36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 82
CONTENTS
Friday, March 27, 1998
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
1005
| CANADA GRAIN ACT
|
| Bill C-26. Second reading
|
| Hon. Hedy Fry |
| Mr. John Harvard |
1010
1015
1020
1025
1030
1035
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1040
1045
1050
1055
| STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
| MPS VERSUS PAGES HOCKEY GAME
|
| Mr. David Pratt |
1100
| TECHNOLOGY PARTNERSHIPS CANADA
|
| Mr. Paul Steckle |
| DEHYDRATION INDUSTRY
|
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
| IMMIGRATION
|
| Mr. John McKay |
| AGRICULTURE
|
| Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. John Duncan |
1105
| MEMBER FOR SHERBROOKE
|
| Mr. Guy St-Julien |
| ICE STORM 1998
|
| Mr. Hec Clouthier |
| BRITISH COLUMBIA BYELECTION
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| WORLD THEATRE DAY
|
| Mrs. Monique Guay |
| INFRASTRUCTURE
|
| Mr. John Harvard |
1110
| HEPATITIS C
|
| Ms. Bev Desjarlais |
| BRITISH COLUMBIA
|
| Mr. Mac Harb |
| COMMISSION ON FUTURE OF MIRABEL AIRPORT
|
| Mr. Maurice Dumas |
| JUDICIAL SYSTEM IN RESTIGOUCHE REGION
|
| Mr. Jean Dubé |
| THE KIDNEY FOUNDATION
|
| Mr. Joseph Volpe |
1115
| ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
| HEPATITIS C
|
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Mr. Joseph Volpe |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Mr. Joseph Volpe |
| Mr. Grant Hill |
| Mr. Joseph Volpe |
| Mr. Ken Epp |
1120
| Mr. Joseph Volpe |
| Mr. Ken Epp |
| Mr. Joseph Volpe |
| OPTION CANADA
|
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1125
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| BANKING
|
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| Ms. Alexa McDonough |
| Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
| PENSIONS
|
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
1130
| Mr. Mark Muise |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Mr. Mike Scott |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| COMMISSION ON FUTURE OF MIRABEL AIRPORT
|
| Mr. Michel Guimond |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
1135
| Mr. Michel Guimond |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| SHIPPING
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| Mr. Jay Hill |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| VARENNES TOKAMAK
|
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
| Hon. Christine Stewart |
| Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
1140
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| TRANSPORT
|
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| Ms. Val Meredith |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| HERBICIDES
|
| Mr. René Laurin |
| Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
| TOURISM
|
| Ms. Susan Whelan |
| Mr. Walt Lastewka |
1145
| ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
|
| Mr. Darrel Stinson |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| Mr. Derrek Konrad |
| Hon. Sheila Copps |
| DISABILITY PENSIONS
|
| Mr. Yvon Godin |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Gordon Earle |
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
1150
| HIGHWAYS
|
| Mr. André Harvey |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| Mr. André Harvey |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| FORESTRY
|
| Mr. Benoît Serré |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| TAXATION
|
| Mr. Eric Lowther |
| Hon. Jim Peterson |
1155
| COAST GUARD RADIO STATION
|
| Mr. René Canuel |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
|
| Mr. Pat Martin |
| Hon. Ralph E. Goodale |
| FISHERIES
|
| Mr. Charlie Power |
| Hon. David Anderson |
| NATIONAL DEFENCE
|
| Mr. Robert Bertrand |
1200
| Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
| RAILWAYS
|
| Mr. Lee Morrison |
| Hon. David M. Collenette |
| POINTS OF ORDER
|
| Big Bob
|
| Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw |
| ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
| ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
1205
| GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| HOUSE COMMITTEES
|
| Justice and Human Rights
|
| Mr. John McKay |
| PETITIONS
|
| Nuclear Weapons
|
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
| Goods and Services Tax
|
| Mr. Bill Gilmour |
| Prostate Cancer
|
| Mr. John Cummins |
| QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
| Mr. Peter Adams |
| Hon. Marcel Massé |
| Mr. John Cummins |
1210
| GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
| CANADA GRAIN ACT
|
| Bill C-26. Second reading
|
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1215
1220
| Ms. Hélène Alarie |
1225
| Mr. Pat Martin |
1230
1235
1240
| Mr. Bob Kilger |
| Motion
|
| Mr. Roy Bailey |
1245
| Mr. John Harvard |
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1250
| Mr. Gerald Keddy |
1255
| Mr. Jay Hill |
1300
| Mr. John Harvard |
| Appendix
|
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 82
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, March 27, 1998
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1005
[English]
CANADA GRAIN ACT
Hon. Hedy Fry (for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food)
moved that Bill C-26, an act to amend the Canada Grain Act and
the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties
Act and to repeal the Grain Futures Act, be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): 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.
1010
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.
1015
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.
1020
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.
1025
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.
1030
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.
1035
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to Bill C-26. As
outlined by the parliamentary secretary, it is an act to amend
the Canada Grain Act and the Agriculture and Agri-Food
Administrative Monetary Penalties Act and to repeal the Grain
Futures Act.
I challenge government members across the floor to truly and
carefully listen to what farmers have to say about Bill C-26. The
parliamentary secretary spoke long and eloquently about the
consultative process that led up to Bill C-26, but I believe the
job is only half done.
While it is true the government has a dismal track record when
it comes to listening to either farmers or the Canadian people, I
believe it has a chance to partially redeem itself through the
legislation. On behalf of farmers I encourage the government to
seize that opportunity.
They have a chance to seriously consider concerns that producers
of special crops have about this very complex bill. After all,
that is what MPs are supposed to be doing here. Reformers place
very heavy emphasis on consultation and feedback from Canadians.
Reformers base their policies on what voters have indicated are
their wishes. We consult, listen and then we consult again. The
result is a product that provides the most accurate reflection of
the will of the people ever seen in the Chamber.
Consensus building is never easy but it will always produce
better legislation than simply responding to lobbyists, special
interest groups or bureaucrats, which seems to be the Liberal
method of drafting policy. The parliamentary secretary referred
to the consultations he believes and the government believes have
taken place, but I believe the job is not yet done.
It is high time Liberal MPs gave this process a try. I realize
it is a little against their natural tendencies but they might be
surprised to find some pleasure out of newly found democratic
ways. From personal experience I can attest it is a great
feeling to know one is accurately reflecting the views of
constituents and those of Canadians.
It is due to this need for feedback and consultation that Reform
MPs have given tentative support to Bill C-26. I describe that
support as tentative because it is in the early days yet. The
debate and analysis of the legislation has only just begun.
While at the outset it appears as though parts of the
legislation may reap positive results in the form of increased
financial security for producers of special crops, we have yet to
hear from the majority of those producers and from other
stakeholders affected by the legislation. We have yet to hear
from the majority of producers of beans, buckwheat, corn, faba
beans, lentils, mustard seed, peas, safflower seed, soybeans,
sunflower seed and triticale. The same goes for any other party,
and there are other parties, that feel the legislation will touch
them as well.
It is members of these groups who are the experts. We must
listen to their expert opinions on how Bill C-26 will affect
their livelihoods. I have personally written to a number of
these groups which represent special crops farmers asking them to
send me their praise or their criticisms of the bill. I have
also sent an open letter to the editor of the Western
Producer inviting persons affected by the legislation to share
their views with me. Hopefully it will find room in its next
publication to print my appeal for input.
This will kick-start a process of consultation, an ongoing
process that I am confident will result in some concrete
proposals to actually improve Bill C-26. This consultative
process must be given the opportunity to achieve results. That
means that when the bill goes to the Standing Committee on
Agriculture and Agri-Food all members of that committee must be
ready and willing to give sufficient time and opportunity for
witnesses to come forward with their opinions and proposals.
Unfortunately this is not something we simply expect to happen.
It should be something we should be able to expect as part of our
democratic parliamentary process.
However the government has shown us time and time again that this
process can be manipulated and mutilated to the point that
democracy can barely be seen.
1040
For those who are unfamiliar with the sad story of Bill C-4, I
will tell them how that bill was rammed through committee stage.
Grain farmers and farm groups whose livelihoods depend upon
reform of the Canadian Wheat Board were given less than two
weeks, or just six short meetings in Ottawa, to tell MPs on the
agriculture committee what was wrong with Bill C-4. They were
lumped together, up to four at a time, in a round table style
presentation. These stakeholders who have the right to have
their views heard by elected representatives were barely squeezed
in to the Liberal members' agenda and once they were before the
committee their comments were virtually ignored and their
expertise was disregarded.
Reform MPs on the committee, including myself, collectively had
just seven minutes to question witnesses to garner a complete
understanding of their position. By the time the sixth and final
committee meeting allotted for Bill C-4 came along, it was
apparent that Liberal committee members had no intention of
making any of the substantive changes required.
In less than two hours the entire bill was analysed clause by
clause and returned to the House, not as improved legislation
that reflected farmer feedback but as the same ineffective
unanimously despised bill that was tabled by the minister
responsible for the wheat board in the first place.
Since it had been immediately apparent that amendments would not
be given fair consideration at committee, my Reform colleagues
and I chose to table our amendments at report stage, hoping that
all MPs in the House would take the time to thoroughly consider
them.
What did the Liberals think of the amendments that were derived
by farmers? They thought they were a waste of time. The
government invoked time allocation and cut off debate on Bill
C-4. Consultation was certainly not to get in the way of the
government's tight schedule.
You can understand, Mr. Speaker, why I challenge government
members to truly consult with farmers on Bill C-26. I am
understandably sceptical. I am concerned for farmers. I am
concerned that their voices will be ignored as they were during
the debate on Bill C-4.
At this point I have little doubt that my Reform colleagues and
I will be proposing amendments to Bill C-26 either at the
agriculture committee or at report stage in the Chamber. Certain
problems with the bill are already apparent through the limited
feedback we have received thus far. As I mentioned, even if the
government is not ready to consult with farmers Reformers are.
I am looking forward to the responses to my invitation to
comment on Bill C-26. Based on those responses if the majority
of farmers support the bill we will know it. If the majority of
farmers oppose the bill we will also know that.
I have a number of preliminary concerns about Bill C-26 that I
believe should be addressed in coming days along with the
concerns we will hear from farmers. One of the most worrisome
aspects of Bill C-26, which I hope can be addressed through
amendments, is the lack of details outlining how the special
crops industry insurance plan will function. Instead of having
these details put in place by parliament, meaning that they will
undergo the scrutiny and debate of MPs and farmers, regulations
will be put in place. Regulations are not subjected to the
consultation and approval required for legislation.
Passing Bill C-26 with the details of the insurance plan missing
is like signing a blank cheque. I am not prepared to sign off
the legislation without at least setting up some essential
parameters for the operation of the insurance plan. Perhaps the
government felt this task is too onerous or too complicated to be
included in the bill.
I assure the government and the minister of agriculture that
producers of special crops will be willing to meet that
challenge. There is too much at stake to avoid the particulars
and leave them to be determined through regulations. Farmers'
interests need to be protected.
For example, the insurance levy requires limitations. The
special crops rural initiative program or SCRIP committee, which
includes producers and processors from the three prairie
provinces, made a number of recommendations in the April 1996
report, many of which are contained in the bill as the
parliamentary secretary outlined.
However, the SCRIP committee recommended that the insurance levy
remain under 1% of the gross value of grain sale proceeds but
there is no clause to reflect this limit in Bill C-26.
1045
I cannot be content nor can farmers to rely on the minister's
word or assurances that in future regulations the levy will not
surpass 1%. Bill C-26 requires more certainty on this issue and
on many other particulars of the insurance plan.
Another concern arises from experiences that tell us that
government interference in agriculture can often be a hindrance
to progress. Bureaucracy and farming do not mix. Whenever
possible, the market and the private sector must be allowed to
determine an industry's direction. There are two examples in
this legislation that run opposite to this philosophy.
