John Harvard

[Agriculture, September 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.

I am sure the minister has heard through the media the American allegation that the so-called subsidized Canadian grain has flooded U.S. markets. It is further alleged that this is disrupting American grain prices and hurting American farmers.

Is there a scintilla of truth to these allegations?

[Iceland, June 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of Canada receiving a new ambassador from Iceland, I want to share with members the strong ties that exist between Canada and Iceland.

My Icelandic ancestors first came to the shores of what is now Canada almost 1,000 years ago. Icelandic settlers immigrated to Manitoba as early as 1875 and established the republic of new Iceland on the shores of Lake Winnipeg. Their descendants have made contributions in a wide range of fields, including agriculture, medicine, literature, business and government. They have helped build a better Canada.

Each year in August the Icelandic festival Islundingadaggurin is held at Gimli, Manitoba. I invite all Canadians to Gimli to share the experience.

We of Icelandic ancestry are proud Canadians who have not forgotten our heritage.

I offer my best wishes and full support as our two countries work together toward a closer and stronger relationship based on a longstanding friendship and mutual respect.

[Canada Grain Act, May 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to third reading of Bill C-26. When I addressed this House on the occasion of the second reading of this bill, I discussed how this initiative should be viewed in the context of the government's priorities. I will do this again.

The grain industry is currently faced with significant challenges and opportunities. Global competitive and natural forces are leading to and accelerating change and challenges. The grain industry is changing rapidly in order to respond. Legislation must also evolve to assist that industry's efforts to meet those challenges and opportunities. This initiative reflects our government's willingness to meet the express needs of the grain industry and to co-operate in its efforts. The main objective of this government is to build a competitive and innovative economy that will grow to create even more jobs and improve the well-being of Canadians.

Agriculture and agri-food is a key sector of the Canadian economy. It continues to contribute very significantly to the building of our economy. This industry is growing tremendously. Producers and processors are optimistic about the future as they invest in and diversify their operations in order to benefit from new opportunities. I share their enthusiasm. I want to work with them in creating those opportunities.

One of the ways to accomplish the objective of continuing vigorous growth is to work closely with stakeholders. Our government intends to be the catalyst for partnerships with industry stakeholders. Our government is committed to a policy of full consultation with both the agri-food industry and the provinces. I believe we are succeeding in our goal. We recently announced the rural impact test and we want to build stronger rural communities by doing our share in supporting community development. We recognize the tremendous value of rural citizens and communities in Canada.

Bill C-26 is proof of our commitment to rural Canada. It would allow easier access into the special crops processing industry and it would have a very positive impact on rural employment opportunities.

In our federal rural policy we want to increase the participation of rural Canadians in the development of federal programs and services. The main elements of the bill satisfy this goal, especially those provisions that relate to special crops. Special crops producers and processors were involved in every stage of the process leading up to consideration of the bill by this House. They would continue to play a role during and after the implementation of its provisions.

The special crops industry has undergone impressive growth over the last 10 years. Crops that were once considered marginal to western Canada's agri-food economy are now being produced in significant volumes. More producers are planting special crops and a greater number of people want to become special crops dealers. There has been a call by stakeholders for more current legislation to establish a fair and effective licensing system for dealers and an efficient voluntary insurance plan for producers, legislation that recognizes the unique requirements of the special crops industry. With the growth of the industry a need was identified for changes to the regulatory system as well. Current regulations are seen to be unnecessarily punitive, offering minimal deterrent value. The Agriculture and Agri-food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act is proven legislation that provides a broad range of enforcement options.

The grains futures industry has also undergone significant changes recently. The Winnipeg Commodity Exchange plans to develop non-grain contracts. When this happens the Grain Futures Act, legislation used since 1939 to regulate grain futures and options trading, will become obsolete. Repealing the act would allow the Manitoba government to regulate all aspects of a modern commodity futures and options trading industry.

Bill C-26 was developed by the Canadian Grain Commission in co-operation with stakeholders representing special crops producers and dealers, and stakeholders representing the grain futures industry. The proposed amendments contained in the bill would accomplish five main objectives.

They would establish an affordable licensing plan for special crops dealers in western Canada. They would introduce a producer funded insurance plan. They would create a special crops advisory committee that would report to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food. They would provide a fair and effective mechanism for enforcing the Canada Grain Act and regulations. They would transfer regulatory responsibility for grain futures to the province of Manitoba.

I will focus my comments on the first three objectives proposed in Bill C-26, the licensing and insurance plans and the advisory committee.

