House of Commons Hansard #141 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was farmers.
Geoff Regan Liberal Halifax West, NS
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from residents of Halifax West. They request that Parliament not amend the human rights legislation to include the phrase sexual orientation.
PetitionsRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker
We will now revert to Private Member's Bills for which unanimous consent was given earlier.
Svend Robinson NDP Burnaby—Kingsway, BC
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-296 , an act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children).
Mr. Speaker, I thank members of the House for their consent to introduce the bill at this time.
The purpose of the bill is to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code allowing corporal punishment of children by parents and teachers.
Condoning corporal punishment can lead to physical and psychological injury and death of children, contributes to violence in society, and is contrary to both the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Section 43 allows punishment causing bruising and contusions. It allows children to be struck with belts and other objects. It is the relic of a bygone age and has no place in a democratic society that respects and values children.
Finally I would urge the section be repealed as part of the recodification of the general part of the Criminal Code. Several European countries have ended the legal approval of corporal punishment. I urge our government to uphold the rights of children and repeal this harmful and discriminatory section of the Criminal Code of Canada.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
Mac Harb LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of International Trade
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all the questions be allowed to stand.
Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
The Deputy Speaker
Shall all the questions be allowed to stand?
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-51, an act to amend the Canada Grain Act and respecting certain regulations made pursuant to that act, be read the third time and passed.
Len Taylor NDP The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to third reading of Bill C-51, the Canada Grain Act amendments. At the same time I express to the minister of agriculture my continuing support for the Canadian Wheat Board. I point out to him, as I know he is aware, the results of the recent wheat board advisory committee elections.
The minister must know by now that wheat board supporters won 10 of 11 seats, or perhaps I should say the supporters of dual marketing lost all but 1 of 11 seats up for election. As far as farmers and grain marketing are concerned it would appear that farmers think the Canadian Wheat Board is doing a fine job of marketing western grain and want it to continue doing a successful job.
It is incumbent upon the government to accept the wishes of the western farmer as expressed by this vote, which was virtually a referendum on the issue of the future of the Canadian Wheat Board, and begin issuing statements in support of the board.
This week in the House of Commons the minister of agriculture was given the opportunity to congratulate the elected members of the advisory board and to declare his personal support for the work of the board. Instead, he chose to repeat the line that he must continue consulting with farmers.
Let me quote the minister from the December 7 edition of Hansard , as reported at page 8784. He said:
I do not think it would be fair to say that the vote is the be all and the end all. I do not think it would be fair to say it is the absolute last and ultimate word. It is one very important piece of evidence which is clearly supportive of the Canadian Wheat Board.
I appreciate the acknowledgement of the evidence in front of the minister, but I believe the minister must accept the wishes put before him. Therefore I say the consultation must now be concluded. Farmers have had the best opportunity they will ever have to declare support for the board and they have taken it. They support the board. They have demonstrated they support the board. The minister must not now only acknowledge it; he must act on it.
Today, however, we must also deal with the government's amendments to the Canada Grain Act. I express my support for the act and the amendments before us today, although there are additional amendments that could be made to further strengthen the act and how it applies to farmers.
Basically the latest changes in the grain act were proposed in response to changing industry conditions and as a result of producer group recommendations. They also reflect the findings of the federal government's 1992-93 regulatory review that supported deregulation and a more market responsive grain industry, a review I have taken some issue with.
Primary producers are becoming increasingly vulnerable to exploitation by various trading interests as protective legislation is systematically deregulated. Deregulation represents the transfer of power from the public to the private sector. A loss of public power means a loss of sovereignty, a loss of opportunity for redress when something goes wrong. The more deregulated the industry the more vulnerable we become and therefore ironically the more regulated we need to be. What a situation.
As members are aware the Canada Grain Act is administered by a special operating agency, the Canadian Grain Commission. Its services are provided to clients on a cost recovery basis. It is responsible for establishing and maintaining grain quality and for regulating the grain handling system.
The bill before us is designed to deregulate elevator operation charges, provide more flexibility to producers in moving their grain, and tighten licensing and liability provisions. It gives grain producers the primary responsibility for securing payment for their grain shipments from elevator operators and grain dealers licensed by the commission. It also imposes greater responsibility on licensees of the commission for making such payments.
