Bill C-18 (Historical)

Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act

An Act to reorganize the Canadian Wheat Board and to make consequential and related amendments to certain Acts

Part 1 of this enactment amends the Canadian Wheat Board Act to change the governance structure of the Canadian Wheat Board and to make other changes in preparation for the implementation of Parts 2 and 3. Part 2 replaces the Canadian Wheat Board Act with a new Act that continues the Canadian Wheat Board and charges it with the marketing of grain through voluntary pooling. Part 3 provides for the possible continuation of the Board under other federal legislation, while Part 4 provides for its winding up if no such continuation occurs. Finally, Part 5 provides for the repeal of the new Act enacted by Part 2.

Bill C-18

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I can confirm to the House that this is Bill C-18 and it is from the legislative committee that was struck for Bill C-18.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the legislative committee on Bill C-18, an act to reorganize the Canadian Wheat Board and to make consequential and related amendments to certain Acts.

Canadian Wheat Board

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, I was very disappointed earlier this month. The minister was going to Russia. He had been asked to attend a board meeting. I think the board knew he was going to be away when it sent the invitation. He responded by saying that his parliamentary secretary would be very glad to attend the board meeting. I was very disappointed because the board said it did not want to meet with me.

We have finally come forward with Bill C-18. This legislation would deliver on our government's long-standing commitment to give western Canadian farmers the marketing freedom they so richly deserve.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, is it just me or is there a bit of irony in the fact that the member opposite wants to legalize marijuana but criminalize grain?

I also need to point out that we did meet last night, and one of the amendments that the NDP wanted to bring forward, which the Liberals supported, would actually have jailed farmers again. We were not prepared to go there.

Farmers woke up this morning thrilled to finally hear that Bill C-18 has been returned to the House. We will soon have a debate at report stage and third reading. Farmers only have a few more sleeps until they have freedom.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again, Bill C-18 seems to increase the arbitrary power of the minister as one of its main objectives and purposes, and we're seeking to retain at least the power of the farmers and producers to control their own destiny with the marketing vehicle they choose to participate in, even in the dual-system voluntary regime that's being put into effect.

Proposed subsection 42(1) says, “In exercising its powers and performing its duties, the Corporation must give effect to the provisions of the Agreement that pertain to the Corporation...”, with the “Agreement” being the North American Free Trade Agreement.

In the interests of our own economic sovereignty and the dignity and the democratic rights of farm producers, we're suggesting the language be changed to say that “the Corporation may, if so directed by a plebiscite of its producers, give effect to the provisions of the Agreement that pertain to that Corporation”.

I think this particular amendment has never been more timely or pertinent given the American attitude, our NAFTA partner's attitude, with their Buy American policy and what we anticipate is going to be a slamming shut of the border. You just wait until some of this Canadian grain starts flowing into the United States to see how well that's going to be greeted by senators of the American states bordering Canada, as grain truck after grain truck goes down to these milling facilities. There will be serious countervailing measures, we predict.

They've hated the Canadian Wheat Board already for generations. They considered it an unfair competitive advantage, but that's the operative word: they acknowledge that it has been an “advantage”, so much so that 13 times they've gone to the GATT and the WTO and filed complaints against the Wheat Board.

Now that they contemplate the language in Bill C-18, which suggests that the corporation “must give effect to the provisions of the Agreement that pertain to the Corporation”, the real impetus for Bill C-18 is revealed: to hand over the competitive trade advantage of the Canadian Wheat Board to the American agrifood industry without even getting anything in trade.

It's the largest single trade concession in recent history, in living memory, and, without even getting anything back, we're giving up our trade advantage. At the very least, we should get up off our knees, stand on our hind legs, and declare that if the farmer producers agree with these provisions, then they “may” give effect to those provisions--not that they “must” or “shall”.

I've negotiated about a hundred collective agreements and I know the difference between “may” and “shall”. We want language that favours, to the best extent possible ,the rights and the economic sovereignty of Canadians, not something that unilaterally forfeits our economic sovereignty and the trade advantage that we enjoy--or have enjoyed until this sorry night with the Canadian Wheat Board.

It reminds me of the softwood lumber agreement. I used that analogy that nobody liked about beavers and their genitalia, but Margaret Atwood was absolutely right. For some reason, every time we have an advantage and we're backed into a corner, we immediately chicken out and offer up to our tormentors that which is most advantageous and useful to us--in this case, the trade advantage that we enjoy with the Canadian Wheat Board.

