This bill was last introduced in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session, which ended in December 2009.
Gerry Ritz Conservative
Second reading (House), as of Oct. 8, 2009
(This bill did not become law.)
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament often publishes better independent summaries.
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.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Diane Finley Conservative Haldimand—Norfolk, ON
moved that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
David Anderson ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board
Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to be here today to speak to the proposed amendments to the Canada Grain Act. The government puts a high priority on this legislation because farmers have asked for it and we agree that it is high time that this act was brought into the 21st century.
Commitment to producers is shown in our improvement to the Canadian Grain Commission's mandate. In the past, because it includes the phrase “in the interests of grain producers”, it has from time to time resulted in differing interpretations of what that means. Based on the recommendations from both the COMPAS group and the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, 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 to regulate grain handling. Part one is undertaken in the interest of all Canadians, but in the interests of producers we felt that we needed to make sure they were specifically recognized. Therefore, part two will establish that the Canadian Grain Commission shall specifically protect producers' interests with respect to a few things.
The first is with respect to deliveries to elevators and grain dealers, the second is with respect to access to binding CGC determination of grades and dockage, and the third is the allocation of producer cars. We have made changes and improvements to the mandate in order to address the concerns we have heard from the industry across Canada.
The Canadian grain sector stands out as a success story among the considerable accomplishments of Canadian agriculture over the last 100 years. Due to the tremendous work of our producers, Canadian wheat, barley and other grains are known by our customers all over the world for their unequalled consistency, cleanliness and quality.
On a yearly basis, farmers earn about $10 billion from grain production in this country. That money helps to keep the economy of Canada running, both urban and rural. It sustains employment through the grain production chain, from farm input suppliers to elevators, to people who transport the grain and to processors. These dollars support our rural communities, which contribute so much to Canada's economy.
To put it in more concrete terms, it is Canadian grain growers who sustain our health and well-being. They are the people who put bread every day on our tables.
This government has taken concrete action in support of the vital agricultural sector in our economy. The minister has always talked about putting farmers first, and he has done that.
Almost three years ago, one of our first acts as a new government was in the interest of grain producers. We accelerated the grains and oilseeds payment program. It was my privilege and pleasure at that time to work with the opposition parties in the House to get that bill through. We worked on it with all the other parties and were able to get quick passage of that bill and those changes.
We are investing more than $2 billion in the development of biofuels to open up new markets for our grain and oilseed producers, to create new jobs for our rural communities and to create a better environment for Canadians. We have given producers a chance to participate in those programs. These dollars have helped with the planning of new biofuel projects across Canada and will help build biofuel and biodiesel plants.
We have improved cash advance programming by doubling the interest-free portion for producers. We are helping the transfer of family farms to young farmers by boosting the capital gains exemption. At the WTO agriculture negotiations, we remain committed to pursuing an outcome that benefits Canada's entire agriculture sector.
Many of us are working to open up our grain marketing structures in order to provide choice for producers. New marketing opportunities will help Canada get through the current economic uncertainty and come out stronger than ever.
As well, we need to move forward on stable, bankable programs. These programs will also help farmers weather the storm and continue to drive the Canadian economy. That is what the goal of the Growing Forward framework is all about: making Canadian agriculture more stable in the present, and then building a strong agricultural sector for the future.
We are working with the provinces and territories to finalize the suite of non-business risk management programs that will be offered in each province. Our goal is to implement those programs before April 1, and we are making good progress on that front.
In terms of business risk management programs, we find them to be a key part of Growing Forward. In the budget delivered in January, we took steps to ensure that Canada and its agricultural industry emerge stronger than ever from the current economic crisis.
I would like to talk about a couple of the things that were in that budget. We announced a $500-million agricultural flexibility plan aimed at helping farmers with regional market challenges and opportunities. These funds will help farmers cope with the cost-of-production pressures, promote innovation, and ensure environmental sustainability.
We also set $50 million aside to strengthen our slaughter and meat processing capacity. That is to aid slaughter plants other than the big ones that we see in the country.
We set $1 billion aside for a community adjustment fund aimed at helping rural communities adopt and adapt to economic challenges.
I would like to talk a little about Bill C-13, the bill that is before us today, and about our commitment to grain producers. The amendments that the government is proposing to the Canada Grain Act and the Canadian Grain Commission are evidence of our commitment to grain producers. I already mentioned the mandate that specifically speaks to the interests of grain producers. Canada's quality assurance system for grain provides a key competitive advantage for our farmers. The amendments that we are proposing will build on that advantage.
When our global customers choose Canadian grain for processing, they count on consistent quality and cleanliness with every delivery. The world-class reputation that our Canadian grains enjoy around the globe has been earned.
First and foremost it has been earned through the hard work of our farmers. Grain handling companies, research scientists, and the Canadian Grain Commission have certainly played a role in building that golden reputation. Our edge in the marketplace is all about quality. Much of the responsibility for quality resides with the Canadian Grain Commission and the quality assurance system that it administers under the Canada Grain Act. That is why this act and the changes that we are making to it are so important.
The grain industry is changing, and the legislative tools required to keep the industry competitive need to change along with it. The Canada Grain Act has not been amended substantially in almost 40 years, so it is time now for us to take a look at that act and make the changes that are relevant to farmers across the country.
The marketplace has evolved. We all understand that. We have a major new customer for grains in the form of the biofuels industry, which has been supported by initiatives put in place by this government.
We have quality management systems that allow amounts of grain with specific qualities wanted by buyers to be kept separate throughout the handling system. That is a huge change from the system that we have had in the past, which has been just a huge bulk handling system. We have new initiatives in place for farmers who want to be able to deliver smaller amounts of grain with specific qualities to their customers.
We have niche marketing. We have processing that is going on in grains across Canada. We also have a broader range of crops in Canada that we need to consider.
In the mid-1990s the reform of the Western Grain Transportation Act triggered a wholesale diversification in western Canada as producers opted to market their grain through livestock or switch to other crops such as oilseed, pulse crops or horticultural crops. In my area, it meant a substantive change; we had probably 80% or 90% grain growing, and now I think we are probably below 50%. Across the prairies, about one-third of the crop land is now growing wheat, and two-thirds are other crops, which we were not growing 20 years ago.
Still we need an act that is relevant to the present and to the future, so I would like to speak to the specific amendments that we are proposing for the Canada Grain Act. These amendments are to help keep our producers competitive by improving the regulatory environment for Canada's grain sector.
The proposed changes to the Canada Grain Act and the Canadian Grain Commission will help the grain sector meet the challenges of a more competitive and market-oriented sector for the 21st century. By removing unnecessary mandatory costs from the grain handling system, the bill works to build a lower cost, more effective and innovative grain sector for our producers.
We are modernizing the regulatory environment. As all costs in the system eventually work their way to farmers, this will result in a less costly system for farmers.
The amendments that we made just did not come out of thin air. They reflect the direction of both the COMPAS report and the good work that was done by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. Both reports reflect extensive consultations that were held with the sector in preparing them. The fact is that this package is built on many of those recommendations, and particularly on the standing committee recommendations. In short, these amendments speak to the will and to the needs of the Canadian grain industry.
I would like to speak specifically about three or four of the changes that we are suggesting.
First, we are suggesting that inward inspection and weighing of grains no longer be mandatory in western Canada. There is no reason to require something that is not necessary, particularly when the cost comes out of the bottom line of farmers and the grain industry.
Currently when farmers deliver gain to the elevator it is graded, the grade is agreed to by the farmers, and then they unload their grain. This will not change. However, currently the Grain Commission is also required to inspect and weight each railcar or truck lot of western grain that is handled by licensed terminal elevators.
The industry has been calling for change in this area for some years now, because mandatory inspections impose costs and are not essential to ensure grain quality. Bill C-13 moves to make inward inspection and weighing no longer mandatory. Instead, shippers of grain will be able to request an inspection at their discretion when they feel that the benefit justifies the cost. Elevators will also be required to allow access to private inspectors when an inspection is requested, and that is a crucial availability that farmers need to maintain.
The Canadian Grain Commission would also be authorized to provide grade arbitration if the parties to a transaction request it. This means that if there is a dispute about a grade, the Canadian Grain Commission would be able to impartially determine the grade.
I want to be clear. This does not mean that grain would go through the system without inspection. Outward inspection would still be required when grain is loaded onto vessels for export, and export vessel shipments would continue to require certification by the CGC, based on inspection and weighing by CGC personnel.
With the bill in place, our customers will be assured that they can continue to have confidence in Canada's grain quality assurance system.
To summarize, the Canadian Grain Commission would continue to regulate the grain handling system for the benefit of producers. It would continue to license grain handlers and dealers. It would continue to require them to have proper grading and weighing equipment and to properly document their purchases. It would also require them to continue to ensure that producers have access to grade arbitration by the Canadian Grain Commission.
The bill would actually enhance farmers' protection by extending Canadian Grain Commission grade and dockage arbitration to farmers delivering to process elevators and grain dealers. Currently, if a producer disagrees with the grade or dockage received for a grain delivery at a licensed elevator, he can ask the CGC to determine the grade and dockage and make a binding decision, but he does not have that same opportunity with regard to other facilities or to grain dealers. The bill proposes to extend this service to deliveries to all licensed grain handlers, including process elevators and grain dealers. Farmers have never had this protection before.
Second, the bill proposes that the Grain Commission would get out of the business of collecting and holding security deposits from licensed elevators and grain dealers under the producer payment security program. The present program has a cost: it ties up working capital that then has no return. The ultimate bill lands in the farmer's mailbox.
The present system has holes in it. We all know that there are some notable failures in which producers found out the security systems do not guarantee that they would be paid. These amendments mean that the field would be open for farmers and farm organizations to develop alternative approaches to producer payment security. In fact, the government has been assisting farm organizations in their efforts to find the appropriate alternative mechanisms for themselves.
Through the private sector risk management partnership program, the government is helping the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to study alternatives. 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 to make the changes that may be necessary in this area.
In addition—
An hon. member
That'll be a change.
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I am glad to hear my colleague from across the way agree that he believes he can work with us on this. So it is good to see that we will be able to get that co-operation at the committee that we have had so many other times and on so many other bills.
The proposed legislation has several additional amendments to modernize the act. These amendments would do things such as improve the clarity in the application and the enforcement of existing provisions. They would reflect current practices as things have changed over the years. They would enhance producer protection, which is important. They would also eliminate some of the provisions that are no longer used.
The proposed amendments to the Canadian Grain Act would help the grain sector continue to evolve in a direction of greater competitiveness, greater freedom for farmers to manage risks, and effective regulatory oversight where it is needed.
In conclusion, with these amendments, we have put farmers first. I believe that the amendments proposed in the bill would help build a competitive and innovative grain sector by doing a few things. One of those would be to reduce costs.
As we know, farmers bear the burden of all the costs that are passed on to them. This is one way we could reduce those input costs that we are being told are so heavy on farmers these days.
It would improve competitiveness. It clearly improves regulation, and it provides choice for our producers and others in the grain sector.
However, given the spirited debate that we had here when this proposed legislation was introduced a year ago, we recognize that there are some issues that we may want to discuss at standing committee.
As I have pointed out throughout my speech, we are willing to work with the opposition to make the amendments that will work for western Canadians and, indeed, all Canadian farmers. I welcome that discussion and I welcome the standing committee's input into helping to make this legislation the best that it can be.
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, I actually wondered if the parliamentary secretary would get to Bill C-13 when he started, but I can understand why he would avoid it. The bill completely ignores the work and the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. The parliamentary secretary and the current minister were part of that committee.
I have a couple of questions for the parliamentary secretary on what he said at the beginning. He went to some length to state that the government was putting farmers first when the direct opposite is true. I believe the government's performance in agriculture is a record of failure. Would the parliamentary secretary agree with me on these points which prove it is a record of failure?
He talked about stable, bankable programs. We now know that AgriStability and AgriInvest, the two new bankable programs from Growing Forward, in times of declining prices, when there is a decline of 15% in terms of income, they actually return $7,500 less than the old CAIS program, which the government opposite railed against.
In terms of AgriFlex and the promised $500 million during the campaign over four years, that is really $190 million of new money over five years. Another broken commitment. It cancelled the cost of production program, the $100 million annually that went to producers. Would he not call that a failure?
Finally, on AgriRecovery, it just does not do the job in terms--
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
Order, please. I am sorry to cut off the hon. member but I do have to allow time for other questions.
The hon. parliamentary secretary.
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Mr. Speaker, I came here today to talk about the positive things that have happened in agriculture and this bill is certainly one of those things that is happening that is a positive thing for western Canadian farmers.
The member opposite may not want us to support agriculture. His government had a dismal record in terms of supporting it and its programs consistently failed. However, this government has made a commitment to agriculture and has extended it in a whole host of ways, including the support programs that he mentioned.
However, I want to talk about this bill today and some of the things that it does because it does support producers. I just want to run through them again and talk about the good things about it. This bill, in its mandate, recognizes that producers' interests need to be protected by the government and so we have moved ahead to bring that forward.
The elimination of the inward inspection wing, from a practical perspective as a western Canadian farmer, is something that reduces costs. If I need to have an inspection done when I deliver, I can call that in and have that done. However, it does not change anything when I deliver my grain to the elevator. We sit down, agree on a grade and I can deliver it, which is an improvement as far as I am concerned.
We have made some suggestions In terms of the producers' security program but we are certainly open to other suggestions. The member opposite spoke about some things that have nothing to do with the bill here but we would be willing to listen to his contributions there as well.
We do need to modernize this bill in order to help out our producers and we are trying to do that.
Rick Casson Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of issues that I would like my colleague to respond to.
Since the ending of the Crow rate on the prairies, it has changed some of the secondary processing that is going on, on the prairies. The livestock feeding industry is huge in my area and that has come about because of that change. Maybe he could comment on the aspects of the changes we are proposing in Bill C-13 that would help to address the developments that have taken place since the Crow rate ended.
I am also interested in his comments on the security issue. I know I have dealt with an issue in my area where some producers were harmed by the failure of a grain company. He talks about alternative methods. I am not sure if there were alternative methods of ensuring the farmers against loss. I was not at the ag committee when these discussions took place, so maybe he could expand for me and for the House on some of the proposals that were brought forward to replace that security aspect of the Canadian Grain Commission.
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I have enough time to address all of those issues but I would like to because it is a discussion about the positive things of agriculture.
Huge changes took place in western Canada because of the change in the Crow rate. Obviously my colleague's area of Lethbridge and around there have benefited immensely from that, because they now have a huge feeder industry that would not necessarily have been there otherwise.
There are other things that have really grown in the agriculture of western Canada. We see the pulse industry that has just exploded over the last couple of decades. That is an industry that was not even part of my region 15 years ago. Now there are pulses, peas, lentils, chickpeas and all kinds of things growing there. The canola industry has really expanded and grown across western Canada.
In terms of the security issues, there are a number of ways that security can be dealt with. We have had discussions at different times about everything from either continuing the bonding or strengthening the bonding issue or removing the bonding issue to things like self-insurance where farmers can self-insure their own transactions to clearinghouses that might be put in place to protect those transactions.
There is a number of options out there and we are willing to talk about those with the opposition to see how we can best represent and protect western Canadians and Canadian producers.
Rick Casson Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Mr. Speaker, maybe the member and I could get into a little one on one debate if nobody else gets up on questions and comments.
The effect of the arbitration aspect is something that interests me in a personal way that I cannot get into here. However, when a producer finds himself in conflict with the grade of the grain that he has put up for sale, in the past there was a method for a producer to have an arbitrary decision made.
What changes in Bill C-13 would address or enhance that. Do these changes have anything to do with the bigger grain terminals on the prairies, and were they delivered to a local elevator or one of these terminals? I am just not clear on that and maybe the member could help me with that.
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Mr. Speaker, in the past, when producers had some sort of problem in terms of grading, they were able to go through a process through the Canadian Grain Commission. They were able to sit before a tribunal and then a decision was made about which way the grade dispute should be handled.
The suggestion in the amendments in the bill would set it up so that when I deliver my grain to an elevator it is graded, as it usually was in the past. If it is sent in a producer car, whatever the agreement would be at the other end and what the grade would be, if I have an issue with that I could take it up directly with the Grain Commission. I could go to the industry first and say that I do not agree with its grading. If we cannot reach some sort of resolution with the industry, then I could take that up directly with the Grain Commission. It would be an independent third party separate from the process, so it would be able to make an independent decision as to what the grade on that product would be.
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary would know that one of the key recommendations of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food was that there would be a cost of benefit analysis done prior to the bill being brought into place. Has that been done and, if so, is he willing to table that cost benefit analysis with the House today?
One of the big concerns from primary producers is that the bonding of grain companies has been done away with by the bill. That is there to protect primary producers. Why is the government weakening farmers' protections and letting industry basically do as it pleases?
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Mr. Speaker, I will address the issue of bonding and security. Obviously it does provide some protection for producers but there is a cost to it as well. We have heard from producers who have asked to have the cost removed. We have heard from other producers who do not mind paying the cost in order to be bonded and protected.
The discussion needs to take place at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food about what the proper balance is between those two things. We look forward to working toward modernizing the act and getting it in place for producers across the country.
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.
Bruce Hyer NDP Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the hon. member for Malpeque.
The first is, how soon can we enjoy some of the world's best oysters in Malpeque together?
The second question is even more pressing. Building on the member's comments, there are at least three problems with the grain act. The first problem is that, if I understand it correctly, it appears we are going to lose about 100 grain inspectors, about half of whom protect and inspect the grain in the port of Thunder Bay, which is in my riding. The loss of those professionals and their expertise is further evidence of a government that does not believe in inspection or regulation, but believes that little or no government is best.
The member already mentioned the second problem. You had a letter which said that the grain will not be inspected and that will be a problem in the U.S. and world markets. That is totally true. We have the best grain in the world and we need to be able to prove it.
The third problem is that we will no longer be protecting our own public in terms of food safety, which, as we know, has been an ongoing problem throughout Canada with listeria.
Hon. member for Malpeque, would you care to comment?
The Deputy Speaker Conservative Andrew Scheer
I would remind the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Superior North to address his comments to the Chair and not directly to other members.
The hon. member for Malpeque.
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, there were several questions but let me start off by saying that his question on oysters is a valid one. We believe that we produce the best oysters in the world in the riding of Malpeque. Everyone is invited to that wonderful riding in P.E.I. any time to enjoy some of the shellfish and seafood.
The member mentioned the loss of 100 jobs in Thunder Bay. Yes, it is 100 jobs in Thunder Bay that the unions are telling us will be lost, but it is more like 200 jobs and possibly even higher across the system. Those are individuals who are on site looking after the quality of Canadian grains. They are individuals who are on site ensuring that an elevator is treating farmers fairly, that there are no overages or underages in terms of the weight, that the weigh scales are weighing properly, that they are not being abused in terms of the quality and grade of the grains.
The job loss is very serious, but as great a loss is the protection of farmers' interests and the quality control within our grain system. People have to understand that Canada is a quality seller in the world because of the Canadian Grain Commission and the work it does as compared to the United States, which is a residual seller.
Anthony Rota Liberal Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON
Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the member on his comments. He is well read and understands.
One of the issues that really concerns me is this mantra of self-regulation. It has gone on for years now. The government wants to bring self-regulation to everything that goes on.
I know of the experience in Ontario. When I think of self-regulation in Ontario, I think of Walkerton, Maple Leaf Foods and the BSE issue. There are many potential impacts this legislation could have, particularly with respect to bonding on the grain handlers and inward inspection. We are leaving it wide open and allowing farmers to be left open to the whim of large corporations that could do whatever they want.
My question is twofold. The removal of the bonding without any viable alternative being offered is one issue, but the other issue is the safety of the food. I would like the member to comment on both of those issues.
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of points here.