A new special crops licence for dealers in western Canada would be created under the proposed legislation. The licence would give companies the right to buy and sell special crops and to use official grade names when doing so. The plan would eliminate the security requirement for processors which has been identified as a major financial barrier to becoming licensed to deal in special crops. Instead of providing security the dealers would collect levies from producers from whom they buy special crops.

The levies would be remitted to the administrator of the program initially proposed to be the Canadian Grain Commission. After deducting an administration fee the commission would forward the premiums to the insurer. The Canadian Export Development Corporation has agreed to act as the initial insurer for the plan. The insurer and the agent can be changed in the future if the special crops advisory committee recommends it.

The cost of the levy is proposed to be 38 cents per $100 of sales. The levy would be the sum of the insurance premium and administrative charges. Initially it is proposed that the insurance premium would be 20 cents per $100 of sales and the commission's administrative fee would be 18 cents per $100 of sales.

Currently security requirements are designed for high volume standard crops handled by large grain companies. The requirements were not designed for the much lower volume specials crops which are mainly handled by small seed cleaning plants, special crops dealers and processors. The result is that companies that could otherwise be licensed stay on the sidelines. Unfortunately some others buy grain without a licence, exposing producers to the risk of loss. The special crops industry currently operates under a system that was established for the standard crops, wheat, barley, oats, flax, rye and canola. The government through Bill C-26 is responding to the special crop industry's expressed concerns and recommendations.

Removal of the security requirement which is a financial barrier to small dealers and processors would allow companies that had previously been on the sidelines to become involved. It would also encourage companies currently operating without a licence to apply for one.

While licensing would be easier, this does not mean that everyone would be granted a licence. Prospective licencees would be required to demonstrate that they are financially able to deal in special crops before a licence was issued.

A consulting firm retained by the Canadian Grain Commission, Kelly and Associates, estimated an additional 125 firms in western Canada could become licensed under the proposed legislation. The changes could significantly expand the number of marketing outlets available to producers and promote healthy competition.

I would like to talk about the proposed voluntary producer funded insurance plan. Protection would still be available for special crop producers despite the elimination of the current security requirements for licencees.

The new insurance program proposed for special crops producers would replace the current security system which makes the real cost of security transparent to producers. Membership in the new plan would be voluntary and available to those producers who choose to participate.

If a licensed company defaults on payment obligations for special crops that it has bought or if that company becomes insolvent, participating producers would be able to make a claim to the insurance plan.

Producers could choose to opt out of the insurance program. In that case, they would not be eligible for security in case of default by licensed grain dealers.

Producers who choose not to participate would still be required to pay the levy but would then receive a refund from the administrator of the program.

The proposed plan originally required producers who opted out to apply for a refund. Witnesses before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food expressed concern about this aspect of the plan, placing an administrative burden on producers.

The committee agreed and, taking a proactive approach, approved an amendment to make the refund process automatic. A proactive approach was also taken with regard to the clause that provides for special crops to be added or removed from the plan.

There was concern that standard crops such as wheat, oats, barley, rye, flax and canola might also be included. Although this was never the intent of the legislation, the committee approved changes that specifically exclude the six standard crops from the plan.

The mandatory deduction from all producers, whether they are in or out of the plan, was an issue studied at some length by the interim special crops advisory committee.

The committee, which included representatives from a number of stakeholder groups, decided a mandatory refundable model was needed to ensure the viability of the program.

The main factors which led to this decision were as follows. The plan has to be administratively efficient to keep costs down for producers. It is far more efficient and cost effective to deduct the levy from all producers and later reimburse those who have opted out. This is a significant benefit to the industry as it keeps paperwork to a minimum.

Members of the interim special crops advisory committee were concerned that a plan that required producers to opt in might leave some producers, unknowingly, without coverage and open to risk.

The mandatory refundable model has already successfully been used by other plans. It is similar to some provincial pulse crop levies and the Saskatchewan canola levy. For these reasons, the advisory committee felt it should be applied to the insurance plan.

Operating costs of the program are expected to be recovered through fees collected for services provided. The proposed fees are based on estimates of variables such as participation levels and deliveries.

Once the plan is operational the program administrator would be in a position to better evaluate the true costs that would be incurred and make the necessary adjustments. If the administrative portion of the levy is found to be too high, adjustments would be made to reflect actual costs.

During the consultation stage stakeholders called for the establishment of a formal mechanism to ensure continued input into the program. They wanted to ensure that concerns regarding licensing and security would be heard by the minister.

The proposed amendments to the Canada Grain Act address this issue by creating a special crops advisory committee. The nine member committee will be appointed by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. Special crops producers and dealers from each of the western provinces would be identified to sit on the committee.

