Debates of May 11th, 1998

Canada Grain Act

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The recorded division on Motion No. 1 stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11.

The next question is on Motion No. 7.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

( Motion No. 7 agreed to)

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move the second group of amendments introduced by the member for Brandon—Souris.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The House has heard the request of the member for South Shore to move the motions originally proposed by the member for Brandon—Souris.

Is there consent for the hon. member to move the motions?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

moved:

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-26, in Clause 7, be amended by adding after line 8 on page 6 the following:

“(2.1) Subject to subsection (2.2), every producer of special crops shall be entitled to participate in an insurance plan established under subsection (2).

(2.2) The Governor in Council may, by regulation, prescribe the circumstances in which a producer of special crops may not be entitled to participate in an insurance plan established under subsection (2).”

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-26, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing lines 9 to 12 on page 6 with the following:

“(3) A producer who participates in an insurance plan established under subsection (2) and who delivers or causes to be delivered a special crop to a licensee shall pay to the”

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-26, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing lines 15 and 16 on page 6 with the following:

“(4) A licensee shall collect the levy referred to in subsection (3) from every producer who is required to pay the levy under that subsection and shall remit it to the agent within”

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-26, in Clause 7, be amended by replacing lines 3 to 5 on page 7 with the following:

“(8) A producer of special crops who participates in an insurance plan established under subsection (2) may, in the prescribed manner, withdraw from the plan. The agent”

Speaker, I would like to mention again, as I did during the second reading debate, a resolution that was passed at the Saskatchewan Canola Growers Association's annual meeting. Similar motions were passed at the Western Canadian Wheat Growers convention, the Western Barley Growers convention and the Saskatchewan Pulse Development Board. In addition, the concern mentioned in this motion has been raised by other stakeholders in the farming industry out west.

The motion reads as follows:

Whereas the majority of Saskatchewan Canola Growers Association members also are growers of specialty crops, and

Whereas the proposed Special Crops Rural Initiative Program would appear to favour the Canadian Grain Commission and not necessarily special crop growers, and

Whereas the Special Crops Rural Initiative Program is promoted as being voluntary, it is in reality a form of negative billing which all consumers reject—, and

Whereas the scheme has questionable support at the farm level, and

Whereas the Saskatchewan Canola Growers Association rejects the compulsory nature of the Special Crops Rural Initiative Program, and

Whereas the Special Crops Industry has flourished without such a program,

Therefore be it resolved that the Saskatchewan Canola Growers Association inform the federal and western provincial ministers of Agriculture of their concerns and at the very least that the Special Crops Rural Initiative Program be truly voluntary for both the growers and the special crops dealers.

This resolution aptly describes what Bill C-26 fails to do. It fails to give farmers choice, not unlike what the government did with Bill C-4, which failed to give farmers choice in how they sell their wheat.

The compulsory nature of the special crops insurance plan is a form of negative option billing. Today's producers run large operations and should not have to apply to opt out and then to receive their money back if they do not wish to participate.

Farming businesses should have the right to decide for themselves if they want to be bonded or licensed and, if so, pay the bills themselves. Producers should have the choice to decide for themselves if there is too much risk selling to an unlicensed buyer. Special crops producers would be better off having choice between selling to large licensed grain dealers and small unlicensed grain dealers. That would make sense. I hope the government considers giving farmers that choice.

The amendments put forward by the PC Party today speak to these concerns. I hope the government will also listen to the stakeholders and vote in favour of these constructive amendments.

Once again I would like to conclude that the PC Party supports this bill, but we can make this a better piece of legislation if the government supports these amendments and the amendments put forward by the member for Prince George—Peace River.

I know the government wants to rush Bill C-26 because it believes it is simply a matter of housekeeping. However, let us try to give farmers in western Canada a piece of legislation that gives them choice.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to the amendments in Group No. 2, put forward by my hon. colleague from the Progressive Conservative Party.

I note at the outset that these amendments, Motions Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6, as put forward by my hon. colleague from the fifth party, clearly outline the need for voluntary participation in this levy that is going to be imposed on producers of special crops in western Canada.

When the commodity groups appeared before the standing committee on agriculture almost unanimously their one greatest concern was the fact that, despite the premise that the levy or the check-off would be voluntary, the fact is that it is mandatory upfront.

