House of Commons Hansard #103 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was producers.
Jerry Pickard Liberal Essex—Kent, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the second report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food which deals with Bill C-49, an act to amend the Department of Agriculture Act.
Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table the thirty-eighth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with respect to the list of associate committee members.
With leave of the House, I intend to move for concurrence in this report later this day.
Allan Kerpan Reform Moose Jaw—Lake Centre, SK
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-280, an act to prevent the interruption by labour disputes of the orderly progress of grain from the farm gate to export and to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act in consequence thereof.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to seek leave to introduce a private members' bill entitled an act to prevent the interruption by labour disputes of the orderly progress of grain from the farm gate to export and to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act in consequence thereof.
The purpose of the bill is to prevent work stoppages affecting the transportation of grain from the producer to the point of export by establishing a system of arbitration of disputes by final offer selection, a mechanism that is very consistent with the collective bargaining process.
I am very pleased that several of my colleagues have formally indicated to me their support of this bill. They are the members for Lisgar-Marquette, Vegreville, Okanagan-Shuswap, Prince George-Peace River, Yorkton-Melville and Kindersley-Lloydminster.
Theirs and other members' support is greatly appreciated and will be duly and officially recognized through the proceedings of the House as it deals with the bill.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley East, BC
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-281, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act.
Mr. Speaker, inmates in federal institutions have sometimes deceived innocent people by contacting them through the mail.
Recently a British woman began a relationship by mail with an inmate in my riding. She moved to Canada thinking that circumstances were normal and that she had a normal contact through the mail. However, she was murdered during a conjugal visit at the prison.
Today I have the honour to table a bill that would require officials to clearly mark all mail sent by inmates with the words: "sent from a correctional facility". I believe that this bill will protect innocent people.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent to dispense with theread-
ing of the 38th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
If that is the case I move, also with unanimous consent, that the 38th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
Margaret Bridgman Reform Surrey North, BC
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise to table two petitions from residents in my constituency of Surrey North.
The first petition, signed by 40 residents, asks that the Parliament of Canada prohibit and continue to prohibit assisted suicide and to support the Criminal Code provisions prohibiting such activities which exist at the present time.
Margaret Bridgman Reform Surrey North, BC
Mr. Speaker, the second petition, also signed by 40 residents, requests that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.
Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC
Mr. Speaker, excuse me, I do not have a petition to present, but I have a motion. Should I have presented it earlier?
PetitionsRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker
With the consent of the House, we could come back to it.
Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley East, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to present two petitions today.
The first is on the subject of abortion which is very important and is in the news these last few days. I feel privileged to present a petition signed by 88 of my constituents who call on Parliament to pass legislation which protects the unborn child.
I and the petitioners are concerned that currently there is no abortion law in Canada. Together we call on the government to protect the weakest people in our society.
Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley East, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present my second petition on behalf of members of my constituency, most of whom belong to the Netherlands Reform Congregation, regarding the subject of sexual orientation.
The petitioners state that same sex couples should not be accorded special status by including the undefined phrase sexual orientation in human rights legislation. They do not want the government to include it in legislation which they believe would encourage this type of lifestyle. I agree with their conclusions.
John Duncan Reform North Island—Powell River, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a series of petitions on five separate subjects which I have received from individuals of my constituency of North Island-Powell River.
I present two petitions that call for no amendment to the Criminal Code concerning physician assisted suicide, one petition calling for a ban of the serial killer board game, one petition calling for respect of the unborn, two petitions requesting Parliament to resist pressure to include sexual orientation in the Canadian Human Rights Act, and the final petition calling for greater protection of children from sexual assault in the memory of Dawn Shaw.
PetitionsRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker
My colleagues, I inadvertently missed one of our colleagues on motions. I wonder if we could have unanimous consent to revert to motions.
Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC
Mr. Speaker, I ask the House for unanimous consent to propose an amendment to the title of my Bill, C-277, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (circumcision of female persons), by removing the word "circumcision" and replacing it with the words "genital mutilation".
I would also like the English version of the title to be amended accordingly.
(Motion agreed to.)
Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Request For Emergency DebateRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker
I am in receipt of a notice of motion under Standing Order 52 from the hon. member for Kamloops.
Nelson Riis NDP Kamloops, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 52 to request an emergency debate on what can only be described as an emergency today but as a crisis on the west coast of Canada.
When I first raised this matter two weeks ago it had been found that 1.3 million salmon had mysteriously gone missing. No one could account for them. We were concerned at that point and asked for an emergency debate. Now 1.9 million more have gone missing.