The first is that the Canadian Grain Commission will run the
insurance plan. Perhaps during the formative months that the
plan is being established the CGC could play a stabilizing role
as administrator. However, there is no reason that legislation
should not call for the eventual return of the plan to one of the
producer groups. The insurance plan runs the risk of becoming
bogged down in the infamous government bureaucracy.
In a related issue, the insurance plan is insured by the Export
Development Corporation, a federal government institution. Why
not allow a private insurance company to act as the insurer? It
is an option that must be investigated. It is often found that
private companies have premiums competitive to premiums charged
by the federal government to ensure an insurance plan. If that
is the case then farmers and taxpayers would be better off if a
private company were chosen.
The Reform Party favours fostering the development of private
sector management strategies in the Canadian agricultural
industry. We need less government interference in agriculture.
We need to support an increase in private enterprise.
Further concerns will no doubt arise over the levy. The CGC
says the initial levy will be set at .0038 or almost four-tenths
of 1% which is slightly higher than the SCRIP committee had
originally suggested. There will be questions about this
increase in the levy. The CGC also says that one-third of the
levy will be consumed by administrative costs and two-thirds will
go toward the premium on the fund. Minimizing the administrative
costs will be a priority for farmers and Reform MPs. It has also
been suggested that the deductible be set at 20%.
I remind everyone that all these figures mentioned are not in
the legislation. They were either contained in the SCRIP report
or in a press release issued by the CGC and this gives cause for
great concern. While it may be difficult to specify precise
numbers and percentages, farmers will want some assurance through
legislation that rigid guidelines are in place to prevent the
plan from becoming too expensive or too administratively
burdened.
Even though levy rates deductibles are not found in any clause
in Bill C-26 government MPs better be prepared to accept the
reality that producers and processors will demand the opportunity
to discuss them. They will not be willing to leave the fate of
their livelihoods to be determined solely by regulation.
I refer to some of the feedback that has come. This legislation
is really in its infancy even though there has been a
consultative process under way for quite some time. This
legislation is quite new to this place. Despite what the
parliamentary secretary indicated during his remarks, I found
many producers are not really aware that this legislation even
exists at this point. We have some feedback coming to us about
Bill C-26. I would like to read into the record a couple of
letters I have received from groups.
The first is from the Foam Lake marketing club, a group of
producers from Foam Lake, Saskatchewan.
1050
In a February 19, 1998 letter to the minister on Bill C-26 they
say:
We are very concerned with the SCRIP portion of Bill C-26 and as
such, request that it be withdrawn for further study or
substantially amended. Our request is supported by the following
points:
1) There appears to have been a calculated effort by the CGC and
the SCRIP committee to develop their proposal in secret.
This is quite contrary to the opening remarks of the
parliamentary secretary about the great consultative process that
the government went through.
There are very few farmers who know that the SCRIP bill is about
to become law, let alone know the contents.
2) There have been several large membership organizations which
have rejected SCRIP at their annual meetings, (1) the
Saskatchewan Canola Growers Association, (2) the Western Canadian
Wheat Growers Association, (3) the Saskatchewan Pulse Crop
Development Board and (4) the Western Barley Growers Association.
3) The SCRIP proposal, while being promoted as voluntary, is
nothing short of a worst case example of negative billing. This
of course could be made acceptable if it was made truly voluntary
for both the special crop growers and the grain dealers.
4) The key reason for the various commodity groups rejecting the
SCRIP proposal was the suggestion in the CGC briefing notes that
cereal and oilseed crops may well be added at a later date. It is
obvious from this that the federal government is anxious to
absolve itself of the security responsibilities which are clearly
spelled out in the Canada Grain Act.
On point 4, I believe the author is talking about this bill as
being more unloading, more downloading of government
responsibilities to the producers. The letter goes on:
5) The other very troubling aspect of this proposal (which is
left up to the regulators) is the fact that farmers will be
paying a tax rather than a competitive cost item which would
normally be built into the grain buyer's basis. Our industry has
far too many regulated cost items which are void of any
competitive forces.
What the author is referring to is competition. There should be
open competition. Any time we get a situation where we have only
one person supplying the insurance for an industry, without
competition, we run the risk that the premiums and administration
costs could be to high.
6) The final concern we would like to raise with you is the
recent aggression which has been initiated by the CGC. Special
crops dealers have indicated to us there have been a number of
instances where the CGC has instructed the RCMP to seize records
and close businesses down. These RCMP raids would appear to be
linked directly to the SCRIP legislation. We urge you, Mr.
Minister, to call off these scare tactics and allow the special
crops industry to advance and prosper as it has done without the
onerous regulations which are inherent in the grain industry in
western Canada.
The Foam Lake Marketing Club is a group of 20 commercial farmers
who meet on a regular basis to keep abreast of commodity market
trends and advance our vision for a less regulated and a more
market responsive agriculture industry in western Canada.
We trust you will respect our recommendation for withdrawal of
SCRIP or make the necessary amendments to have it completely
voluntary.
Sincerely,
Bill Cooper, President
I briefly want to refer to another copy of a letter that came to
me from the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association. It is
also about this particular legislation. As I indicated, we are
starting to get some feedback about Bill C-26.
This letter states:
Re: an act to amend the Canada Grain Act and the Agriculture and
Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act and to the repeal
the Grain Futures Act
I am writing today specifically on the issue of the Special
Crops Rural Initiative Program (SCRIP) proposed under Bill C-26.
The attached resolution, passed by delegates to the Western
Canadian Wheat Growers Association (WCWGA) annual meeting earlier
this year, clearly spells out the position of our association on
this program. Similar resolutions were also passed by delegates
to the Saskatchewan Pulse Crop Development Board, Saskatchewan
Canola Growers Association and the Western Barley Growers
Association this year.
Since the passage of the resolution, the WCWGA took the
initiative to meet with the Canadian Grain Commission (CGC)
President Barry Senft and his staff as well as several members of
the SCRIP committee to discuss our members' concerns. Our
primary concern with the program is with the insurance plan. The
mandatory payment of the levy at source is, in our opinion, a
form of negative billing, and will be perceived as a tax on the
farm community. We would therefore suggest that the program be
amended to ensure participation in the program is truly voluntary
for both the special crop grower and the special crop dealer.
1055
It goes on in that light. Another concern he refers to is
on page 2:
Because a significant number of wheat grower members are growers
of special crops, we are also compelled to comment on the fact
that the CGC is considering including cereal and oilseed crops in
this program. If in fact the proposed legislation is all
encompassing and only requires regulatory additions to include
wheat, other cereals, and oilseeds, then we must demand that the
SCRIP section of Bill C-26 be repealed.
That letter was signed by Larry Maguire, president of the
Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association.
As I noted during my remarks, what we have seen is some feedback
already starting to filter back.
I am not sure I can wrap up before question period. I have some
other stories I would like to relate concerning this legislation.
One of the concerns about this legislation and the fact that
there is a need to have insurance and bonds posted by grain
dealers, in this case special crops dealers, is that farmers
always run the risk of having their product sold to a company
that goes bankrupt. The farmer is then left on the hook.
Unfortunately we have seen that happen a few times.
I was told about a case where a company called Klemmer Seeds in
Saskatchewan a couple of years ago went into receivership and
some farmers were left on the hook and government and taxpayers
had to come to their assistance.
Those of involved in agriculture and follow the agricultural
industry are very well aware of what happened in the last week or
so with Palliser Grain going into receivership.
Reform MPs from Saskatchewan showed great initiative recently by
holding and hosting an open forum. They invited farmers from
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan and approximately 300 showed up. I was
also at this forum and spoke to the farmers. Many of the farmers
approached me with concerns about Palliser Grain going into
receivership. Their immediate concern was for the grain the
company had in storage.
I would just like to give a bit of an indication of the
magnitude of the disaster. I had a couple of farmers tell me
that they were unfortunately in a position where they had eight
carloads of flax that they had unloaded sometime last fall. The
value of this, to put this in some perspective for a reasonably
mid sized farm, is about $200,000. This flax was with Palliser
and they are unclear at this point, because they had opted for a
deferred payment, whether they are going to be covered by the
bond that Palliser was carrying.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry but I
must interrupt the member for Prince George—Peace River.
However, the member will have almost 16 minutes remaining after
question period.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
MPS VERSUS PAGES HOCKEY GAME
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
Wednesday night the quiet community of Sandy Hill here in Ottawa
reverberated with the sound of cannonading slap shots and the
roar of a partisan crowd.
The event was the annual MPs versus the pages hockey game. It
is the only game in town where opposition and government members
can be seen skating in the same direction and working toward the
same goal.
The pages put together a solid effort. Led by their very
capable goalie Julian Ovens, they were energetic and
enthusiastic.
1100
The TSN turning point came when the pages, with four MPs in the
penalty box, were unable to score. Spurred on by the
inspirational play of the member for Nunavut, the MPs finally
triumphed with a score of six to five. But the pages had the
last laugh because yesterday I saw none of them limping around
with sore muscles.
* * *
TECHNOLOGY PARTNERSHIPS CANADA
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let
me set the record straight by congratulating successful companies
from British Columbia which this government is supporting through
Technology Partnerships Canada. Investments to date are over $57
million. This federal support is expected to create more than
4,800 jobs in B.C. These innovative companies include Ballard
Power Systems, Avcorp Industries, Western Star Trucks,
Dynamotive, Doyle Argosy (Coincard), Starvision Multimedia and
Paprican.
Federal government investments are helping to position these
B.C. companies as world leaders in the environment, information
technologies, aerospace and pulp and paper sectors. Together we
are working to support innovation and promote economic growth.
* * *
DEHYDRATION INDUSTRY
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
European subsidies are threatening Canadian jobs in the
dehydration industry, in particular in my riding of Prince Albert
where about two-thirds of Saskatchewan's capacity lies. This
week I met with representatives of the Canadian Dehydrators
Association who came to Ottawa because federal rail policies are
killing their business.
Unfair subsidization by the European common market already
creates problems for the industry. Our producers have already
lost the European market due to its subsidies and now they stand
to lose the Asian market as well.
In addition to the disadvantage caused by the subsidies,
unreliable piecemeal rail service undermines Canada's best
efforts to compete. They are not asking for subsidies, just for
the freedom to compete. Canadian dehydrators want economic
efficiencies to determine rail service in Canada and to ensure
grains are not unduly favoured at the expense of their industry.
* * *
IMMIGRATION
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
given your elevated status in life I do not know whether you have
occasion to take taxis to and from the Ottawa airport. However,
other members and I do and, in fact, there will be a rush for the
taxis in a short period of time. The likelihood is that I will
be picked up by a computer engineer from Sri Lanka, delivered to
the airport and then returned to my home by a science graduate
from Sri Lanka. I was delivered to my office building this
morning by a history graduate from Kenya.
Our greatest resources are our human resources. It is somewhat
scandalous that in this country we do not use our immigrants in a
more useful fashion which would allow them to contribute to our
country.
The legislative review entitled “Not Just Numbers” states the
following in recommendation No. 27: “The proposed
federal-provincial council on immigration protection should
establish access to trades and professions and foreign credential
recognition—”
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.
* * *
AGRICULTURE
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Middlesex Federation of Agriculture is one of the
leading farm organizations in southwestern Ontario. This
weekend, in what has become an annual event, Middlesex farmers
will meet with my colleagues from Perth-Middlesex,
Elgin-Middlesex-London and myself as well as the area provincial
member. The variety of issues for discussion will range from
international trade and farm finance to research investment and
rural development.
Ontario's agriculture industry is world class in management
technology and production, with more than $6.5 billion in farm
gate receipts in 1996. It is contributing nearly $22.2 billion
to the provincial GDP, employing 672,000 people.
