Lyle Vanclief

[Pesticides, February 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Niagara Falls for his continued interest.

We are certainly pleased that later today the government will be announcing a new and revised pesticide regulatory system in Canada which will be under the direction of the Minister of Health.

The system we already have is one of the most rigorous in the world today. However we are going to improve that even further so that the availability of products to our horticultural producers, our foresters and all Canadians will be provided in a more efficient, more cost effective, environmentally safe and competitive manner so that we will all be better off.

[Immigration Act, February 6th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to respond to the hon. member's comments tonight.

I want to point out to the hon. member that the minister of agriculture and the Minister for International Trade have had numerous discussions with their U.S. counterparts during the Uruguay round of GATT and after that in order to try to resolve the issue of Canadian access to the U.S. market for sugar and sugar containing products.

During those discussions the Canadian approach to the issue that remained outstanding was to seek a solution which would, at the very least, preserve existing levels of trade in sugar and sugar containing products. The minister made his concerns very clear when in December he said we regret that the U.S. has rejected this approach and implemented draconian measures.

The minister of agriculture clearly expressed our government's disappointment with the U.S. and continued to seek a delay in the implementation of the U.S. measures against Canadian exports. He went on to say that the U.S. decision is one that has been and he could see would be inequitable and shortsighted on their part.

The U.S. has proceeded with the reclassification of certain sugar containing products so as to make the access of those products to the U.S. more difficult or impossible. The effects of these changes has been to reduce Canadian access to the U.S. for sugar containing products and the market there for us.

Officials are continuing to work with the industry and industry officials to develop a reliable estimate of the impact. We certainly have seen a worst case scenario and that has been quantified. However, these are not based on fact but mainly on hypothesis.

As to the government's reaction, the minister will continue to consult with the industry and the provinces as to possible action, look at reviewing legal options and of course our preferred approach is a negotiated solution because we consider the best way to resolve these issues is to deal with each one on its own merits without trading off the different sectors against each other.

[Canadian Potato Marketing Act, February 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the opportunity to make some comments on Bill C-266 before the House this morning, presented by the member for Mackenzie.

The comments I will make are as a result of a discussion with the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food on the matter of this bill and also as a former potato grower myself for a few years.

Bill C-266 is a well intentioned proposal to promote the orderly marketing of potatoes in Canada. I do not believe this bill is needed or wanted by the industry. The potato industry is one that has made great strides over the last few years. It is developing workable processes to resolve major issues at a national level and to take control of its own future.

Last fall I had the opportunity to speak to the potato growers of Alberta at their annual meeting. I can assure this House that at the meeting and in a small discussion with the executive of the potato growers of Alberta there was no one in the general meeting or the executive of that very vibrant organization who even mentioned supply management as a goal of their industry.

This is not to say that the idea had never come before the industry previously. Twice in the past number of years the potato industry has examined it and the possibility of federal legislation during the 1980s and earlier in the 1970s. On both occasions it was unable to come to a workable consensus within the industry.

This bill would create a Canadian potato marketing commission that would act, quoting from the bill, as the sole agent for all imported potatoes and all potatoes produced in Canada. This commission would also have extensive powers including the buying, storing and selling potatoes.

When the potato industry was seeking national agencies in the past its major objectives were to stabilize prices and to remove surplus so that it could continue to market its product in an organized fashion; in other words, to maintain traditional markets at traditional prices. It did not want an agency that would control its marketing.

Through all the troubles in recent years the industry has strengthened its infrastructure nationally with the formation of the potato committee executive of the Canadian horticultural council in 1992. That committee has begun dealing directly with issues affecting the industry in Canada. The committee has taken on a big responsibility.

I am confident that the industry and the provincial government representatives on the potato committee executive will continue to deal successfully with future problems and they will mature even further in their decision making. This maturing process will lead to a further strenghthening of the potato industry at a national level and the development of sound, strategic directions for the industry to follow in its production and marketing endeavours.