I know that the minister said there would be an investigation and he will report some time next year. Not only do members from the west coast want to debate this in the House but members from all sides do, knowing full well what happened on the east coast when the government was reluctant to take action and to provide strong leadership.
It is a disaster. It is a crisis situation.
The public confidence in terms of the ability to manage those resources has, for all intents and purposes, evaporated completely in British Columbia. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I ask you to consider calling for an emergency debate on this issue later today.
Request For Emergency DebateRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker
This indeed is an important issue. The hon. member has seen fit to bring it before the House on two previous occasions. However, I would rule that his request does not meet all of the conditions for emergency debate at this time.
Ralph Goodale LiberalMinister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
moved that Bill C-51, an act to amend the Canada Grain Act and respecting certain regulations made pursuant to that act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce for second reading today this legislation to amend the Canada Grain Act. These amendments will contribute substantially to the competitiveness of our grain industry and the well-being of the many communities, families and individual Canadians who earn their livelihoods in this very important sector of the Canadian economy.
As members of this House will be aware, the Canada Grain Act is administered by the Canadian Grain Commission. Under the act the commission is responsible for regulating the handling of grain in Canada and for establishing and maintaining standards of grain quality. The commission plays an essential role in maintaining the international reputation which Canada enjoys for high quality grain products.
I therefore wish to take a moment as we begin this debate to acknowledge the hard creative work performed by commission employees from Prince Rupert, British Columbia to Baie Comeau. I would also like to thank commission staff for its contributions to the preparation of the amendments that I am bringing before the House today. In expressing these sentiments I am sure I am speaking for all members who appreciate and understand the challenges which we as legislators place before the men and women who work in Canada's public service.
I would be remiss if I did not also acknowledge the weighty contribution to this bill that has been made by Canada's grain industry. These amendments are the product of lengthy, detailed consultations throughout the Canadian grain industry with producers, grain industry executives and farm organizations which represent the full spectrum of that important industry.
I want to outline the consultation process so members of this House can share the confidence that I have that the legislation we have before us today does represent the needs, the expectations and the views of the overwhelming majority of stakeholders from all sectors of our grain industry.
In February, 1991 the Canadian Grain Commission initiated a review of licensing and security issues arising under the act. The commission circulated a discussion paper and held face to face consultations with the representatives of 45 organizations. These organizations represented grain producers, elevator companies, grain dealers and so on.
Then in August, 1991 the commission circulated a policy proposal which was the subject of wide discussion throughout the grain industry. The grain commission met with the representatives of 57 organizations. This second round of consultations produced much useful feedback and resulted in a revised proposal being circulated in November of 1991. Each group that had participated in those earlier consultations received a copy and was asked for additional written comments and recommendations.
Based on the responses to this round of consultations the grain commission produced a revised proposal and circulated it again in February 1992. Additional suggestions were made in discussions with stakeholders that occurred during the 1992 federal regulatory review process.
The legislative amendments that I bring before the House today are rooted in this consultation process and form an essential part of government's general commitment to strengthening Canada's competitive position in world markets.
For purposes of our discussion today I would group the amendments that we have before us in three broad categories. The first deals with enhanced competitiveness. The second deals with more protection for grain producers. The third is focused on new safeguards for Canadian taxpayers.
I would like to deal with the issue of enhanced competitiveness. The grains industry in this country is changing and the pace of change is accelerating. To remain competitive in global markets, markets in which Canada sells most of its grain, we need a regulatory and legislative framework which protects the shared interests of all of the stakeholders.
At the same time it must assist individuals and groups within the industry to compete successfully, adding value where possible to their efforts. Our proposed amendments to the Canada Grain Act are designed with these concerns in mind.
The Canada Grain Act will be amended to strengthen the role that quality plays in Canada's grains industry. This will help reinforce the many things we do in Canada which ensure that only the best grain varieties are developed, marketed and transported through our bulk handling system. This amendment affirms that as Canada's grain sector evolves quality will continue to be a cornerstone of the Canadian grain marketing strategy.
Canada's commitment to grain quality will be strengthened in other ways as well. The definition of contaminated grain will be clarified and the responsibility of elevator operators for the safe handling of hazardous compounds and the safe disposal of contaminated grain will be clearly spelled out.
As well, an amendment will confirm the commission's authority to set standards for the drying of grain. This is perhaps more important than first might appear. Because improperly dried grain often cannot be detected until it is actually processed the first sign of a problem in this area could be a dissatisfied customer, and that is obviously too late.
This amendment provides the commission with another means by which to maintain Canada's reputation for grain quality. This translates into enhanced competitiveness for Canada's grains industry.
