Madam Speaker, it is good to again be able to talk about agriculture here in the House. We are dealing with Bill C-51. It is a bill to deal with the Canadian Grain Commission and its powers.
On the whole, Bill C-51 is a good starting point for improving the agriculture industry in Canada.
Parts of the bill give me cause for concern. I will outline those areas in more detail later. There are some positive aspects to this legislation and I would like to briefly touch on them.
First and perhaps more important, the bill places the onus on farmers to ensure that they are dealing with a duly licensed grain company. This bill makes it clear that the Canadian Grain Commission and therefore the Canadian taxpayer is only liable to cover claims from duly licensed companies.
This protection lets farmers know exactly where they stand as well as protecting taxpayers from unreasonable expenses. Canadians have paid up in the past for claims coming from unlicensed companies and I am glad to see that this protection will be included in the act.
There are those who would argue that the language in clause 13 of this bill may still leave some doubt as to which claims are to be paid. Therefore I would encourage and support any strengthening of the wording during the committee stage that would ensure taxpayer protection from unlicensed claims.
I had a case in my constituency prior to the election where a seed cleaning company ceased to do business and left many farmers out on a limb. It was a very messy situation. There were accusations of political involvement and patronage. Certainly we do not want to hear those horror stories repeated in the future.
Clause 12 of the bill allows the Canadian Grain Commission some latitude when deciding whether or not to close an elevator having financial or cash flow difficulties. This is a positive step for farmers. Many have been caught by an insolvent elevator company or seed cleaning company in the past.
The bill also provides for better financial protection for farmers by making them responsible for obtaining adequate security for grain shipped to an elevator and for ensuring that the grain name and amounts shipped is on the ticket.
The bill brings the protection offered to farmers more in line with security provisions common in other financial areas. Farmers have long been saying that they do not want special treatment, they only want a fair shake the same as other small businessmen. This bill moves, however slightly, in that direction.
Farmers will be pleased to see that there is some movement on the issue of interprovincial trade flexibility. Of course in good Liberal style, this is done as a half measure. The bill only allows for flexibility within the western wheat block and within the eastern wheat block. It does not go nearly far enough in removing interprovincial barriers to trade. Perhaps more important, the bill does not address the issue of trade with the United States at all, a bone of contention which the current Liberal government has not been prepared to deal with in a positive manner.
The bill would solidify and enforce the use of common grade names. This too is welcome news for producers. There will be much less confusion about the quality of grain shipped to an elevator.
As I stated at the outset of my remarks, the bill does have some positive aspects. However, there are some very serious problems with certain parts and clauses of the bill on some very important issues that are entirely ignored by this legislation.
In the bill an increasing amount of decision making is being placed in the hands of the governor in council. We are aware that this is a formalized constitutional body through which the cabinet exercises executive power.
If members would study the bill they would see that clauses 2, 4, 9, 15, 33 and 35 all move powers into the hands of the executive, into the hands of the cabinet. This extensive power grab on the part of the government directly contradicts the commitment to a more open and democratic government promised in the now infamous red ink book.
In taking so much power away from the legislators and producers and giving it to cabinet to exercise in the form of orders in council, the government is doing the opposite of what farmers want. Agricultural producers have been consistent in saying that farming boards and institutions should be democratized and accountable. Moving more power and decision making behind closed doors and off the public record is continuing to be counter to the will of Canadian farmers.
A good example of this power grab can be found in clause 34. This clause allows cabinet to approve and define all regulations not specifically contained in the act. This is tantamount to Parliament passing blank cheque legislation allowing the minister to fill in the blanks later.
This seems to be a mindset of the Liberal government. Do not deal with the issues, allow the bureaucrats and the cabinet to make up the rules as they go. History teaches us that we get into trouble when we follow this procedure. We should learn lessons from the previous Tory government that authorized the establishment of a continental barley market through an order in council rather than bringing it to Parliament as it should have for a decision in the House that is elected by the people. Had Parliament been able to deal with that issue the matter would have been resolved one way or the other and producers would not be struggling and demanding a plebiscite and action on the part of the government at this date.
The bill demonstrates once again that this minister of agriculture is a bureaucrats' minister, not a farmers' minister. Not only does cabinet take powers from Parliament but the bureaucracy also gets a whole raft of new authority.
For example, the Canadian Grain Commission would now have the power to set the salaries of the western and eastern standards committees and the grain appeal tribunal. I would suggest it is not a common practice for bureaucrats to set their own salaries, at least it should not be. Not only do these people have the power to set their own pay but they also are often patronage appointments as well.