It is interesting these days that the Prime Minister goes around the world and talks about how secure Canada's banking system is. That banking system is secure because in the previous government, I and other members on this side happened to sit on the committee which recommended that the banking system in Canada not go the same way and deregulate itself and allow foreign ownership, as happened in the United States. That is good regulatory protection in our banking system and that is why our banking system is working very well.
However, the Prime Minister's mantra has been to deregulate and that is in fact what the government is doing with the Canadian Grain Commission. The government is taking away that protection that is there for the Canadian grain producers, for our exporters and for our industry, that protection of the system with tough regulations in bonding that would ensure there is protection for the farm community and industry. The member is absolutely right. This bill will undermine those regulations and those protections for Canadians.
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
When debate resumes, there will be four minutes remaining in the time allotted for questions and comments for the hon. member for Malpeque.
The House resumed from March 3, 2009 consideration of the motion that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
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.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin
The hon. member for British Columbia Southern Interior for questions and comments.
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very interesting and informative speech on the Canadian Grain Commission. He referred to food safety. I would like to know his thoughts on that subject. Is there a connection between Bill C-13and food safety in Quebec and Canada?
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague very much for his question.
At the end of my speech, I spoke of the report that was presented. Bill C-13 does take food safety into account. We are aware of the possibility of certain risks. According to the report, Bill C-13 is forgetting the lessons learned about the danger of reducing public inspections. The bill would, in fact, eliminate the independent governmental inspection of grain delivered to the main silos in Canada, and would leave the grain companies free to organize their own inspections.
Not wishing to rub salt into any wounds, I would point out that this was exactly what we learned in committee. We were told that a permanent employee of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency was let go because he provided his union with a document indicating that the government was preparing to deregulate, and in fact had already begun, as far as the number of inspectors was concerned. We are all aware of what happened in the listeriosis crisis. There is reason for the general public, and the consumers of food items, be they meat or grain, to be very worried about the direction the government is taking with respect to food safety.
“Keeping pesticide-treated grain, glass, rodent excreta and other dangerous contaminants out of Canada’s food grain system is too important a responsibility to hand to grain companies,” said Scott Sinclair, senior researcher for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives study I mentioned earlier. We certainly have reason to be concerned about this government's policy.
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, that is exactly what I was just saying. I mentioned Bill C-39. The government had to be aware that it provoked major reactions across Canada, not only among members of the inspectors' union, who could lose their jobs—I read some quotes earlier—but among agricultural producers themselves. Its mandate is being changed, transformed, even though it has been clear for years that the commission is supposed to carry out its mandate in the interests of the agricultural producers. Now it is going to be in the interests of the industry. Everyone agreed that the bill and the Canadian Grain Commission needed updating, but the government's approach to making those changes caused an outcry. That is what was in Bill C-39.
We have good reason to wonder why the government failed to learn from its mistakes and decided to reintroduce the same bill. It is exactly the same thing. Bill C-13 is a carbon copy of Bill C-39. Between the first and the second iterations, the government should have done some work. It should have paid attention to people's concerns and outright protests. The opposition has always pointed out the bill's shortcomings. Had the government been serious about doing its job, it would have introduced a modified bill that would have responded, at least in part, to some of these concerns. But it did not do its job. It simply changed the bill's number and reintroduced it, and here we are now. People still have the same concerns, and they are still just as worried as they were before.
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is once again a pleasure to be here in front of a full House. I am sure I will get a standing ovation from all of my colleagues after my speech.
I am happy to speak to Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act. As has been said earlier on, the all-party Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food had made a number of recommendations. For example, it recommended that any eventual bill clearly protect the interests of grain producers. We are seeing that this bill does not address that explicitly. Another recommendation was to conduct a cost benefit analysis of contracting out services prior to any further movement on this issue. Of course, this has not yet been done.
Another recommendation was to support pilot projects in contracting out services for grain inspection. In other words, to try and see on a small scale if this would work. To my knowledge, this has not yet been done. Another recommendation was for the Canada Grain Commission to receive adequate funding to improve its services, particularly regarding the flexibility of authorizing overtime. We have not seen any substantial increase in funding for the Canada Grain Commission.
All members of all parties recommended that the federal government report back to the standing committee prior to the tabling of new grain legislation on the various models that could be implemented for protecting grain farmers. As we see, to date, this had not been done.
As we debate this bill, the question we have to ask ourselves here is: Are we moving ahead without the proper groundwork? Are we moving ahead without having conducted the necessary study and evaluation of what this could mean for the history of the grain industry in Canada?
After studying the report, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food tabled a report in the House, and many of the recommendations in that report are reflected in the bill. The committee recommended first and foremost that any eventual bill clearly protect the interests of grain producers. Bill C-13 makes major changes to the structure of the CGC that have producers afraid that the commission will not be required to act for the benefit of the grain industry as a whole. There is a difference here: by putting the interests of grain companies and farmers on the same footing, the government is not taking into account the power imbalance between them.
Bill C-13 does not provide for creating an independent office of grain farmer advocacy, as the committee recommended in order to protect producers' interests. If the commission does not have the authority to act decisively for the benefit of producers, the grain companies will try, slowly but surely, to have it eliminated completely.
Once again, we see this bill as a step toward the deregulation of the agri-food industry here in Canada. We must be very careful before making such a decision.
Instead of helping Canada's grain producers in these troubled economic times, the amendments to the Grain Act could and would shift the purpose of the Grain Act away from protecting producers' interests and expose them to financial harm by eliminating the requirement for grain buyers to post security bonds.
It would also dismantle the Grain Appeal Tribunal, which protects producers from unscrupulous behaviour on the part of grain companies, and eliminates the commission's services that independently determines the quality and quantity of grain delivered, returning producers to the position of not knowing if they are receiving fair payment.
Agriculture union president Bob Kingston says:
These changes will hurt grain producers just like the Conservative’s effort to strip farmer control of the Canadian Wheat Board. They also threaten the quality advantage Canadian producers enjoy over competitors.
The Canadian Grain Commission has served as an independent arbitrator working to settle disputes when they arise about the quality and quantity of grain that producers bring to the market. Typically this function protects producers and makes sure that they are fairly paid by the powerful companies which buy and export.
Canada's reputation for top quality grain is protected by the grain inspection services supplied by the Grain Commission. We understand that if this bill is accepted, there will be around 200 jobs lost, in other words, inspectors who are there to ensure quality and to protect Canadian citizens and our customers.
The commission also provides independent, objective and comprehensive information about the quality and quantity of Canadian grain that is crucial to the international marketing efforts of the Canadian Wheat Board.
The proposal that we have before us would diminish the Canadian Grain Commission by killing the commission's inward inspection and weighing service, leaving producers disadvantaged in their dealings with grain companies when it comes to determining grain weight and grade.
With a loss of the commission's weighing and grading service, producers may not be paid for the quantity and quality of grain delivered. Currently, the Canadian Grain Commission routinely revises upward grain grades and corrects quantity measurements, resulting in fair payment to producers. While producers have the option to hire a private company to grade and weigh their grain under the Conservative proposal, no companies capable of this task exist today, so once again we are moving forward without crossing the t's and dotting the i's.
We do not have a plan. We have not done the research to ensure there will be no problems if we move ahead with this bill.
Another point of this bill will eliminate the requirement for grain buyers to post security bonds and expose grain producers to financial harm in the event of grain buyer bankruptcy or refusal to pay. It also dismantles the Grain Appeal Tribunal, which protects producers and the Canadian Wheat Board from unscrupulous behaviour on the part of grain companies.
In Vancouver alone it is normal for more than 100 appeals to be launched in a day. These changes may result in increased costs to producers with a shift to a for profit service delivery model.
I would just like to emphasize that the Canadian Grain Commission and the Canadian Wheat Board's collective marketing strategies that we have developed exist to protect producers, often from the profit-making motivations of the large multinationals. We have seen that before and we see that today.
What is also disturbing is that Bill C-13 poses a risk to Canada's international reputation. Our grain is in demand because no other country offers a quality guarantee backed by a system of government inspections as stringent and as comprehensive as is done in Canada.
It is also there to protect our quality brand. Canada even has programs and procedures to prevent Canadian grain from being mixed with imported U.S. product to ensure the integrity of Canada's quality guarantee. According to the report “Threatened Harvest: Protecting Canada’s world-class grain system”, put out by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, there could be a problem with the quality and safety of the grain because of a lack of inward inspection.
Along with Canada's international reputation as a producer of the highest quality at risk is the quality premium paid to Canadian producers. Once this quality incentive to ship Canadian grain separate from American grain is lost, we expect Canadian grain will be shipped over land, mixed with the lower quality American product and shipped through U.S. ports.
We do not have to be experts in agriculture or have a PhD. to understand that, by doing this, the quality of our product goes down. As the quality goes down, then our reputation as an exporter of grain goes down.
I would also like to quote from a press release from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, which says:
The bill would also end an established security program for farmers that guarantees they are paid for the grain they deliver, thereby increasing farmers’ risk of catastrophic financial losses if a buyer cannot, or will not, pay for delivered grain.
“In this global economic downturn, and with no workable alternative in place, the government is kicking away a key pillar of financial stability for Canadian grain producers,” says CCPA Research Associate Dr. Jim Grieshaber-Otto.
I have met Mr. Grieshaber-Otto, who wrote the report. We need to pay attention to what he said. The press release goes on:
If these and other controversial government proposals are implemented, they would:
reduce the reputation and competitiveness of Canadian wheat in international markets;
decrease the price premium Canadian producers now receive for a distinctive product;
increase the risk of food-safety problems; and
augment the power of huge U.S.-based multinational grain companies at the expense of Canadian producers.
I would also like to quote from a press release put out by the National Farmers Union, another group that is very upset with the bill. It represents many farmers across western Canada. It states:
The bill will add tens of millions of dollars of extra cost to farmers. The CWB and farmers will have to spend their own money to replace the destruction of independent testing by the Grain Commission. Regardless of the extra money spent by farmers, the tests will still not be seen to be independent and unbiased. Regardless of whether it is the Canadian Wheat Board that does the test or a contracted private testing company, the testing results will not have the credibility or standing that the current Canadian Grain Commission test has.
According to the National Farmers Union press release:
Bill C-13 is aimed at deregulating the grain industry, and would fundamentally change the mandate of the Canadian Grain Commission...“It removes the requirement that the CGC operate as a public interest watchdog that regulates the overall grain industry in the 'interest of producers'. Instead, it changes the CGC's role to become 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 minimum, with plenty of loopholes for companies to circumvent those limited protections.
Bill C-13 would eliminate inward inspection and weighing of grain, thereby undercutting the CGC's ability to maintain high-quality standards, and putting grain farmers and consumers at risk.
It is for this reason that today I move:
to delete all the words in the motion following “That”, and replace them with the following:
“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 be not now read a second time, but that it be read a second time this day six months hence”.
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague and his fairly severe criticism of Bill C-13. He gave bit of history on the Canadian Grain Commission as well.
He spoke to one of the key areas, and I am not sure if I am quoting him quite correctly, because he did not elaborate a lot on this. He talked about the risk to Canada's international reputation. As we see it on our side, the way the government has proposed the bill, there is a real concern for producers. The government is clearly favouring the corporate sector over primarily producers by the way it is moving forward with the amendments to the bill.
We see problems with the loss of inward inspections in the quality of grains potentially moving into the domestic market and possibly into the United States. There is a real concern for producers over the loss of bonding. However, as to the risk to Canada's international reputation, could the member expand on that issue, because is a serious matter?
Canada is seen as the most reliable supplier of high quality grains around the world. Whereas the United States is seen as a residual supplier and does not match our quality in any shape or form. It seems the government may be moving to Americanize our system, which I think would be a sad thing. Does the member have any comments on that?
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
Mr. Speaker, I enjoy working on the agriculture file with my hon. colleague on committee.
Above and beyond all, I am a Canadian nationalist. I believe that we need to protect Canadian interests before we protect the interests of anybody else.
Yes, I believe our international reputation could be tarnished. It is just obvious. If there is a chance that our high quality wheat could be mixed with a lower quality wheat, our customers will be dissatisfied. If there is a slight chance, whether it would be a lack of KVD of a lack of inward inspection, that we do not maintain a high quality, then our international reputation will be tarnished.
Let us make no mistake about it. There are pressures, not only at the World Trade Organization but from the big multinational corporations that would love to see this happen. This is why it is so important to have the bill explicitly state that it protects the right of producers. This is why it is so important to have the bill state that it will explicitly ensure there will be no loss in quality of Canadian grain and that we will have an independent body to keep track and monitor the quality.
Otherwise, yes, we will lose our international reputation, which will definitely not be good for farmers.
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague's passionate commitment to producers is second to none in this place.
The Prime Minister recently did a whirlwind circuit media tour in the United States, and now at the G20 in London. He talked about the need for good regulation and how proud he was of Canada's regulatory environment with respect to the financial circuit.
Now the government is doing what the Prime Minister actually believes. For years he was a critic of those regulations in the financial sector. For years he said that bank mergers should be allowed in Canada. This is all on the record. There is no casting aspersions here.
Now we see the aspect of regulations with respect to the quality of Canadian grains, which has been noted are the best in the world. Why, at a time when food security and food safety issues are of such strong importance to Canadians as well as protecting Canadian producers, would the government try a backdoor method of lowering the regulatory environment, putting that regulatory environment in the hands of the people buying the grain, which puts them in a deep conflict of interest, rather than in the hands of the producers, who have the highest interest in maintaining quality?
Why is the Prime Minister speaking one way when he talks to the American administration and the world body and another way at home with the legislation that the government is proposing?
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
Mr. Speaker, my colleague's question is a good one. I do not often do this, but I will start by giving credit to the Prime Minister for understanding that regulation is necessary in banking. People in politics make decisions and we have to understand that if they are the wrong ones, we will make the right ones.
I will take this decision with regard to regulation and deregulation one step further. For example, I have received many letters from people with small businesses in my riding. They are really concerned about credit card fees and the whole idea that Interac will be deregulated and they will be unable to make any money because of the increase in fees. Yet we do not seem to be doing anything. I do not want the Prime Minister or another prime minister years down to the road to say that it is time to start regulating the grain industry.
If we see a potential problem, we have to be proactive. As I said earlier in my speech, we have to dot the i's and cross the t's so later we do not say, “I didn't believe it was right, but now it is time to regulate”. Let us ensure we have a strong Canadian wheat industry that is regulated now and protects our farmers.
Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for all the work he has done across the country on the issue of food security.
When we look at what has happened in the world now, it is not only an issue of rights as individuals to consume foods that will not poison them or make them ill. In my riding Sealtest had to recall milk. It did not provide the necessary notification in an appropriate manner and it consequently led to some human suffering. One of the local police officers became ill.
Across the globe, the issue of food security is becoming more and more prolific. Would my colleague comment on that? One of Canada's strengths is having a fair and balanced regulatory food safety inspection and development process, which includes grain. That is an asset for us as a country. For those countries that do not have it, destabilization with regard to the food issue is occurring. Could he comment on that? It is an asset for Canada and it would be unfortunate if we gave that up.
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
Mr. Speaker, food safety means safe food. Food security means having enough food. Food sovereignty means having control over food. We should be striving for that three-pillar approach in Canada.
I quoted earlier from a report by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, which mentioned an instance that happened in Canada. It was the example of ergot. It stated:
—a dangerous fungal disease which occurs in western Canada, demonstrates the importance of maintaining rigorous government oversight, including inward inspections, in our grain system.
The report states:
Ergot infects rye, wheat and other cereal grasses, forming hard fruiting bodies that resemble dark kernels of grain. It contains powerful chemical alkaloids, from which LSD is made. When ingested even in small quantities in baked bread, ergot can cause violent muscle spasms, hallucinations and crawling sensations on the skin.
It goes on to say that in 2008 ergot was found on the border between Manitoba-Saskatchewan border and that was after 10–25% grain samplings. However, because of Canada’s grain inspection system, we were able to ensure that dangerous levels of ergot were kept out of the food supply.
I think my hon. colleague was alluding to that. With unsafe products coming into our country and the scare we had with listeriosis, it is now more important than ever to do all we can to ensure our supply of food in Canada is safe and the food we send to other countries is safe.
Pierre Lemieux ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture
Mr. Speaker, it is an unfortunate turn of events here in the opposition moving that amendment. I will be discussing this in a little bit, but I would like to present the government position regarding Bill C-13.
I am very pleased to express my support for Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act. This bill illustrates the government's unwavering commitment to put our farmers first, by eliminating costly regulations and the inevitable, pointless problems currently facing Canada's grain industry.
Over the past few years, the grain sector in western Canada has undergone considerable transformation. The grain market has evolved, and it centres more and more on niche markets, livestock feed and biofuels, as well as other value-added opportunities.
Despite the ever-changing nature of the industry, the Canada Grain Act has not been significantly modified in nearly 40 years. Strictly speaking, the activities of the Canadian Grain Commission, the body that maintains standards of quality for grain and regulates grain handling in Canada, do not reflect the needs of producers and the modern industry. Before explaining any further the proposed changes to the Canada Grain Act, I would like to provide a few basic facts.
In 2005, an amendment to the Canada Grain Act was passed, thereby requiring an independent review of that act and the Canadian Grain Commission.
COMPAS Inc. was hired by the Department of Agriculture to conduct the independent review. Its recommendations were presented to Parliament in 2006. The COMPAS report was referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, which consulted stakeholders and recognized a need for changes to the Canada Grain Act and the Canadian Grain Commission.
The amendments are based on the recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food in its report to the government in 2006.
Throughout these reviews, stakeholders were consulted extensively, including eight public meetings held across the country by COMPAS Inc. Hence, these proposed changes reflect the needs and the will of grain producers and the industry.
This government is proposing to clarify the mandate of the Canadian Grain Commission in the Canada Grain Act. The clarification will stress that the Canadian Grain Commission protects the interests of producers with respect to deliveries to licensees, determination of grade and dockage, and allocation of producer cars.
That said, there have been extensive changes within the Canadian grain industry over the years and the Canadian Grain Commission must reflect that evolution. The number of primary elevators in western Canada has dwindled. Grain companies have consolidated their operations and now much of our grain is shipped from primary elevators to port terminals owned by the same company. Currently, the Canadian Grain Commission must inspect and weigh all grain received by terminal and transfer elevators.
To keep up with the changing environment, the government strongly believes that producer interests are best served by limiting costs and fostering a competitive, efficient grain handling system. Consequently, the government proposes to eliminate mandatory inward inspection and weighing requirements. The bill would reduce unnecessary mandatory costs from the grain handling system and would work to build a lower cost, more effective and innovative grain sector. We are reducing the regulatory burden with this initiative. As all costs in the system eventually work their way to farmers, this would result in a less costly system for farmers, too.
Nevertheless, inward inspection and weighing do provide value to producers, in some circumstances. The government has proposed amendments to the Canada Grain Act that would facilitate private sector delivery of inward services when requested. Thus, the elimination of inward inspection and weighing would create business opportunities for private sector service providers. It is best left to the shippers themselves to determine when and at what level these services are provided.
As an important and ongoing check on this new arrangement, producers and industry would be able to apply to the Canadian Grain Commission for binding grade arbitration when they are not sure that the right grade has been assigned. The proposed changes would not reduce the capacity to ensure a dependable commodity to buyers of Canadian grain. What is more, international buyers of Canadian grain could rest assured that every vessel load would continue to receive the Canadian Grain Commission's certification of grade and weight.
On another topic, the Canadian Grain Commission producer payment security program has been the subject of debate in the grain sector. Currently, all licensed grain handlers must provide financial security to the Canadian Grain Commission. If a licensed grain handler fails to pay for the grain it has purchased, the Canadian Grain Commission steps in to compensate producers.