Sound government policy is required to encourage the growth and
stability of agriculture. I look forward to working with the
Middlesex federation to ensure that agriculture is at the top of
the government's agenda.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the 1998 low salmon returns in British Columbia are a
direct result of shortfalls in returning four-year old spawning
salmon. The late returning Fraser River sockeye run was fished
out within 12 hours in 1994. The 1994 disaster led to a major
re-examination of DFO policy and gave a black eye to the
department. Now the minister is blaming some guy called El Niño
and a host of other things rather than accepting responsibility
for disastrous fishery management on both coasts, affecting the
livelihood of tens of thousands. This is despite clear evidence
to the contrary.
1105
Why is the minister refusing to accept responsibility and to
make the tough decisions?
The Liberals are an odd lot
Always hoping to change the plot
Campaigning for the byelection
They are hoping for a resurrection
But after Monday this fact they will dread
In B.C. the red heads are dead
* * *
[Translation]
MEMBER FOR SHERBROOKE
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
pay tribute to the member for Sherbrooke, the hon. Jean Charest,
who officially announced his—
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I
should remind him that we cannot name a member of Parliament.
Mr. Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to
the member for Sherbrooke, who officially announced his
candidacy for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Quebec.
The man from Sherbrooke can do it. He can bring people
together.
He is brave, honest and a diplomat.
We are proud of his decision. Today is a great day for the
people of Quebec and for the province's economic future.
Thanks Michèle, thanks to the people in the riding of
Sherbrooke, and thanks Jean. See you soon.
* * *
[English]
ICE STORM 1998
Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, many farmers including those from the great riding
of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke were hard hit by the January ice
storm, one of the greatest natural disasters in Canadian history.
The Government of Canada recognizes the magnitude of the losses
faced by these farmers and it is for this reason that the
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada along with his
provincial counterparts announced this morning that all farmers
in eastern Ontario will be eligible for compensation for ice
storm damage.
This package provides a further $20 million for economic
recovery for damages not covered by the DFAA. The governments of
Canada and Ontario agree to cost share this program on a 50:50
basis.
The total assistance being provided in eastern Ontario is
consistent with that provided for farmers in the Saguenay and Red
River disasters and to the support the Government of Canada is
giving to help with the effects of this tragic ice storm.
* * *
BRITISH COLUMBIA BYELECTION
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, British Columbians were greatly amused
yesterday at the spectacle of Liberal MPs from Ontario and Quebec
professing their love and concern for our province, but only
because there is a byelection under way.
They seemed so sincere as they read their prepared scripts and
almost pulled off this piece of fiction until question period.
In response to a patsy question from one of her own colleagues,
the Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and Status of Women
showed the true colours of the Liberals when she could not even
remember the name of the constituency where the byelection is
being held. This is truly remarkable considering that the
secretary of state represents a riding that is less than 20
kilometres from Port Moody—Coquitlam. This shows British
Columbians just how ignorant the Liberals really are about
British Columbia.
* * *
[Translation]
WORLD THEATRE DAY
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the theatre
world is celebrating these days. The International Theatre
Institute is celebrating its 50th anniversary. Its
representative in Quebec, the Conseil québécois du théâtre, is
marking its 15th anniversary.
Today is World Theatre Day. The Conseil québécois du théâtre
and the performers and craftspeople in Quebec theatre are taking
part in the various celebrations around the world. In this
connection, over 20 theatres in Quebec have organized free
activities to encourage sharing and discovery.
The eighth annual theatre congress, with this year's theme of
“Theatre: a collective art”, will be held this weekend at
Montreal's Maisonneuve CEGEP.
Performers and craftspeople will be invited to take part in
round tables and so will the public, the focus of and the
audience for the theatre.
I therefore urge Quebeckers to enter the world of theatre and
give it the support it needs to continue filling their lives
with dreams and magic.
* * *
[English]
INFRASTRUCTURE
Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood—Assiniboine, Lib.): 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.
1110
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.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
government announced an offer to compensate less than half of
those who contacted hepatitis C through the blood system. Over
30,000 people will suffer in poverty simply because they went to
a hospital for treatment and came out sicker than when they went
in.
The Canadian Hemophilia Society said this is not a compassionate
solution but a legalistic one. The Hepatitis C Society of Canada
calls it a compensation plan created in hell. The government has
forced hepatitis C sufferers to wait, to become embroiled in
legal wrangles and has ignored the Krever report recommendations
to compensate all victims.
The New Democratic Party urges the federal government to show
leadership on this issue and put additional money forward to
compensate all victims of this terrible tragedy equally rather
than pit one group of ill and suffering people against another.
* * *
BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the NDP Government of British Columbia promised to
deliver tax relief and a deficit of almost $200 million. It
sounds like something out of the Reform Party platform. Just
like Reform the B.C. government fails to understand that good
government means cleaning your house before you redecorate.
The priorities of Canadians in B.C. and across the country are
clear. They want governments to eliminate their deficit first
and then lower the tax and debt burden while improving our social
programs. Promising a tax cut while running a deficit is like
selling the house to save the furniture.
I wonder when the tail will stop wagging the dog. Is that as
good as it gets?
* * *
[Translation]
COMMISSION ON FUTURE OF MIRABEL AIRPORT
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, we Bloc members from the Lower Laurentians, in
conjunction with the hon. member for Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans,
tabled a brief during one of the hearings held by the commission
on the future of Mirabel airport.
The Bloc Quebecois cares about the survival of the airport and
the social and economic development of the Laurentians. We have
made several recommendations to the commission, including one
asking the concerned authorities to finish building highway 13 as
soon as possible in order to allow Mirabel to maintain the
highest level of economic activity.
We have recommended that ADM, Aéroports de Montréal, try to
attract companies to Mirabel and allow the use of the facilities
at an attractive price. For Mirabel airport to achieve its full
potential, it must diversify its economic operations and be given
a multi-sectoral mandate.
We deplore the fact that the federal government is not on the
Tardif commission, for it is responsible for the mess we are in.
* * *
JUDICIAL SYSTEM IN RESTIGOUCHE REGION
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, at times I
understand how people can become frustrated with politicians.
Take for instance a matter I have raised in this House: the
backlog of legal cases in the Restigouche region.
In this region, delays in court proceedings are so long that an
extra judge should be appointed to turn the situation around.
What are the Liberal politicians doing about it? They are passing
the buck from one level of government to the other.
On February 18, the Minister of Justice of New Brunswick made
the following comment “As you know, appointments to the Court of
Queen's Bench are the responsibility of the federal government.”
In Ottawa, on March 19, the parliamentary secretary to the
Minister of Justice made the following comment: “the matter is a
provincial responsibility.”
While the two levels of government are busy washing their hands
of the matter, delays at the Campbellton Court keep getting
longer. The people of the Restigouche region are being denied
their fundamental right to justice.
I urge the Minister of Justice to show leadership on this issue.
* * *
[English]
THE KIDNEY FOUNDATION
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to inform this House and all Canadians that March is
kidney month.
1115
The Kidney Foundation of Canada will again be focusing its
effort on educating the public regarding the importance of organ
donation.
An estimated 20,000 Canadians suffer from kidney failure.
Millions of others suffer from kidney related disorders. For
many Canadians a kidney transplant is their only option. Nearly
2,400 of 2,800 Canadians that were on the waiting list in 1996
were still waiting for kidney transplants by the end of that
year. A strategy to improve organ donation and distribution was
endorsed by federal, provincial and territorial health ministers.
I take this opportunity to encourage all Canadians to sign an
organ donor card and to support the Kidney Foundation of Canada.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
government today chose to exclude half the victims of the
hepatitis C tragedy from compensation. Twenty thousand victims
minimum are being excluded from the compensation package.
I am going to give the government the opportunity to explain
this to the Canadian public. Why does Pam Rasmussen of Nantom,
Alberta, who got hepatitis C from contaminated blood in 1985 not
get fair and just compensation?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member opposite has
taken a very calm approach to a very serious problem.
Ever since the Krever commission submitted its report and even
before, the Government of Canada, in collaboration with its
provincial counterparts in the health departments, has taken an
approach to deal with the issue on a fair and compassionate
basis.
The package that is now before Canadians represents just such an
approach. We hope people will take a look at the package as it
is and address it in the very many positive points that it
presents for victims of this tragedy.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
certain Pam Rasmussen will know that the parliamentary secretary
did not answer my question about why she is excluded. This is a
human tragedy, a major human tragedy, and the government is
viewing it only as a public relations damage control issue.
We received a document from them which says that they are
suppose to talk in compassionate terms but deliver nothing. I
want to know why the lawyers in the government won out over those
who surely must know that these victims deserve a compassionate,
fair settlement.
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, compassion and fairness are to be
seen in the package itself. There is an offer on the table
representing $1.1 billion that victims can access as well as an
estimated value of $1.6 billion for services in addition to those
that are regularly provided under Canada's health care system
through the provinces.
This represents in my view a very fair and compassionate address
to a problem that has been longstanding and that we want—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Macleod.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the leaked
strategy document says a huge amount to me. They know themselves
that this compensation package is a failure. Why else would they
try to exclude the victims from the microphone as the minister
makes his announcement? Why else would they try to say to those
victims “you cannot get anything if you were infected before
1985?”
Why did they choose a hard-hearted legal route rather than
extending the warm hand of compassion to those unfortunate
innocent victims?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is important to review some of
the details of the package that are there for consideration.
It is true this represents a combined negotiated approach. All
governments of Canada, all political parties of all stripes, have
come together to put an offer on the table to address the needs
of victims that were longstanding and were facing a long process
in the courts.
We all agreed including stakeholders that—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Elk Island.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, to this
government the lives of some hepatitis C victims are worth less
than those of others.
If people were affected in one year they are eligible; it if was
one year before they are not.
1120
My uncle died just two months ago. He is one of the faceless
names being callously dismissed. Why will the government not
show some caring and compensate these victims fairly, instead of
punishing them for dying at the wrong time?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I feel sorry for all those who
have suffered from this terrible tragedy. However I think it is
important that the member keep in mind that the estates of the
victims who have since passed on are also eligible in the
compensation package.
All governments of Canada of all political stripes have taken to
heart the need to address this issue in the best possible
fashion.
The member opposite ought to take a moment to reflect on the
fact this is something extremely positive that all victims can
access. Should they wish not—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Elk Island.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberals are spending money on hiring public relations
consultants and they are ignoring the victims. They have spent
more time drafting damage control plans like the one that was
leaked last night than they have consoling the dying.
Why will the government not compensate these victims instead of
fighting them in court and turning off their microphones at press
conferences?
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said a moment ago, the
compensation package that is on the table is one that all victims
can access.
It is those victims who regrettably are limited to a time when
we can identify the cause. Those who do not want to participate
in that package are quite free to proceed in the courts.
I remind the member and all members in the House that there is a
third party: all negotiated offers are subject to court approval.
Those who prefer to go a different route still have that option.
* * *
[Translation]
OPTION CANADA
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
January 8, 1998, the auditor general informed the Minister of
Canadian Heritage that he was not satisfied with the report
submitted in December 1997 by Option Canada.
The minister then ordered a new report, which she received on
March 20, but which was similar in every respect to the first
one.
Knowing that the auditor general will not be pleased with the
new report, since he already said that the December report was
inadequate, will the minister now demand a comprehensive report
to identify who got the contracts, at what time, to do what, and
when?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I already provided the House with over 100 pages of
information.
As soon as I received Option Canada's reply, I transmitted it to
the hon. member and to the auditor general. I am fully satisfied
that the requirements which had not been met originally have now
been met and that the case is closed.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
easy to make fun of taxpayers.
With the second report, we now know how much GST and QST Option
Canada paid. It is the only difference between the two reports.
Will the minister pledge to ask for a new report that will
answer the auditor general's question, which is “What was
actually done, produced and achieved” by Option Canada?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the PQ and the BQ are always griping and this is
unfortunate, because it is harmful to the Quebec and Canadian
economies.
An hon. members: Troublemakers.
