is very hard to work with the opposition when it moves in such an aggressive fashion.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, the member surprised me that he would go after the opposition in some of his last remarks. We are not trying to scuttle the bill. We are trying to bring the government to its senses. It has a responsibility to producers, not just to the multinational corporate sector. The problem here is that Bill C-13 does everything for industry and takes away protection, power and authority for producers.

Regarding the hoist motion, sometimes legislation is so bad and so terrible that it is basically unamendable, and that is what producers are telling us. The government has a record of failure in most areas relating to the farming community in this country, and I could go through a list, but had the government come forward with a bill that was at least a starting point, then we could get to the substance of the issue and amend it.

Maybe the parliamentary secretary and his minister should look in the mirror and accept their responsibilities for not having done their work. They had lots of time to do it, since the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food had first put forward its committee report several years ago. They had Bill C-39 and heard the criticism there and came in with another bill.

We do get the odd statement out of the minister when he is getting attacked on this issue in the country. When asked if farmers would be protected, he said:

We're not going to leave you hanging with nothing. We'll keep the program that's existing in place until something new comes along.

Producers want some assurances. They want to see what the protection is in legislation. They know the government cannot be trusted. They certainly know the minister cannot be trusted because they have seen his attack, trying to break the law, and the Federal Court trying to stop them on the Canadian Wheat Board issue.

My question for the parliamentary secretary is simple. Why did the Government of Canada, having all this time, not do its homework and come in with a bill that would have given us at least something to amend and work with?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, listened to the member's remarks and appreciated them. As well, I appreciate the tremendous work that this member does on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

I know that he was there during the original hearings that we had on the Canadian Grain Commission. In the last Parliament the government introduced Bill C-39. There was a lot of opposition to Bill C-39 and it died on the order paper. I would have thought that the government, by introducing Bill C-13, would have changed the bill to accommodate those concerns, and there are many. I outlined them in my remarks earlier.

I think the key concern is that the bottom line principle in Bill C-39, previously, and Bill C-13, now, changes the mandate of the Canadian Grain Commission from being in the interests of producers to being in the interest of industry.

This Canadian Grain Commission has been around for a long time. In fact, it has put Canada as the number one reliable supplier of quality grains in the world. This undermines our being a quality grain supplier, but more so undermines the protection for producers.

Is the government just not listening? Does it not care about producers? How is this government bill going over in Quebec relative to that issue? I wonder if the member could comment.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act, chapter 22 of the Statutes of Canada, 1998 and chapter 25 of the Statutes of Canada, 2004.

This bill is exactly the same as former Bill C-39. The number C-13 may be unlucky, because the government does not seem to have learned from its mistakes. The previous bill had serious shortcomings. My speech today will focus on many aspects of the bill that should be improved so that it better serves grain producers and the industry.

Canada is in the midst of an economic crisis. Since the government introduced Bill C-39, we have learned that there will be job losses related to the proposed changes to the Canadian Grain Commission. It is expected that jobs will be lost because of the elimination of the Grain Appeal Tribunal, the end of registration and the cancellation of receipts, and the end of inspections and mandatory weigh-overs. In all these areas where the government wants to make changes, jobs will clearly be lost. This does not come as good news at a time when thousands of jobs are being lost. Passing this bill will unfortunately cause collateral damage, to use more military language, and people will find themselves on employment insurance.

The job losses will be concentrated in the ports of Vancouver and Thunder Bay. Jobs will also be lost in Winnipeg, mainly in inspection. In the longer term, other jobs could be cut in other regions, including Quebec. Grain is weighed and assessed in the ports of Montreal and Quebec City.

The most telling proof that this bill is a product of the Conservative ideology is that the government has not followed a single one of the recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, a committee on which you, Mr. Speaker, have had the pleasure of sitting for some time and where we have had the opportunity to work together. That committee examined Bill C-39 and made recommendations. It also studied a report from Group Compass Canada. The government has changed not one word in Bill C-39, now Bill C-13.

There are, therefore, a number of elements of uncertainty in this bill. We must remain vigilant. The reform of the Canadian Grain Commission is taking place in a specific context. We know the Conservatives are trying their best to dismantle the collective marketing mechanisms that protect the interests of producers. I am thinking of course of such things as the Canadian Wheat Board, but also of everything surrounding the current Doha round of negotiations in Geneva. Moreover, once again last July there was a text on the table that placed the supply management system in jeopardy. That text was studied by seven countries, but Canada was not one of them. We did, however, have two ministers there, the present Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the former Minister of International Trade, Michael Fortier, who was not re-elected.

The two of them were in Geneva to follow the discussions. The text that was on the table placed the supply management system in jeopardy. At the end of the negotiations, which fortunately did not result in an agreement between the countries, the two ministers expressed disappointment that it had not. Understandably, the sword of Damocles is still hanging over the heads of supply-managed farmers, and I need hardly tell hon. members there are very many such farmers in Quebec. The supply management system accounts for over 40% of Quebec's agricultural economy.

That being the case, great vigilance is required when we are examining any government bills relating to agriculture. What is more, the Conservative government has appointed a friend of the minister to head the Canadian Grain Commission. One might well wonder whether the new commissioner will defend the producers' interests or the minister's, particularly since the mandate of the Canadian Grain Commission has been modified. It is no longer required to act in favour of producers.

It was clearly written into the commission's mandate, yet it has disappeared from the bill. Any time bills deal with issues that directly affect producers, our focus should continue to be the economic health of agricultural producers.

I was talking about the chief commissioner, Elwin Hermanson, a former Reform Party member from 1993 to 1997. The Minister of Agriculture was Mr. Hermanson's campaign manager in 1993 when he first ran for election, and from 1993 to 1997, the minister was the constituency office coordinator for Mr. Hermanson, who appeared before the committee. In any case, while I do not mean to impute any motives, we can nevertheless ask ourselves if the head of the commission will have our producers' interests, first and foremost, in mind.

The government is implementing some recommendations of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, such as modernizing the mandate of the Canadian Grain Commission. One might now wonder if it did so correctly. I want to make it clear that, based on the speeches I have heard from my various colleagues and what we have also talked about in committee, everyone agrees that the Canadian Grain Commission's mandate must be modernized. The question we must now ask, and what we need to gauge here today is this: does Bill C-13 address the worries and concerns that have been raised, any more than Bill C-39 did in the past?

The Bloc Québécois is skeptical about some of these measures. That is important to note. We are skeptical about the elimination of the Grain Appeal Tribunal and the payment security program, because we do not know what will replace it. The Bloc Québécois also condemns the fact that the government has not introduced an office of grain farmer advocacy, as the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food recommended. I will have more time later to talk about some of the committee recommendations that have not been included in this bill.

What does the bill do? The government is changing the mandate of the Canadian Grain Commission in such a way that, in addition to the interests of grain producers, the commission would also consider the interests of the industry as a whole, including grain processors.

In order to clarify the Canadian Grain Commission's mandate, it will be split into two parts by Bill C-13. Part one will set out the CGC's core mandate to establish and maintain standards of quality for Canadian grain and regulate grain handling in Canada to ensure a dependable commodity for domestic and export markets. Part two will establish that the CGC shall specifically protect producer interests with respect to deliveries to elevators and grain dealers, access to binding CGC determination of the grade and dockage of grain deliveries, and the allocation of producer cars.

At present, the mandate of the Canadian Grain Commission is to, in the interests of producers, establish and maintain standards of quality for Canadian grain and regulate grain handling in Canada, to ensure a dependable commodity for domestic and export markets.

I would like to point out that clause 3 of Bill C-13 amends section 13 of the Canada Grain Act by removing the words “in the interests of producers” from the object to establish and maintain “standards of quality for Canadian grain and regulate grain handling in Canada to ensure a dependable commodity for domestic and export markets”.

As we stated earlier, like the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food, the Bloc Québécois supports modernization of the Canadian Grain Commission's mandate. Our party recognizes that the commission must be able to consider broader interests, such as public health, preserving the enviable reputation of Canadian grain producers, and other interests.

The Bloc Québécois is also sensitive to the concerns of grain producers who believe that Bill C-13 is drafted in such a way as to reduce the protection it affords grain producers. It should be understood that since Bill C-39 was first introduced before the election was called, therefore dying on the order paper, much water has flowed under the bridge. We have had all kinds of meetings, correspondence, telephone calls, visits from different people affected by the changes to the mandate of the Canadian Grain Commission.

That gave us a chance to weigh the pros and the cons of this bill. The cons are definitely adding up.

The National Farmers Union has told us that it is essential to preserve the language of the existing Act, which includes the expression “in the interests of producers”, to describe the purpose of the Canadian Grain Commission and the standards of quality in the regulations respecting grain handling operations in Canada. In fact, the first recommendation in the COMPAS report was as follows:

The Standing Committee supports a redefined mandate of the Canadian Grain Commission as more in line with the practical reality of the Canadian grain industry and it recommends that any eventual bill clearly protect the interests of grain producers.

We know that the Conservative government is allergic to collective marketing mechanisms and instruments that enable producers to earn a fair market return. Deregulation and reducing constraints on the free market are key elements of their ideology, elements that, unfortunately, come through in this bill, as I will demonstrate.

The Canadian Grain Commission must not become another Canadian Food Inspection Agency. That organization has lost a lot of credibility over the past few years because it has been forced to choose between the two components of its dual mandate. Agricultural producers in Quebec and Canada are quite right to distrust this government, which has set its sights on the Canadian Grain Commission. It is clear that deregulating everything under the sun has not produced the desired results with respect to protecting producers.

The Bloc Québécois is ready to look at what can be done with the Canadian Grain Commission's mission. We are ready to do that. Can a bill like this really be amended? A lot of people have their doubts.

One of the problems with this bill is that it suggests that an office of grain farmer advocacy is no longer necessary. I strongly disagree. As for the protection of the interests of agricultural producers, we deplore the fact that the government rejected the third recommendation of the parliamentary committee, proposing the establishment of an office of grain farmer advocacy that would have reported directly to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

One might wonder if this is not another sign that the government wants to divest itself of any responsibility and thus deregulate the services of the Canadian Grain Commission. The mandate of the office of grain farmer advocacy, whose role would be similar to that of an ombudsman, would be to ensure that producers understand their rights under the act, and to defend their interests in disputes with other stakeholders.

We had a short briefing, an information session, with officials on this, and I asked a question on this very subject. I can report that I was not at all satisfied with the answer.

Like the parliamentary committee, we think that such an office would have ensured that the interests of producers are defended in disputes with the other stakeholders involved, including the Canadian Grain Commission. We believe that the communication, consultation, liaison and complaint investigation responsibilities assumed by such an office would have strengthened Canada's grain quality assurance system.

Another problem is the elimination of grain appeal tribunals. What does this bill do? The grain appeal tribunal hears the complaints of grain producers and companies that are not satisfied with the grades given by the commission's inspectors. The chair of the tribunal is an authorized grain inspector, but acting at arm's length. The other members of the tribunal come from the grain industry.

The tribunal's position within the Canadian Grain Commission limits its legitimacy and perceived effectiveness. Moreover, clause 14 of the bill proposes to abolish grain appeal tribunals, which are currently established under sections 35 to 38 of the Canada Grain Act. From a reading of clause 31, on page 12, the proposed subsection 70(5), we understand that, in case of a disagreement over a ruling made by the chief inspector—who is the first level of appeal—grain producers will no longer be able to turn to the grain appeal tribunal. They will have to turn to the regular courts. Hon. members will understand that the message being sent to producers is quite simply that that have to fend for themselves, using their own money, as if they had any to spare, and defend themselves before the courts. That not only can be very costly, it can also take a very long time before a ruling comes down. We know all the things that can slow down the regular courts.

We note that the parliamentary committee did not address this issue. The COMPAS report commented that the Canadian Grain Commission's “grain appeal tribunal has earned some plaudits for effectiveness”.

COMPAS continued, “Our impression is that the Tribunal is respected for its role in grading disputes, although at times some stakeholders sensed excessive influence on the part of the Office of the Chief Inspector.” We heard that in committee as well. It was also stated that there is always room for modernization and improvement, but in my opinion that does not mean abolishing the tribunal. The Bloc Québécois awaits the government's explanations for this amendment.

Then there is the elimination of inspection and mandatory inward weighing, which is what the bill would do. Weighing and inspection of grain is carried out by the Canadian Grain Commission and is mandatory on bulk shipments overseas but optional for container movement or for exports to the United States.

Inward inspections are the weighing and grading that take place when railcars or trucks arrive at transfer elevators or terminal elevators. The Canadian Grain Commission then provides third-party weighing so as to forestall errors and to provide assurance to producers.

With its Bill C-13, the government is proposing that inward inspections take place only at the request of the shipper, but that outward weighing and shipping remain mandatory. Terminal and transfer elevator operators will be required to allow access to service providers who will do the weighing and inspection.

While the Canadian Grain Commission will no longer be involved in the delivery of this optional service, both shippers and elevator operators will have access to binding Canadian Grain Commission arbitration in the event of dispute over a grain grade.

Like the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Bloc Québécois supports optional inward inspection, as proposed by the government. We have been told that inward inspection is no longer universally required. According to COMPAS, “About half of railcars unloading at terminal elevators originate at primary elevators of the same company.”

Rather than proceeding with complete deregulation, we should find a compromise for such cases, perhaps continuing to pay the costs for those who opt for this inspection. However, we also have questions about food safety inspections. I will come back to that if there is time.

We also agree with the arguments presented in the committee report to the effect that the Canadian Grain Commission could abandon kernel visual distinguishability when this method is replaced by one that is more efficient, according to recommendations 5 to 7 of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. Contracting out of inspection services must be evaluated in a pilot project and the government, after three years, must evaluate the real impact.

We must be careful, however. Since inward inspection is optional, this could increase unit costs and prices by decreasing economies of scale. Making it optional would likely put smaller grain companies that do not have a terminal elevator at a disadvantage in terms of competitiveness. Inspection and weighing fees are collected from the farmer at the primary elevator. Optional inward inspection would benefit larger companies that have a terminal elevator by allowing them to avoid payment of the fees and offer a better price to farmers. Grain companies that have a better geographic location will be in a better position to take advantage of mixed shipments.

It is therefore important to promote competition in the grain handling system by helping the smaller companies. That is why we believe that the Canadian Grain Commission must have sufficient funding so that the commission can maintain efficient and timely services for both producers and smaller handlers who need such services for transactional purposes.

There are many other elements I could talk about, but I will just mention certain irritants in this bill. As I said, we received a huge amount of correspondence indicating that there were serious flaws in this bill. For example, the Agriculture Union said that if Bill C-13 were passed, some 200 commission employees, most of them front-line service providers, would lose their jobs.

The Agriculture Union, a component of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, represents most of the employees of the Canadian Grain Commission. Obviously, these people met with us and shared their concerns.

I also want to mention that I have here a report from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives that talks about the problems with this bill. The report is entitled Threatened Harvest.

It is important that the members of this House be aware of this report and the other elements that show that Bill C-13 has huge flaws.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated a moment ago, I am somewhat discouraged to speak at second reading of this bill. I say discouraged because Bill C-13, in the second session of the 40th Parliament, is exactly the same bill with exactly the same extensive flaws and shortcomings that were contained in the old Bill C-39 introduced in the 39th Parliament, originally on December 13, 2007.

I would refer government members, and especially the minister and his bureaucrats at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, to the Hansards of February 1, 2008 and February 15, 2008 where extensive concerns about this bill were outlined in this House at that time.

Where have the minister, the bureaucrats at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and those at the Canadian Grain Commission been for the last year? This bill could have come in this House substantially improved. We could have started at a higher level. However, this bill is coming in with the same old flaws that were in it previously. Very prominent in those concerns was the fact that the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food's report on the Canadian Grain Commission was all but ignored.