Unfortunately, this security program is flawed as it is not 100% effective and it adds costs to the Canadian grain handling system. These costs negatively affect the competitiveness of the Canadian grain sector.
As part of the move away from kernel visual distinguishability, or KVD, the Canadian Grain Commission must be equipped with tools it can use in a post-KVD environment. This is why this government proposes that the Canada Grain Act be brought under the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act. This proposed reform follows a Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food recommendation to use monetary penalties to help enforce a declaration system upon grain delivery. The Canadian Grain Commission must be equipped with penalties to protect the quality of Canadian grain.
With respect to the impact on jobs at the Canadian Grain Commission, the commission will be working with staff over the duration of the legislative process to assess the full impacts of the proposed changes. We understand this process may have a significant impact on the lives of the affected public servants, and we are committed to working with them in a clear and transparent manner.
In conclusion, the proposed amendments are merely part of the ongoing transformation of the grain sector in western Canada. Western Canadian grain is increasingly destined for value-added domestic enterprises, and government policy and legislation must adapt to that reality. In this ever-changing environment, the Canada Grain Act and the Canadian Grain Commission must be modernized.
Thanks to these amendments, the Canadian Grain Commission will be in a better position to provide producers with a more cost-effective grain quality assurance system. These amendments are crucial to eliminating unnecessary and costly regulations within the Canadian grain sector. The government is committed to looking out for the interests of our producers, first and foremost.
The integrity of Canada's grain quality assurance system and the reliability of the Canadian brand will be maintained.
Once again, I am honoured to express my support for the government's proposed changes to the Canada Grain Act.
I will now make a few comments about the hoist motion that was raised by the NDP member regarding this bill. I will clarify for Canadians that this is a very unfortunate turn of events. It is my fear that this is being done for partisan reasons. I will explain it as such.
As we know, here in the House we have a process for the passage of bills. We have first reading, where the House and the public are first advised of the government's proposed legislation. We then move into second reading, which is where we find ourselves now, where we enter into healthy debate among ourselves as MPs and among political parties to explain the legislation and the different points of view concerning it. The bill then moves to committee for further review. This is where very important work is done. Witnesses can come before the committee and explain all sides of the issue at hand. The committee normally undertakes the work of listening to witnesses who, for example, would be in favour of changes proposed in the legislation. The committee would also hear of changes that cause concerns. Producers, companies and green terminals would all have participation in this process. Of course, the bill can be modified by committee. The bill then comes back to the House for final debate and vote.
I pointed all that out because there is a process here. I was here for all of the opposition members' speeches and I listened to their concerns with the bill. I understand that they may not be pleased with all aspects of the bill. Personally, I think it is a rather good bill, but I and the government are open to the fact that there will be valuable input obtained, particularly during the committee process, from the opposition members and witnesses.
However, this hoist motion basically kills that process.The hoist motion, as read by my NDP colleague, sounds like he wants to delay the furtherance of this bill. I have Marleau and Montpetit in front of me and I would like to clarify for Canadians and those who are watching the debate exactly what the hoist motion means in reality. Marleau and Montpetit states:
The hoist amendment originated in British practice, where it appeared in the eighteenth century. It enabled the House of Commons to postpone the resumption of the consideration of a bill. It was subsequently agreed that the adoption of such an amendment by the House was tantamount to the rejection of the bill, since the postponement was deliberately set for a date after the end of the session. Normally, if the session went beyond that date, the bill was not placed again on the Order Paper.
Historical events were responsible for the establishment of three or six months as the postponement period. A hundred years ago, sessions rarely lasted longer than six months, and so a six months’ hoist amendment would be proposed at the beginning of a session, and a three months’ hoist in the final weeks of a session. Today, sessions of the House of Commons of Canada are longer, but the length of sessions is neither regular nor fixed in advance.
The adoption of a hoist amendment (whether for three months or six months) is tantamount to the postponement of the consideration of the bill for an indefinite period. Consequently, the bill disappears from the Order Paper and cannot be introduced again, even after the postponement time has elapsed. The bill is accordingly defeated indirectly. It is no longer possible to place the bill back on the Order Paper, because to do so would be ruled contrary to the decision of the House. Members have tried to apply the hoist amendment to a resolution or to include it in the text of a reasoned amendment, but these attempts were ruled out of order.
The key here is that this hoist motion actually kills the bill before it even has a chance to make it to committee. As I pointed out in my speech, this is not the first time that the House has seen this bill. In fact, my colleagues saw this bill in the last Parliament and yet there was no attempt to move forward with a hoist motion. This makes me reflect that this is a partisan motivated motion. We have the three opposition parties working together. They do not care what producers have to say. They do not care what the input is or what kind of feedback we would receive at committee. They only care about some sort of a partisan purpose that they have at hand here and they are working in collusion.
I have tried to work with my colleagues in the other parties in a very constructive manner. We will have an opportunity at committee to hear from all sides of the argument. The opposition critics of agriculture will have ample opportunity, both in committee and in the media, to express their opinions on this important legislation but they do not want any of it. They simply want to kill the bill. They want to work in collusion to the detriment of our grain producers and we need to wonder why.
It is my hope that during this debate on the hoist motion, the opposition members will level with Canadians and make their reasoning for the motion clear. There is no question that the legislation being proposed would be very positive improvements to the Canada Grain Act.
As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, the last amendments to this act were done 40 years ago. I think we can all agree that farming, agriculture, the handling of grain has changed over the last 40 years. It is reasonable and, I would say, expected of the government to put forward amendments to improve the Canada Grain Act so that it better serves Canadians and our producers. I say this particularly in these challenging economic times. It is not advantageous to our producers to pay the additional costs that are inherent in processes that are redundant or not necessary. If the opposition wants producers to continue to pay costs that are not necessary, I invite them to argue that case. I think it will fall on deaf ears because what we are hearing is that producers, particularly grain producers, want less costs imposed. They want to be able to retain more of their hard-earned money. If we have an opportunity here to simplify the processes, to simplify the legislation by which they are bound, then we should take advantage of that.
I will talk a moment about inward inspections. For example, there was a time when terminals were owned by different companies and the Grain Commission was involved in the inspection between those two different grain terminals owned by two different companies. Now, however, in many instances the terminals are owned by the same company and yet the legislation requires a public inspection of the grain between two terminals owned by the same grain company. It just does not make sense to obligate that inspection, particularly by government inspectors, all at the cost of the producer.
It is quite reasonable, and is actually a very effective and cost-efficient move, to remove the obligation to say that if a company owns both terminals it is possible to have the grain inspected again between the two terminals if it is so desired, but by the private sector. If there happens to be discontent with the final decision on the grading of that grain there is an appeal process in place. One of my colleagues was talking about the appeal process and the changes. We are simply eliminating some of the multi-levels of appeal, but there is still an appeal process and there would be a binding decision made through that appeal process in order to resolve differences.
Once again I must say that I am shocked. I was in the House when the hoist motion was moved by the NDP. I know its members have been working closely behind closed doors. I knew nothing of this. Rather than allowing the bill to be discussed at committee and discussed with producers, they are scuttling everything and killing the bill. They are talking about imposing up to a six month delay. However, it is only fair that Canadians know what is really happening, which is that the bill is being killed right here on the floor during second reading. The opposition owes an explanation, particularly to our producers.
I sit on the agriculture committee where we have had producers in front of us. We are talking about competitiveness. There is some hypocrisy on the behalf of the opposition. Members say that they are concerned about competitiveness. Part of the competitive picture is lowering costs to producers. On the one hand, the opposition says that it is very concerned and want to work in the best interests of producers while on the other hand, it is killing a bill outright, with no chance for producers to have any say in this matter, for some partisan purpose, and that is very unfortunate.
As I mentioned, the opposition parties, particularly the opposition critics, must explain to Canadians why they are working in collusion against the government and against grain producers.
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?
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.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
Madam Speaker, rather than condemning us, I thought that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture would actually be thanking us for moving the hoist motion because it saves the government the embarrassment of seeing a major piece of legislation go down in defeat because it is so flawed.
What we are giving the government is a time out. The government should be very familiar with the concept of a time out. A little prorogation goes a long way sometimes to making a government come to its senses. This is no different. It does not say that the bill will be killed forever. It is saying that the government should go back and listen to what the farmers and producers are saying, listen to their concerns, and come back with something that is in the interests of the family farm and individual producers.
I represent a community that is home to the Canadian Wheat Board and the Canadian Grain Commission, two institutions that are part of the fabric of this nation. They represent the farmers and the interests of the farmers. Historically they have stood to protect individual producers, not the big multinational corporations. They ensure that the producers have the power to stand on an equal footing with the multinational corporations and not see their interests diminished or squashed or their rights eroded.
This bill is flawed. I only have to refer to some of the individual producers and of course the National Farmers Union who have said that this bill must not be allowed to pass. That is why we moved the hoist motion. National Farmers Union president Stewart Wells said that the changes that are lurking beneath the surface are not readily apparent, but they will be devastating to grain farmers.
Why did we move the hoist motion? Because this bill is deregulating the grain industry. It eliminates inward inspection and weighing of grain. It eliminates the requirement that grain companies be licensed and bonded, and so on. It puts individual farmers at the mercy of the big multinational corporations. It does not stand up for farm incomes and food safety. That is exactly why the hoist motion has to pass.
Is the parliamentary secretary now prepared to see the wisdom of the voices of farmers and act in their best interests?
Pierre Lemieux Conservative Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Madam Speaker, there are a couple of points that have to be addressed.
The member is against the legislation, but where was she between December 2007 and September 2008, when this bill was actually sitting here in the House in the last Parliament? Now she is outraged. Why is that? There is a partisan purpose at foot, and it is not to serve the best interests of our producers. That much is certain. There is collusion among the parties. The three opposition parties are working together to defeat the bill outright.
The member was inaccurate in her comments. She said that the hoist motion does not kill the bill, that it simply postpones the bill. That is highly inaccurate. I am glad I have the opportunity to address this again.
Marleau and Montpetit states that the adoption of a hoist amendment is tantamount to defeating the bill by postponing the bill's consideration. Consequently the bill disappears from the order paper and it cannot be introduced again even after the postponement period has elapsed.
Those are the kinds of inaccuracies the opposition parties throw out to Canadians and grain producers. They need to be clear with their comments. They need to be clear with their intentions. They need to be clear with the facts. They are not.
I am glad I had the chance to correct the record. We will be holding the opposition members to account for what has happened today in the House, and I know producers will as well.
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.
Bradley Trost Conservative Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK
Madam Speaker, I have a comment and then two quick questions.
The people who are watching these proceedings on TV or following them later in Hansard should be aware that all the members of Parliament who represent producers and grain growers in the entire Wheat Board area of western Canada are supporting the government's legislation.
The opposition to this legislation is coming from members of Parliament who do not have producers in their riding. The people responsible to the producers are supporting it and the people who have no direct responsibility to producers are opposing it. That is my first comment to those watching.
Second, I have two questions. The hon. member pointed out that with this legislation passing, the system would be less expensive and less costly. Does the hon. member not agree that these costs are often passed on to farmers and that we as members should therefore try to reduce costs for producers? That is my first question.
The second question is this. Based upon this legislation, Canadian grain customers will receive the same Canadian Grain Commission certificates and assurances they are accustomed to. Does my hon. colleague no longer believe in Canadian Grain Commission certificates and assurances?
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Madam Speaker, let me begin with the last question first. Of course, I believe in the Canadian Grain Commission certificates. That is what I want to maintain in the system because that is what put Canada on the map as a quality supplier. I do not want to see that undermined. The government is undermining that fact.
In terms of being less expensive and less costly, we always have to take costs out of the system where we can. However, the hon. member misinterprets me. It is not less costly and less expensive to the producers. In fact, a greater burden of risk is going to be imposed on producers as a result of these moves. Information the Canadian Wheat Board put out today and other proposals that might have to be put in place to accommodate the loss of inward inspection will actually mean a much higher burden of cost on primary producers.
Where the United States is covering costs to its primary producers under a system called WTO or GATT green and picking up those costs out of the public treasury, the government is going the opposite way. Instead of the government covering those costs, it is letting them be covered by primary producers.
On the last point of members over there representing the West, I wish they would. I wish they would listen. I wish they would return their phone calls. I wish they would listen to what primary producers are saying. However, as I said in my remarks, it seems to me that we have a bunch of trained seals over there who only take their direction from the PMO and not from their constituents.
Bruce Hyer NDP Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON
Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Malpeque has raised a lot of good issues. I do not think we have trained seals here. I think we have predatory sea lions who are attacking the farmers base in Western Canada. I cannot imagine why they would continue to vote for them in the future.
To the hon. member for Malpeque, I would like to read a very short note to the Prime Minister from a western farmer from Saskatchewan. It says:
Dear Prime Minister,
In these troubled economic times, I hope your government will be working to support grain producers in the same way you are working with other sectors of the Canadian economy.
That's why I'm disappointed to learn that the Agriculture Minister has introduced changes to the Grain Act that will hurt grain producers.
Instead of helping Canada's grain producers the bill would:
Shift the purpose of the Grain Act away from protecting producer interests
Expose producers to financial harm by eliminating the requirement for grain buyers to post security bonds
Dismantle the Grain Appeal Tribunal which protects producers from unscrupulous behaviour on the part of grain companies
Eliminate Canadian Grain Commission services that independently determine the quality and quantity of grain delivered, returning producers to the position of not knowing if they are receiving fair payment.
If you think grain farmers are as important and worthy as those in the banking and auto industries that your government is supporting, I ask you to withdraw these provisions and make sure that these changes put the interests of grain producers first.
The hon. member for Malpeque may want to comment on one of these western farmers who does not seem to be in lockstep with this backward move that would take us back to the 1800s in terms of grain regulation.
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Madam Speaker, I think my hon. colleague, in quoting from the letter, actually makes the point very well. That is what increasing numbers of primary producers are saying. Producers who do not have an NDP bent, a Liberal bent or a Conservative bent, or may have all three, are saying exactly those things.
They are looking at the substance of the issue and they are telling the Prime Minister not to do this. Do not impose greater risks on primary producers. Do not impose greater costs on primary producers. Do not destroy a system that, as somebody said earlier, is old, but it works and has put Canada on the map as the number one grain quality supplier of the world. Conservative members from the west are clearly not listening.
I have a letter from the mayor of the city of Melville, who is concerned about the loss of the Canadian Grain Commission offices in his area and the work that the Canadian Grain Commission does.
All we are asking is that the government please come to its senses and do the right thing. It could withdraw the bill and come back with a new one where it would actually listen to producers. That would make a whole lot of sense.
John Cannis Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON
Madam Speaker, earlier when the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt spoke, I really felt insulted as a member coming from an urban riding, in the way he described who supports and who does not support the bill. We care just as much about what happens on the family farm and in the entire food chain system.
I remember that it was my colleague Dennis Mills who made Canada aware of the family farm. Maybe that is why I am surprised that farmers vote for these guys. That is why they do not get any votes in the greater cities. It is for that reason alone.
The member for Malpeque said, and I quote, “This is not just about money”.
Ontario, as we will recall, had the Walkerton problem under a Conservative government. In the last election, my constituents were asking me about the problem with listeriosis, about food inspection and the cutbacks.
We had people lose their lives. Canadians lost their lives.
Can the member please comment on that for my constituents in the greater city of Toronto, who are just as important as somebody living on the farm? We respect the farm and agriculture, as I am sure they respect our auto industry.
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Madam Speaker, to go back to my earlier remarks, I think that point was made when I quoted Scott Sinclair in an op-ed article written for the Edmonton Journal.
I will not go into it, but to summarize, that article said:
Recent outbreaks of food-borne illnesses...underline the dangers to the public of cutting back on government oversight and inspections in the food system.
Therefore, it is possible to cross over between the two.
The Wheat Board, which is a wonderful marketing agency that always maximizes returns to primary producers in this country, said:
With respect to inward inspection, the bill as it presently exists is a worst case scenario for western Canadian grain producers....
That is where the Wheat Board is at.
Will the government just please listen? Maybe it could support this hoist motion as well.
Pierre Lemieux ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture
Madam Speaker, I want to ask this member what message he is going to give to Canadians and to producers. I have heard him twice today say that he is postponing the bill, when in fact he is defeating the legislation.
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Madam Speaker, I do not believe I said we are postponing the bill. This hoist motion will kill the bill. It will get rid of it. It moves it off the table, and that is what we want to do.
Bruce Hyer NDP Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON
Madam Speaker, the attack on grain farmers has been renewed, unfortunately. Amendments to the Canada Grain Act signal a renewal of the Conservative government's attack on grain farmers in Canada. Even worse, or equally as bad, as well as an attack on grain farmers, it is an attack on the role of government itself in protecting the health, the safety and the jobs of Canadians across the west and in Thunder Bay, where we stand to lose 100 well-trained high-quality grain inspectors.
Instead of helping Canada's grain producers in these troubled economic times, these amendments to the Canada Grain Act in Bill C-13 would do the following things.
They would shift the purpose of the grain act away from protecting producer interests. They would expose those producers to financial harm by eliminating the requirement for grain buyers to post security bonds to protect them in the case of bankruptcy or default. They would dismantle the Grain Appeal Tribunal, which protects producers from unscrupulous behaviour on the part of large multinational grain companies. They would eliminate the commission services that independently determine the quality and quantity of grain delivered, returning producers to the position of not knowing if they are receiving fair payment for a superior Canadian product.
As I have said, it will eliminate 200 highly trained, highly skilled grain inspectors, 100 of whom are in my riding of Thunder Bay.
These changes will hurt grain producers just like the Conservatives' effort to strip away farmer control of the Canadian Wheat Board in general. They also threaten the quality advantage of Canadian producers that they enjoy over competitors from around the world.
Bill C-13 will replicate the changes to the Canada Grain Act that were scorned by the opposition parties during the last Parliament. Not only NDP, but Liberal and Bloc MPs were united in recognizing the threat in a similar bill in the previous Parliament.
The Canadian Grain Commission is a pillar of our Canadian grain economy and it stands threatened by Conservative Party policies and Conservative Party politics. Why is this?
As a little background on the Canadian Grain Commission, the Grain Commission has served as an independent arbiter working to settle disputes when they arise about the quality and quantity of grain that producers are bringing to market. Typically this function protects producers and makes sure they are fairly paid by the powerful multinational corporations that buy and export their grain products.
Canada's reputation for top-quality grain is protected by those grain inspection services provided by the Canadian Grain Commission. The commission also provides independent, objective, comprehensive information about the quality and quantity of Canadian grain that is crucial to the international marketing efforts of the Canadian Wheat Board.
The Conservative Party's proposal in this bill would dramatically diminish the Canadian Grain Commission by doing the following.
It would kill the commission's inspection and weighing service, leaving producers disadvantaged in their dealings with grain companies when it comes to determining grain weight and grade. With the loss of the commission's weighing and grading service, producers sometimes may not be paid for the quantity and quality of grain they deliver. It would eliminate the requirement for grain buyers to post security bonds, thus exposing grain producers to financial harm in the event of a grain buyer bankruptcy or refusal to pay. It would dismantle the Grain Appeal Tribunal, which protects producers and the Canadian Wheat Board from unscrupulous behaviour on the part of grain companies.
The Conservative proposal poses a risk to Canada's international reputation in the grain trade, a well-earned and long-earned reputation on the world stage.
Our grain is in demand because no other country offers a quality guarantee, backed by a system of government inspection as stringent and comprehensive as that in Canada. To protect our quality brand, Canada even has programs and procedures to prevent Canadian grain from being mixed with imported U.S. product, ensuring the integrity of Canada's quality guarantee.
