Evidence of meeting #71 for Agriculture and Agri-Food in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Actually, Mr. Chair, it was interesting, because through the fall we heard from a number of directors on this issue, including, I guess, the ones who were on the podium at the Liberal fundraiser in Saskatoon. I'm not sure whether they were there as directors. They were certainly introduced as directors of the Canadian Wheat Board. So I don't know if they were there as directors or as individuals who support the Liberal Party's position.
The round table was a great success. It was a good thing to have those people come in and have a discussion. We had a great day, and came out of that with a number of suggestions as to where to go from there in the future. They suggested that the minister should sit down, put together a task force to examine the issues, and put some specifics to this whole project to make sure that we could then move ahead and bring marketing choice to western Canadian farmers.
In early October, Minister Chuck Strahl.... Actually, it was later than that; I think actually in September the task force was put together, because in late October the recommendations came back. So they had about a month or six weeks to do their work.
The task force came back with a number of recommendations. They actually talked about setting up a Canadian Wheat Board II. I found it interesting the other day in the House...and Mr. Easter was referring to that as an entity that they seemed to be willing to consider as a viable alternative to what we have now. We did a late show the other night.
So it was good to hear that this has gotten some traction in places where, in the past, people maybe hadn't been willing to talk about it or to accept it. The task force came back with a number of suggestions that were found to be very useful.
Also throughout the fall, a number of Wheat Board directors who resigned were replaced with people who were willing, as government appointees, to support the government's direction and policy on the Canadian Wheat Board. It was good to see those folks in place. They were willing to support prairie farmers.
Again, we see that 68% of prairie farmers want choice. Those directors are willing to listen to those prairie farmers, to take their voice to the board table. We know that a number of directors were refusing to do that. No matter what the results--it could have been 90% in favour of choice--I believe a number of directors there would not be willing to accommodate that option.
All last fall we heard from the opposition and a number of others that they wanted to have a plebiscite on barley. There were a lot of people in western Canada who just felt that they should have the freedom, that we don't necessarily need to have a plebiscite but they should be given the freedom to market their own grain. But clearly the minister listened to a number of other voices and he said we would have a plebiscite and make this fair, consult with farmers and find out what they were thinking about this.
So he announced on October 31 the intention to hold a plebiscite. We did that. The point of it was to find out what farmers thought about barley and how it should be marketed. It was clear, as I went through the other day, that we had strong support and that the farmers were directing us that we needed to make some changes to the Canadian Wheat Board. So we have been moving in that direction.
It was interesting as well that one of the promises we made during the election campaign was to bring in an accountability act to change the way government was done. In that act was an amendment to include the Canadian Wheat Board under the Access to Information Act as proposed. That was done as well.
So that's another change that's been made. Farmers have been calling us to say thank you for that. It's important that the Canadian Wheat Board be under the Access to Information Act so that farmers can find out what's been going on there.
The minister has made a commitment that in the future at some point, he's also going to hold a further plebiscite on marketing grain. We'll look forward to that. I know that a lot of the farmers are particularly interested in that. The farmers right now who are really anxious to see some change are the organic farmers in western Canada.
I don't know, Mr. Chair, if you know this, but the Wheat Board does not market organic grain, or it markets very little, so the farmers are responsible for marketing their own grain. But there's a bit of a catch there: they have to go through the Canadian Wheat Board buyback.
Once again, farmers are coming to us and saying the Wheat Board doesn't market their grain. They'd like the same opportunities as they have in Ontario and other places to market their own grain. They've got organic grain. They're not a threat to the big bulk growing of grain across western Canada. Why can't they have the freedom to market their own grain?
So I think you're going to see more and more of the organic farmers coming forward. I understand they've done some informal surveys of their members and they've got 80%-plus support in favour of being able to do their own marketing. I hope they'll come forward and let us know that, and then we can move on that as well.
March 28 was a good day for western Canadian producers. The minister was proud to announce at that time that 62% of producers had voted for increased marketing choice for barley; 38% had said they want to maintain the single desk. So out of that plebiscite, that consultation, and the work we've done on that, we're prepared to move ahead with a regulatory minimum on August 1. I think we've got an exciting time coming for farmers.
Mr. Chair, I'm going to close and give some other people an opportunity to speak on this issue. I'd like to reserve the right to speak a little bit later as well, if I can have that. I think it's important that we don't get carried away, as Mr. Easter has, with this amendment to Mr. Atamanenko's motion, that we vote down the amendments. Preferably, I'd like to see the whole motion thrown out so we can get back to doing our work, which is the APF report, which the government has wanted to do now for two weeks, and we've been denied that opportunity.
I'll turn it over to some of my other colleagues.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Paul Steckle
Thank you, David.
As a reminder, we are dealing with the amendment Mr. Easter brought forward. That's what we're talking about now.
Mr. Easter.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I believe Larry said the amendment goes beyond the right of fairness, or something along those lines. Mr. Chair, I was initially fairly satisfied with the motion. I really do feel the motion doesn't go far enough, because it is only looking at the department, not necessarily the minister's office. I think we'll find that the department is probably shaking its head at the government's activities in this regard.
If you look at the regulation, it's not written like a regulation normally is, where you outline the pros and cons in a substantive way. In fact it states the concern right there, that there will be liabilities as a result of the breaking of contracts.
However, the parliamentary secretary, in terms of trying to go on a witch hunt with his amendments against anybody who happened to support the reward, including the provincial governments, the fellow had no choice but to put forward the amendment on the Prime Minister's Office, the minister's office, and the parliamentary secretary for the following reasons. I'm not overly concerned about whether the amendment carries or not, but the reasons should be stated.