I just want to explain this to everyone watching the debate today so they clearly understand what this means. When the producer hauls a truckload of the designated special crops to the delivery point, the levy of 38 cents per $100 will be deducted regardless of whether he or she opts out of the check-off; in other words, does not want to participate in the insurance plan.

As my hon. colleague from the Conservative Party just said, very clearly this is a form of negative option billing. In this case the producer has no option but to have that levy deducted from his or her paycheque.

At the start of the year he or she can apply to the agent, the Canadian Grain Commission, which is going to be administering this fund, stating that they do not want to participate and they want their levy money returned to them following the completion of the crop year.

The way the bill is constituted, they then have to keep track of how much would be deducted off of each and every truckload and each and every designated commodity because they may grow more than one of the special crops. They have to keep track of that and then at the end of the year or at a designated time set up by the agent apply for a refund.

There was some concern expressed at committee, both for the need to have this voluntary upfront and if it does have to be this negative option billing process that the producer should only have to let his or her views be known once. In other words, if they wanted to opt out they should not have the administrative burden of keeping track throughout the year and tallying it all up at the end of the year, similar to how they now have to keep track of the GST and apply for a refund.

Without fail, when the producer groups appeared before the committee they said this was their greatest concern. Did the government listen? Unfortunately, no.

Amendments that I had put forward on behalf of the official opposition at committee were voted down by the Liberals on the standing committee for agriculture. The amendments that I introduced at committee were virtually identical to the ones put forward by my hon. colleague now at report stage. Appearing before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food on April 21 were eight commodity groups: the Alberta Pulse Growers Commission, the Manitoba Pulse Growers Association, the Saskatchewan Canola Growers, the Saskatchewan Farmer Consultations for SCRIP, the Saskatchewan Pulse Growers, the Western Barley Growers, the Western Canadian Marketers and Processors Association and the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association.

If memory serves me correctly, with the possible exception of the Western Canadian Marketers and Processors, all of the witnesses appearing expressed the same concern about the way in which this levy would be collected. In other words, there would be an additional administrative burden placed on farmers. They would not be able to opt out, in a one-time opting out, whereby they could say “I have looked at this. I have studied it. I understand that the government is moving to endeavour to have insurance for all of the special crops buyers and dealers to ensure that in the event one of them were to go bankrupt the producer, if he or she had speciality crops in storage with that particular dealer, would be covered”. Why is the industry interested in making some changes in this area? As we have heard, there is a concern out there that there are a number of unlicensed small dealers, small buyers, and that farmers in some cases may be unaware they are not protected. In other words, these dealers, these buyers of the speciality crops, are possibly unlicensed and therefore have not put up a bond to protect the producer, to protect the farmer, in the event of bankruptcy.

The government wants to implement this process. It will mean more regulation. All dealers and buyers will have to be licensed, for which of course there will be a licence fee, and all of them will have to be insured.

We heard from a number of producers about this. The problem is that once again we see big government making decisions for the producers. Instead of the old adage “buyer beware”, possibly we could have “seller beware” and allow the producer to make a conscious choice. Perhaps he or she could derive a bit more money, a few more dollars per pound or per bushel or per tonne, whatever the case may be, for their product if they were to take the risk of selling that product to an unlicensed, uninsured, unprotected buyer or dealer.

If there was a substantial amount money involved the producer might not want to take the risk. For example, they may be shipping carloads of a commodity. We could be talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars. If they did not want to take that risk, they would then ensure that they sold their product or had it in storage with a dealer or buyer who was insured, who was bonded, so they would be protected in the unlikely event that the particular company were to go broke. I say unlikely because the instances of these corporations, these dealers, going broke is very, very rare.

Unfortunately there is a real lack of evidence as to whether this process, this check-off to ensure that all dealers and buyers are insured and licensed, is going to be a great boon for the special crops industry. Certainly the government would like everyone to believe that this is going to promote the industry. However there is no real evidence that this will happen.

In some quarters there has been some evidence to suggest that it will provide a disincentive for good business practices by these dealers. Presently if a sizeable bond has to be put up, there is an incentive built in to ensure they operate in as efficient and effective manner as possible and to ensure that they do everything to keep from going bankrupt. If they go bankrupt, of course they will lose the sizeable bond they put up. Now they will be working with an insurance fund where the farmers are paying for the insurance. They will not be putting up any bond whatsoever. Therefore, it is no wonder dealers and agents are in favour of this legislation.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

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.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the chance to rise and speak to Group No. 2 but also to rebut what the parliamentary secretary has said.