Along with Canada's international reputation as a producer of the highest quality, at risk is the quality premium paid to Canadian producers under the current system. Once this quality incentive to ship Canadian grain separate from American grain is lost, we expect, and Canadian producers and farmers expect, that Canadian grain will be shipped overland, mixed with lower quality American product and shipped through U.S. ports. That will have significant downstream consequences for the Canadian economy as the lucrative business of shipping Canadian grain is lost from Canadian ports.
Further, the Conservative proposal ignores the unanimous advice of an all-party committee of our House of Commons. After extensive study of the future of the Canadian Grain Commission, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food made several recommendations that were supported by all parties, including some Conservatives, but the agriculture minister chose to ignore the advice of the standing committee.
A previous speaker mentioned that they believe they have the support of western farmers. They certainly do not have the support of the National Farmers Union. The president of the National Farmers Union, from Saskatchewan, commented on the bill in a press release that stated:
Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act, will cost farmers tens of millions of dollars annually, while jeopardizing food safety and the quality standards of Canada's grain exports. “The full implications of this bill are enormous”...The changes that are lurking beneath the surface are not readily apparent but they will be devastating to Canada's grain farmers.
...“This bill must not be allowed to pass.”
The bill will add...millions of dollars of extra costs to farmers...farmers will have to spend their own money to replace the destruction of independent testing by the Grain Commission. Regardless of the extra money spent by farmers, the tests will still not be seen to be independent and unbiased [as they are today]. Regardless of whether it's the Canadian Wheat Board that does the test or a contracted private testing company, the testing results will not have the credibility or standing that the current Canadian Grain Commission test has.
Bill C-13 is aimed at deregulating the grain industry, and would fundamentally change the mandate of the Canadian Grain Commission (CGC)...“It removes the requirement that the CGC operate as a public interest watchdog that regulates the overall grain industry in the 'interests of producers'. Instead, it changes the CGC's role to become 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 minimum, with plenty of loopholes for companies [who buy their grains] to circumvent those limited protections [that would be put in place].
Bill C-13 will eliminate inward inspection and weighing of grain, thereby undercutting the CGC's ability to maintain high-quality standards, and putting grain farmers and consumers at risk.
Bill C-13 would also eliminate the requirement that grain companies be licensed and bonded. Eliminating these security provisions would leave farmers holding the bag if a grain company goes bankrupt...“Eliminating this provision will not save farmers any money. It will only increase their risk.”
The Conservative government and the Conservative Party are determined to weaken and destroy the Canadian Grain Commission. It is part of the Conservative agenda to put big business interests ahead of economic autonomy for Canadians and Canadian farmers.
Bill C-13 turns back the clock to the late 1800s. It puts us into self-regulation, as before 1912.
The Conservative agenda is clear. It is building on the Mulroney tradition of what is good for U.S. business will be good for Canada, selling out Canadian farmers, selling out Canada's grassroots industries, or grain-roots industries, and selling out Canadian workers across Canada, such as those in Thunder Bay.
Bill C-13 would put big business interests over the public interest and the interests of Canadian workers and Canadian citizens.
Nathan Cullen NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative members might think this debate is a joke. All they are able to do is to pretend again and again that they have all the answers and that the farmers, who have been writing us with grave and serious concerns about this bill, are completely out to lunch. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The government right now is praising the role of regulations and protecting the Canadian finances and banking sector, the same government which, on the environmental side of things, has brought forward a whole raft of bills and proposals. Now on the grain quality side of things, it is talking about ruining and taking back the regulations that protect the quality of Canadian grain.
Farmers in my region count on the grain that is supplied by the prairies and from across Manitoba, Ontario and such. They know that Canadian grain absolutely has the best reputation in the world, for a reason. It is not by some happenstance, not because the invisible hand of the market decided it, but because we have some rules in place that allow for the best quality grains to be produced in our country.
The government proposes a stripping away of those rules. It makes no sense to consumer safety, to the protection of producers, who need to have that reputation in hand when they sell their grains around the world, to have these rules taken away.
The government talks about how great regulations are in the banking sector. The Conservatives argued against this for decades, at every opportunity. Now it is born again to the idea that regulations on some things are important, but regulations for grain farmers are not. This seems wrong.
Could my hon. colleague comment on that?
Bruce Hyer NDP Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON
Mr. Speaker, to reiterate the essence of the concluding part of my remarks, I am disturbed at this attack on Canadian grain producers, but I am really even more concerned about a growing trend, a growing repetition, a growing mantra that less government is better, no government is best, if it moves, privatize it and privatize it until it does not move any more or it moves to a foreign country.
Leon Benoit Conservative Vegreville—Wainwright, AB
Mr. Speaker, we have just heard what the discussion and the hoist motion are really about. It is about union jobs. We have heard the question asked on that. The member talked about jobs in his constituency, and that is important. I feel deeply for anybody losing a job, but the issue is that right now when farmers, including myself, ship our grain, we are the ones paying for those jobs.
Some of those jobs we need. We need some inspectors. We need people to do jobs as grain moves through the system. However, some of those people are doing work that simply is not necessary to have done. The bill streamlines that system so it will work more efficiently for farmers.
I depend on this system to market my grain. I have 3,000 acres of grain farms, which I rent out on a crop-share, so I have my share of that grain to market.
The comments of those members that government MPs are simply selling out farmers are so ludicrous that it is almost contemptible. In fact, many of us are involved in farms and all of us represent most of the farmers in our country. The last thing we will do is sellout our farmers.
Will the member admit that this is really what it is about and that it has nothing to do with what is good for farmers? Farmers are the people who we are protecting.
Bruce Hyer NDP Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON
Mr. Speaker, what I will admit is I am not a farmer. I and others have to rely on the emails, phone calls and the personal visits we have received from farmers' associations, farmers and union members, such as in Thunder Bay, who have good jobs, protecting the health, safety and quality of Canadian grain. That is something of which I am proud.
We know the Conservatives do not have respect for union labour and that they would like to subvert unions in Canada. However, some of us believe that quality, long-lasting, stable, well-paid jobs for professionals, those who protect us in the world markets and create economic benefit for Canada in places like my riding in Thunder Bay, is a good thing to have. I will not apologize for that.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis NDP Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave a fine speech and I thank the member for British Columbia Southern Interior for introducing the hoist motion. He has done incredible work, ascertaining the feelings of farmers about this legislation and bringing their concerns to this place and, in fact, being a voice for the voiceless in the face of a government that is determined to put the best interests of farmers aside.
The member for Vegreville—Wainwright throws out this innuendo and casts aspersions on our motives, but he misses the point by suggesting that all we are here to do is defend the unions. What he fails to acknowledge is that farmers, trade unionists and ordinary Canadians came together in the dirty thirties in an economic climate very much like we see today. People were struggling to survive in the face of big industry, in the face of multinational corporations and in the face of big banks that were unyielding in their responsiveness to ordinary Canadians.
Could the member tell the Conservatives, again, why it is so important for us to stand up for farmers and to ensure that we do not do anything that jeopardizes farm incomes and food safety?
Bruce Hyer NDP Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is important to protect farmers. It is particularly important to protect the smaller farmers. They are the ones who are telling me and others that they are quite concerned about the implications of the bill.
Even more important than that, is for us to protect the Canadian brand, Canadian history and the fact that Canada is still today a real country with a semi-autonomous economy and a decreasingly autonomous economic, foreign and agricultural policy.
I am in the House of Commons because I want to stand up for Canada and for Canadian autonomy in these areas. A large part of that is standing up for farmers with smaller operations who have asked us to speak for them.
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Mr. Speaker, first, I am very proud to be on this side of the House representing farmers, trying to bring legislation forward that has been stuck in the mud for 30 years. I am proud to stand by the minister who is a farmer and understands these roles. I am proud to stand by members, like the member for Vegreville—Wainwright and the member for Wild Rose, to name a few, who stand up for farmers on a regular basis.
It is important to note that I was just in an agriculture committee meeting where we were standing up for small farm operations on the potato problem. The NDP did not even take the time to send a member to the committee to ask questions on that file.
In the last Parliament I was here when we introduced changes to KVD, kernel visual distinguishability. The NDP stood and said that we could not do this, that we were attacking farmers, that we were this, that and the other thing.
Farmers came to the agriculture committee last week and thanked us for introducing this. They thanked the minister for having the courage to move forward on this because they had more varieties of winter wheat now than they did last year because of that legislation.
Does the member, who might not have seen a farm before, think this legislation will in some way help modernize the Canada Grain Act?
Bruce Hyer NDP Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am not only not a farmer, I am not a grain inspector. However, I know that KVD inspections are complicated and are changing. We need well-paid long-term stable professionals doing that kind of analysis to maintain our position in world markets.
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Mr. Speaker, the reason I am speaking to Bill C-13 is because I am very worried about the number of times the government has put Canadians at risk by reducing inspections in previous instances.
We remember the listeriosis crisis, where there were problems with 200 brands of meat. There were 20 deaths in Canada and 5,000 Canadians were affected. We also remember that in China, 300,000 people were affected by melamine.
We cannot cut inspections. Cutting inspections were related to the problems of listeriosis. Inspectors were told that they should be in the office. That is like telling the lifeguard, where we send our small children, to do his inspections from his office. It just does not work. Canadians are very concerned about it, which is why the hoist motion is before us. To reduce safety is one element of the bill, but to reduce Canada's reputation around the world is another element. Canada would incur economic losses because of that. As the previous member said, these are the comments we have received from farmers and farm organizations. They are not coming out of the blue.
We have a tremendous reputation around the world, to which I am sure some of the members on the other side would attest. When we look at the tremendous accomplishments of our agriculture and agri-food industry over the last hundred years, the Canadian grain sector stands out as a great success story.
Today, Canadian wheat, barley and other grains are known by our customers all over the world for their outstanding quality, consistency, cleanliness and innovation. Each and every year Canada's grain industry contributes over $10 billion to the Canadian economy. These dollars drive the economies of both rural and urban areas of Canada. They create and sustain jobs right through the grain production chain, from farm input suppliers, to elevators, to transporters and processors. These dollars create jobs and prosperity for Canadians at home and they support our rural areas, which contribute so much to Canada's economy.
Why in the world would we threaten our worldwide reputation with this bill? That is the concerns of farmers and farm organizations.
I will explain the transport of grain and the process of some of the prairie grains. It starts with the farmer. Often it goes to local elevators or elevators at the shipping area. When the grain arrives, it is given the inward inspection. Then it is put on the ship to go overseas. A farmer needs to have a mandatory export permit, so it has to be inspected at some time, and that is the outward inspection. This leads to the distribution of the tremendously high quality of grains around the world. Individual farmers with particularly high quality grain can receive high prices for their product. The system has for decades resulted in our tremendous safety record.
In that process, the farmers give their grains to big producers to sell. A grain shipment can be worth quarter of a million dollars. That is basically the farmer's livelihood. He might have to sell the farm and his house if, for some reason, that were lost or he did not have access to it. Therefore, a bonding system is in place. Payment for the grain shipment is therefore protected if the big producer either goes bankrupt or for some reason refuses to pay. The system has been working very well in those respects. There could be some fine tweaking, but we do not fine tweak a fragile Christmas ornament with a sledge hammer.
First, what would happen if we eliminated the bonding?
I want Conservative members to imagine giving their houses to a business or someone else for a couple of months and having to wait some time to get paid. Would they put their livelihoods, houses and everything they own into someone else's trust if they did not have protection? That is the same type of situation these grain farmers are now going to be in.
Eliminating the protection farmers have is particularly cogent in this time of recession, which. hopefully, government members would agree, puts that particular aspect of this bill in a different scenario. In this time of recession, as banks will attest, there are more bankruptcies, more inability to pay and more inability to sell products. To threaten the little guy's entire livelihood, his farm, his existence and his house by this type of accident that is prevented now and would be lost by this bill would be thought of as unconscionable by anyone in the House. This is only one example.
When the template for this bill was developed last year, the government did not follow the committee recommendations. It is shameful. When the minister spoke on the last iteration of the bill, he said, “This was what the committee recommended”. There are all sorts of instances in the bill where the government ignored the committee. I think the words in Hansard were that it showed contempt for the committee in not following the committee recommendations.
Bonding is a perfect example. The committee asked the government to study various possibilities of protecting farmers before it made any changes. Lo and behold, there was no study and no idea for protection. It just went ahead and did it, ignoring the committee's recommendation.
Removing the inward inspections would mean that Canadian grain exports to the United States may not be inspected at all, unless someone hires an inspector. Of course, this could have devastating effects both to the safety of Canadians and Americans but also to the export markets. What happens if, through this lack of inspection, a poor quality shipment goes to the United States? If we mix shipments of grain so there is no discrimination like there used to be between our high quality shipments and the lower quality shipments of the United States, we would not get high prices for that. That is the first problem.
As for the exports, those shipments must be inspected because it is mandatory by the international agreements Canada signed. What could happen is that one inspection, sometimes because of the details of analyzing the inspection results, might not occur until the ship has left the dock. What would happen when there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars worth of grain from many farmers on a ship? Does the ship have to return? It depends upon the type of contamination, which I will talk about later. Would the entire shipment need to be destroyed at a cost to everyone involved? All of these things would have been prevented or was far more likely to be prevented under the old system with inward inspection.
When the inspection occurs on grain coming into ports or into the local grain elevator in smaller quantities, people find out whether there is mould, glass, deer droppings or items that would make people very sick. This has some distinct advantages not only of finding it earlier and not needing to destroy hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars worth of product and finding it later mixed in a massive shipload but it also helps solve the problem for the future by protecting the grain that is not contaminated so it can be determined in a much smaller quantity where the particular shipment came from, which farm, which elevator, isolate the problem and then deal with it on a much smaller scale.
With government assistance, we can aggregate the various qualities so that a farmer with a particularly high quality of grain can get a premium price. The grain would not get mixed in and become indistinguishable in a package with a lower quality evaluation.
What could be uncovered in these type of inspections? For people who do not deal with grain directly, a number of things can get into grain. It is not so simple that the grain is always perfectly clean. In one year, 10% to 25% of the grain samples inspected had some problems. There could be 200 deer or some other animals in a field of grain. There could be rodent excrement or fertilizer pellets mixed in it. Other things that have been found are toxins, bacteria and fungi, fusarium blight, mercury, glass and ergot. Ergot is a particular example of how most people do not think wheat can be dangerous. Small quantities in bread can lead to violent muscle spasms, hallucinations and crawling sensations on the skin. It was thought that the Salem witch trials were caused because of ergot. So there can be very dangerous things in wheat that are dangerous to human health, dangerous to Canadians and Americans, and dangerous to our exports overseas. Far less important than health is the damage to our reputation if these are lost because of a lack of inspection.
The bill would lead to a lot less research by the Canadian Grain Commission. We have talked already in this Parliament incessantly about the cutting of researchers by the government. I have talked a number of times about the north's atmospheric research that has been cut close to the North Pole at the weather station. The three largest research councils in Canada have been cut as far as money for researchers. This small item is symptomatic of that. The reason we are world leaders is because we have this tremendous research capacity and the infestation labs. It is amazing that we would think of passing a bill that would cut off this great success story.
I also want to talk about another protection for farmers. At the beginning of the bill, it changes the function of the bill as to who is being protected. It suggests that it would not only protect the farmers and producers, but that it would throughout the system. The farmers' organizations have said that this would dilute the protection of the farmers themselves. I have mentioned already in a number of cases of how the small farmer, the small producer is being put at great risk by the bill, at unnecessary risk to the value and safety of his crop and to the safety of an amount of pay for his crop that could lead basically to his life savings.
Another item that would reduce the safety for farmers is the cutting back of the Grain Appeal Tribunal. When a farmer had an objection or wanted to challenge the Grain Commission inspector's report, he could appeal to the Grain Appeal Tribunal. If this bill were to proceed, this tribunal would be gone and the farmer's only recourse would be the chief grain inspector, one person. As we have noticed with the Wheat Board machinations, et cetera, that one person may actually have the Conservative government's interests at heart. In any event, I do not think any of us would want to put our entire livelihood, our family home and the family farm, at the risk of only one person. Even one person could make an innocent mistake. Also, farmers could no longer go to court. What type of natural justice would ever prevent someone from going to court, especially when the tribunal that he or she could have gone to previously has been eliminated? I do not think the farmers who have contacted our party are very happy about this lack of protection.
I want to talk a bit about some of the recommendations made by the committee.
In February 2008, during the debate on the last round of this bill, the minister said that many of the amendments to this act had come out of the work that was done at the agriculture committee, in co-operation with all parties, and that he looked forward to their support on this bill. He said that the amendments reflected the direction of both the COMPAS report and the good work done by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. I think nothing could be, I will not say more untruthful, but more deceiving, because, as I said earlier, many of the committee's recommendations were not followed.
What is really incomprehensible is that the person who chaired putting the report forward at the time was the Minister of Agriculture. He signed his name to a committee report that has all sorts of recommendations, some of which I mentioned and more of which I will mention until I run out of time, and then introduces a bill that does not follow those recommendations. What is even worse is that members of his party said in their speeches that the bill came from the recommendations and that one of the recommendations was that there should be a cost benefit analysis done about privatizing the inspection services before anything like that was considered. However, that was never done.
The committee, as I said earlier, suggested that before bonds were eliminated, a study be done and a report sent back to the committee on various models. It also suggested that the Grain Commission be given more money to do these types of investigations on the streamlining, not less money.
With regard to the 200 job losses, it is not just the jobs themselves. Every member here knows how bad that is but when we equate that to reduced inspections on food safety, for hundreds of thousands of people that makes it much more serious.
Because of the problems related to the lesser quality of the shipments, as I suggested earlier, those in the transport business will know there could be losses to Canadian ports. The agriculture union estimates that the protection programs that protect farmers would be slashed by 67%, the grain quality by almost 50% and the research programs by 70%.
I do not know if people realize the ramifications of this bill. For all the reasons I mentioned, it is definitely time to send this bill back to the drawing board.
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Mr. Speaker, I must say it has been a really interesting morning. Of course, I am a member of the agriculture committee. We were in agriculture committee talking to some farmers from Alberta and Quebec. I would have thought that the member for British Columbia Southern Interior, and being from a potato province, the member for Malpeque would have had an interest in potato topics, but of course, now I have found out that they have been here in the House messing around with the grain industry out in western Canada.
It is disappointing for me to stand here today. This is a bill that we talked about. Two years ago in committee, we came up with a unanimous report on how to go forward. Out of that committee report came legislation, which is what we see today. We know it is not perfect and the minister himself has said it is not perfect. It probably needs some refining and some work in committee. I was under the impression that all the opposition parties were in agreement with that and they thought that this would be a wise thing to do.
My colleague talked about bonding. What does he say to the small businessman who now has to buy an expensive bond? What does he say to the farmer who thought he was protected under the existing bonding system, yet when he goes to collect his cheque, he finds out it is only half of what he thought it would be? Does he think that is the way the system should be?
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to suggest that the farmer would be upset if he only gets half of what he should when we have a bill that would make sure he gets zero of what he should. I think the farmer would have preferred to get half.
The member talked about the small businessman being protected by the bond and that we are going to tell him that he has to buy a bond. It is not he who has to buy a bond; it is the big grain producers that have the little farmer's grain and might lose it, go bankrupt or refuse to pay totally by accident, and then that farmer is at risk.
The member made the excellent point about all the parties agreeing at committee. They came up with some excellent recommendations. I mentioned a number of them. The bill went totally against them and did not follow them. He would have been exactly right if he had made that statement a year and a half ago, or whenever the committee made the recommendations. The committee members were in agreement. They signed a report and then the chair of the committee who signed the report became the minister and brought forward a bill that had no resemblance at all to the recommendations in the report.
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
Mr. Speaker, I just heard a reference from my hon. colleague on the agriculture committee that I was not there this morning. I was here debating this very important bill. At some point in time, I would like to ask him if he is doing any work to help the potato farmers.
