AGRI Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE L'AGRICULTURE ET DE L'AGROALIMENTAIRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, April 22, 1998

• 1541

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): We call the meeting to order. Good afternoon, everyone.

Pursuant to the order of reference of the House of March 27, 1998, this is a study of 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.

We have as witnesses and support for the clause-by-clause procedure we will be going through today: from the Canadian Grain Commission, Pat Funk, executive assistant; Marilyn Kapitany, director, corporate services; Valerie Gilroy, barrister and solicitor; and Régis Gosselin, assistant manager. From the Canadian Food Inspection Agency we have Mr. Reg Gatenby, chief, regulatory affairs division.

Perhaps we can take a minute of your time, colleagues, before we start the clause-by-clause. The clerk has requested that a motion be put and accepted for funds to pay for the witnesses who have appeared in consideration of Bill C-26 and on the biotech study.

Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood—Assiniboine, Lib.): I so move.

Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): I second the motion.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: You all have the package provided to you by our esteemed clerk, so we'll proceed.

(On clause 1)

The Chairman: There's a government amendment.

Mr. John Harvard: May I move an amendment to clause 1?

We're a rather humble bunch on this side of the room, and when we discover there is an error in the drafting of the bill, we proceed to fix it.

This is an administrative amendment, Mr. Chairman, and maybe I should read it first.

I move that clause 1 of Bill C-26 be amended by replacing line 28 on page 2 with the following:

Act or the regulations or any order that may be proceed-

There's a very short explanation for this. The intention of Bill C-26 is to have the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administration Monetary Penalties Act deal not only with violations of the act itself and its regulations but also with orders issued by the commission, the Canadian Grain Commission.

Somehow or another the orders of the commission were left out in the drafting of the bill, so by making this amendment we're inserting the orders of the commission. The orders of the commission will come under this bill as well. I hope that is satisfactory.

The Chairman: Is there any discussion?

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 1 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 5)

The Chairman: There's an amendment from the Reform Party.

• 1545

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment to do with a translation error. The amendment ensures that the English matches the French wording and meaning. Currently the legal meaning of the English version of clause 5 is not as clear as the French version, and I think this would solve the potential problem.

Does everybody have a copy of it?

The Chairman: Are there any comments from the members?

Mr. John Harvard: Let's just check with the staff.

The Chairman: Sure.

Mr. John Harvard: No, it seems to be in order, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Shall the amendment for clause 5, as moved by Mr. Hill, carry?

(Amendment agreed to—[See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 5 as amended agreed to)

(Clause 6 agreed to)

(On clause 7)

The Chairman: We have a number of amendments from the Reform Party.

Mr. Jay Hill: We have amendments and some consequential amendments to later clauses that pertain to this. It deals with the levy reimbursement.

This amendment implies that the producers' contributions to the insurance plan will be reimbursed after they withdraw from the plan. This effectively means the regulations guiding the withdrawal of producers from the plan will follow the SCRIP model that was drafted and will make producers withdraw in writing to the commission before the season begins. They will then pay throughout the year and be reimbursed at the end of the season.

We oppose this amendment. If our amendment were to pass, we would oppose the amendment as it exists.

I'm sorry—oh, I see. This was the Liberal amendment that wasn't put forward. May I have the indulgence of the committee, please.

I was following one of the Liberal amendments that was projected but wasn't put forward, Mr. Chairman.

Our amendment to clause 7 would see voluntary participation in the insurance plan by the producers. The amendment ensures that producers' participation in the insurance plan is entirely voluntary. We arrived at this amendment following presentations by a number of the witnesses who appeared before the committee, Mr. Chairman. They expressed opposition to what they view as a negative option billing, which is the way the levy currently exists in the bill.

The Chairman: Is there any discussion?

Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard: On behalf of the minister, Mr. Chairman, we can't support this amendment. This amendment really goes to the heart of what this bill is all about insofar as SCRIP is concerned, and it goes against this part of the bill.

We cannot have this kind of insurance plan, Mr. Chairman, without maximizing producer participation. Over and above that, by having what we call a mandatory refundable scheme, it lends itself to administrative efficiencies.

For this plan to be viable, we simply have to have as many producers involved as possible. We want this plan to succeed. If it doesn't succeed, in a way producers are going to be worse off than they are right now.