I will begin with something he said a minute ago. He suggested that if the insurance plan was voluntary, some farmers might not actually become a part of it because they did not know about it. That suggests the parliamentary secretary takes a pretty dim view of the ability of farmers to run their own affairs.

Obviously farmers run extraordinarily complex operations when they run a farm. They make hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars of decisions every year. Is the parliamentary secretary suggesting that perhaps they might forget to plant their crops in the spring? Maybe we should have someone from the government come out and plant their crops for them. Or maybe they would forget to take off their crops in the fall. Maybe we should have somebody come out and take their crops off for them as well.

What the parliamentary secretary is suggesting is ridiculous, that farmers would not know about it, that they are just too dumb. That is what he is suggesting. I disagree with that. It is ridiculous.

Earlier I heard the parliamentary secretary say that I had misspoken when I suggested that all of the members of the special crops advisory committee should be appointed and that the government was not proposing to appoint some producers. Indeed that is correct. I have with me Bill C-26 which would amend the Canada Grain Act. The member is correct. In fact the situation would be that if there are nine members on the board, a majority of them would be chosen by the government and the others would come from elsewhere.

I simply point out that under the plan that is being proposed by the official opposition all of those nine positions would come from producer groups. The parliamentary secretary is suggesting that the government would still retain the power to choose a bunch of unelected hacks, political patronage appointees, for some of these positions. We say that is wrong. We say all nine positions should be filled by the producers. I do not think that is radical. I think it makes sense. That is what the witnesses told the committee and the member knows it.

He also knows that Canadians are democrats. They want to have their representatives on these boards which are supposed to represent their interests. That is just common sense.

Although the member was quite correct in pointing out where I had misspoken, I think he was true to the letter of what I was saying if not the spirit. That is where he was wrong.

I want to touch on the voluntary check-off idea for a moment. Reformers moved this in committee. It is now being moved by Conservatives at report stage. We agree with it. We agree with the idea of a voluntary check-off. The idea of having a mandatory check-off I know producers disagree with.

I have heard it from producers in my riding. They told me as much. They want the voluntary option. They do not like the idea of the government holding on to their money until the end of the year and then getting it back in some way, shape or form. They like the voluntary option.

I remind my friends across the way, if they wonder how this will go over with people, of what happened when the cable industry proposed to do the same thing with cable television, this idea of negative option billing. It went over like a lead balloon. There was a virtual revolt because consumers want to have the choice. Consumer sovereignty, what a novel idea. It should be the same thing in Bill C-26 but the government always wants to have its own way. It always takes the attitude that it knows better. It does not know better.

Why not give people the option? Why not let it be voluntary? What is wrong with that? Why not have the voluntary option? We know that the groups that appeared before the committee almost to a person said they wanted the voluntary option. What is so wrong with that? Why not listen to what people are saying? Why hold hearings if no one listens to what people are saying? I think that is fair. I think it makes sense.

Unfortunately the government has missed the whole idea behind the point of having witnesses appear before a committee. It is to get some guidance on how these things are supposed to work. Remember that the witnesses are the people who are affected. They have a stake in it. They have their whole livelihood in this so why would they not be the ones who are best suited to make those choices, to make those judgments? Why is the government not listening to the real experts? That is what it should be doing.

We disagree with the whole idea of the government's having the sole ability to pick whomever it wants to sit on this board, some of them of course would be producers but again it could go ahead and pick only producers with the right political credentials and some of them would be people who would probably be political appointments, probably defeated Liberal MPs from the prairies, of which there are many after the last election.

They have a lot to choose from, a big slate this time, even though some have already been scooped up into other patronage positions so perhaps they would have to serve in two patronage positions at once, I do not know.

Second, we disagree with the idea of the mandatory check-off. Not only do producers not want it, it is contrary to the whole idea of consumer sovereignty. I remind the government that if it is going to have witnesses, and a bunch of them tell it what to do, listen to them. Hello in there, listen to them. That is what people want. They want to have their testimony listened to and abided by, especially when they speak more or less with one voice.

[Chris Axworthy, NDP, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Madam Speaker, I too am in support of the motions put forward by the member for Brandon—Souris. I think this has been one of the most controversial parts of the bill.