Hon. Sheila Copps: Yes, troublemakers. If so, since we
provided all the information available, why did they not go after
Bernard Landry, who never followed up on the request made by
Jean-Marc Fournier regarding Plan O? Mr. Landry refused to provide
any documents. These people are the ones who do everything in
secret regarding Plan O. They are troublemakers.
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
We have a mystery. The
minister sent us a copy of a letter she had sent to the home of
Claude Dauphin, informing him that her officials had written his
lawyer. This letter is undated and fewer than three lines long.
On March 20, Option Canada wrote to the minister and referred to
another letter that is dated February 3 and contains a number of
questions. What is behind this new mess?
1125
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have here a letter. Unfortunately, it is a letter
that was written in Quebec City on November 28, 1996. It is
addressed to Jean-Pierre Vaillancourt, the man responsible for the
Commission sur l'accès à l'information.
The writer was trying to find out exactly what became of the
billions that were spent, siphoned off, by Quebec finance
minister, Bernard Landry. As things stand, they have been
refusing for two years—
Mr. Richard Marceau: Answer the question.
Hon. Sheila Copps: —to give any information whatsoever, while we
have provided over 100 pages to the Parliament of Canada.
Mr. Richard Marceau: Troublemaker.
Hon. Sheila Copps: They are the troublemakers.
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the deeper one
looks, the murkier it gets.
Through her bungling, is the minister taking part in the cover-up
that has been going on since 1995 and that was the reason the
auditor general said on January 20 that, as long as everything is
not out in the open, it will not be clear whether we are dealing
with a simple administrative oversight or real misappropriation
of funds?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, once again, all this party wants to do is stir up
trouble.
Mr. Richard Marceau: Give us an answer.
Hon. Sheila Copps: If trouble is what they want, let them go to
Minister Landry who, on December 19, 1996, used sections 19, 21,
22, 23, 24, 27, 37, 38 and 39 of the Access to Information Act
to refuse to give any information whatsoever about the billions
siphoned off for the sovereigntists' shady Plan O.
* * *
[English]
BANKING
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
The government refuses to hear the legitimate concerns of small
depositors, small businesses and smaller communities on the
megabank merger until after the task force on financial services
reports.
In stark contrast the government rolls out the red carpet to the
international financial elite. The government cannot wait to
fast track the WTO deal thereby throwing open Canada's borders to
foreign banks.
Why does the government hide behind the task force on financial
services when it comes to the megabank concerns of Canadian
citizens and Canadian communities but rushes to accommodate
foreign banks?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have a committee studying the problem and we are
waiting for the recommendations. A few months ago banks wanted
to have an approval right away and we said no, that they had to
wait until we had a report and that in the light of the report we
would make a decision.
It was very clear. They wanted to have an answer in the month
of February and we said “No, wait until we are ready and we will
be ready when the report comes to the government in the fall”.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister conveniently ignored the question about fast
tracking foreign banks.
If the financial services report is so important, why not defer
the foreign banks issue as well until after the task force
report?
Should we not consider foreign banks at the same that we
consider the megabank merger? Why does the government not cool
its jets on foreign banks legislation until after the financial
services task force report, or are the interests of Canadian
citizens and Canadian communities not as important to the
government as the interests of foreign banks and financial
elites?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not know how the member concludes that sort of
thing. At this time she says she is opposed to the merger but
she wants more competition. If she wants more competition we
should look at the possibility of having even more competition
through accepting some foreign banks.
The committee is studying all that. If the member has some
views to express she can go to the committee and her views, if
they are good views, will be reflected when the committee of the
House discusses these things.
* * *
PENSIONS
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, on February
3, I wrote to the hon. minister about a decision to change the
employment status of fishers and subsequent demand for
retroactive CPP payments effective January 1, 1997. Subsequently
I asked the minister to address this issue during question
period. I even submitted another letter on March 12, yet there
is no response.
Will the minister here and now commit to removing this
retroactivity request and agree to negotiate a more suitable
implementation date?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Human Resources Development
I assure the hon. gentleman that his representations are being
given serious consideration by the minister.
As I understand it, the minister has not been able to arrive at
a final conclusion on the matter but he does intend to respond to
the member at the earliest opportunity.
1130
Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Mr. Speaker, in the
meantime boat owners will have to fork out hundreds of thousands
of dollars to pay Revenue Canada, leading to numerous layoffs.
The tax program is slated to end August 1998, leaving thousands
of fishers and plant workers wondering how they are going to
survive. Both the Harrigan report and the standing committee on
fisheries report recommend the creation of a new post-TAGS
program. Is the minister of fisheries seriously considering the
creation of a post-TAGS program? If so, in what timeframe can we
expect a response?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member has raised an extremely
important question which is being addressed by a committee of
ministers headed up by the minister of human resources.
As the member is well aware, the issue is one that involves a
large number of plant workers as well as a smaller number of
actual fishermen. We hope we will be able to have that plan
in place in good time before the expiry of the existing TAGS
program in August of this year.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in the wake
of the tragic shooting on the Tsuu T'ina reserve we asked the
Indian affairs minister to investigate the social conditions on
that reserve, the root cause of this tragedy and so much misery
on reserves right across the country.
The minister, in keeping with her department's practice of denial
and concealment, digs her heals in and refuses.
Can the minister tell this House and people on the Tsuu T'ina
reserve why she is so opposed to a full public inquiry into the
democratic, fiscal and social conditions on the Tsuu T'ina
reserve?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, the minister of Indian affairs has
not only engaged the Tsuu T'ina in the process, she has engaged
the whole country in the process in terms of the follow-up to the
aboriginal report on the royal commission.
If the member is really interested in healing and reconciliation
he might follow the advice of the leadership of the aboriginal
community that has said this process should be allowed to carry
on in an independent fashion instead of pointing fingers in the
way that unfortunately the Reform Party has politicized this
tragedy.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if
the minister is referring to the Liberal puppet.
The minister talks about responding to the royal commission's
report. There were over 400 recommendations in that report and
they have acted only a handful of them. There is not one shred
of evidence that conditions on reserves in Canada are improving.
There is plenty of evidence to suggest that conditions are
getting worse.
What are they trying to hide? Why will they not commit here and
now to a full investigation into all the conditions on that
reserve that led to this terrible tragedy?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the tragic and sad thing is that the Reform Party
does not understand what democracy really is.
Grand Chief Phil Fontaine was elected in a democratic election
that was as democratic as the election that resulted in the
member's unfortunate arrival in the House of Commons.
The member and his party would be well advised to look to the
root causes of the healing process instead of imposing on the
Indian community a $1 billion cut in program funding, the kind of
cut they recommended in their last discussion paper.
* * *
[Translation]
COMMISSION ON FUTURE OF MIRABEL AIRPORT
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, March 26, the Tardif Commission began to hold its
hearings. This commission was created by the Government of Quebec
in order to work with the public in seeking potential solutions
to the mess created by the federal government at Mirabel airport
over the years.
My question is for the Minister of Transport. Since ADM is not
taking part in this commission, can the minister tell us why the
federal government is not a full member of this commission,
although it was formally invited?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is well aware that the responsibility
of Transport Canada toward the Montreal airports is restricted to
matters of safety and security, and the administration of leases
and regulations.
The regional development aspect is a matter for my colleague, the
Secretary of State for Economic Development for the Regions of
Quebec. He will be here Monday to answer questions.
At the present time, an observer has been appointed to the
Commission, and this person will act as an observer for
Transport Canada and for my colleague's Economic Development
Agency for the Regions of Quebec.
1135
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, they are passing the buck here.
I remind the minister that the federal government's
responsibility in this mess is obvious.
If the government refuses to take part in the Tardif Commission,
after pouring more than $250 million into Pearson airport in
Toronto, can it at least commit to creating a compensation fund
to facilitate getting Mirabel airport back on solid ground? That
is all we are asking, not charity, just fair treatment.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are always getting questions about fair treatment
from members of the Bloc Quebecois.
They refer to Toronto, which has indicated its intention to make
safety and general improvements, as have Calgary and Edmonton.
If these things are necessary for Mirabel and Dorval, we are
prepared to consider such improvements being subsidized by the
federal government.
* * *
[English]
SHIPPING
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the fisheries minister tried to justify his
discrimination against B.C. and Ontario of taxing them at four
times the rate in Quebec for oil shipping. He called it an
insurance policy against oil spills.
According to his own coast guard studies, the risk of an oil spill
in Ontario is 13 times less likely than a spill in Quebec ports.
Why has he ignored his own experts, his own studies, just so he
can continue taxing B.C. and Ontario at four times the rate of
Quebec?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the reason there is much less risk in
Ontario compared to the river in the Laurentian region is exactly
the same reason that the fees are higher. There is much less oil
shipped in that region. That is why there is much less risk.
The hon. member should know that the amount of money in question
is approximately one-fifth of a cent a litre for the 300,000
tonnes of fuel which come into Ontario. He should also
recognize the impact of a major spill, if it occurred in the
fresh water system in Ontario, what that might do to drinking
water. He should recognize that and get up in the House an
apologize for his—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Prince George—Peace
River.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, what this minister needs to recognize is the importance
of equity across this land.
Ontario's consumer minister has also written to the fisheries
minister complaining about this discrimination. Let us call it
what it is. He says that Ontario finds it unacceptable that the
federal government would consider a regime under which Ontario
consumers would be required to subsidize consumers in other
regions of the country.
How many more people have to call this practice discriminatory
before the minister stops taxing Ontario and B.C. at four times
the rate of Quebec?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and the other member from
the Reform who questioned this simply refuse to understand that
in each region the costs are related to the charges made. There
is no subsidy from region to region, none whatsoever.
It is entirely in Ontario. It is entirely private sector
response organizations that we are talking about. There is no
question of taxation.
If we were to risk having a major spill in the fresh waters of
Ontario without having adequate response organizations to take
care of it we would be totally irresponsible, as is the Reform
Party.
* * *
[Translation]
VARENNES TOKAMAK
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of the Environment.
A few weeks ago, the Minister of the Environment said, in
response to a question by my colleague from Rosemont, and I
quote “the federal government is looking into investing more in
renewable energies both in research and development and in our
own energy consumption”.
How does the minister reconcile her statement with the fact that
her government decided to cut by $7.2 billion its annual
contribution to the Tokamak project in Varennes, which does
research on nuclear fusion, the most promising form of renewable
energy?
[English]
Hon. Christine Stewart (Minister of the Environment,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the context of climate change the
government is doing an analysis and review with all our partners
to see how we as a federal government can work with our partners
to bring about new measures to reduce greenhouse gases.
We will be looking at all the mechanisms available to the
federal government.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in this
issue, the federal government is saying it wants to encourage
the development and marketing of CANDU reactors, which are so
unsafe that Ontario Hydro is forced to close a number of its
reactors and contemplate using highly polluting generating
stations.
1140
In the light of the agreements Canada signed in Rio and Kyoto,
will the minister acknowledge that the federal government has to
reassess its strategies in the energy sector?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it first needs to be made clear that the hon.
gentleman's references with respect to Candu are completely
inaccurate and false.
The problem in Ontario was related to the management of Ontario
Hydro. It had absolutely nothing to do with the technology of
the Candu. In fact, the external consultants concluded that the
Candu reactor technology is safe and robust.
With respect to the need to expand in terms of renewable energy,
alternative sources of energy, co-generation projects and so
forth, indeed those are very much a part of our agenda to deal
with climate change—
The Speaker: The hon. member for South Surrey—White
Rock—Langley.
* * *
TRANSPORT
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday for the second time in a year
the same search and rescue Labrador helicopter had to ditch in
the Strait of Georgia.
Fortunately for the six personnel aboard, the Labradors float
better than they fly and no one was seriously injured.
Are falling helicopters and automated lighthouses true
reflections of this government's commitment to west coast marine
safety?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Labrador did indeed ditch but there
is only minor damage. I am also pleased to say that nobody was
injured. There is a full investigation now going on.
