Leon Benoit

[Violence Against Women, December 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any doubt that everyone in the House abhors violence, whether it is against women or against anyone else. There is no doubt about that.

I have heard a recurring theme here today. It is a theme, it seems to me, to make all of us feel guilty, especially men. This theme runs through the Canadian Human Rights Act, through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and through other legislation that has been directed against men and in particular white men.

I would like to ask a rhetorical question of the minister. Is this fair? Is it not time to talk about violence against anyone as a serious matter? Is it not time to deal with the criminal who is committing the violence and deal to some extent with the potential criminals who are likely to commit violence? You do that best in a family setting. Instead of just trying to make men

particularly feel guilty, is it not a better approach to deal with the criminals and with the crime that is committed and with prevention through the family?

Instead of putting forward legislation that is damaging the family, destroying the family, instead give the family fair treatment under our tax regulations, under our social program system and under other areas of law, particularly under the minister's control.

I have one further part to this question concerning gun control. If the gun control the minister is proposing prevents violent crime, will the minister take personal responsibility for any crime that is committed once these laws are in place? Will the minister, when realizing that this gun control legislation totally fails, take the next step which is confiscation of all firearms?

[Canadian Wheat Board, December 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, section 17(4) of the Canadian Wheat Board Act states: "It is the duty of the board to exercise direction and supervision over the administrative conduct of an election of members of the advisory committee". Therefore the role of the commissioners is parallel that of Elections Canada in a federal election.

Several commissioners by promoting the point of view of one group of candidates violated the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Will the minister call for the resignation of all commissioners who actively campaigned during the period leading up to the election of the Canadian Wheat Board advisory committee?

[Canadian Wheat Board, December 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister of agriculture defended commissioners of the Canadian Wheat Board by stating that they participated in

public meetings by "discussing a broad variety of aspects pertaining to the marketing of western Canadian grain".

The minister also said: "None of the commissioners were actively involved in any campaign for the advisory committee". It seems curious that the minister did not see the article written by commissioner Richard Klassen in various farm papers promoting not a variety of views but one particular view on the Canadian Wheat Board.

Will the minister review the actions of Mr. Klassen and the other commissioners to see which commissioners violated the stance of political neutrality?

[Canadian Wheat Board, December 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday the results of the Canadian Wheat Board advisory elections were made public. It is not a surprise that less than 40 per cent of farmers turned out to vote for these largely symbolic positions. It is a surprise that leading up to this election Lorne Hehn, the chief commissioner for the Canadian Wheat Board, campaigned actively for a group of candidates who had a specific political agenda.

Does the minister of agriculture condone the fact that the chief commissioner who is supposed to be politically neutral campaigned actively during the advisory committee elections?

[Canada Grain Act, December 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on Motion No. 6. The purpose of this motion is to add to transportation requirements for grain being shipped out of Canada the stipulation that unless an exemption has been provided for under the act which is already available, that the seller of the grain, the farmers in most cases, be provided with documentation stating the weight, dockage and quality of the grain. That is the intent.

There is a concern no doubt that when farmers load their trucks, as the hon. member just explained, not knowing the grade, the weight and the dockage then they are trusting that the people at the other end will give the proper payment for the commodity. That is a concern. Who would like to see a truckload containing $10,000 or $20,000 worth of commodity in extreme cases going out of the yard and not knowing exactly what they are going to be paid for?

However, I believe this amendment does not provide a solution. Instead, for farmers and businesses that are operating in this way with pickups on the farm or by producer cars, dealer cars, rail cars, it would make it very difficult if not virtually impossible for them to operate.

While I would like to know that every time farmers are shipping a load of grain off the farm they know they are getting paid for it, if we look at the practicalities it just is not possible. We have to recognize that. For that reason I oppose the amendment.

[Canada Grain Act, December 5th, 1994]

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-51, in Clause 13, be amended by adding after line 15, on page 8, the following:

"49.2 (1) A person who proposes to operate a primary or process elevator or carry on business as a grain dealer without being licensed under this Act may apply to the Commission to be exempted by order under paragraph 117( b ) from the requirement to be licensed.

(2) Unless the Commission has reason to believe that the elevator is not suited to handling grain or that the person is not a suitable person to carry on business as a grain dealer, the Commission shall make an order under paragraph 117( b ) exempting the person from the requirement to be licensed.

(3) A person who is exempted from being licensed under subsection (2) shall display prominently a statement in the prescribed form that the person is not licensed under the Canada Grain Act to operate an elevator or carry on business as a grain dealer a ) at every place of business operated by that person at which a contract for the delivery of grain may be executed; b ) at every place where grain may be delivered to the person as an elevator operator or grain dealer; and c ) on every document that is, relates to or solicits a contract to deliver or handle grain.''