The insurance program for special crops producers in Bill C-26 will be financed by producers from a levy or check-off on all crops delivered to the buyers and dealers. The government says this insurance program is voluntary.

As we have heard and as is clear, that is not quite true. Farmers have to pay a levy up front and at the end of the year according to the government's plan, they can apply to get their money back. This is rather like the negative option billing process put forward by the cable television suppliers. We know that generated a consumer revolt. People simply do not want these kinds of procedures in order to ensure they have insurance coverage should they want it.

What we heard at the agriculture committee when Bill C-26 was discussed was many producer groups asking that the insurance plan be made voluntary. They said that farmers would not appreciate another check-off, that they would not appreciate the paperwork necessary to get their money back at the end of the year.

A motion was put at committee that the plan be made voluntary but government members voted it down.

This is a difficult position to be in. The main trust of the bill is something we support but this managing nature is something we do not support. As a result, New Democrat members will support the motions put forward by the member for Brandon—Souris, the effect of which would provide producers with a choice in their payment of the insurance levy. As I have said, this is what producers through their commodity organizations have requested.

Government members at the hearings of the agriculture committee had no solid explanation as to why this plan should be made mandatory and had no explanation as to why that was a better choice than making it voluntary. We have yet to hear arguments as to why having the plan voluntary would not work effectively, especially since it is what producers want.

The motions put forward by the member for Brandon—Souris are asking that the right thing be done by producers. I hope government members will vote in support of those motions unless we hear good, solid explanations as to why the voluntary nature of the plan which growers want is something that will not work. To date we have heard nothing and I doubt we ever will. Therefore I urge members to vote in favour of these amendments.

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

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.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, it gives me pleasure to speak in support of the amendments by the hon. for Brandon—Souris to this legislation.

I am pleased to know it is the intention of the government to keep its program as simple as possible. That warms my heart. We hear quite a bit of this. This is the government of all governments that loves to regulate, loves complications, loves paperwork, loves to control people. As somebody said earlier in this debate, it likes to keep its foot on people's necks to keep them down. That is the traditional Liberal approach in both social and economic matters. I guess it is something one has to get used to.

I am very fortunate as a farmer in that I produce the one commodity which this government has not yet managed to get its grubby little hands on. I still have the possibility of raising a product and selling it. I do not have to get permits. I do not have to tug at my rural forelock when I approach some bureaucrat. I take my product, which happens to be beef cattle, to the market and I run them through the ring. The auctioneer says sold, I get all my money and that is it, finished. That is the last I see of them.

An hon. member says to just wait. Actually we have had to fight this fight on several occasions. There have been constant threatening moves on the part of various federal governments over the years to intervene in our market. We have always been able to stave them off because we have an extremely strong producers organization which defends us from the machinations of the politicians.

We have been able to keep ourselves independent. We do have a small check-off but it is organized by us for us. We deal with our own business and we do not have any government intervention. It is lovely.

There is a situation in my riding which I think is relevant. There is a fellow who grows organic wheat as he calls it, no pesticides and no herbicides. It is not a special crop in the sense of Bill C-26, but a special crop nonetheless. He has problems with his marketing. The elevator system cannot handle the product because the moment it touches a commercial elevator it is no longer certifiable. It will be contaminated with the product already in the system. That cannot be avoided. He has to find his own markets. He has to arrange the transportation. He does it all himself.

Right now Mr. Arnold Schmidt of Fox Valley in my riding has a trailer load of his product sitting at Emerson, Manitoba. This trailer load of product has been hijacked by the federal government. He wants to get it across the border. This is not a carload of grain in a hopper car. It is a bagged product sitting at Emerson, Manitoba. It costs the man $25 a day to have it sitting there effectively under seizure. He can bring it home if he wants to but this would not be a terribly productive operation. If he does, it will cost him more money.

He is supposed to buy that product back from the Canadian Wheat Board. In other words it can be sold to the Canadian Wheat Board and then bought back. In the process about 90 cents a bushel is dribbled off to the government for a service that was not provided. He is not in any pooling system. They cannot use his product but under those regulations he would have to pay into the pool. He has to pay ransom to get his product out of the country.