The chair of the committee at that time, who signed off on that report, was the very minister who now puts forward this flawed bill. One would think the Minister of Agriculture would have more respect for his own signature than to sign a report making certain recommendations and then ignoring those recommendations when he has the authority as a minister to put forward the bill.

However, we all know that the Minister of Agriculture, when it comes to listening to farmers, is about as stone deaf as one can get. Even so, one would think that at least the department or the Canadian Grain Commission would have addressed some of those concerns.

We also know that the person who happens to be chief commissioner at the Canadian Grain Commission is a friend of the minister. In fact, I would wonder if that friend is more interested in protecting the minister's desires and programs than he is of protecting the very producers who he is supposed to represent.

In my question to the parliamentary secretary a moment ago, I outlined that there was absolutely no cost benefit analysis done in terms of this proposal on changes to the Canadian Grain Commission by the government. Now that is not unusual for the government. We know it did not do a cost benefit analysis when it exercised its attack on the Canadian Wheat Board.

Finally, the Parliament of Canada shut the Prime Minister and the minister down in terms of what they wanted to do in undermining the Wheat Board. Even the court system had to come in a couple of times and shut the Prime Minister down in terms of his undermining of the Canadian Wheat Board.

The government has a history of trying to undermine the very institutions that protect farmers in western Canadian, the Canadian Wheat Board and the Canadian Grain Commission. The Canadian Grain Commission does have protective measures for grain producers right across the country.

I would like to take the opportunity to put one thing that I probably should put on the record in terms of the way the minister has used his position to attack institutions that in fact protect farmers in this country.

I will quote an article from the Melfort Journal on February 24. The minister stood in this House and attacked the contingency fund losses of the Canadian Wheat Board, which was the wrong thing to do. In fact, that hurt grain producers commercially.

The quote from the Melfort Journal says:

Last year, the CWB registered $7.2 billion in returns for western producers, a year which saw nearly a 50% increase in wheat revenues and nearly a 100% increase in barley and durum revenues from the previous year.

Simply put, the board outperformed its international competitors, an outstanding performance that should be recognized even by the board's most strident critics...and you sure shouldn't expect any government minister to misuse their offices and authority by telling a small portion of the story to advance their political agenda. This is an issue that goes well beyond whether you support the board or not.

I make that point because it is extremely important for Canadians to understand that the minister and the government know no low when it comes to attacking the various institutions that are there to protect the farmer community, because they clearly favour ensuring that greater benefits, greater authority or greater power accrues to the industry side of the equation, mainly the grain companies and the railways.

I was in Alberta on the weekend, at a great event in Edmonton that our party was doing. I could not help but think, when I was talking to producers there and looking back over the years, that when I first went west as a farm leader in the late 1970s, western Canadian farmers had a branch line and railway infrastructure that went into nearly every community. The cooperative movement was strong at that time. Shapiro, from the United States, had come up and talked about a pool system, and farmers in the west set up a pool system. They had Manitoba Pool Elevators, the Alberta Wheat Pool, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, and organizations and cooperatives working for the farm community, so farmers had protection on that front as well.

All that is gone. Now we have grain corporations that are interested in their shareholders and the profits of their shareholders elsewhere in the world, and not in those primary producers in those rural communities.

The elevator system within that branch line infrastructure was fully paid for by primary producers. Yes, they were wooden elevators, but they were in every small town and they were fully paid for. There was no debt, and they were paid for by farmers. Now we have a system in which big grain and big railways are trying, almost on a daily basis, to close down branch lines and abolish service to those small communities. As a result, grain has to be trucked on the road, which taxpayers pay for at the provincial level. The steel that Canadian taxpayers paid for on those railways has been sold to the likes of Brazil and elsewhere, and at the end of the day farmers have poorer service and less service. Their branch lines have been torn up and they do not have the protection of the cooperative movement they once had.

The only protections farmers have any more in western Canada are, one, the Canadian Wheat Board, which the Prime Minister has tried everything to undermine and undercut, and two, the Canadian Grain Commission, which this bill is all about. Through this bill the government is trying to weaken many of the protections within the bill itself.

Looking at the bill itself tells much about the attitude of the government. In the 2008-09 report on plans and priorities, the Canadian Grain Commission outlines its mandate. The Canadian Grain Commission administers the provision to the Canada Grain Act. The Canadian Grain Commission's mandate, as set out in the act, is to:

...in the interests of the grain producers, establish and maintain standards of quality for Canadian grain and regulate grain handling in Canada, to ensure a dependable commodity for domestic and export markets.

The reference to the interests of primary producers is what is done away with in this particular bill. In fact, the mandate changes to say that it is more in the interests of industry than it is in those of primary producers. Again, I think that goes to my original point and my earlier question to the parliamentary secretary, which was that the government has a record of failure when it comes to the farm community. It is even extending it into this bill by making the point that it is taking away primary producers as the main interest of the mandate.

The president of the National Farmers Union, Stewart Wells, made a few key points that I want to put on the record in terms of what this bill would do to the farm community. He says in his correspondence, “The amendments will remove the requirement that the CGC operate as a public interest watchdog that regulates the overall grain industry 'in the interests of producers'. If this bill passes, the grain industry would become virtually self-regulating, and the CGC's role will be reduced to being a passive 'service provider' that provides grading, weighing and inspection services to grain companies on a fee-for-service basis. Farmers' protections will be reduced to a minimal level, while the legislation leaves the door open for companies to be able to circumvent those limited protections”.

He goes on to say:

Canadian farmers have not advocated any weakening of the CGC regulatory role. At a time when grain companies like Viterra, ADM and Cargill are consolidating their hold over the market, it is obvious there needs to be a mechanism in place to provide farmers with protection.

I would make the point that the Government of Canada is undermining that protection in this instance.

Mr. Wells goes on to say:

The current system allows grain inspectors to catch contaminated, off-condition or incorrectly represented carloads while they are being emptied, weighed, and elevated, and before they are mixed with large quantities of other grain. Eliminating this provision will have a negative effect on farmers’ bottom line.

The amendments also call for eliminating the provision that grain dealers post a security bond before they can be licensed by the CGC. This provision was put in place to protect farmers who would be left holding the bag if the grain company goes bankrupt. The last point Mr. Wells makes is this:

Eliminating this requirement will not save farmers any money. It will, however, greatly increase their risk.

This is the end of Mr. Wells' comments, but they are all valid. They show a weakening of farmers' protection.

The amendments weakening farmers' relative position have been part of the minister's overall record of failure. In his December 13, 2007, introduction to the Canadian Grain Commission's performance report, the minister said that he introduced Bill C-39, an Act to amend the Canadian Grain Act to Parliament. He went on to talk about how his proposed reforms were consistent with the goals expressed in the so-called Growing Forward framework.

I am worried about Growing Forward. I mentioned earlier, in my questions to the parliamentary secretary, that if Growing Forward is the example the minister is using for the government's position, then farmers are in trouble in this country. We have seen 3,600 farmers go out of business each year. We have seen the debt load of farmers go up to $54 billion, four times what it is per farm in the United States. We have seen the government cancel the cost of production program, a commitment by the Prime Minister in the 2006 election. He broke his word, violated his word, and cancelled cost of production in the estimates this time. That is part of Growing Forward.

We know that in times of declining income, AgriInvest and AgriStability in fact pay out less money than the old CAIS program that the Prime Minister hated so much.

If Growing Forward is the way and this is another example of Growing Forward, I say to the farm community, “Wake up and smell the roses”, because it is a decline. It is an undermining and a deteriorating of farmers' protective measures in this country.

As I said, farmers should be worried. Let me point out some of the flaws in this particular bill. Clearly Bill C-13 does not reflect the unanimous recommendations of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. For the minister to imply otherwise is misleading.

Why is there this contempt for the committee, and why is there this contempt by the minister for his own Conservative colleagues on that committee? His own signature was on it. Therefore, does he even undermine his own integrity?

The fifth recommendation in the committee report called for a cost-benefit analysis. No cost-benefit analysis has been done on the impact of Bill C-13 with respect to the contracting out of grain inspections called for in that report. In fact, the government response tabled to the original standing committee report said this:

The government considers that inspection and weighing services performed by CGC employees played a considerable role in enhancing the marketability and reputation of Canadian grain. With this in mind, we need to be cautious to ensure the benefits of any changes in the weighing and inspection services are greater than the costs this may impose on the system. The Government agrees that a cost-benefit analysis should be conducted to assess the advantages and costs that would be associated with contracting out these services.

In its response to the committee, the government admitted itself that a cost-benefit analysis should be done, yet no such cost-benefit analysis is provided. Why?

A good friend of the minister is now the chief commissioner of the CGC. He made a couple of points on this issue, and they worry me as well. He said that even without the legislation, the chief commissioner and the Canadian Grain Commission were moving ahead with changes. They have decided to end inspection services at prairie primary elevators this summer, close three prairie service centres and reduce staff.

The chief commissioner said, “The transition away from on-site inspection services means that the CGC will no longer provide official grading and weighing on grain shipments from the Prairies' terminal facilities, nor for export shipments to the United States or domestic mills”.

That is worrisome, because the chief commissioner, prior to the legislation coming in, is already making changes that will undermine our ability to ship the high-quality grain we have become noted for as a country.

I would close by saying this: we believe improvements can be made to the Canadian Grain Commission; however, major amendments will be required of the bill before us. We look forward to that discussion, and I plead with the government to listen to producers this time.

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I heard the member for Lévis—Bellechasse say “agreed”. It would be fine to sit, but what has happened over the months that have gone by? What has happened in Parliament under the Conservative minority government? What will happen in the coming months?

If the bills are so important, as the Conservatives are saying, the government can guarantee that, if the motion is not passed, the House of Commons will not be prorogued. That means that in September we will come back to the House and continue to work. The Conservatives would not prorogue until October or November, as they have done before: a young government that came to power prorogued the House of Commons when we could have been debating bills.

This session, after the May break, our calendar shows four more weeks of work. Of these four weeks, two are reserved for the possibility of extended sitting hours here in the House of Commons. I cannot accept that the Conservatives are saying that we are a bunch of lazy people, and that we do not want to work, when this government has done everything possible since last August to ensure that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs could not operate.

It has been at least two or three months now since the committee last sat because the Conservatives have refused to appoint someone to chair it. The Conservatives decided that the matter submitted to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs was partisan, and that is why they are not replacing the chair.

I remember that we appointed a new chair, we voted for a new chair, but the chair never did call a meeting of the committee. The chair is being paid to carry that title, but he met with the members once, and then, it was only to adjourn. Is that not partisanship? When a party refuses to hold a public debate on things going on in Parliament or with political parties, that is partisanship.

As I recall, during the sponsorship scandal, it was fine for the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, which was chaired at the time by an opposition Conservative member, to hold hearings and discuss the sponsorship scandal.

But now that the Conservatives are the ones who spent $18 million during the last election and shuffled money around to spend another $1.5 million on top of that, well, they do not want to talk about it. They will not talk about it. When the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights was about to discuss another case, it was shut down again.

To this day, there are bills that have not been debated in committee. The Conservatives think that democracy should happen nowhere but in the House, and certainly not in committee. Parliamentary committees are an important part of our political system, our parliamentary system, our democracy. We were elected by the people in our ridings to come here and pass bills.

We cannot invite a member of the public to testify in the House of Commons, for example. We do not hear witnesses in the House of Commons. We have parliamentary committees where we can invite constituents or people from any part of the country to explain how a bill will affect them and to suggest ways to improve the bill.

For the Conservatives, the most important committee is the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. All they want to do is create justice bills. They would rather build prisons and put everyone in jail than adopt sound social programs to help people work and give them a fair chance in life. For the Conservatives, you either follow the straight and narrow path or you go to jail. These are the sorts of bills they are most interested in.

These are the sorts of bills they are most interested in, yet they brought the work of this committee to a standstill. The chair left the committee and said there would be no more meetings. Experts and members of the public are being prevented from talking to us about important justice bills. This evening, the Conservatives are asking to extend the sitting hours of the House of Commons until June 20 in order to discuss and pass these bills, because they are important. If we do not vote for these bills, then we are not good Canadians. That is in essence what they are saying. They do not want any debate.

They would have us believe that if we extend the sitting hours of the House of Commons every evening until June 20, there will be a terrific debate. We will debate these bills. We will have the opportunity to see democracy in action. At the same time, they have brought the work of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to a standstill. I have never seen such a thing in the 11 years I have been in the House of Commons. I have never seen such a thing.

I would go so far as to say that it has become a dictatorship. Everything originates from the Prime Minister's Office. So much so that, last week, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons complained that he was tired of rising in the House of Commons. He is the only one to stand up; the ministers do not even have the right to rise to answer questions. It is always the government House leader who answers questions. He was so tired one day last week that he knocked over his glass and spilled water on the Prime Minister. They should have thrown water on him to wake him up because he was tired. He himself told the House that he was tired.

That shows the extent to which the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons as well as the Prime Minister's Office, and not the elected Conservative MPs, control the government's agenda. The MPs have nothing to say. There are also the little tricks of the Secretary of State and Chief Government Whip who told members how to behave in parliamentary committee meetings, which witnesses to invite and how to control them. If they are unable to control them they interrupt the meeting. I have never seen anything like it in the 11 years that I have been an MP.

I have been a member of the Standing Committee on Official Languages since 1998. We invited the minister to appear in order to help us with our work and she refused. She refused. She was asked in the House why she refused and she replied that she did not refuse. The committee was studying the Conservatives' action plan. If they wish to make an important contribution to communities throughout the country, there is an action plan to help Canada's official language minority communities—anglophones in Quebec and francophones in the rest of the country.

The action plan was being studied. We asked the minister to speak to us about the action plan so we could work with her. She refused and said she would appear after the plan was tabled. We will invite her again. I have never seen a minister refuse to help a committee.

We invited her again to the Standing Committee on Official Languages concerning the 2010 Olympic Games. The francophone community will not be able to watch the Olympic Games in French anywhere in the country because the contract, which was bid on by CTV, TQS and RDS, was awarded to CTV. We asked the minister to come to the Standing Committee on Official Languages. Instead she said that it was not important for this country's francophones, and she declined. The communities have questions. This all happened in the fall.

This spring, at budget time, the Conservatives declared that money for the action plan or for official languages would come later. We are used to that. We receive an article in English and are told that the French will come later. That is what the budget reminded us of. The money will come later.

But people are waiting. They are wondering what will happen to their communities. People from Newfoundland and Labrador even came to speak to the committee. They told us that currently, minority language communities are having to use lines of credit or even credit cards to help the community. It would be interesting to hear the minister explain why the Conservatives are not giving that money to communities, as they should. They promised to help minority language communities.

I would like to come back to the environment. When we were supposed to be working on environmental issues, the Conservatives systematically obstructed this work for days. They said they had the right to do so. Indeed, they did have the right; that is no problem. We have done the same thing, we will admit. That is part of debate.

Someone came and asked me how we could stop this obstruction. I told that person that it was their right to obstruct and that, if they wanted to talk until the next day, they could. However, when that happens, the chair must not take sides.

Yet that is what happened at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. We had to ask for the chair of the committee to step down. In fact, when we arrived at the committee meeting at 11 a.m., the Conservatives took the floor in order to filibuster and if one of them had to go to the bathroom, the chair adjourned the meeting for 10 minutes. That is no longer obstruction. When we asked the chair if it was going to continue after 1 p.m., he told us to wait until 1 p.m. to find out. Then, at 1 p.m., he decided to adjourn the meeting.

