Agriculture Committee on May 31st, 2007

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

Actually, we did not have agreement. What we had was a motion that the opposition brought in to overrule the government; the government, at that point, had wanted to go directly to the APF report. This is the second time--

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Paul Steckle]

But we did have a--

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

We did not agree to that. The opposition made the motion--

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Paul Steckle]

There was a legitimate vote here, a majority carried, and the order was given that we proceed to the two motions, followed by going to the APF. That was the agreement that was reached by majority around this table, so let's now move on to the motion.

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

Actually, the motion I brought forward today is legitimate as well. It was the government's intention and hope that we could return to--

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Paul Steckle]

We've dealt with that. Let's move on with the motion from Mr. Atamanenko.

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

Mr. Chair, I think I've got my say here.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Paul Steckle]

That's what you were speaking--

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

I'm getting to that. I was just laying out the fact that we want to deal with the APF today. We want to come back to the motion of Mr. Atamanenko after we've done the APF, so it's unfortunate we can't do that. I guess the farm organizations know that we've taken this stance and we want to move ahead.

I will get to the motion by Mr. Atamanenko, and I'm actually really disturbed by this because I think in the seven years that I've been here, this is the first time I have seen a motion that expects us to do the bidding of a third party that's not associated directly with the committee. I went back and I checked the reports that we've done, and I think I have 24 pages of them here, or whatever. It goes back many years. We've never done this, taken up a third-party position that we're going to specifically support. I'm very concerned that we're setting a precedent here that is completely inappropriate.

I'm not surprised that Mr. Atamanenko does this because I noticed when he started off his comments, the words were “I feel” and “we feel”, when he was talking about the NFU and his own position about the barley plebiscite. I know there's a general perception, particularly in the west, that the National Farmers Union is the agricultural wing of the NDP and that the NDP is the political wing of the National Farmers Union. We've certainly seen that I think in this committee over the last few months, but it has never been as blatant as it is in this motion or in the private member's bill that Mr. Atamanenko has brought forward.

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

I have a point of order.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Paul Steckle]

Yes, Mr. Atamanenko.

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

I think that statement is incorrect. I think inferring that we're a political arm of the National Farmers Union is ridiculous.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Paul Steckle]

It's not a point of order; it may be a point of privilege.

I would agree with Mr. Atamanenko that we should not be casting disparaging comments about people. People have their own political views and we should leave that with those people.

Deal with the content of the motion. That's what we're here to do this afternoon, please.

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

Mr. Chair, I'm not sure it's disparaging to say that somebody is affiliated with the NFU. That's one thing. I'm just pointing out that there's been a very close connection over the last year between the positions taken publicly and Mr. Atamanenko's interests and the things he brought forward at the time when the NFU has made their positions known.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Paul Steckle]

I think there could be other fingers pointed at certain parties--

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

Is that a point of order, Mr. Chair?

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Paul Steckle]

--as having other interests as well.

The chair has the privilege.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I take offence. I'm a former president of the NFU and I'm not NDP.

[The Vice-Chair, Liberal, Paul Steckle]

Okay, let's move on, please. Time is wasted.

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

Good comment. He actually made the statement when he said you're not.

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

This is a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I think you'd agree.

Mr. Chairman, I respect your position and the job you're doing, but I think it's inappropriate for the chair to point out his opinion on different farm groups and what have you. I just point that out, and I'll end at that.

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

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to continue, because should we actually take it seriously, I actually would wonder about the appropriateness of this motion if not actually whether it is even in order.

In my mind, it demeans and lessens the role of the committee. We're allowing an outside lobby organization to influence the committee. It's actually interesting. When we check, the National Farmers Union is not even registered as a lobbyist. I noticed that most of the other farm organizations are. I'm just wondering what the relationship would be between Mr. Atamanenko and the NFU, when they are not registered, in anything that we could find, as a lobby group. They certainly work as a lobby group, in my opinion, because we've gotten faxes from the NFU, from a telephone number in Saskatoon, regularly. They have been down here to talk to people, to lobby people. I know they're very active in the farm community.

So it puzzled me when we looked. And I may be mistaken, I certainly am willing to be corrected, but it puzzled me when we looked to see if they were registered as a lobby association to find that they actually are not.

If they're not, I'm wondering what they are and why the agriculture committee would be taking up their cause for them. It really calls into question the independence of the committee if we're going to take a third party's opinion, and then begin to support that and to present it as the opinion of this committee.

It could have been worded far differently, and probably would have been a far better motion, if Mr. Atamanenko wanted to call in the Auditor General herself. We certainly could have done that, because in the past, as you know, we've done that. We were the ones who made the motion to bring the Auditor General in on the CAIS report, and I believe we called on her services with the packers and that whole investigation of the programs that were put in place after the BSE problem began.