According to some who have studied the bill, it attempts to find a balance between promoting competitiveness and at the same time maintaining quality. On the one hand, in attempting to streamline the inspection process the amendments reduce the regulatory power of the grain commission. On the other hand, the grain commission is able to prescribe more activities in its
role of protecting producers and grain quality. The grains industry in Canada has a long and arduous history.
The bill in front of us is the latest in a long list of amendments that have come before parliamentarians over the years in many different attempts to improve the movement and storage of grain.
For the record it is important for us to take a look at that history. Members of the House may find it interesting to note that the need for legislation was first recognized by a private member of the House and first presented as a private member's bill in 1898. Farmers represented a great power in the House of Commons at that time. When the private elevator companies were accused of cheating in weighing, grading and deducting for weed seeds, discriminating as to whose grain they accepted and of price fixing, it did not take long for Parliament to act.
A royal commission was appointed in 1900. Later that year, on the eve of a general election, Sir Wilfrid Laurier's government enacted a majority of the commission's recommendations. The 1900 Manitoba Grain Act established a grain commission to license elevators, to bond elevator agents and grain buyers, to approve handling tariffs, to inspect records and to settle disputes.
Is it not interesting that the need to regulate came at a time when the grain trade was dominated by competition from many grain companies growing like crazy and operating in a completely unregulated marketplace?
Deregulation is a direction the previous Tory government wanted us to take and it seems to be the direction the current government wants to continue. However it is a direction fraught with danger and all of us must proceed with a great deal of care.
The first amendments to the Manitoba Grain Act came in 1902 in response not only to a good crop but to apparent blackmail from the railways that were not supplying grain cars to the elevators for the movement of grain.
Another royal commission was called in 1906 in response to allegations against the grain companies. This commission verified the allegations and recommended 50 additional amendments to the act. These amendments include making elevator companies liable for damages for weight frauds, requiring samples of all bins to prevent grading fraud, paying farmers for the commercial value of screenings, and authorizing the grain commissioner to order equitable distribution of cars and to dismiss agents for fraudulent practices.
Then again in 1908 Parliament gave the grain commission full control of the cleaning, binning and shipping of grain from the terminals and the power to inspect terminal records and receipts.
The point of all this is that in the unfettered marketplace of the past farmers were being exploited or taken advantage of every time they turned around. If there is anything to be learned from our history, it is that farmers standing together with the help of their elected officials ensured that they received better and fairer treatment from the corporations then dominating the marketplace.
In continuing to look at our history we see that the farmers' need to take on the elevator companies and the railroads did not end in 1908. There were more amendments in 1912 and again in 1919 after the war when complaints over the handling and purchasing of grain again resurfaced.
Another royal commission was established in 1921 because the complaints against the corporation persisted. More changes were made and finally in 1930 things stabilized. The Canada Grain Act continues to be the basis of Canada's reputation in the world wheat market as a supplier of reliable, clean and consistently graded grain.
However, the political and economic struggle over grains did not end with the Canada Grain Act. The same forces which worked for greater farmer control in handling, storage and transportation also worked for control and fairness in marketing. The Prairie Co-Operative Pools were created in the 1920s and, finally, in 1949 the Canadian Wheat Board was formalized with monopoly control over marketing of western wheat, oats and barley.
Whatever changes are considered to the way in which grain is treated, it is very important to review history and take only those steps that acknowledge the lessons learned along the way.
Today in agriculture there are numerous changes taking place not only within Canada but around the world. The government we are facing seems to be pushing farmers again into a world of a more market oriented privatized industry where the corporations dominate and the farmers must compete not only against other countries but against themselves to participate in the marketplace.
In our fights to maintain a vision of a strong agricultural community with populated and productive rural areas, we find ourselves having to give up those things which make us strong.
The Crow benefit is under attack. The Canadian Wheat Board is under attack and certain protections offered by the Canadian Grain Commission are being discussed.
Just as in 1898 the farmers of Canada and the communities they support today need the support of the Parliament of Canada to ensure they are, each and every one, treated fairly in the marketplace.
There is a tremendous opportunity in the world today both for the export of bulk quality Canadian grain and in the process or value added sector. Canadian producers have to remain in the game through whatever tough times we have to face in order to be here when those opportunities come knocking at our door.
