John Harvard

[Judges Act, April 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I can speak to the point of order or I can go on to questions and comments, whatever you choose.

[Canada Grain Act, March 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make two very short comments. We have made a very good start today, an excellent start. We have tentative support from the official opposition. We have support in principle from the Progressive Conservative Party. That is a pretty good start. This would be a very good juncture to move the bill to committee.

[Canada Grain Act, March 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, let me just say that the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain was concerned about the rural economy. All of us are concerned about the rural economy.

Bill C-26 which is before us now is intended to address one concern. The special crops industry on the prairies needs stimulation. It needs space. It needs an opportunity to enter into innovation. That is exactly what Bill C-26 is designed to do. It will support the dealers. And it will support the producers who want to do business with the special crops dealers. Let us get the facts straight.

[Canada Grain Act, March 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have to address in my comments some of the concerns raised by the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain.

First of all, I would suggest that the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain talk to his party's agriculture critic. I heard the Reform Party agriculture critic clearly say in his opening remarks that the Reform Party was prepared to offer “tentative support” for Bill C-26. Yes, the Reform Party agriculture critic had some concerns and some questions but he did say clearly at the beginning of the debate that his party was prepared to offer tentative support.

The hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain had better have a chat with his party's agriculture critic.

It is important that Canadians, especially those who live in rural Canada, have the facts straight. The hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain—

[Infrastructure, March 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, at the Western Canada Roadbuilders and Heavy Construction Association convention in Victoria yesterday, delegates from the private sector and the provinces called for more investment in the infrastructure of our country.

As Liberals we are glad to observe that others are starting to see value in the idea we first proposed in the 1993 campaign.

While the Reform Party would have us believe that money spent on improving our nation's roads, sewers and municipal buildings is a waste, grassroots Canadians know that it is an important investment in our communities. According to an industry spokesperson the spinoff for every construction job is three more jobs. That is why we are proud to have spent over $100 million federal dollars in British Columbia over the last four years in direct support of these efforts.

We join British Columbians like Lou Sekora in Port Moody—Coquitlam who have been at the forefront in calling for direct community investment.

[Canada Grain Act, March 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce at second reading Bill C-26 which would amend the Canada Grain Act and the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act and repeal the Grain Futures Act.

This initiative reflects our government's willingness to meet the express needs of the grain industry. The industry has had to evolve in order to deal with many challenges. Legislation must also evolve to ensure that industry's efforts to meet these challenges are not hindered by arcane government regulation.

I will begin by placing this bill within the framework of our government's priorities. Agriculture and agri-food is a key sector of our economy that offers tremendous opportunities for Canadian producers and processors. This industry is growing at an impressive rate. Our exports continue to expand, as does the domestic market for our products.

Producers are generally optimistic about the future, investing in and diversifying their operations in order to benefit from new opportunities.

The main objective of this government is to build a competitive and innovative economy that will create even more jobs and more economic growth for Canadians. One of the ways to accomplish this objective is to work co-operatively at the grassroots level to ensure the views of stakeholders are incorporated at the early stages of discussions on policies surrounding new and emerging issues.

We are committed to a policy of full consultation with both the agri-food industry and the provinces. We endeavour to be responsive to the changing needs of the industry. Together we are working to develop strategies for achieving this goal.

This is particularly significant in light of our recently announced rural impact test, a policy which commits federal departments and agencies to consider the impact on rural Canada when formulating their policies, their programs and their services.

This policy is part of our government's ongoing commitment to build stronger rural communities by ensuring that federal policies and programs support community development.

We believe that the bill before the House is another example of our commitment to rural Canada. It will allow easier access to the special crops processing industry and will therefore have a positive impact on rural employment opportunities.

The federal and provincial governments must also work together to avoid, wherever possible, overlap and duplication so that we can better serve Canadians.

Having placed this bill in the context of the government's priorities, I would now like to review the major aspects of this legislation.

The provisions of this bill were developed and recommended by the Canadian Grain Commission, the organization responsible for administering both the Canadian Grain Act and the Grain Futures Act.

Under the Canada Grain Act the commission is responsible for regulating grain handling in Canada and for establishing and maintaining standards of grain quality.

Under the Grain Futures Act the commission regulates grain futures trading in Canada by monitoring the activities and transactions carried out at the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange.

I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the valuable contribution that producers and other members of the grain industry have made to this bill. These amendments are the result of two separate sets of consultations throughout the industry.

I will outline this consultation process so that members can share the confidence I have that this legislation represents the needs, the expectations and the views of the majority of stakeholders from all sectors of the grain industry.

