Madam Speaker, I am glad to respond to some of the remarks made by members opposite. Let me mention a couple of things before I address the concerns which apply to the Group No. 2 motions before the House.
The Reform Party critic refers to this as a fund. This is not a fund. It is an insurance plan, no more and no less.
The member for Medicine Hat expressed concern about having producer representation on the special crops advisory committee. Had the member for Medicine Hat bothered to read the bill, he would have found that not only does the bill provide for producer representation on the advisory committee but it also requires that a majority of the members of the advisory committee be producers. It is explicitly expressed in the bill that a majority of the members of the advisory committee will be producers. That is about as straightforward as I can make it. It is factual.
Members of the Reform Party made several remarks about electing or not electing the special crops advisory committee. Now those members are saying that they are not in favour of elections. All they want are commodity groups to come up with a list of possible appointees and for the minister to choose the members from the list. At least the Reform Party has made some progress. I guess those members have realized in the last few days or weeks that elections would be a very expensive way to go.
If the Reform Party is not talking about expensive elections, it is good because I do not think anyone would want that. Their suggestion of having a list drawn up by commodity groups and the minister would then choose members from that appointed list is problematic too.
We opposed the motion because there is no mechanism for officially registering commodity groups when it comes to special crops. We would have to ask with respect to the the Reform Party's suggestion, how many commodity groups would have the privilege or right to come up with the list of names for the committee?
Under the insurance scheme, I think we have 11 recognized special crops. Would it be just those 11? What if the situation was that one specialty crop was represented by more than one official commodity group? What would be done then?
The minister has made it very clear that not only will there be a majority of producers represented on the advisory committee, but the minister will consult very widely. There is no barrier, none whatsoever, to any of the commodity groups, to any individual producer or anyone who is concerned to bring forward all the names they want. Then the minister will have to do the best job he or she can to come up with the final list of appointees to the advisory committee. I think the system will work quite well.
Let us get to Group No. 2. Previous speakers talked about abandoning our proposal for a mandatory refundable system. They would like an opt-in plan. We want this insurance plan to work and to work well. We want it to be viable. We want it to be administratively efficient. This is why after many years of consultation we have decided that the best way to do it is a mandatory refundable approach. That approach is already used when it comes to the funding of pulse organizations in Alberta and Manitoba. It goes even further in Saskatchewan where there is a mandatory non-refundable approach.
We are going to make it as simple as possible to have fees returned at the end of the crop year. At first it was envisaged that producers would have to apply for a refund of fees if they had opted out but not any more. Now the onus will be on the dealers, on the agents. They will have to do the book work and return the fees.
The Reform Party critic talked about whether it would be necessary for a producer to opt out only once or whether a producer would have to opt out every crop year. That kind of provision is not written into the bill. It is a matter for regulation. That will be decided when the regulations are drawn up. I know the minister will hear representations. If there is one overwhelmingly dominant view, I am sure that view will be accepted. However that is a matter for regulation. We think the mandatory refundable approach is the best approach.
We have to remember another thing. At this juncture, and I hope that it changes, a lot of specialty crop producers are not well aware of this plan. I am absolutely sure that while they do not know about it, they would like to be part of it. I would not want a voluntary opt-in situation as proposed by the Conservative Party and Reform Party in which some could find themselves without insurance because they did not know that the insurance plan was available.
This way there will have to be a conscious decision. A farmer or producer will have to think this through, can he take the risk of selling his produce, his crop to an agent without insurance. Farmers are big boys. They can make that decision. But we want the system as simple as possible and we want it viable.
Remember that if this plan does not work, then they do not have any security because the bond system is going out. We want to make absolutely sure that the farmers think about this and think about it well, and that they will make the right decision. I think that they will.