We have been trying since August to discuss the problem of the Conservatives, who had exceeded the $1.5 million spending limit allowed during the last election campaign. The problem with the Conservatives is that they want to hide everything from Canadians. They spoke of transparency, but they wanted to hide from Canadians all their misdeeds. When they were on the opposition benches, they counted on this, especially during the Liberal sponsorship scandal. I remember that and the questions they asked in the House of Commons and in parliamentary committee. They did not hold back.

But they do not want that to happen to them. And if it does, they try to hide it. That is why they did not allow a parliamentary committee to discuss the problems they had created, such as the story with Cadman, our former colleague. His wife said today that her husband told her that he was promised $1 million if he voted with the Conservatives. She never said that was not true; she said that was what in fact was said. Her own daughter said the same thing, that promises had been made. The Conservatives are saying that no one has the right to speak about that. Only they had that right when they were in the opposition, but not us. They are acting like gods and we have to listen to everything they say.

Today, they are moving a motion asking us to listen to them. And yet, when the House leaders and the whips met in committee there was nothing on the agenda. I have never seen the like. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons was even asked if there was anything else on the agenda. He just smirked. He was mocking us and today he wants us to cooperate with him. The Conservatives are saying that they are here to work, but they have blocked all the work of the House of Commons for the past six months.

And they are lecturing us?

When the House leader of the Conservative Party tries to give us a lesson and says that we do not want to work, but they are here to work, I cannot believe it.

We have a committee that does not even sit right now. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has not sat for the last two or three months. The Conservatives do not want to hear what they perhaps have done wrong. If they have nothing to hide, they should have let it go ahead.

The Conservatives said that if they were to be investigated by Elections Canada, they wanted all parties to be investigated. Elections Canada did not say that all the parties were wrong. It said that the Conservative Party had broken the rules of Elections Canada by spending over the limit of $18 million. It was the Conservative Party that did that. Right away the Conservatives filed a lawsuit against Elections Canada. Now they say we should not talk about that in the House of Commons.

Every time we went to the House leader meeting and the whip meeting, they had nothing on the agenda. The Conservatives say that they are very democratic. They want a big debate in the House of Commons on bills. BillC-54, Bill C-56, Bill C-19, Bill C-43, Bill C-14, Bill C-32, Bill C-45, Bill C-46, Bill C-39, Bill C-57 and Bill C-22 are all at second reading.

I will not go into detail about what each and every bill is, but even if we say yes to the government, we will be unable to get through those bills. If we want to get through those bills, it will be the PMO and the Prime Minister's way. The Conservatives bring bills to the House and say that members opposite should vote with them. If we do not vote, they say that we are against them. That is the way they do it, no debate.

The debate, as I said in French, should not only take place in the House of Commons; it should to take place in parliamentary committees. That is the only place where Canadians have the right to come before the committees to express themselves. That is the only place people who are experts can come before us to talk about bills, so we can make the bills better.

When a bill is put in place, it may not be such a good bill, but maybe it is a bill that could go in the right direction if all parties work on it. If we put our hands to it, perhaps it can become a good bill. We could talk to experts, who could change our minds, and maybe we could put some new stuff in the bill.

However, no, the Conservatives got rid of the most important committee that would deal with the bills in which they were interested, and that was the justice committee.

I may as well use the words I have heard from the Conservatives. They say that we are lazy. How many times did we say at committee that we would look after the agenda, that there were certain things we wanted to talk about, for example, Election Canada and the in and out scheme? At the same time, we said we were ready to meet on Wednesdays and we could meet on other days as well to discuss bills.

We proposed all kinds of agenda, and I dare any colleague from the Conservative Party to say we did not do that. We have proposed an agenda where we could meet on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, and the Conservatives refused.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I would like at this time to move the standard motion that can be made only today. I move:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 27(1), commencing on Monday, June 9, 2008, and concluding on Thursday, June 19, 2008, the House shall continue to sit until 11:00 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated last week in answer to the Thursday statement, this is we have work to do week. To kick off the week, we are introducing the customary motion to extend the daily sitting hours of the House for the final two weeks of the spring session. This is a motion which is so significant there is actually a specific Standing Order contemplating it, because it is the normal practice of this House, come this point in the parliamentary cycle, that we work additional hours and sit late to conduct business.

In fact, since 1982, when the House adopted a fixed calendar, such a motion has never been defeated. I underline that since a fixed calendar was adopted, such a motion has never been defeated. As a consequence, we know that today when we deal with this motion, we will discover whether the opposition parties are interested in doing the work that they have been sent here to do, or whether they are simply here to collect paycheques, take it easy and head off on a three month vacation.

On 11 of those occasions, sitting hours were extended using this motion. On six other occasions, the House used a different motion to extend the sitting hours in June. This includes the last three years of minority government.

This is not surprising. Canadians expect their members of Parliament to work hard to advance their priorities. They would not look kindly on any party that was too lazy to work a few extra hours to get as much done as possible before the three month summer break. There is a lot to get done.

In the October 2007 Speech from the Throne, we laid out our legislative agenda. It set out an agenda of clear goals focusing on five priorities to: rigorously defend Canada's sovereignty and place in the world; strengthen the federation and modernize our democratic institutions; provide effective, competitive economic leadership to maintain a competitive economy; tackle crime and strengthen the security of Canadians; and improve the environment and the health of Canadians. In the subsequent months, we made substantial progress on these priorities.

We passed the Speech from the Throne which laid out our legislative agenda including our environmental policy. Parliament passed Bill C-2, the Tackling Violent Crime Act, to make our streets and communities safer by tackling violent crime. Parliament passed Bill C-28, which implemented the 2007 economic statement. That bill reduced taxes for all Canadians, including reductions in personal income and business taxes, and the reduction of the GST to 5%.

I would like to point out that since coming into office, this government has reduced the overall tax burden for Canadians and businesses by about $190 billion, bringing taxes to their lowest level in 50 years.

We have moved forward on our food and consumer safety action plan by introducing a new Canada consumer product safety act and amendments to the Food and Drugs Act.

We have taken important steps to improve the living conditions of first nations. For example, first nations will hopefully soon have long overdue protection under the Canadian Human Rights Act, and Bill C-30 has been passed by the House to accelerate the resolution of specific land claims.

Parliament also passed the 2008 budget. This was a balanced, focused and prudent budget to strengthen Canada amid global economic uncertainty. Budget 2008 continues to reduce debt, focuses government spending and provides additional support for sectors of the economy that are struggling in this period of uncertainty.

As well, the House adopted a motion to endorse the extension of Canada's mission in Afghanistan, with a renewed focus on reconstruction and development to help the people of Afghanistan rebuild their country.

These are significant achievements and they illustrate a record of real results. All parliamentarians should be proud of the work we have accomplished so far in this session. However, there is a lot of work that still needs to be done.

As I have stated in previous weekly statements, our top priority is to secure passage of Bill C-50, the 2008 budget implementation bill.

This bill proposes a balanced budget, controlled spending, investments in priority areas and lower taxes, all without forcing Canadian families to pay a tax on carbon, gas and heating. Furthermore, the budget implementation bill proposes much-needed changes to the immigration system.

These measures will help keep our economy competitive.

Through the budget implementation bill, we are investing in the priorities of Canadians.

These priorities include: $500 million to help improve public transit, $400 million to help recruit front line police officers, nearly $250 million for carbon capture and storage projects in Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia, and $100 million for the Mental Health Commission of Canada to help Canadians facing mental health and homelessness challenges.

These investments, however, could be threatened if the bill does not pass before the summer. That is why I am hopeful that the bill will be passed by the House later today.

The budget bill is not our only priority. Today the House completed debate at report stage on Bill C-29, which would create a modern, transparent, accountable process for the reporting of political loans. We will vote on this bill tomorrow and debate at third reading will begin shortly thereafter.

We also wish to pass Bill C-55, which implements our free trade agreement with the European Free Trade Association.

This free trade agreement, the first in six years, reflects our desire to find new markets for Canadian products and services.

Given that the international trade committee endorsed the agreement earlier this year, I am optimistic that the House will be able to pass this bill before we adjourn.

On Friday we introduced Bill C-60, which responds to recent decisions relating to courts martial. That is an important bill that must be passed on a time line. Quick passage is necessary to ensure the effectiveness of our military justice system.

Last week the aboriginal affairs committee reported Bill C-34, which implements the Tsawwassen First Nation final agreement. This bill has all-party support in the House. Passage of the bill this week would complement our other achievements for first nations, including the apology on Wednesday to the survivors of residential schools.

These are important bills that we think should be given an opportunity to pass. That is why we need to continue to work hard, as our rules contemplate.

The government would also like to take advantage of extended hours to advance important crime and security measures. Important justice measures are still before the House, such as: Bill S-3, the anti-terrorism act; Bill C-53, the auto theft bill; Bill C-45 to modernize the military justice system; and Bill C-60, which responds to recent court martial decisions.

There are a number of other bills that we would like to see advanced in order to improve the management of the economy. There are other economic bills we would like to advance.

These include Bill C-7, to modernize our aeronautics sector, Bill C-5, dealing with nuclear liability, Bill C-43, to modernize our customs rules, Bill C-39, to modernize the Canada Grain Act for farmers, Bill C-46, to give farmers more choice in marketing grain, Bill C-57, to modernize the election process for the Canadian Wheat Board, Bill C-14, to allow enterprises choice for communicating with customers, and Bill C-32, to modernize our fisheries sector.

If time permits, there are numerous other bills that we would like to advance.

These include Bill C-51, to ensure that food and products available in Canada are safe for consumers, Bill C-54, to ensure safety and security with respect to pathogens and toxins, Bill C-56, to ensure public protection with respect to the transportation of dangerous goods, Bill C-19, to limit the terms of senators to 8 years from a current maximum of 45, and Bill C-22, to provide fairness in representation in the House of Commons.

It is clear a lot of work remains before the House. Unfortunately, a number of bills have been delayed by the opposition through hoist amendments. Given these delays, it is only fair that the House extend its sitting hours to complete the bills on the order paper. As I have indicated, we still have to deal with a lot of bills.

We have seen a pattern in this Parliament where the opposition parties have decided to tie up committees to prevent the work of the people being done. They have done delay and obstruction as they did most dramatically on our crime agenda. They do not bother to come and vote one-third of time in the House of Commons. Their voting records has shown that. All of this is part of a pattern of people who are reluctant to work hard.

The government is prepared to work hard and the rules contemplate that it work hard. In fact, on every occasion, when permission has been sought at this point in the parliamentary calendar to sit extended hours, the House has granted permission, including in minority Parliaments.

If that does not happen, it will be clear to Canadians that the opposition parties do not want to work hard and are not interested in debating the important policy issues facing our country. Is it any wonder that we have had a question period dominated not by public policy questions, but dominated entirely by trivia and issues that do not matter to ordinary Canadians.

The government has been working hard to advance its agenda, to advance the agenda that we talked about with Canadians in the last election, to work on the priorities that matter to ordinary Canadians, and we are seeking the consent of the House to do this.

Before concluding, I point out, once again, that extending the daily sitting hours for the last two weeks of June is a common practice. Marleau and Montpetit, at page 346, state this is:

—a long-standing practice whereby, prior to the prorogation of the Parliament or the start of the summer recess, the House would arrange for longer hours of sitting in order to complete or advance its business.

As I stated earlier, it was first formalized in the Standing Orders in 1982 when the House adopted a fixed calendar. Before then, the House often met on the weekend or continued its sittings into July to complete its work. Since 1982, the House has agreed on 11 occasions to extend the hours of sitting in the last two weeks of June.

Therefore, the motion is a routine motion designed to facilitate the business of the House and I expect it will be supported by all members. We are sent here to engage in very important business for the people of Canada. Frankly, the members in the House are paid very generously to do that work. Canadians expect them to do that work and expect them to put in the time that the rules contemplate.

All member of the House, if they seek that privilege from Canadian voters, should be prepared to do the work the rules contemplate. They should be prepared to come here to vote, to come here to debate the issues, to come here for the hours that the rules contemplate. If they are not prepared to do that work, they should step aside and turnover their obligations to people who are willing to do that work.

There is important work to be done on the commitments we made in the Speech from the Throne. I am therefore seeking the support of all members to extend our sitting hours, so we can complete work on our priorities before we adjourn for the summer. This will allow members to demonstrate results to Canadians when we return to our constituencies in two weeks.

Not very many Canadians have the privilege of the time that we have at home in our ridings, away from our work. People do not begrudge us those privileges. They think it is important for us to connect with them. However, what they expect in return is for us to work hard. They expect us to put in the hours. They expect us to carry on business in a professional fashion. The motion is all about that. It is about doing what the rules have contemplated, what has always been authorized by the House any time it has been asked, since the rule was instituted in 1982. That is why I would ask the House to support the motion to extend the hours.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, this week we have focused on the economy by debating and passing at report stage the budget implementation bill as part of our focused on the economy week.

The bill guarantees a balanced budget, controls spending and keeps taxes low without imposing a carbon and heating tax on Canadian families.

It also sets out much-needed changes to the immigration system in order to maintain our competitive economy.

It will also include the new tax-free savings account, TFSA, an innovative device for individuals and families to save money. That bill is now at third reading and we hope to wrap up debate tomorrow on the important budget implementation bill to maintain the health and competitiveness of our economy.

Next week will be we have work to do week. Since the Speech from the Throne we have introduced 59 bills in Parliament.

These bills focus on fighting crime, sustaining our prosperous and dynamic economy, improving Canadians' environment and their health, strengthening the federation, and securing Canada's place in the world.

To date, 20 of these bills have received royal assent, which leaves a lot of work to do on the 39 that have yet to receive royal assent. I know the Liberal House leader suggests perhaps we should work on only three, but we believe in working a bit harder than that.

To ensure that we have the time necessary to move forward on our remaining legislative priorities, I will seek the consent of the House on Monday to extend the sitting hours for the remaining two weeks of the spring sitting, as the rules contemplate. I am sure all members will welcome the opportunity to get to work to advance the priorities of Canadians and get things done.

I will seek in the future the consent of the opposition to have next Wednesday be a special sitting of the House of Commons. This is to accommodate the special event about which the Liberal House leader was speaking. The day would start at 3 p.m. with an apology from the Prime Minister regarding the residential schools experience. I will also be asking the House and its committees to adjourn that day until 5:30 p.m. to allow for solemn observance of the events surrounding the residential schools apology. Residential school survivors and the chief of the Assembly of First Nations will be offered a place of prominence in our gallery to observe these very important formal ceremonies in the House of Commons.

Tomorrow and continuing next week, we will get started on the other important work remaining by debating the budget implementation bill. After we finish the budget bill, we will debate Bill C-29, to modernize the Canada Elections Act with respect to loans made to political parties, associations and candidates to ensure that wealthy individuals are not able to exert undue influence in the political process, as we have seen even in the recent past.

We will also discuss Bill C-51, to ensure that food and products available in Canada are safe for consumers; Bill C-53, to get tough on criminals who steal cars and traffic in stolen property; Bill S-3, to combat terrorism; Bill C-7, to modernize our aeronautics sector; Bill C-5, dealing with nuclear liability; Bill C-54, to ensure safety and security with respect to pathogens and toxins; Bill C-56, to ensure public protection with respect to the transportation of dangerous goods; Bill C-19, to limit the terms of senators to eight years from the current maximum of 45; Bill C-43, to modernize our customs rules; Bill C-14, to allow enterprises choice for communicating with customers; Bill C-32, to modernize our fisheries sector; Bill C-45, regarding our military justice system; Bill C-46, to give farmers more choice in marketing grain; Bill C-39, to modernize the grain act for farmers; Bill C-57, to modernize the election process of the Canadian Wheat Board; and Bill C-22, to provide fairness in representation in the House of Commons.

