Agriculture Committee on Nov. 9th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Order, please.

Ladies and gentlemen, we're moving on to Mr. Easter's motion. We've had the 48 hours' notice.

The one concern I have, Mr. Easter, as the chair, is that I would have to rule this out of order. I told the steering committee the other day I would ask for a legal opinion. I have that and I'm happy to give you a copy of that. Under the Canadian Wheat Board Act, as it stands now, it's under the purview of the minister to develop the question and the voters list. I'm happy to share that with you. I'm just going by what's in the act.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I understand that, Mr. Chair, but this would be a recommendation. It's very clear that this is what the committee recommends. The minister can take it or leave it. The fact of the matter is that we all know the Canadian Wheat Board issue is very controversial. What is key in terms of the farm community is that there be a vote on a clear question. I guess to be honest about it, we don't trust the government or the ministerto come up with a clear question.

This recommendation is really to encourage the minister to do the right thing and have simply as clear as possible a question for producers to make a decision on the future relative to the Canadian Wheat Board, as the minister is supposed to do under the act. But he's done a lot of things that I would suggest aren't really in accordance with basically democratic principles. I would object to your ruling it out of order, because it is in fact a recommendation of committee. It's not binding on the minister, but it is a recommendation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

I take your point. You certainly have the right to appeal.

Is there any other discussion? Mr. Miller.

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

It's obvious when you get a legal opinion.... What do you get one for, if you don't address it?

I mean, this motion is nothing short of grandstanding. I could probably agree to the A part of it because of the word "ability" in there. If ability was in the B part as well...because what ability indicates is having a choice, so to speak. The bottom line is that the government has no intention of doing it that way, and here you are distorting the thing totally. Regardless of whether it's out of order or not, the motion is ridiculous. You know what you're doing there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Okay. Is there any other discussion?

Mr. Atamanenko.

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

I have a question to Wayne in regard to the motion. In part one, you separated it into four points A, B, C, and D. As it stands now, the minister has committed to C and D for barley. I'm not sure what the plan is to have it all together because he's saying already that he's in agreement with doing the second part. Should it not just be one motion including both? I'm not sure what you're....

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Yes, on your point, Alex, it would be nice if the government called a vote on both wheat and barley together. I don't think it's their intention to do so. The ministerhas already announced his intention to go to a barley vote. I do not believe for a minute that the minister's question that he asks producers will be along the lines of C and D, which makes it clear-cut in terms of what they're voting for. So that's why the motion, so that this committee can basically recommend to the clarity of what the question should be.

There was in fact a vote on barley marketing in 1995. It was a clear question. I'm worried that this question will not be clear from the minister, and I think we should recommend to how clear it should be.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

I just asked the clerk to supply us with a copy of the question of 1995 and the voters list that was used, if we want to compare.

Ken.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Thank you very much.

I don't know if it's necessary to challenge the ruling of the chair, but whether there's a legal opinion or not, this is a recommendation. This committee should be entitled to recommend whatever they feel to the ministeras advice, as a standing committee. Consequently, on whether it requires a vote for us to actually decide if the chair's ruling is in order or not, I would hope we wouldn't have to go that way. I feel very strongly that this is a committee recommendation. We are not saying that we are going to set this and do this extra-parliamentarily from the minister, having it done with the Wheat Board. To me, the resolution is perfectly in order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Why don't you take that up with a lawyer?

Mr. Anderson.

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

Well, it's been ruled out of order, so it's obviously not perfectly in order. But I have a couple of comments on it.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Then my--

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

The chair's ruled it out of order, Mr. Boshcoff, so it is out of order.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Then my first statement that I challenge the ruling of the chair means we have to vote on it.

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

I'll finish my statement, then.

First, it is out of order. It's obviously way beyond our mandate or your mandate, or whatever. Second, the act clearly gives both of these issues to the minister; they're under the minister's purview. In section 47.1 he's clearly given direction to develop a question and to supervise that. He's also controlled by section 47.1 as far as the voters list goes. Number two here is not accurate; you can't limit it to these people who are in here. That is not allowed under the act, so as it's written, you're running contrary to the act here as well.

There are other questions that are equally valid, obviously. I guess I can see this for what it is, which is a desperate attempt for attention, as Larry pointed out, simply trying to get attention here.

Number two is out of order as far as the act goes. You cannot limit the list to that. I don't know if you've read the act or not, but you can see that clearly when you read it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

It's part of the legal ruling, Mr. Anderson.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Do you have a copy of the legal ruling?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

I sure do, right here.

Barry Devolin.

[Barry Devolin, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Yes, Mr. Easter says he does not have confidence that the minister will ask a fair and balanced question, so he's presuming that the minister's going to tilt the question in one direction. So it seems to me that his recommendation is tilted in the opposite direction.

This doesn't strike me as a clear question. Options B and D are clearly trying to make a point, I would argue, rather than present a reasonable option. Even if you believe that at the end of the day that is what it will eventually end at, I don't think anyone's suggesting that those are the two options that are on the table today. As such, it strikes me as more of a pre-emptive communications strike rather than a good faith effort to put a reasonable question on the table.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

Paul.

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

In fairness to the recommendation that's before us, I think there's grave doubt in the minds of many farmers. You may say these faxes have been given to us through one central office. Yes, indeed they have. But they've come from various parts of western Canada, from people who are under the Wheat Board and who are feeling that they have been rejected in terms of their ability to be able to get the minister to understand that there needs to be a fair vote.

They have come to us because they believe we need to be their advocate. I believe we're simply putting some balance to the other side of the question, given that the minister has already taken his authority to authorize, under his edict, that the Wheat Board not spend any money promoting the virtues of the Wheat Board. Yet the Province of Alberta spent $1 million telling people why single-desk selling would be a great thing. So I think there has to be some balance.

When you look at the facts that have already occurred in the last three or four months, one would only gather that the minister's not favourably disposed toward keeping a single-desk selling system in Canada, but creating another grain company, which we feel is probably doomed from the beginning.

In fairness, the committee is the master of its own destiny, and with the pleasure of this committee, we can make recommendations. They don't have to be followed. We've done that many times in the past, as even the House makes recommendations and passes motions that are not adhered to. Surely we're not being denied, and whether we should be dealing with the matter of the chairman's ruling is...and I don't often disagree with the chair. The chair hasn't made this ruling, really. He's made the ruling based on a decision that was given to him.

We have to deal with that first. My position stands that we should be given the opportunity to vote on this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

As chair, Mr. Steckle, I try to maintain balance and fairness. I don't take lightly having to reject a recommendation. As you say, we should be the masters of our own destiny, but we do have to work within a certain framework. The legalities that we are forced to work within, that I'm judging this on, is the Canadian Wheat Board Act. You cannot bend or pervert the act in order to somehow think you're saving the act. It's simply not done that way. So that's the basis for the rejection.

The act is very succinct and very clear on who develops the question and who develops the voters list. It's in the act. So that's the reasoning for the legal opinion. I told you that at the steering committee the other day, that at first blush in seeing this motion, I felt it was going against a certain segment of the act. That's the nature of that. You can certainly appeal my ruling.

I have two more speakers lined up. Ken, did you want to get back on the list?

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

No, just call the question--after the speakers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gerry Ritz]

I have David still on the list, and Wayne as well. Is there anybody else?