I have a letter on my desk asking the minister to help. I met Mr. Gemme, who wrote the letter to me. I talked with the folks at committee during the latter half. I think all of our parties will get together to work on this. Hopefully, the minister will help these folks in Quebec and Alberta.
I am envious that my hon. colleague from Yukon is going back to beautiful Yukon. I spent years there and I encourage all members to visit that beautiful part of the country.
Could he place Bill C-13 in a global context? In other words, if this bill were to pass, what ramifications would he see for Canadian farmers and for Canada?
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Mr. Speaker, I do agree with the member that I have the most beautiful riding in the country.
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Mr. Speaker, the riding of the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley may be in second place.
The member has raised a very important and serious question. As I mentioned in the beginning and as everyone in the House would agree, we have a worldwide reputation for the highest quality grains. If these items are dumped into a shipload that is going around the world, that has at least two important aspects. It has a human security aspect. People around the world who make high quality foods from grain pick the high-quality and high-priced Canadian product because they know it is going to be high quality. Our farmers, grain companies and transporters all benefit. Why would we ever want to damage this by taking away inspectors?
Because of GATT and international trade rules, there are very few things we can do any more to help our farmers in their tremendous competition with Europe and the United States. It subsidizes so much. When we have something here that is not being challenged, why would we eliminate that particular advantage? Why would we put the health of people anywhere in the world at risk?
Finally, in the United States, which is so security conscious, removing that inward inspection of United States shipments may cut us right off if there was an incident. We would lose huge exports.
David Anderson ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board
Mr. Speaker, I think maybe the member has come here without really understanding the bill. Obviously, we have seen some strange activity on the other side today.
Is he aware that with the changes, farmers would still get their grain inspected at the elevators, as they do now? Does he know that the grain would be inspected at port, as it is now? Does he know that inward weighing is actually costing farmers money and if we made these changes, it would be saving the producers money? Does he know those things?
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I already said it would be inspected at port at a time which, in some case, would be too late. It may still get inspected, but it may have to be privatized and it could cost them even more. What the hon. member is recommending could be done, but it would likely cost the farmers even more and it would not be mandatory. This bill makes it less mandatory. For some farmers, because of a problem with another ship load that was not determined for the reasons I mentioned, or the various contaminants, which the Conservatives know could occur in grains, or all the problems which I could go over again, it could cause those farmers unnecessary losses.
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to listen to this debate. It shows the lack of understanding of the opposition parties in how things work in the grain system.
I get concerned because my constituents are farmers. They are my friends and neighbours. They do not want to be driving around in a 40-year-old half-ton. We are trying to modernize this half-ton; we are trying to modernize the grain act.
Why will the hon. member not allow this bill to go to committee and make the modifications there?
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Mr. Speaker, I would like to use a different comparison. The hon. member talked about a 40-year-old half-ton. Let us talk about airplanes and if we were to take away the inspection of airplanes. Of course, we want to get new airplanes, but it does not mean that we would stop inspecting them for safety periodically. Why, in modernizing, would that lead to not inspecting the airplanes? Why would modernization reduce the inspections on the food that we are eating?
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Mr. Speaker, I am still amazed at the member's lack of understanding of this issue. Maybe it is because he is not from a grain growing area. I assume that is why. I have heard a number of statements from people who are completely ignorant about what they are talking about this morning.
It is time, as the member for Prince Albert just said, to modernize this system so that it begins to work far better for farmers and producers so they can get their grain to market, get paid a decent price for it and there are not all kinds of deductions and payments coming off of their grain. This bill will do that. Farmers will still get their grain inspected as they do when they deliver it, the grain will be inspected at port when it is being exported, as it is right now and the whole process will cost them less.
Why is the member against that?
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Mr. Speaker, it is too bad the member is saying that the National Farmers Union which drew attention to these problems does not know what it is talking about.
He will have to read the transcript of my speech to see what the problems are with the changes that remove the inspections. That could increase the chances of bad food going overseas in exports. It could ruin our reputation and the chances of those farmers who have a high-quality shipment of getting a better price for it. It could ruin the possibility of a security problem with the United States and that could devastate the revenues that our farmers get from exports to the United States.
John Cannis Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I want to participate in this debate to add my voice as a member who comes from a city riding. I stood up earlier to express that. Some people might ask why a member from the city of Toronto, the former city of Scarborough, would stand up to show concern about farm issues. We consume just as much as the people who live in Alberta or anywhere else.
Mr. Speaker, before I go on, I want to point out that I will be sharing my time with my good friend and colleague, the member for Don Valley East, who is also a neighbour of my riding and an urbanite. It just goes to show the value members from urban ridings such as Don Valley East, Scarborough Centre and everywhere else place on farm issues.
In saying so, I want to put on the record that it was Dennis Mills, a former member of Parliament from Toronto, who initiated the recognition of the family farm. With that initiative he wanted to make all Canadians no matter where they lived aware of the importance of the family farm, primarily because we value the good work and participation that different parts of the country contribute not just to the food supply here in Canada, but in terms of exports which create revenue for our country, job opportunities and so on.
I sit on the international trade committee. Today in our committee we had representatives from another sector of the food supply, the Canadian Pork Council, the Canadian Beef Export Federation, and the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. We listened with great interest to what they had to say. They were not talking about grain, but they were talking about essentially the same thing, what we consume as Canadians and what we sell abroad.
On this specific bill, I sought the counsel of my hon. colleague, a former minister of agriculture, the member for Malpeque, who, I would say, is an individual who knows this file very well. As a member from a city riding, I usually go to the source and he briefed me on the bill. He summarized the bill for me. I would like to put it on the record.
The purpose of the initiative is to eliminate inspections and weighing of grain shipments and bonding, which is a type of insurance for farmers in case of bankruptcy by shippers of grains. The changes in this legislation look to reduce costs in the sale and transportation of grain but may add risks to the farmer.
I think everyone agrees that no system is perfect, so what we try to do is make changes. In the last Parliament the former minister of agriculture had a plebiscite. That plebiscite was put into question. It went before the courts and it was thrown out. The farmers wanted their input and they should have their input democratically, and they did.
I do not know why the government is trying to shove this legislation down people's throats. In asking a question of the member for Malpeque, I mentioned that I was concerned because he talked about it not just being about money. Right away, it prompted my concern on behalf of my constituents, on behalf of residents of the province I come from, Ontario. It reminded me right away of Walkerton which occurred under a Conservative government, the Mike Harris government specifically. We all know what happened. Inspections were cut back and inspectors were not available. People lost their lives. During the last election, there was an outbreak of listeriosis. Unfortunately, again some Canadians lost their lives. That had to do with changes to how inspections took place. As we all know, funding was reduced.
How much is a life worth? Is it worth saving the salary of an inspector or two? I do not think so.
We have built a society here in Canada which is often described as second to none, and our contributions are part of this civil society, through taxation or levies, which we then put back into the system to make sure that proper inspection, for example, is being done, monitoring is being done, and the right kinds of professionals are being hired, so that we feel comfortable when we go out to the grocery store.
Earlier today I spoke to the representatives I mentioned earlier. I said that my concern is that I can go to the local store and buy my steak, minced meat or bacon to feed myself and my family, and I am at ease. Similarly, all other products that come from our farming community should be put in that category as well.
My concern here with this legislation, as the member for Malpeque said, is that there are some glitches in it, some bugs that need to be addressed. If anybody has come forth with recommendations, it is the member for Malpeque. I was hoping that the Conservative Party would open up and listen.
Today, for example, we are trying to address the various concerns that the Canadian Pork Council is having, the beef producers are having, the cattlemen are having in sending their products primarily to one of our biggest markets, the United States of America, in terms of the type of inspections that are going on.
What we are going to be undertaking is to go down there, at some point in time, talk to our counterparts and make the Americans aware of what we are doing here in Canada. For example, members will recall when we had the BSE issue. We were basing our argument on science and the Americans unfortunately were basing theirs on vested interest, which was unfair.
It was similar to the softwood lumber issue where we knew we had a good product. We invested in our mills. We modernized them and were able to put out cost effective products, yet again, we got these appeals that took place through the NAFTA or the WTO, and X amount of money was being put forward to challenge or respond to the challenges. The next thing we know, farmers, for example, end up picking up the burden. It is similar to what our witnesses were saying today before our committee.
What was also disappointing with respect to our witnesses today at the international trade committee was that they felt that the government was not adequately supporting them financially so that they could be better equipped to market Canadian products internationally. When they referred to the types of numbers that they were given, they were so minute compared to other areas in other countries. It is no wonder that even though we have the best beef, for example, in the world, we are not able to get out and get our fair share of the market.
I would like to tell members about an incident that took place some years ago when we were going through the difficulties with respect to our beef products. Producers were invited into my riding and we had a barbecue. We invited constituents who really wanted to know what this issue was all about.
As my good friend, the member for Don Valley East said, we are urbanites but we care. We care first, and yes, we consume, so we invited the residents of our urban ridings, and they came out and spoke to the producers and the farmers. They were updated. They were educated. They were informed and they had a sympathetic ear. What happened? All of a sudden they were on board to send letters and provide their input and suggestions.
At the same time, we went to our schools and talked to young students, who hopefully will be tomorrow's representatives sitting here in my seat talking about important issues to Canada.
No riding or area, I said before and I will say it again, has a monopoly on it. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food I see is sitting in his chair and he is paying very close attention to what I am saying. He knows this very well that he does not have a monopoly on agriculture.
The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken
Order. When the debate resumes, the hon. member will have five minutes for questions and comments consequent on his speech.
Statements by members.
The House resumed from April 2 consideration of the motion that 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, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in support of Bill C-13, an act to amend the Canada Grain Act. However, I am upset that the opposition has moved to hoist this amendment. It is hijacking this bill which is essential to the grain farmers in western Canada, and I cannot support this hoist amendment because I support changes to the Canada Grain Act.
It is simple. Canadian farm families deserve to be treated equally across the country, but the current legislation forces western Canadian producers to pay costs that are not imposed in other regions. Bill C-13 would contribute to building a lower cost, more effective and innovative grain sector. The legislation is based on the agriculture committee report the opposition parties helped write.
Conservative MPs are ready and willing to roll up our sleeves and work on Bill C-13 at the agriculture committee. It is too bad the opposition parties are not willing to do that work and treat all regions fairly. This bill illustrates the government's ongoing commitment to putting farmers first, by eliminating costly regulations and unnecessary mandatory programming in Canada's grain sector.
For some years now, the western Canadian grain sector has been undergoing significant transformations. Indeed, the marketplace for grains has evolved, with increased emphasis on niche markets, livestock feed and biofuels, as well as other value-added marketing opportunities.
Despite this ever-changing environment, the Canada Grain Act has not been substantially amended for close to 40 years. As such, the operations of the Canadian Grain Commission, the agency that maintains the standards of quality for grain and regulates grain handling in our country, do not reflect the needs of today's farmers or the industry.
Before I provide additional explanation regarding the proposed changes to the Canada Grain Act, I will provide some brief background.
In 2005 an amendment to the Canada Grain Act was passed that required an independent review of the act and the Canadian Grain Commission. COMPAS Inc. was hired by the Department of Agriculture to conduct this independent review in 2005. Let me point out it was the Liberal government that hired COMPAS to do this.
Its recommendations were presented to Parliament in 2006. The COMPAS report was referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, which consulted stakeholders and recognized the need for changes to the Canada Grain Act and the Canadian Grain Commission. The amendments are based on recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food in its report to the government in 2006.
Throughout these reviews, stakeholders were consulted extensively, including eight public meetings held across the country by COMPAS Inc. Hence, these proposed changes reflect the needs and the will of grain producers and of the industry.
This government is proposing to clarify the mandate of the Canadian Grain Commission in the Canada Grain Act. The clarification will stress that the Canadian Grain Commission protects the interests of producers with respect to deliveries to licensees, determinations of grade and dockage and allocation of producer cars.
That said, there have been extensive changes within the Canadian grain industry over the years and the Canadian Grain Commission must reflect that evolution. The number of primary elevators in western Canada has dwindled. Grain companies have consolidated their operations and now much of our grain is shipped from primary elevators to port terminals owned by the same company.
Currently, the Canadian Grain Commission must inspect and weigh all grain received by terminal and transfer elevators. To keep up with the changing environment, the government strongly believes that producer interests are best served by limiting costs and fostering a competitive, efficient grain handling system. Consequently, the government proposes to eliminate mandatory inward inspections and weighing requirements.
The bill would reduce unnecessary mandatory costs from the grain handling system and would work to build a lower-cost, more effective and innovative grain sector. We are reducing the regulatory burden as all costs in the system eventually work their way down to the farmers. This will again result in a less costly system for farmers' benefit.
Nevertheless, inward inspection and weighing do provide value to some producers in some circumstances. The government has proposed amendments to the Canada Grain Act that will facilitate private sector delivery of inward services when they are requested. Thus, eliminating the inward inspection and weighing will create business opportunities for private sector providers. It is best left to the shippers themselves to determine when and at what level these services are provided.
As an important and ongoing check on this new arrangement, producers and industry will be able to apply to the Canadian Grain Commission for binding grade arbitration when they are not sure that the right grade has been assigned. The proposed changes will not reduce the capacity to ensure a dependable commodity to buyers of Canadian grain. What is more, international buyers of Canadian grain can rest assured that every overseas vessel will continue to receive the Canadian Grain Commission's certification of grade and weight.
On another topic, the Canadian Grain Commission's producer payment security program has been the subject of debate in the grain sector. Currently, all licensed grain handlers must provide financial security to the Canadian Grain Commission. If licensed grain handlers fail to pay for the grain they have purchased, the Canadian Grain Commission steps in to compensate producers.
Unfortunately, this security program is flawed as it is not 100% effective and adds costs to Canadian grain handling system. These costs negatively affect the competitiveness of Canada's grain sector. We are reducing the regulatory burden. As all costs in the system eventually work their way to farmers, this will result in a less costly system for farmers too.
However, we do recognize that inward inspection provides transactional value in certain circumstances. That is why we are proposing provisions to facilitate private sector delivery of these services when the shipper believes they would add value. Furthermore, producers and industry would have the ability to apply to the Canadian Grain Commission for binding grade arbitration when requested.
To address issues of non-compliance, the Canadian Grain Commission needs additional, simpler means to enforce the Canada Grain Act. That is why this government proposes that the Canada Grain Act be brought under the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act. This proposed reform follows a recommendation by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food to use monetary penalties to help enforce a grain delivery declaration system.
The bill would provide these tools by allowing for the development of regulations to require grain delivery declarations and the ability to assess penalties against those who declare the content of grain deliveries falsely. These measures will ensure that wheat is properly identified as it moves through the grain handling system and, as such, uphold the grain quality assurance system.
In this environment of change, the Canada Grain Act and the Canadian Grain Commission must be modernized. With these proposed amendments, the Canadian Grain Commission will be better able to provide producers with a more cost effective grain quality assurance system. These amendments are essential to eliminating unnecessary costly regulations to Canada's grain sector.
The government is committed to putting farmers first. The integrity of the Canadian grain quality assurance system and the reliability of Canada brand will be maintained.
The proposed changes to the Canada Grain Act and the Canadian Grain Commission are part of an ongoing modernization of western Canadian grain sector. While historically Canadian grain has been exported as a commodity, it is now increasingly marketed to niche markets and domestic value-added enterprises such as biofuels.
The Canada Grain Act needs to evolve to reflect the changes taking place in the grain sector. The grain sector evolution was accelerated when subsidies for rail transportation, known as the Crow rate, were ended in the 1990s. Since then, prairie agriculture has diversified into a wider variety of crops and has expanded into livestock production. Also, the recent end to KVD has removed a regulatory barrier that prevented western Canadian farmers from accessing high yielding wheats that improve productivity.
In this innovative environment, changes to the Canada Grain Act and Canadian Grain Commission will provide producers with a more cost effective grain quality assurance system. These changes will also help the grain industry to meet the challenges of a more competitive market oriented 21st century.
This government is proposing to clarify the mandate of the Canadian Grain Commission in the Canada Grain Act. With a clarification in mandate, the Canada Grain Act will clearly show that the Canadian Grain Commission acts in the interest of grain producers in the specific areas of: delivery access to elevators and grain dealers; access to binding grain grading; and allocation of producer cars.
However, the proposed reforms do not end there.
Over time, there have been extensive changes within the Canadian grain industry. The number of primary elevators in western Canada has decreased significantly. We have seen company consolidations and now much of our grain is shipped from primary elevators to terminal or transfer elevators owned by the same company.
Currently, the Canadian Grain Commission must inspect and weigh all grain received by terminal and transfer elevators. These services are not essential to the grain quality assurance system and impose unnecessary costs.
Hence, the government proposes to remove mandatory requirements for inward inspection and weighing of grain shipments. In so doing, the bill will reduce unnecessary mandatory costs from the grain handling system and work to build a lower cost, more effective and innovative grain sector.
When I talk to farmers in my riding about the Canadian Grain Commission and the Canada Grain Act, they always wonder why things are done in the manner they are done. They have always ask why we cannot change this or do that. There are a lot of the changes that farmers have asked for and require in the bill in order for them to be profitable in their operations.
What we see happening today is just deplorable. The hoisting of this bill just does not do it for western Canadian farmers. It creates an unfair reality for them. We have asked the opposition parties in good faith to work with the bill in committee. We would like to see the bill move forward into committee.
In conclusion, this bill is very important to western Canadian farmers. I expect this bill to go forward.
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB
Mr. Speaker, this issue has been before the House for quite a while. When I was the chair of the agriculture committee in the last Parliament, we did this study and came forward with recommendations to make the changes to the Canada Grain Act.
There is no question that producers across the country spoke out loud and clear that the system was not working as well as it could. We have to be more productive. We have to be more competitive. We have to make sure that farmers are more profitable. This is essentially what this bill would accomplish.
The member talked about the issue of producer security. The commission has not been able to keep up with the rapidly evolving changes in the industry. In Manitoba, a major grain buyer just went bankrupt and left a number of producers out in the cold without proper compensation. The ones who did get compensation only got pennies on the dollar. The bonding process in place today cannot move fast enough when grain buyers are getting bigger and bigger all the time.
We have to move to a new producer security system, whether it is through an insurance fund or other forms of security such as a check-off or clearing house to be able to address the needs of the grain farmers across the country more effectively. We want to make sure that producers receive money for the goods that they deliver to grain buyers, especially those grain buyers which unfortunately get into difficulty from time to time.
I wonder if the member could comment on some of the things he has heard from producers in Saskatchewan and across this great country on what we need to do from the standpoint of producer security, as well as the things that we need to do to move forward on grading and the things that are so important to making sure that we are selling the best product in the world.
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Mr. Speaker, one thing about the bonding system that we presently have is it creates the false sense of security that farmers who deliver their grain will get paid no matter what. It has been shown in some of the previous failures of certain companies that that did not happen. Farmers found out too late that they did not receive their full payment and in fact they only received pennies on the dollar.
That is one thing in the Canada Grain Act that needs to be changed. Again, if the opposition members have ideas, they have the opportunity in committee to bring forward those suggestions to negotiate and work our way through what is best for the industry.
As far as the grading of grain is concerned, it shows the changes in the industry when grain companies are shipping to their own terminals. Right now, farmers pay to have that grain inspected both at the inland terminal and at the outward terminal. When the grain is loaded into the hopper car in Portage, Manitoba, it is inspected. When it is dumped in Thunder Bay by the same terminal, it is inspected again. Farmers are asking why.
Historically, there was a reason for doing that, but in the current environment it is no longer relevant. Those are the types of changes that are needed. They would definitely pull costs out of the system and also improve the effectiveness of the system to deliver the product that farmers need to get to port.
