Evidence of meeting #32 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 seeds.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Mr. Easter knows as well as I do the witness—
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerry Ritz
Just a minute, Mr. Anderson.
The point Mr. Anderson made was that Mr. Chatenay was on a witness list. He did not say it was the original one.
Mr. Measner does not appear on that list either, Mr. Easter. Are you asking that I remove him from the table as well? I don't intend to do that, sir. I will hear Mr. Anderson's point, and we will then move on.
Mr. Anderson, get to the point, please.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Thank you. I will.
Mr. Chatenay was elected on a clear mandate of reform, bringing a dual market structure for Canadian farmers. He's been re-elected twice, once with the highest majority for that time and then he was acclaimed.
When he came to the board, he was under intense pressure to turn his back on his constituents and give in to the single desk pressure. Although others did so, he did not. He received messages that described his conduct as unacceptable, but he would still not submit. His belief was that by representing his constituents, he was acting in the best interests of farmers and the board. Over the years, he has fought for them.
In doing this, restrictions were placed on him. For example, I understand he could not travel to other districts to meet with farmers without permission. He was hassled over presentations at accountability meetings. He was reprimanded for asking the board and for using board resources to try to get his questions answered. But because he was there, things have changed.
This is a man who has been told he can't speak out and he must toe the party line. He has been reprimanded and intimidated, and it seems to me this is an excellent time to hear from him.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
It's actually interesting that Mr. Easter would bring that up.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerry Ritz
Gentlemen, please. Let's have order. We have a meeting to move on to.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I'm quite concerned that people know what's been going on and how dissent has been dealt with in the past, especially with the Liberal leader saying yesterday that it didn't really matter what the question was or what the farmers decided, he was going to reinstitute the past system.
If you actually look at the editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press today, you'll see that they talk about how it is really political pandering. I guess we could talk about it, but the editorial is called “Pandering for votes”. In the interest of speeding up my presentation, Mr. Chair, I won't read it.
This is academic to some people in the room, but when we as western farmers hear about Liberals putting things in place whether farmers want them or not, it puts fear into the hearts of western Canadian farmers. It makes good sense to go back, but before we go back, we should hear from someone who has been there.
The real crux of the question around this issue is a question that someone asked me: how can we put farmers in jail in one part of the country but not in the rest of the country when they're doing exactly the same thing? I wish Mr. Easter would listen when I say that, because it's important. How can we put farmers in jail in one part of the country but not in the rest of the country for doing exactly the same thing?
Mr. Chatenay can contribute to this discussion today. He's here today, and he's been around for two extra days in the hope that he could testify. Because he was scheduled to be here, he stayed to appear.
I could go on for the next hour talking about Mr. Chatenay and his story. I'm not going to do that. Rather, I would like to try to be constructive.
In his usual rhetorical style of the past, Mr. Easter has used words about this debate over the last couple of months. I wish I could read some of them. He's talked about the fact that the very principles of a democratic country are at stake. He's talked about things being undemocratic, and he's talked about intimidation and the suppression of information.
The one I liked best was when he was talking about the fact that in communist Russia, when people disagreed, they simply disappeared. I thought it was interesting, because on Tuesday, I presume because Mr. Chatenay did not agree with certain members of the steering committee, he simply disappeared as a witness.
I'm asking the committee to do the right thing. I know none of us want Mr. Easter's adjectives to describe this committee and its activities, so I'm going to ask for the committee's support for a motion.
The motion is that Mr. Jim Chatenay, Canadian Wheat Board director, be allowed to join the table as a witness.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerry Ritz
Okay. You don't need a seconder.
Are you speaking to the motion, Mr. Easter?
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Yes, I am.
I am very much opposed to the motion, Mr. Chair.
First of all, as I indicated, Mr. Chatenay never made it onto the official list to be invited as a witness. As I said, I do have that, and he was not on the list.
If you're going to invite the head of an organization, then that's what you do. We have a precedent wherein it's the representatives who represent the elected and appointed board of directors. That's who you expect to speak for the organization, not some rebel who may exist on the board.
It's the same principle, as Mr. Anderson knows, that applies to his own party. Garth Turner didn't agree with the party, so he was in fact kicked out. Your key people speak for your party.