We make sure that any aircraft we put in the air is as safe as
it possibly can be. There are incidents that occur but we cut
down on the possibility considerably by the fact that we have a
high standard of maintenance.
The hon. member should also recognize that we have decided to
purchase new helicopters and some of these will be stationed on
the west coast in B.C.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, words are cheap and when it comes to
protecting Canada's west coast so is this government.
Falling helicopters, automated lighthouses, closing CFB
Chilliwack, snubbing B.C.'s Seaforth Highlanders for not being
Canadian enough are examples of how this government really feels
about British Columbia.
Why does this government have more military personnel
overlooking the Rideau Canal than it has on the west coast of
this country?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that is simply not true. We have highly
professional and dedicated people in sufficient numbers to ensure
that the kind of service that needs to be provided in British
Columbia by the Canadian forces is present in that province.
* * *
[Translation]
HERBICIDES
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, rutabaga producers
have been using the herbicide DUAL according to the
manufacturer's instructions.
However, agronomists have confirmed that the use of this
herbicide was the cause of their loss of over half a million
dollars.
What measures does the minister intend to take to prevent the
use of this herbicide from continuing to cause considerable
losses to producers, who believe in the effectiveness of
government controls?
[English]
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member did not make clear the
specific herbicide he was talking about. We certainly know there
is a registration program for herbicides to be used legally by
producers in Canada. If there is a problem with the registration
of a specific herbicide I would certainly be pleased to know that
and I will work with the producers so they can have all the
management tools they can possibly have to be efficient and
profitable.
* * *
TOURISM
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, tourism is
the major source of employment in all regions of our country.
British Columbia especially benefits from visitors from countries
in Asia.
What is this Liberal government doing, in spite of the Asian
financial crisis, to encourage travel and tourism and to create
jobs in British Columbia?
Mr. Walt Lastewka (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as members know, the Canadian
Tourism Commission, in partnership with the private sector, has
been working hard on tourism. Unfortunately some countries in
Asia have had difficulty but countries like Taiwan and Singapore
have held steady despite the financial crisis.
In addition, there have been projects approved in British
Columbia. The latest project I know of is the Anderson—Knowles
agreement in the city of Prince Rupert to the tune of $250,000.
There is a Canadian Tourism Commission project of $1.25 million
over three years for promoting tourism in British Columbia.
* * *
1145
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday we asked the Indian affairs minister to
appoint a judge to look into the tragic deaths on the Tsuu T'ina
reserve near Calgary. She ignored our suggestions. She said the
government already had the Royal Commission on Aboriginal
Peoples, and it did not have to investigate any more. That
commission produced 400 recommendations but the report has been
on the shelf gathering dust.
What specific recommendations from that report is the government
applying to the Tsuu T'ina reserve?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, obviously the member should take the time to read
the government's response to the royal commission. We are
working very hard with all of the players, including the
leadership of the national organization and the regional
organization.
An hon. member: More money for the chief.
Hon. Sheila Copps: The member yells out “more money for
the chief”. I find it passing strange that in the Reform
Party's last document on aboriginal peoples it planned on cutting
$1 billion from programming that was going to help with housing,
help with fetal alcohol syndrome and help with a number of the
social problems they are facing. The Reform Party did not support
the recommendations.
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
standoff and shooting, the Bruce Starlight affair and the poverty
on the Tsuu T'ina reserve are symptoms of ongoing problems that
need a solution now.
My question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs. If she will
not appoint a judge, what specific recommendations from the royal
commission will be used to solve the current crisis facing people
on the reserve? Will she act before the next tragedy occurs?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this is the sad thing about the Reform Party. When
there is a human tragedy it tries to exploit it for political
purposes.
I refer the Reform Party to an editorial in the Toronto
Star where it says: “It can be a short, frightening step
from a police shooting on a native reserve to an eruption of
violent anger. That is why it is heartening to see Ottawa and
Alberta responding quickly in this week's fatal shooting of a
woman and her son”.
The Reform Party would be well advised to look at the broader
issues and to try and work with aboriginal people instead of
pointing the finger at a chief and individual and cutting a
billion dollars of programming from aboriginal peoples' housing
and social delivery.
* * *
[Translation]
DISABILITY PENSIONS
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, this government
is treating people living with disabilities in a heartless
manner. Bill C-2 will ensure that fewer and fewer Canadians
receive disability pensions.
Implementation of these regressive policies will ensure that
thousands of Canadians will find themselves forced to wait close
to two years for a final decision on their applications for
disability pension. Enough is enough.
My question is for the Prime Minister. When will this government
stop taking advantage of the most vulnerable in society, and
start speeding up the process for obtaining disability pensions?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in the last Parliament a very distinguished initiative
was led by a member of this government who is now the solicitor
general in producing a detailed analysis of many of the issues
affecting disabled Canadians.
The results of that report were in evidence in the 1997 budget.
They were in evidence again in the 1998 budget. The government
takes those issues seriously. Many, many disabled organizations
in this country have applauded these initiatives on behalf of
disabled Canadians.
* * *
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence.
The alternative service delivery process of the Department of
National Defence has wreaked havoc on the community of Goose Bay,
Labrador. Will the minister place a moratorium on any further
ASD activity until there has been an audit by the auditor general
and a thorough assessment by the Standing Committee on National
Defence and Veterans Affairs of the social and economic impact on
the communities where ASD has already taken place?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the preamble to the
question. What is at stake here is the survival of Goose Bay and
we have been able to save it. We have been able to cut our costs
down to make the operation more efficient and effective and at
the same time to treat people in a fair and humane way. That is
what this is about.
We have less resources now in national defence. We want to make
sure that we use those resources for our core functions and that
we use those resources in the most efficient and effective way.
That is what we are doing here and that is what we will continue
to do in other parts of the country.
1150
We will consult with our employees. We will consult with the
unions. We will make sure we do it in a fair and humane way.
* * *
[Translation]
HIGHWAYS
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Transport.
I know the minister is involved in drawing up a new national
highways policy.
I would like the minister to confirm whether there will be a
federal-provincial conference in connection with this new
national policy. I would also like him to take a few seconds to
indicate the importance he attaches to it.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the federal government has contributed to the
construction of highways since the first world war.
As the hon. member knows, Canadian highways are a provincial
responsibility. Discussions are going to be held with my
provincial counterparts on a plan for continuation of funding.
In May, a meeting will be held in Edmonton to discuss this.
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): Mr. Speaker, in a speech last
November 17 in Toronto, the minister stated that he was in favour
of new major national toll-free highway projects and an
examination of the potential for constructive collaboration
between the federal, provincial and private sector.
I would like the minister to indicate to me if, for instance, he
considers it important to upgrade the highway between the
metropolitan Quebec and Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean regions, as a major
pilot project, thus allowing us to link two large and important
regions of this country? Unfortunately, the Government of Quebec
is still turning a deaf ear to any new approach.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am well aware of the very specific concerns the hon.
member has about highway 175 in his riding.
Provinces have priorities, the province of Quebec in this case,
but I am sure that partnerships in highway construction will be
considered.
I believe it is a good idea to involve the private sector in
their construction, and I am pleased that the hon. member
supports the concept of partnering with the private sector to
build highways.
* * *
[English]
FORESTRY
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming—Cochrane, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
British Columbia's forest industry is in trouble. Logging
levels and foreign exports are down. B.C. mills and workers are
idle.
What is the federal government doing to address these issues
facing this most important Canadian industry?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, forestry management practices per se are a provincial
responsibility but there is an important federal role
particularly with respect to science and technology and trade.
I am happy to say that typically the Government of Canada
invests its natural resources research budget on a regional
basis. With respect to science and technology, 16% in total flows
to the province of British Columbia. Last year it was $34
million for important projects.
On trade, I am working with the industry, with union leadership,
with the province and with foreign governments and buyers to
secure the greatest amount of market access for British Columbia
forest products, access that is not only stable for the present
time but growing for the future.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
studies show how important the parent-child bond is for the long
term health of Canadian children. A national poll indicated that
94% of Canadians are concerned about the lack of time they have
to spend with their offspring.
Many parents would like to stay home and raise their children if
they could afford to do it, but this government overtaxes them if
they do. Only third party child care expenses can be deducted
and the last budget increased this by 35% while ignoring
homemakers.
When will this government stop its discriminatory tax policies
which undermine many Canadian families?
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we understand
that this is a priority of many members of this House.
We have to recognize that we have taken steps in past budgets in
order to recognize the very real burden that homes bear,
particularly those where one person is working and another is
not. For example in our last budget we took 400,000 taxpayers
right off the roles. We reduced the taxes for 14 million
Canadians, or 90% of all taxpayers.
Through the national child tax benefit we are putting funds
directly into the area where we think they are most needed, to
those families where—
1155
The Speaker: The hon. member for Matapédia—Matane.
* * *
[Translation]
COAST GUARD RADIO STATION
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans has requested that
the closing of the coast guard radio station in the Magdalen
Islands scheduled for March 31 be postponed.
Given that no serious study has shown the closing to be
justified, is the minister prepared to postpone this closing and
take the time to consult with fishers and those who use the
station?
[English]
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, before the decision was made some months
ago we carried out extensive consultations with all stakeholders.
We also did an extensive analysis of the technology involved.
In this instance there is no loss of jobs. People will be moved
as we consolidate at Rivière-au-Renard.
While I respect the committee's report, in essence it came too
late to vary the decision that was made.
* * *
ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, at
this very moment, 250 workers at AECL Pinawa are being handed
this letter which says “It is with sincere regret that I inform
you that your employment with AECL will terminate on March 31,
1998”. This is every worker's worst nightmare. The layoff
freeze lifted on Wednesday. On Friday they get their pink slips.
On Tuesday another 250 Canadians will be out on the street.
The sale of AECL has been delayed. What is the urgency to dump
these workers with one day's notice? What happened to the
election promises that Ottawa would take care of these workers?
What is the minister doing to help these workers whose lives are
being turned upside down by this government's downsizing frenzy?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Natural Resources and
Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it was less than a week ago that this very member asked
me in this House to ensure that the workers who would be laid off
at Pinawa would be protected under the government's early
retirement incentive program. In order to make sure those
workers were protected under that program it was a legal
requirement that they be notified with respect to their layoff
status no later than March 31.
The notices which have been served are for the very purpose of
ensuring that the affected workers can benefit from the maximum
amount of protection available under the programs of AECL and
under the early retirement incentive program.
The Speaker: The hon. member for St. John's West.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
recent fisheries committee report recommended that Canada
“immediately adopt a position that there are no fish in excess
of Canada's needs anywhere inside of our 200-mile zone on either
coast”. Under present international agreements this government
is still trading away Canadian fish and with them, Canadian jobs.
Will the minister of fisheries immediately accept this
recommendation? Will he table a list of all international
agreements that involve the trading away of Canadian fish?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the policy of the government is to
Canadianize to the greatest extent possible our eastern Canadian
fisheries. As a result we have moved the foreign take within the
200-mile limit from over 380,000 tonnes down to approximately
2,000 tonnes in the most recent year. In other words it is now
half to one per cent of what it previously was.
There is no fishing by any foreign vessel within our 200-mile
limit unless Canadians have been offered those fish. Only when
they refuse is that fishery opened up to foreign vessels under
international agreements. They are the same international
agreements that allow us—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle.
* * *
[Translation]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
During the January ice storm, Canadians again saw the exemplary
work of our soldiers. During its hearings, however, the Standing
Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs was informed
that their salaries were not high enough to meet their families'
basic needs.
What is the Liberal government doing to ensure that members of
the armed forces are adequately paid?
1200
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I applaud the hon. member and the
committee for the fine work they are doing. The government is
listening.
I am pleased to advise the House today that there will be two
adjustments to pay made for our services personnel effective
April 1. One deals with a catch-up with public service salary
rates of 1.2% and the other is an economic increase of some 2%.
