Agriculture Committee on May 31st, 2007

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Paul Steckle]

I'm going to call the meeting to order.

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

I'm going to make a motion that we begin our work on the APF today and that we set Alex's motion aside until we're done with the APF report. I'll repeat that for him.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Paul Steckle]

Do you want to do that again?

Alex, do you want to listen to the motion? I know you're at a distance, but I think you can hear it from there.

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

I'm making a motion that we basically invert our order of business so that we begin the work on the APF this afternoon. Once we're done with the APF report, we will return to Mr. Atamanenko's motion.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Paul Steckle]

We have a motion. There is now debate on the motion. Who wants to get on the speakers' list? Obviously, we have an agenda, which we agreed to, but we have a motion.

We understand it's not a debatable motion. Therefore, I'm going to call the question.

(Motion negatived)

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Paul Steckle]

Your motion has been defeated, Mr. Anderson.

Now we move to the motion of Mr. Atamanenko.

I might just say, before we get into the heart of this meeting, that I do have to leave here at 4:15. Mr. Bellavance is not here. That leaves us without any possible vice-chair, but the committee can deal with that, if they choose to do so. If the committee wishes to and can expedite the handling of this motion in the time given, between now and 4:15, then we will deal with this motion today. If not, we'll have a vote on this motion next week. Let's see how we get along, but the meeting may very well be called to adjournment at 4:15. It may be a short meeting. This is just so that everybody is aware of that and keeps that in mind as they speak to the motion today.

Mr. Atamanenko, do you want to introduce your motion?

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The motion is as follows:

That the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food write a letter to the Honourable Sheila Fraser, Auditor General of Canada, indicating the Committee’s support for the National Farmers Union’s (NFU) April 19th, 2007 submission to the Honourable Sheila Fraser calling for an investigation into the government’s conduct and spending by the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food throughout the recent Canadian Wheat Board barley marketing plebiscite.

I'll take a few minutes to speak to this motion, with the agreement of my colleagues, and obviously leave some time for some rebuttal.

Although it may seem strange that I'm bringing up the letter of the National Farmers Union, basically this letter summarizes my party's position and concerns in regard to the barley plebiscite. I feel, and we feel, there has been some confusion in the process. The final question lacked clarity. It's my contention that this plebiscite ignored the will of Parliament in regard to the type of question, and I think it's fair. I should emphasize that we're calling for an investigation into the process, and if the process has been fair and legitimate, then obviously the conclusions will result from the process and we'll move on. On the other hand, if it hasn't and it is found that there were some irregularities, then being part of our democratic system, that is what we have to look for. So let's let the Auditor General decide part of this democratic process.

There's just a brief summary of this letter, which we all have. I feel there is some question in regard to the actual language of this three-part question, which led the producer to conclude, with the second question, that the producer could have the best of both worlds--in other words, a strong Canadian Wheat Board and the chance to sell outside of the Wheat Board.

One thing that has been my concern since the beginning of this process is the fact that I believe this has been hastily fashioned. The whole process--the sham commission, the blockage, the changing of the Wheat Board director, some of the criteria for the votes--was just part of this step to eventually dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board. I would like to submit that from the studies that have been done, and in fact even the minister's own report—

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Paul Steckle]

Mr. Miller.

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

Mr. Chair, you can call it a point of order or a point of clarification, but I think it needs to be pointed out that never did the government say it had any intention of dismantling the Wheat Board.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Paul Steckle]

That's not a point of order, Mr. Miller.

Mr. Atamanenko, you're on again.

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

Thank you.

In fact, the impression was left that things could continue as they could. I don't plan to resurrect the whole debate on the Canadian Wheat Board. I would just like to summarize some of the points in the letter.

We believe there was no publicity available in regard to the voters' list. I feel the process wasn't as tight as it could have been in our democratic country. The letter states that there were some “voting irregularities”. Point four mentions the couple in the Pennant area of Saskatchewan, in regard to the ballots and the counting of the vote. There's no need for me to read that. We've all read the letter.

I believe what's really important for the Auditor General to investigate is the idea of third-party spending. The minister and his department chose to move forward with a vote without first placing limits on third-party spending. I quote from the letter: “Nor did the Minister or his department require reporting of spending.”

We're questioning the idea, questioning the fact, that there was publicity put out for the government side by various members of Parliament in their ten percenters and other publicity that came out from the government side. The letter is questioning whether in fact this was legitimate. And I think that's a legitimate question to ask.

There's the whole idea of ballot secrecy and trust--one farmer, one vote.

I'll just summarize the conclusion of this letter. I believe, as the National Farmers Union believes...and I must emphasize that this is a national organization. It's made up of thousands of members, not 200 or 300 or 400 members, like some other organizations, and it does speak for a majority of farmers.

The conclusion of this letter states:

...the Minister and his department conducted themselves in a manner that is unfair, undemocratic, and damaging to the public interest. Further, in so doing, the Minister and his department and government MPs improperly spent public money while simultaneously imposing draconian spending limits on those they disagreed with.

If I can digress for a minute and look at money, there's this whole idea now of...is there going to be compensation to the Wheat Board, and the farmers will have to pay for contracts that may not be able to be fulfilled because of the latest developments in this whole episode? I would like to submit that it wouldn't be fair for the Wheat Board--and that is farmers' money--to have to pay out contracts if they're not able to be fulfilled by the Wheat Board as a result of this plebiscite or other things that are going on.

