House of Commons Hansard #42 of the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was energy.
Jay Hill Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
moved that Bill C-39, An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act, chapter 22 of the Statutes of Canada, 1998 and chapter 25 of the Statutes of Canada, 2004, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
David Anderson ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board
Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege and pleasure for me to rise today and support the proposed amendments to the Canada Grain Act, because they touch on a vital economic sector in this country and in my riding.
As I recall, many of the amendments to this act come out of work that has been done at the agriculture committee. It has been done in cooperation with all parties, so I look forward to their support for this bill.
When we look at the tremendous accomplishments of our agriculture and agrifood industry over the last 100 years, the Canadian grain sector stands out as a great success story. Today, Canadian wheat, barley and other grains are known by our customers all over the world for their outstanding quality, consistency, cleanliness and great innovation.
Each and every year, Canada's grain industry contributes over $10 billion to the Canadian economy. These dollars of course drive the economies of both the rural and the urban areas of Canada. They create and sustain jobs right through the grain production chain, from farm input suppliers to elevators, to transporters and processors.
These dollars create jobs and prosperity for Canadians here at home and they support our rural communities, which contribute so much to Canada's economy.
This government has taken concrete action in support of this vital sector of economy. We are putting farmers first, as we hear the agriculture minister saying quite often. Two-thirds to three-quarters of our caucus has rural roots.
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I notice that the Liberal opposition critic wants to heckle us on that because we do have a massive number of MPs from rural areas and he basically sits alone over there. We understand agriculture from the ground up, unlike the Liberals, and that is why it once again was a strong theme in our throne speech last fall.
Our first act as a new government in February 2006 was of course in the interests of grain producers when we accelerated the grains and oilseeds payment program. They thanked us for that.
We are investing more than $2 billion in the development of biofuels to open up new markets for our grain and oilseeds producers, to create new jobs in rural communities and to create a better environment for all Canadians.
We are working hard to deliver marketing choice to help our western wheat and barley producers capture new opportunities, to make business decisions that are right for their farms and, indeed, even to capture the opportunities that are available to other farmers across this country.
We have improved cash advance programming by doubling the interest-free portion for producers. That was another act we were able to deal with very quickly and successfully at the agriculture committee because everyone there was willing to cooperate.
We have helped the transfer of family farms to young farmers by boosting the capital gains exemption, which for many years has been asked for. The Liberal government would not do that for farmers. We chose to do that. We have moved ahead on it.
We are pressing for an ambitious outcome at the WTO for the benefit of Canada's entire agriculture sector.
The Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and his provincial colleagues have agreed to move forward on new programs to support farmers. These programs will be simpler. They will be programs that our producers can take to the bank, which is also something that they have asked for over several years. They will be programs that are going to be designed by the farm community for farmers.
AgriInvest, for instance, the producer savings account, is where producers can deposit their money to their accounts and trigger matching government dollars. To help kickstart this program, the government has committed $600 million, which started flowing in January 2008. We hear the opposition crying about our programs, but in fact they are working. We have just rolled out a major one in the last month.
Ministers also agreed to move forward on AgriStability, an improved margin-based program that replaces much of the coverage previously available under the Liberals' flawed CAIS program.
Ministers agreed on the details of AgriRecovery, a disaster relief framework that ensures rapid assistance to producers hit by smaller natural disasters. We look forward to that rollout.
Farmers can expect the whole business risk suite of programs to be in place and available by April 2008. That will be good news for them. They have waited a long time for good farm programs. Indeed, they waited through the entire Liberal regime to find a decent farm program. They will now have those programs in place.
The amendments the government is proposing to the Canada Grain Act and the Canadian Grain Commission are one more illustration of our commitment to grain producers. Canada's quality assurance system for grain is a key competitive advantage for our farmers. The measures proposed in these amendments will build on that competitive advantage.
When Canada's global customers purchase Canadian grain for processing, they can count on getting the consistent quality and cleanliness they have come to expect, load after load. This world class reputation that our Canadian grains enjoy around the globe has been earned.
In large part, it has been earned through hard work, first and foremost by the hard work of our farmers, who grow some of the best grain in the world, but also by grain handling companies, research scientists and the Canadian Grain Commission.
Why is Canada so successful? Our edge in the marketplace has always been quality. This kind of quality did not happen by accident. Much of the responsibility for the quality of Canadian grain belongs with the Canadian Grain Commission and the quality assurance system that it is mandated to administer under the Canada Grain Act.
Canada's grain industry is changing. The legislative tools required to keep the industry competitive need to change accordingly.
The Canada Grain Act has not changed substantially in almost four decades. In that time, the marketplace for grain has continued to evolve. There has been more emphasis on a broader range of crops in western Canada and on such things as identity preservation, niche marketing and processing of grains in our own country.
The biofuels industry, supported by initiatives put in place by this government, has become a major customer for grains. On the previous bill we were discussing, there was some debate on that very issue.
The reform of the Western Grain Transportation Act in the mid-1990s triggered a wholesale diversification as producers opted to market their grains through livestock or to switch to other crops such as oilseeds, pulse crops and horticultural crops.
I do not think the change was bigger anywhere than it was in my own region of southwest Saskatchewan, where at one time we grew almost exclusively grains. Now there are crops growing in my region that we never thought we would grow there, such as mustard, canola, lentils, peas and chickpeas. Farmers have taken the initiative to change their operations to respond to changes in the industry.
Today, wheat accounts for one-fifth of farm receipts on the prairies. That seems substantial, but in the 1950s three-quarters of our land was producing wheat, so there has been a huge shift.
Likewise, marketing structures are evolving as well. The Wheat Board monopoly on wheat and barley was put in place by Parliament 70 years ago because of a variety of dynamics and reasons.
The system was essentially designed to collect the grain produced by small farmers at small country elevators, market it around the world as a uniform commodity and then try to divide the returns from that process among all the producers who delivered the grain.
Today, those dynamics have changed. Our approaches and structures need to change with them. We face the prospect of numerous new and growing competitors in South America, the former Soviet Union and other regions around the globe. We need to respond to those challenges.
As well, in the buying side of the market, the grain market has moved away from the commodity procurement model of the past. Now we have a situation in which large numbers of mainly private buyers select a range of quality attributes for particular market segments.
In other words, people are getting picky. They want high quality products, which Canadians can produce, but they want them delivered at a certain time in a certain way and often in a manner that farmers are best able to meet. Our present marketing system just cannot meet those challenges.
We need to continue to evolve and adapt to these new realities. That is why we are working to open up opportunities for our producers through marketing choice. On barley marketing, a majority of farmers, 62%, has asked for marketing choice. Our new government remains firm in its resolve to stand up for farmers. We remain committed to giving producers the barley marketing choice they are calling for.
The Prime Minister also remains absolutely firm on our determination to move forward with producers for marketing choice and to bring them opportunities they have not had in the past. We are committed to freeing our farmers to make marketing decisions that are right for their own businesses. We want to give producers the freedom they deserve and the marketing options they need to maximize their own profitability.
We are proposing these amendments to the Canada Grain Act to help keep our grain producers competitive by improving the regulatory environment for Canada's grain sector. The proposed change to the Canadian Grain Act and the Canada Grain Commission will help the grain sector to meet the challenges of a more competitive and market oriented sector for the 21st century.
By removing unnecessary costs from the grain handling system, the bill works to build a lower cost, more effective and innovative grain sector. We are working to reduce the regulatory burden. As all costs in the system eventually work their way to farmers, this will result in a less costly system for those same farmers.
These amendments reflect the direction of both the COMPAS report and the good work done by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. Both reports reflect extensive consultations held with the sector in preparing those reports. In short, these amendments speak to the will and the needs of the Canadian grain industry.
I want to talk a bit about the changes that we are bringing forward.
First, inward inspection and weighing of grains will no longer be mandatory. These amendments remove the requirements for costly mandatory services that do not clearly contribute to the bottom line of farmers and the grain industry.
Currently, the Grain Commission is required to inspect and weigh each railcar or truck lot of western grain that is received by a licensed terminal and transfer elevators. The industry has been calling for change in this area for some years now on the grounds that these mandatory inspections impose costs and are not essential to ensure grain quality. I should point out this does not affect the inspection that is done at the elevator when farmers deliver their grain. We need to be clear on that. They will still be protected.
Inward inspection itself will no longer be mandatory. Instead, shippers of grain will be able to request an inspection at their discretion when they feel the benefit justifies the cost. Elevators will also be required to allow access to private inspectors when an inspection is requested.
The Canadian Grain Commission will also be authorized to provide grade arbitration if so requested by the parties to a transaction, so farmers are protected in their transactions with the grain companies.
Second, the Grain Commission will get out of the business of collecting and holding security deposits from licensed elevators and grain dealers under the producer payment security program. This program has cost a lot of money, since security is working capital tied up with no return.
Some may believe that the security program provides a free service to farmers, but every cost in the grain handling system must be paid and the program does have costs. Worse, it does not work. We all know there have been some spectacular failures in which producers found out the security system did not guarantee that they would be paid.
With the Grain Commission leaving the security business, the field will be open to farmers to decide whether they need payment security insurance if the benefits are worth the cost to them.
The field will also be open to farmers and farm organizations wanting to look at alternative methods, such as commodity clearing house models or other alternatives in which they might be interested. The government will no longer impose the cost on farmers and will no longer make the assumption that it always knows best. This brings the policy in line with other areas of agriculture and it brings the grain policy in line with what goes on in other parts of Canada.
In addition, the legislation proposes several additional amendments to modernize the act. These amendments will improve the clarity of the application and the enforcement of existing provisions. They will reflect current practices as we modernize the act. They will enhance producer protection. They will eliminate some of the provisions that are no longer applicable or no longer used.
I have a final word on the job situation at the Canadian Grain Commission.
The commission will be working with staff over the duration of the legislative process to assess the full impacts of the proposed changes. We understand this process may have a significant impact on the lives of some of the employees and are committed to working with them in a clear and transparent manner.
The proposed amendments to the Canada Grain Act support the goals of the government's growing forward framework for agriculture. They will help the grain sector continue to evolve in a direction of greater competitiveness. They will give greater freedom to farmers to manage risks. They will bring in effective regulatory oversight where it is needed.
The amendments the government is proposing contribute to building a competitive and innovative grain sector by reducing costs, by improving competitiveness, by reducing regulation and by providing choice for our producers and others in the grain sector.
The government has built a strong foundation for agriculture across Canada. We have delivered on our commitments to farmers just as we have delivered on our other commitments to Canadians. In short, we have put farmers first. This proposed legislation is just one more example of that.
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to what the parliamentary secretary had to say. His last comments are glaring. He tries to leave the impression that the government has put farmers first and it has done anything but. In fact, the way the legislation is proposed, puts farmers behind industry.
In terms of the parliamentary secretary's remarks, there has been a lot of hot air about what the government is doing for farmers. In reality the government is talking a good line, but is not meeting the needs of primary producers in so many ways, especially the hog and beef industries at the moment. What the government is doing now is an insult to those industries.
His remarks on the position of the government toward the Canadian Wheat Board were even worse. The actions of the government are an affront to democracy. The parliamentary secretary knows that this week the minister called the Wheat Board, and those opposed to the Wheat Board, to a meeting and basically suggested—
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, one member over there says that he is talking to producers. We know for a fact that there are 12,000 barley producers in western Canada. The representatives, who were in that room before court in terms of the appeal, admitted they had been in existence since 1976 and represented 130 producers. Having 130 present out of 12,000 is not having barley producers represented at the meeting. That was said in the court documents, and the member knows it. What I am saying is it is an affront to democracy.
The parliamentary secretary mentioned the work of the standing committee in the review of the Canadian Grain Commission earlier. However, the bill, as drafted, ignored many of those recommendations. There is no cost benefit analysis, as was asked for by the standing committee. Recommendations 4, 5, 6 and 11 have been completely ignored.
Let me ask the parliamentary secretary this question. The current minister was chair of that committee. Why did the two members ignore the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food in proposing this bill or is it just another sop to their industry friends in which they intend to weaken the position of farmers in marketing and grains around the world?
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the member opposite was listening, but I explained the benefits of the changes to the act. They would benefit farmers with reduced regulation and improved protection and opportunities in agriculture in the future.
I want to address the issue that he spent the majority of his time on and that was the meeting that the minister called this week. The member is from Prince Edward Island so we would not expect him to have a clear understanding of what goes on in western Canada right now.
Last year we held a plebiscite and 62% of farmers in western Canada voted that they wanted some marketing choice with regard to barley. Since then there has been a huge shift toward support for our position, for bringing choice to farmers, particularly in dealing with barley. Not only has there been a huge shift, but there is a huge sense of urgency that something needs to be done very quickly.
This week the minister called a meeting between the barley industry and the Canadian Wheat Board. All barley industry participants were invited and they came. Wheat Board representatives came as well. The barley commissions, the barley growers, the malt industry, the Grain Growers of Canada, the brewers, the Wheat Board and three agriculture ministers from western Canadian provinces came to discuss what needed to be done in the barley industry in western Canada.
The member can afford to delay and hold this thing off, but western Canadian farmers are making their decisions about seeding intentions. They need to know what they are going to be doing this spring.
The Canadian Wheat Board is not bringing any sense of certainty to the market for western Canadian farmers. The last thing we need in western Canada is for the Wheat Board to continue to delay on this issue so farmers do not know if they should grow malt barley or not. If they make a decision to move out of malt barley, then the malt industry starts to make a decision about whether Canada is a good place to invest in the malt industry.
We need some stability in this industry and the board needs to take some leadership and make some decisions that will give farmers choice in this area. Then we can develop this industry the way it should be developed.
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the member, but his comment that the member from P.E.I. did not understand western Canada was a cheap shot.
I am from western Canada, but I happen to live on the east coast. It would be like me telling the member and his party that they have no understanding of Quebec or Atlantic Canada. Therefore, he can retract that statement later in the House if he so desires.
With the direction the Conservatives are taking farmers, or the ones they purport to represent, these farmers, without the protection and the services of the Wheat Board, will end up at the hands of foreign multinational corporations like Cargill and Monsanto. When these farmers end up competing against those huge multinationals, they will be left out in the cold.
Will the government be there to help them? No. It is just an excuse to get out of the way. We in the NDP, and I am sure many others, support the idea of the Canadian Wheat Board because it was successful. If the Conservatives did not fire the Wheat Board president, we would probably have a much better thing going now.
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Mr. Speaker, he just proved my point. He does not know what he is talking about. What he is saying is rubbish. We clearly have a situation in western Canada right now where we need some leadership on this issue.
We have the farmers, the maltsters, the brewers and two provincial governments representing 95% of the malting industry in western Canada all on the same page and the Wheat Board and the opposition on the other page.
We need to represent farmers. We are willing to do that. I wish they would get on board with that.
Jay Hill ConservativeSecretary of State and Chief Government Whip
Mr. Speaker, obviously time is of the essence, but I did want to rise in this debate to support the comments made by my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture.
I want to refer to some of the comments made by my colleague. A large number of people in our Conservative government caucus are actively farming, or they have families actively farming, or have farmed before. Although I no longer own land and farm, so I am not in any potential conflict when I speak on issues like this, I farmed for 20 years and raised 3,000 acres of grains and oilseeds in the Peace River country. I am proud of that heritage. My father farmed all his life other than during the second world war when he was in the air force.
That is not unusual for members in this caucus. We have a lot of people who have direct links to the land. It annoys me to no end, and I know it annoys my colleague as well, when I constantly hear members on the opposition benches talk as though they are some kind of an authority on the Canadian Wheat Board and on what it means for western Canadian farmers.
It is fine to be from Prince Edward Island or from Nova Scotia and to tell us how we should market our grain, but it is hard not to get a little emotional about this issue.
As a former farmer and as a person who was involved in farm organizations for years and years before I got into federal politics, one of the criticisms I often heard from farmers was they were sick and tired of programs designed by bureaucrats to benefit bureaucrats. Would my colleague further elaborate on the new programs that are coming into place under this new Conservative government, which will help farmers and which they have had direct input into those programs.
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Mr. Speaker, I have a quick reflection on the Wheat Board and then I will move on to something else.
Yesterday I sat on a panel with a Liberal member who brought forward a private member's bill together with an NDP member. Both of them are from urban ridings. I know the view from downtown Winnipeg is a lot different than it is from the farm, but the government has moved to protect farmers from day one.
I mentioned that we accelerated the grains and oilseeds payments. As soon as we formed government, we put that into place. We put $2 billion into the biofuels industry. We have worked hard to deliver marketing choice to farmers. We have changed the cash advance programming that the Liberals never changed. We have changed the capital gains exemption. For years that was requested. We are pressing at the WTO for a good result. We brought in agri-invest, and my colleague asked about that. As well, we brought in agristability and agrirecovery. This suite of programs will be ready in April.
André Bellavance Bloc Richmond—Arthabaska, QC
Mr. Speaker, according to the Chief Government Whip, I should not rise to speak. If democracy were dictated by this government, since I am from Quebec, I would not have the opportunity to speak on behalf of producers from out west or anywhere else. What is happening is not an act of the Holy Spirit. These are proposals and questions put forward by the producers.
I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary—who attended the committee meetings when the Canadian Grain Commission and the changes to be made were being discussed—why did most of the committee's recommendations not find their way into this bill?
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Mr. Speaker, I think most of us here would try to abide by the rule that if we are going to speak we should talk about things that we know something about. That does not stop anyone from talking about anything they wan,t but that is probably the first thing that we should consider.
These recommendations deal with a number of issues. In these recommendations and amendments to the legislation, the mandate of the Canadian Grain Commission and the Canada Grain Act is being clarified, but there are a lot of other things going on. The Canadian Grain Commission is moving to protect the interest of grain farmers. It is working to protect the interests of--
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, it is kind of sad to have to stand in this place and outline my credentials before I start, but the attack on my person by government members is designed to try to discredit what I have to say.
As a former farm leader, I spent 11 years in western Canada on grain issues. I have probably been in as many, or more, farm yards than any of those folks across the way. I have been at many public meetings in the debates on these issues.
Why, as a member of Parliament from Prince Edward of Island, I am speaking on this issue, and the Canadian Wheat Board issue when that opportunity occurs, is that my office is swamped by phone calls, faxes and letters from western Canadian farmers, practising farmers who are concerned about where the Conservative government is taking Canada in terms of its farm policy. It is undermining the Canadian Wheat Board. Clearly, with this bill which has ignored so many of the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Agriculture, it is undermining the Canadian Grain Commission itself.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board talked about how Canadian grain is recognized as quality number one around the world. That is true. It is recognized as quality number one around the world.
Where we are seen as the quality supplier of grains around the world, the United States is seen as the residual supplier. The Americans may set price, but they are seen as the residual supplier. Why is that? Because farmers long ago advocated for an agency, a commission, the Canadian Grain Commission, that would protect their interests, that would ensure they were protected from the grain trade, along with the Canadian Wheat Board. It would ensure the quality that Canada sold was number one.
It is the Canadian Grain Commission which has put Canada's reputation where it is today, as have the farmers, in terms of producing that high quality grain. So let us give credit where it is due.
We have to ask, if we were to pass this bill as currently composed, would Canada still be recognized as the quality number one supplier of grains around the world? Would Canadian producers still have the protection from industry that they currently have and from the grain trade? As I read the bill, I do not believe they would.
There are some real concerns about what the government has proposed in terms of Bill C-39. What should have been a decent bill after the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food presented its report is like so much of what the current Conservative government does. It leaves out the balance in terms of the proposal and brings forward a bill that is more to do with ideology, with half measures, with no real intent to improve the system in an all conclusive way.
That is sad, because it would have been nice to be able to stand and congratulate the government for once, but again it has denied us that opportunity of support by basically ignoring the will and the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. By so doing, the government is ignoring the will and the recommendations of the farm community. Oh yes, the Conservatives cater to the few, as was clear in the parliamentary secretary's discussion about the meeting this week. They cater to the few, but they ignore the many.
The government has a responsibility in its actions to govern for the whole, not just those that the governing party is ideologically aligned with.
Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have?
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
I expect, Mr. Speaker, that if you asked it, members would probably give unanimous consent for me to have another 20 more.
Bill C-39 does not reflect the unanimous recommendations of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. For the minister to imply otherwise is misleading. The question is why this contempt for the committee, and why this contempt by the minister for his own Conservative colleagues that were on that committee, of which he was one. I suppose it does make some sense because that is the way they continue to act over yonder based on ideology alone.
When the standing committee presented its report in November 2006 it was under the chairmanship of the member who is the current Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. He was chair, and the parliamentary secretary for agriculture at the time is the current Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources. They were at all those committee hearings and ignored the very committee hearings that they should have been encompassing in the bill. Why? Maybe it is, there is the rumour out there that the Prime Minister's Office and government dictates everything, and maybe they have had to toe the line there as well. Maybe that is the case, and I expect it probably is.
There are lots of concerns about this bill coming in. Let me read a few into the record. The National Farmers Union on December 13, 2007, which was the first major organization to draw attention to some of the serious deficiencies in this bill, stated a number of concerns quite clearly. Its president, Stewart Wells, said that Bill C-39 will fundamentally “turn back the clock” on the Canadian Grain Commission. In other words, it will bring us back to the havoc times before the Canadian Grain Commission was put in place. A number of other concerns were outlined, and I will raise them for debate at a later date. The amendments will remove the requirements that the Canadian Grain Commission operate as a public interest watchdog that regulates the overall grain industry “in the interests of producers”.
If this bill passes, the NFU says that the grain industry would become virtually self-regulated, and the CGCs role will be reduced to being a passive service provider that provides grading, weighing, and inspection services to grain companies on a fee for service basis. Farmers' protections will be reduced to a minimal level while the legislation leaves the door open for companies to be able to circumvent those limited provisions.
It went on to say, “Canada's farmers have not advocated for any weakening of the CGC regulatory role. At a time when grain companies like Viterra, ADM, and Cargill are consolidating their hold over the market, it is obvious there needs to be a mechanism in place to provide farmers with protection”. In other words, it is implying that the Conservative government is undermining those protections for farmers through this bill.
It goes on to say, “The current system allows grain inspectors to catch contaminated, off condition, or incorrectly represented car loads while they are being emptied, weighed and elevated, and before they are mixed with large quantities of other grain”. Mr. Wells said, “Eliminating this provision will have a negative effect on farmers' bottom line”.
It is true that eliminating this provision would have a negative effect on farmers' bottom line but it goes to the point of the parliamentary secretary earlier. One of the reasons that kind of contamination and bad grain does not get into the marketplace is because of what the Canadian Grain Commission does now, which is why we are seen as the highest quality supplier of grain in the world. The bill would undercut Canada's ability to be the highest quality grain supplier in the world.
The last point they make is that the amendments also call for eliminating the provision that grain dealers post a security bond before they can be licensed by the CGC. This provision was put in place to protect farmers who would be left holding the bag if the grain company were to go bankrupt. Mr. Wells says, “Eliminating this requirement will not save farmers any money. It will, however, greatly increase their risk.
In other words, another undermining of protection for farmers from the grain trade and grain companies when they do business.
It is interesting to note that one of the organizations that was at the meeting on Monday was the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association. It is supporting the bill. I will admit and I will admit on the record that I sometimes wonder in whose interests the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association speak, whether it is the farmers or in fact the grain trade. The fact that it supports the bill, its name implies that it represents a lot of western grain producers. However, it does not.
It is something like the Western Barley Growers Association. There are 12,000 barley producers in western Canada and on the record before court it said that it represents 130. Therefore, we must question who those organizations really represent.
However, I will get back to the bill. Those were some of the criticisms and concerns raised by a directly represented farmer organization, an organization that is concerned about farmers and their future.
However, what is absolutely shocking, which is typical of the government, it has done no cost benefit analysis on the impact of Bill C-39 with respect to any contracting out of grain inspection, as was called for in recommendation 5 of the standing committee report.
I will explain. This is not unusual from the government, but in terms of a cost benefit analysis, the legislation on changing the CGC shares the same ideological basis as the government's determination to undermine the Canadian Wheat Board. Neither are based on the kind of economic basis that we would expect a government to do. We would expect the government to study and to look at the economic implications on the country, but especially on producers, and it has failed to do that.
Recommendation 5 of the committee report called on the federal government to conduct and complete both pilot projects in contracting out services of grain inspection. The government has failed to comply with this recommendation.
Recommendation 11 required the government to address the issue of specific models which “could be implemented for protecting grain farmers as a result of the elimination of the producer payment program”. What the government provided, in the minister's statement of December 13, 2007, was a suggestion of what “producer groups” could do. It sounds awful familiar to the lack of analysis on the Canadian Wheat Board changes it proposed.
This kind of contempt is becoming common for the government: contempt for parliament, contempt for committees and their reports, and contempt for farmers. It is consistent with the actions that the government has taken with respect to the Canadian Wheat Board that the member talked about earlier.
On July 16, 2007, the director general of marketing policy for Agriculture Canada testified in the hearing on the Canadian Wheat Board court issue, and this makes the point that it goes to the heart of the lack of analysis by the government opposite.
During that testimony, the following questions were asked with respect to the economic impact analysis done by the federal government in relation to the regulations to deregulate barley from a single desk. They were subsequently found to be illegal by the court. The questions were:
Did the government or the civil service or anybody retained by either do any analysis of how the amending regulations would function in the marketplace -- are you aware of any studies of the kind I have mentioned to you?
Answer: No.
Was anybody retained to analyze that in the recent past?
Answer: No.
When governments are making substantive changes that will affect an industry, one would naturally expect that they would do the analysis to see the impact of those changes. The impact of the changes the government wants to the grain commission or the Wheat Board on farmers is of no consequence to the government, obviously, and that is by its own admission.
Why should the government be trusted when it does not do its homework before bringing in legislation that could have a serious impact on primary producers?
The elimination of inward inspections and weighing will cost the Canadian Grain Commission some 200 positions, which is serious. What about the responsibilities that those inward inspections are utilized for? Has there been an analysis done in that regard? There has not.
Measures contained in the legislation would ensure the commission focuses more on the concerns of industry and not just on producers. I will list a number of points that threaten Canadian grain producers in this proposed bill.
The grain commission has served as an independent referee to settle disputes between Canadian grain producers and the powerful companies that buy and export. That is needed even more today than it was in the past.
The commission has also served as the body that actually determines the amount farmers are paid based on the CGCs determination of the weight and quality of grain before it goes to market. That is a concern.
These rules will dramatically diminish if Bill C-39 becomes law, leaving producers newly disadvantaged in their dealings with grain companies when it comes to determining grain quality and quantity.
The producer can hire a private company to grade and weigh their grain even though no such companies exist today. Is that not something?
The bill would also expose grain producers to financial harm in the event of a grain buyer bankruptcy or refusal to pay.
Plus, as I mentioned earlier, there is the danger of undermining Canada's international reputation should the quality of grain be jeopardized as exporters have more authority and farmers have less protection.
The standing committee did good work but the minister, even though he was chair of the committee at the time, selectively took what the government wanted out of that committee report for its own ideological purposes and its own friends who are trying to undermine farmers' empowerment in the marketplace through the Canadian Wheat Board. They are working for the same people.
The government seems to be working for grain companies and not for farmers, and it is farmers in these kind of times who need protection. The bill could undermine that protection for farmers. That is a sad commentary on a government that purports to represent farmers but obviously does not.
We will be looking further at this bill and speaking to it in later debates. Maybe it can be changed for the better, maybe not, but the bill in its current fashion is certainly not acceptable to the official opposition.
Ted Menzies ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance
Mr. Speaker, I did listen with interest to my hon. colleague from Malpeque. I do need to suggest to our hon. member that we are thinking of his constituents right now in their trying times with the ice storm. We hope the member will be able to get back to his family this weekend to spend some time with them and maybe even put up power lines for his constituents.
I do take extreme exception to some of the comments the hon. member made, especially the suggestion that we should not make improvements to Canada's grain grading system because we need to protect 200 jobs. That should not be the reason to not go forward. However, I am not suggesting that any jobs should be replaced but, further to his comment that there is no company that can do the same thing for farmers, there are many. I will not make any advertisements but many companies are available. I used to use them on my own farm. Therefore, to suggest that these people would actually lose their positions, there are lots of other opportunities as we go forward with a better, more effective Canadian Grain Commission. Those people can play a very real part in a more effective system of grading grain.
I represented the Western Canadian Wheat Growers, an association that fought for about 30 years to get the Canadian Wheat Board and the Canadian Grain Commission to recognize that it was more than just visual distinguishability that should determine the value of grain.
The protein content of grain means more than its visual distinguishability. That group and many others fought a long time before we finally recognized that. That was one step.
We need to move forward in making grains available to the customer by their value and that value is their specific traits. It is not what they look like but it is the ash content, the falling number and it is the milling quality that need to be recognized. Those are some of the things that the government is trying to put through that did not get changed for farmers in the previous 13 years.
How would the hon. member suggest that we should not provide this benefit to farmers?
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Macleod for the concern he raised for Islanders who are still feeling the impact of a serious ice storm.
The member asked a number of questions and some of them I in fact agree are concerns. However, the dilemma that the government has put us in as an official opposition is that it mixes a little bit of good in a bill with a whole lot of the bad and, therefore, it makes it very difficult for us to support the bill without very substantive changes.
On KVD, we agree--
The Acting Speaker Conservative Royal Galipeau
It being 1:30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.
When we return to the study of Bill C-39 there will be six minutes left for the hon. member for Malpeque for questions and comments.
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
moved that Bill C-219, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction for volunteer emergency service), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Speaker, I almost feel sorry for my colleagues opposite to have to listen to me. Everything happens at once I guess. Maybe it is that good things happen all at once, I do not know.
I certainly move that Bill C-219, seconded by my colleague, the member for Cape Breton—Canso be read the second time.
This private member's Bill C-219 is really about fairness. I am shocked at the approach that the Government of Canada took yesterday in trying to deny the opportunity for the bill to be debated.
However, in your ruling, Mr. Speaker, you agreed that the bill was proper and should be debated. Even though the government attempted in a backdoor way to deny volunteer firefighters and others a tax deduction, the Speaker ruled, I believe wisely, and hopefully this bill will pass and meet the needs of those volunteer firefighters and others.
The bill is about ensuring that those who serve their communities by placing themselves at risk, by sacrificing time from their families and from their businesses, will have that time honoured and given recognition.
Most significantly, Bill C-219 is about acknowledging one of the fundamental principles behind the success of our rural communities and indeed urban ones as well. It is volunteerism.
I am referring to those who are volunteer firefighters, volunteer ambulance attendants, those who volunteer for search and rescue operations, and all of whom are required to attend training sessions and actively participate in preparation for those activities.
The principle contained in the bill has been presented in previous private members' bills in the past. In 2005 the member for Cape Breton—Canso presented Bill C-273. In 2002 the member for Lethbridge presented Bill C-325.
It is fair to say that members of all parties in past debates have basically been supportive of this approach. I was pleased to support both of those bills and wish to extend thanks on behalf of the volunteer emergency workers. This legislation will assist those members by providing recognition to those volunteers for their efforts.
It is important to note that each of these bills received the support of the House and most recently, Bill C-273 received the support of the Standing Committee on Finance.
The reason this legislation has not been passed already is not I believe been because of any particular partisan political issue. What should be acknowledged is that members of Parliament from all political parties have agreed with this legislation. That was shown with the last bill.
The problem is this. The problem has been the bureaucrats at the Department of Finance. They seem to be finding any way to stymie this bill in its tracks.
We are the politicians. We are the people who should be making the decisions. That is why I was so shocked that the deputy House leader for the governing party tried to stop the bill again because there are many people in that party who support this approach to assisting firefighters and others who do good volunteer work.
The officials of the department have been able to provide numerous reasons why they cannot comply with the legislation. What we need in this town is common sense. We do not need 16 reasons why it cannot be done. We need one reason why it can be done and that is what we want the Department of Finance to do. It is to find that one reason and make it work.
Yes, there were questions in the finance committee the last time around. There are ways of addressing them and they need to be done, so that we can assist the volunteers in rural communities.
In terms of the specifics, Bill C-219 proposes the following: that the Income Tax Act be amended to allow voluntary emergency workers to deduct from their taxable income the amount of $1,000 if they performed at least 100 hours of voluntary service and $2,000 if they performed at least 200 hours of voluntary service. That needs to be done.
Many of us rub shoulders. In fact, some people in the House have been volunteer firefighters. It is not like being a volunteer at a club. I myself, a little over 24 years ago to be exact, had a major fire and there were four fire departments in the yard. It was a day in May. Many of those firemen were farmers, too, or businessmen. As soon as the buzzer went off on their belts, they were there. It did not matter whether they were baling hay or it was threatening to rain. They left and tended to the fire.
Those people ought to be recognized. They put their businesses in jeopardy. They leave their families. They leave their businesses, they leave their families, and they leave their farms to work for the benefit of others in the community.
Liberals had this problem as well when they were on the government side fighting for the contents of this bill. There already is a payment to firefighters along the lines of this bill, though not quite as high. It is called voluntary firefighters, but only voluntary firefighters receive an honorarium.
In my community volunteers do not receive an honorarium. They take the money out of their own back pockets for their training, to buy equipment, and to assist in fundraising. We absolutely have to recognize the volunteers and what they do.
The Library of Parliament, in a paper examining Bill C-219, stated:
The current Income Tax Act contains a provision exempting from taxation the first $1,000 received by an emergency worker for volunteer services performed as an ambulance technician, firefighter or a person who assists in search or rescue of individuals or in other emergency situations. Payment must be received from a government, municipality or a public authority. The emergency worker must not be regularly employed, or paid as an employee, for their services as an emergency worker by the government, municipality or the public authority. This exemption was enacted in 2001.
The premise behind this legislation is to ensure that those who do not receive an honorarium from a government, municipality or other public authority, and yet provide the same type of service, are also given a form of compensation for that participation. That is what the bottom line is.
We need to support those voluntary emergency services out there. The point of this legislation is to have the sections, which officials acknowledge are not there, implemented and become effective for what we could call volunteer volunteers.
The finance committee, in its examination, raised a number of questions. I do not have time to go through them, but all of the questions were technical. Some of them related to record keeping. That is easily done. We do not want to impose a paper burden on anybody in terms of the administration of this bill. That is not what we are asking for. Those records are kept by fire chiefs, in any event.
For heaven's sake, can the Minister of Finance or the deputy minister of finance or whoever is in charge of the bureaucracy at the Department of Finance not trust a fire chief who is willing to put his or her life on the line, to assist in the community? I would think so. Those answers can be found and they need to be dealt with so the bill can be implemented.
I would submit that one of the key roles of the Department of Finance, given the fact as has been demonstrated by research undertaken by the Library of Parliament, has already presented the fact that the Income Tax Act currently accepts the first $1,000 voluntary emergency workers receive from taxation. It should apply the same definition to the provisions of Bill C-219, that voluntary emergency workers, not paid emergency workers who do not receive an honorarium, receive the improved income tax deductions outlined in the bill.
To conclude, for all the reasons outlined, volunteer emergency workers are people in our rural and urban communities not paid for what they do. They put themselves at risk. They take training which costs money. They have to drive back and forth to fire halls and other places for that training and for weekly meetings, taking money out of their own pockets. They have to exercise and stay in shape with the costs of doing that and buying equipment. They have to go to emergencies on the call of the buzzer. It does not matter what they are doing, whether they are in the middle of a hay field, or attending to business, or selling a widget to a client.
Firefighters and other emergency workers need to be treated fairly. They need to be recognized for their efforts. Bill C-219 will give them that recognition and assist them a little bit financially. Certainly, their families would recognize and be more supportive of their activities if Bill C-219 would be passed and carried.
The best way to deal with this would be for the Minister of Finance to just put it in the budget and be done with it because many members support it in this House.
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
The member asks would I support the budget? It would be the same thing as previously in the Canada grain commission bill.
The problem with the government is that it sprinkles a little bit of good stuff to leave the impression it is doing something good, but along with that puts a whole lot of other legislation and damages that which undermines the support of Canadians. That is why it makes it impossible many times for the opposition to support what it does. If Conservatives would work cooperatively instead of dictatorially, run clearly out of the Prime Minister's Office, it would make our job easier on this side of the House.
The bottom line is that Bill C-219 is an important bill for voluntary service workers. It is important to their families. It is important to them financially. It is important that this Parliament of Canada recognizes those people for what they do.
I would encourage all members, including cabinet ministers opposite, to support the bill fully, so we can do what we ought to do for voluntary emergency service workers.