Agriculture Committee on Sept. 28th, 2006

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I have another point on the Grain Commission thing. Some of the witnesses talked about that liability section. I wonder if legal counsel with the Library of Parliament could give us a little briefing note on the implications of that. I worry about that liability section.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

On the binding arbitration.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Rather than coming in as a witness at this stage, perhaps they could provide us with a little synopsis of their interpretation of what liabilities could mean to producers and to the government in terms of costs, etc.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Including a discussion on the Certificate Final as well, which I assume you want to include.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

So the binding arbitration's Certificate Final and a briefing from the Library of Parliament.

Okay, good; J.D. has that under control.

Mr. Easter, your motion.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, do I need to read the motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Yes, into the record.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

All right.

I so move the following:

That, the Committee invite Ms. Mary Lynn Charlton, President of Charlton Communication, to appear to answer questions regarding any representations she may have received from the “government, MP's and others” to undertake a “propaganda” campaign on behalf of those determined to undermine the Canadian Wheat Board.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I second that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Any discussion? This is a debatable motion.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chairman, the reason for the motion is really quite simple. It's not about a letter-writing campaign by her--or by any other organization, for that matter. It's due to the simple fact that the email indicates that the company has been approached by government, MPs, and others to undertake a propaganda game. That is worrisome.

In fact, at least one of the recipients of the email is on the minister's task force, as is a representative of an organization on the task force. The question that really needs to be asked is whether this influence is from government itself.

There's a growing controversy around this issue. We have the task force, which, as members know, we're very strenuously concerned about. Increasingly there are connections back to the board of directors of Agricore, and there are connections with this Charlton Communications.

To even think that the government itself might be operating a propaganda campaign is worrisome. We do need to hear from this lady to find out if in fact that is correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Mr. Miller.

[Larry Miller, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Due to the schedule we have, Mr. Chairman, I don't know where we're going to fit this in. On the other side of it, I think it would be...at this point, anyway, to have a letter from you as chair to this Charlton person and have them send forward whatever written material there is. We can make a decision at that point on whether we have to give up a meeting somewhere in order to have them in.

That would be my comment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

I guess that points to the timeframe, to how soon.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

In terms of a timeframe, Mr. Chair, we have a task force, operating under a four-week mandate, that is basically suspect now because one of the recipients of that email is in fact a member of that task force. So it would be--

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Mr. Easter, enlighten me on the time of the email. Was it before or after the announcement of the task force?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

It was September 19, after the task force was set up. It was copied to Paul Orsak, who is a member of the task force.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Thank you.

Mr. Anderson.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Chair, the minister was clear in the House that the government had nothing to do with contacting this person or influencing her choice of email. She's a private businessperson. We can't explore every email that's sent in this country. I don't think we have time to take a look at this. If we're going to study it, however, I think we should insist on doing it on a broader scale. We're getting a lot of emails from organizations—I know of one that seems to be sending several each night from the same fax number. We would be well advised to make sure that those faxes are written by the authors and represent their position accurately.

A number of farmers have asked me to explore whether the Canadian Wheat Board has the ability to write letters, send them out from a database, and have other people sign for them. That's something we should probably take a look at.

Another question that's been raised with us is that some of our people had information and marketing reps from the Wheat Board phoning and inviting them to a meeting on Monday in Saskatoon. Coincidentally, on Monday in Saskatoon there was a group formed to support the board—single-desk position. Maybe we need to take a look at whether the board's been politically involved in this issue and whether they're spending farmers' money on it.

We'd also need to look at the databases accessed to contact those farmers—whether permit book numbers have been used and whether this is a violation of the Canadian Wheat Board Act. If we're going to go into it, we ought to explore it on a much wider basis.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Mr. Bellavance, and then Mr. Steckle.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

In my opinion, it’s impossible for us to analyze each and every allegation that we hear, except that, in the case mentioned by M. Easter, there is concrete evidence, that is, the e-mail that was sent. To repeat what my colleague Jean Yves said earlier concerning transparency, I fear that there is a clear link between a member of the committee created by the Minister and this person.

Whether we receive letters that are favourable to the Canadian Wheat Board or not is not unusual. I think that we receive many letters concerning each file, as well as e-mails and postcards. Everyone does this with his or her member of Parliament, it’s quite normal. However, in this particular case, something smells rotten.

I think we should have the opportunity to hear this woman. However, I am worried about the committee’s schedule. We had agreed to speak to the Canadian Wheat Board quite soon. As far as I’m concerned, we could invite this person. If Mr. Anderson has more than only allegations concerning the Canadian Wheat Board, we will be able to ask the representatives of the Canadian Wheat Board, when come to meet us, if they adopted a system with people who falsely signed or did something. I am not the one who alleges this; this is what I just heard. It might therefore be appropriate at this time while we are discussing this subject to summon this person.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Thank you.

Mr. Steckle.

[Paul Steckle, Liberal, Huron—Bruce, ON]

We're on a rather tight timeframe, but this person needs to come forward. This email implicates members of Parliament and the government. That is very serious. We see language asking to “get us into the propaganda game”. If they're doing this, we need to know it. When people use language like that, it is serious and should be questioned. I think those people need to come before this committee. If our seating positions in this room were reversed, you would insist on it. I expect the same from you now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Mr. Atamanenko.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

I was the first one to raise this in the House. I understand what David is saying and I agree with it. If only to clear the government's name, we should have this person appear, probably within the framework of the Canadian Wheat Board discussions. We should set a time limit and do it on a case-by-case basis. If we have other evidence coming up, we should be considering it at the same time.