In 1995 Bill C-51, an act to amend the Canada Grain Act, was being moved through this House. At that time there was considerable interest on the part of members to deal with the concerns of the special crops industry, especially those in the industry who wanted to become licensed special crops dealers. Therefore, it is with great pleasure that I talk to this bill today.

The grain industry categorizes crops either as standard crops or as special crops. The standard crops are wheat, barley, oats and canola and these make up the bulk of agricultural production on the prairies. Special crops production on the prairies is considerably less than standard crop production but includes a wide variety of agricultural products.

I would like to begin by outlining the consultation process concerning the proposed special crops amendments. The first round of consultations was undertaken by a panel of producers. As part of the special crops initiative funded by the commission, members met with a variety of producers and industry organizations to assess their regulatory needs and to make recommendations to the commission.

In November 1994 the Canadian Grain Commission circulated a discussion paper to individuals and companies involved in the special crops industry on the prairies. The commission met with individual producers and their organizations, processors, grain dealers and representatives of elevator companies. The purpose of the discussions was to chart a new course for licensing and security in the special crops industry in western Canada. A consensus on licensing and security emerged from those consultations.

In March 1995 the commission released a report reflecting that consensus. Following the release of the report, the commission provided support to an advisory committee consisting of producers and dealers representing the principal special crops organizations as they developed the basis for this legislation.

Let me add for the benefit of members who represent ridings in eastern Canada that the special crops provision of the bill will apply to crops named in the proposed legislation and grown in western Canada. Persons and companies dealing in eastern special crops will not be affected by the legislation.

The special crops industry plays a significant role in the development of the rural economy of western Canada. The bulk of the country's special crops production comes from the three prairie provinces.

Statistics Canada figures indicate that special crops production on the prairies increased by about 300% in the last 14 years. In 1984-85 production was approximately one million tonnes. In 1997-98 this figure has climbed to approximately three million tonnes. The special crops market continues to expand. Both large and small players are contributing to its impressive growth.

The special crops industry exports a considerable amount of product. In 1996-97 the figure was 1.3 million tonnes. This represents about 5% of total exports.

The western Canadian special crops industry has become one of Canada's export success stories. Naturally, domestic seed cleaning plants are anxious to get into the business of buying and marketing. On the other hand, producers want to expand the number of outlets for their special crops. Moreover the entry of new players will stimulate innovation and the development of new markets.

The Canada Grain Act amendments relating to special crops involve three major elements: a voluntary producer insurance plan; affordable licensing for special crops dealers; and a special crops advisory committee. The first element of the proposed legislation is the financial protection that will be available to producers under a voluntary insurance plan. If approved, the amendments will provide financial protection to producers who are prepared to pay for it and will be simple to administer.

I emphasize that the plan is voluntary. This was a key recommendation of the majority of producers consulted and their representative organizations.

In consultation with a special crops advisory committee, the Canadian Grain Commission will manage the producer funded insurance plan. Producers can choose whether or not to participate.

Only those producers who are members of the producer insurance plan will be eligible for compensation if a licensed company they deal with fails to meet its payment obligations. Producers will be considered members of the plan and eligible for coverage unless they notify the Canadian Grain Commission in writing that they want to opt out. Producers who do not want to belong can opt out prior to the start of the crop year.

All producers will pay a levy when they sell special crops to licensed dealers. The initial levy will be a small percentage of the value of grain delivered. It is expected that the initial levy will be 0.038% or 38 cents per $100 worth of grain. This works out to between 50 cents and $1 per acre depending on crop price and yield. It may be adjusted up or down in accordance with the level of losses and the costs of administration. Producers who have opted out of the plan will at the end of each crop year receive a full rebate on the levies collected from them.

The plan has administrative benefits for companies. The dealer takes a levy for each delivery, whether the producer is in the plan or has opted out. For the industry this keeps paperwork to a minimum.

Special crops dealers will remit levies to the Canadian Grain Commission, the agent for participating producers. After deducting an administration fee, the commission will forward the premiums to an insurer. The Canadian Export Development Corporation has agreed to act as the insurer for the plan. The insurer and the agent can be changed in the future if the special crops advisory committee recommends it. I will talk about this committee in more detail shortly.

Prospective licensees will have to demonstrate financial ability to receive a licence. This protects producers and ensures the viability of the insurance plan. It is expected that most producers will participate. To encourage their participation, startup funding of $500,000 will be made available from the Government of Canada to assist in implementing this new program. The insurance plan will be self funded after initial startup.