Understandably this man is a little upset. The problem is that this is his sole means of livelihood. He grows literally thousands of acres of organically grown grains. He is marketing it mostly in Canada but some of it goes outside Canada. There is an outfit in the states called Our Daily Bread which deals in nothing but organically grown grain.

All of a sudden, without warning and for no apparent reason, the government has decided it will enforce this and nail the guy down. This is an example of how the benevolence of government, doing things that are supposed to help us farmers, can simply make life difficult for us.

The people who grow beans, peas and lentils to a large extent are doing it because these products are not under government control. It is a free market out there for this stuff. People can do as they like just as I can do with my cattle. They have their own producers organizations which apparently function very well. However when the government sees something that is not regulated “My God, we have to do something. These people are dangerous. They are making a living and we are not involved”.

This drives me around the bend. How many years have we been growing specialty crops on the prairies? Not very many. Perhaps one of my colleagues could tell me. Is it 12 years, 15 years?

[An hon. member]

Fifteen years tops.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Fifteen years tops. It has taken that long for the government to wake up to the fact that there is something out there it has not yet regulated “We have failed in our duties as a government. Let us get out there and grab them by the neck”.

I return to the specific amendments being proposed. They certainly will ease the pain. Why anybody should be subjected to a form of negative billing by their very own government truly escapes me.

When the cable companies during the last parliament were negative billing on their cable services, there were members on the other side who went berserk. Now the government is proposing negative billing and apparently it is quite all right. Mother government has determined that this is the way to go.

Again my compliments to the member for Brandon—Souris. I wholeheartedly support his amendments. I wish the amendments went further in the sense that I do not think that too many of these people growing specialty crops if it comes right down to it even want the bill, but if we are going to have it, surely it could be improved.

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate today on the second group of amendments to Bill C-26.

There has been quite a debate here about government's role in the specialty crops area. I think the phrase that is hated most of all on the prairies is “I am from the federal government and I am here to help you”. That is when farmers and producers head for cover in the back 40. They know they may have a well-intentioned government out there ready to provide a program but quite often it goes off the rails in the process. Some of my colleagues have already talked about that today.

The issue here really is a matter of whether this is a voluntary check-off or one that is a negative option billing and has to be applied for. It seems that government has not learned a lesson from the cable television industry issue that raised so much furore a couple of years ago. It is okay to back off there but when it comes to farmers, mother government knows best. It sounds like something we used to hear out of Russia in the height of the central planning days. It certainly did not work there and I do not see how it is going to work here.

The issue itself of whether there should be insurance for these producers of specialty crops is not a bad one but it is one which should be decided by the producers themselves. As one of my colleagues said earlier, if we take half a per cent here and one per cent there, pretty soon it adds up to something big. Farmers are under a lot of stress already and have difficulty competing. They want to decide for themselves whether they want to take insurance.

On my own home farm in Alberta we do not choose to take hail insurance. It is an option we have. It is a management tool. It is available. That is the way it should be with regard to the specialty crops issue. It should be available. If farmers want it, they will support it. If enough of them support it, it is going to be a viable option. If they do not, or if only 20% support it, maybe it is not going to be viable and maybe it is something that really is not needed. It seems to me that farmers should have that choice.

Choice is not something the government seems to offer when it comes to farmers. On the Canadian Wheat Board debate, if there was a choice offered, producers would vote with their product. They would support whatever system worked best for them. Maybe two systems could work side by side, the Canadian Wheat Board working side by side with the free market option. Maybe it could work that way and I think it probably would. Surely the choice should be left up to the producers. It is in every other aspect of Canadian life. It seems to me that is what should be done here as well.

It bothers me that the government has chosen to take a negative approach, that farmers have to pay it unless they want it back. The government seems to think that farmers will forget about it and it will sort of chew away and that money will be added to the pool.

If this was voluntary and farmers decided not to take it, what is the issue? The farmers would no longer be eligible for that insurance. Farmers would know that, in the same way they know that if they do not choose to take crop insurance they are not eligible to collect. If they do not choose to take hail insurance, they are not eligible to collect hail insurance. It would be the same here. It is a choice.

It seems that the government has a condescending view of farmers, that they are people who cannot run their own lives and do not know how to operate a business. I have a big surprise for the Liberal government. Farmers know full well what they are doing. They are running operations which in many cases are in the millions of dollars. They make choices every day. They make choices on what kind of fertilizer to put on, what kind of seed, what is the best kind. They access information through the Internet on the best varieties. These people are intelligent. Surely they can decide whether they want an insurance program for specialty crops.