I urge the minister of agriculture to ensure Canadian farmers remain in the game. Give us the opportunities we need to stay on the farm, to reap the rewards of the opportunities coming our way in the future. Give us the opportunity to continue to ship to port under the terms of the Crow benefit. Give us the opportunity to continue marketing our grain under enhanced, not reduced, powers of the Canadian Wheat Board and give us the quality protection we need under the terms of the Canada Grain Act to ensure our reputation in the world marketplace is protected.
I believe the amendments put forward before us today in Bill C-51 allow us to provide some of the protections that are needed. That is why I will support the bill at third reading. I want to ensure the direction the government is taking in agriculture is changed to ensure that each of the farmers, each of the producers can continue to do the work they want to do for their families and their communities. I urge the government to take a strong look at our history and the value of the product coming off the farm to the future of our country.
Leon Benoit Reform Vegreville, AB
Mr. Speaker, I felt I had to respond to the hon. member who has just spoken. My response is with regard to the Canadian Wheat Board advisory committee elections. I would like to talk briefly about the tradition of these elections, what has happened in the past, what the real issue was in the election this time and about some new abuses that came into the voting this time.
The tradition of the Canadian Wheat Board advisory committee elections is that there is a very low turn out at the elections, this year under 40 per cent. The reason is that this advisory committee really has no power whatsoever in terms of the operations of the wheat board. It has no power so people tend to stay away when it comes time to vote.
These elections in the past have been won in the garbage cans of post offices. There is no personal identification involved in the voting in these elections. There was not in the past, I am not sure about this last election. People who support a particular position strongly have gone to the garbage cans and picked out numerous ballots and mailed in a good number of ballots. I have seen this happen. I have talked to others who have seen it happen and have been involved in it. That is the type of process that has taken place in the voting in the past. To my knowledge this has not been taken out this time, but I cannot say that for a fact.
There were some new abuses added to the election process this time. This is very important to point out. The board of commissioners, the commissioners who are government appointed, not elected, is supposed to oversee the election process. Therefore it plays a role very similar to Elections Canada in a federal election.
In spite of that fact these same commissioners including the chief commissioner, Lorne Hehn, were out campaigning for those who were in favour of maintaining the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly-
Leon Benoit Reform Vegreville, AB
Out trying to protect his job.
We will see any monopoly and people involved in a monopoly out to try to protect their job and their personal interest. That is understandable except when this body is the body in charge of the administration of the election.
This should never have been allowed to happen. It was very improper behaviour on the part of those commissioners and I believe they should do what is right and step down because of that.
This kind of abuse is totally unacceptable in any kind of election, whether it is an important election or not. What this has shown is that there is a great concern on the part of these commissioners and those who supported maintaining the wheat board monopoly that things would not go their way. I think this is the reason that the commissioners, against all past tradition, have decided to get involved this time.
Because of this involvement the issue changed from the issue of dual marketing versus monopoly, which was never the issue in this election. The real issue because of the way this was presented by the commissioners and others was. Do you want the wheat board or not? All of the candidates involved in this advisory committee election want the wheat board. To my knowledge they all support the wheat board. Yet that was the way the issue was presented by the commissioners and by others and through the farm media.
This election was to determine whether farmers wanted the wheat board or not, except all of the candidates running wanted the wheat board. I believe probably 70 per cent to 80 per cent of farmers want the wheat board maintained.
That is not the issue that is important here with regard to the wheat board. The important issue is whether the wheat board should be run by an elected board of directors or by government appointment. That is the key issue, should farmers get some control over their organization, the Canadian Wheat Board. Farmers pay the total operating cost of the wheat board. The board supposedly exists for farmers. Why on earth will this
government and others not allow them to control their organization?
The advisory committee has no power and therefore is pretty much unimportant in this whole process.
Len Taylor NDP The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK
Mr. Speaker, I have heard the hon. member's speech before. I did not hear a question in what he put. However, I do have a couple of comments to make in response to the hon. member for Vegreville.
I could not help but think as he was speaking today and as I have heard him say in this House recently since the advisory board elections were completed that when you lose on substance you appeal on the basis of process.
In this case the Canadian Wheat Board advisory elections, at least in my part of the country where I had the great opportunity to talk not only to the candidates running but to many of the farmers responding, were very much discussed on the basis of support for the monopoly powers and enhanced powers of the Canadian Wheat Board or dual marketing.