I know all Canadians think these are important bills. We in the government think they are important and we hope and expect that all members of the House of Commons will roll up their sleeves to work hard in the next two weeks to see that these bills pass.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, Parliament has been having a very successful week. We started with a successful address to Parliament by the President of Ukraine, Victor Yushchenko. The president gave an eloquent speech that was well received by all parliamentarians and Canadians.

This week the House of Commons has been proceeding on the theme of sound economic management without a carbon tax. We passed Bill C-21 to give aboriginals living on reserves the protection of the Canadian Human Rights Act. We passed our biofuels bill, BillC-33, at third reading and it is now in the Senate. This bill requires that by 2010, 5% of gasoline and by 2012, 2% of diesel and home heating oil be comprised of renewable fuels.

Our bill to implement the Free Trade Agreement with the countries of the European Free Trade Association—the first free trade agreement signed in six years—passed at second reading and was sent to committee.

Bill C-5, which deals with nuclear liability issues, also appears poised to pass at third reading and be sent to the Senate today.

Last night, the Minister of Finance appeared for over four hours to answer questions by parliamentarians on the main estimates of his department.

Yesterday, the finance committee reported the budget bill back to the House. This bill would ensure a balanced budget, control spending and keep taxes down while avoiding a carbon tax and a heating tax on Canadian families. As well, it would make much needed changes to the immigration system, which will help keep our economy competitive. We will begin debate on that important bill, the budget implementation bill, at report stage tomorrow.

Next week we will be on the same theme, focused on the economy week. Through the budget implementation bill, we are investing in the priorities of Canadians. which include $500 million to help improve public transit, $400 million to help recruit front line police officers, nearly $250 million for carbon capture and storage projects in Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia, and $110 million to help Canadians facing mental health and homelessness challenges.

Those investments, however, could be threatened if the bill does not pass this session due to opposition obstruction and delay. Today we again saw evidence of such procedural delay tactics from the opposition in the form of a concurrence motion. All opposition parties joined together again to ensure that important legislation to strengthen key Canadian economic sectors could not be debated in the House earlier today.

I want to state clearly that this government is absolutely committed to ensuring the passage of the budget implementation bill this session.

In addition to debating it tomorrow at report stage, we will debate the bill next Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, if necessary.

We will also debate: Bill C-7 to modernize our aeronautics sector, Bill C-43 to modernize our customs rules, Bill C-39 to modernize the Canada Grain Act for farmers, Bill C-46 to give farmers more choice in marketing grain, Bill C-14 which allows enterprises choice for communicating with customers, and Bill C-32 to modernize our fisheries sector.

With regard to the question of the remaining opposition day, as the House knows, we have had all but one of those opposition days already during this portion of the supply cycle. The last opposition day will be scheduled sometime between now and the end of this supply cycle. We do know that we are scheduled to rise on June 20.

With regard to the very helpful suggestions of my friend with regard to the apology to our first nations communities for the residential schools issue, plans are underway for that. I am happy to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to take the very helpful suggestions into account and, if necessary, we would be happy to take up the matter at our usual House leader's meeting.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, in keeping with our theme for this week, which is strengthening democracy and human rights, today we will continue to debate Bill C-47, which is a bill to provide basic rights to on reserve individuals to protect them and their children in the event of a relationship breakdown, which are rights that Canadians off reserve enjoy every day.

We will debate our bill to give effect to the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement, Bill C-34, and Bill C-21, which would extend the protection of the Canadian Human Rights Act to aboriginals living on reserve.

We will also debate Bill C-29, which is our bill to close the loophole that was used most recently by Liberal leadership candidates to bypass the personal contribution limit provisions of the election financing laws with large personal loans from wealthy, powerful individuals, and Bill C-19, which is our bill to limit the terms of senators to eight years from the current maximum of 45.

Next week will be honouring our monarch week. Members of Parliament will return to their ridings to join constituents in celebrating Queen Victoria, our sovereign with whom Sir John A. Macdonald worked in establishing Confederation, and honouring our contemporary head of state, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

The week the House returns will be sound economic management without a carbon tax week. The highlight of the week will be the return of the budget bill to this House on May 28.

This bill proposes a balanced budget, controlled spending, investments in priority areas and lower taxes, all without forcing Canadian families to pay a tax on carbon, gas and heating. Furthermore, the budget implementation bill proposes much needed changes to the immigration system. These measures will help us ensure the competitiveness of our economy. I would like to assure this House that we are determined to see this bill pass before the House rises for the summer.

We will start the week by debating, at third reading, Bill C-33, our biofuels bill to require that by 2010 5% of gasoline and by 2012 2% of diesel and home heating oil will be comprised of renewable fuels, with our hope that there will be no carbon tax on them.

We will debate Bill C-55, our bill to implement the free trade agreement with the states of the European Free Trade Association.

This free trade agreement, the first in six years, reflects our desire to find new markets for Canadian products and services.

We will also debate Bill C-5 dealing with nuclear liability issues for our energy sector; Bill C-7 to modernize our aeronautics sector; Bill C-43 to modernize our customs rules; Bill C-39 to modernize the Canada Grain Act for farmers; Bill C-46 to give farmers more choice in marketing grain; Bill C-14, which allows enterprises choice for communicating with their customers through the mail; and Bill C-32 to modernize our fisheries sector.

The opposition House leader raises the question of two evenings being set aside for committee of the whole. He is quite right. Those two evenings will have to be set aside sometime between now and May 31.

With regard to the notes that were quoted from by the Prime Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, they were their notes and referred of course to announcements that clearly have been made about the need and the imperative of restoring our military's equipment and needs in the way in which the Canadian government is doing so.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

At the beginning or outset here, I'm a little surprised by Mr. Boshcoff and wonder whether he could table the examples of the differences he had in mind at the end of the committee for members. We had Ian White and Elwin Hermanson here at the last meeting, who both assured us they had no problems with Bill C-39 or with the implementation of KVDs.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Thank you very much, and thanks to you, Minister, and your officials for being here today. I will try to be brief in my questions and hopefully give you a chance to respond, perhaps in the order that I ask them.

First I'd like to follow up on what Wayne mentioned in regard to the press release about the Grain Commission. It's a disturbing press release, and I'd like some comment from you on this. According to the press release, the Grain Commission producer protection programs will be slashed by 67%, while grain quality programs will be reduced by almost half and research programs will be cut by 60%.

There are three former commissioners who have statements in this release.

One says that “As Ottawa's contribution goes down, producer costs will rise.” I find that extremely disturbing and I'd like some comments on that.

The other one is that, “These cuts will undermine grain producers in their dealings with grain companies, which have never been more powerful. Canada's reputation for top quality grain will be hurt too. You can't protect producers and make these cuts at the same time.” This is former commissioner Bob Douglas.

The last quotation I have here is by Ms. Donna Welke: “At a time when food safety is a top priority for Canadians, Bill C-39 is undermining the safety of Canadian grain products.”

I'd like a comment on those statements, please.

Minister, you mentioned COOL and how we oppose this. I'm just wondering how realistic it is to go to a panel. Do we have some very specific concrete measures as to how to oppose COOL, and does this fit in with shifting our focus to not always trying to conform to trade obligations, but maybe to shift to really put Canada first and make sure we stand up and put in the right measures to protect our producers?

That also goes in line with the tree fruit industry, as you mentioned. You're saying the market will just regulate it. We're producing grapes; the logical result is that eventually we'll be a nation of grape producers and we won't have any more apples, for example. Is that a realistic goal for Canada, or should there be some government intervention to ensure that we have a safe supply of apples and peaches and all the other fruit we're noted for? That's the second one.

I will probably need you to get back to me on my last question. Can you provide the committee with a breakdown of federal grants and contributions by province for the following programs: Greencover, the environmental farm plan, the farm stewardship program, and the Canada-Ontario water supply expansion program for the fiscal years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, and 2007-08? I have it here if you need it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I want to thank Mr. White, Mr. Hermanson, Mr. Stuart, and Mr. Dennis for your briefing today on KVD, and Mr. White as well previously on the Wheat Board. I found it very educational and informative, and it will allow us to move ahead as a committee, especially as we consider Bill C-39 when it comes back to the House.

With that, I will entertain a motion to adjourn. Mr. Lauzon.

The meeting is adjourned.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, the government took a major step forward this week to maintain a competitive economy, our theme for this week, and I am happy to advise the House that yesterday the Standing Committee on Finance agreed to report the budget implementation bill back to the House by May 28.

This is excellent news. The budget bill ensures a balanced budget, controls spending, and invests in priority areas.

This week also saw the passage of Bill C-23, which amends the Canada Marine Act, and Bill C-5 on nuclear liability at report stage.

Today, we are debating a confidence motion on the government’s handling of the economy. We fully expect, notwithstanding the minority status of our government, that this House of Commons will, once again, express its support for the government’s sound management of Canada’s finances and the economy.

Tomorrow, will we continue with maintaining a competitive economy week by debating our bill to implement our free trade agreement with the countries of the European Free Trade Association. It is the first free trade agreement signed in six years and represents our commitment to finding new markets for the goods and services Canadians produce.

If there is time, we will also debate Bill C-14, which would allow enterprises choice for communicating with customers; Bill C-7, to modernize our aeronautics sector; Bill C-32, to modernize our fisheries sector; Bill C-43, to modernize our custom rules; Bill C-39, to modernize the Grain Act for farmers; and Bill C-46, to give farmers more choice in marketing grain.

The government believes strongly in the principle of democracy and the fundamental importance of human rights. Next week we will show our support for that with strengthening democracy and human rights week. The week will start with debate on Bill C-30, our specific land claims bill. The bill would create an independent tribunal made up of superior court judges to help resolve the specific claims of first nations and will, hopefully, speed up the resolution about standing claims.

We will debate Bill C-34, which is our bill to give effect to the Tsawwassen First Nation final agreement. We will debate our bill to provide basic rights to on reserve individuals, Bill C-47, to protect them and their children in the event of a relationship breakdown, rights that off reserve Canadians enjoy every day.

As I said, we are committed to strengthening democracy in Canada. Yesterday, I had an excellent discussion on Senate reform with members of the Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee. That discussion will continue in this House next week when we debate our bill to limit the terms of senators to eight years from the current maximum of 45, as foreseen in Bill C-19.

We will also debate our bill to close the loophole used by leadership candidates to bypass the personal contribution limit provisions of the election financing laws with large, personal loans from wealthy powerful individuals and ensure we eliminate the influence of big money in the political process.

With regard to the question about estimates, there are, as the opposition House leader knows, two evenings that must be scheduled for committee of the whole in the House to deal with those estimates. Those days will be scheduled over the next two weeks that we sit so they may be completed before May 31, as contemplated in the Standing Orders.

There have been consultations, Mr. Speaker, and I believe you would find the unanimous consent of the House for the following:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, on Friday, May 9, starting at noon and ending at the normal hour of daily adjournment, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, our week devoted to action on the environment and health of Canadians is proving to be a success. We just passed Bill C-33 at report stage with the support of two of the other three parties. This is our bill requiring that by 2010 5% of gasoline and by 2012 2% of diesel fuel and home heating oil be comprised of renewable fuels. It represents an important part of our plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020. Debate of this bill at third reading will now be able to commence tomorrow.

We have also started to debate two bills to improve the safety of food, consumer products and medical products in Canada.

On Monday we debated Bill C-52, to create the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act and yesterday we debated Bill C-51, to modernize the Food and Drugs Act.

We also introduced Bill C-54, to promote safety and security with respect to human pathogens and toxins. We will continue to debate these bills today and tomorrow.

During these uncertain economic times to the south, our government has led the way on the economy by taking decisive and early action over the past six months to pay down debt, reduce taxes to stimulate the economy and create jobs, and provide targeted support to key industries. In keeping with our strong leadership on the economy, next week will be maintaining a competitive economy week.

We plan to debate the following bills intended to enhance the competitiveness of certain sectors of the Canadian economy: our Bill C-23, at third reading stage, to amend the Canada Marine Act; our Bill C-5, at report stage, on liability in case of a nuclear incident; and our Bill C-14, at second reading stage, to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act.

We will also debate at second reading Bill C-32, which modernizes the Fisheries Act, Bill C-43, which amends the Customs Act, and Bill C-39, which amends the Canada Grain Act. We will also begin to debate Bill C-46. This is our bill to free western barley producers from the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly by giving them the freedom to market their own products. We will debate at third reading our bill to amend the Aeronautics Act, Bill C-7.

My friend, the member for Wascana, the Liberal House leader, said that government business and the doing of business in the House of Commons appeared to end on Tuesday. That is because next Wednesday and Thursday will be opposition days, and I would like to allot them as such at this time.

In terms of the question he raised with regard to Bill C-293, which is a private member's bill, I understand it is scheduled to come before the House in early May. At that time the House will have an opportunity to deal with the matter.

In terms of estimates and witnesses appearing before committee of the whole, the government does have to designate those to occur before May 31. Late last night I finally received notice of which two departments were identified and we will soon be advising the House of the dates that will be scheduled for consideration of those matters in committee of the whole.

[Terry Pugh]

Thank you very much for the opportunity to present to the committee by video conference. We appreciate it.

We haven't had a lot of time to look at this trade agreement, but it's clear that it's one of a series of bilateral trade agreements that Canada is pursuing. They're all in conjunction with the larger trade agreement, the WTO, so it's important to look at this in the context of the WTO.

The bottom line for measuring success or failure of any trade agreement from the farmers' perspective is whether that trade agreement actually raises farmers' net income. A trade agreement that boosts exports but results in lower net farm income is not a good deal for Canadian farmers.

That being said, there is actually one positive thing in this agreement that I've seen, and that is on durum wheat. It's perhaps the only positive aspect of this trade deal that I've found. Because durum exports are made through the Canadian Wheat Board, the farmers of western Canada are the direct beneficiaries of those sales and more money is going right back to the farm gate. If those sales were made through private grain companies, there would be considerably less going back to the farm gate. So an increase in sales as a result of lower tariffs in some of these countries will actually translate into increased direct revenue for farmers.

Of course, the Wheat Board has done a tremendous job marketing durum in Europe. You're probably aware that the EU is our biggest customer already for durum wheat. Canada grows only a little over 12% of world durum production, but we actually ship 51.8% of durum globally.

Right now Switzerland isn't a big market for us. From the best estimates we've seen, we only ship about 1,500 tonnes, and the tariff rate is already very low. Norway is a little bigger, and right now we export no durum to Norway. So if we are increasing those exports, that will probably help us.

But it's important to keep in mind that Canadian wheat and durum exports are a big draw for our overseas customers because of the consistent quality and reliability of those grains. That's due to the Canadian Wheat Board sales regulations that are in place, the Canadian Grain Commission, and our system of kernel visual distinguishability.

Both of those agencies are under severe stress right now. The Canadian Grain Commission, under Bill C-39, is faced with the loss of inward inspection. As you're probably aware, the KVD system, which is the key cornerstone of our grain quality system, is going to be phased out on August 1, 2008. If that happens, there is a real concern about whether we're going to be able to keep those markets. So even if we gain something with these duty tariff reductions, we may lose many millions more if we lose the Canadian Grain Commission and the Canadian Wheat Board single desk.

I was a little surprised, in reading some of the transcripts, that no economic analysis has been done on the implications of this trade deal. I think that speaks volumes. We've seen a similar lack of economic analysis in Bill C-46, which will change the Canadian Wheat Board Act and the Grain Commission. We haven't seen any economic analysis by the government on what will happen to farm incomes if those two agencies are weakened in any way.

But the most critical and highly negative aspect of this deal, from our point of view, is its impact on supply management, for example, in the dairy industry. It's true that our access commitments remain in place for imports of certain commodities, as specified under the WTO agreement, but the tariff rates on some of those imports have been dramatically lowered, some of them to the point of elimination entirely.