Bill C-266 would restrict production and marketing of potatoes to producers holding permit books and would prescribe delivery points and quotas.

Potatoes are a very perishable product. They have to be marketed in a timely and efficient manner to meet good delivery standards. The responsibility for good shipping and handling conditions must remain as much as possible between the producer and the receiver.

In recent years the industry has had to deal with many issues and some of them have not been pleasant to deal with. There have been overproduction, low prices, drought, PVY-n, late blight and various other issues which have seriously affected the marketing of potatoes both within Canada and in our export markets. Despite these difficulties potato production in Canada keeps reaching new peaks with records being set in various parts of the country every year. Across Canada this industry is becoming more and more aggressive, strengthening existing markets and developing new ones with strong returns to producers. Our potato industry today is very healthy. It will continue to be healthy as it competes effectively in open markets around the world.

In addition our government is a promoter of free trade. A quota system for the marketing of potatoes would only erect more barriers to trade in Canada and with our trading partners.

I just want to remind everyone again that the potato industry in Canada is making great strides in increasing production, increasing revenues and expanding its markets worldwide. The industry has developed an infrastructure that meets its needs at the provincial and national levels and is becoming even more aggressive in finding its own solutions to its own concerns.

The industry, I repeat, has shown no visible support for the proposal contained in Bill C-266. Until the industry identifies the need for further national legislation to accomplish its goals I see no reason to proceed any further with Bill C-266.

[Communications Security Establishment, December 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that section 17(4) of the Canadian Wheat Board Act referred to by the member for Vegreville addresses the administrative requirements for an election of a Canadian Wheat Board advisory committee.

The recent speeches and articles by the Canadian Wheat Board commissioners are a response to producer requests for more information on the board and how it markets wheat and barley on behalf of the producers.

The Canadian Wheat Board commissioners did not campaign on behalf of any candidates. They were responding to those producers who want more information. It is only logical that the wheat board commissioners who are charged with the responsibility of marketing wheat and barley on behalf of the western Canadian producers would be in the best position to describe how they are fulfilling their responsibilities.

As the hon. member well knows, the debate on the issue of grain marketing has been ongoing. It was not initiated with the particular Canadian Wheat Board advisory committee election and it will not end with this election.

As we have stated on numerous occasions, producers need the opportunity to discuss the grain marketing issue in a logical, structured form with all the facts available to them. The producers will be provided with a forum to discuss and debate the issue over the coming months.

Any decision on how we market grains and oilseeds should be made in the context of where we want our grain industry to be in five to ten years from now. As a result, the federal government has initiated discussions with the industry to develop a longer term vision.

[The Late Jack Ellis, December 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my deepest sympathy to the family and friends of the late Jack Ellis, member of Parliament for Prince Edward-Hastings from 1972 to 1988.

On Thursday, December 1, Jack Ellis died of a sudden heart attack at his home in Prince Edward County in Ontario. Those of us who knew him as a friend and colleague will know that Jack's public career was one of selfless commitment and fierce pride in his work. His sudden death will leave our community with a profound sense of loss as to the tremendous potential for further service which has been left unfulfilled.

In the Quinte area Jack was a longstanding public figure with a tremendous record of success. Following his retirement as member of Parliament for Prince Edward-Hastings he continued to work tirelessly on some of his favourite community oriented projects and was always a strong voice representing the interests of a region.

Only his commitment to family and his loyalty to his friends had the potential to surpass his devotion to public service. In this sense he was a complete professional with the values that are treasured the most in political life.

There will be a memorial service for Jack tomorrow in Belleville. I know that all members of this House will join with me in extending our most sincere sympathies to Jack's wife Wally, his children, family and friends on their sudden and unfortunate loss.

[Canada Grain Act, December 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I will say at the outset that the government does not have any intention of supporting the motion. I will give a few of the reasons for it. There is no question in my mind that what is said in the motion is a bit confusing versus what may or may not be its intent.