Jim Maloway NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing here is the continued desire on the part of the Conservative government to try to continue its program of deregulation. It is the old philosophy of pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps. That can work in a good market, but there are cycles in business and farming. Eventually, the good market turns into a bad market. For that reason, we have to protect our farmers.
As a matter of fact, what the Canadian farmers have that works in their favour is the terrific quality of product that they produce. There is a concern that we might destabilize that quality by lowering the standards. We all saw what happened when lead was discovered in the toys coming in from China and what that did to the reputation of that country and that particular industry.
I do not think that we want to do anything here that would damage the very strong reputation we have in the world market for producing top quality grain. That is one advantage we have over the Americans and I would think we would want to keep it that way.
I also want to point out that what we are proposing is a hoist motion. It is a democratic process in this House. The government should have patience. It has already been waiting a long time. It has introduced this bill more than once. Hoisting the bill for six months is not going to do irreparable damage to the grain economy in Canada.
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Mr. Speaker, I would like to educate my colleague about some of the changes that have happened in the grain industry in the last 20 years that make the act no longer relevant.
The member talked about the lowering of standards. There is nothing in this bill or the changes that would have any impact on lowering the standards of the good quality grain we grow in western Canada. In fact, it is just modernizing the system to reflect today's modern technology. It would probably provide a better analysis of how that grain is going to be shipped and what is actually shipped. Nothing is changing in that area.
As far as deregulation is concerned, I find that kind of amusing. When we look at the grain trade, we need to be efficient and lean. We need to figure out ways to do that.
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the grain trade and not the beef trade or something else.
We are looking at ways to pull costs out of the system for farmers and still provide the safe product shipped around the world.
Everything that is proposed in this bill has been worked on together with the opposition members to do that, so, why they would hoist the bill is beyond me.
He also said it was only for six months, but for farmers six months is a long time. They have been waiting for 30 years to see this change. Why would we wait another six months? The member should tell me what will change in six months that would make the hon. member more comfortable with this bill.
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Mr. Speaker, this is a very important conversation that we are having. We are talking about a hoist motion. Essentially, the opposition members, led by the NDP, have said that they do not even want to discuss this bill. They do not want the bill in committee. They do not want to work toward streamlining and making a better process for our grain farmers.
The member is a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. Is this something that is habitual with the opposition when it comes to this committee? Why would they not want to work in committee to make some real changes and work out the process?
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Mr. Speaker, that is one thing that puzzles me. It seemed as though we had such a good working relationship in committee, and now it seems to have been poisoned through the actions of certain members.
This is something the committee worked on jointly. We sat down and we came out with a report that everybody voted in favour of.
Why would they now say they want to hoist the bill? What has changed? The only thing that has changed is politics. For a party whose leader goes on television and says to quit playing politics, I wish those members would listen to their own leader and quit playing politics.
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Mr. Speaker, of course New Democrats are here to make Parliament work, but we also have a responsibility to our constituents to ensure that legislation that is brought before the House is good legislation.
I would challenge the government. What we have actually heard from members opposite is that there was an agriculture committee report. Many of those recommendations were supported by all parties. Yet the piece of legislation that came forward blatantly disregards some of the critical elements of that report. I want to reference a couple of them.
The committee recommended clearly that protecting the interests of grain producers should continue to be the job of the Canadian Grain Commission. It also recommended that the committee look at increased funding for the Canadian Grain Commission to ensure long-term sustainability. This proposal is silent on that. There are a number of other recommendations that this piece of legislation disregards.
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Mr. Speaker, again, members can address those questions in committee. I would be happy to work with them in committee on some of the issues they have brought up.
I have to represent my constituents. I represent western Canadian farmers. They need changes to the act. They cannot afford a delay. Let us get the bill to committee and then make the changes as we see fit. What the members are proposing will not even get it to committee. The losers in this will be the farmers.
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Mr. Speaker, before I start the formal part of my remarks, I would like to acknowledge the comments by the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan and the member for Burnaby—New Westminster. It is nice to have these well thought out agriculture minds looking at this. Maybe they would like to come to committee and start talking about some of these issues, and perhaps the loyal opposition as well, which has only asked three questions in this entire session on agriculture. I can see that this is going to be a lively debate.
It is my pleasure to support the proposed amendments to the Canada Grain Act; however, the same cannot be said with regard to the NDP hoist amendment. Clearly this amendment is a transparent attempt by the NDP to continue its attack on western Canadian farmers. The opposition has nothing positive to offer on this bill. So, what does it do? It attacks the very essence of the legislation. Members should work to make constructive changes to this legislation in committee, not hoist a bill so that we cannot even work with it.
This is a piece of legislation which the Canadian Grain Commission is asking for, and which shippers, producers and farmers in my area are asking for. All they are asking is for us to at least bring this to committee so that we can talk about it and have some freedom to make some changes to streamline an act that is 30 years old. Unlike the opposition, our government puts a high priority on this proposed legislation because farmers have asked for it and we agree it is high time this act was brought into the 21st century.
The Canadian grain sector stands out as a huge success story among the considerable accomplishments of the Canadian agriculture and food industry over the last 100 years. This is especially true in the area of Westlock—St. Paul.
Canadian wheat, barley and other grains are known by our customers all over the world for their unequalled consistency, cleanliness and quality. On a yearly basis Canadian grain farmers generate about $10 billion. That money helps to keep the economies of both rural and urban Canada growing. It sustains employment throughout the grain production chain from farm input suppliers to elevators, to transporters and processors. Those dollars support our rural communities which contribute so much to Canada's economy.
To put it in more concrete terms, Canada's grain growers sustain our health and well-being as Canadians by putting the very bread we eat every day on our tables. This government has taken concrete action in support of this vital sector for our economy, not just in this particular legislation, but in other legislation in regard to transportation and food safety. We are putting farmers and Canadians first.
Three years ago our first act as a new government was in the interests of grain producers when we accelerated the grains and oilseeds payment program. We are investing $2.2 billion in the development of biofuels to open up new markets for our grains and oilseeds producers, to create new jobs for our rural communities and to create a better environment for Canadians. Those dollars have helped with the planning of new biofuel projects across Canada and will help build biofuels and biodiesel plants.
We have improved cash advance programming by doubling the interest-free portion for producers. We are helping the transfer of family farms to young farmers by boosting the capital gains exemption and doubling the amount of government-backed credit available to young farmers.
While this is something that can be captured in one paragraph of a speech, it is important that each one of these changes have critical effects on our producers and farmers not only in western Canada, but across the country. These are changes that farmers have been asking for, for 20 years. Finally, in the first three years our government has not only moved forward but has accomplished many of these.
The new agriculture loans act would guarantee an additional $1 billion in loans over the next five years to Canadian farm families and cooperatives. The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is working hard to open new markets for our grain and pulse farmers around the world. The minister is also delivering real action for our farmers so that they can continue to fuel our economy and remain competitive both at home and abroad.
At the WTO agriculture negotiations, we remain committed to pursuing an ambitious outcome that benefits Canada's entire agriculture sector, not pitting one aspect of our Canadian agricultural economy against another as has happened in the past.
New marketing opportunities will help Canada get through the current economic uncertainty and come out stronger than ever. Stable, bankable farm programs will also help farmers weather the storm and continue to drive the Canadian economy. That is what the growing forward framework is all about, making Canadian agriculture stable in the present day and building a strong agriculture future not only for current farmers but for our future farmers.
Business risk management programs are a key part of growing forward. We have replaced CAIS with programs that are more predictable, more responsive and more bankable. I can assure members that this was a major platform plank in my first election to Parliament. The producers in the areas that I represent, whether they be grains and oilseeds producers, whether they be cattle producers, whether they be supply management producers, wanted a more bankable, more stable, and more predictable system.
We promised to eliminate the CAIS program. We did that. We replaced it with growing forward. We went across this country to hold round-table consultations, not just myself and members on this side of the House but also the Minister of Agriculture. We made unprecedented stops all across this country. Unlike former governments, he did not just get off the plane and stop at the nearby airport to host a meeting. He went out into farm communities, held those consultations and listened to farmers. We came forward to separate agriculture stability from disaster relief, putting in the top tier of our growing forward program. These are programs that our producers have been asking for, and we are delivering.
Business risk management programs are a key part of growing forward. We have replaced CAIS with programs that are more predictable, more responsible and, as I said, more bankable. Those programs have delivered $1.5 billion to our livestock producers in their time of need.
We have worked with pork producers to deliver a $75 million transition program, government-backed loans and international market development. Producers want to make their living in the marketplace. We have delivered $17 million for pork marketing to get more buyers bidding on our products.
Canada's economic action plan is making sure the agricultural industry emerges stronger than ever from the current economic crisis.
We announced a $500 million agricultural flexibility plan aimed at helping farmers with regional market challenges and opportunities. These funds are helping farmers cope with cost of production pressures, promote innovation and ensure environmental sustainability. This money is already supporting action on traceability for our livestock sector.
We also set aside $50 million to strengthen our slaughter and meat processing capacity.
The amendments the government is proposing to the Canada Grain Act and the Canadian Grain Commission are evidence of our commitment to grain producers.
Canada's quality assurance system for grain provides a key competitive advantage for our farmers. The amendments we are proposing build on that competitive advantage.
When our global customers choose Canadian grain for processing, they count on consistent quality and cleanliness with every delivery. This world-class reputation that our Canadian grains enjoy around the globe has been hard-earned. First and foremost, it has been earned through the hard work of our farmers. Grain handling companies, research scientists and the Canadian Grain Commission have also played a key role in building that golden reputation that truly enhances the amount of financial recovery that our producers receive at the end of the day.
Our edge in the marketplace is all about quality, and much of the responsibility for the quality of Canadian grain resides with the Canadian Grain Commission and the quality assurance system it administers under the Canada Grain Act.
The grain industry is changing and the legislative tools required to keep the industry competitive need to change along with it. The current Canada Grain Act has not changed substantially in almost 40 years, but the marketplace has evolved.
We have a major new customer for grains in the form of the biofuels industry, supported by initiatives put in place by this government.
We have quality management systems to allow parcels of grain with specific qualities wanted by buyers to be kept separate through the handling system.
We have niche marketing and processing of grains in Canada, and we have a broader range of crops in western Canada than ever seen before.
In the mid-1990s, the reform of the Western Grain Transportation Act triggered a wholesale diversification as producers opted to market their grain through livestock or switch to other crops: oilseeds, pulse crops or horticultural crops. Today, wheat accounts for only one-third of the crop land. In the 1950s, three-quarters of that land was wheat. I know many of my opposition colleagues have never actually seen many of the crop lands in western Canada and they may be surprised to hear that wheat now actually only accounts for one-third, but that is actually a fact.
We are proposing these amendments to the Canada Grain Act to help keep our grain producers competitive by improving the regulatory environment for Canada's grain sector.
The proposed changes to the Canada Grain Act and the Canadian Grain Commission will help the grain sector to meet the challenges of a more competitive and more oriented sector for the 21st century. By removing unnecessary mandatory costs from the grain handling system, the bill works to build a lower cost, more effective and innovative grain sector. We are modernizing the regulatory environment. As all costs in the system eventually work their way to farmers, this will result in a less costly and more effective system for our farmers.
This is an important point. All excess costs in the system are always downloaded on to the backs of our farmers. These amendments will help streamline this act and make our system better for western Canadian farmers. These amendments are amendments that were asked for by our farmers.
The amendments reflect the direction of both the Compas report and the good work done by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food of which I am proud to be a member. Both reports reflect extensive consultations held with the sector in preparing those reports.
The fact is that this package is built on the standing committee's recommendations. I have these recommendations if any of my opposition colleagues would like to take the time to actually read them. In short, these amendments speak to the will and needs of the Canadian grain industry.
Let me talk a little about the amendments that are actually being proposed. First, inward inspection and weighing of grains will no longer be mandatory. There is no reason to require something that is not necessary, particularly when the cost comes out of the bottom line of farmers in the grain industry.
Currently the Grain Commission is required to inspect and weigh each railcar or truck lot of western grain that is received by licensed terminal elevators. The industry has been calling for change in this area for some years now because mandatory inspections impose costs and are not essential to grain quality.
Therefore, inward inspection and weighing will no longer be mandatory. Instead, shippers of grain will be able to request an inspection at their discretion when they feel the benefit justifies the cost.
Elevators will also be required to allow access to private inspectors when an inspection is requested. The Canadian Grain Commission would be authorized to provide grade arbitration if the parties to a transaction request it. This means if there is a dispute about the grade, the Canadian Grain Commission will be available to impartially determine the grade.
However, as my colleagues in the NDP like to point out, and let us be clear, this does not mean grain would go through the system without inspection. This means that our government will stand up and put safeguards in place for Canadian farmers when they request it. Outward inspection would still be required when grain is loaded into vessels for export. Export vessel shipments would continue to require certification by the Canadian Grain Commission based on the inspection and weighing by CGC personnel.
With this bill in place, our customers will be assured that they can continue to have confidence in Canada's grain quality assurance system.
The Canadian Grain Commission would continue to regulate the grain handling system for the benefit of producers. It would continue to license grain handlers and dealers. It would continue to require them to have proper grading and weighing equipment, and to properly document purchases and continue to ensure that producers have access to arbitration by CGC.
In fact, the bill would actually enhance farmer protection by extending the Canadian Grain Commission grade and dockage arbitration to farmers delivering to process elevators and grain dealers. Currently, if a producer disagrees with the grade or dockage received for a grain delivery at a licensed primary elevator, the producer can ask the CGC to determine the grade and dockage and make a binding decision.
The grain producer is paid according to this decision. This bill proposes to extend this service to deliveries to all licensed grain handlers, including process elevators and grain dealers. Farmers have never had this protection before. Canadians have never had this protection before.
More broadly speaking, these amendments would improve the clarity, application and enforcement of existing provisions; reflect current practices; enhance producer protection; and eliminate some provisions that are no longer used.
The proposed amendments to the Canada Grain Act would help the grain sector continue to evolve in a direction of greater competitiveness, greater freedom for farmers to manage risks, and effective regulatory oversight where it is needed.
While in committee, there were ample opportunities to work on this bill. However, the opposition has now decided to collude together to hoist this bill, which will kill the bill to the detriment of not only Canadians but our Canadian grain farmers. With the amendments this government has made, it is clear that we have put farmers first.
With the strong work ethic and the strong desire that our government has shown in committee to work with the opposition on a number of bills to ensure that we craft legislation that is more effective and more responsible for Canadians and Canadian producers, I find it astonishing that some of the opposition members would not want to bring this to committee, where they still have the majority of the votes, to talk about some of these amendments.
At the end of the day, they have clearly shown time and again that they truly do not care about Canadian farmers.
I believe that the amendments proposed in this bill would help build a competitive and innovative grain sector by reducing costs, improving competitiveness, improving regulation, and providing choice for our producers and others in the grain sector.
I know I only have a few minutes left, but I would be remiss if I did not talk a bit about one of the major aspects of the grain economy in my riding, in my area of Alberta and Saskatchewan, where we were hit by a terrible year this year. We had a late spring. We had frost through almost every month of the year. It has been a tough year for our hay farmers. It has been a tough year for our grains and oilseeds producers. They are not asking for bills. What they are asking for is for the government to get off its back, stand out of their way and give them access to the tools that they need, and to make the changes on their behalf that they are asking for.
One of those examples that I am proud to have worked on with the Minister of Agriculture and the Prime Minister was the tax deferrals that were given earlier than ever this year to our Canadian farmers. In my area, this was a major issue. In the months of July and August they needed to know that they had access and certainty of these tax deferrals. To my dismay, I came back to the House of Commons and watched the opposition vote against tax deferrals for my farmers.
I hope we can continue to work together and work for the betterment of Canadian producers. However, at the end of the day, the opposition needs to do more than talk about it; it needs to actually get to work and help us make the system better and more effective.
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I was just so shocked while I was in my office, watching and listening to the member for Westlock—St. Paul's remarks, that I had to come over.
He talked about the minister's hog plan. Instead of blowing about it, he should hang his head in shame because of the Minister of Agriculture's record of failure. He should hang his head in shame over that program instead of talking about it.
I submit to the President of the Treasury Board that the hog crisis proposal by the minister is probably one of the best disguised Ponzi schemes that this country has ever--
The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin
Order, please. The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake is rising on a point of order.
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB
Mr. Speaker, we are here, speaking about Bill C-23 and the amendment made by the NDP--
Some hon. members
Bill C-13.
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB
The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Yes I will, Mr. Speaker, but the member spoke at great lengths about the hog plan and, as I said, it is the best disguised Ponzi scheme in the country.
What really happens here is that when farmers get unsecured money from the Government of Canada, which has very few ways to collect, they are now being asked to go to the credit institutions, such as Farm Credit Canada, credit unions and chartered banks, and take a secure loan that is, yes, guaranteed by the government, but the first thing they need to do is pay off the Government of Canada.
This is really a transfer of money from farmers who are now indebted to the banks, to Treasury Board and to the Department of Finance. Would the member not call that a Ponzi scheme?
The bottom--
The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin
Order, please. The hon. member for Westlock--St. Paul.
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to see the member for Malpeque actually here working, supposedly on behalf of Canadian farmers. It is important that we have the ability to have the debates between our government's policy and the socialist policy that the member opposite often puts forward on behalf of the NFU.
I am very familiar with the hog program that he talks about because the president of the Canadian Pork Council comes from my own community. I talked to him just this week and we took two of the three main platforms that they were asking for.
What we have actually done is we have stood up for Canadian farmers. We recognized that there was a problem but we did not just talk about it for 13 years like the former government opposite used to do. We actually did something about it.
I would like to raise another point that the member talked about. He talked about involving western Canada in the Liberal platform. People in my office did a little research. The Liberals have asked three questions on agriculture in the 130 questions that they have asked in the last couple of weeks. They have no care about Canadian agriculture or western Canadian farmers.
Niki Ashton NDP Churchill, MB
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to sit in this House and hear members of the Conservative Party go on and on about everything they are doing for farmers and rural Canadians.
I represent one of the largest rural ridings in Canada and a lot of questions are being asked as to where the federal government is when it comes to supporting communities and people who are working hard in industries, such as farming or resource extraction, or in relation to the port in my home riding of Churchill that is shipping out Canadian grain. Not only is the federal government not there to support these people working in all of these areas of the industry, but when it comes to legislation it is actually wanting to take away.
There has been a lot of talk about this move to voluntary inspection, something which I think Canadians, as they hear more and more about it, will feel increasingly uncomfortable.
How does the government feel about putting forward legislation that would take away valuable jobs in communities like the one I represent? People in my riding of Churchill, like Joe Stover who works day in and day out to ensure Canadian grain is of the best quality, would lose their jobs thanks to this legislation.
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to hear that the hon. member represents a large rural riding. I look forward to seeing her first attendance at the agriculture committee. It would be a delight to work with her.
I have worked with the hon. member from Burnaby. I know what he is referring to when he talks about transport legislation. This is not the same thing. This not moving to voluntary inspection. There is still outward inspection. We are still maintaining the quality and assurance of our grain handling system. To say otherwise is contemptuous of our entire system and of grain farmers and Canadian farmers across the country.
If she would like to forward Joe's email contact to me, I would love to talk to him about it.
I can assure the member that through my revisions of this bill, he would keep his job. In fact, this would enhance more jobs and make it easier for more farmers to make a profit so that we could have more farm families in this country, something that has eroded over the last 13 years of Liberal mismanagement.
Rick Norlock Conservative Northumberland—Quinte West, ON
Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about is supporting our agricultural community and all the other supports that go with them, which is exactly what the bill wants to do.
When I look around this august place, I ask myself which party in this Parliament best represents the interests of farmers. I look at the number of members of Parliament who belong to this party and I see that there are over 25 members of Parliament whose very livelihood depended on agriculture. I again ask myself which party best stands up for farmers.