Ken Ritter, as chair, and Adrian Measner, as chief executive officer, are here. Let's hear from them. They speak for the board. They have been elected by the board to speak for the board, and they are the board's spokesmen. That's who we want to hear from, and we would like to hear from them now.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
We all understand the positions. I think what we have to do is get down to business.
What we did at the steering committee meeting is invite the board people, Mr. Ritter and Mr. Measner, to come here on behalf of the board. And all of a sudden there was another board director and two new ones, and they're against the single desk. And we thought, okay, we'll have a compromise. We'll hear the two people who are new to the board because we initially wanted to hear one gentleman who was new. There's another person who's new, and then that was the compromise we arrived at at the steering committee, and it was what came out of that meeting.
I think we should just go with that. We can go back and forth all day, and maybe some people would like us to do that, but we do have people who have come here. I think we should just get on with the business.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I had a question about whether this was debatable or not, but obviously it is.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerry Ritz
I think we're done with debate.
I'll call the question on the motion. Those in favour of allowing Mr. Chatenay to be at the table, please raise your hands. Those opposed to Mr. Chatenay being at the table?
(Motion negatived)
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerry Ritz
Mr. Measner, Mr. Ritter, welcome to the committee today. You have a 10-minute presentation, I understand. Will it be Mr. Measner or Mr. Ritter?
12:20 p.m.
Chair, Board of Directors, Canadian Wheat Board
Mr. Chairman, members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food, I wish to thank the committee for providing the CWB the opportunity appear before it today. With me is Adrian Measner, our president and CEO. After I have spoken, Adrian will also be addressing the committee.
As you know, we were originally scheduled to appear on Tuesday. The comments that Adrian and I had intended to make at that time will be made available to the committee. Also, our written response to some of the erroneous comments made by earlier witnesses who have appeared before you have been sent to the chair.
I wish to advise the committee that as a result of the cancellation on Tuesday, we've had an opportunity to meet with the Honourable Chuck Strahl, as well as the leader of the Liberal Party, the Bloc, and the NDP.
We have known for the past year, ever since it was announced in the last election campaign, that the Conservative Party of Canada's policy on the marketing of wheat and barley in western Canada is that the CWB single desk should be eliminated and marketing choice implemented. Disagreement between the board and the government on such a fundamental issue was bound to create some tension.
There is a correct way and an incorrect way to overcome major challenges of this nature. The correct way is to come to some fundamental agreement on underlying interests. In this case, the underlying interest must be the economic well-being of the grain producers of western Canada. Any changes, especially in the context of the financial crisis from which farmers are just emerging, must advance the cause of producers' viability and long-term profitability.
The next step is to dialogue in a respectful manner. This dialogue must include a consideration of all alternatives and all options so that both parties feel they've had a full opportunity to make their case. There needs to be agreement on how the issue will ultimately be resolved and who has the final say.
On such a contentious issue as the fate of their grain marketing system, there is no doubt in my mind that the ultimate decision-makers must be the people who are most concerned with the outcome, namely, the grain producers of western Canada. That's why we have director elections and a plebiscite process in our legislation.
Lastly, there has to be a commitment to accept the decision of farmers and move forward in a spirit of cooperation. Unfortunately, there's been very little correct so far about the process to bridge the gap between current government policy and the will of western Canadian farmers, as represented through their elected directors.
We are looking for discussion on underlying interests for real dialogue, for agreement on a process to resolve our differences, and we are willing to commit to cooperate. Most importantly, we are looking for a reciprocal commitment from the government. Barring that, we will continue to face major impasses, like the current one, where the government is preparing to take the extraordinary step of removing from his position as head of a multi-billion corporation our president and chief executive officer, who has the support of the board of directors.
It is time to do things differently and try to set things right. In order to do so, I would like to present the committee and the Government of Canada with a five-point plan for moving forward.
One, the CWB calls upon the government to respect the director election process as a legitimate exercise in democracy and a legitimate expression of farmers' views on their marketing system. The results of the director elections in five of the ten districts in western Canada will be known this weekend. In the aftermath of these elections, we call on the minister to sit down with four elected representatives from the CWB, including directors who are for and against the single desk, to dialogue openly and respectfully on issues of contention between the CWB and the government.
Number two, the CWB calls upon the government to consult with the board of directors in developing clear rules around the upcoming barley plebiscite that the minister has promised for early in the new year. The CWB's board of directors, as elected representatives of the farmers of western Canada, must have a part in determining issues like the wording of the question, voter eligibility, and third party spending limits.