Again, even in my own area the debate on the farm and in the coffee shops was not concerning itself with process but on substance. In the end when the ballots were counted the substance of the debate I think was quite clearly heard in that those who support the monopoly and enhanced powers of the Canadian Wheat Board were successful.
The member for Vegreville indicated that in some cases less than 40 per cent of farmers voted. Certainly this is not a low number in terms of wheat board elections. This is a very good turnout in terms of the history of the Canadian Wheat Board advisory elections.
I believe that every farmer had the opportunity to express an opinion and certainly those who did not quite often, as we know in politics, represent those who are satisfied. Only when those who are disgruntled vote in large numbers do we recognize the protest in their voices.
A turnout of 40 per cent in which the majority supported the Canadian Wheat Board indicates that those who did not vote would also likely support the wheat board.
I was concerned that the member for Vegreville indicated that he recognized improprieties in the voting. I am sure that on behalf of the minister of agriculture and all Canadians I would ask the member to name those he knows were involved in the improprieties and ensure that the elections are conducted fair and square and that those who are aware of the improprieties and problems that may exist within the system bring them forward to those who can act on them.
Leon Benoit Reform Vegreville, AB
Mr. Speaker, first of all, concerning the 40 per cent, I only referred to that to show that it is not regarded as a valid body that is being elected.
Does the hon. member feel that it is all right for the commissioners who are responsible to oversee the election, as Elections Canada is in a federal election, to actively campaign on behalf of one side in this election? It twisted the issue from an issue of dual marketing versus single desk marketing. They did it from their massive coverage in farm papers and local papers by twisting it instead to an issue of if you let the monopoly break the board will disappear, it will be destroyed.
I would like to ask the member if he feels it is all right that the commissioners campaigned in that way.
Len Taylor NDP The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK
Mr. Speaker, very briefly, the message that the Canadian Wheat Board commissioners brought forward is the message that I was also discussing in my constituency and so were the candidates who were running for the advisory committee.
I did not see the Canadian Wheat Board commissioners bringing forward any new information to the debate.
Charlie Penson Reform Peace River, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak on Bill C-51, the amendments to the Canada Grain Act.
This bill covers also the Canadian Grain Commission. It is designed to reduce the Canadian Grain Commission's responsibility in a couple of areas. Today I would like to focus my attention on government control over the whole grain industry, including that by the Canadian Grain Commission.
We have one of the most controlled industries in the world, the grain industry. No other industry I know of has the level of government control this industry has. As an active farmer, I believe this is not in our best interest. I am going to be pointing out some of the reasons for that later.
We also have a body, the Canadian Grain Commission, heavily controlled by the federal government but does not have the funding from the federal government. In other words, 92 per cent of the budget of the Canadian Grain Commission comes from producers. Only 8 per cent comes from the federal government, yet it wants to maintain in effect exclusive control. I do not think that is a good thing. We also have the same thing with the Canadian Wheat Board where it is a producer funded body and yet the Canadian government maintains control and I believe not in our best interest.
I understand the need to maintain standards. Canada is one of the most reliable exporters of grain. It has a very high quality and we have maintained a very good standard, one that could easily be done by having the Canadian Grain Commission have exclusive control through an elected board of directors rather than appointed as they are now by the federal government.
If producers are paying the bill they should have control. They should have an elected board of officers. This could easily accomplish the same goals of trying to maintain very good standards in order to maintain our customers abroad.
This bill reduces the responsibility of the Canadian Grain Commission in a couple of areas. Setting upper limits on tariffs is one area where it is going to be backing off on controls. The other is reduced payment of losses to the level of the bond of the Canadian Grain Commission on the companies that are required to post a bond.
The Canadian Grain Commission by maintaining this system of bonds must maintain and monitor that these bonds are actually effective. When a grain company is required to post a bond, if it fails the Canadian Grain Commission's liability is only to the level of the bond.
I have information from some industry people that grain dealers who post a bond only have to get back to that level at the end of every month. It is not uncommon for smaller under capitalized grain dealers to be four or more times over exposed to their bond level.
What message are we sending out to producers? That these people have a bond which may be up to four times less than what is really required? We should be sending a message of buyer beware. They should check out these companies and see what their reliability is and not give a false sense of security to producers when they are dealing with companies by believing that there is a bond in place to take care of the problems should the company fail.