In the spirit of removing unnecessary laws, process elevators will not be required to undergo weigh-overs. A weigh-over is a procedure in which an audit is conducted to verify tonnage in store by grade. Weigh-overs obviously serve a useful purpose when conducted at terminal and transfer elevators because in those instances the elevators are often handling grain they do not own. By contrast, process elevators own the grain they have in stock and therefore weigh-overs serve no useful purpose.
A central objective of this government is to remove laws and regulations which have outlived their usefulness and this amendment supports that objective.
As I announced in July 1994, the grain commission will no longer be required to set maximum tariffs for elevators. Elevator tariffs are the fees that grain elevator companies charge for their services. Government regulation of tariffs dates back to a time when producers were much less able to protect themselves from the setting of unfair prices. However, because producer owned or controlled companies now control the majority of elevator capacity in Canada, there is no need for government to continue to regulate tariffs on behalf of producers.
This deregulation of maximum tariffs will proceed in two stages. First, during a two-year transition period, the commission will retain the authority to set tariff ceilings by order. I would not anticipate any significant problem with this process.
In the current crop year terminal elevator operators were given the power by commission order to set their own elevation tariffs. For the most part, their increases were relatively minor and on the whole fair. This bodes well for the future and I am confident that allowing the market to function more freely will provide benefits to everyone concerned.
At the same time, even after the two-year transition period the commission will continue to have the authority to deal with maximum tariffs if that should become necessary. During and after the transition period the grain commission will perform an ombudsman role, responding to complaints and seeking remedies.
I wish to stress that this amendment arises from our commitment to regulatory reform, removing regulations that hinder the competitiveness of Canadian industry, and developing a regulatory regime which adds value to the efforts of Canadian enterprises to compete in international markets.
Bill C-51 will remove the requirement that only public carriers transport grain interprovincially. This will benefit producers, providing them with transportation options that may help them to reduce some of their marketing costs. Other amendments will allow the grain commission to stipulate that electronic transmission of transactions may replace paper documents. This will save money and time for the grain commission and for the industry as a whole.
I would now like to turn to the issue of protection for grain producers. The Canada Grain Act of 1912 established the Canadian Grain Commission in large measure to protect the interests of Canadian grain producers. This remains a central feature of the act, and several of the proposed amendments
before us today are designed to maintain this protection function.
They include granting authority to the grain commission to act against companies that illegally use Canada Grain Act grade names. The bill also includes provisions that require licensed grain dealers to use Canada Grain Act grade names in all of their transactions with producers, provisions to specify the way in which grade, dockage and moisture content are determined and recorded at the country elevator, and provisions to allow the suspension of licences of primary elevators where overages exceed allowable limits.
Overages are discrepancies between the amount of grain an elevator has in store and the amount that it should have according to records of shipments and receipts. The amendments will also include provisions that confirm the authority of the grain commission to require operators to fully ensure the grain in their elevators.
The current reporting requirements are not as effective as they should be under the law for determining the financial health of a prospective licensee. Therefore, this bill contains provisions that require prospective licensees to provide specified financial data which demonstrate their financial viability.
I would now like to turn to the issue of enhanced protection for taxpayers under this proposed legislation. The amendments will provide such protection for the taxpayers of this country. Members will recall that in 1991 the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the grain commission was liable for losses sustained by producers in the early 1980s when two licensees went bankrupt and their security posted with the commission did not cover their liabilities.
As a result of this, Canadian taxpayers were required to pay more than $3.9 million, an amount equal to the difference between the security posted by the companies and their actual liabilities to grain producers.
While the Federal Court of Appeal has obviously disagreed, it is the view of many in the industry that the Canada Grain Act was not intended to provide unlimited protection for grain producers in all circumstances.
Unlimited business protection of the kind apparently envisaged by the Federal Court of Appeal judgment is unknown in virtually any other sector of our economy. Most producer organizations understand how it can lead some producers into making unwise business decisions.
Therefore, while protection by security posted by licensees is one of the rights producers have under the act I believe, and the majority of producer organizations with which the commission consulted agree, that grain producers need to assume somewhat more responsibility for their own business dealings.
While certain of our amendments give the commission more authority to deal with licensees whose security may be insufficient, other amendments place an onus on the farmer to help minimize his or her own risk. These provisions include, first, an amendment that will provide by regulation protection for producers for a prescribed period from the date of delivering their grain to a licensee.
If producers decline to accept payment for their grain within that specified period, they will not be eligible to be paid out of the licensee's posted security should that company ultimately fail. Based on consultations which the grain commission has conducted with producers and the industry the prescribed period will be 90 days. There will be a requirement that the farmer must notify the grain commission within 30 days of a failure to pay or default by a grain company.