I think in the main, Mr. Chairman, producers want this. They want an insurance plan. The dealers, the agents, want to get out of the very expensive bonding arrangement they have to go through right now.

We think this is a reasonable compromise and one that will go over quite well with most of the people on the prairies. It will make the scheme viable.

We therefore cannot accept this amendment.

I can say to Mr. Hill that insofar as the other amendments are concerned, if you proceed with them, they will generate exactly the same response.

• 1550

Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): I would like to add a few comments to Mr. Harvard's comments.

We debated this whole issue on the check-off on the research funding through the permit book. I get more phone calls against that program because they have to opt out later on instead of giving notice at the start of the crop year that they don't want to be checked off.

This to me is just tying up the operational funds that producers can use otherwise, and you will find they will become more and more hostile toward the program.

If you want to defeat it and cause a lot of problems in this program... Make it voluntary at the start of the season. People will participate if it's a good program. If you force them to do it but they can opt out at the end of the year, withdraw their funds, they're going to become hostile to it. On that reason alone they will not participate in the program.

They're having a tremendous problem in Manitoba with Keystone Agricultural Producers. They operate in the same way. It's going to destroy the organization finally, because there's too much hostility around this issue. If it's voluntary, it's voluntary; if it isn't voluntary, make it compulsory.

The Chairman: Mr. Canuel, do you want to add something?

[Translation]

Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia—Matane, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to speak to the Reform party's amendment. I intend to move another amendment. Would you care to hear it at this time?

[English]

The Chairman: No, we first have to finish what we started here. Do you want an amendment on clause 7?

[Translation]

Mr. René Canuel: No.

[English]

The Chairman: No? Which clause?

[Translation]

Mr. René Canuel: Would you like me to read it to you?

[English]

The Chairman: No, we'll deal with Mr. Hill's and then—

[Translation]

Mr. René Canuel: Let's finish up with this amendment and then I will present mine.

[English]

The Chairman: Is your amendment on clause 7?

[Translation]

Mr. René Canuel: Yes.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill: Further to this, Mr. Chairman, in response to Mr. Harvard, I think it was painfully clear to all committee members when the witnesses appeared before the committee yesterday morning that almost all of them, as I recall, were opposed to this. They represented a large cross-section of producers from the three prairie provinces this bill will affect. It was my impression, and we can certainly check the minutes of the meeting yesterday, that all of them were quite adamant this should be a voluntary check-off. It should not be an upfront tax on farmers and producers at a time when they can ill afford it.

We can even go back, Mr. Chairman, to the arguments put forward when the Canadian Grain Commission appeared before this committee. They said that, in their view, if producers were in the program, they would see the benefits.

The very idea government will force farmers to involuntarily participate in a program in the hope that at the end of the year they will remain in it, because either it's a small amount of money or they perchance might see the benefit of the program—I think that is an erroneous way for government to proceed. I think it was very clear from the witnesses who appeared yesterday. They feel there's going to be a sense of rebellion on the part of the producers.

I think it harms the very intent of the bill and the intent the government is putting forward to assist these special crops producers in protecting themselves from future problems, such as a dealer going into receivership or bankruptcy. It's to protect them if they are caught in that type of unfortunate situation.

I would really urge all committee members to support this amendment and make the levy truly voluntary.

The Chairman: Is there any further discussion?

Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard: Let me add just a couple of more points.

The discussions about this particular plan, Mr. Hill, go back a number of years. I've looked at some documents to indicate that the first discussions about a plan of this kind go back to 1994, and this is 1998.

• 1555

Yes, there are some people who would support your motion. We happen to think that after years of consultation a good majority of the producers and the agents will support this kind of scheme.

Please remember one thing: those farmers who don't want any part of the scheme can opt out. Yes, the levy will be assessed but they will get it back. The only what you might call compulsory part of it is that they will have to provide levies for, I guess, up to 12 months.

I should also tell you that later on in the proceedings we'll be moving an amendment to make it even easier for farmers to get a reimbursement of the levy, so I think we are doing everything possible to make the scheme work.

Yes, it's a mandatory refundable scheme. Again we think it touches middle ground, and that's what we're looking for.

The Chairman: Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I've said all along that I would congratulate government when they brought good legislation forward, and I do congratulate the government for bringing this legislation forward. That doesn't necessarily mean there aren't some necessary improvements that could be made to the legislation.

