Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-26, an act to amend the Canada Grain Act and the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act and to repeal the Grain Futures Act.
As the new agriculture and agri-food critic for my party, I want to assure you that I will certainly be separating the wheat from the chaff.
We are again debating a bill that concerns only part of Canada, the prairies. What, however, is at the heart of this bill? The summary of the text reads as follows, and I quote:
This enactment establishes a licensing system and an insurance plan for the special crops industry in Western Canada. It provides for the licensing of all buyers of special crops and for the voluntary participation of producers in the insurance plan, which protects them against default of payment for special crops by licensees. Outstanding payments for standard crops will continue to be protected by security given by standard crops dealers to the Canadian Grain Commission (CGC).
After a summary examination of this highly technical and specialized bill, I will most certainly be a participant in the debate bearing in mind the best interests of farmers and farming and recognizing that this bill does not concern Quebec farmers. This is the reason my speech will be brief. I am not particularly concerned with a matter that is of interest only to western farmers. I feel quite outside this debate, particularly having heard the previous speeches, including that of my predecessor, the member for Prince George—Peace River.
The most important clause in this bill is clause 7. This clause provides for the establishment of an insurance plan, and I quote:
—to insure producers of special crops who are holders of cash purchase tickets—
—elevator receipts—
—or grain receipts against the refusal or failure of licensees to meet their payment or delivery obligations under the receipt or ticket.
If such a regime were to become law, this would allow a licence holder with an elevator operator or grain dealer licence to receive statutory levies from producers delivering special crops.
He would then remit the levies to the agent, who would use them to pay any premiums owed to the insurer, any expenses related to the administration of the insurance plan and any remuneration or reimbursement of expenses to which a member of the Special Crops Advisory Committee may be entitled under subsection 49.02(4).
The difficulty lies in section 49.02, which consists of four subsections setting out how the advisory committee is to be formed. The first subsection allows the minister to establish an advisory committee by naming nine members for a renewable term not exceeding three years. Is this not a way of making political appointments?
Would it not be better for these positions to be elected ones, especially since the committee is mandated to present recommendations regarding the designation of special crops and the selection of a person or organization as agent or insurer, and to advise the minister on any other issues concerning special crops? This could easily become a conflict of interest.
Moreover, the majority of the members of the committee must be “special crops producers who are not special crops dealers, grain dealers or operators of primary elevators”. In other words, they cannot be traders. I add this comment because the wording of the bill in French is rather ambiguous on this.
In addition, members's remuneration is also fixed by the minister. The agent must also reimburse them for any reasonable travel and living expenses incurred by them in the course of their duties while absent from their ordinary places of residence.
It can be seen that a number of questions arise concerning clause 7, particularly subsection 49.02 and its paragraphs. Other clauses also require some clarification, and this will be forthcoming, I trust, before we vote on this bill.
I will, therefore, be on the lookout for the slightest comment from farmers on this bill, for they are the ones who must benefit from it first and foremost.