The second element concerning proposed changes to the Canada Grain Act is affordable licensing for special crops dealers. The handling of special crops is regulated under the Canada Grain Act which was initially designed to regulate the bulk handling of cereal grains. The licensing and security system in place however was not designed to serve the unique needs of special crops dealers.

Under the current system, buyers and sellers of Canadian grain, including special crops, must be licensed by the Canadian Grain Commission. They must also provide security for producers by posting a bond or letter of credit. Security protects producers if licensed elevators or grain dealers default on their payment obligations.

Unfortunately for small companies in the special crops industry, the security that must be provided is expensive and depletes their available credit restricting their ability to buy special crops. Security requirements are tough on small companies and prevent the special crops industry from developing.

About 800 seed cleaning plants operate on the prairies. They are currently exempt from licensing, provided they do not buy and sell grain. Only a few operators of seed cleaning plants are currently licensed.

It is not uncommon in this growing industry for a seed cleaning plant to act as an agent for an established licensee. This will not change in the future. However it would be easier for them under the provisions of the bill to evolve to the next level, to actually become a grain dealer buying and selling special crops.

More special crops dealers would become licensed if they could satisfy the licensing requirements. Because they cannot, they are constrained in expanding their operations. Furthermore they are not in a position to offer the full range of services demanded by producers and provided by their licensed competitors.

Unfortunately there have been cases where dealers have ignored the legislation and bought grain without a licence. This places producers at significant risk of not being paid if the dealer defaults on payments because no security has been provided to the Canadian Grain Commission.

For Canada to make further gains in the special crops market, a regulatory environment is required that allows companies, both large and small, to participate. The proposed legislation before the House this morning would reduce entry barriers for special crops dealers by making licensing more affordable and making the licensing requirements easier to satisfy.

If approved, it is expected that the new special crops provisions will initially apply to the following special crops: beans, buckwheat, corn, fababeans, lentils, mustard seed, peas, safflower seeds, soybeans, sunflower seed and triticale. This list could be expanded or reduced if the special crops industry wants this to happen.

A special crops dealer will be defined as an elevator operator or grain dealer who buys only special crops from producers.

An amendment to the Canada Grain Act will create a class of licence called a special crops licence. This licence will give companies the right to use official grade names when buying and selling special crops.

Individuals and companies that also buy and sell standard crops such as wheat, barley and canola will continue to be licensed under current provisions of the Canada Grain Act. They will not have to obtain a special crops licence to buy and sell special crops but will have to collect levies from producers for a producer funded insurance plan. However, the security that companies currently post in the form of bonds and letters of credit to cover their liabilities to special crops producers will be reduced correspondingly.

Finally, special crops dealers will not have to post security to cover payment obligations to special crops producers. This will remove a major barrier to owners of small companies who want to participate in the special crops industry.

The new program will encourage companies currently operating without a licence to apply for one. By making licensing affordable and by eliminating costly security requirements, this proposed legislation will allow the number of licensed special crops dealers to increase. Both large and small dealers will operate on a level playing field.

The third element concerning proposed changes to the Canada Grain Act is the establishment of a special crops advisory committee. The committee will be appointed by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. It will be composed of a maximum of nine members representing special crops producers, processors, producer-processors, and exporters. Each prairie province and sector of the industry will be represented on the committee. The majority of the members will be producers.

The special crops advisory committee will advise the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food on the operations of the special crops program. The committee can recommend to the minister that the administrator of the insurance plan or the insurer be replaced. It can also make recommendations on the designation of new crops and on other issues referred by the minister.

I will now talk about our proposed amendments to the Administrative Monetary Penalties Act, AMPA, so that AMPA applies to the Canada Grain Act. The Administrative Monetary Penalties Act is legislation that was enacted in 1995. It provides a broad range of enforcement options by allowing monetary penalties, fines, to be levied for non-compliance with regulations. The Fertilizer Act, Plant Protect Act, Health of Animals Act, Pest Control Products Act and Feeds Act are subject to this innovative legislation.

The main enforcement options now available under the Canada Grain Act are the suspension and revocation of licences and prosecution. However, those sanctions have the impact of stopping business operations either temporarily or perhaps permanently. Because their impact is so serious, they are seen as a sanction of last resort, not as a normal regulatory enforcement tool. The current options are also costly, lengthy and mean that strict procedural requirements must be followed.

With this proposed change, the Canadian Grain Commission will have a broader range of measures to enforce its regulations.

An important feature of AMPA is that it allows for the issuing of warnings and negotiated solutions to non-compliance. Administrative monetary penalties can be reduced to zero if a violator takes immediate corrective action to comply. In this way AMPA emphasizes compliance, not punishment.