This means that over the past two years, accumulatively, the
increases have been 9.3% for non-commissioned members and 9.4%
for general service officers.
* * *
RAILWAYS
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I share the concerns of Canadian taxpayers who cannot
help but wonder if the ministerial musings of the Minister of
Transport about the need for public-private partnerships to
revitalize the passenger rail system might be just another excuse
to scratch the back of a Liberal friendly company.
I would like to know just what the plans on the table are for a
sweetheart deal for that perpetual Liberal darling, Bombardier.
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's imagination is running away with
itself.
He is a member of the Standing Committee on Transport which is
looking at this very issue. The government does not have a fixed
agenda.
What we want is to make sure that the passenger rail system in
Canada is financed in such a way that we can continue the high
standards we have had over recent years, while allowing the
taxpayers to get off the hook in terms of the refinancing of
capital projects such as rolling stock.
If the hon. member has any ideas, he should present them at the
committee. I know there are lots of companies that would be
interested in this change.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
BIG BOB
Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw (Moncton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. It is Friday and we have a staff
person upstairs, Big Bob, who is retiring today. I thought it
would be nice for the Chamber to wish him good luck. He has been
excellent to us and to the staff. I thought, since it is Friday,
we might want to wish him all the best.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[Translation]
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to table in the House today, in both official
languages, a number of Order in Council appointments which were
made recently by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are
deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list
of which is attached.
* * *
1205
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to 15 petitions.
* * *
HOUSE COMMITTEES
JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report
of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.
[English]
Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, November 4, 1997,
your committee has considered Bill C-3, an act respecting DNA
identification and to make consequential amendments to the
Criminal Code and other acts. Your committee has agreed to
report it with amendments.
May I add that this was an all-party committee and that all
members of the House worked very hard on the report.
* * *
PETITIONS
NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present two
petitions from concerned citizens in my riding of
Nanaimo—Alberni.
The first petition calls upon Parliament to support the
immediate initiation and conclusion by the year 2000 of an
international convention to set out a binding timetable for the
abolition of all nuclear weapons.
GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in the second petition the petitioners call upon Parliament to
remove the GST from books, magazines and newspapers. They also
ask the Prime Minister to carry out his party's repeated promise
to remove the federal sales tax from reading materials.
PROSTATE CANCER
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a petition from people in my constituency who
want to draw to the attention of Parliament the fact that one in
eight men will suffer from prostate cancer and that one-third of
those sufferers will die of the disease.
It is noted here that the cost of treating prostate cancer in
men is approximately $250 billion annually and that some of the
best research is being done in very inadequate circumstances.
It is noted, as well, that the opinion of several Vancouver
researchers is that $1 per Canadian is not too much to ask for
prostate cancer research. It would go a long way toward
defeating the disease.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today we
will be answering Question No. 5.
.[Text]
Mr. Chuck Strahl:
With regard to the moment when chronometers in all federal
Government information systems change from the year 1999 to the
year 2000, (a) what is now being done and what will be done to
prepare for this moment, (b) can the government assure the
public that there will be no loss of data, no interruption in
service or other systems malfunction, and (c) what is the
estimated cost ensuring that computers will be able to cope
effectively with the change of millennium?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and Minister
responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): a) The federal government
has defined the year 2000 compliance issue as a high government
priority and is working aggressively on all fronts to monitor the
level of year 2000 readiness within departments, implement common
initiatives and encourage action.
In 1996, the chief information officer, CIO, project office was
established within Treasury Board secretariat, TBS, to
co-ordinate and monitor activity across all federal government
departments and agencies. In September of 1997, a government
industry task force was formed under the Minister of Industry to
help Canadian industry address this unique challenge. The task
force is chaired by Jean Monty, chief executive officer of
Nortel, and includes representatives from a number of key
economic sectors including banking, insurance, transportation,
manufacturing, telecommunications, information technology, small
and medium size business, agriculture, and the retail and service
sectors.
The CIO year 2000 project office has completed two
comprehensive, government-wide surveys and a third one is in
progress. The results of the second survey indicate that all
departments are aware of the issue and all departments with
government-wide mission critical, GWMC, systems have active year
2000 plans in place. Additionally, the level of readiness within
government is consistent with accepted industry standards, and
many departments are even further advanced.
b) The CIO year 2000 project office is committed to ensuring
that key federal government systems will continue the delivery of
essential services to the Canadian public and its businesses,
beyond the year 2000. Defined as government-wide mission critical,
GWMC, these systems have a direct impact on the health, safety,
security and economic well-being of Canadians, and are the
government's first priority.
Departments are responsible for all year 2000 repair, testing
and replacement work of their systems, but in order to ensure
that there is no interruption of services, departments will be
asked to provide full contingency plans for any systems that are
deemed at possible risk by fall of 1998. At present, however, the
focus and number one priority of the government is to ensure that
departments complete the necessary repair and replacement work on
GWMC systems.
c) The Government of Canada recognizes that not addressing the
year 2000 challenge could result in significant costs to Canadian
taxpayers. Treasury Board secretariat estimates that the price
tag for federal government year 2000 compliance will be $1
billion. The total federal information tehcnology, IT, budget is
$3 billion to $4 billion annually and it is anticipated that the majority
of the $1 billion required for the year 2000 effort is being
drawn from existing budgets during the conversion period.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Adams: I suggest that the other questions be allowed
to stand.
[English]
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have some answers which are long overdue. On October
28 Question No. 31 was asked, which was regarding the dropping of
charges against the minister's friends in the Oak Bay Marine
Group. That answer is still outstanding.
On December 2 Question No. 56 was asked, again concerning the
Oak Bay Marine Group. I wonder when I can expect a response on
those matters.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I have noted the numbers
that the member mentioned and I will look into it as quickly as I
can.
I would point out that we have received roughly 800 questions to
this point. We have replied to well over half of them, but I
understand the member's concern and I will look into it as soon
as I can.
Mr. John Cummins: Mr. Speaker, there is a deadline for
responding to questions.
I have another question, Question No. 51, which was asked on
December 1, 1997. We asked for a list of aboriginal groups which
received communal fishing licences or other authorization to
fish, excluding commercial fishing licences of the same type
issued to all Canadian commercial fleets in British Columbia and
I have had no response to that one as well.
1210
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I have noted Questions Nos.
31, 56 and 51. I will do my best to see what is happening to
them.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is it agreed that the
remaining questions be allowed to stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADA GRAIN ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-26, an
act to amend the Canada Grain Act and the Agriculture and
Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act and to repeal the
Grain Futures Act, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): When debate was
suspended the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River had
approximately 16 minutes remaining on his time.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, when I was interrupted by question period I was relating
to the House the potential magnitude of the Palliser Grain
receivership disaster and I was trying to enlighten some members.
I know from the heckling that constantly comes every time I
stand to speak in this Chamber that there are some members across
the way who do not wish to be enlightened about what farmers are
saying in Saskatchewan, Alberta or anywhere else for that matter.
They have a problem with it.
I was relating the story about the Saskatchewan forum which was
hosted by the eight Reform MPs from that province. I was
approached in my role as the official opposition agriculture
critic. I was approached by a number of farmers who had concerns
about the Palliser Grain Company going into receivership.
Some of these farmers are facing very substantial losses if they
are not covered by the existing bond or if they are not covered
by a trust fund that has been set up for some deferred payments
and which we have scanty details about.
I would like to explain the process for deferred payments. When
farmers deliver their product—and this applies to special crops
as well as other commodities—they can defer payment to sometime
in the future. It helps them to regulate their cash flow and
even it out in different parts of the year.
My understanding is that under the present regulations, in order
to be covered, the maximum amount of time a farmer can have his
product stored with a company is 90 days. Then they have up to
30 days to cash the cheque. They basically have 120 days in
which to get paid. If they do not fall within that framework of
120 days, in other words, if their product has been in storage
for longer than that period of time, when a company goes into
receivership it is questionable whether they will receive
remuneration for their stored products.
Furthermore, my understanding is that government changed the
rules in or about August 1995. Prior to that farmers were
covered up to one year if they had products stored with a
company. That was changed and shortened to 120 days.
It brings to light this issue: Is the onus entirely on the
farmer to ensure that when he sells his product to a company he
is going to be covered in this type of situation? Or is there
some responsibility on the part of government to ensure that the
farmer is made aware that these types of changes have taken place
or that there is some increased risk involved with deferring
payment?
It brings to light the whole issue of the buyer beware type of
scenario. In this case we have the situation of seller beware,
where the farmer has to recognize the extent of the risk he is
taking.
1215
In fairness to the farmers in the Palliser Grain situation, it
is quite likely a lot of them did not understand that the
insurance bond which Palliser Grain was required under
legislation to carry did not cover them past the 120 days. It is
certainly my hope and I believe the hope of all members that the
issue can be resolved favourably for the farmers and that the
trust fund which was set up for deferred payments will be
sufficient to cover all those farmers who had product on storage
with Palliser.
The reason why I am relaying this story is directly linked to
one of the major reasons for Bill C-26, the whole issue of grain
buyers and grain buying companies carrying insurance against the
disaster of having gone broke or having gone into receivership,
and whether the responsibility should rest entirely with the
farmers or if there is some inherent responsibility on the part
of government to carry some of that risk.
One of the points I made during my speech is that under the
present way that Bill C-26 is structured there will be no
competition in providing that insurance. The farmers who have
approached me are quite concerned about the future risk of
premiums being increased. They are also concerned about the fact
that it is a levy. Although the parliamentary secretary said
that it is voluntary, there are hoops that the farmer has to jump
through. He has to wait until the end of the year to opt out. He
has to maintain his records to see exactly how much levy he has
paid. He then has to total this up and request that money he paid
into the levy fund from the governing body.
While it is technically true that it is a voluntary process, it
is, as I said in my speech, really negative option billing. The
farmer has no choice because it is deducted off his cheque when
he actually sells his product to the special grains buying agent.
I would just like to sum up by saying that the official
opposition is constantly in a bit of a quandary when it comes to
supporting or opposing certain pieces of legislation. All
Canadians recognize that most of the legislation that is placed
before this House has certain good merits to it. However, we are
constantly having to decide whether it is more than 50% good or
more than 50% bad and what position we should take.
I do not have the exact numbers but I think in the last
Parliament, which was the first Parliament for me as a member of
Parliament, the Reform Party supported the government's
legislation about half the time. It may be a little more or a
little less, but I think it was half the time. I believe we
ended up supporting about half the bills that came through this
place.
In this case, as I relayed in my opening remarks on Bill C-26,
we are caught in the middle of this at this point in time. We
are not sure whether to support it right now. There are some
good things in it. As the parliamentary secretary indicated in
his remarks, farmers, grain buyers and other stakeholders in the
industry have been requesting this for quite some time. Whether
this is the exact approach to take we do not know at this point.
We are certainly interested in getting a lot more feedback as we
go through the process.
Some of these comments which I have quoted from the various
organizations and farmers run exactly opposite to each other but
I wanted to demonstrate to members of this House that we as
parliamentarians have our work cut out for us with Bill C-26. The
feedback represents only a fraction of the input that we can
expect to receive on this legislation. Yet it is already obvious
that there is a great deal of skilful legislative work required.
We will need to carefully listen, thoroughly examine, look for
compromise and, in the end, be able to tell farmers that we have
done our jobs and done our jobs well.
1220
This is what I want to tell the farmers when Bill C-26 completes
its journey through the parliamentary process. I hope this
government does not make that effort a futile one.
[Translation]
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
speak to Bill C-26, an act to amend the Canada Grain Act and the
Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act
and to repeal the Grain Futures Act.
As the new agriculture and agri-food critic for my party, I want
to assure you that I will certainly be separating the wheat from
the chaff.
We are again debating a bill that concerns only part of Canada,
the prairies. What, however, is at the heart of this bill?