So give us a break. We're on a roll here. The last amendment passed. We could end this night with a whole series of amendments passing with a little bit of flexibility, a little bit of pride. Where's our national pride? I'm a fiercely proud Canadian nationalist, and I don't like unilaterally forfeiting what I consider to be our economic sovereignty.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I don't think I need all that, but I did cut myself short to give others an opportunity. I want people to understand just how broad and sweeping Bill C-18 is in putting control and direction of the Wheat Board in the hands of government.

We introduced this clause by referring to the first line, but let me read the clause that I am trying to replace here: “The Governor in Council may, by order, direct the Corporation with respect to the manner in which any of its operations, powers and duties under this Act are to be conducted, exercised or performed”. That is absolute direction and control in every aspect and detail of their operations, from the rent they pay for their offices to what they pay their staff.

Earlier in the act, it even dictates that the government gets to say what the salaries of the CEO and president shall be. That's how prescriptive and absolute they want the control over this thing.

So even though they are talking about giving farmers choice, they are throttling any choice farmers might have about how to operate the shell that is left of their Canadian Wheat Board. I just hope people get a full grasp of the severity of Bill C-18 and why we feel it necessary to take these important steps to try to mitigate the impact of it and leave producers some control over their own operations.

We will also be seeking to amend the next clause. I am concerned that if this amendment is defeated we won't get a chance to talk about the second part of this proposed section. It also goes on to say: “The directors are to cause the directions to be implemented and, in so far as they act in accordance with section 16, they are not accountable for any consequences arising from the implementation of the directions”.

This is sort of giving a 007 licence-to-kill clause to the directors: as long as they're implementing what the PMO is dictating, they are somehow absolved of any normal fiduciary accountability and obligations that directors are normally subject to. So they're not directors anymore at all: they're stooges. They've turned them into five government stooges who don't even have the same liabilities that a normal director of a business or a corporation has. This is a recipe that's doomed to failure. I predict that it will be out of business in three years.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I will. It's duly noted. Thank you.

We are talking about the same clause 14, but it's subsection 25(1), under “Directions by Governor in Council”. As you note, in Bill C-18 it reads, “The Governor in Council may, by order, direct the Corporation with respect to the manner which any of its operations...”, etc.

The language I suggest is: “The Governor in Council may make recommendations to the Corporation with respect to the...”. It may not “direct” the corporation. I guess it's self-evident what we're seeking to do. We want whatever is left of the Canadian Wheat Board, in its voluntary dual-choice capacity, to at least to be independent from the direction and control of the government.

By having this language in Bill C-18, where the Governor in Council may by order direct the corporation, it might as well be a department of the government. It's not a crown corporation. It's not supposed to be a government agency or a government institution. It's not an extension of the Minister of Agriculture's office. Why should it be under the direction and control of the government?

If you people care about giving farmers choice, for God's sake let them run their own voluntary enterprise for marketing their grain, and don't have the heavy-handed state imposing their will on democratically-minded Canadian farmers.

I urge you to pass this amendment. It's a reasonable amendment. Let's face it: whose interests are we looking after here? We want to represent the people who elected us, but everything we've been doing here so far is serving the interests of the American agrifood industry, the multinational corporations that are just salivating to get their hands on this market share. It's like putting a ball and chain on the legs of the new directors if you're actually contemplating having the government dictate their affairs for them.

I'm not going to speak to this at length, but I strongly urge you to support NDP-10.

If any of my colleagues care to speak to it, they can have the rest of my time.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I'm always the last to know, it seems.

Along the same vein of injecting some fundamental democracy to this process, regardless of whether there are going to be five directors, as the current Bill C-18 calls for, or the 15 that we sought in order to maintain the status quo through the last amendment that just failed, surely we can agree that it's in the interests of basic fairness and natural justice that the directors are, in fact, elected by the producers in accordance with the regulations that are set out after the fact by this act.

We're calling for all directors to be elected by the producers in accordance with the regulations, and for the president to be a director and be elected by the other directors in accordance with the regulations. In other words, all 15 are elected and then those 15 elected directors elect their president. It's basic fundamental democracy.

We believe that much of Bill C-18 is an affront to democracy. We're trying to restore some substantive participation of the producers in what shell is left over of the Wheat Board. We are on the record as saying that we have no confidence, frankly, that this voluntary Wheat Board is going to survive, but we're adamant that we're going to fight to the end to make sure that it is in its best possible shape, and that it is fair and democratic to the producers.

When I say that I suspect that the voluntary board will likely not be able to survive, I want to show you some of the very, very little bit of empirical evidence that has been made available to us as to how the Wheat Board has performed in times when they haven't had a single desk, when it has been voluntary.