In the Peace River country a lot of people are growing peas, a speciality crop. It is a management tool that surely should be available to them but let them make the decision. Why should they have to wait a year to get their money back if they do not want to participate in the project? They would not be covered for the insurance if they decided to get their money back at the end of the year. The pool would have that money for a full year. It is a bureaucratic set-up. It takes time to get it back and for the check-off to take place. Surely the better system would be to have it voluntary so that they would say this is a management tool they want and need in their business.

Another issue is the issue of having some responsibility for farmers who do not want to take that insurance. They have a choice in to whom they sell product. They have a choice in the same way that if I produced a book I could sell the book. If I produced a pen I could sell it to somebody. If I thought the person was a poor credit risk, that he or she would go broke and not pay me, I would want to do some investigative research to know it was a stable company when I hauled my product there.

Why do we need government interfering in all that process? Could it not just be a process for those people who choose a voluntary process? Could it not just be a process that says “I will sell my peas off my farm to that company, but before doing that I want to know that when I get a cheque it will not be NSF, that the company is good for it. I have a choice of whether or not I take insurance. If I decide I do not want that 2% cost to me I will do my own research and find out whether or not it is a viable company?”

I suggest that 98% of the commerce that goes on in Canada out of a $750 billion gross domestic product takes place in that manner. Government does not interfere in all areas of business. When we buy a car there is no insurance that says the company will to produce it. It is a simple business transaction. It seems to me the same should apply here.

Those are my comments. I know a lot of people in my riding of Peace River would choose not to participate if it were voluntary. There are those who would choose to participate. I guess it would be a matter of whether there were enough people involved in the process to make it into an economic feasible insurance program. If there are not enough people who want to participate maybe it should not be in place to begin with.

[Rick Casson, Reform, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to the amendments to Bill C-26. I thank the member for Prince George—Peace River and the members of the agriculture committee from the Conservative Party for working on the amendments and coming up with a very good list of improvements to the bill. It is a pleasure to rise to support the amendments that the Conservative Party has put forward today.

The idea that farmers and producers need government involvement in regulations to implement an insurance plan is wrong. These producers are running huge operations and are very capable of making proper management decisions to maximize the return on their investment.

Right now across the prairies it is springtime and choices are being made as to what crop to seed, how to prepare the seed bed, when to do that, and everything that goes along with those decisions: fertilizer, spray or whatever. They are made by the farmer because the farmer makes those decisions in his own best interest.

The idea that government has come forward with this licensing program to have a negative option billing system is wrong. We saw it last year or the year before when cable companies were trying to use that method. It is just not right, the fact we have to tell somebody we do not want that and unless we say no we will get it.

What is that? That is not the way the country should be run. If farmers want to be involved in an insurance plan they will indicate that they want to be involved. They will let the minister know up front and they are involved. This way they have to let the minister know they do not want to be part of the plan. The levy is still taken from them and then they have to apply to get it back. That just creates another set of books to be kept by farmers.

All we are hearing is that producers want government out of their lives. They want to be able to make their own decisions, run their own operations and do what they know is best for them. They do not need to keep another set of books. They do not need to pay their accountants another $50 or $100 to figure this one out. If they could let it be known up front that they do not want to be involved, it could be a voluntary process. It would go a long way toward improving what the bill is trying to do.

We are speaking in support of the amendments in Group No. 2 put forward by the Conservative Party. They were also raised and discussed in committee. They are good amendments. They are good quality suggestions on how to improve a bill and make it more friendly for western producers.

However they were defeated by Liberal committee members. They have come back in this form and there is a chance to debate them in the House. They were debated at committee. Witnesses came before committee to suggest some things and now we have the ability to discuss them here, to have another airing of them. I hope government members will see the light and find their way clear to support some of them.

There is this idea of government being involved in everything we do in our lives. What is government's role in the lives of farmers and Canadians in general? How much should it be involved? We are being overregulated, overgoverned and overtaxed. We need the government to establish an atmosphere in which we can thrive. That is all we ask. We ask to be left alone in whatever endeavours we choose. That is certainly true for the agricultural community. Some people in the agricultural community are far better qualified to have more input into how things can be developed in Canada than any government member.

