Opposition MPs united last week to kill the Conservative government’s latest attempt to reform the Canada Grain Act and the mandate of the Canadian Grain Commission.
The Conservative government had reintroduced legislation that failed in the last Parliament, indicating it was open to amendments at committee to protect farmers if an unbonded grain dealer goes bankrupt before the producer has received payment.
Conservative allies in the grain industry, including Grain Growers of Canada and Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association, supported the bill on the assumption it would be improved at committee.
Read Also
Going beyond “Resistant” on crop seed labels
Variety resistance is getting more specific on crop disease pathogens, but that information must be conveyed in a way that actually helps producers make rotation decisions.
But the legislation also had its critics, including the National Farmers Union and the Public Service Alliance of Canada, which represents commission employees, including 200 who would lose their jobs.
In the end, opposition MPs insisted the Conservative reform would reduce grain inspections and jeopardize farmers’ rights and food safety.
When the government called the legislation, Bill C-13, for debate last week, New Democrat Alex Atamanenko proposed a parliamentary tactic called a “hoist motion” that takes the bill off the parliamentary agenda for six months, effectively killing it.
Liberals and Bloc Québécois MPs agreed to support it, and the government took it off the agenda.
The usual debate between farm sector ideological opponents then broke out.
Conservatives angrily accused the Liberals of resurrecting the unpopular coalition of NDP, Bloc Quebecois and Liberals that tried to take over government in December.
Opposition MPs said the Conservatives were undermining farmers by ending inward inspection of grain moving from prairie elevators to terminals or export sites and by diluting the commission mandate to protect farmers’ rights against more powerful grain trade players.
In the House of Commons April 2, Atamanenko said a reduction in inspections would threaten food safety and allow such fungal diseases as ergot to pass through the system.
“Does the minister of agriculture and agri-food agree that this would create a serious gap in the Canadian food safety system?” he asked agriculture minister Gerry Ritz.
Ritz dismissed his concerns as nonsense. Inward inspection is still available if companies want to pay and grain still would be inspected at point of delivery and the export terminal.
“By getting rid of Bill C-13 today, the opposition parties have hamstrung producers again,” he said.
“It is an antiquated act. It is darned near as old as the NDP.”
In fact, the Canada Grain Act predates the 47-year-old NDP by decades.
NFU president Stewart Wells said the Conservative bill would have deregulated the grain sector. He praised the opposition for listening to farmers and consumers.
“It would pave the way for the sort of deregulation that led to the world’s financial disaster.”
Liberal MP Wayne Easter told an April 2 Parliament Hill news conference the opposition at first thought it could approve the bill in principle and then change it at committee.
“The farm community in terms of its reaction, negative reaction to this bill, has been saying, ‘look, just kill the bill,’ ” he said. “This bill is basically unamendable. It is very bad for the Canadian grain industry and even food safety.”
Grain Growers of Canada and the Western Canadian Wheat Growers Association lamented the latest death of Conservative attempts to change Grain Act regulations.
The grain growers said the issue of ensuring farmers are protected through a dealer bond until an alternative is found had to be fixed at committee, but the overall thrust of the bill was good. Ritz had promised farmers would not be left in the lurch on the bonding issue.
The bill should have been sent to committee, said grain growers president Doug Robertson, “where all of the political parties including the government members should have a hard look at whether the cost of bonding is limiting competition and what are the costs of alternatives like insurance or a clearing house.”
