Bill C-18 Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

At this point, colleagues, I would like to suspend the meeting for 10 minutes. There is something that will help us rejuvenate and get us to 11:59 tonight, if we need to.

I don't think we need to suspend and eat over there. If you want, I'll suspend for about 10 minutes, and that should give us enough time to do the things we need to do. You're more than welcome to bring things back to the table if you so choose.

Is that acceptable to the members of the committee?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

This committee stands suspended for 10 minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Colleagues, let's call this meeting back into order.

(On clause 14--Enactment)

Before we proceed, we are dealing now with clause 14 of the bill. Within clause 14 of the bill is virtually a new act, which has in it a number of its own clauses. My understanding of the agreement that we had when we were to proceed is that we would actually address the proposed amendments on an individual basis, rather than limiting debate to five minutes for each party for the entirety of clause 14, given the rather large number of amendments and the large number of clauses within the bill proposed in the clause of the act.

Keeping that in mind, the way I'm going to proceed is, in light of no proposed amendments to any of the sections within the new act within the clause, I will be simply asking if there is going to be somebody moving one of these amendments.

So going to the very first set of amendments that propose to change proposed section 6 of the new act, which is in clause 14, I will read out proposed section 6:

The object of the Corporation is to market grain for the benefit of producers who choose to deal with the Corporation.

Now, there are two amendments that are being put forward that affect this particular section of the act. The first amendment that was received was, in my documents here, NDP-5. There is also amendment LIB-2, which was received by the clerk after the amendment proposed by the NDP.

Mr. Martin, your amendment came into the clerk's office first.

Mr. Valeriote, your amendment came into the clerk's office afterwards.

There is a line conflict here, so what I'm trying to understand is, if we choose to dispense with or deal with or pass NDP-5, it would put amendment LIB-2 in a position whereby it would probably be out of order at that point in time if we tried to deal with it. I want to make committee members aware of that before we go on.

Mr. Martin, are you going to move NDP-5?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Yes, I'd like to move NDP-5.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Very good.

You have the floor, sir.

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you, Mr. Martin.

We still have a few minutes left. Would anyone else like to speak to this amendment? Okay.

We understand the terms of this proposed amendment and what it would do to the subsequent amendment, should it pass. All those in favour of adopting amendment NDP-5? All those opposed?

(Amendment negatived)

The motion is defeated.

Mr. Valeriote, would you like to move your proposed amendment, please?

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Yes, Mr. Chair. You have a copy of it. The amendment proposes, of course, that we remove the words “for the benefit” from the second line of that paragraph. So it will read, “The object of the Corporation is to market grain of producers who choose to deal with the Corporation”.

[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.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I apologize.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Is that what you would like to move?

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Absolutely. I was reading something I had jotted down in my notes.

The substance of this motion is the removal of the words “for the benefit”. Throughout the legislation it seems that the directors are accountable not to producers, but to the minister and the Governor in Council.

I have to express to you my displeasure, not with the chair, but with the speed with which this is being put through. As was said a few minutes ago when we were in the back room, this is not a process that any developing country would want to emulate or simulate if they were passing good legislation. We've had closure on debate. We've had time limited on hearing witnesses and we've had time limited on being able to present amendments.

Even when discussion was going on last night and some good ideas evolved from those discussions and the answers from witnesses, it was already too late for us to even propose amendments that might have arisen from those very discussions.

I hope this is not unparliamentary, but I'm frankly disgusted at the speed with which this legislation is being rammed through Parliament. We are changing the trade behaviour of an entire industry in a few short days. I have to echo the sentiments originally expressed by Mr. Martin at the outset of these proceedings tonight.

I think “for the benefit” should be removed because it's really not for the benefit of producers. This legislation is for the benefit of the minister. I find that the words “for the benefit”, in fact, are somewhat ambiguous. They create an ambiguity so that you don't know whether the corporation is really accountable to producers or, as in the rest of the legislation, the directors are accountable to the minister.

Because those words “for the benefit” are vague, ambiguous, and somewhat subjective, who's to determine what is “for the benefit”? Right now, the legislation as it currently exists is clearly for the benefit of all producers. In my respectful opinion, I do not see that the substance of the legislation is for the benefit of producers. I submit, without belabouring the point, that this section be amended to read as I've said in my motion: “the grain of producers who choose to deal with the Corporation and the Corporation is accountable only to Parliament”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you, Mr. Valeriote.

Is there anybody else who would like to address this?

Mr. Anderson.

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

I have one short observation and that is that Mr. Valeriote is certainly being consistent with the Liberals' past perspective in dealing with the Canadian Wheat Board Act; that is, there was no protection for producers in the mandate of the former act. In fact, it mandated the board to order the market, not to maximize profits and not to work for the benefit of producers.

So we think it's important that this phrase be in here, because the object of this corporation will be to market grain for the benefit of producers and, I should point out, for those producers who choose to deal with the corporation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you, Mr. Anderson. There are 13 seconds of Liberal time remaining, Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I'll make the point that Mr. Anderson is blatantly wrong. The Canadian Wheat Board produces an annual report, holds district meetings throughout the prairies, and is accountable to producers and has been.

[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...?

[A voice]

That's the wrong one.

[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.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

As I understand it, you're dealing with each of these amendments, but then you will come back and go through these proposed sections that we're passing over?

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

No. We would simply vote on the entirety of clause 14.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Well, there are quite a number of areas here in this bill that I think some of us would have questions on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Mr. Easter, the only option that I would have, then, is to return to the original motion of the routine proceedings, which meant that parties would have only five minutes to discuss the clause.

My understanding was there that was a gentleman's agreement at the table here that we would allow for discussion, insofar as those proposed sections in the proposed new act, which is introduced as part of clause 14, would be the ones we would debate. Then we would return to the entirety of clause 14. So I have to proceed on that. That's my understanding.

If we don't do that, Mr. Easter, then I will be forced as the chair to basically quash the gentleman's agreement, and we will simply return to the orders that were passed. We will simply have five minutes of debate dealing with the entirety of all of the amendments that have been proposed for clause 14, and I can't guarantee to you that we would get through all of them in that limited time--

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, it just goes to show how the original motion shut down debate, that's for sure, which is par for the government.

But when we come back to clause 14, then, will we have five minutes to raise some of the questions we have with the section in total?