I speak in favour of Mr. Hill's amendment for the same reasons given already. All or most of the people who appeared before us as witnesses certainly had some grave concerns about two areas, one of which has been dealt with by amendment already, and the other of which is this particular negative billing option with respect to the insurance or SCRIP.

I believe protection should be provided, but I believe very strongly in choice for individuals. I believe they should have the right to say whether they want to purchase that particular protection or not.

I'll give an example, Mr. Chairman. We talk about their being able to opt out, their being able to get their mandatory refund. We're going to make that aspect of it easier, but would it not simply be better to give an individual the option to say yes or no to this particular SCRIP?

I'll give you an example. There's a great program out there and it's called NISA. NISA is a wonderful program. It's the net income stabilization account. It's not mandatory. It is voluntary. People do not have to take advantage of NISA. Not to take advantage is probably the wrong decision to make, but it's not for us to tell the producers whether it's the right or wrong decision. It's their right to make that decision.

I see this situation as being somewhat similar. It should be the producers' right to say whether they should or should not be protected when they sell their commodity to a broker or a processor from whom they wish or wish not to have protection.

It's a simple amendment, but it's one that speaks to a number of issues that are percolating and boiling right now in the farm community. That's the decision of choice.

I think if you put this type of legislation in place, contrary to what the majority of people said to this committee when they appeared before us, once again big government or big brother is saying we know what's best for you and you don't have the right to make that decision.

I also accept and understand, Mr. Harvard, that it's much simpler and easier for the program to operate if you force everybody to get into it, but if you have to force them, is the program the right program?

Mr. John Harvard: We're not forcing everybody into it.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I don't know if we're going to be having debate, Mr. Chairman, but I'm prepared to debate this issue.

In fact it is forcing people to go into it. What it's forcing people to do is get out of it, and that is negative option billing. We know what happened to other corporations when they tried it.

I would really ask the members of the government to consider this particular amendment.

Remember what I said. You have put together a good legislative package. Make no mistake about it, but let's make it a little better than what it is now. I think by accepting this amendment it will make it better.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill: If the government members on the committee decide to go basically against the views expressed by almost all the witnesses who appeared and represented the farmers of western Canada this is going to affect, I urge them to consider the ramifications of the decision in light of, as Mr. Borotsik indicates, the view of the Canadian public about negative option billing, the hue and cry that arose from coast to coast in connection with Rogers Cable when they were trying to go down that path. I note that when that was suggested by Rogers Cable as a way to get their fees for their services, there was a large number of Liberals, some prominent backbenchers, who rose up in disgust and dismay at that to voice their displeasure on behalf of their constituents and the ratepayers. Given that, I just urge a bit of caution here.

• 1600

Secondly, Mr. Chairman, in regard to this particular amendment, because it is consequential to four other amendments that Reform has put forward—another one with clause 7 and three dealing with clause 24—all of them will fail if this amendment is voted down, as you and Mr. Harvard have stated. I would ask for a recorded vote on this particular amendment, given its importance.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. John Harvard: Mr. Chairman, can I say one more thing in response to Mr. Hill? He used the analogy of Rogers Cable, but I don't think that's analogous. First of all, no one asked to use his term or his cliché, “negative-option billing”. The consumers didn't ask for their plan.

I can tell you that in the last four years, Mr. Hill, the special crops industry has wanted an insurance plan. You can speak to agents, you can speak to producers, and they want an insurance plan. The current system is untenable. They have come to government and they have asked us to set up a scheme whereby they can have insurance and, at the same time, eliminate this very expensive bonding system that the agents have to suffer under. In consultation with them, we have come to an agreement and a decision that, to provide them with the viable scheme they want, the way to do it is through a mandatory refundable approach. So I don't think your analogy is a correct one.

Insofar as Mr. Borotsik is concerned, he talks about it being totally optional, about giving them a choice. I noticed the example he used, but I noticed Mr. Borotsik did not use medicare. If you want to use examples...you have to participate in medicare. I suspect that, even as a Conservative, you would want medicare the way it is right now. You don't want people opting out.

The Chairman: Mr. Hoeppner.

