Agriculture Committee on March 4th, 2008

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

If this is an Industry issue, are we going to have joint meetings with the industry committee? Is the industry committee going to study this as well?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

According to Jean-Denis, it's a guideline from Industry Canada, so it's provided to Agriculture Canada and CFIA for implementation. This committee can have the hearings on it and make recommendations. It's the same thing we do with PMRA, which is under Health Canada. We have the power to advise on other committee business, as we did with the biofuels bill, Bill C-33, which is under Environment Canada. So we are our own masters. We can make recommendations to other departments and not be in violation of anybody's jurisdiction.

Mr. Easter, you have a motion. I would ask that you read it into the record.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

There is a slight problem with this resolution at the moment. It requires amendment. We can agree on the amendment today, or I can give notice for the next meeting. But I'll read it as it should be, given that the government introduced legislation yesterday and we have to wait for the Speaker's ruling on whether it's legal or not.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

First you'd have to read the current motion you tabled into the record. Then as far as amendment....

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I'll read the current motion as it stands:

That this committee call upon the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food to respect the Federal Court of Appeal decision upholding the previous Federal Court decision concerning the Canadian Wheat Board and to adhere to the provisions of section 47.1 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act prior to any legislation being introduced by the government concerning the Canadian Wheat Board. Any proposed legislation to the Canadian Wheat Board Act which would seek to exclude barley or wheat from the single desk selling authority of the board requires first consultation with the board and second approval by producers in a vote authorizing that specific exclusion.

It needs to be amended along these lines. We can do it today or propose it and do it at the next meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Now that you have it on the table, I don't know if you can amend your own motion.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

This is what I'd propose, and maybe we'd get friendly agreement here. I would propose that in the fourth line down, where it says “of section 47.1 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act”, delete “prior to any” and put in “with respect to legislation”, and delete “being”. Therefore it would read “...with respect to legislation introduced by the government concerning the Canadian Wheat Board”, period. Then in the next sentence, where it says “Any proposed legislation”, delete “proposed” so that it would read “Any legislation to the Canadian Wheat Board Act”.

So it would read, starting at the fourth line,

of section 47.1 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act with respect to legislation introduced by the government concerning the Canadian Wheat Board. Any legislation to the Canadian Wheat Board Act which would seek to exclude barley or wheat from the single desk selling authority of the board requires first consultation with the board and second approval by producers in a vote authorizing that specific exclusion.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

I'll accept that; it doesn't change the intent. We'll just make that the motion if everybody is okay with that.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Are there any comments?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, just to speak in favour of this motion, there is a requirement under section 47.1. As I said in the House yesterday, we do believe the minister did perform an illegal act. Actually, he violated his oath of office yesterday in his introduction of legislation in the House, in that they have not met the requirement of section 47.1 in terms of consulting with the board and holding a plebiscite among producers on the specific intent of their legislation. The chair at the Canadian Wheat Board said as recently as Saturday that there was no consultation.

The previous minister said while the previous so-called plebiscite was being held that he talked about it sometimes and that it was a consultation, but he did say specifically that it was not binding, and it certainly could be considered more of a public opinion survey.

The current minister has made it clear that he is doing away with the single desk marketing of barley.

The parliamentary secretary to the Minister to the Canadian Wheat Board and the previous minister went to great lengths in the past to talk about how you could have dual marketing in which you had single desk selling and the open market. We argued at the time that you couldn't have both. The current minister, to his credit, has admitted that it's not possible, and he's made it clear that this legislation will do away with the single desk marketing of barley.

None of the qualifications of section 47.1 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act have been followed in terms of the introduction of this legislation. We believe the committee should pass this motion and report so to the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Anderson.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

It's really good to be back here with old friends. Some of us are on a couple of committees together, so we can't seem to get away from each other. But it's good to be here, and it's always good to talk about this issue. I'm sure everyone is excited. André looks thrilled again to be here talking about the Wheat Board. But if Mr. Easter has a fixation for it, there's nothing we can do about that.

Just to address specifically the motion today, we want to make the point that the government has certainly respected the court decision, as we have with all other matters. We are adhering to section 47.1. The intent of this legislation doesn't have anything to do with the issues that Mr. Easter is speaking about. It simply changes the government's ability to regulate, and it's within the right of the minister and certainly the right of any member in the House to bring forward legislation to deal with that. So I was a little disappointed yesterday that, before he'd even seen it, he was up on his feet ranting about it and taking a position that is not in the interests of western Canadian farmers.

We've attempted to consult with the board. I was at a meeting, actually, when we sat down with the leadership of the Canadian Wheat Board and tried to talk specifically about this issue. The board themselves came out later and said they didn't feel that they could continue to have discussions. So certainly the minister has been more than open to sitting down with the industry and with the board and talking about this issue. The board doesn't seem to be as willing to do that.

With regard to the plebiscite, clearly Mr. Easter can pretend that we didn't have a vote. But we had a vote, and 62% of western Canadian producers, almost 30,000 of them, spoke and said they do want to have some marketing choice. Certainly that percentage would be higher now, it's obvious, and those of us who are on the prairies can see that. Even the member for Wascana seems to have shifted his hardline position to begin to become a little bit more reasonable on his position. We welcome that and welcome him bringing his caucus along to that position as well.

I think, rather than calling upon the minister here, we really should be commending the minister for the way he's handled this file and actually for the fact that he's adhered to most of the things that are mentioned in the motion here. Clearly we're upholding the court decision. We're going along with that. Both decisions have been made and we've respected them. We're adhering to the ability of the minister to change legislation. There's nothing improper about that at all. We have consulted with the board, and we've also had approval by producers and a vote authorizing that. So I think the opposition parties need to understand the widespread interest in change in western Canada.

If they'd been at the rally on Saturday, they would have seen that. We had well over a hundred supporters for change out. It was interesting. There were about ten or so pro-board supporters out, and I understand a good number of the pro-board supporters had to actually leave because they had to get back to their jobs in the city. They had brought in a number of people who may not be farmers but who had shown up, and then when one o'clock came, they had to get back to their jobs.

I know from conversations I heard after the rally that a number of the people who were carrying pro-board signs were not farmers, because they were having discussions about that very fact.

I would appeal to the opposition parties to realize that farmers are looking forward to change. They want change. We've acted appropriately, and as importantly, we've acted to support western Canadian farmers.

That said, I would like to call the question.

[An hon. member]

A recorded vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Are there any other people wanting to speak on this motion?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I have just one last comment, Mr. Chair.

The fact of the matter is that the consultation or previous plebiscite held was not on this specific proposal, and in terms of the minister's statement on this legislation, there's only 13.8% support in that plebiscite or consultation for this position.

I would say this—and this is what would really clear the air, Mr. Chair, and we'd welcome this—that if the government would go out and hold a new plebiscite on a clear question, do you want the single desk or not, it would settle this issue. If the government thinks it has support, then do it. Hold the plebiscite the way that it's supposed to be done under the law, and whether it's for or against barley under the board, we would welcome that decision.

So if the parliamentary secretary and the minister think they have that support out there on a clear question, then just do it, and we wouldn't have to argue here.

So I would agree. Call the question.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

Okay. This will be a recorded vote.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

When will that be reported, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

That would have had to be part of the motion.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

In my motion I said to report it to the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

It's not in your motion. I'll check the blues, but I don't think it's in the blues.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

All right. I'll make another motion at the next meeting. That's not a problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, James Bezan]

The meeting is adjourned.