Number three, we must work towards a clearer, better defined process for wheat. The minister has indicated that wheat will not be removed from the single desk before August 2008. But farmers' ability to function in the highly competitive wheat marketplace relies on our reputation as solid, long-term suppliers of the best grain in the world. The current uncertainty that hangs over the CWB is very negative for our reputation. We are beginning to suffer the consequences.
Among the options for bringing greater certainty to the issue of wheat marketing is a binding plebiscite, with a clear question, before any changes are made. As well, there is a need for an in-depth economic analysis of the consequence of having an open market for wheat.
Four, the minister's order in council restricting the CWB's communications activities must be rescinded. If there is concern over how farmers' money is being spent by the board of directors, we are willing to discuss the matter with the minister, but the issuing of directives is not the way to proceed and to build the level of dialogue that we need.
Five, the process to remove Adrian from his position as president and CEO must be halted. Good corporate governance requires that the CEO report and be accountable to the board of directors. The board cannot and should not be bypassed. This board supports the current president and CEO, Adrian Measner.
This five-point plan is a realistic one, and one that can be implemented immediately. It is based on mutual respect and respect for the fundamental notion that the CWB is not a government agency. It is in fact a shared governance corporation in which farmers, through their elected representatives on the board of directors and by virtue of their economic stake in the CWB's activities, must play the dominant role.
Regardless of what has happened in the past, we must take this opportunity today to set ourselves and the western Canadian grain industry on the right path, one that recognizes the central role that farmers must play and that acknowledges the legitimacy of their democratically elected representatives.
Thank you.
Now I give the floor to Adrian.
12:30 p.m.
Adrian Measner President, Canadian Wheat Board
Thank you to members of the committee for this invitation to appear before you today.
As Ken mentioned in his comments, the minister has initiated a process that will result in the termination of my position as president and CEO of the CWB. In the four years that I have held this position, I can say without hesitation that I have acted in a manner that is consistent with the laws laid out in the CWB Act. I can also state unequivocally that I have executed to the best of my abilities the policies developed and adopted by farmers of western Canada through their elected representatives on the CWB board of directors.
I have always believed CWB's mandate and mission is to use all of its powers and all of its tools at its disposal to create a sustainable competitive advantage for farmers. I have devoted all of my energies to achieving this mission, and I wish to express my gratitude to Ken and the other elected directors on the board who have devoted their energies to the same cause.
There have been charges that I have failed to plan for contingencies and, more specifically, for the possible elimination of the single desk. This is blatantly false. The CWB's board of directors has been through, on numerous occasions, strategic planning exercises where the full range of options for the CWB's future has been examined. Among these options the possible elimination of the single desk has been advanced, discussed, and analyzed as seriously and as thoroughly as any other alternative.
I would like to know, however, where is the minister's plan? When is he going to consult with the board of directors on the plebiscite as is required under the act? Is he going to respect the farmers' decision when they vote on a barley plebiscite? And if he moves on barley, how and when will he introduce legislation, and what will that legislation look like?
Comments were made earlier this week that the CWB should stick to marketing. I want to say that staff at the CWB remain focused on the tasks they have for western Canadian farmers. Our team continues to field thousands of calls each week from farmers, arranging logistics to move this crop from the Prairies, involving about 220,000 rail cars per year, working with our customers on the technical merits of farmers' products, and concluding sales of these products. We have a very strong sales program in place, and are doing the job that farmers want us to do.
Finally, I'd like to comment on the impact that all of this uncertainty about the CWB's structure, mandate, and leadership is having on our customers throughout the world. The CWB, as Ken has said, is a multi-billion dollar corporation with sales to over 70 countries worldwide. Our very strong business relationship with customers has built up over time. The kinds of changes that the government is contemplating and talking about publicly are disruptive to many of those relationships. Sooner or later sales will be lost, and the farmers of western Canada will suffer. In light of this risk, I can only add my voice to Ken's in calling for a process that is mindful of protecting farmers' short- and long-term economic interests.
Thank you.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerry Ritz
Thank you, Mr. Measner.
Mr. Ritter, in your opening statement you mentioned a package that had been submitted to me from the Wheat Board. I did receive that. I have given it to the clerk. We're having it translated, and we'll have it distributed as soon as it's translated.