It's good when the tariff rates on our exports are reduced. It's another matter when we see tariff rates on imports of dairy products, for example, coming into Canada reduced.... I think the Ag Canada representative, in early March, pointed out that, for example, on butter, under 4,000 tonnes of butter coming into Canada, which is our access quota, right now under the WTO--that's a 7% tariff. Under this deal, that 7% goes down to 0%. That is, without a doubt, a tariff cut from 7% down to 0%. The amount that's coming in stays the same, but the tariff rate is actually reduced.

That is a key point, because what that does is effectively facilitate access to the Canadian market for imports of dairy products. We have to keep in mind that the more we open up our market to imports, the more we shut out Canadian producers from their own domestic market. As I pointed out, that cut from 7% to 0% for some dairy products coming in is definitely a cut in tariff rates.

A little over two months ago, Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz stated in response to a revised WTO draft modalities text, “Canada maintains its firm opposition to any tariff cuts or tariff quota expansion for sensitive products. This represents a fundamental element of Canada’s negotiating position.”

I'll just finish up by saying that that statement from Gerry Ritz was released two weeks after this agreement was signed, when he certainly should have been well aware that there were tariff cuts. So when he said there will be no tariff cuts at the WTO, it makes us wonder whether the government is perhaps putting on a public show of resisting this push at the WTO for reductions in tariffs; but it's actually willing to cut tariffs on a small bilateral trade deal, so how can it refuse to do so on the larger WTO deal?

This agreement actually appears to have set a precedent that may well facilitate ongoing trade measures that weaken Canada's supply management and orderly marketing systems.

I'll conclude with those remarks.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

The reason was that Adrian Meisner stood up to the minister on behalf of his board of directors, who were elected by producers, and the Prime Minister didn't like it, and he was fired.

Ms. Keen did her job for the same reason, and the Prime Minister didn't like her standing by the laws of the land, so she was fired.

In this case Mr. Hermanson in his remarks basically said, “The Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service also clearly states that public servants must loyally implement ministerial decisions, lawfully taken.” Well, the article on Bill C-39 was not the law. The law is what I showed you earlier in that big binder, the Canadian Grain Commission Act. That's the law. This is a proposed law. There are lots of concerns. We're hearing from the agriculture union and concerns from producers over many areas in Bill C-39or the Canadian Grain Commission changes.

Mr. Hermanson said, and I quote in the article, “As chief commissioner of the CGC, I strongly support this legislation and reiterate this organization's commitment to providing producers with value.” Well, that is basically, in my view, the minister's voice. I don't want to hear the minister's voice. I want to hear independent opinion from the Canadian Grain Commission based on their mandate.

When we call the chief commissioner before this committee in his capacity when we're reviewing Bill C-39, I expect him to answer with a position of independence. Some of it will agree with the minister; some of it will disagree. But to make a blanket statement, “I strongly support this legislation”, very shortly after it came out, when there are so many concerns by producers out there, shows me there isn't the independence from the government that's necessary for this position.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I'm sure we'll see you here again, as we often call the Canadian Grain Commission before committee for their expert witness on various issues, and will do so for the upcoming Bill C-39 when it gets to committee.

Mr. Atamanenko, the floor is yours.

[Elwin Hermanson]

I'll try to keep it very short.

I do not believe it was a mistake. The bill that was tabled was not hypothetical. We weren't talking about a hypothetical piece of legislation. We were talking about actual tabled legislation upon which we have had input. These issues were discussed, and the commission was providing input back. I know that as early as 2002—because I have the independent report that was received in 2002—the commission has had input on these very issues through the evolution of what is now Bill C-39.

Producers and stakeholders wanted to know what the impact of Bill C-39 would be, and we tried as honestly as we could to communicate that. I think that's a proper role for the Canadian Grain Commission to play. It would be irresponsible not to communicate to producers what the impact of the bill would be.

I don't think that as members you would argue that eliminating mandatory procedures at the commission that I think most members feel are unnecessary is an unwise thing. Our mandate under the existing Canada Grain Act is to work to the benefit of producers. That is our mandate, and in the communication of the impact of Bill C-39, I believe we were fulfilling that mandate.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Hermanson, I will tell you the difference. If Bill C-39 had become law, I would never had faulted you for having written such an op-ed article stating that the legislation had to be implemented, because that would have been your job. It does not matter whether the bill had been passed unanimously or on division, Parliament would have enacted legislation and it would have been your job as chief commissioner of the Canadian Grains Commission to implement whatever law Parliament passes. This is normal. The problem is that you commented on a bill before it was passed.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Hermanson, the least one could say is that you are luckier than Adrian Measner and Linda Keen. Do you think these people would have lost their job if they had done what you did?

You were barely appointed when you staked a position by writing this open letter on Bill C-39 published in The Western Producer. All the colleagues around the table here have mentioned this op-ed piece of February 7. You were appointed on January 21.

Personally, I religiously read The Western Producer just as I read La Terre de chez nous, because I want to also know what is happening out West. When I read this piece, my feeling was that a senior official who had just been appointed, you were carrying the minister's and the government's message and that this was pure partisanship since Parliament has not even finished considering this bill. You must have known that it is controversial. A memo was even sent to employees to tell them that they had no right to speak about it if their comments were critical of the government. You will not admit that this is a gag order, but I call this censorship. People only have a right to speak if they will not criticize. You knew then that the bill was attracting criticism and that it was in the government pipeline, but you nevertheless went ahead with this open letter saying that you support Bill C-39 as is. In my view, this was a partisan comment.

You did what Mr. Measner and Ms. Keen refused to do. They lost their job and you kept yours.

[Elwin Hermanson]

It wasn't supportive of the government; it supported the objectives of Bill C-39.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

I understand.

Would you agree that your Bill C-39 op-ed was very supportive of the government?

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

I mean this in an inoffensive fashion, so please don't misunderstand or take personal offence. But when I read the op-ed piece, which is a glowing, almost gushy endorsement of C-39, and when I factor in the timing of it and some of your presentation this morning, I'm concerned, frankly, that you see your role as being almost blindly, unwaveringly supportive of the government, almost to the point where you would see the commission as being something of a lackey or a lapdog to the government.

Tell me why that's not a fair comment.

[Elwin Hermanson]

It's one of the first things I did, and as I mentioned--I can't remember if it was in my statement, I reiterate it if it was--it was a management decision that was recommended to me. And that management decision had been made even before I assumed the position on January 21. The management team thought that the new chief commissioner should be introduced, should clarify some issues around Bill C-39, and should assure producers that grain quality assurance and the Canada Grain Act would be complied with.

That was brought to my attention, and I agreed with that. We made a few changes. Actually, I toned some things down, if you can believe that, and we submitted it.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

I presume that it was submitted and then eventually published. So it seems to me--and correct me if I'm wrong--that you saw doing an op-ed piece and supporting Bill C-39 in a public way as one of your very first tasks. Is that fair to say? It's certainly one of the first things you did.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

I can tell you that some of my producers who read the op-ed piece were very happy. It was the first time they realized you were with the Grain Commission. They recognized your name and they were very happy to see you there.

That leads to my second question. Do you believe this op-ed piece has reassured some farmers in the industry that the impacts of BillC-39 won't weaken the grain quality assurance system? I know that several of the producers in western Canada I've heard from who've read the op-ed piece were happy to see the information in the op-ed piece. Do you believe this was a success?

[Elwin Hermanson]

I wouldn't describe it, Mr. Easter, as strong concerns, but I would say that there is some uncertainty as to the practical results of the implementation of Bill C-39. That's an area the commission was involved in for some time prior to the tabling of this bill. In fact, that discussion and advice regarding these same issues was given to the previous government. It goes back to the 2002 independent report that was talking about the removal of some mandatory services that are currently provided by the--

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I'll leave it up to the discretion of the witness. He has talked about Bill C-39 already, so I guess that door is open.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

That's one of our major concerns. I think you can see that from the questioning from the opposition.

The history of this government has been to basically undermine the independent authorities of regulatory bodies, the Canadian Wheat Board being one. They didn't like the CEO challenging them and speaking for the board, as was his responsibility, and they fired him. It was the same with the nuclear regulator--the Canadian nuclear safety commissioner. She was fired for having done her job under the legislation.

My concern is not necessarily on your qualifications, but where you will take your direction from. Will you have the independence to stand up to the minister when concerns arise? You did mention the other two commissioners, the assistant commissioner and the deputy commissioner, and I know both of those folks as well. But I also know, like you, that they've long been advocates against the Canadian Wheat Board. Their views very much parallel the minister's.

I'm concerned about the weakening role of the Canadian Grain Commission. I laid it out on the table in the beginning. I do think it was an error, and I was hoping you would say it was an error, in terms of your strong promotion of Bill C-39.

In any event, you did say to Mr. Lauzon that there were many farmers who expressed support for Bill C-39. In your role as chief commissioner, have you had any concerns expressed on the opposite side--very strong concerns--about Bill C-39 and where it might go?

I don't know whether that's in order or not, Mr. Chairman.

[Elwin Hermanson]

Thank you for the question.

First of all, the agriculture sector is a large one, and the Canadian Grain Commission deals with the grains component of that sector. Whatever we do has to be within the mandate of the Canada Grain Act, either the current one or future acts as determined by Parliament. So anything I do, anything the commissioners do, anything the Grain Commission does has to be under the auspices of the Canada Grain Act. I want to make that very clear.

That said, under the Canada Grain Act as it currently exists and as it would exist under Bill C-39, we are a player in the registering of new varieties to meet the challenges of current and future market opportunities. You mentioned biofuels. There are also feed grains, agronomic principles, and disease resistance. The work we do at the Canada Grain Commission equips producers or gives producers the seed, if I can be really blunt, to help them prosper in the agriculture economy that they are in and will face into the future.

I consider that role to be very important. Anything to do with food I think is incredibly important, because food is such a critical ingredient that, as Canadians, we take much too much for granted. The Canadian Grain Commission is one of the factors that ensure quality of food. The CFIA is another, and Health Canada is another. But we have our niche; we have our role to play in ensuring the safety of grains. All this is for the benefit of producers.

There is a change in agriculture. Back when I started farming, which I guess was about the same time as you did, sir, they were still coopering boxcars. Now we're moving to IP, where a lot of our grain is moving through containers, which provides some challenges for the Grain Commission. Under the existing act, we're set up to handle carloads of grain, and not so much containers.

So these are challenges of the future that the Grain Commission has to stay on top of, and we have to function within the Canada Grain Act to serve producers, serve the grain industry, and serve Canadians in such a way that this industry prospers and that the farm sector is a healthy one.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Thank you very much.

Of course, we are here to analyze competence and qualifications, and your resumé seems rather thin. Many of my graduate students have longer, more comprehensive resumés than this. A lot of your administrative experience, if this is what the job entails, seems to be of a biblical or religious nature, as opposed to in a corporate organization such as this.

It's hard to determine whether there will be forward thinking or unbiased thinking, that there's no ideological lock here. So my two questions will be to determine whether as a progressive thinker...and I know the Conservatives don't like the word “progressive” anymore.

First, as standing operating procedure, the use of opinion editorial pieces that set a personal agenda outside of the organization but effectively determine its course is an issue we are concerned about here. It means that you'll be operating outside the board or the mandate.

The second question is on policy and procedures. In terms of your own management style, would you continue to muzzle an employee or threaten them with discipline if they spoke about bills such as Bill C-39?

Those are the two questions, and if there's time left over--

[Elwin Hermanson]

The commission has dialogued with producer groups right across Canada with regard to Bill C-39. We're playing an information role, trying to explain to them what's in the bill. Quite frankly, there are parts of the bill that actually strengthen the role the Canadian Grain Commission would be able to enact. There is the administering of penalties that has increased. There is the “subject to inspection”, which has expanded to processors and to grain dealers, whereas before it was just to primary elevators. So there is some expansion of powers of the Canadian Grain Commission. There is also reduction of mandatory services.

My observation is that while a lot of the industry hasn't cast judgment one way or the other, generally they think the direction is correct. I think this committee in some of its recommendations was moving in the same direction, as I mentioned in my statement. There are disagreements at a party level as to some of the details, but I think generally the reduction in some mandatory services that aren't required any longer is pretty generally accepted by the industry, from producers right through to buyers of Canadian grains and Canadians as a whole.

[Elwin Hermanson]

Yes, I'm happy to respond.

First of all, I will offer to the committee that when Bill C-39 comes before this committee I would be happy to come back, and I will bring experts with me from the commission, as is deemed appropriate, so that we can answer your questions as deeply as you want to drill down.

In just a general way, I would comment that Bill C-39 accommodates some of the recommendations of the committee. Obviously anyone who can read would recognize that not all of the recommendations of the committee are dealt with in Bill C-39. I'm not sure it's unusual for a government to deal with some and not all.

I could tell you where there is common ground and which recommendations are not dealt with in Bill C-39, but I'm not sure there's benefit in going over what we all are aware of. All I can tell you is that I've read the bill, I've read the committee's report, and I recognize where there is concurrence and where there are issues that aren't dealt with. Perhaps they will be in the future.

That's a political decision; that's not the decision of the chief commissioner. We're in place to advise the minister and to deal with what's on the table.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

I just want to point out that the witness himself mentioned Bill C-39 in his speech. So I do not see why we could not raise it.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Just before Mr. Hermanson begins, this is outside of the scope of today. Today we're talking about Mr. Hermanson's qualifications. I'm sure we're going to have Mr. Hermanson back when we have Bill C-39 at committee, and at that point we'll address it.

Again, coming back to the rules, he is not here to advise us on policy; he's here to implement the Canada Grain Act as we, as a committee, make our recommendations back to the House when we report it back.

Do you have a point of order?

[Elwin Hermanson]

It's been a long time, because we were discussing some of these issues when I sat on this committee and we had the chief commissioner of the Grain Commission come before us. Of course, I had to try to get feedback for my constituents to find out what their position was on the Grain Commission and other issues.

I can tell you, quite frankly, that there is support for the Canadian Grain Commission among all stakeholders in the industry, particularly among producers, and support for the work of the Grain Commission continues and is strong today. The fact that the Grain Commission is not in the news every other day is a good thing. It is doing good work, and the farmers appreciate that.

That being said, the other thing farmers are particularly concerned about is input costs. I would imagine this committee is very aware of the fact that input costs are one of the greatest impediments to a positive bottom line, even with higher commodity prices. Within the Grain Commission and among farmers, there has been discussion for quite some time about how those input costs could be reduced as they relate to the Canadian Grain Commission. That is the area that Bill C-39 tries to address, and it's obviously something I'm hearing from producers.

[Elwin Hermanson]

There are couple things that I don't mind putting on the record, and I hope I'm not breaking any rules of the committee.

First, years ago Minister Ritz and I were colleagues. But this had no bearing—from either my perspective or his—on my decision to let my name stand for the chief commissioner's position.

Second, with regard to the Canadian Wheat Board, the board is a client of the Canadian Grain Commission. It is my intention as chief commissioner to have a positive relationship with the Canadian Wheat Board, as we would hope to have with all our clients. Beyond that, I don't believe it is the role of the chief commissioner to speak on Wheat Board issues. I haven't and I won't.

You talked about the op-ed piece. When I assumed the position of chief commissioner on January 21 of this year, senior management from the commission, including the other two commissioners, approached me about writing an introductory letter. We worked on the op-ed piece with three purposes in mind.

The primary purpose was to identify me with the Canadian Grain Commission. That is why I was signatory to the letter. I wanted the industry, from producers to customers abroad, to know that the new chief commissioner for the Canadian Grain Commission was Elwin Hermanson.