I think it is really inappropriate for this committee to recommend this motion. We see that there's no precedent for it. We recognize, most of us, that the NFU has limited support, particularly in the Canadian Wheat Board area. It's not one of the strong farm organizations there. They have some support, but they definitely do not represent a majority of farmers in the designated area for the Canadian Wheat Board. I don't think anyone would argue that.

This motion, Mr. Chair, shows bias, and it puts the committee in a situation where they're biased towards one lobby group. Certainly, I don't expect some members of this committee would be willing to take up the position of other lobby groups that we have in western Canada involving this issue, in any formal way, anyway.

I think it undermines the moral authority of the committee, because if we do this we will be seen as biased on this issue. It's going to be fairly difficult for anyone to take the committee seriously when the public can see that the committee, if it votes in favour of this motion, has made a decision that indicates some serious bias.

The worst part of it all, I guess, is that it shows that the committee is willing to serve only select groups, and in the years that I've been on this committee that certainly has not been the case. This committee has been willing to hear all sides of the issue, we've been able to put reports together, for the most part, that have been neutral and that have been good reports and have been reports that we can take out to the public. Actually, when I look at the APF report and see what's in there, I think we've been able to begin to do that again.

I think back to the report on the Canadian Grain Commission last summer. I think that was a good report that was agreed to by everyone around the committee. All of us put a little bit of wine in our water in order to make that report work, and we were more than willing to do that.

One of the things I want to point out is that the committee is not a lobby group, and that is what this amounts to: the committee is going to be made into a lobby group. I don't think it's appropriate that the committee do the lobbying for the National Farmers Union when the information we have is that it doesn't even have status as a lobby group.

I'm just wondering, maybe the Ethics Commissioner is the one who should be called in, rather than the Auditor General, on this issue.

Anyway, I guess I'm concerned that Mr. Atamanenko is choosing to be the mouthpiece for the National Farmers Union and trying to use the committee to reflect that opinion, because I think it's inappropriate. I don't think it does the committee well. So we're going to continue to oppose this.

I also want to go through the letter because I think that's important. They've sent a letter here that's a number of pages and makes a number of accusations about the government. So I think it's important that we go through and deal with some of the issues they've addressed in here, because they're definitely making a point, in my mind, that's biased.

I think everybody would agree they have a bias and are willing to get out and lobby for that viewpoint.

I don't think it's appropriate for the committee to say that's the bias we're going to support, and particularly when we haven't spent the time going through the letter. I don't know whether most members of the committee have studied this letter or not, but I doubt they spent a lot of time checking it out and seeing what it says, so it's probably good that we look at it before we have a chance to vote on the motion.

First of all, they don't like the language in the question. I think this is a strange turn of events, because this is similar to the language that has been used in the Canadian Wheat Board survey for years. I have the survey here. It goes through a number of different areas, of course, for western Canada. They have three choices and have had them for years; they have them in wheat and in other areas too. We can go quickly through some of those as well.

On dual marketing, they have questions. “I think if the CWB had competition it would provide better service”. Well, 60% of the farmers in western Canada think that's a good idea.

“A dual market for grain would not necessarily mean the end of the CWB”. That's 59% or 60% as well.

On barley: “I am...confident I could market my own barley without the CWB”. That's just under 60% as well.

“I think if the CWB had competition I would get better prices for my grain”. There are 54% or 55% who believe that.

So there are some pretty strong attitudes or opinions that the Wheat Board could do better with some competition and that farmers think they're capable of marketing their own grain.

In terms of marketing barley, the questions are asked: should it remain the sole responsibility of the Wheat Board, should there be a dual market where private companies and individual farmers can compete, or should there be a totally open market? Those are similar to the questions that were asked on the plebiscite.

Farmers are not stupid. They know what the options are. They've been listening to them for years on the surveys we've had. You can go through them.

In Alberta, the support for this is about 75%. In Saskatchewan it's well over 60%. In Manitoba, in this survey, it was at 60%. We look at that total percentage across the prairies as being almost 65% of farmers who support dual marketing or a change in the Wheat Board marketing system.

We find the same thing when it comes to dual marketing of wheat. Again they ask the same questions: should it remain the sole responsibility of the Wheat Board, should there be a dual marketing option where private companies and individual farmers can compete with the Board, and should there be a totally open market for wheat without the Canadian Wheat Board?

Actually, it's interesting that the questions the Wheat Board asked are, if anything, more aggressive than the questions that were on the plebiscite. That second question for the Wheat Board is where private companies and individual farmers can compete with the Wheat Board, and our option was to allow the person to market their barley to the Wheat Board or to anyone else. In that situation, again, we have more than 50% of the farmers who support this as their option.

Clearly, the language was not an issue for farmers on the prairies. They knew full well that the three options were there, so they made their choice and voted it, and we'll come a little bit later, hopefully, to the results.