The summary of the text reads as follows, and I quote:
This enactment establishes a licensing system and an insurance
plan for the special crops industry in Western Canada. It
provides for the licensing of all buyers of special crops and
for the voluntary participation of producers in the insurance
plan, which protects them against default of payment for special
crops by licensees. Outstanding payments for standard crops
will continue to be protected by security given by standard
crops dealers to the Canadian Grain Commission (CGC).
After a summary examination of this highly technical and
specialized bill, I will most certainly be a participant in the
debate bearing in mind the best interests of farmers and farming
and recognizing that this bill does not concern Quebec farmers.
This is the reason my speech will be brief. I am not
particularly concerned with a matter that is of interest only to
western farmers. I feel quite outside this debate, particularly
having heard the previous speeches, including that of my
predecessor, the member for Prince George—Peace River.
The most important clause in this bill is clause 7.
This clause provides for the establishment of an insurance plan,
and I quote:
—or grain receipts against the refusal or failure of licensees to
meet their payment or delivery obligations under the receipt or
ticket.
If such a regime were to become law, this would allow a licence
holder with an elevator operator or grain dealer licence to
receive statutory levies from producers delivering special
crops.
He would then remit the levies to the agent, who would use them
to pay any premiums owed to the insurer, any expenses related to
the administration of the insurance plan and any remuneration or
reimbursement of expenses to which a member of the Special Crops
Advisory Committee may be entitled under subsection 49.02(4).
The difficulty lies in section 49.02, which consists of four
subsections setting out how the advisory committee is to be
formed. The first subsection allows the minister to establish an
advisory committee by naming nine members for a renewable term
not exceeding three years. Is this not a way of making political
appointments?
1225
Would it not be better for these positions to be elected ones,
especially since the committee is mandated to present
recommendations regarding the designation of special crops and
the selection of a person or organization as agent or insurer,
and to advise the minister on any other issues concerning special
crops? This could easily become a conflict of interest.
Moreover, the majority of the members of the committee must be
“special crops producers who are not special crops dealers,
grain dealers or operators of primary elevators”. In other
words, they cannot be traders. I add this comment because the
wording of the bill in French is rather ambiguous on this.
In addition, members's remuneration is also fixed by the
minister. The agent must also reimburse them for any reasonable
travel and living expenses incurred by them in the course of
their duties while absent from their ordinary places of
residence.
It can be seen that a number of questions arise concerning clause
7, particularly subsection 49.02 and its paragraphs. Other
clauses also require some clarification, and this will be
forthcoming, I trust, before we vote on this bill.
I will, therefore, be on the lookout for the slightest comment
from farmers on this bill, for they are the ones who must
benefit from it first and foremost.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on Bill C-26, legislation to amend the Canada
Grain Act and the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative
Monetary Penalties Act and to repeal the Grain Futures Act.
This legislation makes amendments to two acts and repeals a
third. It is really a rather detailed and complex piece of
legislation. In briefings from the minister of agriculture's
staff we were told this bill is of a non-controversial and only
housekeeping nature. But looking closely at it we found
something very negative and unsavoury about the bill.
The bill will now go to committee and frankly if we do not see
some changes at that stage our party will have no choice but to
vote against the bill at third reading.
At the outset I seriously question whether this legislation is
really what the special crops industry wants. The minister has
provided us with some information that indicates a long period of
consultation on this question, and in fact the consultations go
way back to 1993 and straddled the last federal election.
One might well ask what has changed in the past five years, and
we ask whether these old and dated assumptions are a true
reflection of what farmers and the industry truly wants today.
Before I get to what we consider to be the major defects of Bill
C-26 I will summarize the government's stated intent for the
legislation. First, we were told these amendments to the
Canada Grain Act are intended to set up a licensing system for
those businesses that purchase special crops from farmers.
Second, the legislation would allow creation of an insurance
plan for the special crops industry. Third, the bill would repeal
the Grain Futures Act, allowing responsibility for regulating the
Winnipeg Commodity Exchange to revert to the Manitoba Securities
Commission. The exchange is now regulated by the Canadian Grain
Commission.
Bill C-26 applies only to western Canada because it relates to
the jurisdiction exercised by the Grain commission in
administering the Canada Grain Act, which does not generally
apply in eastern Canada. This legislation applies to special
crops. These crops include beans, buckwheat, peas, corn, faba
beans, lentils, mustard seed, safflower, soybeans and sunflower
seed.
Special crops are of growing importance to farmers and to the
economy of western Canada. The so-called grain wars of the 1980s
are painful memories in the minds of many farmers. The United
States and the European community used their immense treasuries
to subsidize the production and sale of wheat and other major
grains. This subsidization drove down world prices and drove
thousands of western Canadian farmers off their land.
1230
We believe that farmers responded very creatively to this
situation. One way in which they did so was to diversify into
peas, lentils, sunflower seeds and other special crops. We in
the NDP caucus are most supportive of any measures that will
enhance the ability of farmers to prosper from growing and
marketing their special crops.
We also support measures that would put the entire special crops
industry on a firmer financial footing. The government claims
the legislation will do that but my caucus and I are not
convinced that it will.
The questions that have to be asked are these. Does the
legislation benefit farmers and the entire special crops
industry? If there are benefits, what will they ultimately cost?
The answers to these questions give us great cause for concern.
Bill C-26 is based on a number of premises. One of them is that
the businesses which most often purchase special crops from
farmers are small firms that are frequently not licensed. The
reason posited for this is that the security required from
special crops dealers in order to cover their payment obligation
to producers has forced small companies to avoid taking out
licences.
In turn, this puts the producers who sell to these companies at
risk if a company goes bankrupt or cannot meet its payment. A
further argument is that this uncertainty has limited the
potential growth of the industry because it has prevented farmers
from getting into special crop production in a bigger way. The
larger elevator companies that buy grains like wheat and barley
naturally are licensed by the Canadian Grain Commission. Of
course this is important to Canada's reputation as a reliable
supplier of high quality grain.
The grain commission has the power to ensure that these large
companies are always in a position to meet their payments to
farmers who sell to them. The commission also has the power to
ask companies to secure bonds and can impose penalties on
companies should they renege on these payments to farmers.
The argument is made that regulations which make sense for large
grain companies are not appropriate for smaller companies that
purchase special crops. For example, the government says that
Bill C-26 would remove the onus on special crop dealers to post
costly bonds against the possibility of their defaulting in
payments to producers. It has been argued that this is
difficult, if not impossible, for small companies to post large
security bonds and that consequently many of them simply are not
licensed.
Bill C-26 proposes a licensing system for these smaller
companies. In return for their being licensed they would not
have to post large security bonds. The legislation also allows
the Canadian Grain Commission to impose penalties and fines on
these smaller companies for violations of the Canada Grain Act.
The legislation allows the grain commission to be more flexible
and less punitive in the way it treats smaller grain companies in
the event that they contravene the Canada Grain Act.
The government says that a system of licensing developed
specifically for the purchasers of special crops will encourage
development of the industry. We in the NDP support the
development of the industry but question whether the legislation
will achieve that end.
A second and related component of the legislation is a program
that will insure farmers against non-payment by the businesses
buying their special crops. The government says that the program
is voluntary but in actual fact it is not. It is here that we
begin to have some serious problems and I would like to go into
them in some detail.
In clause 7 of the bill the government decrees that all special
crops producers must pay an insurance levy on all crops sold to
licensed dealers. Farmers have to pay this levy. Whether or not
they want to participate in the insurance program they have to
pay this check off at source. They have no choice about this.
The government calls this a voluntary insurance program, but it
is anything but voluntary if it is a mandatory contribution at
the front end. In fact it amounts to sort of a negative option
billing plan in actual fact, the same kind of plan that outraged
Canadians when cable television companies tried to implement this
a few years back.
Farmers will have to provide notice at the beginning of the crop
year if they do not want to belong to this insurance plan. Even
if they give that notice in writing farmers still have to pay the
insurance levy at the front end. It is only at the end of the
crop year and after doing a lot of paperwork and legal wrangling
that farmers would get their money back.
As I understand it, they will not receive interest on the money
being held by the government that they paid at the front end and
have to wait to be refunded at the back end. This type of
negative option billing is simply unacceptable to farmers.
1235
Our agriculture critic is already getting calls of protest from
farmers who are beginning to twig to how the plan is really
unfolding. We are not satisfied that these measures are really
what the industry wants or needs. Certainly it is not what the
farmers who have been coming forward want or need.
Bill C-4 proposes a check-off on grain deliveries to pay for a
wheat board contingency fund. The proposed fund is extremely
unpopular with farmers. They cannot afford the check-off. They
do not see the need for it. They do not want to pay for it. Now
the same government is proposing yet another check-off,
compounding and piggybacking the other check-offs farmers pay.
This time it is for special crops.
All this is in addition to the millions of dollars being
collected by government from farmers in the name of cost
recovery. Farmers are paying twice for the increasing number of
services they need: once through their taxes and again through
cost recovery. These are some of the problems we see with these
measures.
Our caucus urges the minister to scrap his plans for this
negative option insurance plan in the special crops industry. I
will read with great alarm some material from the minister's
office dated November 7, 1997. Page 4 of that document reads
“The insurance plan could serve as a model for standard crops in
the future and could lead to a producer funded insurance system
for all crops produced in western Canada”.
Rather than listening to the opposition to the plan, the
minister seems to feel it is some kind of model or prototype he
would like to expand from special crops to standard crops in the
future. This is seriously alarming to our caucus.
We sincerely hope the minister is not planning to extend his
special crops insurance plan to all grains in western Canada.
Surely he cannot be so out of touch that he would propose an
entirely producer funded and negative option insurance program on
all grains. If the minister attempts to do this we suggest that
he will face an out and out revolt by farmers.
Bill C-26 repeals the Grain Futures Act which clears the way for
the Manitoba Securities Commission to assume responsibility for
regulating the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange. The exchange wants to
trade commodities other than grains and wants the regulatory
system to reflect this reality.
This is a logical request. It is time for the province of
Manitoba to be given power to regulate the exchange rather than
have it done by the Canadian Grain Commission as the case has
been. We support this part of the legislation but it is
unfortunately bundled with a larger legislative package that we
cannot accept in its present form.
When he introduced Bill C-26 last December the minister said
that it would provide a boon to rural economic development. I do
not believe that a negative option insurance program will create
rural economic development. Nothing in the arguments put forward
by the government to date has altered that point of view on our
part.
Let us look beyond the bill and ask what the government is doing
to promote rural Canada. We need to look no further than the
budget that was introduced in the House on February 24. The
budget speech was entirely silent on agriculture. It is
significant to note that the minister spoke for 90 minutes and
did not once utter the word agriculture. I find that very
revealing. In a 275 page budget document which was tabled as he
spoke there were a mere 16 lines about rural Canada. Most of
that space was devoted to reminding us that the minister had
provided additional money to the Farm Credit Corporation, not
this year but last year.
The only current agricultural spending mentioned in the budget
speech is $20 million spread over five years throughout several
government departments. The federal government spending in
support of the agriculture and agri-food sector has declined
drastically throughout this decade. This year's budget confirms
even further cuts.
The Liberals are dismantling rural Canada, closing post offices
and allowing the railways to double freight rates on grain and to
tear up their branchlines. They have forgotten rural Canadians.
One might ask what the minister of agriculture has been doing to
represent the interests of rural Canadians at the cabinet table.
The answer would appear to be not very much. Now he is promoting
a negative option insurance plan as a project for rural
development. Not only that. He is saying he might extend such a
plan to cover all grains grown and marketed in western Canada.
In all of this the minister is trying to pass Bill C-26 off as a
mere housekeeping bill. It is much more than that. Unless there
are significant changes to the bill we will work against it and
we will vote against it.