The second reason we wrote the op-ed piece was to reassure farmers, the industry, and customers of the Canadian Grain Commission that Bill C-39 would not weaken Canada's grain quality assurance system. That's the raison d'être for the Canadian Grain Commission. That's the reason for the Canada Grain Act—to ensure that Canada's grain quality assurance system is second to none in the world, which I believe it is. It's my commitment to maintain that quality. We discussed the impact of Bill C-39.

Finally, I wanted to state that farmers will continue to be protected under the Canada Grain Act. I wanted to make it known that the Canada Grain Act would remain in existence under Bill C-39, and that it would continue to provide farmers with the protection they had experienced in the past.

Those were the three purposes for writing the op-ed article. I concurred with that decision then and I concur with it now. Those objectives were correct. I think it's unfortunate that it's become a political football, because it was never intended to be that.

[Elwin Hermanson, Chief Commissioner, Canadian Grain Commission]

Good morning, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It brings back some memories, and I would say good memories, being back in committee. Not too many times have I sat as a witness, although I have sat as a witness before committee in the past. I have sat in the chairs of the honourable members and I found it a very rewarding experience. I feel honoured that I would be asked to appear before your committee this morning.

I have a statement that I believe is less than 10 minutes. To make sure that it is, I'll undertake it right away.

Honourable members, I am pleased to appear before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food today. I understand that the principal reason you have invited me to appear before you today is to discuss my appointment as chief commissioner to the Canadian Grain Commission. I would first like to make a brief statement and then I would be pleased to answer any questions.

To begin, I would like to underline what an honour it is for me to work on behalf of Canadian farmers and Canadians at large as the chief commissioner of the CGC. As Canada's grain industry regulator, the CGC is responsible for Canada's grain quality and quantity assurance systems, grain research, and producer protection. As chief commissioner to the CGC, I am personally committed to these important objectives and to upholding Canada's world-class brand reputation.

As you know, my appointment comes at a time of change and modernization for the CGC, as reflected in Bill C-39, An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act, which was recently introduced in the House of Commons. The CGC needs a strong management and sound guidance to lead it during this period of transformation.

Throughout my career, honourable members, I have displayed strong skills both as a leader and as a manager. I have an extensive background in agribusiness and public service in Canada, with 32 years of farming and elected experience at both the federal and provincial levels. As a farmer, I managed my family farm in Beechy, Saskatchewan, which is a diversified operation producing grains, pulse crops, and oilseeds, and it includes a commercial cow-calf operation. At the federal level, I served as a member of Parliament for the Saskatchewan riding of Kindersley--Lloydminster from 1993 to 1997. During that time I served on the same committee as you represent today, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. I also demonstrated my leadership skills participating on the steering subcommittee and working as the leader of the official opposition from 1999 to 2004 in the Saskatchewan legislature.

Throughout my career, one of my priorities was the development and the communication of agricultural policy. I'm proud to say that my political success was founded upon my knowledge of the agriculture sector. In fact, my years spent in public service have depended on strong support from farm communities and farm families. I accepted the position of chief commissioner to the CGC because of my profound desire to serve Canadian farmers and Canadians generally.

As I mentioned earlier, my appointment as chief commissioner comes at a time of change and modernization for the organization. I must say it's an exciting time to be grain farming. I recognize that it's also an equally difficult time in the livestock sector. The Canadian Cattlemen's Association is in town. I've run into some of them, and we certainly feel for the economic pressures they're feeling now. But commodity prices are at an all-time high for cereal grains, and oilseed producers are finally beginning to reap the benefits of what they sow.

While Canadian farmers continue to serve traditional export markets, new opportunities are becoming available. Canadian grain is increasingly marketed to niche markets and domestic value-added enterprises such as livestock and biofuels processing. To sustain this growth, both farmers and the grain industry are seeking more opportunities and a more cost-effective grain handling system.

Many grain sector stakeholders, including farmers, have been requesting updates to the Canada Grain Act for many years. In this context the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food introduced Bill C-39, An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act, to the House of Commons last December. Bill C-39 represents the Government of Canada's vision of a modern CGC, one that is positioned to meet the changing needs of today's grain sector. The government is focused on reducing mandatory regulations and unnecessary costs while maintaining the advantages of Canada's grain quality assurance system.

Honourable members, I understand that while your respective parties have agreed on the need for modernization of the act, they may not all completely agree on the details of that change. The final outcome of a bill must be decided by members of Parliament, and it is the role of the chief commissioner to administer the Canada Grain Act as passed by Parliament. While it is the duty of the CGC to support the government's agenda and policy direction, I will not, nor will the CGC, prejudge the outcome of Parliament's deliberations.

I want to clearly state the commission's principal responsibility is to administer the Canada Grain Act.

The chief commissioner must lead the organization to ensure ongoing protection for producers and Canada's reputation for high-quality grains and must be supportive of the government's agenda. This leads me to discuss recent criticism of an op-ed article I produced for two different western Canadian publications.

First, I would like to clarify that the op-ed article was intended as a personal introduction to farmers and the grain industry in my new role as the chief commissioner of the CGC. Second, my objective was to reassure producers, grain industry stakeholders, and customers of Canadian grain that Bill C-39 will not weaken the grain quality assurance system. Third, farmers need to be reassured that producers will continue to be protected under the Canada Grain Act.

Honourable members, before I respond to your questions, I also wish to address one final issue, the CGC memo to employees. The CGC memo has been referred to as a government gag order in both the media and in the House of Commons. There is no government gag order, and the allegations of political involvement are unfounded.

No one in the office of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food or in the Prime Minister's Office requested that CGC management issue this memo. It is an internal document that was produced by the CGC senior management on its own in response to employee questions about political activities regarding Bill C-39.

The CGC directive to employees regarding their political activities is based on the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service. It states that public servants are free to express their views about the amendments to their members of Parliament as long as they don't publicly criticize the government. The Values and Ethics Code for the Public Service also clearly states that public servants must loyally implement ministerial decisions lawfully taken. I would also like to clarify that this code has been in effect since 2003.

In closing, honourable members, it is clear that the CGC is facing an exciting period of modernization and change. I also wish to reiterate that it is the CGC's duty to support the government's agenda and policy direction. I am confident that the integrity of the grain quality assurance system and the reliability of Canadian grain exports will be maintained; in fact, I'm committed to that outcome.

Finally, it's with a deep sense of pride in this 96-year-old institution that I assume the position of chief commissioner to the CGC. I look forward to serving farmers and all Canadians in my new position.

Thank you very much.

Canada Grain Act

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the well-researched remarks by the member for British Columbia Southern Interior.

I agree with him when he stated that the government moves rapidly in areas such as trying to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board, which it is attempting to do, in terms of trying to weaken the Canadian Grain Commission, and now the minister's ridiculous announcement to do away with KVD by August 1, which industry, the Canadian Wheat Board, nearly everybody in the system, except the right-wing friends of the parliamentary secretary over there, claim should not be done until 2010 or it will completely disrupt the industry. It will in fact put Canada at risk in terms of supplying the quality grain it has a reputation of supplying around the world.

When it comes to responding to the beef and hog crisis, the government is absolutely missing in action. Why can it not move rapidly in that area?

Let me turn to the specific bill we are talking about, Bill C-39, on the Canadian Grain Commission.

We see that the Conservative government is undermining the authority of farmers. The original Canadian Grain Act has in the mandate that it is in the interests of producers. The new bill takes that out. That crowd on the other side is not really interested in doing anything in the interests of producers and it shows. The Conservatives are undermining them with the Canadian Wheat Board. They are undermining them with the Canadian Grain Commission. They are missing in action on hogs and beef. The Conservatives are turning over the authority of the Canadian Grain Commission to the interests of industry rather than producers. I would like to ask the hon. member his point of view on that.

There are other problems with the bill. The Conservatives are taking away the appeals tribunal. There were 2,000 appeals last year. There is nothing about reporting to Parliament in this bill. That right is being taken away and Parliament will not know what is going on with the Canadian Grain Commission and the Canadian Grain Act. They are taking away the necessity of grain companies having to post a bond to protect producer interests.

I would like to get the member's comments on that critique of the bill and certainly the critique of a government that is missing in action when it comes to developing real solutions for farmers in this country.

The Conservatives like to say that they put farmers first, but everything they are doing is putting farmers absolutely last.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to have this debate. The Canadian Grain Commission is the result of an act of 1912, which established three grain commissioners to oversee the regulation of the movement of grain from the country elevator to the point where it was loaded for export or processed in Canada. It has functioned in the interest of farmers. One of the main reasons it exists is to retain quality, so the wheat we send overseas has a stamp of quality from Canada.

Today, approximately 700 dedicated employees arbitrate disagreements over grain and weight, inspect grain passing in and out of terminal elevators, license and regulate elevators and grain companies and, most important, administer the Canadian grading system. Canadian grains are trusted and respected throughout the world due to the honesty and thoroughness of the Canadian Grain Commission.

I point out that we have specialists, people who have studied and learned what they are doing, working on behalf of farmers in Canada. Unfortunately, the way the bill stands now approximately 200 people stand to lose their jobs in the name of deregulation and privatization. That is one thing of which we have to be aware.

Grades like number 1 or number 2 Canadian western red spring wheat correspond to established specifications based on measures such as a percentage in the shipment of damaged or broken kernels or other kinds of seeds and of foreign matter such as dirt, as well as moisture content and the weight of grain. The grades assigned by the Grain Commission are under the control of the western and eastern grain standards committees, which meet and make decisions about any changes or additions to the grades that may be necessary because of changing market and crop conditions. Each year they also establish standards samples for each grade.

I mention that to underline the fact that the Grain Commission has a useful function. Any time we want to change or modify the way it works, we have to tread very carefully.

Bill C-39, as it stands, has a potential threat to Canadian grain producers. We know the Grain Commission has served as an independent referee to settle disputes between Canadian grain producers and the powerful companies that buy and export. It is no secret that our system of doing things in Canada is under attack. When I posed the question to our chief negotiator at the WTO last week during committee, he admitted, for example, that there was pressure internationally for us to do away with our state trading institutions, namely the Wheat Board. That same pressure exists to modify or to eventually make the Grain Commission not as serving as it is today. We have to be careful.

The commission has also served as the body that determines the amounts farmers are paid based on the Grain Commission determination of the weight and quality of grain before it goes to market. These roles would dramatically diminish if Bill C-39 becomes law, leaving producers newly disadvantaged in their dealings with grain companies when it comes to determining grain quantity and quality.

The producer can hire a private company to grade and weigh the grain even though no such companies exist today. The bill would also expose grain producers to financial harm in the event of a grain buyer bankruptcy or refusal to pay.

The feeling among many people who are in the business is that this will also undermine Canada's international reputation as an exporter of top quality grain. For example, the proposed elimination of inward inspection will likely result in diminished quality of Canadian grain exports. Currently, inward inspection by the Canadian Grain Commission ensures grains of different quality can be segregated to protect higher grades from being diluted by lower quality grain.

It took me a while to wrap my head around this, but I understand that when the grain goes to the elevator, for example, in Vancouver, which I have visited a number of times before with my farmer uncle from Saskatchewan, that the grain is put in bins and that quality is retained. The quality is there because of outward inspection when the grain is loaded on to ships.

Therefore, the way I understand it, there is the possibility, if there is no inward and outward inspection, there could be a mixture decreasing the quality of the grain, tarnishing Canada's reputation as an exporter of quality grain.

There is something called kernel visual distinguishability, or KVD, which is performed by the Grain Commission with this inward inspection. The bill proposes to do away with this.

I refer to an article by Mr. Wade Sobkowich, who is the executive director of the Western Grain Elevators Association. In general, the feeling is that we have to be very careful before doing away with KVD. Technologies are in the process of being worked on and finalized that can replace this famous black box, which we were told about at committee. However, to date nothing really exists to replace KVD.

Right now only certain varieties are eligible for a particular class and KVD means that a trained person can differentiate between the classes through visual inspection. Any grain that contains an excess of varieties outside of the intended class is downgraded to the Canada feed grain. In other words, if I understand this correctly, by having KVD, we are able to retain, with qualified people who understand it, a quality in the grain we export.

KVD is a consideration used by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency when deciding what varieties should be registered.

The biggest problem, according to Mr. Sobkowich, with removing KVD is the obvious one. It exists to protect the farmer because it allows settlement at the time of delivery.

Just as an aside, one of the problems with the bill, which goes contrary to one of the recommendations we made in committee, is it does not put the farmer first and foremost. The farmer is lumped into all the other segments of the agriculture industry.

Therefore, KVD protects the grain handler because the certificate final is based on a visual grading system. It protects the marketer by giving assurances that the customer is receiving what he or she has ordered. It protects the end use customers by providing confidence that they are receiving grain that meets the processing requirements.

The Western Grain Elevators Association is not saying that we have to keep KVD forever, that this is ingrained in stone. What it is saying is let us be very careful. Let us tread lightly. Let us ensure we do not replace something until we have something better to act in the interest of farmers.

What has been happening with the government is it appears to be willing to act very quickly and often recklessly with regard to the Wheat Board and the Grain Commission. Yet it seems to drag its feet when it comes to immediate aid that is needed for pork and cattle producers, which we saw during the debate. Somehow the government can act quickly if it wants, but if it does not want to, then we have the spin that it cannot get aid to people right away. Therefore, we have to tread very carefully.

So why is Bill C-39 flawed? Instead of having a study done by a parliamentary committee, the government used a report prepared by a polling firm whose very existence depends on contracts from government and large corporations.

COMPAS, which conducted the study that led to Bill C-39, had a favourable—I repeat, favourable—bias for deregulation and privatization right from the start.

So I ask the following question: how can a firm conduct a study if it has a favourable bias for deregulation from the get go. When a study is done, it is expected to be based on an examination of both sides of the issue.

Moreover, due to lack of funding, the Canadian Grain Commission has not been able to fulfill its mandate, and these failures are being used as an excuse to deregulate or privatize services to farmers.

What we have here is a ploy that involves cutting funding. We have seen the same thing in the health system. Then the government claims that the system is not working, but the reason for that is the lack of funding. If one looks at the commission's recommendations, one will see that one of these recommendations is to allocate sufficient funding to the commission so it can do its job properly.

Again, I want to stress the fact that this bill benefits large corporations rather than farm families. If we pass it in its current form, farmers will no longer have their say.

I will continue reading from a press release by the National Farmers Union, which states:

Many of those recommendations [in the report] would accelerate the economic leverage of large grain companies and railways at the expense of farmers, according to the NFU. “The mandate of the [Canadian Grain Commission], since the Act was first implemented in 1912, has recognized that farmers have less power in the marketplace and need certain protections,” said Boehm. He noted the Compas report specifically recommends “narrowing the mandate to protect producers' rights from a broad over-arching principle, down to some very specific limits.”

Boehm refuted the claim by the authors of the Compas report that they had heard no positive feedback about the CGC during their consultation process. “Such a claim is categorically not accurate,” said Boehm. “Particularly given our direct experiences at the public meetings in Saskatoon and Regina. Grain producers at both those meetings unequivocally expressed support for the CGC, particularly the role of the Assistant Commissioners.”

I would like to take an aside here and tie this in with what we have been experiencing with the whole debate on the Canadian Wheat Board. We have been told time and time again by the government that we have to move ahead for marketing choice, that we have to dismantle single desk, and that farmers are wanting this choice at this time. Yet in my office I have over 700 individual letters from people, some handwritten, some typed, which say that we have to be careful. These people say they do not want to do away with the Canadian Wheat Board and the single desk.

Then there is the spin we get from the government, which is that all these letters came from the same fax. Certainly. They are from members of the National Farmers Union. The National Farmers Union provides a service to its members. A member sends a letter and the NFU faxes it to me and other MPs. These are not form letters. These are individual letters. There are many gut-wrenching letters asking what the government is doing and why it is moving so quickly to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board. I would say that this is the same sentiment that there is out there among many farmers in regard to the Canadian Grain Commission.