It would have a definite impact in the industry of slowing down the movement of grain whether transported by truck, producer car or dealer car. Therefore it would increase the cost to producers, which is certainly not the intention of the government.

At the present time the weight, the grade and the dockage content of grain delivered by a producer or dealer car are immediately determined at the unload. That is the system. To have to do that as the car or truck is being unloaded would certainly slow things up and add a cost. It would also put an additional obligation on the public carriers to have with them at all times the documentation on the grade and dockage. It would shift some of the responsibility to public carriers for having the documentation available at all times.

In practical terms, the motion would mean that when a truckload of grain to be delivered to a local feed mill was loaded by the producer on the farm it would have to be graded. The dockage, the weight and everything would have to be with it to take a load of grain to a local feed mill. That would be absolutely unnecessary. It would be cumbersome. It would slow everything up and be expensive.

We do not intend to support the motion.

[Canada Grain Act, December 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on the three motions before us in this grouping, the first one being Motion No. 3.

I have to question something because I cannot quite figure out where Reformers are coming from when they talk about wanting some people to opt out. They want the Canadian Grain Commission to make the decision on whether somebody can opt out or cannot opt out. Let us look at the practical application of that. If someone asked for permission to opt out and the Canadian Grain Commission thought there might be some requirement for the elevator or operator and it was not totally satisfied the security was there without a legal bonding or security being posted, the commission could say that he should not opt out. What message does that send?

In other cases, as has been mentioned, some larger grain companies that might be considered to have all kinds of backing could opt out. As the member from the Bloc said, I could see a total breakdown in regulation and therefore deregulation of who was secure and who was not secure.

Having farmed for many years myself, not in the west admittedly but taking grains to elevators, I know farmers are busy. There is an assumption that if we know some elevators

have bonding or security we assume that probably others do. We could end up in a situation where an elevator had security posted and 20 or 30 miles away an elevator might have security posted because it chose to.

It is certainly not the intention of the government to leave in place a situation where everybody is not treated in the same way. Hopefully it will be some comfort to members that the Canadian Grain Commission realizes every operator out there does not do the same amount of business. They may not have a large volume of product in their facility or on their site at any one time. There is work being done as far as how smaller operators can collectively post bond or securities so they can be covered. We have to remember that.

What would it do as far as competitiveness between dealers or elevator operators is concerned if one had further costs due to posting security and another one down the road, 100 miles away or even 10 miles away, did not have those costs? It is certainly our intention to treat everybody fairly. It is not our intention at this time to encourage or to allow some dealers to be in the system and some dealers to be out.

In reference to the comments from the member for Kindersley-Lloydminister as far as special grains, he is right. The government is working with the industry to put a special act in place to cover those, the peculiarities and specific requirements there. There was some concern that we do it in Bill C-51 but the general feeling was that there were some things in this bill that we could and should do and get out of the way rather than holding all those things up. I see the member is nodding his head yes, get those done and then work with the special crops people to look after their needs which are otherwise there.

As far as Motions Nos. 7 and 8 are concerned, again I find the comments from Reform Party members confusing. It seems that if members of that party have questions on something that has happened in agriculture they do not like, the first person they turn to is the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and ask: "Why did you allow that to happen? It is in your ministry, your department. Why did you allow that to happen?"

What we are asking here and what it does is it gives the minister the final say, the governor in council. The minister would have an opportunity to comment on it. It gives the minister the final say on these types of actions and that is where the responsibility is going to end up.

The intention is not to get into the day to day operations of the commission. If there are questions, these things will have had to be approved by the minister and the governor in council. This will enable the answering of questions the Reform Party seems to be in the habit of asking the minister as to why he allowed something to happen. It gives the minister the opportunity to review those types of decisions before they happen.

[Canada Grain Act, December 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on these three motions.