1240
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. There have been discussions with
representatives of all parties and I believe you would find
consent for the following motion:
That, at the conclusion of today's debate on a motion for second
reading of Bill C-26, the question shall be deemed put and
adopted on division.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, before I go home for the weekend I want to correct the
concept we heard from the government side regarding dynamic rural
communities and dynamic agriculture and that somehow they were
building rural communities. In the area in which I live nothing
could be further from the truth.
I have seen villages disappear. Towns will soon disappear.
Elevators are being bulldozed. Railroads are being torn up. Just
to show how undynamic it is, seven farms were auctioned off the
last weekend I was home. Four of them had young people in the
same family that could take over the farm but because of the
bleak agricultural outlook which has been brought on by the
government opposite they are say no way. This is happening all
over Saskatchewan.
The reason for Bill C-26 is that farmers are trying to make a
living from the traditional wheat crop. They are trying their
best. They are doing everything to make a penny out of it. The
government, like the hon. member just said, never mentioned the
word agriculture in the throne speech debate. The most dynamic
and still the major industry, not only in Saskatchewan but in
western Canada, never received one word of mention.
Now the government has come up with Bill C-26. Farmers in the
west are disillusioned. They feel betrayed. They have been
betrayed by the crow rate, by the railways and by their own grain
companies. Farmers feel betrayed by the government. They could
not care less right now about Bill C-26.
What they do care about is some way to pay their bills. Ranchers
are asking for some way for them to pay for the increase of
grazing land. Farmers are asking for a way to return to farms
that have been in their families for three and four generations.
There is no hope. The government has provided no hope.
In the town in which I live the elevators will be gone by the
year 2000. The four curling rinks which surround the town have
been closed. The government should realize that Bill C-26 does
not address the problem of ongoing depopulation in much of rural
Saskatchewan.
I can only compare it to another era in Saskatchewan, the dirty
thirties when people simply gave up and moved out. Because of
the policies of the government and because of lack of planning by
the government, the same thing is taking place now. It is a
disaster, but we have not hit the worst of it yet. The worst is
yet to come.
In two years my daughter and her family will live over 80 miles
away from the closest delivery point for grain.
Over one-third of the cost of that ticket by the time they pay
for the truck goes to freight.
1245
Please, hon. parliamentary secretary, do not talk about Bill
C-26 and its dynamics for rural Saskatchewan. Do not tell me
about how this great energizing is taking place in agriculture.
The parliamentary secretary needs to go out there and look. He
will see for himself. Fifty-two towns had hospitals. RMs are
closing. It is becoming a wasteland. Those people who have good
agricultural wheat producing land are going to have to sell that
land for grazing prices and get out.
We have a disaster. This government comes in with Bill C-26
which will do nothing to solve the real problem in Saskatchewan.
I feel much better because I have said it. I hope the people in
my province are listening.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): This is a question
and comment period. The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre may
comment if he wishes.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, yes. I did not hear a
question as such, but I would like to maybe echo some of the
sentiments I heard.
Rural Manitoba, the province I am from is suffering from the
depopulation, the flight of capital, the flight of families, the
flight of people, industry, et cetera.
The previous speaker spoke very eloquently about this obviously
from personal experience. Nothing we see in this piece of
legislation is going to stem that tide nor is it going to take
any steps to address the issues that are really facing rural
Canada.
It is significant to note that the budget did not talk about
agriculture. Also it has been very odd that in the eight or nine
months I have been a rookie member of Parliament agriculture has
been raised very, very few times. I understand a number of
pressing issues from all across Canada compete for our interest
but surely, in previous Parliaments, agriculture stood more front
and centre than we see now in the House of Commons.
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): 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—
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that the hon.
parliamentary secretary is supposed to be directing his comments
or his question toward the hon. member from the NDP who spoke and
not to my colleague.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Prince George—Peace River is correct. It is the debate of the
hon. member for Winnipeg Centre on which we are on questions and
comments. However, the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain had
a demi presentation should we say. I felt it was very much in
order for the parliamentary secretary to address that. The hon.
parliamentary secretary can have 30 seconds to sum up. Then we
will give the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre a minute in
response.
Mr. John Harvard: 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.
1250
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in the
comments from the hon. parliamentary secretary that I would
disagree with. I concur 100% with his sentiments concerning
rural Canada, however we do not believe that Bill C-26 actually
addresses those concerns nor will it take us one step closer to
those lofty principles.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to speak on Bill C-26. Our critic for this area, the hon.
member for Brandon—Souris, could not be here today so I am
taking his place.
I will begin with a little background on the bill. We have
divided it into three parts.
On December 4, 1997 the minister of agriculture tabled Bill C-26
in the House of Commons. The bill is composed of three parts.
First it would repeal the Grain Futures Act. In essence it
allows for the province of Manitoba through the Manitoba
Securities Commission to regulate the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange
instead of the federal government through the Canadian Grain
Commission. This is related to the Manitoba Commodities Futures
Act which was enacted by the Manitoba government.
This was an idea that was suggested by the Winnipeg Commodity
Exchange itself. The WCE wants to access the hog industry so
instead of working with two separate regulators, the WCE will
conduct all its business through the Manitoba Securities
Commission.
This is a positive change for the agricultural industry. The PC
Party will support this aspect of the bill.
Second it would amend the Canada Grain Act to allow speciality
crops such as soybeans to fall under crop insurance plans. This
would also permit the separation of licensing and security
provisions for special crops dealers.
This government believes that the inability to separate these
two activities has been the primary problem in developing an
insurance plan for the special crops industry of western Canada.
By forcing such a separation in law and by putting the
administration of a voluntary insurance plan under the Canadian
Grain Commission, Bill C-26 would remove the onus on special
crops dealers to post costly security against the possibility of
their default in payment to special crops producers. The Canadian
Export Development Corporation, CEDC, would be the insurer.
Although the government may feel that this aspect of the bill is
positive, there are many people in the farming community who will
differ. I will comment on the insurance program later.
Third, the bill will also incorporate the Canada Grain Act
within the agriculture and agrifood industry, thereby allowing
the Canadian Grain Commission to impose fines for most violations
of the Canada Grain Act and its regulations. This aspect of the
bill also needs a closer look when the bill is sent to committee.
There are a number of aspects of this bill that must be looked
at closer for the House's consideration. Before I do so I must
mention to the government that there has been little discussion
on this bill thus far in particular in the farming communities
out west. There are people in the farming communities who do not
know anything about this bill.
It is the responsibility of this government to properly inform
Canadians about this legislation, especially when it comes from
the House of Commons of Canada. It is the government's
responsibility to effectively communicate to Canadians what is
about to become law and what is going to affect their livelihood.
That being said, I will comment on some of the aspects of the
bill before this legislation goes before committee. I will
comment on some of the thoughts expressed by the farming
organizations out west.
A resolution was passed at the Saskatchewan Canola Growers
Association annual meeting. Similar motions were also passed at
the Western Canadian Wheat Growers convention, the Western Barley
Growers convention and the Saskatchewan Pulse Development Board.
The motion reads as follows:
Whereas the majority of Saskatchewan Canola Growers Association
members also are growers of specialty crops; and
Whereas the proposed Special Crops Rural Initiative Program
would appear to favour the Canadian Grain Commission and not
necessarily special crop growers; and
Whereas the Special Crops Rural Initiative Program is promoted
as being voluntary, it is in reality a form of negative billing
which all consumers reject (i.e. cable TV companies); and
Whereas the scheme has questionable support at the farm level;
and
Whereas the Saskatchewan Canola Growers Association rejects the
compulsory nature of the Special Crops Rural Initiative Program;
and
Whereas the special crops industry has flourished without such a
program;
Therefore be it resolved that the Saskatchewan Canola Growers
Association inform the federal and western provincial ministers
of agriculture of their concerns and at the very least that the
Special Crops Rural Initiative Program be truly voluntary for
both the growers and the special crops dealers.
1255
This resolution aptly describes what Bill C-26 fails to do. It
fails to give farmers choice, not unlike what the government did
with Bill C-4 which failed to give farmers choice in how they
sell their wheat.
The compulsory nature of the special crops insurance plan is a
form of negative option billing. Today's producers run large
operations and should not have to apply to opt out and then
receive their money back if they do not wish to participate.
Farming businesses should have the right to decide themselves if
they want to be bonded or licensed and if so, pay the bill
themselves.
Bill C-26 only adds more red tape and paperwork for farmers to
be subjected to while placing extra costs on farm businesses
already operating on small budgets. Producers should have the
choice to decide for themselves if there is too much risk selling
to an unlicensed buyer. Special crops producers would be better
off having the choice between selling to large licensed grain
dealers and small unlicensed grain dealers. That would make
sense. I hope the government considers giving farmers this
choice.
There are a number of elements of this bill which need to be
looked at closer. I expect that the committee will look into the
bill in great detail when it does the clause by clause analysis.
In principle the PC Party supports this legislation. However,
there are a number of changes that will have to be adopted at the
committee stage with respect to choice before this bill is
acceptable in full to the PC Party of Canada and to the farmers
of western Canada.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to make a couple of comments.
Earlier the parliamentary secretary in referring to some
comments made by my hon. colleague from Souris—Moose Mountain
tried to leave the impression with the viewing audience that
perhaps there was some division or contradiction in the position
that I took versus that of my colleague the Reform member for
Souris—Moose Mountain. I can assure the House and those viewing
this debate at home today that is not the case.
While we have given this bill some very tentative support at
this point, my hon. colleague from Souris—Moose Mountain was
merely, as I and others in the opposition have done today,
pointing out some very serious concerns our parties have with
this legislation. We all have the hope that the government will
respond, unlike with C-4, and actually give this bill a good
hearing in committee and possibly make some amendments to it.
I note the PC member who just spoke also referred to the need
for some amendments and changes before his party will support it
any further than the position the bill is at right now, which is
to refer the bill after second reading to committee.
The member referred to the compulsory nature of the check-off,
the levy that is inherent in Bill C-26. This reminds me of the
compulsory nature in the way the Canadian Wheat Board operates
where farmers do not have the freedom to choose how they are
going to market their wheat and export barley. It is the same
case in C-26. Farmers are not going to have the choice of
whether or not to have this check-off come off their cheques. The
levy will be deducted and then they have to jump through a bunch
of hoops before they can get the money back at the end of the
year.
It almost reminds one of the inclusion clause in Bill C-4
whereby the new board of directors for the Canadian Wheat Board
is going to have the option of expanding the compulsory and
mandatory nature of the Canadian Wheat Board to encompass and
include other commodities.
1300
I have a question for the hon. member from the Progressive
Conservative Party. He may have heard as well as I that there is
some concern among farmers about comments made by the Canadian
Grain Commission. There is concern that it may expand this levy
not only to those designated special crops, but at some point in
time to include wheat, barley, canola and flax which are all
major commodities, thereby removing the government's
responsibility for ensuring bonds and insurance coverage by the
grain companies and putting added financial burden on to the
farmers.
Mr. Gerald Keddy: Mr. Speaker, those are some excellent
questions from the member for Prince George—Peace River.
There have been a number of sticky points in this piece of
legislation. Bill C-26 offers some promise, but as the hon.
member already mentioned, the inclusion clause, as it exists in
Bill C-4, the fear of such a clause being utilized in this act
and the fear of other grain commodities coming under this
legislation are all very important issues for the Progressive
Conservative Party.
This has tentative support. The bill has merit. If we go
through it clause by clause it has a perfect chance of becoming a
good law of the Government of Canada. However, several serious
changes need to be made to the bill before it gets to that point.
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): 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.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Pursuant to order
made earlier today the question on the motion is deemed to have
been put and adopted on division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to
a committee)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): For our friends in
the visitors gallery and those who are watching on television, I
am about to ask the House for permission to see the clock at 2.30
p.m. which is our normal time of adjournment. What we are doing
is allowing the House to adjourn at its normal time. This is
because Private Members' Business has been deferred.
Do we have unanimous consent to see the clock as reading 2.30
p.m.?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It being 2.30 p.m.,
the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant
to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1.02 p.m.)