I will move on to an article from the Winnipeg Free Press, in which we see that the minister has decided not to work with the board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board and is actually threatening to introduce legislation, I think he said within 10 days, if he does not get his way.

Since I became a member of the agriculture committee and have taken up this file, I have always thought how nice it would be if the current minister--or the previous minister--would sit down with those elected officials who are there on behalf of farmers. It would be nice if he would sit down with all farmers' organizations, especially an organization such as the National Farmers Union, which represents thousands and thousands of farmers.

The minister could sit down, hammer out a solution and try to work with the system as it is. As we can see, the Wheat Board is trying to introduce new programs. The majority of the board's directors want the federal government and the malt and barley industry “to give their new CashPlus barley marketing initiative a chance”. As well, states the Winnipeg Free Press article, “The program seeks to put more money into farmers' hands sooner than with the current pooling system”.

So it is not as if the Wheat Board directors are stuck in a time zone. They understand what is happening, but at the same time they want to ensure that the market power stays with the farmers and they are not at the mercy of the big multinationals.

It is disturbing when we hear a minister give ultimatums. I will quote him from the article in the Winnipeg Free Press:

“They can lead, follow or get the hell out of the way,” he said.

What is that? What kind of a statement is that from the Minister of Agriculture of our country?

Now we will move on. Yesterday I received a letter from the president of the National Farmers Union, who was extremely upset over the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture in debate the other night.

It is incredible. I will quote what he is saying:

One of your other defamatory allegations in the same emergency debate is that acting as the President of the National Farmers Union, I have “disappeared on this issue [the CWB] this year”. Again, although you know this to be opposite to the truth (I have attached my recent press releases on the CWB issue as you are pretending that you haven't seen them), you seem to think you can mislead your fellow members of the House of Commons, and this is a further disgrace to yourself and your party.

In the last paragraph, he poses a question to the parliamentary secretary:

Do you have the integrity required to stand in the House of Commons and apologize to your colleagues and then make a further apology to me for your unsubstantiated, defamatory, and incorrect remarks?

I will pose the question to the Parliamentary Secretary for the Canadian Wheat Board: does he have the integrity to do this?

I hope that when we come back to the House he in fact will stand up and apologize, because it is time to work in a spirit of cooperation. Farmers want to work in a spirit of cooperation with the government. The government is doing some good things. It is not a time for confrontation.

It is not a time for shenanigans, as we saw yesterday in committee when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture tried to stop debate on Bill C-33 and rush it through, back to the House, even though he knew witnesses were lined up to be heard on this important issue. The issue of biofuels is not something that we just move through. It has to be looked at and we must at least put on the record that there are concerns.

Thankfully we have a committee chairman with integrity who stood up and made the right decision. I would like to applaud him for that.

In the minutes I have remaining, I would like to quote from a letter dated January 18 from the organization called Save My Canadian Wheat Board:

[Bill] C-39 includes some of the amendments proposed in the review and is sure to cause further controversy. For one, it proposes to remove the phrase from the act that requires the [Canadian Grain Commission] to regulate the entire grain industry “in the interests of grain producers”. Instead of the focus of the act being the protection and promotion of the interests of grain producers, the interests of producers that would be protected by the act are spelled out specifically and narrowly.

That is just one example from friends of the group, Save My Canadian Wheat Board. Further on, the letter states:

Likely to be highly controversial, and certainly not recommended by the 2006 review, [Bill] C-39 removes the requirement that companies wishing to be licensed by the [Canadian Grain Commission] as primary elevators must post adequate security to cover potential losses farmers may incur if the company goes bankrupt. The security posted by companies in the past has not always been adequate, but it has certainly protected farmers from huge losses in some cases.

I would like to once again emphasize that we have to take the precautionary approach before we move quickly. Often the government has not done that in dealing with health and with the environment and now in dealing with the lives of farmers and our grain industry.

The precautionary approach means that we tread very carefully before we move in to throw something out and bring in something new when we are not quite certain what the future will bring. This is especially so in light of the fact that today in the world there is this thrust, this feeling, in regard to Canada that other countries and the WTO want us to do away with any protection we have for our farmers. That is a threat not only to the Canadian Wheat Board, but also to supply management. We can see it.

I would like to conclude by saying that the bill as it currently stands certainly does not receive my support or the support of my party. I hope we have a chance to look at it and turn it into a bill that reflects the interests of all farmers in Canada.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois on Bill C-39, An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act. I would like to start by saying that the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of this bill, which would modernize the Canada Grain Act.

We are uncertain about some parts of the bill, though. For example, what would replace payment securities for producers? The Bloc Québécois therefore reserves judgment on the bill. We hope to hear comments from producers, but unfortunately very few of them testified before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

In addition, we need to recognize that the bill does not affect Quebec producers directly. We remain vigilant. The reform of the Canadian Grain Commission is taking place in a specific context. The Conservatives are trying to dismantle the marketing mechanisms that protect the interests of producers, such as the Canadian Wheat Board and supply management.

The Conservative government has appointed a friend of the minister to head the Canadian Grain Commission. The Bloc Québécois wonders whether the new commissioner will defend producers' interests or the minister's.

As for the details of the bill, the Bloc Québécois notes that the government is implementing some recommendations of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, such as modernizing the mandate of the Canadian Grain Commission and eliminating mandatory inward inspection and weighing.

However, the Bloc Québécois is skeptical about the elimination of the Grain Appeal Tribunal and the payment security program, because we do not know what will replace it.

The Bloc Québécois also condemns the fact that the government has not introduced an office of grain farmer advocacy, as the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food recommended.

The Canada Grain Act has been amended several times since the early 1970, but not substantially. The legislation was last amended in May 2005 to enable Canada to meet its WTO commitments. During the legislative process, stakeholders called for an amendment to require a comprehensive review of the Canada Grain Act and the Canadian Grain Commission.

On August 1, 2005, clause 2.1 of Bill C-40 came into force, adding section 120.1 to the Canada Grain Act, which requires a review of the Canadian Grain Commission. COMPAS Inc., a consulting firm, was hired to conduct the review, which was based on reviews carried out over the previous six years. COMPAS Inc. held extensive online consultations with industry stakeholders as well as public meetings across the country.

The COMPAS report, which was tabled in the House of Commons and the Senate in September 2006, was referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food for review. The committee issued its report in December 2006.

In summary, Bill C-39 amends the Canada Grain Act.

It clarifies the Canadian Grain Commission’s objects; combines terminal elevators and transfer elevators into a single class of elevators called “terminal elevators”; eliminates mandatory inward inspection and weighing as well as some requirements for weigh-overs at elevators; extends the right to require the Commission to determine the grade and dockage of grain at process elevators and grain dealers’ premises; eliminates the Grain Appeal Tribunals; eliminates the Commission’s ability to require security as a condition for obtaining or maintaining a licence; creates additional regulatory powers for the Commission; modifies enforcement provisions and creating certain new offences; and ensures that some of the requirements and procedures set out are clarified and modernized and that certain language is updated.

The bill also amends the Act to amend the Canada Grain Act and the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act and to repeal the Grain Futures Act as well as another act, and includes transitional provisions and coordinating amendments.

It is important for the Bloc Québécois to quickly describe grain production in Quebec.

The grain grown in Quebec is primarily for domestic consumption, especially for feeding Quebec poultry, cattle and hogs.

For these two reasons, producers in Quebec have never felt the need for a marketing system as centralized as the one in western Canada. Marketing in Quebec is governed by the Act respecting the marketing of agricultural, food and fish products. Under that act, the Régie may, on the application of any interested person, designate a person to inspect grain facilities or to grade or inspect grain. After the inspection or grading, the Régie shall issue a grain grading or grain inspection certificate to the interested person.

The Plan conjoint des producteurs de cultures commerciales, which was adopted and implemented in October 1982, gave the federation of Quebec producers of cash crops the means to negotiate the terms and conditions under which certain crops would be sold.

Until very recently, that federation had a fairly limited mandate in respect to the marketing of crops. In 2005, however, two-thirds of the affected producers agreed to the cooperative food-grade wheat marketing regulations—Règlement sur la mise en vente en commun du blé destiné à la consommation humaine—and that marked the beginning of their collective assumption of control over marketing. This was followed by a mandate from the Quebec National Assembly to establish terms and conditions for the sale of other grains, in particular, centralized payment management, the obligatory provision of information about transactions and a floor-price system.

There are more than 11,000 farmers in Quebec who grow and market such grains as oats, wheat, canola, corn, barley and soybeans on nearly a million hectares of land. Total grain production is about four million tonnes, worth a total of $750 million at the farm gate.

Our grains do have some special characteristics and uses. Quebec is especially responsive to niche export markets, such as GMO-free soybeans for human consumption. Quebec oats are also particularly prized in the United States for horse feed.

Bill C-39 obviously makes some changes to the Canadian Grain Commission. I want to turn now to the most important issues for grain producers—issues that were actually already addressed when the parliamentary committee considered the 100 recommendations from COMPAS.

Let us look at the change in the Canadian Grain Commission's mandate. Through this bill, the government would change it in such a way that, in addition to the interests of grain producers, the Commission would also consider the interests of the industry as a whole, including grain processors.

The Canadian Grain Commission’s mandate will be split into two parts. Part one will set out the CGC's core mandate to establish and maintain standards of quality for Canadian grain and regulate grain handling in Canada to ensure a dependable commodity for domestic and export markets. Part two will establish that the CGC shall specifically protect producer interests with respect to deliveries to elevators and grain dealers, access to binding CGC determination of the grade and dockage of grain deliveries, and the allocation of producer cars.

At present, the mandate of the Canadian Grain Commission is to, “in the interests of producers, establish and maintain standards of quality for Canadian grain and regulate grain handling in Canada, to ensure a dependable commodity for domestic and export markets”.

Clause 3 of the bill amends section 13 of the Canada Grain Act by removing the words “in the interests of producers” from the purpose for which “standards of quality for Canadian grain and regulate grain handling in Canada to ensure a dependable commodity for domestic and export markets” are to be established and maintained.

Like the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food, the Bloc Québécois supports modernization of the Canadian Grain Commission’s mandate. Our party recognizes that the commission must be able to consider broader interests, such as public health, preserving the enviable reputation of Canadian grain producers, and other interests.

Obviously, the Bloc Québécois is sensitive to the concerns of grain producers who believe that Bill C-39 is drafted in such a way as to reduce the protection it affords grain producers. That was one of the questions we had and we will pursue it in committee.

The National Farmers Union has told us, for example, that it is essential to preserve the language of the existing Act, which includes the expression “in the interests of producers” to describe the purpose of the Canadian Grain Commission and the standards of quality in the regulations respecting grain handling operations in Canada.

We know that the Conservative government is allergic to collective marketing mechanisms and instruments that enable producers to earn a fair market return. Deregulation and reducing constraints on the free market are key components of their ideology.

Agricultural producers in Quebec and Canada are quite right to distrust this government, which has set its sights on the Canadian Grain Commission and would like to dismantle supply management in the milk, poultry and egg industries.

On the question of the object or mission of the Canadian Grain Commission, the Bloc Québécois would support any amendment proposed in committee that could provide grain producers with satisfactory protection.

For that reason, the Bloc Québécois will be very vigilant. It is important that this bill be sent to committee so we can examine it in depth, to ensure that producers feel properly protected. That is what is important to the Bloc Québécois. If the producers have doubts about this bill, the Conservatives will find the Bloc Québécois standing up to them.

Obviously governance is going to be an issue with this bill. It is therefore necessary that the Canadian Grain Commission not be politicized. It is important to have a commission in the Canadian quality control system for grain. That is what guarantees the quality of Canadian exports.

The Commission cannot allow itself to be exposed to criticism. It cannot give the impression that its decisions are based on anything other than science and protecting the economic interests in the grain and oilseed supply chain.

It was extremely unwise of the Conservative government to appoint a former Reform Party MP, Elwin Hermanson, to head the Canadian Grain Commission in December 2007. While he has been a grain producer himself, we believe that his close political ties to the present Prime Minister, with whom he sat from 1993 to 1997, cast doubt on his credibility.

It must also be pointed out that there are very close ties between Mr. Hermanson and the present Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food. According to the minister’s website, the minister was Mr. Hermanson's campaign manager in 1993. He was even Mr. Hermanson's constituency office coordinator from 1993 to 1997. The close ties between the minister and Mr. Hermanson, the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Grain Commission, could not be clearer.

Those close ties prompt us to ask the question that is on everyone’s lips: will the new Commissioner of the Canadian Grain Commission stand up for the interests of producers, or the interests of the minister?

Thus, there ought to be an office to defend the rights of grain farmers. As regards the protection of the interests of agricultural producers, the Bloc Québécois deplores the fact that the government rejected the third recommendation of the parliamentary committee, proposing the establishment of an office of grain farmer advocacy that would have reported directly to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

The mandate of the office of grain farmer advocacy, whose role would have been similar to that of an ombudsman, would have been to ensure that producers understand their rights under the act, and to defend their interests in disputes with other stakeholders.

Like the parliamentary committee, we think that such an office would have ensured that the interests of producers are defended in disputes with other stakeholders involved, including the Canadian Grain Commission.

We believe that the communication, consultation, liaison and complaint investigation responsibilities assumed by such an office would have helped strengthened Canada's grain quality assurance system.

As for the elimination of grain appeal tribunals, it goes without saying that the Bloc Québécois has a problem with that part of the bill. Let me explain what the bill does. The grain appeal tribunal hears the complaints of grain producers and companies that are not satisfied with the grades given by the Canadian Grain Commission's inspectors. The chair of the tribunal is an authorized grain inspector, but acting at arm's length. The other members of the tribunal come from the grain industry.

The tribunal's position within the Canadian Grain Commission limits its legitimacy and perceived effectiveness.

Clause 14 of the bill proposes to abolish grain appeal tribunals, which are currently established under sections 35 to 38 of the Canada Grain Act.

We understand that, in case of a disagreement over a ruling made by the chief inspector, who is the first level of appeal, grain producers will no longer be able to turn to the grain appeal tribunal. They will have to turn to the regular courts, which is a costly, long and frustrating process.

That is why the Bloc Québécois maintains that the parliamentary committee did not rule on this issue, and notes that the COMPAS report stated that the Canadian Grain Commission's grain appeal tribunal “has earned some plaudits for effectiveness”.

COMPAS continued, saying, “We believe that the tribunal is respected for the role it plays in disputes over grades, even though some stakeholders may have occasionally felt that the office of the Chief Grain Inspector exerted undue influence”.

The Bloc Québécois is waiting for the government to explain this amendment. We think it is important to refer this bill to committee as quickly as possible so that our party can change it, fill in what is missing, and improve it.

With respect to eliminating inspection and mandatory inward weighing, this is what the bill would do. Weighing and inspection of grain is carried out by the Canadian Grain Commission and is mandatory on bulk shipments overseas but not for container movement or for exports to the United States, where these are optional. Inward inspections are the weighing and grading that take place when railcars or trucks arrive at transfer elevators or terminal elevators. The Canadian Grain Commission then provides third-party weighing so as to forestall errors and to provide assurance to producers.

The government is proposing that inward inspections take place only at the request of the shipper, but that outward weighing and shipping remain mandatory. Terminal and transfer elevator operators will be required to allow access to service providers who will do the weighing and inspection.

While the Canadian Grain Commission will no longer be involved in the delivery of this optional service, both shippers and elevator operators will have access to binding Canadian Grain Commission arbitration in the event of dispute over a grain grade.

