Debate on the federal government’s contentious proposals to revamp the Canadian Grain Commission have begun in Parliament with a hint the Conservatives are open to compromise.
Bill C-13, a replica of legislation that died in the last Parliament, would, among other things, end the bonding of grain companies that protects producers if an elevator company goes bankrupt.
It is one of the most controversial clauses in the bill, and Saskatchewan MP David Anderson, parliamentary secretary to agriculture minister Gerry Ritz, has signaled the government is willing to consider compromise if the bill ever passes second reading approval-in-principle in the House of Commons and arrives at the agriculture committee.
Read Also
Organic farmers urged to make better use of trade deals
Organic growers should be singing CUSMA’s praises, according to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.
“Obviously (bonding) does provide some protection for producers but there is a cost to it as well,” Anderson said March 3 in opening the parliamentary debate.
“We have heard from producers who have asked to have the cost removed. We have heard from other producers who do not mind paying the cost in order to be bonded and protected. The discussion needs to take place at the (agriculture committee) about what the proper balance is between these two things.”
Several weeks ago when he answered questions during an appearance before the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, Ritz also showed flexibility.
Rob Brunel from Manitoba’s Keystone Agricultural Producers said farm groups are working on a producer risk management program to replace bonding through the CGC, but the plan may not be fully developed by the time the rules change.
Will farmers still be protected?
“Absolutely,” Ritz said.
“We’re not going to leave you hanging with nothing. We’ll keep the program that’s existing in place until something new comes along.”
Debate began in the Commons last week and was adjourned for at least a few weeks.
Anderson said changes to the Canada Grain Act would move regulation of the grain industry and the role of the grain commission into the modern age, removing unnecessary rules and costs from the system.
Proposed changes include ending the need for inward inspection and weighing of grain moving from country elevators to terminals, which Anderson said adds cost and accomplishes little. Grain loaded from terminals onto ships will still be weighed, graded and inspected.
“By removing unnecessary mandatory costs from the grain handling system, the bill works to build a lower cost, more effective and innovative grain sector for our producers,” he said.
“We are modernizing the regulatory environment.”
Liberal agriculture critic Wayne Easter, quoting extensively from criticisms offered by National Farmers Union president Stewart Wells, said the proposed changes translate into more grain company power and less protection for producers delivering grain.
“The amendments weakening farmers’ relative position have been part of this minister’s overall record of failure,” Easter said.
The proposals to reduce inspection will mean the loss of up to 200 grain commission jobs. Last week, Thunder Bay NDP MP Bruce Hyer said he would oppose inspector position losses in his city, where lake head terminal elevators are a major employer.
With clear opposition indications that the bill will not move quickly through the Commons, the Conservative minority government is unlikely to assign the bill much priority or debate time in the near future.