So I'm asking, by this motion, that there be an investigation immediately and in detail, and that the findings be reported as soon as possible. If there is misconduct and misspending, we ask that the Auditor General declare clearly that the results of the recent barley marketing plebiscite be invalid.

As I said, I'm not going to take time; I know that other honourable members would like to take some time to refute what I've been saying. I would just like to emphasize that I believe, and have from the beginning of this whole process, that it could have been done differently. There could have been different ways to go about effecting change through a method of evolution and not revolution. I believe the whole process is short-sighted. Regardless of which government, provincial or federal, they so often tend to look at things in the short range and not in the long range.

We're in the process of looking at a whole agriculture policy for the next five years or more. I believe that in the long-term interests of farmers in Canada and of agriculture, this process could have been undertaken differently. There could have been more consultation, more socio-economic studies as to the actual effect of this move--the eventual dismantling, call it, or watering down of the power of the single desk--on farmers and on farming communities.

I'd like to submit that this has not been done. And it could have been done. We could have had some studies and then moved, together with the Wheat Board and with the farmers of Canada, to arrive at some kind of solution acceptable to all parties.

I believe that all those around this table and all those people who represent farming communities want the best for farmers. I just think this government has moved too hastily under the advice of some interest groups and lobbyists and others to eventually fulfill the plans of those who would like us to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board--I shouldn't say that the government wants to, but there are those who want us to dismantle this trade enterprise that has been serving farmers over the years.

Let's not forget, as was brought up in our consultations over the course of those two weeks that we spent, that there is a force in collectivism, that this rugged individualism that many opponents of the single desk talk about is not really valid for Canada, that we're not in a system in which companies can take control of the farmers and do what they want. We have had a Canadian Wheat Board that stood up for them; we have had a Canadian Wheat Board that's evolving; we have had a Canadian Wheat Board that's trying the very best, through elections, and keeps electing farmer directors who are for the Canadian Wheat Board, by and large, and all of a sudden we find this shift.

I find it a very disturbing shift. When I talk about that, I do get emotional. I'm not just here as a spokesman for a farming organization; I'm here as someone who has analyzed what's going on. I have spent most of my time in this portfolio looking at the Canadian Wheat Board when, like many others, I could have been doing other things, and it was because of this shift of this current government.

I think it's wrong. It is just another step in all of this that has happened.

I'll let other people speak. I understand that we probably will have a chance at least to vote on my motion; if it is not today, then it will be next time. I certainly respect your desire to end early. I agree with David, and we talked about taking this procedure.

Thank you very much.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Paul Steckle]

Thank you, Mr. Atamanenko. Before the vote would be held, you have one opportunity to speak once again.

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

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Paul Steckle]

Mr. Menzies is next on our list of speakers.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Can I defer to Mr. Anderson? I'd also certainly like to speak later.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Paul Steckle]

I can't guarantee that, because the order of speaking is Mr. Anderson--oh, I'm sorry; if you've decided to reverse, that's okay.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Okay.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Paul Steckle]

Mr. Anderson is first, and then Mr. Menzies.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Do we have a number of other people on there? I certainly don't want to take all the time if there are others who want to speak as well.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Paul Steckle]

Oh, yes, we certainly have others here.

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

Mr. Chair, I have a couple of concerns.

The first one is that once again the government has tried to get to the APF report. We brought a motion in, as you know, at the beginning of the meeting again today to try to do that immediately and get to it right away.

I'm going to express one more time the concerns I had the other day. We have tried to urge the committee and the members of the opposition to be diligent and to get this report done quickly. I've been trying to convince them of that since--I don't know--probably last September or October. I saw the importance of the report, but I also saw the importance of doing it quickly, because the federal government and the provinces are having their negotiations. They've been doing that for over a year now; they're moving toward a new farm policy, so if we want to have an influence on that, it's important that we move quickly as well.

We put off our hearings last fall for a number of months because of this issue that Alex has brought up again today. We encouraged the committee to move quickly on this when we came back in January. Once again, it was put off for a number of months. We've only just recently been able to do the travelling, and then we had the excellent report, as Mr. Bellavance said yesterday. I think it was Mr. Bellavance or Mr. Gaudet who commented on the excellent report that we've got and the work we need to do on that.

That's why we thought it was important today to get to this report. I brought the motion forward in order to try to encourage that, but it's unfortunate that once again the opposition has together decided that they're not going to pursue that road today.

We've got farm organizations who are asking us to--

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

I believe we had agreement yesterday that we'd deal with the two motions and then the APF. If Mr. Anderson wants to filibuster and talk this out, that responsibility lies on the government's shoulders.

There's only one party responsible for the delay of this committee on the APF, and I'm looking at him. It happens to be the parliamentary secretary and his government colleagues.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Paul Steckle]

Let's move on. That's not a point of order, but I do think we need to get on with that--

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

Actually--

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Paul Steckle]

We did have agreement at this committee a number of meetings ago that we would do it in order. Basically we would have to have all parties, and all parties have not agreed; therefore, let's get on with the debate--