Like the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, The Bloc Québécois supports optional inward inspection, as proposed by the government. We agree with this provision of the bill because inward inspection is no longer universally required. Such inspection does not seem to be required in the case of grain shipped to the United States, among other destinations, or by container. The cost of this inspection makes Canadian products less competitive. Grain companies, particularly those that ship grain to companies abroad, want to avoid costs that are not essential to their ability to manage their affairs efficiently. According to COMPAS, “half of the cars unloading grain at terminal elevators come from primary elevators belonging to the same company.”

Mandatory outward inspection and weighing of grains is maintained, and this will help protect the reputation of Canada’s grain products at the international level. We must be careful, however. Since inward inspection is optional, this could increase unit costs and prices by decreasing economies of scale. Making it optional would likely put smaller grain companies that do not have a terminal elevator at a disadvantage in terms of competitiveness. Inspection and weighing fees are collected from the farmer at the primary elevator. Optional inward inspection would benefit larger companies that have a terminal elevator by allowing them to avoid payment of the fees and offering a better price to farmers. Grain companies that have a better geographic location will be in a better position to take advantage of mixed shipments.

The Bloc Québécois believes it is important to promote competition in the grain handling system by helping the smaller companies. That is why our party believes that the Canadian Grain Commission must have sufficient funding so that the commission can maintain efficient and timely services for both producers and smaller handlers who need such services for transactional purposes.

What does the bill do in terms of guaranteeing payment for farmers? The Canadian Grain Commission has long been demanding that licensees provide farmers with guaranteed protection in case of bankruptcy. The guarantee can be in the form of security bonds, cash deposits, credit letters, guarantee insurance or payables insurance in sufficient amounts to cover the eligible liabilities, that is, the amount to be paid to the farmers, or any other acceptable financial instrument. All companies must report their eligible liabilities to the Canadian Grain Commission on a monthly basis. In the past, the amount of the guarantee has been enough to cover most of their obligations to the farmers in most cases of bankruptcy, but not all.

According to COMPAS, since 1982 there have been 19 failures of licensed, bonded companies. Of these 19, there are three instances where the payout was less than 100%, one of which was 98.4%. There are two other instances where the CGC paid producers 100% for failures of companies that were not licensed or carrying security. The CGC made payments in addition to or in the absence of security provisions in a total of five cases.

The Bloc Québécois recognizes, as did the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, that modernization of the system requires an effective and flexible mechanism for contractual security for all participants. Because they are at the beginning of the chain, grain producers need to be contractually protected against breakdowns that could occur down the line.

Our party has noted that the federal government does not require eastern Canada's grain industry—or producers of other crops—to participate in similar guarantee programs.

The Bloc Québécois has noticed that the current system has created a great deal of dissatisfaction. For example, the Western Barley Growers Association recommended a study of costs and benefits.

It is therefore important to understand that the Bloc Québécois believes that this bill should be sent to committee quickly because it is important that changes be made in the interest of grain producers.

We need to take a hard look at this position. This bill must be modernized, but in the interest of producers. The Bloc Québécois will see to it that the interests of producers are respected.

The House resumed from February 1 consideration of the motion that Bill C-39, An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act, chapter 22 of the Statutes of Canada, 1998 and chapter 25 of the Statutes of Canada, 2004, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Royal Galipeau]

It being 1:30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

When we return to the study of Bill C-39 there will be six minutes left for the hon. member for Malpeque for questions and comments.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I expect, Mr. Speaker, that if you asked it, members would probably give unanimous consent for me to have another 20 more.

Bill C-39 does not reflect the unanimous recommendations of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. For the minister to imply otherwise is misleading. The question is why this contempt for the committee, and why this contempt by the minister for his own Conservative colleagues that were on that committee, of which he was one. I suppose it does make some sense because that is the way they continue to act over yonder based on ideology alone.

When the standing committee presented its report in November 2006 it was under the chairmanship of the member who is the current Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. He was chair, and the parliamentary secretary for agriculture at the time is the current Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources. They were at all those committee hearings and ignored the very committee hearings that they should have been encompassing in the bill. Why? Maybe it is, there is the rumour out there that the Prime Minister's Office and government dictates everything, and maybe they have had to toe the line there as well. Maybe that is the case, and I expect it probably is.

There are lots of concerns about this bill coming in. Let me read a few into the record. The National Farmers Union on December 13, 2007, which was the first major organization to draw attention to some of the serious deficiencies in this bill, stated a number of concerns quite clearly. Its president, Stewart Wells, said that Bill C-39 will fundamentally “turn back the clock” on the Canadian Grain Commission. In other words, it will bring us back to the havoc times before the Canadian Grain Commission was put in place. A number of other concerns were outlined, and I will raise them for debate at a later date. The amendments will remove the requirements that the Canadian Grain Commission operate as a public interest watchdog that regulates the overall grain industry “in the interests of producers”.

If this bill passes, the NFU says that the grain industry would become virtually self-regulated, and the CGCs role will be reduced to being a passive service provider that provides grading, weighing, and inspection services to grain companies on a fee for service basis. Farmers' protections will be reduced to a minimal level while the legislation leaves the door open for companies to be able to circumvent those limited provisions.

It went on to say, “Canada's farmers have not advocated for any weakening of the CGC regulatory role. At a time when grain companies like Viterra, ADM, and Cargill are consolidating their hold over the market, it is obvious there needs to be a mechanism in place to provide farmers with protection”. In other words, it is implying that the Conservative government is undermining those protections for farmers through this bill.

It goes on to say, “The current system allows grain inspectors to catch contaminated, off condition, or incorrectly represented car loads while they are being emptied, weighed and elevated, and before they are mixed with large quantities of other grain”. Mr. Wells said, “Eliminating this provision will have a negative effect on farmers' bottom line”.

It is true that eliminating this provision would have a negative effect on farmers' bottom line but it goes to the point of the parliamentary secretary earlier. One of the reasons that kind of contamination and bad grain does not get into the marketplace is because of what the Canadian Grain Commission does now, which is why we are seen as the highest quality supplier of grain in the world. The bill would undercut Canada's ability to be the highest quality grain supplier in the world.

The last point they make is that the amendments also call for eliminating the provision that grain dealers post a security bond before they can be licensed by the CGC. This provision was put in place to protect farmers who would be left holding the bag if the grain company were to go bankrupt. Mr. Wells says, “Eliminating this requirement will not save farmers any money. It will, however, greatly increase their risk.

In other words, another undermining of protection for farmers from the grain trade and grain companies when they do business.

It is interesting to note that one of the organizations that was at the meeting on Monday was the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association. It is supporting the bill. I will admit and I will admit on the record that I sometimes wonder in whose interests the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association speak, whether it is the farmers or in fact the grain trade. The fact that it supports the bill, its name implies that it represents a lot of western grain producers. However, it does not.

It is something like the Western Barley Growers Association. There are 12,000 barley producers in western Canada and on the record before court it said that it represents 130. Therefore, we must question who those organizations really represent.

However, I will get back to the bill. Those were some of the criticisms and concerns raised by a directly represented farmer organization, an organization that is concerned about farmers and their future.

However, what is absolutely shocking, which is typical of the government, it has done no cost benefit analysis on the impact of Bill C-39 with respect to any contracting out of grain inspection, as was called for in recommendation 5 of the standing committee report.

I will explain. This is not unusual from the government, but in terms of a cost benefit analysis, the legislation on changing the CGC shares the same ideological basis as the government's determination to undermine the Canadian Wheat Board. Neither are based on the kind of economic basis that we would expect a government to do. We would expect the government to study and to look at the economic implications on the country, but especially on producers, and it has failed to do that.

Recommendation 5 of the committee report called on the federal government to conduct and complete both pilot projects in contracting out services of grain inspection. The government has failed to comply with this recommendation.

Recommendation 11 required the government to address the issue of specific models which “could be implemented for protecting grain farmers as a result of the elimination of the producer payment program”. What the government provided, in the minister's statement of December 13, 2007, was a suggestion of what “producer groups” could do. It sounds awful familiar to the lack of analysis on the Canadian Wheat Board changes it proposed.

This kind of contempt is becoming common for the government: contempt for parliament, contempt for committees and their reports, and contempt for farmers. It is consistent with the actions that the government has taken with respect to the Canadian Wheat Board that the member talked about earlier.

On July 16, 2007, the director general of marketing policy for Agriculture Canada testified in the hearing on the Canadian Wheat Board court issue, and this makes the point that it goes to the heart of the lack of analysis by the government opposite.

During that testimony, the following questions were asked with respect to the economic impact analysis done by the federal government in relation to the regulations to deregulate barley from a single desk. They were subsequently found to be illegal by the court. The questions were:

Did the government or the civil service or anybody retained by either do any analysis of how the amending regulations would function in the marketplace -- are you aware of any studies of the kind I have mentioned to you?

Answer: No.

Was anybody retained to analyze that in the recent past?

Answer: No.

When governments are making substantive changes that will affect an industry, one would naturally expect that they would do the analysis to see the impact of those changes. The impact of the changes the government wants to the grain commission or the Wheat Board on farmers is of no consequence to the government, obviously, and that is by its own admission.

Why should the government be trusted when it does not do its homework before bringing in legislation that could have a serious impact on primary producers?

The elimination of inward inspections and weighing will cost the Canadian Grain Commission some 200 positions, which is serious. What about the responsibilities that those inward inspections are utilized for? Has there been an analysis done in that regard? There has not.

Measures contained in the legislation would ensure the commission focuses more on the concerns of industry and not just on producers. I will list a number of points that threaten Canadian grain producers in this proposed bill.

The grain commission has served as an independent referee to settle disputes between Canadian grain producers and the powerful companies that buy and export. That is needed even more today than it was in the past.

The commission has also served as the body that actually determines the amount farmers are paid based on the CGCs determination of the weight and quality of grain before it goes to market. That is a concern.

These rules will dramatically diminish if Bill C-39 becomes law, leaving producers newly disadvantaged in their dealings with grain companies when it comes to determining grain quality and quantity.

The producer can hire a private company to grade and weigh their grain even though no such companies exist today. Is that not something?

The bill would also expose grain producers to financial harm in the event of a grain buyer bankruptcy or refusal to pay.

Plus, as I mentioned earlier, there is the danger of undermining Canada's international reputation should the quality of grain be jeopardized as exporters have more authority and farmers have less protection.

The standing committee did good work but the minister, even though he was chair of the committee at the time, selectively took what the government wanted out of that committee report for its own ideological purposes and its own friends who are trying to undermine farmers' empowerment in the marketplace through the Canadian Wheat Board. They are working for the same people.

The government seems to be working for grain companies and not for farmers, and it is farmers in these kind of times who need protection. The bill could undermine that protection for farmers. That is a sad commentary on a government that purports to represent farmers but obviously does not.

We will be looking further at this bill and speaking to it in later debates. Maybe it can be changed for the better, maybe not, but the bill in its current fashion is certainly not acceptable to the official opposition.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it is kind of sad to have to stand in this place and outline my credentials before I start, but the attack on my person by government members is designed to try to discredit what I have to say.

As a former farm leader, I spent 11 years in western Canada on grain issues. I have probably been in as many, or more, farm yards than any of those folks across the way. I have been at many public meetings in the debates on these issues.

Why, as a member of Parliament from Prince Edward of Island, I am speaking on this issue, and the Canadian Wheat Board issue when that opportunity occurs, is that my office is swamped by phone calls, faxes and letters from western Canadian farmers, practising farmers who are concerned about where the Conservative government is taking Canada in terms of its farm policy. It is undermining the Canadian Wheat Board. Clearly, with this bill which has ignored so many of the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, it is undermining the Canadian Grain Commission itself.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board talked about how Canadian grain is recognized as quality number one around the world. That is true. It is recognized as quality number one around the world.

Where we are seen as the quality supplier of grains around the world, the United States is seen as the residual supplier. The Americans may set price, but they are seen as the residual supplier. Why is that? Because farmers long ago advocated for an agency, a commission, the Canadian Grain Commission, that would protect their interests, that would ensure they were protected from the grain trade, along with the Canadian Wheat Board. It would ensure the quality that Canada sold was number one.

It is the Canadian Grain Commission which has put Canada's reputation where it is today, as have the farmers, in terms of producing that high quality grain. So let us give credit where it is due.

We have to ask, if we were to pass this bill as currently composed, would Canada still be recognized as the quality number one supplier of grains around the world? Would Canadian producers still have the protection from industry that they currently have and from the grain trade? As I read the bill, I do not believe they would.

There are some real concerns about what the government has proposed in terms of Bill C-39. What should have been a decent bill after the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food presented its report is like so much of what the current Conservative government does. It leaves out the balance in terms of the proposal and brings forward a bill that is more to do with ideology, with half measures, with no real intent to improve the system in an all conclusive way.

That is sad, because it would have been nice to be able to stand and congratulate the government for once, but again it has denied us that opportunity of support by basically ignoring the will and the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. By so doing, the government is ignoring the will and the recommendations of the farm community. Oh yes, the Conservatives cater to the few, as was clear in the parliamentary secretary's discussion about the meeting this week. They cater to the few, but they ignore the many.

The government has a responsibility in its actions to govern for the whole, not just those that the governing party is ideologically aligned with.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have?

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

moved that Bill C-39, An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act, chapter 22 of the Statutes of Canada, 1998 and chapter 25 of the Statutes of Canada, 2004, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, since this is the first Thursday question of the year, I want to formally welcome everyone back to the House of Commons. Hopefully, we will be even more productive in 2008 than we were in 2007.

Judging by the first sitting day, I think we will be.

So far, the House has passed Bill C-8, on railway transportation, and Bill C-9, on the settlement of investment disputes.

Moreover, Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Judges Act, and Bill C-27, on identity theft, have been referred to committee.

This is a rather good start.

We hope to keep up that level of productivity by quickly passing our legislation to strengthen the security certificates process, which started debate at report stage today. That is of course Bill C-3. We now have a House order to assist us in facilitating that debate. We will continue to debate the bill until report stage is completed.

While all members of the House do not understand the importance of the bill, I believe that the official opposition does. I hope that we can work together in a spirit of cooperation and bipartisanship to have it passed before the date identified by the Supreme Court of Canada as the date by which it would like to see the law passed, February 23.

Following Bill C-3 tomorrow we will continue with the unfinished business from this week, namely Bill C-33, renewable fuels; Bill C-39, the grain act; Bill C-7, aeronautics; and Bill C-5, nuclear liability.

Next week will be a safe and secure Canada week.

Debates will continue until the bill is passed by this House.

After that, we will debate Bill C-25, which would strengthen the Youth Criminal Justice Act, and Bill C-26, which imposes mandatory minimum penalties for producers and traffickers of drugs, particularly for those who sell drugs to children. We also hope to discuss the Senate's amendments to Bill C-13, on criminal procedure.

Finally, in keeping with next week's theme, I would suggest that my hon. colleague opposite explain to his colleagues in the Senate the importance of quickly passing the Tackling Violent Crime Act, the bill which is overwhelmingly supported by Canadians across the country, and which was the number one priority of the government throughout the fall session of Parliament and which passed this House last fall. It has already been in the Senate longer than its entire time in the House of Commons, yet the Liberal dominated Senate has not even started committee hearings on the Tackling Violent Crime Act.

While the elected accountable members of the House rapidly passed the bill, which I would like to remind everyone was a question of confidence, unfortunately it looks like the unelected, unaccountable Liberal dominated Senate is up to its old tricks again of delaying and obstructing in every way. Let me be clear. This government will not stand and allow Liberal senators to obstruct, delay and ultimately kill the bill. The Tackling Violent Crime Act was quickly passed in the House and Canadians expect the Liberal dominated Senate to act in the same fashion and pass it quickly.

Canada Grain Act

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-39, An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act, chapter 22 of the Statutes of Canada, 1998 and chapter 25 of the Statutes of Canada, 2004.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)