They repeat their argument that there was confusion over the options. As I've pointed out, I haven't talked to one farmer who really was confused by those three questions. If they were, I just said to them, “You knew what the questions were when the Wheat Board surveyed you, didn't you?” And they say yes. So if they're saying they're confused by these options, I would say they're probably taking the position that they don't like the results of the survey.

Again, one of their issues is that there is a lack of clarity to the questions. Well, the questions are very clear: the Canadian Wheat Board should retain the single desk; I'd like the option to market barley; or it should not have a role in marketing barley. Those are about as clear as anyone could have. There is no lack of clarity on those questions, and it's clear to me that farmers understood them and voted in a way that reflected that.

Mr. Chair, they also make the assertion that we've been ignoring farmers in Parliament, and clearly that's not true. Farmers have chosen to elect a Conservative government, and particularly in the designated area, with a very strong support. They were well aware of what our position was on the Wheat Board. They'll say, we didn't elect you just on the Wheat Board, and that may be true. But that was one thing they knew was part of our agriculture policy, and they seemed to like it, because they came out to support us very strongly.

Clearly, we're not ignoring farmers. They know what we're doing and they've been supporting it, and they're calling for change. Actually, it's interesting because a couple of the farm organizations have come forward and I think they're asking that the date be moved ahead.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

They're excited.

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

It's not just that they want it to be August 1. They actually want to get at this and get some of these contracts signed and under way prior to August 1 so that they can take care of some of the issues of being able to sign contracts prior to the beginning of the new crop year and then begin to move ahead from that. So they're excited about it, as Mr. Menzies has said, and they're ready to move ahead.

There was a criticism of the voters' list in the NFU's letter. Actually, KPMG was given the job of overseeing the election. The government did not interfere in that. We think KPMG took the bull by the horns. They had a very difficult job. We know that through the last—I think it's four—rounds of Wheat Board elections, it's been very difficult for the Wheat Board to establish a voters' list, and in this situation it wasn't easy as well, but the government I think did the best it could. Ballots, if I remember correctly, went out to all the folks who were in CAIS programs, the ones who were in production insurance, and then they were allowed to fill them out. If you hadn't gotten a ballot, you could fill out a declaration and get one. The only obligation on people is that they only filled one out for their farm operation. So that was clear. It went out, so that dealt with that issue, I think.

There was no issue of voters' rights because there was to be one vote per farm, and I think that was clear. People didn't have to be concerned about that. KPMG scrutinized the vote. I don't think anyone is going to say they're not an organization that's capable of doing that. So they were responsible for doing that. There were some people who had requested that they have scrutineers there, and that was limited because we would have had everybody and their dog there, probably, if we'd said open it up and everyone can come and scrutineer as they please; we'd still be counting ballots. So KPMG had the responsibility for that, and we think they did a responsible job on that as well.

In terms of spending limits, there were no restrictions put on spending limits, that's true. But at the same time, everyone had the opportunity to be involved, and it was farm organizations and farmers, so they were able to do that. I think it was appropriate that the Wheat Board, which is a government agency, was not involved. The minister and the cabinet made a decision earlier that they should focus on marketing grain and not be involved politically, as they have in the past. So the request was made to them that they abstain from political involvement. Actually, it seems to be working. It seems like they're focused more on marketing grain than they have been in the past and maybe less on trying to influence things politically, so that's been a good thing.

Ballot secrecy was an issue, but in terms of that, KPMG supervised that and they gave assurances to the government that no one was going to be able to be traced back to their ballot when the process was done. We trust they did that, and I don't think there's been any issue of that as well. Again, the intention was that each farm operation would have one vote, and for the most part, farmers were declaring honestly. We think that was done.

There was some issue about websites. I guess this goes to the fact that the farm organizations were free to set up and lobby, and there were websites set up on both sides of the issue. It was interesting to look at some of them because there were websites that were clearly on the side of choice and wanting to open up the market, and there were other websites that were set up by people who clearly supported the Canadian Wheat Board and were trying to do all they could to support the position in the past.

Just in terms of the ballots, when they were counted—I mentioned I wanted to get back to that, and I want to give some other people an opportunity to speak here, and maybe I can get back on the list later as well—the results were pretty clear. There were about 37% who said they'd like to retain the single desk, and then there was just about 50% who said they wanted the option of having the choice, and another 14% said the Wheat Board should not have any role in the marketing of barley at all. So you can add them up how you want, but clearly 48.4% want an option and another 13% want a change. That comes out to, what, 62% or so of the farmers who voted wanted some change to the system that didn't lock them in to the single desk, as in the past.

Whether the National Farmers Union likes the numbers that turned out or not is really irrelevant to this request. They clearly did not, as some other people have expressed. They don't like the numbers. They don't like the fact that 60-some percent of farmers have said, we really want to market our own grain.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

The reality is that the long term effect of this means there will be no Wheat Board, and only 13.8% supported that position. The government can add the numbers any way it likes, but they were only 13.8%. That's the democratic proof.