First I will comment on Motion No. 2. As has already been said this motion which has been put forward by the member for Mackenzie sets out a definite date on which settlement would have to be made. Other members have commented today that there needs to be some flexibility. After a long period of consultation which has taken place on this the industry feels it should be 90 days. That is why it is there. If we were to prescribe in the bill that there be a set number of days, no matter what that was, there would be difficulty in the future. If the industry

deemed it should change, it would take a change in the legislation to do so.

By doing this in 90 days, as will be suggested and done by the commission without having been carved in stone in the legislation, one of the things we have to keep in mind is to keep the money getting to the producers as quickly as it possibly can. If the producers were allowed to leave their grain in an elevator for a longer period of time those elevator operators would probably have to have a greater amount of security posted at all times because of the volume that might be there.

Also, we want to get the dollars back to the producers as quickly as we can. We do not want to put the temptation out there for producers to leave the grain in the elevator a long period of time and start using it as a storage facility to hold their product so they might be able to speculate on the market as it goes along and maybe have some distorting influence on the price of the market.

We certainly cannot support Motion No. 2 for those reasons if no others.

On Motion No. 4, I want to point out to the member for Mackenzie that if he looks at section 112 of the act it already provides protection for the holders of primary elevator receipts. The section that he is referring to or suggesting that they make an amendment to is the section that deals only with terminal and transfer elevators. The provision that the member is requesting is looked after.

The member for Vegreville raised the issue that the producers should have first claim. The producer does have first claim. The producers have first claim in any situation if the producers still maintain their receipt. If the producers wish to assign their receipt to somebody else well that may very well differ the situation. The producers do have first claim as long as they have that receipt.

Motion No. 5 refers to the use of grades on a receipt when it is received. What we want to avoid here is the temptation that has been there in the past to not list the grade name. The elevator operator in the past, when they did not have to list the grade name, it was not necessary that they post security for that product in the elevator.

We want to close that loop and close that possible gap, also recognizing that there may be times when that has to take place and that can take place and that the grade name does not have to be there. The elevator operator in that case, if it were a feed grain or something, could have that without a described grade on it providing that they agree with the commission that they provide security so there would have to be specific recognition and co-operation made in that case.

[Canada Grain Act, December 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on Bill C-51 which is before the House this morning. Probably the best way is to sum up what this bill is all about and then I will make a couple of specific comments about the motion before us.

I would like to quote part of the speech the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food delivered to the House when the bill was put forward some weeks ago.

The grain industry is changing and the pace of change is accelerating. To remain competitive in global markets, and global markets are where Canada sells most of its grain, we need a regulatory and legislative framework which protects the shared interests of all stakeholders. At the same time it must assist the individuals and groups within the industry to compete successfully, adding value where possible to their efforts.

The minister made that statement a number of weeks ago and I can assure the House and the industry that this very comprehensive consultation process has taken place as we have moved through the bill.

As far as the motion that has been put forward is concerned, I would like to assure the members of the House that as the government reviews the appointments, we can guarantee that they will be filled with competent, capable, enthusiastic and qualified people. When those appointments come along they will be advertised in the Canada Gazette. There is nothing prohibiting any member of the industry or anybody else suggesting that the minister consider someone. There is ample opportunity for all of that to take place.

However, we must recognize in the final analysis that the chief commissioner and the commissioners are responsible to the minister. The best way to ensure that the minister is comfortable with those appointments is to leave things as they are at the present time, with the minister having the final say. But I can assure the House that anyone whose name is put forward will be reviewed in the same manner as everyone else. The House does not have to be concerned about the quality, capability and competency of those with whom the government fills the positions.

[Agriculture, December 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I again remind the hon. member that the United States has not yet made the decision that he would obviously like it to make. It should be pointed out that he has made that assumption and western wheat growers and farmers should note that.

I repeat, the Canadian government and the minister have made our views very clear to the United States as far as how we would view its imposition of end use certificates. That discussion will continue and we will await its reaction to our views.