Madam Speaker, I would first like to compliment the Conservative Party for picking up on this clause and giving us this second group of amendments to the bill to make it voluntary. It is very important and quite complementary to what farmers want.
What does voluntary really mean? To me it means something I decide how to do and how I want to handle it.
The comment was made that it is only 38 cents per $100 that this is going to cost farmers. Maybe that is not that huge a sum but when we look at the input costs of farmers to the 38 cents on every $100 they spend it is another 3.8% increase in expenses. They are the best to decide whether they have the funds available to service that extra debt.
When I look at 38 cents per $100 I know that covers our hail insurance premiums which is something we need because we are in a hail area. If we do not have that coverage we are probably out of luck and looking at bankruptcy around the corner if we cannot cover our costs.
I cannot condemn this plan as a total package because I think it is going in the right direction. However, the Liberal government would find that if it were voluntary to the terms that a farmer would define as voluntary, it would probably receive 90% to 95% acceptance if farmers could afford that money. The majority of farmers want to take risks out of their operations. With the huge input costs it is becoming harder and harder to make that bottom line meet what it is suppose to.
As the parliamentary secretary said, it is not a fund. It is an insurance plan. However, we still have to realize it is set up for the special crops industry and they will have to make it financially sound. If it does not pay the expenses or the claims that will be processed against it they will have to increase that premium to make it viable or else there will be no insurance plan.
Those are things we have to consider. If we make it mandatory and then all of a sudden the premium rates increase to $1 per $100 that probably would be something that farmers could not afford.
I like to believe that governments always intend the best but sometimes because they do not listen to producer groups or farmers maybe the intention is not fulfilled or it somehow gets distracted. When the parliamentary secretary says that there will be at least five producers on that advisory board, that still leaves the option of four appointed political people or friends or whomever they would like to appoint. That means they would only have to persuade one out of five farmers to side with them and farmer clout would be gone as far as the board is concerned.
When I hear politicians saying they will make it as simple as possible, this really bothers me. What does that really mean? During debate not too long ago the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville talked about Bill C-68 and the regulations put forward. The member indicated how they were becoming impossible to implement and costs would be prohibitive. One of the Liberal members stated it is no more complex than the Income Tax Act. If that is the simple method implemented to bring this bill forward I would be really scared on simplification. I think that spells disaster.
This is the reason farmers are very hesitant to approve something they do not have control over. We know that with the regulations we now have on farms regarding environmental issues, such as gasoline tanks being diked, it is becoming very hard for farmers to have the right to farm. That is why I think they are very hesitant to accept this bill when the voluntary portion is not included in it. I must compliment the Conservative Party for bringing this forward. I think this will make the bill fly if the amendment is passed and it will be quite successful.
The parliamentary secretary indicated that the government would listen and act in good faith. I want to believe that is going to happen but we have to look back approximately one year when the wheat board minister, who was the agriculture minister, set up the Western Grain Marketing Panel.
For a year and a half we heard in this House that farmers were going to get marketing choices. The government said it would listen to farmers and spent a couple of million dollars travelling across western Canada. I think the committee did listen. There were some very good people whom the minister appointed to that panel. They did a very good job. What has happened to that report? Absolutely nothing. None of the suggestions by the panel was accepted. Its advice was not heeded.
The then minister of agriculture went back to farmers and had them write letters. Thousands of letters came in. They said exactly the opposite of what the Western Grain Marketing Panel had said. All the suggestions and recommendations were thrown aside.
We are again debating Bill C-4 and not only has it created a lot of debate in the House but it also forced the Senate to have another round of hearings in western Canada and listen to farmers. We have spent millions of dollars on the process of listening and wanting to act in good faith.
We have to show our producers, our constituents and taxpayers that we really want to act in good faith. Let us accept what people tell government, implement their suggestions, implement the regulations they would like to see in these bills and then act on it. Bills can be changed. Nothing says this bill is for eternity. We may have a different government after the next election and it may say it does not think the regulations are right. Let us get something the general public, the producer and the taxpayer, really thinks is in its interest and is cost effective.
I am certain that if farmers believe this insurance plan and this licensing plan is worth the money spent on it they will support it. I have never seen a program yet in western Canada during the 35 years that I was a farmer that was not supported by the majority of farmers if it made sense.
Practically 75% to 85% of the farmers in my area supported the western grain stabilization act. When they realized how it really worked when it triggered payouts close to 100% supported it. Other farmers wanted to join. They had that option. They were allowed to join.
That is what I think would happen with Bill C-26. If it was made voluntary, we would be amazed at the percentage of farmers who would support it and would give the government credit for making it voluntary and cost effective and for ensuring that there was protection not just for the producers but also for the processing industry. When they work together, get good protection, get the markets, it can only help everybody.
I was astounded when I spoke to two young farmers last week. I asked if they were hear to listen to the Senate hearings on Bill C-4. One of the young gentlemen said that they were here to try to create a seed industry, the export of seeds, for pinto beans to Mexico. I asked why they were interested in growing pinto beans as seed for Mexico.
He said that they had developed this industry and they were always running into problems with foreign markets. The Mexicans are producing an inferior product. The people who wanted to buy the product hedged on the price saying that the Mexicans could sell them the product for less money, but they never looked at the quality of that product. They were trying to develop a seed market for the Mexican farmers so that it would improve their product and they would have a level playing field on the foreign markets.
That is the way the special crops industry has worked over the years. It is a tremendous asset to this country. We should accommodate their wishes and pass these amendments.