(4) Section 83 does not apply to a person who is exempted from being licensed under subsection (2).

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-51, in Clause 33, be amended by deleting lines 9 to 15, on page 15.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-51 be amended by deleting Clause 34.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to these three motions which have been put forward by the Reform Party.

The purpose of Motion No. 3 is to allow grain dealers or the operators of primary or process elevators the ability to opt out of licensing under the Canada Grain Act. This amendment would remove from these operators all of the requirements and restrictions under the Canada Grain Act.

This amendment also imposes certain conditions for opting out to make sure that it is very clear to people using these services that this particular dealer or elevator operator is not licensed and therefore meets no bonding requirements under the Canada Grain Act. That is an important protection which I think is necessary to make this opting out work.

The Canadian Grains Commission must allow the opt out on the part of the dealer unless it can show good reason that this person should not be allowed to carry on business or that the facility is not a proper facility to carry on a business.

All we are talking about there is the individual who is applying to carry on business should have a good credit rating, one that would not interfere with allowing him to carry on a business, and should not have a criminal record which would restrict him, which the commission would feel would not allow him to carry on his own business.

Those are the only restrictions. Barring those restrictions an individual who wants to opt out should be allowed to opt out.

This amendment would also allow those who have opted out to deal under the Canadian Grains Commission with grading and inspection services, to use its services. Unfortunately, it was not possible as far as I could tell to make this amendment require that the Canadian Grains Commission allow these opted out individuals to use its inspection and grading services. I would hope that the Canadian Grains Commission would feel an obligation because these people are in the grains industry and the Canadian Grains Commission says it is important to have the integrity in our business by having grading and inspection services. I would hope that the Canadian Grains Commission would allow for this grading and inspection even for those who have opted out.

That is the purpose of this amendment and I believe that it would allow these opted out people to operate. They can of course provide security on their own through some type of private insurance, some type of bonding. It would also allow groups like the special grains people who have expressed a real concern with this bill to opt out and then, especially small dealers, opt out as a group and form their own group, put their own bonding or insurance in place. They could be under the umbrella of a special grains group for example. It would allow these individuals to operate still using official Canada grain names where it applies.

I believe the purpose of this amendment would be allowed under these changes. Still, it would depend on the goodwill of the Canadian Grains Commission to allow for the grading and inspection services to be used because these people would have opted out completely from the requirements under the Canada Grains Act. That briefly is amendment number three. The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster is going to speak later specifically about the special grains end of it later.

I think we can talk about Motions Nos. 7 and 8 together. Both of these motions are simply there to delete the changes that have been made through Bill C-51 to the act. What it would do is have these sections revert to the old language of the Canada Grains Act which does not specifically state that the governor in council, the cabinet, has the power to overrule the Canadian Grains Commission in these areas.

These two changes that were put into the Canada Grain Act under Bill C-51 specifically state that cabinet does have the power to overrule the Canadian Grains Commission.

It is political interference with a body that is supposed to be an arm's length body, a regulatory body. Those who are in favour of making the change under Bill C-51 which gives the cabinet the final say state that really all it does is give cabinet a power that it has over the entire Canada Grain Act anyway. That is true to some extent because the cabinet does have control. The minister and the cabinet do have control of the Canada Grain Act.

When I was in committee my question to the people in the Canadian Grains Commission who administer this act was why put these amendments in Bill C-51 which specifically designates this power to cabinet. I was given no answer.

All I am asking is that these powers which are specified under these section of Bill C-51 are again left out as they originally were in the act. I cannot understand why the Liberal Party would oppose this change. I would like to trust that the exclusion of this was an oversight on the part of the people who drafted this new legislation. The only other reason for adding it is to give cabinet hands on, more direct control over the Canadian Grains Commission in these specific areas of the act. That is the only reason to leave them in.

I would ask for support from all parties in the House.

[Canada Grain Act, December 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Motions Nos. 5 and 6 do deal with a very similar topic area, but the member is absolutely correct. I just spoke on Motion No. 6. A lot of the same rationale does apply to Motion No. 5. It is virtually the same rationale except we are not talking about transportation. We are talking about paperwork. The debate I have just given applies if it is translated to paperwork instead of transportation.

[Canada Grain Act, December 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on the three amendments put forth by the hon. member for Mackenzie.

The purpose of Motion No. 2 is to limit the time period for a grain dealer to meet the paper requirements to 180 days from the flexible type of arrangement under the Canada Grain Act right now. I do believe flexibility is needed.

The Canadian Grain Commission has to be given the power to set different lengths of time for the different transportation situations and for the different types of dealers in the industry. It takes and requires that flexibility. The 180 days would end up setting a maximum which is too long for some grains and may be too short in the rare case. Flexibility is needed.