I would now like to move on to talk about our initiative to repeal the Grain Futures Act.

As members may be aware, the Grain Futures Act is federal legislation that was created in 1939. Under the act the Canadian Grain Commission is responsible for regulating grain futures trading in Canada which is done solely at the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange with trade clearing done by Winnipeg Commodity Clearing Ltd.

In the spring of 1997 the Canadian Grain Commission completed its consultation process with nearly 70 stakeholder groups and companies involved in the trading of grain futures and options. The purpose of the consultations was to determine the extent of industry support for a proposal to repeal the Grain Futures Act. These consultations were triggered by a recommendation made by the board of governors of the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange in 1996 calling for a change in regulator from the Canadian Grain Commission to the Manitoba Securities Commission. This recommendation stemmed from the exchanges plan to introduce trading in non-grain products.

There is wide agreement that the Manitoba Securities Commission has the appropriate statute to effectively regulate all trading activities at the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange. The province of Manitoba has enacted the Commodity Futures Act, giving the Manitoba Securities Commission the mandate to regulate grain futures trading. The legislation is expected to be proclaimed very soon.

Several strong messages were received as a result of the consultation process. They included the following. The current Grain Futures Act is outmoded and no longer meets international and domestic regulatory standards. It does not have the elements or scope to be an effective regulatory tool for the futures industry today. The act provides for only the regulation of grain futures contracts. It does not provide the authority to regulate all trading current and proposed at the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange.

This key prairie institution wants to get involved in non-grain contracts such as hogs. Under the current legislation for non-grain commodities the WCE would be subject to provincial legislation and regulations. Transferring regulatory responsibilities to the province of Manitoba will eliminate the unsatisfactory prospect of the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange being subject to regulation by both the province of Manitoba for grain and non-grain contracts and by the Government of Canada for grain futures contracts. This scenario is inconsistent with our national objectives of avoiding overlap and duplication of federal and provincial activities.

The province of Manitoba's regulatory body, the Manitoba Securities Commission, has the legislation to provide the regulatory oversight that meets national and international standards. The Manitoba legislation features comprehensive regulation of all aspects of futures and options trading from the point of order taking by futures commission merchants to the transactions on the floor and the clearing of trade. In contrast the Grain Futures Act provides for only the supervision of grain futures trading and the clearing process.

The Manitoba Securities Commission has also indicated that it will acquire additional expertise in grains futures by hiring experienced staff, giving it the necessary resources to do an effective job.

The Canadian Grain Commission intends to maintain an ongoing liaison with the Manitoba Securities Commission through a memorandum of understanding. Preliminary discussions have already been held. This process will ensure that a formal mechanism is in place to communicate grain industry concerns and to ensure harmonization of trading regulators with grain handling regulations.

I would like to conclude by stating that this proposed legislation is our government's response to the express needs of the western agriculture industry. If passed, the legislation would benefit the special crops sector by recognizing and addressing the following principles: that security should be available to all producers who are prepared to pay for it; that their participation in an insurance plan should be voluntary; that the regulatory system for special crops should encourage development of the industry and not impede it; and that the program should be affordable, simple to administer and should not impose any additional costs or bureaucracy on any sector of the special crops industry.

Repeal of the outmoded Grain Futures Act would recognize the following principles: that the federal government supports the introduction of a comprehensive, contemporary regulatory framework that will allow futures and options trading on the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange to develop new contracts and that dual regulations should be avoided or eliminated.

The principal amendments before the House represent what the industry and producers believe are necessary for the future growth of the agricultural sector. I recommend that members of the House support Bill C-26.

[Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion, March 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Atomic Energy Control Board is responsible for regulating all nuclear facilities and activities in Canada. Its role is focused strictly on health, safety and environmental protection. It is not mandated to interfere in the business practices of its licensees unless those practices have safety implications.

The problem with Ontario Hydro is one of management and operational performance, not public safety. Public safety and environmental protection are the Government of Canada's highest priorities. Safety has never been compromised. We have very high nuclear safety standards and strong enforcement of those standards through the AECB which played a key role in getting Ontario Hydro to take aggressive corrective action.

Technology is not the problem. The Candu technology is one of the best, if not the best in the world, as demonstrated by the excellent safety and operating performance record of Candus around the world. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, AECL, has taken a proactive role in assuring its customers that this is an internal management problem at Ontario Hydro and that its Candu technology is sound and robust.