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: I can see Mr. Harvard's argument on this, but I also want to remind him that as far back as four years ago, the special crops people came to government and wanted something different from what the Canadian Grain Commission tried to force on them: that they would all have to be licensed and bonded, the same as a grain elevator. They could not afford that type of bonding or insurance. It was going to put them out of business. That's why they wanted something else. That's why they wanted a bill for the special crops industry, because they had developed it on their own, with their own money. That is why they could not afford to have the grain commission force their guidelines on that. It was too costly.

They want this plan to be voluntary. They've done a tremendous job for western Canadian farmers in developing this industry. If we can't bend backwards a little bit and take some of their guidelines, why did we ask the people to come here as witnesses? They were very adamant that they wanted this to be a voluntary program; otherwise they would have some problems with their membership.

The Chairman: Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to make another comment and rebut the analogy here, or the comparison at least, between medicare and a plan that's being set up right now that should in fact be optional for individuals.

I don't see the connection, Mr. Harvard. Perhaps I'm that thick; however, what I do see here is a new plan. You said specifically that the producers wanted it, the processors wanted it, all of the stakeholders wanted it, so why not let them make the choice to get into it? Why force them into a particular plan? If they want it so badly and it's available to them at a reasonable cost, those same producers, those same processors, and those same stakeholders will take advantage of it. They don't have to be forced into it. They don't have to have a mandatory refund clause put in there. They'll in fact jump at the opportunity. As I jump to an opportunity to insure my personal property, as I jump to the opportunity to insure my own life, with life insurance, I'm sure I would like to do that to insure my crop.

• 1605

Mr. Chairman, I look across the room, I look across at that bench, and I see some very intelligent people. I thought this was the place where we could in fact put some arguments forward that we could logically discuss.

I heard Mr. Harvard comment, “We have decided that this is the way it is going to be.” If that's their close-minded attitude, if we're not going to be able discuss some other options, why are we going clause by clause if it has been decided?

You listened to the people when they came and spoke to us. You've put forth some good amendments to this legislation. All I'm suggesting is go that one step further, listen to the people who appeared before us and allow them to make their decisions themselves, without having government make the decision.

Mr. Chairman, I should tell you that I'm sure Mr. Harvard and I can debate this issue until the cows come home. However, I would like to have the other members who have open minds consider this particular amendment.

The Chairman: Mr. Proctor.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To the parliamentary secretary, can we just cut to the chase on this? Does your concern with this amendment, your resistance to accepting it, come about because you're concerned that there will be such a small group of farmers who will actually opt into the program, or you will have difficulty getting insurance or getting the Export Development Corporation interested in it? Is that the concern we have here?

Mr. John Harvard: I would put it another way, Mr. Proctor. I would say we want a scheme that will maximize participation. That's number one.

Number two, you can't overlook the fact that there will be administrative efficiencies. If those farmers choose not to be a part of the plan, fine, they can make the proper notification and they will be left out. But if they don't make any notification, if they don't want to opt out, fine, they will become a part of the scheme. That will be much easier for the agents and the dealers.

There will be a lot less paperwork if we go this route, Mr. Proctor. This is what we want. We want a viable plan, we want to maximize administrative efficiencies, and we also want to maximize participation.

I think it's time to call the question.

The Chairman: Are you ready for the question?

(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chairman: Do I have the committee's consent to apply this vote to amendments R-3 and R-4, on pages 5 and 6?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: We now go to G-2.

Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Chairman, just for clarification, I don't believe R-3 was consequential to R-2. It's a housekeeping amendment that just basically rewrites proposed subsection 49.01(3) to make it more clear. I think it was suggested, if I'm not mistaken, by the legislative council when we were drafting our amendments. Can the government get some clarification on that?

• 1610

The Chairman: We said earlier, Mr. Hill, that if your amendment 2 was defeated—

Mr. Jay Hill: It would effect R-4, R-5, R-6, and R-7. I'm working from two different lists, Mr. Chairman. That's why there's a bit of confusion.

The Chairman: R-2, R-4, R-6, and R-7.

Mr. Jay Hill: And R-5.

The Chairman: And R-5

Mr. Jay Hill: The only one it doesn't affect is R-3, unless I'm mistaken, and I don't think I am on this.

The Chairman: Okay. Then can I apply the vote just taken to R-4, R-5, R-6, and R-7?

Mr. Jay Hill: Yes, with the defeat of R-2—

The Chairman: They're consequential and are all negatived.