The amendments will also place a responsibility on the farmer to determine if he or she is in fact dealing with a duly licensed company. As only licensed companies must post security with the grain commission, claims will not be valid if the farmer is dealing with an unlicensed company.
A provision will require the producer to obtain grain commission authorized documents from grain dealers and other grain commission licensees. The amendments will permit the commission to set percentage limits on security coverage. The commission would not however be able to use that particular regulatory power without governor in council approval. Currently coverage is 100 per cent. I expect this will remain the case for the foreseeable future.
Finally, the amendments explicitly limit the ability of the Canadian Grain Commission to have the amount of security posted by licensed companies through the commission. This provision is designed to bring the protection enjoyed by producers more in line with security provisions common in many other areas. It is a bit analogous to the limits placed on what the government will guarantee depositors in a financial institution that fails.
These provisions are not a cure-all. No legislation can ensure that grain companies will not make bad decisions. No law will prevent bankruptcies. Nonetheless, these amendments will place more responsibility with the producers for dealing with licensed, viable companies. As well these provisions will encourage producers to refrain from taking unnecessary risks when dealing with any company, licensed or otherwise.
These amendments will reduce the risk which has been borne in the past by the taxpayer. As I said in my first introductory remarks this package of amendments was preceded by a series of
in depth industry consultations across the grains industry in this country.
These consultations demonstrate conclusively that the industry has changed, strengthening our conviction that Canada's legislation has to respond to those changes. I believe the amendments before the House today have the support of the majority of participants in our grains industry. These organizations share my belief that these amendments will produce substantial benefits for producers, taxpayers and the grains industry as a whole. I recommend the amendments contained in Bill C-51 to the House for approval.
Jean-Guy Chrétien Bloc Frontenac, QC
Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to participate this morning in this debate on Bill C-51, an Act to amend the Canada Grain Act.
Bill C-51, this bill to amend the Canada Grain Act we are debating this morning will not cause much of a stir. The proposed amendments are rather technical and are aimed at increasing efficiency in the administration and operation of the Canadian Grain Commission and the grain industry.
The Canadian Grain Commission is responsible for the implementation of the Canada Grain Act. It is required to establish and maintain standards of quality for Canadian grain and to regulate the handling of grain in Canada.
The bill before us has a triple objective: first, to improve the competitiveness of the grain industry; second, to ensure better protection for producers when they do business with grain dealers and big companies; and third, to protect taxpayers more adequately.
Last Saturday, I had the chance to meet with greenhouse tomato producers in my riding, and one of them told me this story that I would like to share with you this morning. Here is how the story goes: tomatoes he sells 70 cents per pound to the supermarket and delivers himself because he handles the marketing are sold minutes later at the same location not for 79 cents per pound, not for $1.39 per pound, but-listen to this- $2.39 per pound.
So, this greenhouse producer said: "You know, I have to work four months to grow my tomatoes before I can sell them at 70 cents per pound, but all the owner of this supermarket has to do is to keep them in his refrigerator or display for 24 or 48 hours to make a net profit of $1.70 per pound".
Producers are sometimes believed to pocket the biggest share, but they are not the ones. In this case, there was no intermediary; this producer handles marketing himself, yet the tomatoes he gets paid 70 cents a pound for, the very same tomatoes sell for $2.39 per pound, just 24 to 36 hours later.
Coming back to Bill C-51, in order to increase competition, the commission will no longer have to set maximum elevator charges. Such deregulation will come about gradually however, and the commission will retain the discretion to set a ceiling through regulation. It will also have the power to investigate complaints and, of course, settle them. We are told that this will give elevator operators more flexibility in setting their prices based on market conditions.
If there is a problem, the board reserves the right to set a ceiling. Producers must enjoy sufficient protection so that the time needed to handle their complaints does not push them into bankruptcy.
Some of the amendments have aroused concern, however, since the regulations that go with the bill will have a very big impact on the bill itself. We hope that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food will table the regulations in committee so that we can assess the impact of the bill before us this morning.
Furthermore, it is unlikely that the deregulation provided for in this bill will lead to a rise in consumer prices. Let me explain. The Canadian Wheat Board pays producers based on the price it gets on the international market. The government for its part, after assessing the market outlook, sets a base price it is committed to paying to producers.
In the last several years, the base price has been set at a very low level, which minimizes the government's obligation to reimburse producers in case sales collapse on the international market. When the international price is higher than the initial price, the board pays producers the difference. If the reverse is true, the difference is paid by the government. It should be pointed out that production or transport costs have no impact on the initial price level.