We debated the Canadian Wheat Board Act about a month ago. Government members all voted for that bill with its amendments. Yet only 14 of them had a direct relationship to the western grain producer. That shows how these things can be taken away from the people who have most to do with them.

We should create an atmosphere within the agricultural community for entrepreneurs to come forward, to develop their own skills, and to have voluntary means for becoming involved in different programs. They are asking for the option to run their own lives. They want the government out of their lives. They fill out enough forms. The government knows enough about their operations already. It does not need to be involved any more.

I offer my support to these amendments. I hope the entire House will see the merit of them.

[Allan Kerpan, Reform, Blackstrap, SK]

Madam Speaker, I listened to some of my colleagues speak to the amendments to the bill. It brought me back a few years to shortly after we were first elected in 1993. This issue arose then. It was a fairly major issue in my part of Saskatchewan.

In my old riding of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre a good number of people produced specialty crops. There were also dealers that bought and sold the various crops. I talked to many of those fellows at that point in time. A great many were certainly supportive, if not anxious, to see some sort of insurance program whereby producers could be assured that their produce would be insured against any company that might happen to get into financial trouble.

Many dealers wanted to see this take place. Unfortunately it did not happen as quickly as it might have or could have, but it was not for lack of trying on many people's part. At that time some government members liked the idea of an insurance program. I see one of them in the House right now.

That is not what I am here to argue or to debate today. I truly believe that there should be and must be some way to protect dealers and producers from unfortunate events taking place within a company.

What strikes me as odd is that if we speak with farmers in the coffee shops and grain elevators in central Saskatchewan where I come from, generally speaking the federal government will become the laughing stock of the conversation. This is not all the time but a lot of the time. The angle farmers take is that the federal government is in their faces again and whenever it gets involved things cannot be good.

This amendment allows producers to have voluntary participation in the program. That is the key to having some success within the system.

If we look at other aspects—and we do not have to be farmers to think some of these ideas—obviously we do not have carry fire insurance on our houses if we do not want to. It is voluntary. We do not have to carry insurance on possessions if we choose not to. Obviously most Canadians carry insurance because we could not afford to have any type of major loss.

That is also the case in the farm business. Many farmers carry crop insurance because they cannot afford a single loss. They all carry insurance on their farm machinery because they cannot afford to lose a $200,000 combine, which would break many producers.

The key is that the whole system is voluntary and that is what makes it effective. As a farmer I have not carried crop insurance for about 10 or 12 years because I thought it was too expensive for what I might get back out of it if I lost a crop. I was prepared to look after myself in the event of crop failure. We have had a few in Saskatchewan. We are not like Peace River in northern British Columbia where if they do not get 60 bushels an acre it is a failure. I happen to live in Saskatchewan where we are quite happy if we get 60 bushels in two or three acres. That is the difference.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Try P.E.I.

[Allan Kerpan, Reform, Blackstrap, SK]

We hear the member for Prince Edward Island. Those people happen to be very wealthy. I do not know why he is even in the House speaking about this issue because they do not need an insurance program in P.E.I. The point is that it has to be voluntary.

I will look at a side issue, GST, and how it is collected from farmers. A huge bureaucracy has been created in Revenue Canada to handle the GST revenue. It is ridiculous. I have always said that.

If farmers are buying a product, a piece of equipment or something that they need for the farm and it is zero rated, why do they pay the GST up front, go through the bureaucracy of applying to get it back, run it through a paper trail that is six miles long and finally get their cheques back for the GST in about four or five months?

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

You just don't understand.

[Allan Kerpan, Reform, Blackstrap, SK]

The member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands says that I do not understand. I guess he is absolutely right. I just do not understand why we do these things in our system today.

There is a simple way to do it in Bill C-26. We have the computer system and the technology. We have other check-offs to which we have access if we want to take them. However, when I sell my load of lentils and if I choose to buy the insurance should be up to me. It must not be up to the bureaucracy or the federal government.

One of my learned colleagues in the Chamber just a few minutes ago mentioned the cattle industry. I produce a few cows. I have the opportunity to sell to whom I want. I do not have to worry about check-offs. I do not have to worry about the bureaucracy. If I lose money by selling to the wrong person and a cheque bounces, that is my responsibility. I have nobody to blame but myself.

For far too long, in both provincial and federal governments, we as a country, in all areas of our society, have come to say that government must be all things to all people.