Mr. Jay Hill: Yes, R-4, R-5, R-6, and R-7 are the ones I was referring to.

The Chairman: We'll now consider Reform amendment 3.

Mr. Jay Hill: I guess I already gave the arguments for it, if the government would like to clarify that. It will just correct something that we believe is poorly written and a bit unclear.

Mr. John Harvard: I'll give exactly the same response I gave to the earlier amendment: we'll support it.

Mr. Jay Hill: Okay.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Mr. Jay Hill: Are there any other amendments to clause 7, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. John Harvard: I think clause 7 is going to be moved by Mrs. Ur.

The Chairman: The R-3 amendment will pass as amended. The amendment stands.

Mr. Jay Hill: Now we're on G-2.

The Chairman: We're on G-2.

Mr. Canuel, did you want to speak to G-2?

[Translation]

Mr. René Canuel: Mr. Chairman, I have what I want in G.-2. Therefore, there is no need for me to table my amendment, since G-2 serves the purpose.

[English]

The Chairman: So we're looking at amendment G-2 on page 7. Is there any discussion on amendment G-2?

Mr. John Harvard: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Mr. Harvard, are you moving G-2?

Mr. John Harvard: No, Mrs. Ur is.

Just before you go ahead, Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of our staff here, particularly our lawyer, would you just give us a recap of exactly where we are with respect to the changes so we know exactly what we've done? Maybe the clerk or Ms. Gilroy could do that.

Ms. Valerie Gilroy (Barrister and Solicitor, Canadian Grain Commission): It's Reform 3 that I would like a little clarification on, please. Was it the English version or the French version you're saying was unclear and you have made better?

Mr. Jay Hill: I believe it was the English version that was unclear.

Ms. Valerie Gilroy: What was unclear about it? Why is this version better, in your view?

Mr. Jay Hill: I don't have both right in front of me, but our advice from the legislative counsel when they were drafting our amendments was that in comparing the French and English versions, similar to the amendment to clause 1, it was unclear in the translation. There were difficulties. Therefore, the reason for the amendment is to clear that up and make both languages as close as possible.

Ms. Valerie Gilroy: As you know, these bills are drafted by professionals. The French drafter and the English drafter draft them simultaneously, and there's a certain consistency of style that needs to be maintained so the context of the bill can be maintained. We haven't had an opportunity to look at this version that closely because we weren't sure what the intent of the amendment was. If it doesn't change the meaning, I can't see a good reason to change the style. If there's an inconsistency between the English and the French—

• 1615

Mr. Jay Hill: Unless I've missed something, Mr. Chairman, we've already passed our three, so—

The Chairman: The amendment has been carried.

Mr. Jay Hill: Maybe to put your mind at rest, it's certainly my understanding that it does not change the intention. But as to whether it's better or worse, it's just advice we got. That's why we put the amendment forward, so that it would clarify... I'm not fluent in both languages anyway, so I'm not the best person to ask. I was taking it at face value.

Ms. Valerie Gilroy: Okay.

The Chairman: We're going on to G-2.

Mrs. Ur.

Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): I move that clause 7 be amended by replacing line 12 on page 7 with the following:

ance plan described in this section. The agent must reimburse the producer for the amount of any levy the producer paid under subsection (3) for the period after the producer's withdrawal from the plan.

The intent of this amendment is to clarify that producers will receive a refund of their levy deductions without having to apply for it or submit evidence of transactions subsequent to opting out of the plan. It will make it clear that the producers will not have to apply for a refund of their levy deductions and will therefore not be subject to extensive paperwork.

This is being forwarded as an amendment as opposed to being addressed in the regulations in order to make it absolutely clear that the administrator is responsible for automatically refunding the levy to the producers that opt out.

The Chairman: Is there any further discussion?

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: Mr. Chairman, on a point of information, please, who is the agent in this? Is this the processor or is this the development corporation?

Mr. John Harvard: It's the grain commission.

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: The grain commission?

Mr. John Harvard: Initially.

Mr. Jake Hoeppner: Are you sure about that?

The Chairman: Mrs. Kapitany, do you want to clarify this?

Ms. Marilyn Kapitany (Director, Corporate Services, Canadian Grain Commission): Initially the grain commission will be the administrator of the plan, so this makes it clear that the grain commission would automatically refund levies to any producers opting out of the plan.