I heard some questions from the member for Selkirk—Interlake who is a farmer, and the member for Prince Albert, who gave an impassioned speech here today and who is also a farmer. My seatmate was a dairy farmer. Who best represents the farmers' interests?
Which party does the member for Westlock—St. Paul think best represents the interests of farmers in western Canada and who will benefit best by the changes to this regulation?
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for the hard work that he does on behalf of the farmers and producers in his area and in Ontario. It is with members like him who I work with every day. The member for Wild Rose, the member for Prince Albert and other members on this side of the government put in countless hours and are dedicated to crafting legislation such as we have before us, legislation that helps to reform a system that is over 40 years old without any major changes.
In the past, the former Liberal parliamentary secretary for the minister of agriculture did not like to see any changes. The Liberals liked seeing things the way they were. At the end of the day, when I was elected, my farmers asked me to come forward, take a brave stance and make some of the changes they were asking for. They do not want to get their livelihood from the post office. They want to get their livelihood from the marketplace, and that is why Canadian farmers, time and time again, and rural Canadians as a whole, elect Conservatives to represent them.
The other point is that nobody I talked to in this country wants an election, except for the opposition members. If the Liberals do not think the legislation is perfect, then let us sit down and work with it. At the end of the day, however, the Liberals refuse to even work with us on legislation that is important to rural Canadians. They insist on getting rid of it and putting concurrence motions forward day in and day out so they can avoid talking about rural Canadians, and avoid talking about the criminal justice legislation and the changes we need to make to that system.
Quite frankly, I am hoping that today, with a little bit of back and forth, we can bring the member for Malpeque back to the table to work on behalf of Canadian farmers.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl, Science and Technology; the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina, Citizenship and Immigration.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand and talk about these kinds of issues.
In this corner of the House, the NDP takes no lessons from federal Conservatives about defending western Canadians and western Canadian farmers. In fact, in a very real sense, by putting forward this hoist motion, what we are doing, inadvertently, is saving the Conservatives from the themselves because they have taken for granted the support of western farmers over the last few years.
The Conservatives said that when they became government they would move forward with an agenda that would actually help western farmers. Instead, it is fair to say that the reason more and more New Democrats are being elected in western Canada is because western Canadian farmers are seeing that the Conservative agenda has been very ideological and meanspirited.
Let us look at the record. Since they have come to power, farm receipts now for western Canadian farmers are at the lowest level since the Great Depression. In fact, many farmers in rural communities across western Canada are actually in a negative income situation. We are looking at the highest level of debt for farmers than we have seen since the Great Depression, in real terms of course. It is important to note that the lowest level of farm receipts in the entire country is in the province of Alberta, which has been dominated by provincial Conservatives for the last 30 years. So what is wrong with this picture?
In places like British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba where New Democrats have come to power and had positive, forward looking policies that actually helped western farmers, we have seen that the income crash has not been nearly as significant. Of course farmers in Manitoba are doing the best of all, but in Alberta, where the Conservatives have been in power, farm receipts are the lowest in the country. There is strike one against the Conservatives on how they managed the agricultural file.
Strike two was their meanspirited and ideological attack on the Canadian Wheat Board. What they liked to say was that they would tell farmers in the west what to think and they would tell farmers what they think. What happened? Western farmers had a chance to vote on the Conservative proposals.
There was a straight slate of rabid Conservatives just waiting to dismantle the Wheat Board. They could hardly wait to rip up the Wheat Board, attack the institution, and western farmers overwhelmingly voted for a pro Wheat Board slate and pushed the Conservatives back. That was strike two for Conservatives in western Canada.
Now we have strike three. Even before we talk about Bill C-13, we see that they are not standing up for supply management. I mentioned earlier the whole issue of western farm receipts, that they are at the lowest level since the Great Depression, particularly low where Conservatives are governing because they do not seem to understand agricultural issues or perhaps it is their own ideological bent that means that they mess up the agricultural file.
Supply management and the Wheat Board are now going forward in WTO negotiations. Have they said unequivocally that supply management and the Wheat Board are not on the table? No. We heard today, in fact, that they have missed every opportunity to stand up for supply management, every opportunity to strike back on the working group, that fifth paper that undermines supply management and the Wheat Board. New Zealand was able to get its state trading corporation excluded and the Conservative government was not able to do that.
Let us talk about Bill C-13 or, as the member for Selkirk—Interlake said, Bill C-23.
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are talking about the NDP amendment to Bill C-13. I would ask that the member get back on track rather than going through all the options of the agriculture policy.
He knows very well that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of International Trade have been very clear that supply management will be protected by the government and that the Canadian Wheat Board is a domestic issue and will be decided by the farmers of this country.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin
I am not sure that is a point of order. I give the floor back to the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster to discuss Bill C-13.
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am confused. The member for Selkirk—Interlake said it was Bill C-23. I am not sure which bill the Conservatives are debating over there. Nor am sure what record they are debating. They seem very confused, which would explain their record. The record has been lamentable when it comes to western farmers. In the next election campaign in Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba and British Columbia, we will see a record number of New Democrats return because, quite frankly, western farmers have said enough of this rigid ideological agenda.
This brings me to Bill C-13, and I thank the member for Selkirk—Interlake for raising the issue of supply management. He is obviously wrong about this idea that somehow Conservatives are defending supply management. In testimony before the international trade committee today, we heard that they had missed on three occasions the opportunity to get the Wheat Board and to get supply management out of the WTO sellout, which is being foisted on Canada, with Conservative collusion.
Let us talk about the provisions of Bill C-13. This is why I say we are saving the Conservatives from themselves. They are pushing forward this meanspirited attempt to attack the Canadian Grain Commission, but let us look at what exactly they are trying to do. The NDP has put in a hoist motion because we disagree with what they are trying to do. They are telling farmers what is good for them and what they are supposed to think, just like the Wheat Board. I think farmers told them they were wrong on the Wheat Board and farmers are saying they are wrong on the Canadian Grain Commission. What are they wrong with? They are killing the Canadian Grain Commission's inward inspection and weighing service. Why is that bad? Because it leaves grain producers disadvantaged in their dealings with grain companies.
Anyone who has grown up in western Canada, like myself, knows full well that there often has been an abuse of power from the grain companies over grain producers in western Canada. In fact, if we go back to the history of how the Grain Commission developed, it was to set up some balance, a level playing field for producers so grain companies, mainly foreign, could not run roughshod over our grain producers.
The Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, predecessor of the NDP, sprang up in western Canada because grain producers wanted a level playing field. Obviously Conservatives and Liberals were not listening to them, they were only listening to Bay Street. The NDP has always listened to grain producers. That is why we say to kill the commission's inward inspection and weighing service, to kill that opportunity for producers to have an impartial and independent inspection that allows them to offset what the grain companies tell them they will pay for that grain is not a good idea. It is not a good idea to get away from that. It is not a good idea to kill that. It certainly is not in the interests of grain producers to do that.
Bill C-13 would do that. It would away that level playing field for which grain producers have been fighting for decades, with the support of the CCF and now the NDP. Essentially that is the first strike against the bill.
What is the second strike? What else would Bill C-13 do that the Conservatives are so hot to adopt? It would dismantle the grain appeal tribunal. This protects producers and protects the Canadian Wheat Board from unscrupulous behaviour on the part of grain companies. This is the very historic roots of western Canadian farming, establishing a balanced system, establishing a system of checks and balances.
We have a Grain Appeal Tribunal and essentially the Conservatives want to rub that out. That is why we are bringing forward the hoist motion. We are actually listening to western producers. We know that having the ability to appeal these decisions of grain companies is a good thing. How a Conservative could feel otherwise, I do not know. I am sure the members on the other side are well-intentioned. I am sure they are reading their speaking notes diligently from the Prime Minister's Office, but policy on western farmers should not be set by the Prime Minister's Office or by a bunch of Ottawa bureaucrats. It should be set by what is fair for producers. That is why producers across the country said yes to the Wheat Board despite the Conservatives' mean-spirited attacks on it.
What else would it do? The other problem with Bill C-13 is that it essentially would eliminate the obligation by these grain companies, some of which are offshore, to post security bonds and ensure that producers would be paid for the product they produced. That absolutely makes sense. That payment security program is absolutely a fundamental part of fairness. If the company does not pay, there needs to be protection in place for grain producers.
Strike three on Bill C-13 is that it would do away with all that. It would do away with that fairness for western producers. It would do away with that fairness for those farmers who have been producing their crops and essentially may not be paid for it.
One might say that the Minister of Agriculture has surely thought of this. There has been some reference to the agriculture committee report that the agriculture minister completely ignored. However, the reality is the agriculture minister, for all his public statements, clearly does not understand how important the payment security program has been.
The minister was publicly quoted as saying that it would only give 30¢ on the dollar. From some reason, 30¢ on the dollar, if that were right, is somehow worse than zero cents, which the Conservatives proposed. It clearly is not right and I will come back to that in a moment because it is important to correct the record. There were no security bonds. If western farmers cannot pay as a big multinational grain company, they are out of luck. They are going to get zero cents on the dollar.
The Minister of Agriculture justified this by saying that the payment security program only gave 30¢ on the dollar, so somehow 30¢ on the dollar is not as good as zero cents on the dollar, which is the offer from the Conservative Party. The trouble is that the agriculture minister is dead wrong. Over the past 10 years, the payment security program has met issuing payments to producers in nine cases of default by grain companies.
Recall that on Bill C-13, the Conservatives do not want any payments or security any more. In those nine cases, producers would be completely out of luck. That is what the Conservatives are bringing to the floor of the House. I see some surprised looks on the other side. Obviously Conservatives were not told this in the prepared speaking notes from the Prime Minister's Office. I hope that means many Conservatives at the end of this debate will vote for the hoist motion and join the NDP in defending western farmers over the course of Parliament.
In nine cases of default by grain companies, payments were issued. In six of the nine, the payment was 100% of claims. It is important, especially for the Conservatives who are getting new information that they obviously did not get from the Prime Minister's Office, to note that. In one to seven, it was 99.8% of claims.
We are now looking at virtually 100% in seven of the nine cases of default by grain companies. A company that went bankrupt in 2002, payment reached 51.4% of claims. Another company that went bankrupt in 2004, payment was just under 30%. I think it is fair to say that Conservatives are sometimes arithmetically challenged, particularly on this file.
Despite the fact that there was one case where it was 30% of claims, if all nine cases are taken together, the total payment is 77.15%. In 77.15% of cases, grain producers who had worked hard to produce their crop, did their due diligence, did all of their work and saw the grain companies default were compensated because of the security bond. The Conservatives want to get rid of that protection that has supported western producers nine times in the last decade.
Let us just look at this for a moment. The government wants to get rid of the security bond so in the next nine or ten cases western producers would get nothing. The government wants to eliminate the Grain Appeal Tribunal.
Vancouver gets a lot of the grain that is shipped across the country. The member for Churchill spoke of the Port of Churchill. She defends and represents northern Manitoba very ably and effectively in the House. Vancouver, which receives the bulk of grain shipments going to Asia, gets up to 100 appeals in a day during peak season. The Conservatives want to get rid of that.
The Conservatives want to get rid of security bonds and protection for grain producers. They want to get rid of the Grain Appeals Tribunal. They want to kill the commission's inward inspection and weighing service, which provides a balanced playing field for producers who deal with grain companies. However, it is not just that.
The inward inspection service also provides Canada with the highest level of quality in the world. Bill C-13 would do away with that service, which would allow for potential mixing with less high quality American wheat. It would diminish our international standing of having the best grain system in the world.
Why would the Conservatives want to mess with something that works? Why would they, in such a ham-fisted way, do away with the institutions that historically were developed to protect western producers and western farmers? The Conservatives will have to answer for that.
That is why we in this corner of the House proposed the hoist motion. Bill C-13 was not well thought out. It was not done in consultation with farmers. It was not done in farmers' interests. It was not done following the agricultural committee report.
Despite what we have heard from Conservatives, the consensus report did not talk about gutting the Canadian Grain Commission. In fact, the consensus report talked about increasing funding. The Conservatives have said nothing about that. They will gut, they will take away, they will rip apart. They will not try to build a better system, and that is the fundamental problem.
I have another minute to go, and I do want to mention something that is important to farmers in British Columbia, and that is the harmonized sales tax, the HST.
The government is forcing the average British Columbia farmer to pay about $500 more in taxes through the HST because of this deal with the devil, which was done with the federal Conservatives working with provincial Liberals. A farming family of four people will pay $2,000 more a year because of the HST, imposed by the federal Conservatives with no consultation.
The Conservatives try to distance themselves and claim they are not responsible, but British Columbians know better. They know the Conservatives are responsible for bringing in the HST. If they want to provide their voice, urban British Columbians will be able to vote in the New Westminster—Coquitlam byelection. All British Columbians will be able to vote shortly in a federal election, whether it is held in the next few months or early 2010. British Columbians will have the final word on whether they support the Conservative HST.
We have no apologies to make to anyone with respect to Bill C-13. It is a bad bill for western farmers and western producers. It does not follow on the agricultural committee recommendations. That is why the NDP has moved this hoist motion to set this off so we can actually get smart agricultural policies to help western producers in the grain trade.
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Mr. Speaker, hon. members will know there is probably not a lot of grain producers in my neck of the woods, although they should know we have some grain production, corn production and even some experimental wheat.
I have been told that one of the criticisms of the bill is that the changes would threaten the quality advantage that Canadian producers now enjoy over their competitors. I am interested in that. To me that seems to be a fabulous advantage Canadian producers apparently have.
Could the member elaborate on that? What is the advantage of the quality that Canadians now possess, in terms of reputation? How would this be harmed?
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for St. John's East for his very cogent question.
The reality is, the inward inspection services help provide the best quality of grain in the world. In fact, the Canadian Grain Commission has even been able to differentiate the grain by protein levels. What we have is a very smart system that works very effectively, and it has developed an international reputation.
It is the same with the Canadian Wheat Board. We have managed, through the NDP putting pressure on successive governments, to put in place a structure that protects the best quality wheat in the world, the best quality grains in the world, the most respected system in the world. Why the Conservatives would want to mess with that, take away all the protections that western grain farmers have enjoyed and ensure a very uneven playing field with the grain companies just defies imagination. However, grain producers will be able to judge them on their record in the next election.
Gary Goodyear ConservativeMinister of State (Science and Technology) (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario)
Mr. Speaker, the conversations have gone all around today, but I just wonder if I could ask the member, if he is so supportive of farmers, why he wants to turn farmers into criminals by supporting the long gun registry.
The NDP members said before the election that they would not support the long gun registry, but now they are voting against the elimination of the long gun registry. That does not sound like support for farmers.
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Speaker, that is hardly in order. He is asking me personally what I will do, and I will of course tell him, as an urban resident, and people in my riding feel very strongly, I will be voting one way on the bill. I know that there are other members in the House who may be feeling differently and be voting another way on the bill, but the important thing is that we stop the division that the Conservatives are deliberately trying to foment between rural areas and urban areas.
That is why urban MPs are standing up and doing something the Conservatives are unwilling to do, and that is to defend western grain producers, actually defend them in a way that Conservatives have been unwilling to do. They have not listened to the western grain producers or western farmers on the Wheat Board. They have not listened to them on supply management. That is their record, the lowest farm receipts since the Great Depression. That is the Conservative legacy for western farmers, for western grain producers. They should be ashamed of themselves.
The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin
Questions and comments? We seem to have wandered away a little bit from the bill at hand, Bill C-13. The hon. member for York South—Weston, a question.
Alan Tonks Liberal York South—Weston, ON
Mr. Speaker, it has been suggested that urban Canada is not as interested perhaps in the regulatory framework which in fact protects the quality of food that we eat. I would suggest, after recent episodes with disease that has resulted from bad food and in fact a collapse of the regulatory framework, that urban Canada is even more interested in the regulatory implications.
I wonder if the member could just outline the inward inspections. Could he explain how that capacity to be able to carry on those inspections, which the bill tampers with, affects the quality of food, and how that would allay fears that urban Canada might have that the quality of food we are getting from our producers is not up to what they expect?
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is fair to say, in terms of inspection generally, that the Conservatives have a lamentable record. We look at how the quality of food has declined and the crisis with voluntary inspection systems. The quality of food that Canadians consume has very clearly declined under the Conservatives.
We are talking about the Canadian Grain Commission, and inward inspection is much more important for the producers. The producers are producing a very high quality product, but the reality is, currently the Canadian Grain Commission intervenes regularly when grain companies are trying to give producers the shaft. Grain companies try to pretend that it is a lower quality of product, and it is the Canadian Grain Commission that steps in, and generally it routinely revises grain grades upwards and corrects quantity measurements, resulting in fair payments to producers.
That is really the point here as far as inward inspection goes. We are saying there has to be a level playing field. The grain producers should get their due and Conservatives are saying, “No, let us throw the inward inspection out, and let grain companies be predatory to any western producer”.
We will stand between them and what they are trying to do, because we believe in western farmers. We believe in western producers. We believe in the grain growers of Canada, and we are the ones standing up in the House and defending them.
Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a question for my colleague.
I find it a little offensive, to say the least, the suggestion of Conservative members that those of us who live in urban ridings do not have a particular interest in what happens to the grain industry in Canada.
We know because we are consumers of that product, but we also know that in Vancouver and Burnaby there are many people who earn their living in the industries that support the grain industry. The people who work in transportation and the people who work at the elevators live in our communities and know the importance of this industry and they know the importance of the Canadian Grain Commission.
Could the member comment on the fact that some people in our communities are going to lose their jobs because of the bill, people who provide an excellent service as inspectors, who are professional and well trained and who have done the quality assurance on this product? People in my community know the importance of grain to the Canadian economy. They know that high-quality grain is important to our economy, and they know that there are people in our communities who do that work to assure that quality.
Why would the Conservatives be moving to get rid of them?
Peter Julian NDP Burnaby—New Westminster, BC
Mr. Speaker, the member for Burnaby—Douglas is one of the foremost members of the House in standing up for jobs in his community and standing up for the residents of Burnaby--Douglas. Therefore I am not surprised that he asked that question, because he is always present in the House and speaking up for the residents of his constituency.
He is absolutely right. Residents of Burnaby--Douglas, Burnaby—New Westminster, the city of Vancouver, the north shore, Coquitlam, the south Fraser area, Surrey and Delta have been providing a quality service that enhances Canada's international reputation and builds as well on that level playing field that grain producers need to have with the big multinational grain companies.
If Conservatives do not understand that, they do not understand the first thing about western Canada. They simply do not. To ignore that reality, they simply have forgotten roots in western Canada.
It is absolutely true that it is western Canadians doing those inspections in support of western farmers and western grain growers. Western Canadians are solidly saying that the bill needs to be hoisted because it is a mean-spirited attack on the fundamentals that have allowed western grain farmers to do better than other farmers may have in what has been a catastrophic economic approach by Conservatives to farm incomes generally as well as to agricultural issues.
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?
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
I would like to thank my hon. colleague from Malpeque for providing that answer, and indeed I agree, it is no.
An hon. member
And he wins.
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
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.
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB
Mr. Speaker, I listened intently as my friend from Newfoundland talked about a bill that largely affects western Canada.
As a farmer myself and former chair of the agriculture committee that studied this issue originally, I find it rather absurd to suggest shelving the bill for the next six months with the hoist amendment proposed by the NDP. It is even more troubling to hear him suggest that we need to go through a whole round of hearings again.
That is exactly why we have committees. We already had a whole process of hearings, talking to stakeholders and talking to producers. We already had the solid recommendations supported by all parties in the House to move forward with the recommendations that are in Bill C-13.
Now the member is suggesting that was not good enough. If he actually lets the bill come to full debate at second reading and send it off to committee, then we can do a fulsome study as we do with all legislation when it comes before committee.