The committee will advise the minister on the licensing and security operations of the special crops program. They can recommend to the minister that the administrator of the insurance plan or the insurer be replaced. The committee would also be able to make recommendations on the designation of new crops or removal of crops and on other issues related to special crops referred to the committee by the minister.

A majority of the members of the committee would be producers rather than dealers. This reflects the fact that the cost of the insurance plan would be borne by producers.

I close my speech by talking about the potential impact the bill would have. Special crops processors are important employers in the towns where they are located. For example, Sedley, Saskatchewan, with a population of only 342 people, is bordered by the rural municipalities of Francis and Lajord. Sedley Seeds, located seven miles out of town, employs eight people on a permanent basis, four of whom are town residents. It employs approximately fifteen people during the pre-seeding and post-harvesting rush. Vigro Seed & Supply, located right in Sedley, permanently employs twelve people, seven of whom are town residents. It employs approximately thirty people during peak periods.

Although the two companies do not seem big by Toronto, Montreal or Ottawa standards, they are important local employers. They provide valuable services to the local rural community. As the regular elevator system is rationalizing and closing facilities, special crops processors like Sedley Seeds or Vigro Seed & Supply located throughout western Canada would be in a position to provide alternative delivery options and services to producers.

The bill is good for the special crops industry and for rural Canada. I encourage all members of the House to support it.

[Supply, May 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the hon. member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley I could tell that he and his Reform Party colleagues thoroughly enjoy this kind of debate. It is not the first time that members of the Reform Party have raised the issue of crime. They do it over and over again. The reason is that it scares people. People get very afraid when they hear the kind of talk that comes from the Reform Party. What is that called? It is called fearmongering.

The Reform Party has been in the House for about five years. Hardly a day goes by that it does not raise the issue of crime. What is that called? That is fearmongering. We could spell it with capital letters.

The member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley talks about conditional sentencing. He suggests that this is a terrible innovation in the criminal justice system. Let us make it absolutely clear that what he dislikes is giving discretion to judges. It is another attempt on his part and on the part of the Reform Party to smear judges.

It was not long ago when there was an issue in the House about the salaries of judges and Reform members smeared judges. They are doing it again today. It is absolutely unacceptable.

[Canada Grain Act, May 11th, 1998]

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.

[Canada Grain Act, May 11th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to be able to respond to some of the comments made by the previous speakers.

I wish to start on a positive basis. I have taken note of the fact that the spokesman for the official opposition supports changes to the monetary penalties act. We appreciate that. We think those changes are taking us in the right direction. The official opposition supports the change that the Manitoba Securities Commission takes over responsibility for the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange. We appreciate that support as well.

There is another aspect to this group of motions to which we will give our support. There is an amendment from the official opposition that will make one change and we will support it. Right now the way the bill is written up, it is written to say that the minister may appoint a special crops advisory committee. The amendment would change the language of the bill to say that the minister shall appoint a special crops advisory committee; in other words moving it from the permissive to the mandatory. Certainly we will support that motion.

In so far as the other proposed amendments are concerned, we on the government side will be opposing them. I will take the next three or four minutes to explain why.

The speaker for the official opposition talked about the mandatory check-off, what we call the mandatory non-refundable approach to financing the insurance scheme. The subject will come up for further debate in detail when we get to the second group of motions.

The reason we oppose the voluntary opt in approach is that it would create administrative difficulties. It would create some uncertainty. We support the so-called mandatory refundable approach. We want a plan that is viable. We want a plan that is administratively efficient, and we think this is the best way to go. It is already done by the pulse organizations in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. They say it works for their organizations and we believe strongly that it will work for this insurance plan.

I would point out that we consulted widely over a long period of time leading up to the bill and we think this is exactly what producers want. This is what dealers want. This is what the special crops industry wants. This is why we are doing it.

There was reference made that somehow a fund would be created by the bill. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is an insurance plan; nothing more and nothing less. If they are talking about a fund that is factually incorrect.

When it comes to seeking out candidates for appointments to the special crops advisory committee the minister will consult widely. There will be plenty of opportunity for commodity groups to make their recommendations so the minister fully understands the wishes of producers and dealers.

I would like to get to the heart of these motions which proposes that we have an elected board of directors as opposed to an appointed special crops advisory committee. We have consulted widely and have found the industry does not support this approach. Our consultations indicate that they want an appointed board by the minister.

The spokesperson for the official opposition tried to draw an analogy with Bill C-4, the wheat board bill. This is not analogous. When we talk about the special crops industry, if we were to move to an elected board of directors, the cost of elections would be prohibitive. A number of spokespersons for the industry have told us that.