The time is long past for that kind of thinking. We must take some responsibility for our own actions. If we buy something that does not work, if we sell something that does not work, yes it is unfortunate, but we have to be prepared to look after ourselves.

Another issue that comes to mind is the Canada pension plan. We went through a huge debate on that during the last six months as to how it should work. We are hearing more and more people say they are not going to rely on the CPP because it probably will not be there when they retire.

That is the same kind of thinking that we are getting from farmers in the agriculture industry. They are saying “Get out of my face. Leave me alone. I will look after myself. If things go bad I have no one to blame. Nobody else has to take that responsibility”.

A member of our party mentioned a while ago the pretty good success that farmers, at least in western Canada, have had with special crops. My area is no different. We have been able to grow lentils, peas and other things that we never grew before simply because the varieties are better and we have had good weather, resulting in some decent crops.

We made some money over those few years. We have made a few dollars on those special crops. In fact they have kept a lot of the farmers in my area in business. During the late 1980s and early 1990s prices were deflated and many farmers went bankrupt. They were forced to switch to those special crops. The only thing I would say is that we probably waited a little too long because they have been very good for us. What could put a damper on that sector of the industry is overregulation from any level of government and I think that is what we are seeing in Bill C-26.

Bill C-4 which amended the Canadian Wheat Board was passed by this House not too long ago. It is now in the Senate. Again, that bill will overregulate. It will put people in place to create a huge bureaucracy where none is required.

I would tell the government to back off, to listen to what the regular farmers are saying and only give that type of assistance or help where people want it and where it is required.

I would say to the member for Brandon—Souris that I appreciate the fact that he brought this amendment back to the House at this stage. Certainly I would support that kind of thinking.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join in this discussion again, simply because we have something here which I believe we do not want to make compulsory.

I want to draw to the attention of my hon. friends opposite that in Saskatchewan and the three western provinces at this time those farmers who wish to contribute to research do so and it is deducted at the elevator. Those who do not wish to do so have no deductions.

I might add that it is not compulsory. There is not very much complaining; none in fact. But the number of farmers who are contributing, according to the latest information I have, is very high.

[An hon. member]

How high?

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I do not know, but the last I have is that it is high.

But I do know this. We have a new venture. We have a new series of crops. We have a new industry in the west. All of a sudden the thinking is that if we cannot get more compulsory aspects into it then of course that is a bad thing.

What the hon. member for Brandon—Souris is doing in bringing in these resolutions is simply saying “Let the industry, the agency and the board prove themselves. If they want to go in and take insurance, fine. Let them take it. If they do not feel it is worth it, then let them opt out”. That is how simple it is. But to demand insurance when there is no proven product is not a very good thing.

If I carry house insurance with the same company for a number of years and I find out that when I put in a claim I get zippo out of it, what am I going to do? I am going to at least change companies. Under this plan they will not have a choice; they are either in or out.

These motions deal with the insurance plan. If they can prove to the producers that it is good, then they will have them all in. If they see that it is not good, they have the right to drop out with nothing to declare. Nothing could be fairer.

When we have a new commodity group coming into being I do not understand why they want to add a compulsory element. Why do we not let the producer decide? It is his crop and his risk, so let him decide. We should not force him into a program where he may wait two or three years after his premiums have been used up to see whether it is valuable or not. If we go into this we should at least allow it to be voluntary.

Some things we need to have compulsory insurance on. All across Canada we need to have compulsory insurance on our cars. The reason for that is not so much that we may wreck our own property, but we may hurt someone else. We can all understand that type of compulsory insurance. It is not compulsory to put fire insurance on our houses and it should not be compulsory for the producers of the specialty crops to have to put insurance on those crops. Many people feel they cannot afford to do this. Therefore, to make it compulsory is not adding anything whatsoever to this industry.

Ask the western farmers if they should have this. What did the witnesses say in committee? Did they say they wanted compulsory insurance? No, they did not say that. If they did not say that, if the producers do not want it, I think we are going too far by making it mandatory.

Yes, they can have insurance. Let them enter the insurance plan, but if they do not want to stay in it then let them out. Let the thing work on its own merit. We should not have something that is compulsory and keeps going because it is run by a few, whether it is making payments or whether the producer is left to evaluate it.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

Is the House ready for the question?