In the event of a significant decline in the market price, producers will rely on the income support program that includes the Gross Revenue Insurance Plan and the Net Income Stabilization Account. If the market price remains stable but production costs rise, producers will dip into their Net Income Stabilization Accounts. This account is financed by producers' premiums. Up to 2 per cent of his gross revenue is matched by the federal and provincial governments and a further 20 per cent that is not matched can be added.
The producer receives interest on the invested funds at 3 per cent above the market rate. He draws on his account if his profit margin is less than the moving average of previous years. As a result, the operators would have to overcharge considerably to lower the producer's profit margin; the producer could then draw on his stabilization account.
It is therefore unlikely, but nevertheless, should it occur, taxpayers would have to supplement a drop in the producer's net income with matching payments. Deregulation also allows producers to use private rather than public transportation to take grain from one province to another. That is something new.
Madam Speaker, let me now show you and this House how this everyday bill is a perfect example of the gulf between Quebec and the rest of Canada. Since most grain growers are in Western Canada, logically the associations representing them should be consulted about the impact of the bill before us, C-51.
Out of curiosity, I went to find out what Quebecers are thinking. The producers who should be concerned, Quebec's grain growers, are not. The reason is very simple: they are mainly under provincial legislation. So Quebec producers again have to deal with two levels of government. For example, the primary elevators are in provincial jurisdiction, while the transfer and process elevators are in federal jurisdiction.
The Government of Quebec has authority for everything concerning the domestic market, including the shipment of grain. Outside Quebec borders, federal jurisdiction takes over. There is a long list of such waste of time and money in every sector and department.
In terms of the grain required to feed its cattle, Quebec is 70 to 80 per cent self-sufficient. Here, I must pay tribute to the former Quebec Minister of Agriculture, my friend Jean Garon, with whom I had the pleasure of working on several occasions. By the time he left the agriculture department, in 1985, he had increased the province's self-sufficiency to over 80 per cent.
The other 20 to 30 per cent comes from Ontario or the United States. These percentages clearly show why Quebec producers have concerns other than those addressed by this legislation. Their situation is completely and totally different. Since the federal government gives us so many opportunities to make suggestions, I will make one this morning: Why does the Minister of Agriculture not look at the problem experienced by maple producers, considering that 86 per cent of all the maple syrup on this planet comes from Quebec?
The monies invested in that sector by his department are absolutely insufficient. In my riding of Frontenac, where exceptionally good quality maple syrup is produced in great quantities, producers are lamenting over the fact that their syrup is still being sold at the same price as ten years ago. Because there is a major surplus, they have no choice but to accept the price offered to them. Their latest idea to dispose of their stock is to sell maple syrup to be used in ice cream, in the form of maple sugar bits. This product is extremely popular right now in the U.S., in Canada and of course in Quebec. There is also maple syrup yogurt. I do hope, however, that nobody finds a way to replace maple sugar or syrup by a substitute which will taste the same but will not be the real thing and may well not be much cheaper.
I urge you, Madam Speaker, as well as hon. members in this House, to sample the cakes made with maple syrup by the bakery in Saint-Méthode. You have? Good. These are made with real maple syrup and not a substitute. Last spring, when I visited that bakery, they were proud to tell me that they had already used 500 barrels of maple syrup.
Now, if the federal government would only look beyond what it is doing in Western Canada for farmers and realize there is a case for investing in research and development in Quebec. This morning I mentioned the maple syrup industry. There are other examples of areas where Quebec is well ahead of the other provinces or other countries. Milk production is case in point, since Quebec is responsible for 48 per cent of Canada's milk production.
So why not invest more to develop the potential of a sector that already has an excellent record? We in the Bloc Quebecois have no objection to the measures being sought by Western farmers, and we have no objection to their excellent association supporting such measures. We have conducted consultations and checked our facts, and Bill C-51 appears to have the approval of Western farmers. Farmers in Western Canada are in the best position to know what is good for them. It is only fair to give them the tools they need to develop their potential.
In turn, we would like to see the same respect shown for the choices Quebecers will make in this coming year. Let the people who know what is best for them decide what kind of future they want.
Madam Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity, and I can assure the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food that all Bloc Quebecois members in this House will support Bill C-51.
Jake Hoeppner Reform Lisgar—Marquette, MB
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of both members this morning. I will address this bill on the basis that I agree with some points and feel very negative about others.
The Canada Grain Act is administered by the Canadian Grain Commission which is the agency mandated to establish and maintain grain quality and regulate the Canadian grain handling system.
I can support the main intentions of this bill as it aims at making our grain industry more competitive. We all want to see Canada build on its reputation as a producer and supplier of quality grain to the world.