As you are well aware, the Atomic Energy Control Board has concluded that Ontario Hydro nuclear generating stations continue to be operated safely under the conditions of its licences and for the duration of the licences. This conclusion is consistent with the findings of Ontario Hydro's own investigation and with the report of the Ontario Select Committee on Ontario Hydro Nuclear Affairs.

The public may be assured that the AECB will continue to monitor the situation very closely. The AECB has inspectors on site to monitor operations and to ensure that anything of safety significance is dealt with immediately. If there is any evidence to cause any source of concern, the control board will not hesitate to impose restrictions as it always has.

The new Nuclear Safety and Control Act and its supporting regulations which are expected to come into force in late 1998 will provide the board with modern regulatory tools to enhance its regulatory capabilities. The government's intention is to ensure that Canada continues to have a strong independent nuclear regulator which focuses on the safety of people and environmental protection.

[Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion, March 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the question has arisen as to when Canadians can expect the federal government to come forward with a financial commitment for home care.

Home care is already an integral part of our health care system. It is not an add-on or a new idea. It is an essential component of the care that many Canadians receive on a regular basis. What is new is how home and community care can be used within the system in this era of modern technology and the potential of home care to meet needs created in the system by the extensive restructuring and reform seen in most jurisdictions.

The time has come to examine home care programs in all jurisdictions and, as members might expect, that task will not be a simple one. While we are committed to taking steps toward the future, delegates at the recent national conference on home care have made it clear that the task is large and complex. Delegates urge all levels of government to work together on the development of a national home care approach.

We recognize the need to develop a national approach to home and community care for Canadians, an approach that will ensure Canadians that wherever they go across the country, they can receive the care they need. Recognizing that there is a need and knowing in detail how to meet that need are two different matters.

To develop a national approach of this calibre, we must work together in partnership with provincial and territorial governments, with care providers across all parts of the health system and with Canadians in all walks of life. We need the results of pilot and evaluation studies that are being sponsored by the health transition fund and other research studies that have been undertaken to inform our discussions.

At this point an immediate new financial commitment in respect of home and community care is not appropriate, but I can say that the government will be there to fulfil its responsibility with a contribution in an appropriate amount when we see the size and the shape of the solution—

[The Budget, March 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Brandon—Souris brought up our home province a number of times in his presentation. I think it is only responsible in my reply to respond to some of the things that the hon. member has said.

He said that he was concerned about some of the things that were somehow omitted, certain kinds of information omitted from the finance minister's budget of last month. Given that the hon. member is concerned about omissions, I would like to cite a couple of omissions on his part.

First of all, the hon. member for Brandon—Souris mentioned that the Filmon government in the province of Manitoba devotes 34% of its budget to health care. Maybe the hon. member for Brandon—Souris would like to know that 36% of Mr. Filmon's budget comes from the federal government, just a little, small point that he might be interested to know.

Let me go a little further because he makes certain implications about how the provincial government or the province of Manitoba is treated by this budget.

I would like to remind the member for Brandon—Souris that when our government came to office in the fall of 1993, about four and a half years ago, Manitoba, my province, his province, received in both transfer payments, the CHST and equalization payments, a total of $1.951 billion.

What is it in the next fiscal year starting in less than three weeks, April 1? It will be $1.944 billion, a difference of $7 million. Let us put that $7 million into context. In the last three years, as a result of lower interest rates brought about by this government's fiscal policies, the Filmon government in the province of Manitoba has realized savings of $135 million. The province of Manitoba is doing quite well I would say to the hon. member for Brandon—Souris.

Let us also put these transfer payments into further context. I mentioned that the transfer payments will exceed $1.9 billion starting April 1. That accounts for 36% of Manitoba's estimated revenues. That is 50% above the national average and the highest of the four western provinces.

I must admit it is really difficult to take criticism from a representative of the Progressive Conservative Party that ran our economy into the ground between 1984 and 1993. In the interest of facts and in the interest of informing Canadians, the member from Brandon—Souris owes us this piece of information about how the province of Manitoba has been treated by this budget and successive budgets over the last four years.

[William Ormond Mitchell, February 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate a life well lived and a life that resonated the values of Canadians to the world.

I speak of William Ormond Mitchell, a Canadian literary icon who passed away yesterday at the age of 83.

When I worked in television I had the honour of interviewing Mr. Mitchell. I remember his earthy charm, sincere warmth and salty wit. Moreover, W. O. Mitchell possessed the rare ability to write about his perceptive insights into the human condition. He was indeed a product of his prairie environment, genuine and true to himself and the world around him.

Although he will be missed, W. O. Mitchell has left Canadians with a better sense of who they are and for that legacy he will be long remembered.

On behalf of all members I convey condolences to his family.