Naturally the costs of an election would have to be borne by the producers. They already have enough costs weighing them down. This would be an unnecessary cost. That is why we would oppose having an elaborate election which would require an elaborate system and an elaborate mechanism to choose nine directors.

Madam Speaker, you know as well as I and all Canadians do that if we get into the business of having to elect the directors as opposed to appointing them, we will get into the question of who is going to be eligible. Where would the boundary lines be drawn if the area was going to be divided up one constituency or district per director? To some extent it would be very difficult.

Let me also point out that right now there is no registry of official commodity groups. The previous speaker was suggesting that we could go to the commodity groups for their suggestions. There is no registry at the moment. That simply would not work.

When it comes to an appointed special crops advisory committee, we have to exercise some trust. We have to exercise some faith.

Is it not interesting. I hear a member from the Reform Party making a negative remark about government. I am quite sure that is why they came to Ottawa in the first place. They would like to form a government. Typical of the Reform Party to talk down to our public institutions and to be negative about parliament. It is typical of the Reform Party.

The advisory committee will work very well. It will have a majority of producers. It will speak for producers and it will speak for the industry.

Another thing I would like to point out, and this was discussed in consultations many times over, is that if we move from an advisory group which makes recommendations to an elected board of directors, then we raise the possibility of financial responsibility. In other words the board of directors would be making decisions. Along with that comes financial responsibilities as opposed to an appointed advisory committee making recommendations to the minister who would make the decisions. The people we consulted said that an elected board of directors may create a problem.

All in all, we have consulted widely. This is what the industry wants. We think it will work very well with an appointed advisory committee.

[National Forest Week, May 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this week is National Forest Week and I would like to acknowledge the May 1 signing of the new five-year Canada forest accord which confirms the commitment by over 29 forest stakeholders to implement the new national forest strategy.

The strategy builds on the 1992 forest accord to enhance the long term diversity of our forest ecosystems while providing economic, social and cultural benefits to Canadians.

Canada will be entering the new millennium with a new approach to natural resources management, one that includes a forestry Internet site. The Canadian Forest Service is a major player and will play a fundamental role in the strategy's implementation.

Congratulations to government and industry representatives, First Nations, environmental groups, private woodlot owners and the signatories to the new Canada forest accord.

While I am on my feet, special congratulations to our firefighters who are battling forest fires right across the country.

[Agriculture, April 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for the question.

I want to remind the member from Saskatchewan that right now we are undergoing a lengthy process of safety net review. A committee is in place. Come next year all the evidence will be in. At that time we will have some answers as to how we can prop up the safety net system which we have in this country.

[Judges Act, April 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the hon. member that we on this side do not want to muzzle him or members of the Reform Party when it comes to talking about judges or any other particular issue. We just want to have them show some responsibility.

The hon. member suggested that judges across the country should be made more accountable. It sounds good. I think we are all in favour of accountability but what does that really mean? For example, if a judge renders a sentence that is unpopular to the hon. member from Prince George or anybody from the Reform Party, does that mean the judge should be fired? We have to think this through. If we say that to judges, it is a measure of intimidation. Are we going to get the kind of independence from judges if that is the kind of accountability the hon. member is suggesting?

Let me make one other point. The hon. member from Prince George stumbled upon what I think is a very good question. He asked what is justice. It is a pretty profound question. I would like to ask a question in return. Does the Reform Party suggest that unless we have the death penalty we cannot have justice? Does the Reform Party suggest that if we do not abolish the parole system we cannot have justice? Does the Reform Party suggest that if we do not put people away in jail and throw away the key that we cannot have justice? Is that what the members of the Reform Party are saying?

The question of what is justice is very profound. However at the end of the day we need a justice system that serves the entire populace. All of us. The entire community. It includes those who have been victimized and those who are responsible for protecting our society. And yes, it includes even those who commit a crime. If they are young, 9 or 10 years of age, it is not in the interests of the population to put them away for 30 or 40 years. We want them changed so they will lead a productive life eventually.

[Judges Act, April 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member just said that the people listening to him right now know who he is talking about. The problem is that they do not know. He is singling out criminal court judges, yet there are all kinds of judges in this country who work not only in criminal courts but in civil courts. This hon. member smears all of them with his irresponsible remarks.

He says that the work of the judges is important. He then turns around and sullies every single judge, whether provincially appointed or federally appointed in this country. I would expect a lot more responsibility from a member of the Reform Party who is constantly talking about responsibility.

The comments he has made in the last few minutes absolutely leave me abhorred.

The member said that he would not give any judge one red cent until he knows that the system is working properly. Based on what this gentleman says, does anyone really think that the judicial system will ever work well in his eyes?

Let me just say a couple of things—