It is important to remember that there are many important components that make up the grain industry and we should be sure that they are all working in top form to ensure the health and viability of this sector.
For example, last year we had problems caused by disruptions in the grain transportation system. This year it looks like we are going to experience some of the same problems which are disastrous and detrimental to our industry. Clearly we have to learn to start taking problems for what they are and try to solve them from past experiences without jeopardizing the future or the well-being of the industry.
Turning to the bill, I will outline some of its provisions. The Canadian Grain Commission will no longer be required to set maximum tariffs charged by grain elevators. Over time it is hoped that this will allow elevator operators to be more flexible and competitive in pricing their services while encouraging capital investment. This will also give grain buyers more authority to penalize people who put grain into terminals but do not move it quickly enough.
This amendment may solve a problem that was evident last year when the Canadian Wheat Board plugged elevators with grain for which there was not immediate buyers.
With the current legislation, terminals do not have to wait for boards to sell. They can legislate increased premiums or tariffs. This will probably have a positive effect on the system. Cabinet through governor in council will have the power to reverse these amendments. It remains to be seen whether this amendment will give terminals any real power or whether the Canadian Wheat Board will continue to be protected by the government through the undemocratic governor in council process.
I also wonder if the government in the future will invoke governor in council provisions to give more power to the Canadian Wheat Board and further regulate the industry.
The legislation states that after the maximum tariffs are eliminated the role of the Canadian Grain Commission will be that of a conciliator in resolving tariff disputes. This raises the question that if there is a need to further define this role, how will this be accomplished? Will it be through legislation or through governor in council?
The legislation allows for free movement within the western jurisdiction and within the eastern jurisdiction but not between the two jurisdictions. I wonder why there are these restrictions on interprovincial trade within Canada. As hard as it may be to believe, there are more barriers to trade between provinces in Canada than there are between countries in the European community. I really question the rationale that says there should be restrictions for grain movement within Canada.
This summer we saw the first ministers sign an interprovincial trade agreement that actually did very little to promote free trade. It surprised me that when they had an opportunity to solve a problem that has to be resolved, they accomplished little, especially in the area of agriculture. This is all the more surprising when one considers that these restrictions are not imposed by us, by foreign governments or international regulations. These are pitfalls that we have set up for ourselves and which we have to be more determined to remove.
By eliminating internal trade barriers we can remove the distortions in our markets and ensure that producers in this country have more control in setting prices instead of having a system where internal trade barriers ensure that trade prices are artificially inflated.
This bill will also remove the requirement that only public carriers can transport grain interprovincially. This is a good idea that will hopefully allow producers to reduce their marketing costs by giving them more transportation options.
The amendments in Bill C-51 also attempt to provide increased protection for grain producers. These include giving the Canadian Grain Commission authority to act against companies which illegally use Canada Grain Act grade names; requiring licensed grain dealers to use Canada Grain Act grade names in all their transactions with producers; specifying the way in which grade, dockage and moisture content are determined and recorded at the county elevator; authorizing the Canadian Grain Commission to suspend the licences of primary elevators where overages exceed allowable limits, which is very preferable; confirming the authority of the Canadian Grain Commission to require operators to fully insure the grain in their elevators; and, requiring prospective licensees to provide specific financial data which demonstrates their financial viability.
Certainly increased protection for producers is something that should be pursued but there is always a danger that by adding more regulation the system is being weighed down more and more. We have to find ways to get protection for producers without getting into the way of how they conduct their businesses.
There are also aspects of these amendments that will hopefully result in increased protection for taxpayers. Under the bill producers will have 90 days to seek payment for their grain after delivery to a licensee. If producers do not seek payment within that time period they will not be eligible to be paid out of the licensee's posted security. Then the companies go bankrupt.
The farmer would also be required to inform the Canadian Grain Commission within 30 days of a failure to be paid by grain companies. The onus will be on farmers to determine if the companies they are dealing with are licensed by the Canadian Grain Commission.
Since licensed companies must post security with the Canadian Grain Commission, claims will not be valid if farmers are dealing with unlicensed companies. The Canadian Grain Commission will be limited on its liability to the amount of the security posted by the licensee. It is intended to be similar to the limits placed on what the government will guarantee depositors if a financial institution fails.
These are some of the bylaws I can support. As the House knows, I am no great friend of the Canadian Transportation Agency or the Canadian Grain Commission. Why is that so? I would like to remind the House that as a farmer and as a politician today I like to deal fairly with every individual.