There is provision in the bill for another administrator to be chosen in the future if the advisory committee believes that's in the best interest of the plan, but initially it will be the Canadian Grain Commission.

The Chairman: Mr. Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill: I need further clarification, just on the definition of a word, because both the past two speakers have used the word “automatically”. I don't see anything like that in this particular amendment. What do you mean by “automatically”?

The Chairman: Madam Kapitany.

Ms. Marilyn Kapitany: The idea is that producers would not have to write in to get their levy back and they would not have to provide us with documentation showing what levy had been deducted. When the levy is taken off at source, at the elevator company or at the dealer, records will be kept by those people in order to forward the levy. We'll use that as the means to keep track of what levy has been submitted. For anyone who has opted out, we will forward the levy back to them without them having to request that levy.

Mr. Jay Hill: Okay. I understand the term “automatically”. Is it the intention, then, that the levy will be paid back to the producer on an annual basis? And if so, when? Would it be at the first of the year or on a crop-year basis? Presumably the producer is going to be making deliveries throughout the year and the levy will be collected at various stages. I'm assuming that every time there's a $7.26 levy collected off a small load or something like that they're not going to issue a cheque. Will they do it once a year?

Mr. John Harvard: This is part of the regulations, Mr. Hill. It will be at least once a year, but I suppose under some circumstances it could be more. But it will certainly be at least once a year. This is a matter for the regulations.

The Chairman: Is there anything to add to clarify this? Shall the amendment carry?

(Amendment agreed to)

• 1620

The Chairman: G-3 is the next amendment, and it's sponsored by M. Coderre.

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, we are proposing an amendment to clause 7 on lines 24 and 25 of page 7 to make the English version agree with the French version. We propose that the words “font le commerce ni de” be deleted and replaced by the words “sont pas négociants en”. Thus, the term “crop dealers” would correspond to the word “négociants” in the French version.

Both versions were drafted simultaneously by legal experts, Mr. Chairman, but they neglected to ensure agreement between the two versions in the case of this particular clause.

[English]

The Chairman: Are there any problems, Mr. Proctor?

Mr. Dick Proctor: I have two G-2s and I don't have a G-3.

The Chairman: Page 9.

Do you want that explained again, Mr. Proctor?

[Translation]

Mr. Denis Coderre: Would you like me to explain it to you? The objective here is to make the French version agree with the English version, which uses the expression “crop dealers”, and to substitute the expression “sont pas négociants en” for the words "font le commerce ni de". “Crop dealers” translates into French as “négociants”.

Mr. Dick Proctor: Thank you.

[English]

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 7 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 8 to 23 inclusive agreed to)

(On clause 24) We have amendments, of which R-5, R-6, and R-7 have already been negatived. We'll look at amendment G-4. It is sponsored by Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard: The intention here is to have it amended by replacing line 35 on page 14 with the following,

(a.1) designating any grain, except wheat, oats, barley, rye, canola and flax, as a special crop.

As the members know, some people who are in the business of producing cereals and oil crops were concerned that perhaps through some administrative measure this insurance plan could be extended to oil seeds and cereals. That was never our intention. Our intention is to apply this plan to special crops as defined under the act and leave it at that.

This amendment simply clarifies that, Mr. Chairman. There will be absolutely no doubt as to which crops this insurance plan will be applied to, and if this plan were ever to be extended, the act itself would have to be amended.

The Chairman: Is there any discussion?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Just one comment, Mr. Chairman. I take it the government is taking out the inclusion clause of this particular piece of legislation, and I do applaud it for that.

The Chairman: Is there any further discussion?

Mr. Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill: I just want to add that I certainly support this amendment. It's encouraging that the government has listened to producers and their concern about this particular aspect of the bill and the possibility that it could encroach upon the standard grains at some time in the future. It very clearly sets those aside.

• 1625

My only regret is that the government didn't wish to listen to them on the voluntary aspect, which was by far the greatest concern expressed by producers who appeared before the committee.

(Amendment agreed to)

(Clause 24 as amended agreed to)

(Clauses 25 to 30 inclusive agreed to)

The Chairman: Shall the title carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Shall the bill carry?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Shall the committee order a reprint for use at report stage?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Shall I report the bill as amended to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chairman: Thank you all very much. We'll reconvene tomorrow morning when the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food will be our witness. Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.