This is a graph of the prices farmers were getting for their grain from 1917 to 1945, where it went through five different--

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Okay. We have technical difficulties at the chairmanship.

Resuming debate, the ruling is that the motion is inadmissible because it is contrary to the principle of the bill, and I'll give the rationale that has been provided to me by the legislative clerk.

Bill C-18 provides marketing freedom for grain farmers. Amendment NDP-6 would allow the Wheat Board to prosecute farmers who do not sell their grain through the board. According to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, it is stated on page 766 that:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

In the opinion of the chair, the introduction of the concept of en matia monopoly power for the board is contrary to the principle of Bill C-18 and is therefore inadmissible. That is my ruling, consistent with the rules we have. So I will have to move on, then, to the next proposed amendment, which will take us to proposed section 9 of the new legislation.

Mr. Easter.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Perfect, Mr. Easter. That was exactly 13 seconds.

Is there any other debate on this?

Shall the amendment carry?

(Amendment negatived)

Moving on, colleagues, we have, for proposed section 7 in the new act, a proposed motion numbered NDP-6 in your list. After review with the clerk, I have to start this with a ruling.

Bill C-18 provides for government liability for certain losses under part 2 of the Canadian Wheat Board (Interim Operations) Act--

Sorry, is that the wrong one...?

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

What you read is not what I have on paper. For clarification, what I have here is:

That Bill C-18 in clause 14 be amended by replacing lines 29 and 30 on page 5 with the following: the grain of producers who choose to deal with the Corporation and the Corporation is accountable only to Parliament.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you.

By moving this amendment, it really speaks to the whole fundamental question of the Wheat Board, and I believe its greatest strengths and perhaps the biggest change associated with and caused by Bill C-18.

This clause, as it reads currently, essentially makes it a voluntary board. It's the right to choose whether to sell your grain through the Wheat Board or not. I would argue it's that the universality of the Wheat Board's single-desk selling that is its greatest strength.

The amendment that I put forward would in fact maintain the status quo, and the language would simply read, “The object of the Corporation is to market grain for the benefit of producers”. Period, full stop, and delete this language: “who choose to deal with the Corporation”.

I can speak to this briefly, not even using my own words. I implore committee members, and producers who may be watching this, to listen to the words of the American competitors on this subject.

Alberto Weisser, the chief executive officer of Bunge, said the single-desk “concept is brilliant”. Robert Carlson, the president of the North Dakota Farmers Union, said he is “convinced the Wheat Board earned Canadian farmers big premiums compared to the U.S. prices and that the end of the monopoly will further weaken farmers and give more control to the giant multinationals”. He said, “It's been consistently true” that the Canadian Wheat Board has earned more money for Canadian farmers.

It's because of the single-desk monopoly and the collective action of farmers that they've been able to command the hundreds of millions of dollars in premiums over the years for producers. It's really perhaps the shortest clause in the act, but it's the most damaging in terms of the demise of the Wheat Board.

So, therefore, that explains our motivation in deleting the language “who choose to deal with the Corporation”: maintaining the status quo that producers will in fact market their grain and that the object of the corporation is to market grain for their benefit, just as their mandate now is to return the maximum profitability to the producer.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

That's good. It's nice.

There seems to be some confusion as I'm going through... I'm going through the act and having a hard time being assured that I'm on the same number that you're voting on--and you're going through it a little too rapidly, in my view.

Just clarify for us which section you were on, and what act...? Are you working from Bill C-18 itself?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

The motion is fairly self-evident, Mr. Chairman, if I can begin the debate.

We believe that one of the most offensive provisions of Bill C-18 is the interference with the farmers' right to elect their own directors. By virtue of this particular legislation, all of those democratically elected directors are fired.

Our intention in moving this amendment in clause 12 is that it would change the effect, so that instead of those directors being dismissed, they would in fact remain in office instead of ceasing to hold office on that day.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the fourth meeting of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-18. As was outlined in our organizational meeting tonight, we will proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-18.

At the end of the last meeting, I asked members to be mindful of the process that was decided upon, and I'm hoping we can stick to that.

I would like to welcome our legislative clerks here tonight, Mr. Wayne Cole and Ms. Joann Garbig, who are here to assist us. From the department, to provide technical assistance, we have Mr. Greg Meredith, as well as Mr. Paul Martin and Mr. Ryan Rempel.

Mr. Anderson, I believe you wanted to raise a question about the process.