It is well known that the Prime Minister, right from before he was in Parliament, basically had an ideological dislike toward the Canadian Wheat Board. There's no question that his office would be involved, because nothing happens in this town unless the Prime Minister's fingers are on it.
In terms of the minister, you have to look at the fact that he has issued directives to the board--an elected farm board. There was only one directive ever applied against the Canadian Wheat Board by a minister. That was when the Russians invaded Afghanistan and there was a blanket directive across all government agencies saying not to do business with Russia. That was the only time. However, since this minister, it has been almost a directive a week. But of course the minister won't sit down and really discuss the issues with the Wheat Board.
We need to see what's going on in his office, because he did issue the gag orders and directives on this, directives on that. He fired directors from the board, who were there for their international marketing expertise or their financial expertise so they could actually maximize their marketing authority for the producers' benefit. The minister fired those directors in order to put in people who were basically ideologically driven against the Wheat Board. You really have the enemy from within. If it were an elected director, it would be a different story.
I'm not going to take a lot of time, Mr. Chair, but the list goes on and on.
We have seen the firing of the CEO. The chief executive officer, Adrian Measner, was basically given a choice: he could break the law and keep his job or he could obey the law and be fired. The CEO is supposed to take his direction from the board of directors, not the minister. He is supposed to take his direction from the board of directors, and that was what he was doing. But because he wasn't abiding by the minister's wishes and he had no choice but to speak out on it as directed by his board, he was fired and replaced by another individual.
That individual, the new CEO, sat in that chair up there, with the parliamentary secretary sitting beside him. He gave us some facts on the Algerian marketing and the parliamentary secretary spoke against the appointed CEO, as if we shouldn't believe him. The minister and the parliamentary secretary had access to those facts. Why didn't they read the documentation provided by the board? They continue to perpetuate misinformation in order to undermine the board.
The parliamentary secretary probably does work 28 hours a day, because the amount of letters I've seen in the media from the parliamentary secretary perpetuating some of the misinformation and his dislike for the board is quite unbelievable.
The parliamentary secretary also spoke about the question in the House today, and I'll close on these last two points.
The government, the minister, the Prime Minister, the parliamentary secretary don't understand that the government should be held responsible for their actions. The PS spoke a few minutes ago about the task force. One of the recommendations of the task force—and I don't have the report before me, but it went somewhere along this line—is that the task force recognize the necessity to clear existing contracts prior to open market implementation. That couldn't be done in these short months.
When an international company does business with an agency, an institution that has Canada on it, they believe they're doing business with Canada as a nation. And when government actions force that institution to violate international contracts, our reputation for many things is destroyed around the world.
That's what's happened here. The government changed how you market. There's no question in my mind, yes, the spot prices for barley are high today; they will be low some day again as well. The empirical evidence on every study shows that the Canadian Wheat Board has always been able to take advantage of those high markets. And they have been. That's what the data will show.
But now we've got a situation where contracts are going to be violated as a result of the government action. Today in the House, the parliamentary secretary tried to make the point, because I raised a question, that I'm supporting the malting industry rather than the producers. That's not the case at all, because do you know who will pay the bill at the end of the day? If the malting industry sues the Canadian Wheat Board for violating their contracts, which they have every right to do, then everybody who ships through the Canadian Wheat Board...because it's the farmers who pay the bill, and because the government has put the Wheat Board in this position without doing the long-term planning, without looking at the negative consequences. Even in the gazetting it said there could be...liabilities wasn't the word, but it mentioned the contracts—
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I'm wondering if Mr. Easter could clarify. Did he say the Canadian Wheat Board is going to violate contracts? Is that what you just said?
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
The Canadian Wheat Board, Mr. Anderson, as you full well know, with the changes in marketing, will likely not be able to live up to its contractual obligations. Those are the facts. That's what the malting industry is saying.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Excuse me, Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.
Can you clarify that? Is that because those contracts are too low to access the barley?
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Chair, I think Mr. Anderson's question is a good question. The malting industry has written a letter to our chair and copied it to all of us concerned about this matter. They say in that letter: “It should be made clear that the risks and potential losses that could accrue to the industry are not due to these sales having been made at prices that were too high or low relative to the market at that time. These sales were made at competitive values.”
What they're doing is making the point in this letter that there are implications for producers, for the Canadian Wheat Board, for the malting industry, for our export reputation abroad, and for Canada's reputation. They've written this letter to our chair asking for, basically, an emergency meeting so we could discuss this with them and the Wheat Board, I would think. And the reason—
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Does that mean that when the contracts were made there were no protections made on them through the futures markets? Did someone make them into a market without protecting themselves?
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
That's a question you should raise if you allow this body to come before the committee. The malting industry is asking for a meeting with us because the Minister of Agriculture, who's ultimately responsible for these decisions, has decided not to meet with them. But we need to have an investigation on all the government players who have been involved in this misinformation campaign against the Canadian Wheat Board.
The last point I would make is that the plebiscite Mr. Anderson talked about in his remarks is probably the most fraudulent plebiscite we've ever seen in Canadian history. The bottom line is that 13.8% supported the destruction of the Canadian Wheat Board in that plebiscite. That will be the ultimate impact of the government's move if they continue to go ahead with the plebiscite on wheat as well. The minister has stated his intent to go in that direction.
I think we can be assured that our international reputation for marketing wheat, barley, or anything else from this country has been thrown into jeopardy by the actions of the government on this matter. As a result, farmers will suffer, our marketing agencies will suffer, and Canada's reputation will suffer. That's why we need a fairly strong investigation into how the government handled itself in this whole sad affair.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Paul Steckle
We have moved from Mr. Easter to Mr. Atamanenko. He gets the next word on the amendment.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
I'll answer you right now. We were just talking--