In May of this year the Manitoba Co-Operator published an article that read: ``Double standard claimed. The Canadian Grain Commission, guardian of the quality control system that makes Canadian grain exports the best in the world, tells farmers to do one thing but one of its assistant commissioners has been practising another. This commissioner has grown unregistered wheat for a whole year before it was internally licensed''. If that is not a double standard, if that is protecting the Canadian farmer, I cannot agree with the bill.
When questioned one Domain area farmer said: "How political was the decision not to register Grandin grain or how political was the decision to bring it in?" When the wheat board commissioner, Mr. Murta, replied to it, he said: "It is an indication of a system that almost got ahead of itself and you can see the result".
We were to have a grain commission to protect the quality of our grain and what did it do? It illegally allowed one of its assistant commissioners to bring in grain.
When another farmer was asked how he felt about it, he replied: "Although the first Grandin wheat came into the prairies illegally, one of the first farmers to import it says Agri-Canada officials told us how to do the paperwork. They told us we didn't have to use variety name. We could use lot number".
Is this the type of grain commission we want? Not I, not as a farmer. It bothers me when I see there will be no limits on storage costs. Will it really increase competition or will it allow big grain companies to fill their terminals and then charge farmers through the wheat board for these costs? There is no incentive for the wheat board to move that grain because I pay the costs, not the wheat board.
One prime example is the situation at Churchill to date. As of Monday there were two ships sitting and waiting for grain. There is no grain available. Elevators in southern parts of the provinces are plugged. Boxcars are sitting idle. We do not need hopper cars to go to Churchill. Boxcars are sitting idle. Transportation costs to Churchill are from $10 to $20 per tonne cheaper than either to the west coast or to the east coast. There is no incentive for the grain companies to move grain to Churchill because the terminal is owned by the government.
Last July I went to investigate the port, to have a look at it. A ship was due for arrival that took on 40,000 tonnes. That terminal with the capacity to store five million bushels had 4,000 tonnes in it. Are those the regulations we are debating? Is that the type of system that is protecting farmers? I feel we are getting shafted.
Why should we be worried? I received a letter last week from a seed cleaning plant which does not come under the rules of the Canadian Grain Commission. Through its expertise and incentive it developed a market for special crops. The seed plant was notified that it would have to become a grain dealer or an elevator with a licence. It would have to put up bonds. It would have to put on insurance. There will be extra costs for the small seed cleaning plant, of which there are hundreds in rural parts of the prairies. The operator told me point blank: "If that is enforced upon me I will be shut down. There is no way I can compete with a UGG or a pool cleaning system. No way will I survive".
Is that increasing competition? I think it is decreasing it. Why are we doing it? Why are we continually allowing bureaucrats and government to enforce regulations or stipulations that hurt the small person?
I would like to go a little further. I noticed in his opening remarks the hon. minister indicated that they wanted to save taxpayers' money. That is one thing Reform is always pushing for. We could very easily do so by removing some wheat board commissioners who were politicians, are drawing a gold plated pension plan and are still drawing a wage more than that of an MP in the House. If that is looking after the small guy, I do not want to be looked after. These grain board commissioners are lifetime appointments.
I read in the new bill that the age limit will be removed. Why? Is 65 not old enough? Why would we want to increase the age until these grain commissioners finally die? That is the only way we will ever remove them and get people to represent farmers.
It is not only that. Further in the bill I read that we are going now to give the commissioners the authority to set their own wage scale. They will not have to go to the cabinet or use an order in council. If that is saving taxpayers' money, I do not think I want to support the bill.
How do I feel about the bill? It reminds me very much of a chicken farmer who is trying to protect his flock in the hen house. He is looking for a guard dog and finally somebody camouflages a fox and says: "Here is a good guard dog. Set him in front of your door". Not only are we being brainwashed or whitewashed with the guard dog; we are throwing him into the chicken coop and closing the door. The guard dog will have his meals any time; he will have any one of the chickens he desires. I cannot support legislation like this.
When I look at section 84 that deals with transportation of grain I see that it is to be deregulated. It will now require not only an export permit from the wheat board to move grain from province to province. It will also require documentation from the Canadian Grain Commission allowing farmers to transport their own grain. Does it make sense? To me it is more regulation, not deregulation.
As a farmer and a new politician I did not think I would see democracy at the point I see it this morning. When I am told as a member of the House that I must accept what the government wants to do and I had better like it or else I will have nothing to say, I get very upset.
I remind hon. members on the other side that come the next election this farmer-politician will not forget those kinds of actions. He will continually remind western farmers that this was how we were treated by hon. members across the way.
We are going to go to our graves physically healthy. We can spend millions and millions in building pools and supporting hockey rinks, but we cannot support a grain transportation system; we do not have the funds.