In the past there have been cases where companies have failed and there has been heavy exposure by the taxpayer. That is not in our interests either. We need a situation whereby producers deal with companies based on their merit and historical performance. Let them know they have to check out these bonds. It does not have to be done by the Canadian Grain Commission. A false sense of security is being put in place.
My main concern is that the regulation of our whole grain industry is far too high. I talked about the Canadian Grain Commission but it also applies to the Canadian Wheat Board. The previous speaker talked about the Canadian Wheat Board and how important it is. I agree. We are also calling for a democratic election to the board of the directors of the wheat board rather than appointments to the board. This would bring responsibility back to this body which is very badly needed.
In this heavily controlled industry, including the Canadian Wheat Board, a farmer who is producing his own wheat is required to establish a mill on his farm to grind it into flour. The farmer has to buy his own wheat back through the Canadian Wheat Board and apply for permits to do that. This is ludicrous in a time when people are looking for opportunities to expand their business. This is the kind of heavy handed tactic we would see in Russia.
The Western Grain Transportation Act is another area of overregulation in the industry. It is a heavy government hand where it is not required. Grain is being shipped to Thunder Bay, back to Regina and then south across into the United States. It is called backtracking. It costs the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars to continue this practice just to qualify for the Crow benefit. It is absolute nonsense. We would have expected this type of thing in Russia 10 years ago.
These are the kinds of controls we see on the Canadian grain industry. As a grain farmer I know others believe this is very much a business where we can compete very well by government getting out of our faces and letting us get on with our job. We will find the markets. We will find the most effective way of getting it there at the lowest cost.
As long as we have a heavily regulated industry like we have in the three areas I can think of offhand, the Canadian Grain Commission, the Canadian Wheat Board, both of which by the way are undemocratic, and the western grain transportation authority, it shows that we have some serious problems. In fact we do not even comply with the new World Trade Organization regulations. There is a better system outside of our country than there is internally. Things have to be resolved.
I want to take a moment to talk about the Canadian Wheat Board advisory committee and the recent elections. The member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake talked about how this was a very important body. That is not how it is regarded in my constituency nor is it generally throughout the industry.
The Canadian Wheat Board advisory committee is just that. It is an advisory committee. It has absolutely no authority and no power. In the industry it is really seen as a very minor player in the whole scheme of things. It is seen as a public relations exercise for the Canadian Wheat Board. If the government put as much stock in the idea of having elections for the Canadian Wheat Board directors as it does for the Canadian Wheat Board advisory committee then we would be getting somewhere.
We have to apply the same principle. How can there be an elected advisory committee and not an elected board of directors of the wheat board? I think some of the reason is that the Canadian Wheat Board commissioners do not want to open up
the books, which is something that should be required. Let producers see what is happening in the Canadian Wheat Board, see if there are any inefficiencies taking place or any areas where we can make some changes.
Producers do not want to get rid of the Canadian Wheat Board. What I have heard from many constituents is that they want to open up the board and have it elected, effective and accountable. That is the most important thing.
When members talk about how important this election was to the Canadian Wheat Board advisory committee, that is certainly not what I am hearing throughout the country. Less than 40 per cent of farmers voted in this election. It was actually one of the higher ones, but generally it is not regarded as an effective board. People just take it as a joke and that is the reason we are not getting good turnouts. If we had an election for Canadian Wheat Board commissioners themselves I think we would see a very high turnout.
I will close by saying that with this heavily regulated grain industry in Canada we have to ask the question: Who is asking for this? It is certainly not the farmers I am listening to. People are saying to open up the process. These producers want to do more than grow grain. They want to have more control in saying how this grain is marketed and transported. They do not want a regulated industry. They want deregulation.
I believe that Canada and Russia passed in the night about two or three years ago. At least Russia is going in the right direction. It is trying to deregulate its industry while we are still going in the opposite direction. I encourage the government to open up the process or at least start by making these institutions democratic. That is the very least we can do.
Canada Grain ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
Is the House ready for the question?
Canada Grain ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Canada Grain ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
All those in favour will please say yea.
Canada Grain ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
All those opposed will please say nay.
Canada Grain ActGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen: