Dick Proctor

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, June 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest as I always do to my colleague, the member for Brandon—Souris.

I am having trouble understanding this reference to the auditor general. Maybe it is my thick headedness or the lateness of the hour but I really fail to understand if as the minister has said so frequently, we are going to put the producers in the driver's seat on the Canadian Wheat Board, why then are we also agreeing with the Senate amendment that within two years of the bill coming into force, the auditor general should commence an audit of the corporation?

At the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food we saw the annual reports from the auditing company of Deloitte & Touche. We know there is sensitive trading information that, if it were made available, it would have a deleterious effect on the wheat board's ability to trade in an open market.

For the life of me I do not understand the reference to the auditor general. Perhaps the member for Brandon—Souris could explain that to me.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, June 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, this country developed at different stages and at different rates. We might all get some historical advice from the member for Portage—Lisgar, but it is my understanding that there was a demand by western Canadian wheat growers and Canadian grain farmers several decades ago that they have a monopoly. As I heard the member say earlier this evening, the private grain companies were probably doing a poor job of marketing the grain, the prices were high and the freight rates were high. There was a demand that the problem be fixed and the wheat board resulted.

Indirectly the member is talking about the fact that the Ontario Wheat Board now has a system of dual marketing. We are really comparing apples and oranges because we are talking about a $6 billion a year industry in western Canada. I do not think we want to play around too much with that or make a rash move when we have that much exposure at stake.

With regard to the whole business about being closed in on by the Farm Credit Corporation, the need to market grain and the wheat board not handling the commodity, I guess my comment to the member for Elk Island would be that I honestly do not believe that in five years' time there will be a recognizable Canadian Wheat Board, regardless of what we do here this evening.

In the next round of the WTO, I believe that the Americans will insist on changes. The Europeans already have the wheat board in their gun sights. The Canadian Wheat Board, as we have known it, even tonight in its watered down form, will basically not survive the next round of the WTO.

We are tinkering around the edges here tonight, but the reality is that the Canadian Wheat Board is on life support as we know it.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, June 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first point of the member for Portage—Lisgar on the preamble, we do not have a problem with that. We indicated our support for such a proposal when the bill was last before the House. This evening I am happy to articulate a similar position.

With regard to the poll, we are all politicians and we all know that there are polls and there are polls. We all know that polls can be terribly scientific or not very scientific at all. Without knowing the details of the poll that was completed by the MLA for Yorkton—Melville, I would say that it would probably not fall into one of those polls that was accurate 19 times out of 20 on a plus or minus 3% basis.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, June 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate this evening on Bill C-4. My recollection, and I only go back in this place to last September, is that Bill C-4 was the first out of the shoot. We referred it immediately to committee. It is appropriate now in what appears to be the dying the days of this session that we are still at it.

In the time allotted to me tonight I want to briefly review the history of the bill and to explain why the NDP caucus will not and cannot support it. In particular, we cannot support the amendments that have been sent back to the House by the Senate.

This wheat board legislation has followed a long, winding and torturous road that predates my arrival. In December 1996 the government introduced Bill C-72 to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Our smaller caucus opposed that bill for reasons that I will describe a bit later. The bill was then sent on to the agriculture committee. Our party and other parties worked hard in committee proposing useful amendments, but we were overtaken by events and the bill died on the order paper when the 1997 federal election was called last April.

Following the election in September the wheat board legislation, as I noted, was reintroduced as Bill C-4. Our caucus had serious initial concerns about it but we wanted to hear what the government had in mind and to enter the debate with an open mind. Speaking in the debate last fall I recall saying that if those concerns could be sorted out by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food we would be able to support the bill.

It was sent off to the standing committee but my optimism went unrewarded. I found the committee experience to be a largely hollow exercise. The Liberals were not really interested in any give and take and the committee's deliberations were unduly rushed. How rushed?

I recall very well the day that Lorne Hehn, chair of the Canadian Wheat Board, came before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. We had to have as an opposition party our amendments submitted, the ones we wanted to propose. We had to have the changes we wished to introduce even before the Canadian Wheat Board had made its presentation to the standing committee. We did not think then and we do not think now that it was much of a way to run it.

The bill came back to the House in February. Our caucus could not support it despite our desires to see an end to the uncertainty surrounding the Canadian Wheat Board. As we all know, the bill then went off to the Senate and the agriculture committee of that place decided to hold public hearings. The senators proposed three amendments and made several recommendations. I will describe these amendments in a minute and explain again why we cannot support them.

First I want to summarize what it is about Bill C-4 that has concerned us most. Fundamentally New Democrats have always supported the Canadian Wheat Board because it works in the best interest of western grain farmers. However Bill C-4 undermines the board and that is why we oppose it.

How does it undermine the board? For one thing Bill C-4 proposes cash buying. We believe this will destroy a fundamental pillar of the wheat board and undermine farmers' confidence in it. Under the terms of Bill C-4 the wheat board will buy grains from anyone, anywhere, anytime, at any price. This disrupts the board's long practice of buying grain from farmers at announced prices and distributing profits to all on an equitable basis.

Second, Bill C-4 proposes a contingency fund which will cost farmers millions in check-offs. The fund is not needed. Farmers cannot afford it and do not want it. The minister says that this fund can now be capped at $30 million which is a grand improvement over the $575 million or $600 million contingency fund that was being talked about last fall when it was before the Senate committee. Whether it is $30 million or $575 million we still believe it is too much and not required.

This proposal follows from the bill's provisions which would allow cash buying. The contingency fund would not be necessary if Ottawa continued to provide financial guarantees to the board as it has always done. Whether it was 1935 or 1943 that has been the pattern of the history of the Canadian Wheat Board. These guarantees have seldom been used and as a result cost the Canadian taxpayers virtually nothing over six decades.

We want the Canadian government to continue to provide guarantees to farmers on both initial and final price payments. That is the gist of an NDP amendment that the government has consistently refused to accept.

Finally there is the question of governance. For 60 years the wheat board as a crown agency has done an admirable job for farmers. Now the government is suggesting that the board cease to be a crown agency and says that Bill C-4 will put farmers in control of the wheat board's destiny.

Bill C-4 proposes a 15 member board of directors with 10 elected by producers and 5 appointed by the federal government, by Ottawa. If there is to be a board of directors we have no problem with the government naming some members to it. If the government is to have a financial exposure, and it does, it is only reasonable that it have some window into the board's operations.

Under Bill C-4 the minister maintains the authority to choose the president of the board of directors, a person who will also double as chief executive officer of the Canadian Wheat Board. Our caucus is opposed to this.

We believe it gives the government too much control over a board of directors that should be accountable to farmers. The government consistently says that it is turning it over to farmers or to producers. However any time it gets into a narrow corner it seems to me that it reverts to the government that will have the hammer. I think of the fact that the auditor general, for example, will have the power to look into and review the balance sheets of the wheat board. We believe that Deloitte & Touche which has been its accounting company of practice has done an admirable job over the years. We do not see why, particularly when the board is supposed to be going to the producers, this is necessary.

We believe that the board of directors should have the authority to choose the president and the chief executive officer. We have consistently urged the minister responsible for the wheat board to make this amendment.

If the wheat board is to have a board of directors elections must be fair. They should be elections by and for farmers. We do not believe it is in anyone's interest to have outside interests interfering in this process.

The amendments we proposed at report stage call for one producer, one vote. I note that the senators agree with us on this point and suggest exactly that, one producer, one vote. However they did not go so far as to make it an actual amendment.

Fair elections also mean a limit on the campaign spending of candidates just as there are in our federal and provincial elections so that wealthy individuals, in this case perhaps wealthy producers, do not have an unfair or undue advantage. This was another of our amendments and again the senators suggested that as well.

Fair elections also mean strict and transparent limits as to what third parties can spend. The wheat board is after all a $6 billion industry and certain corporate interests would love to get their hands on it. We do not believe in seeing them use their deep pockets to influence unduly elections to the board of directors.

On the inclusion clause we have always held in this caucus to the point that one of the few things to cheer about in Bill C-4, at least until the Senate got a hold of it, was that it made provision for inclusion of additional grains under wheat board jurisdiction.

Bill C-4 would have allowed farmers to decide to add extra grains to the board's authority as well to remove or delete them. Such an inclusion or exclusion clause would have occurred only after a vote of producers. Our caucus strongly supports and supported the inclusion clause. We thought that it was a sensible, moderate and democratic proposal.

I remember very well when the Saskatchewan minister of agriculture appeared before the committee last November and made it quite clear that in his opinion it would be tying the hands of the future Canadian Wheat Board to restrict to the limit we see in the legislation the inclusion and exclusion clause. Mr. Upshall asked who could forecast in 10 years time the future needs of the Canadian Wheat Board and why would we go to those particular lengths. I agreed with him in November and I agree even more so now in view of the changes that we see coming from the other place.

We are opposed to that and we recognize that on exclusion we went through a little vote in 1997 by western farmers when 63% of them voted in favour of keeping barley under board jurisdiction. The corporate coalition and some of its partners are demanding that the inclusion clause be dropped from Bill C-4. I have explained why we are opposed to that.

We fundamentally believe that the future of the wheat board is a debate for farmers and not for corporations. Frankly we thought we heard the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board saying much the same thing last fall and earlier in 1998.

One can imagine our surprise when at the 11th hour of debate on third reading the wheat board minister caved in to this corporate lobby by proposing to the House that we accept an amendment that would do away with both the inclusion and exclusion clauses, exactly what the anti-Bill C-4 lobby had been demanding all along. The minister's amendment would have allowed him to choose when there would be vote to include or exclude a grain.

It is yet again another example of they want to give more control to the producers except when they get into a tough corner. This caucus said no. The minister claims that the board of directors of the wheat board is for real, that it has real power. If that is the case why did he grab power back from the directors even before handing it over? If he is really a democrat why did he not accept the amendment which would have allowed the board of directors to decide exactly when a vote should be taken?

It was in this content that Bill C-4 was sent to the Senate.

The senators held their hearings, which were alluded to earlier, and have now pronounced. The senators have proposed three amendments and made two recommendations.

The most important of these amendments is that the existing inclusion and exclusion clauses be deleted. This is essentially a capitulation to the corporate farm lobby which so desperately wanted the inclusion clause out that it was willing to bite the bullet and accept the exclusion clause as well. It had to go too.

This unfortunately may well have been in concert with the minister responsible for the board, who attempted to do just that with his eleventh hour amendment moments before we voted on third reading last February.

We believe that the Senate amendment leaves the initial decision about the inclusion or exclusion of a grain to the minister rather than to the board of directors. Only after the minister decides will there be a vote amongst producers on whether a grain should be included or excluded.

To set the bar even higher, following such a vote by farmers parliament would have to legislate the inclusion or exclusion of a grain.

The senators offer an alternative that would make it almost impossible to ever add a grain or delete one from the board's mandate.

The inclusion clause, as I have mentioned, was one of the few redeeming features of Bill C-4 and now senators, apparently at the urging of the minister responsible for the board, have gutted it.

We in the NDP oppose the bill, which effectively removes the inclusion clause and does so in an anti-democratic fashion. It is our understanding that we either accept or reject the Senate amendments as a package and, because of our serious concerns regarding the inclusion clause, we oppose the package.

We believe that farmers support the wheat board because it works and has worked consistently in their best interests. New Democrats join them in that support. The Canadian Wheat Board has 60 years of international experience and is one of the best grain marketing organizations in the world.

I had the opportunity a couple of months ago to speak with an expert in agriculture in Chile. He noted in our conversation that grains are the single largest commodity that flow from this country to that South American country. I asked him about the wheat board. He said he had talked to his millers in Santiago to inquire of them why they would pay an extra 8% or 10% premium on Canadian Wheat Board grains as opposed to buying them from the Americans or on the international market.

The answer he received was that they could be consistently relied on. They knew they would be getting exactly what they were told they would be getting by the wheat board. In contrast, if they purchased through the Americans, it would be about x percentage of this or that and around that amount. He was quite impressed that the miller said it was not worth it for 8% or 10%. They could sleep securely at night knowing they were going to receive exactly what it was they ordered. I think that is a very important point that is not lost on a lot of Canadian grain farmers in western Canada.

We cannot support Bill C-4 because it undermines the Canadian Wheat Board and in doing so it undermines any secure future for Canadian grain farmers.

[Commissioner For The Rights Of Victims Of Crime, June 8th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I have a few very brief remarks to make on behalf of members of the New Democratic Party to indicate that we support the motion put forward by the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. It states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should create the position of Commissioner for the Rights of Victims of Crime, with a role similar to that of the Correctional Investigator.

We support such an initiative. We believe it recognizes the need for greater services for victims of crime and recognizes their rights and role in the judicial system.

The correctional investigator has a mandate to investigate independently complaints from inmates and to report upon the problems of inmates that come within the responsibility of the solicitor general. The function of the correctional investigator, as was noted by the member from the Reform Party who spoke a few minutes ago, is that of an ombudsman for federal corrections and to clarify the authority and responsibility of the office within a well-defined legislative framework.

The specific function of the office is to “conduct investigations into the problems of offenders related to decisions, recommendations, acts or omissions of the commissioner of corrections or any person under the control and management of or performing services for or on behalf of the commissioner that affect offenders either individually or as a group”.

A central element of any ombudsman's function in addition to independence and unfettered access to information in conducting its mandatory investigations is that they act by way of recommendation and public reporting as opposed to decisions which are enforced.

The authority of the office within this legislative framework lies in its ability to investigate thoroughly and objectively a wide spectrum of administrative actions and present its findings and recommendations initially to Correctional Service Canada. In those instances where the CSC has failed to address the office's findings and recommendations, the issue is referred to the minister and eventually to parliament and the public through the vehicle of an annual or a special report.

We in this caucus believe that creating a position of commissioner for victims' rights based on the similar role outlined for the correctional investigator will be an important first step in addressing the needs and concerns of victims in our court system. A victims' rights commissioner will help to ensure that victims of crime receive the fair, dignified treatment they deserve in the system and will prevent them from being revictimized by the system.

In conclusion, we support the motion and trust that the government will give it serious consideration.

[Government Contracts, June 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, information concerning untendered contracts at defence continues on a daily basis. However, I want to focus on the Bombardier NATO, 20 year sole source contract.

Is it not true that Industry Canada is permitting Bombardier to qualify for Canadian industrial benefit credits even though it will create work or jobs at offshore locations including Northern Ireland? If that is the case, will the defence minister assure this House that these sole source contracts do not allow any industrial employment benefits which are not totally based in Canada?

[Income Tax Act, June 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-366, an act to amend the Income Tax Act to provide a deduction for mechanics' tool expenses. I want to congratulate the member for Lakeland for bringing this legislation forward and to tell him and members of the House that the New Democratic Party caucus fully supports this concept and we will be supporting this bill.

I agree, for the most part, with the parliamentary secretary that this is a non-partisan issue and to that effect note that this is not the first time such a bill has been presented in this Chamber. On many occasions, in fact, members of parliament have proposed amending the act in this regard.

Joy Langan, a former distinguished member of this caucus from British Columbia, who we talked about earlier today with respect to the breast implant issue, had a private member's bill back in 1992 which dealt with this topic and proposed the same amendments to the act. In addition, in 1992 the member from Manitoba, who I believe is currently the parliamentary secretary responsible for western diversification, among other things, put this issue before the House. The last attempt was made in 1996.

It is also interesting to note that my colleague, the member for Qu'Appelle, back in February tabled a similar piece of legislation to allow workers to deduct the cost of providing tools for their employment. That particular bill addressed the unfairness and injustice inflicted by the current tax system on workers required to provide tools as a condition of employment. In the case of mechanics, for example, the current tax system does not take into account that just to get into the trade, as has been noted by others, a mechanic needs $5,000, $15,000 or $30,000 worth of tools.

The member for Qu'Appelle noted that we have seen the benefits of allowing artists, musicians and others to deduct the cost of supplies and equipment and it is high time that we extend similar tax treatment to include the tools of all trades persons.

I listened intently to the parliamentary secretary. I heard him say that there are some difficulties. Tax recognition is not generally available for specific groups. We need an all-encompassing approach. He noted that he and his government would be seriously undertaking further studies.

I sincerely hope that is the case. It is high time that we did something about this issue. It is a non-partisan approach, although I am reminded of the old Irish proverb “You can vote for whomever you like, but the government always gets elected”.

I hope this government will act seriously on this particular bill. To that end, I remind the House and anyone who happens to be listening that government members opposite are taking a lot of credit for having balanced the books and working on debt reduction. But on whose backs were those books balanced? I would suggest that it was not on the backs of the captains of industry or the big banks. It was on the backs of ordinary Canadians who got hit with higher taxes, surtaxes and higher user fees. I think it is time to acknowledge the debt that is owed to those people and to repay them.

One of the ways that the government could accomplish that is by look seriously at helping ordinary folks who incur heavy costs to go to work every day and, as the member for Lakeland noted, make the wheels of this country turn.

Under the present tax system the favourable treatment of tools and supplies is subject to two conditions. First, tools supplied must be a prerequisite of employment. Second, supplies must be unusable after they have been used in the work for which they were purchased. For example, explosives supplied by a miner or gasoline supplied by a chainsaw operator are currently deductible.

Let us consider the various advantages of such an amendment to the act for the 150,000 mechanics and apprentices who are subject to the present tax system.

First, as I noted before, mechanics must invest between $15,000 and $30,000 in tools, an amount disproportionate in comparison with amounts invested by other employee groups who provide their own tools and equipment. Given the size of this investment, mechanics consider more favourable tax treatment entirely fair and reasonable.

Second, as noted, mechanics consider that they should be given the same tax treatment as musicians, artists, painters and the aforementioned chainsaw operators. More favourable tax treatment for mechanics' tools would eliminate a situation that mechanics perceive to be unfair.

Third, more favourable tax treatment would allow mechanics to purchase better equipment and provide better service.

Fourth, more favourable tax treatment would encourage more young people to become mechanics and trades persons, as has been noted.

Finally, more favourable tax treatment would facilitate the mechanics transition from school to work. Because employers require mechanics to supply their tools and because the size of the required investment is considerable, few young graduate mechanics can enter the labour market. Based on this argument, as was noted earlier, the House of Commons finance committee recommended in its last pre-budget consultation report that the tax treatment of mechanics' tool expenses be reviewed.

The government ignored this recommendation when delivering the 1998 budget, but we feel that now is the time to act.

I also want to note that I have received some correspondence on this from Sagal Brothers in Moose Jaw and the good folks who work at Nelson Motors in Avonlea at the John Deere dealership. There is a lot of interest on this particular topic. I sincerely hope that the government takes this bill seriously, does the necessary work and brings in something meaningful very quickly.

[Charitable Contributions, June 1st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate today on Motion No. 318 which was moved by the member for Fraser Valley. The motion suggests that charitable donations should be treated no less equitably than donations to a political party. There are some arguments to be made in terms of fairness and equity on this subject.

I tend to agree with the government member who spoke on this motion a few minutes ago. He said that we are really discussing apples and oranges. Political donations have a very limited threshold. It is 75% of the first $100, 50% of the next $450 and 33% of the last $600, with a cap of $1,150. If a person gives more than that to their favourite political party they do not enjoy any form of rebate. The tax credit is given in the year in which the money is donated to the political party.

That is quite a bit different than the situation we have with charitable donations where up to 75% of a taxpayer's income can be forwarded to the charity or charities of their choice. Tax forwarding advantages can be used on many other things that are simply not available with the political tax credit.

By way of history, the political tax credit came into being in this country following the 1972-74 minority government. It was one of the conditions for our party's support for the then Trudeau government that it bring in some kind of public financing for the political process and it may very well be in need of updating and redressing.

The Lortie commission on electoral reform and party financing discussed a number of these things several years ago. I might remind members opposite that this government has managed to ignore the recommendations of the Lortie commission since it tabled its report in 1992.

I remember being involved with the Lortie commission on a trip to Harvard University where we met with a number of American politicos. They wondered, I think quite correctly, why we were in their country talking to them about political donations because we had a much fairer system in this country. Thanks to funds that come in through public financing for political parties we get away from all the soft money and all the money that is raised. There are limits. There is a process. Generally speaking, it has worked well in this country for the last two decades.

I think it is all well and good to talk about the explosion of charities and the need for more money. I agree with what has been said on that point, but let us get at the reasons there has been an explosion in the need for money for charities.

As has been correctly pointed out, but with no editorial comments attached, cutbacks have been made by all levels of government as they have focused on balancing their budgets, eliminating their deficits and concentrating on paying off their debts.

I think we could have a very interesting debate about why we need all these charities and that if we had a proper tax system and financing for a number of social programs people would not be required to go door to door or call us at six o'clock at night for a donation for their favourite charity.

I think when the member moved his motion he was clearly directing his attention at the small donor, the person who gives $50 or $100. It may very well be that we do need to look at levelling the playing field for those small donors, with a cap of perhaps $1,150, which is currently what the political tax credit is, or perhaps with inflation over the last two decades we should be looking at moving that number up to $2,000 so it is more appropriate in this day and age.

Someone might make the argument that there should be symmetry between political givings and charitable donations at the low end. However, we should be be careful about the absolute amount that is donated to a political party.

There are lots of good arguments that could be advanced on another day on that topic, but with respect to charitable donations, nobody is arguing that we should cap them, so we are talking, to some extent, about oranges and apples.

In conclusion, I believe that there is a case to be made at the low end for levelling the playing field, but I would leave it at that.

[Agriculture, May 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, we are witnessing the escalation of yet another trade war as the U.S. and the European Union use subsidies, including cash bonuses, to drive down international grain prices.

Predictably, Canada's minister of agriculture says there is no money for Canadian farmers who once again will be caught in the crossfire as they were in the 1980s and 1990s.

Instead of hand wringing and wishing the problem away, what proposals does the minister have that will be of specific help to Canadian grain farmers.

[Canada Grain Act, May 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand today to speak to Bill C-26, the legislation to amend the Canadian Grain Act, the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administration Monetary Penalties Act, and to repeal the Grain Futures Act.

As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food noted, the bill applies to special crops including peas, lentils, corn, fava beans, soybeans, sunflowers and others.

Bill C-26 would allow for the creation of an insurance plan for western Canadian special crops producers to protect them against losses if dealers or buyers go bankrupt with unpaid bills. The bill would also make provision for the minister of agriculture to establish a special crops advisory committee.

The bill, if enacted, would repeal the Grain Futures Act allowing responsibility for regulating the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange to revert to the Manitoba Securities Commission. The exchange is now regulated by the Canadian Grains Commission but it would be more appropriate to have it regulated by a provincial government agency.

Special crops are of growing importance in western Canada. Mr. Garry Meier, chair of the board of Saskatchewan Pulse Growers Association, appeared before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food last month and told us that Canada is the world's leading exporter of lentils and peas. Mr. Meier reported that Saskatchewan actually produces 96% of the Canadian lentil crop and 66% of dried peas.

We in this caucus support any measures that will improve the ability of farmers to prosper from growing and marketing special crops like peas and lentils. We also support measures that would put the entire special crops industry on a firmer financial footing. For this reason we are generally in favour of Bill C-26.

Having said that we are generally in favour, however, we feel that the bill could have been improved if only the government had accepted some suggestions made by the representatives of producer organizations such as Mr. Meier.

As I mentioned, Bill C-26 will allow for the creation of an insurance plan for western Canadian special crops producers. Producers would pay a levy of 38 cents on each $100 worth of crops delivered to buyers and dealers. In other words, producers themselves without a contribution from any level of government will finance the insurance program. It is here that there could have been an improvement to the piece of legislation.

The standing committee on agriculture heard from organizations that represent special crops growers. The Saskatchewan and Manitoba pulse growers associations both recommended a full-fledged board of directors instead of an advisory committee. A motion later proposed by the opposition parties also recommended that the directors of the board be chosen by the minister from a list of officially registered special crops commodity groups.

Both these recommendations make good sense to our caucus. After all, farmers will pay for this insurance program without any contribution whatsoever from government. It only makes sense that they should call the shots. For example, it is they who should decide who should act as the agent for their insurance program.

Had these suggestions been incorporated, it would have improved the legislation and overall its acceptance by western Canadian special crops producers and farmers.

The special crops insurance program will be financed by producers from a levy or check off on all crops delivered to the buyers and the dealers. The nature of these check offs has been a controversial aspect of the bill. The government prefers to say that the insurance program is “voluntarily”, but that is not really true. Farmers have to pay a levy up front and then at the end of the crop year they can apply for a refund.

The Saskatchewan Pulse Growers Association does not refer to it as voluntary but as a mandatory recoverable, which I think is a far better description. Another way of describing it is a form of negative option billing where they get a service unless they indicate in writing that they do not want said service, and if they do not want it they ask to have themselves removed. Cable television companies tried this a couple of years ago and experienced a considerable consumer revolt as a result.

We in the New Democratic Party caucus criticized this mandatory insurance provision of Bill C-26 in the debate at second reading and argued that the insurance plan should be voluntary. Later when Bill C-26 was discussed at the agriculture committee, producer groups also asked that the insurance plan be made voluntary. They said that farmers would not appreciate another check off and would not appreciate the paperwork necessary to get their money back at the end of the crop year.

Following this recommendation by producer groups there was a motion at the standing committee on agriculture that the plan be voluntary, but again unwisely in our opinion government members voted it down. Government members had no solid explanation as to why the plan required mandatory features. I am disappointed they did not see fit to do what commodity organizations had requested.

Commodity organizations do not like the mandatory aspect of the insurance plan any more than we in this caucus do, but the Manitoba and Saskatchewan pulse growers associations consulted their members who told them to support the legislation despite the apparent flaws. Our caucus took this message to heart and despite its shortcomings we have decided to support Bill C-26.

Some have expressed the fear that the insurance program might one day be made to apply to other crops including wheat, oats and barley. That concern now has been laid to rest by an amendment proposed on the government side in the agriculture committee.

As a result of this amendment the legislation applies only to special crops and clearly not to standard grains such as wheat and barley.

Bill C-26, despite its shortcomings, is by and large a good piece of legislation. Both the Saskatchewan and Manitoba pulse growers associations support the bill although they have made some suggestions for improvements which unfortunately the government has chosen to ignore.

On balance, it is worthwhile legislation. The major commodity groups support it and our caucus will be supporting it as well.