The standards boards, while expensive and patronage filled, are only advisory. This means that the minister may ignore their recommendations in any case.
It will be interesting to see how the salaries of these advisory patronage committees change as a result of this bill. Of course, I suppose they are watching what happens in this House where MPs set their own pay and pensions. Perhaps they are saying that if parliamentarians are going to play that game we want to play it and we demand to be able to play it as well.
My concern is that one of these days Canadian taxpayers are going to start fighting back by saying that if MPs set their own salaries, if bureaucrats set their own pay, then perhaps we will decide how much we are going to pay in taxes whether the government demands it or not.
It would seem in many ways the bill is designed to protect the bureaucratic empire from the changes that are coming to the industry. I want to refer for a few moments to the special crops or pulse crop initiative that is changing the way the industry operates, particularly in my province of Saskatchewan.
As the minister knows many farmers have been diversifying crops over the past few years as a way of remaining viable and competitive. This diversification has been a boon to the agriculture industry. Many farmers have remained in a viable position because they have diversified and tried some non-traditional crops such as peas, lentils, canary seed, mustard seed, and many others. This industry has flourished and prospered without massive government intrusion, regulation and control. Perhaps it has prospered because of little government involvement. I know many farmers believe so.
An example of a crop being developed and becoming a major staple in the prairies is canola which was an experiment a few decades ago. This year canola is one of the main cash crops in the prairie region and we believe-I know I believe and I am sure my Reform colleagues believe-that these other crops can be expanded and provide much income to producers if again government does not interfere and place too many regulations and restrictions in the way of development of these new commodities.
Groups of farmers, in consultation with all the players in the industry from the pools, the wheat board, and everyone else have spent years developing pulse crop initiatives.
The minister has had a copy of that initiative for quite some time and even so he has chosen not to include the speciality of pulse crops in this legislation. It is expected, and rumour has it, that some legislation dealing with these crops will be introduced a year or year and a half from now.
In light of the enforcement provisions of Bill C-51, what does the minister expect will happen to this vital industry in the interim? A lack of legislation for special crops, combined with the witch hunt under way by the Canadian Grain Commission to licence and control the special seed cleaning and distribution
sector will potentially have a devastating effect on agriculture as a whole.
With the provisions of Bill C-51 only to pay claims from duly licensed companies, the current push on the part of the Canadian Grain Commission to licence and audit pulse crop companies can only be interpreted as a move to push many of the small companies out of business. This would lead to a monopolized industry with the bureaucrats comfortably in control.
The farmers want the pulse crop sector left the way it is. The customers want the sector left the way it is. Everyone wants a free market pulse crop sector, apparently that is everyone except senior agriculture mandarins.
Because pulse crops are not grown in quantities comparable to grains such as wheat, barley or canola, the cleaners and handlers of these commodities are much smaller operations. The cost of Canadian Grain Commission licences, bonds, and audits can run anywhere from $20,000 to $30,000 every year. This would unnecessarily force most of the operators out of the specialty crops sector at a time when the sector should be expanding and should be strengthening.
I am very concerned that this legislation does not adequately protect those operators and the producers who deal with them. It is a serious flaw in this bill. I am concerned that a wait of 12 to 18 months or however long it takes the minister to bring in legislation to deal with that sector may be too late and drive many of them out of the industry.
The absence of this pulse crop legislation makes Bill C-51 a farmers versus the bureaucrats bill with regard to pulse crops.
I challenge the minister to show it ain't so. If he can do so, I would be one of the most pleased people in this House. I call on him to bring in the kind of legislation that works for farmers, not just measures that protect and enhance the jobs of his senior bureaucrats.
Although this bill contains some very positive aspects it is legitimate to ask why the minister would introduce legislation that makes the government mandarins more comfortable and secure while making the farmers wait at least another year before moving on issues that they really care about.
This bill is a good place to start but there is a lot of work that needs to be done at the committee level to make it good legislation.
I would hope that the minister can solve his in house power struggle soon so that farmers can get some movement and government action on the issues they care about.
It is quite interesting to note that in the life of this Parliament, now almost one year old, that not many steps or perhaps no steps have been taken by the minister or his government to put producers in the driver's seat in their own industry.
If there is one thing I know from being a producer it is that they are not afraid to take responsibility and they are not afraid to make decisions and by and large they make very good decisions. Often it is government through order in council decisions, through legislation that is incomplete such as Bill C-51 that has been a hindrance to the industry rather than an asset.
I encourage the minister to review his legislation with a view to seeing what he can do to put producers in charge of their own industry so that they can be adequately able to make decisions, to take steps to strengthen their industry without being hindered by the government that is supposed to represent and serve them.