We cannot support this motion because that flexibility is needed for the commission to operate properly.

The intent of the motion is good. However we must consider the Canadian Grain Commission's overzealous enforcement in some cases and its unwise laxness in others as in the case of ensuring that companies are operating within the bonding level. While those concerns are there with some of the past dealings of the Canadian Grain Commission I believe it does need the flexibility in this case. Therefore we will oppose this motion.

Motion No. 4 adds primary elevators to the list of terminal and transfer elevators in terms of facilities where the seller will have top priority. If the company that is operating should become bankrupt or insolvent the seller has the top priority, the first right to receive payment for grain that he has in storage in those facilities. This is a good amendment.

It never did make sense to me that a farmer with grain in an elevator of a company that went bankrupt and was out of business would not have the first right to receive payment for his grain that was sitting in that facility. That is the case right now. Therefore we do support the amendment.

Motion No. 5 adds the additional stipulation that in cases where no official Canada grade name is applicable to a grain under the Canada Grain Act, then the grain dealer shall immediately issue a receipt stating the name, the value and the dockage of the grain.

While its intentions are good, this amendment will make it virtually impossible for speciality crop dealers along with others to operate. This is especially so in cases where farmers are loading directly on to a dealer car or a producer car or for truck pick up in the yard and these shipments are going into the United States. In cases like that it would make it virtually impossible for the sellers, the farmers and the dealer to do business.

This recommendation restricts too much. Again the intention is good in that the concerns the member has are legitimate. In some cases now grain is being loaded on trucks without a grade given and without a value assigned.

If that grain does not make it to its destination, what compensation can the farmer get? What proof has the farmer that the grain has been shipped other than the bill of lading, which a farmer should get from a trucker before loading?

In the case of loading directly on a rail car, whether it be a dealer car or a producer car, it is just a copy of the paperwork that the farmer sends to the company and the Canadian Grain Commission. The company they are dealing with has not really been verified by anyone. How much weight would that carry in legal terms? Probably very little.

In practical terms, how is the farmer going to weigh the grain that goes on to the car? How is the farmer going to weigh the grain that is put on a truck and is moving into the United States? There is no practical way.

The cars of course are weighed when they go over the first scale on the track but in terms of grade and dockage, that has to be determined from the spill. In case of a spill, samples can be taken from the product.

My personal experience with this is from people I have talked to who have had spills. One happened a couple of years ago by Innisfree in my constituency. The farmer felt that the compensation was fair. Dockage and grade was taken from the spill. A weight had not been taken but the farmer was paid out at the maximum load that was allowed on the car. Therefore the railways have treated farmers fairly in this regard.

For those reasons I oppose this amendment.

[Canada Grain Act, December 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment brought forward by the hon. member this morning. From the parliamentary secretary's statement it seems he really supports the motion as well.

This motion does not take final authority to make the appointments from cabinet. All the motion does is give the agriculture standing committee the power to discuss and to recommend. I do not believe there is any disagreement and the Liberals should support the amendment.

The amendment allows the agriculture and agri-food committee to recommend names to cabinet for the Canada Grains Council's chief and assistant chief commissioners. Our party supports this because it will allow for discussions to take place, at least in the standing committee, which is better than only in cabinet.

Even with a Liberal dominated committee, as the committees are now, it would still give opposition parties the ability to put forward suggestions and to talk about the qualifications or the lack of qualifications of these appointments.

Where Reform and Bloc members do not agree with the appointments the Liberals are making, we can talk about it in committee and get some public involvement in the discussion. It would make it more difficult for government to make appointments strictly based on patronage. It would take that aspect out of it to a large extent. At least if the minister did make appointments strictly based on patronage and the qualifications of the person appointed were not there, then the public could make him pay the price because there would be open discussion.

I would like to close by asking a question of the parliamentary secretary. Who could possibly oppose a motion which will provide for more discussion of these appointments and still leave the final authority to appoint with cabinet? I think I heard the parliamentary secretary say that so why would he or his party oppose the motion? They should not, based on what he has said.

[Agriculture, December 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as I expected, the minister has done absolutely nothing on this issue. The United States has not made the decision yet therefore it is not urgent.

Why has the government done nothing? I would expect that the reason is that it could be wanting to protect the Canadian Wheat Board at the expense of farmers. For the Canadian Wheat Board end user certificates only involve slight inconvenience, while for the farmers it will put an end to their market in the United States.

Why has the minister once again chosen to avoid the real issue which is reform of the Canadian Wheat Board, a change which he has acknowledged farmers want, by letting American foreign policy solve the problems for him here at home?