The other day I saw a news release stating that $4 million was to be spent in the city of Winnipeg for recreation by the government, but we cannot afford to upgrade the line to Churchill. We are going to starve healthy.
Rose-Marie Ur Liberal Lambton—Middlesex, ON
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Prince Albert-Churchill River.
I wish to add my voice to those supporting Bill C-51, an act to amend the Canada Grain Act. I do so for many reasons. As colleagues have noted, these amendments offer a multitude of benefits in terms of enhanced competitiveness for Canadian grain in world markets, better service to the industry, and protection for grain producers and taxpayers.
I congratulate all involved for putting together such a comprehensive and useful package of legislation. I am impressed with the ways in which the bill reinforces and fulfils the original intent of the Canada Grain Act, 1912, while at the same time it adapts to many challenges posed by the international grain markets of the 1990s.
Its original intent was and remains, to act in the interests of producers. It is on behalf of grain producers I wish to address my remarks today. To act on behalf of the grain producers it is first necessary to understand what they are. The process that led up to the drafting of the legislative amendments was one of lengthy, in-depth consultations with representatives of all facets of the grain industry.
Prominent among those were grains producer organizations. These organizations through their representatives told the Canadian Grain Commission to continue to protect the integrity of the Canadian grain handling system, to strengthen and to maintain the system that has given Canada the enviable reputation enjoyed worldwide for top quality grain.
At the same time they said they needed flexibility to meet the new markets and challenges, to pursue new opportunities, and to adapt to rapidly changing conditions. While on the one hand we are maintaining and strengthening Canada's grain quality system, on the other hand we are removing restrictions which have become burdensome and counterproductive. With the foregoing in mind I will now outline the features of this bill which I feel most effectively accomplish these objectives from a producer's point of view.
To protect the integrity of Canada's grading system which producers understand enhances the marketability of their grain, the act will amend to strengthen the concept that quality meeting the needs of the end users is central to Canada's grain handling system.
This will help to reinforce the many unique things we do in Canada which ensure that only the best grain varieties are developed, marketed and transported through our bulk handling system.
As Canada's grain system evolves over time this amendment will affirm that quality will continue to be the foundation of Canada's grain marketing strategy.
Canada's commitment to grain quality will be strengthened in other ways. For example, the definition of contaminated grain will be clarified and the responsibility of elevator operators for safe handling of hazardous compounds and safe disposal of contaminated grain will be clearly spelled out. This works to the obvious benefit of the producers who will understand the ethical concerns and the marketing advantages of delivering a safe, wholesome product.
As well, an amendment will confirm the authority of the commission to set standards for the drying of grain. This is more important because improperly dried grain often cannot be detected until it is processed. The first indication of concern would be a dissatisfied customer.
This very point was brought up on September 22 at an annual meeting of the Ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board in my riding of Lambton-Middlesex. When its primary customers, American producers along the south shore of Lake Erie, are demanding wheat with 13.5 per cent moisture content, there had better be a means of ensuring this standard.
This amendment provides the commission with another means by which to maintain Canada's reputation for grain quality. It therefore contributes to enhancing the competitiveness of Canada's grain producers.
This bill will remove the requirement that only public carriers transport grain interprovincially. This will benefit producers, providing them with transportation options that may help them to reduce costs. This provision coupled with the June 8 announcement by the ministers of agriculture and transport to expedite changes to the Western Grain Transportation Act will ensure the foundation of a fair and effective delivery system for crops in all regions of Canada.
Several other proposed changes to the Canada Grain Act speak directly to the opinions expressed by grain producers that the CGC continue to maintain the integrity of grain transactions. These include granting authority to the commission to act against companies which illegally use Canada Grain Act grade names; requiring licensed grain deals to use Canada Grain Act grade names in all of the transactions with the producers; provisions to specify the way grade, dockage and moisture content are determined and recorded at the county elevator; provisions to allow the suspension of licences of primary elevators where over usages exceed allowable limits.
Over usages are discrepancies between the amount of grain an elevator has compared with what it should have based on records of shipment and receipts.
Also included are provisions which clarify the authority of the commission to refuse licences to companies which it deems to be unreliable.
These provisions fit well with others contained in the bill which require that grain producers take more responsibility for grain transactions. I believe this balanced approach reflects the basic value that is held by producers, the industry and this government, one that says we are all obligated to share in the risk and responsibilities. In doing so producers, the industry and all Canadians share in the benefits.
Taken together, these amendments to the Canada Grain Act offer producers a comprehensive package of measures that support their efforts to work and to prosper in an increasingly competitive global grain market. For this reason I most heartily encourage members of this House to support this bill.