Then the stakeholders can again be called forward to talk about the bill. There are always a few that are out there who are concerned about it, but largely it is time to get moving on this legislation, making the changes and modernizing the Canadian Grain Commission.
The only way we can do that is if Bill C-13, which industry, producers and stakeholders want to see, moves forward so that we can have that debate, make the necessary amendments that are needed rather than playing games which the member suggested.
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
Mr. Speaker, why does it bother my colleague so much that he just seems to want to get things done in an expedient fashion and not the right way? He started out by saying that this is as a result of all the consultations the government had done. The government never even followed the recommendations that were made by the standing committee several years ago.
Now we are in the House and I do not know what it is he wants. I do not think this legislation reflects that. It certainly does not reflect what the farmers want or agricultural interests.
I sit here and I am listening to this, and I am thinking it is a rerun of what we went through in the fisheries industry. It is the same sort of thing. This sense of arrogance starts from the top. It goes right through the entire bureaucracy which exists here in the city of Ottawa. It pushes it forward. It is almost like there is this tinge of arrogance that says, “No doubt about it we've got the answer for you”.
Therefore, the people who are the stakeholders, and I say stakeholders and not just the people involved at the top industry levels, but also the people who work on the individual farms themselves, these are the people who sit there and say, “At what point is my voice heard in all of this?” Again, it becomes a rerun.
I want to say this before I stop on that point. What we have here is this. It changes the mandate from being in the interests of producers to being in the interests of the industry. That is essentially the real part of this particular issue.
Jim Maloway NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, I was amused by the outraged Conservatives earlier today in their speeches, when they were referring to the hoist and the idea that somehow we were putting farmers at risk by trying to hoist the bill.
I looked at the date on which the hoist motion was made and it was April 2. When I look at my calendar, it is six months and six days to the day that the hoist motion was made. As far as I know the government House leader is the one who sets the House business. He could have called the bill at any time in the last six months but chose to wait a full six months and six days before he even called the bill. So much for the urgency of the government to get the bill passed.
There have been some very important points brought out in the debate today by members in my party and members in the Liberal Party. A big issue is the elimination of the requirement for grain buyers to post the security bonds and it would expose the grain producers to financial harm or bankruptcy.
I ask, what could go wrong? We are in an economy right now where the big companies are going bankrupt. We have General Motors and Nortel going bankrupt. When we take away bonding requirements, it is a safety feature to have grain companies bonded to protect the producers. I see nothing but trouble in leaving the grain companies operating without a bond, exposing all the producers to enormous losses.
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.
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my hon. friend's remarks. I had forgotten about this quotation from the minister. He was quoted in The Western Producer, saying, “We're not going to leave you hanging with nothing”.
As the NDP member has said, it has now been six months. We still see no proposals from the minister on what the government would replace bonding with. If the bill takes away bonding, all kinds of companies will go broke. There is only one person who bears the burden of a company going broke and that is the producer who shipped the grain. Without bonding, it is an absolute disaster.
We do know that there are all kinds of other cases where the minister has left producers with nothing. In fact, they were left with less than nothing. As I mentioned earlier, the hog plan leaves producers with no security and more debt. The CAIS program it replaced with AgriStability leaves them with even less returns than CAIS provided. Now, on its exit program for hogs, farmers have to bid against each other for who will sell the lowest to get out of the business. That is really a race to the bottom by producers so that the government can get the lowest cost possible.
When the minister said, “We're not going to leave you hanging with nothing”, there are all kinds of examples out there where this minister has left producers with less than nothing.
I would ask the member this question. He mentioned the fact that in the bill, deleted from the original Canada Grain Act, is “in the interests of producers”. He has worked with the fisheries. Who would ever believe that a minister would introduce a bill for an area that he is responsible for and drop the producer interest from that bill? Is that not crazy?
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
Mr. Speaker, I believe that there is probably an expression that ties along with that. Upon making any move to downgrade the ability and function of, and in the fisheries case it would be a harvester, the minister would certainly be thrown in among the harbour upon visiting the wharf.
In this particular situation, he is certainly correct in his remarks. I just want to put back on the record what the minister stated. In The Western Producer on March 12, 2009, he was answering a direct question as to whether farmers would be protected in relation to the bonding issue that we have just discussed. 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.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture acknowledged the flawed nature of the legislation. He said:
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--
Apparently, the hoist amendment is one way of doing it. Let us all support it. I think it will be unanimous, according to the remarks made here by the parliamentary secretary.
Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act.
However, it is a sad day, in fact, a very sad day when the opposition plays games once again with the livelihood of western grain farmers with this motion to hoist this very important bill.
The facts are simple, Canadian farm families deserve to be treated equally across the country, but the current legislation forces western Canadian producers to pay costs that are not imposed in other regions. It sounds kind of like the Wheat Board, which also applies only to western Canadian farmers, but yet the opposition seems so intent on forcing it on western Canadian farmers.
Bill C-13 would contribute to building a lower cost, more effective and innovative grain sector. This legislation is based on the agriculture committee report the opposition parties helped to write.
Conservative MPs on the agriculture committee, including myself, are ready and willing to get down to work, to roll up our sleeves, and work on Bill C-13 at the agriculture committee. It is just too bad the opposition parties are not willing to do that work and treat all regions equally. It is what our farmers would expect.
In committee there will be ample opportunities to work on this bill, but the opposition has decided to collude to hoist this bill which will essentially kill the bill to the detriment of our western grain farmers.
The amendments the government is proposing to the Canada Grain Act and the Canadian Grain Commission are evidence of our commitment to grain producers. Canada's quality assurance system for grain provides a key competitive advantage for our farmers. The amendments we are proposing would build on that competitive advantage.
When our global customers choose Canadian grain for processing, they count on consistent quality and cleanliness with every delivery. This world-class reputation that our Canadian grains enjoy around the globe has been earned. First and foremost it has been earned through the hard work of our farmers, but grain handling companies, research scientists and the Canadian Grain Commission have also played a role in building that golden reputation.
Our edge in the marketplace is all about quality. Much of the responsibility for the quality of Canadian grain resides with the Canadian Grain Commission and the quality assurance system it administers under the Canada Grain Act.
The grain industry is changing, and the legislative tools required to keep the industry competitive need to change along with that. The Canada Grain Act has not changed substantially in almost 40 years, but the marketplace has certainly evolved.
We have a major new customer for grains in the form of the biofuels industry, supported by initiatives put in place by this Conservative government. We have quality management systems to allow parcels of grain with specific qualities wanted by buyers to be kept separate through the handling system. We have niche marketing and processing of grains in Canada, and we now have a broader range, in fact, a much broader range of crops in western Canada.
In the mid-1990s, the reform of the Western Grain Transportation Act triggered a wholesale diversification as some producers opted to switch to other crops, such as oilseeds, pulse crops and horticultural crops. Today, wheat accounts for only one-third of our crop land. In the 1950s, three-quarters of our land was in wheat.
Some of the changes being proposed include: inward inspection and weighing of grains will no longer be mandatory. There is no reason to require something that is not necessary, particularly when the cost comes out of the bottom line of farmers in the grain industry.
Currently, the Grain Commission is required to inspect and weigh each railcar or truck lot of western grain that is received by licensed terminal elevators. The industry has been calling for change in this area for some years now because the mandatory inspections impose costs and they are not essential to ensure grain quality.
Inward inspection and weighing will no longer be mandatory. Instead, shippers of grain will be able to request an inspection at their discretion, letting them choose when they feel the benefit justifies the cost.
Elevators would also be required to allow access to private inspectors when an inspection is requested, and the Canadian Grain Commission would be authorized to provide grade arbitration if the parties to a transaction request it. This means that if there is a dispute about the grade, the Canadian Grain Commission would be available to impartially determine the grade.
Let us be clear. This does not mean grain would go through the system without inspection. Outward inspection would still be required when grain is loaded into vessels for overseas export. Export vessel shipments would continue to require certification by the Canadian Grain Commission based on inspection and weighing by Canadian Grain Commission personnel.
With the bill in place, our customers will be assured that they can continue to have confidence in Canada's grain quality assurance system. The Canadian Grain Commission would continue to regulate the grain handling system for the benefit of our producers. It would continue to license grain handlers and dealers. It would continue to require them to have proper grading and weighing equipment and to properly document purchases, and continue to ensure that producers have access to grade arbitration by the Canadian Grain Commission.
The bill would actually enhance farmer protection by extending Canadian Grain Commission grade and dockage arbitration to farmers delivering to process elevators and grain dealers. Currently, if a producer disagrees with the grade or dockage for a grain delivery at a licensed primary elevator, the producer can ask the Canadian Grain Commission to determine the grade and dockage and make a binding decision. The grain producer is paid according to this decision. The bill before us proposes to extend this service to deliveries to all licensed grain handlers, including process elevators and grain dealers.
Farmers have never had this protection before and with these amendments we have put farmers first, which I would call the opposition parties to do as well. It is simply shameful that the three opposition parties will not consider the interests of farmers first. They have shown time and time again that they just do not care about the concerns, wants or needs of western farmers.
Let me delve into a few other examples. The opposition members had the opportunity to stand up for farmers but, once again, failed to do so. I want to talk about a vote we had just this week on Bill C-51 and an element contained in that bill. It has been a brutal year for producers in parts of Saskatchewan and Alberta particularly. Producers in west central Saskatchewan got off to a very poor start due to a dry fall and very low snow coverage. This was compounded by a cool, dry spring, resulting in low water supplies and poor pasture and hay growth. Things were certainly no better in my part of the world, in central Alberta, where producers faced seeding without any significant rainfall since the summer of 2008.
There is no denying that the risks and unpredictability of farming will always be there. The last thing a producer who is battling drought needs is a bill from the taxman. That is why the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and the Minister of Finance worked together on provisions to allow those producers, forced to sell off their breeding animals due to the drought, to defer the tax on that income for one year. In 2009, we proposed to expand the program to include areas hard hit by excess moisture.
For 2009, the ministers have already announced tax deferrals for producers and some of the municipalities hardest hit by the drought in Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia and areas where excess moisture is a big problem in Manitoba. This will help producers in these areas replenish breeding stock in the following year. However, yet again, the opposition Liberals voted against the best interests of western Canadian farmers.
Let me talk about one other area where this is the case, and that is the Wheat Board. Again, this only applies to western farmers and yet we have members from other parts of the country who seem to have decided that they know better and they know what is best for western Canadian grain farmers. They think they know better than the farmers what they should do with their products and the choices that they should be able to make for the market, and they want to limit those choices.
Our government wants to see farmers choose how they market their products, whether they choose to use the Wheat Board to market their products or whether they choose to sell those products on their own. That is a fundamental right that everybody in this country should enjoy and yet opposition parties tell us that western farmers just cannot decide for themselves.
Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB
Mr. Speaker, no amount of braying and shouting and hollering by the member for Malpeque will change that.
Western Canadian farmers deserve the right to market their own wheat and barley.
This is yet again another example of the opposition parties colluding and working together against the best interests of our western Canadian farmers. It is a real shame.
Let me give the House an example of how far opposition members will go in trying to ensure western farmers do not have the right to make these choices for themselves and do not even have the information they need.
I think it was back in May when Canadian Wheat Board officials appeared at the agriculture committee, on which I am a member. We were simply requesting that the Wheat Board share a report outlining the significant losses that it had incurred in the last crop year. Opposition members did everything they could procedurally to ensure that the motion could not be voted on so that western Canadian farmers could actually have the information that would allow them to open up those books and see what actually happened to their money, to see the money that the Wheat Board had lost, which was farmers' money.
I cannot imagine for the life of me why anyone would oppose such a democratic thing as allowing farmers the opportunity to see what has happened to their money. However, yet again the opposition parties colluded to ensure that western farmers' interests were put on the back burner. That is a terrible shame.
I will come back to the bill before us now and share some quotes from several different affected parties, stakeholders and others about this particular bill and showing their support for the need for these changes. I will start with a few quotes directly from the Canadian Grain Commission itself.
The first quote is from a spokesman at the Canadian Grain Commission back in February 2008, which reads:
Eliminating mandatory weighing and inspection would not impact grain quality. In the past, about 30 or 40 years ago, you had a lot more players in western Canada handling grain and there was a higher risk of co-mingling between different classes of grain. But now, because there have been significant consolidations within the grain industry, and there are only a few players...that service is no longer required.
I have another quote from the chief commissioner of the Canadian Grain Commission back in March of this year which reads:
The transition away from on-site inspection will not affect producers negatively. He says it's more of a service for the elevators and buyers, than the producers. It will result in a more effective allocation of the commission's resources.
Let me also quote from the Manitoba Co-operator back in March 2008 as well. It reads:
The CGC estimates security now costs grain companies and the CGC around $5 million a year, which is ultimately passed back to farmers.
Imagine that. I did not hear any opposition complaints about that.
I will now quote from the people who this legislation is most important for and that is producers. I will quote from several producer groups, some very glowing comments on the legislation. I will start first with Richard Phillips, who is the executive director of the Canadian Grain Growers, who said, “We agree with the federal government that the legislation needs an upgrade...”. That sounds pretty clear to me. I do not know what part of that the opposition cannot seem to understand.
I will also quote from a news release of April 7, 2009, put out by the Grain Growers of Canada. It reads:
The Grain Growers were hoping the bill would proceed to the standing committee on agriculture where all stakeholders, including the government members, could have analyzed the alternatives to the current mandatory bonding system.
In April, the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association said:
We are disappointed with a delay in reforms to the Canada Grain Act and the Canadian Grain Commission. Last week, the federal Liberals vowed to kill the proposals, saying they favoured grain companies and the railways over farmers. Association president Kevin Bender says the regulatory system needs to fit the marketplace and reduce farm costs. The wheat growers advocate the implementation of an optional inspection and grading system on prairie grain shipments.
Again, those are very clear comments and I cannot understand why the opposition members just cannot seem to get it through their heads that this is what western Canadian farmers want.
The Western Barley Growers Association has been particularly condemning in its comments on this amendment and the political opportunism that is behind it. I will read a few quotes from the president, Brian Otto, who states:
This delaying tactic is not acceptable. The Act is thirty years old and in critical need of updating. In today's fragile economic conditions, producers cannot continue to be encumbered by an archaic Act that increases our costs and affects our ability to compete in the world marketplace. The WBGA, along with other producers organizations, were looking forward to offering our grassroots input to the discussions concerning the proposed changes to modernize this Act.
Brian Otto also had this to say:
We encourage all parties to defeat this hoist motion and allow the bill to proceed to Committee so that producer groups and the grain industry can contribute to the debate. This will allow all of us to work towards a Bill that best benefits farmers and the industry. If we don't do it now, it will just have to be done all over again with a new Bill later and meantime farmers will continue to pay the costs of waiting for change.
Finally, he says:
If the bill is hoisted, the opportunity for debate and discussion will be lost. The WBGA has to ask the opposition parties why they are unwilling to allow this discussion to proceed. This appears to be political opportunism and an attempt to embarrass the Conservatives and promote their own party images, all at the expense of Western Canadian Producers.
That is very condemning of the opposition and its terrible tactics in this regard.
I believe that the amendments proposed in the bill would build a more competitive and innovative grain sector by reducing costs, improving competitiveness, improving regulation and providing choice for our producers in the grain sector. We are delivering real action for farmers so that they can continue to fuel our economy and remain competitive both at home and abroad.
However, given the spirit of debate that we have had here and that we had when this legislation was proposed and introduced a year ago, I also recognize that there are certainly some issues that the opposition does have and which we may want to discuss at the standing committee. We are more than open to that. I welcome that discussion and I welcome the standing committee's input into helping to make this legislation the best that it can be.
However, this bill will never make it to the standing committee with the current hoist amendment, so I would urge all members to vote for western Canadian grain farmers, defeat this hoist amendment and support the bill going forward to committee where we can have some good, solid discussion.
Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the member is confused, but I certainly appreciate the kind words and his encouragement for my comments. He was so confused he believed I may be the minister. I certainly appreciate that. He recognizes and understands that a lot of stuff is being done on this side of the House, which is very important for our farmers, and that the minister should be on the Conservative side.
No matter how much the member chooses to raise his voice, nothing will change in the fact that I have shared several quotes from our western producers, who tell us that they want to see these changes, that they feel it is in their best interests. I am here to stand up for farmers, particularly my western Canadian farmers. Unfortunately, it is too bad the opposition parties, including the member for Malpeque especially, do not want to see those interests of farmers protected. However, I am here to do just that. I want to see the bill go forward to committee where we can have some good, solid discussions, where we can bring in our producers, hear from them and allow them to contribute to this debate too.
Our farmers are demanding that and are asking for that. This Conservative government wants to deliver that for our farmers. It is really too bad and a shame that the opposition parties refuse to allow that opportunity for our producers. I am here to stand up for farmers. I wish they would too.
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
Mr. Speaker, we are looking at the difference between two visions of agriculture, one vision that supports the big corporations, the big agribusiness and the other one that wants to support farmers. There is a saying in the English language, if something works, why fix it? The Grain Commission is not an outmoded institution. It plays a role as relevant as it did a century ago. It has tough regulations in force that gives it good competition with foreign purchasers. The bill would benefit the powerful private interests that control the grain industry and a minority of farmers opposed to government regulation who wish to sell privately into the current high priced commodity markets.
I will ask one specific question. If the inward inspection were eliminated, would it mean that Canada would have difficulty in meeting its obligation under the international planned protection convention? For example, the government must certify health status of grain prior to shipment, in other words so there are no pests. This is done with inward inspection. The samples go to the CFIA and then there is certification. If there were no samples, would it be very possible that this contamination would take place? Has anyone in government talked to the CFIA about who will be providing the samples if there is no certification?
Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question. I appreciate the way he tries to work together with members on the agriculture committee. I find the hon. member to be a very reasonable and fair person. Unfortunately, when it comes to his ideology, he is dead wrong.
I look forward to the opportunity, at the agriculture committee, to debate and discuss this and to bring in producers and hear from them as well. If the member were to withdraw this motion, we could have that debate at the agriculture committee. I would welcome that opportunity. I know farmers would welcome that opportunity as well.
It is very unfortunate that he has chosen to bring this motion forward. I would love to have that opportunity to debate this with him at the agriculture committee and to have our producers come in and share their thoughts as well. I would encourage that.
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake, MB
Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member for Wild Rose drew attention to the work that the government has been doing in tax deferrals for farmers who have been dealing with drought and, in my area, flooding. He mentioned the Manitoba areas that would get the tax deferral because of the excess of moisture and how helpful that would be for farmers in my area.
Unfortunately, when this came before the House, the Liberals, who stood today and said that they were fighting for farmers, voted against that measure, which I think is deplorable. It reeks of the double-talk that happens in the House, unfortunately.
Would the member talk a bit more about this whole issue of bonding? It has come up a few times, that bonding is the only way to protect producers. Having gone through this a number of times when I worked for the Manitoba Cattle Producers Association and watching bonds fail to provide adequate protection to farmers, there is a better way.
In Alberta they are using a clearing house to ensure dollars are in bank accounts to cover cheques being written by companies. I know in other areas of the country they use assurance funds to build up a surety to cover producers in case there is a default by a corporation or a company buying their goods.
The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie
The hon. member for Wild Rose has maybe 30 seconds, unfortunately, to respond to a much longer question.
Blake Richards Conservative Wild Rose, AB
Madam Speaker, I do not know how I could possibly begin to even address that in 30 seconds.
I thank the hon. member for his good work on behalf of farmers. I know many of my colleagues on this side have the best interests of farmers in mind.
He gave one example of the opposition parties choosing to not have the best interests of farmers in mind. I wish they would follow the example of this Conservative government, show what is in the best interests of farmers and do what is right for them.
The Acting Speaker NDP Denise Savoie
It being 5:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.
