Evidence of meeting #3 for Bill C-18 (41st Parliament, 1st Session) in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was farmers.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Mr. Storseth.
We have to move on. Mr. Allen, for five minutes, please.
9:05 p.m.
NDP
Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Minister, for being with us.
You talked earlier about other farmers across the country, as you have done very often in the past. Being on the agriculture committee, I've heard you say that often. I think you know—and I'm sure you'll confirm this for us—that in the case of Ontario, when it came to wheat farmers, they actually did make the decision. The government didn't make the decision; it was farmers who made the final decision, because they voted to decide what they wanted to do, which I think is ultimately right.
If you check Hansard, which I'm sure your staff did, you will see that during the debate on this particular motion, I said that we should debate and agree on the question, and put it to the prairie farmers and ask them what they want, just as we did in Ontario. What I said in the House, as I pointed to my colleagues across the way, was that if they were right, we would sit down; but that if we were right, then they should sit down. I said that because the folks we are ultimately affecting are those farmers we've been talking about, who include some of my colleagues across the way. That's understood—and, Minister, I know you are as well.
What we're really saying is that if it was good enough for Ontario farmers to vote, then let's find the question and put it to farmers on the Prairies and say to them, “What do you want to do?”
I've heard you talk about not liking the plebiscite, and that's okay. I'd remind everybody that you can find dead folks on Elections Canada's list as well, by the way, and a few other folks every now and again. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen. I think we all know that. All of us have come through this process. We find folks who are no longer with us on lists all over the place. Lists are not the greatest piece; they're simply not the greatest things.
So I ask you specifically, if it was good enough for Ontario farmers to vote and decide for themselves, why can't we find a way to come up with the right question and then put it to prairie farmers and say we'll abide by their decision as prairie farmers?
9:05 p.m.
An hon. member
That's a good question.
9:05 p.m.
Conservative
Gerry Ritz Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
One of the things that differentiate what happened in Ontario from what happens in western Canada is that there was no piece of federal legislation governing Ontario farmers, so they decided to form a co-operative, or however they ended up banding it together, and they took a vote to put that back together. There was no legislation that stopped them from moving forward. There is in western Canada, and we're getting rid of that legislation. Then if farmers, when they put this new entity back together in year one, two, three, four, five--or whatever it takes--decide to have a vote, then we'll be more than happy to do that and to facilitate it. In 1943 when this was brought in as a war measures act, there was no vote to put it into place.
So farmers are telling us about the speed of commerce thing and to get on with this, to get it done, and to give them the freedom to make the choices they need to make.”
9:05 p.m.
NDP
Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON
Thank you for that, and I understand the difference between the two.
You and your colleagues have talked about this sense of democracy, so that's why I put it to you to let them vote. And by the way, if they voted to dismantle or get out of the wheat pool, then we'd simply bring your legislation forward and go ahead and do that. That's how you do these sorts of things. Normally you ask first and act later. We've acted first and asked later. We've done it in reverse, it seems to me.
Getting back to your earlier comment, Minister, you were asked if you had ever been invited by the wheat board to sit down with the board itself. Do you recollect receiving a letter from the wheat board this October inviting you to a meeting? Do you know whether you received it?
9:05 p.m.
NDP
Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON
Do you know why you were unable to attend? Was it a scheduling conflict?
9:05 p.m.
NDP
9:05 p.m.
Conservative
Gerry Ritz Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
I want to clarify one thing. You talk about dismantling the Wheat Board. We're not doing that; we're maintaining the Wheat Board as a vibrant option for farmers to use if they decide to do so.
And, yes, it was a scheduling conflict. I received the letter about three days before I left on a Europe-Russia trip to promote Canadian product over there. We had a very successful trip. When I got the letter, I immediately got back to the Wheat Board and made the offer to have my parliamentary secretary attend. He's well versed on the Wheat Board issues. Of course, they said no. I was not able to attend with the scheduling conflict, but I did make the offer.
9:05 p.m.
NDP
Malcolm Allen NDP Welland, ON
I understand your offer of the parliamentary secretary. But we're dismantling, or at least changing, how we do the Wheat Board. I think the minister is the important person here. I mean no offence to your parliamentary secretary, as I have utmost respect for Mr. Lemieux and he's a wonderful person. I work very well with him at committee. I think that in this instance, it would have been appropriate for you to go, since we are talking about major undertakings. Perhaps you could have offered a different time when you came back from Europe.
You talked about value added, which I think all of us talk about. I think you've heard us talk about this when it comes to other resources, like lumber and other things in this country that get shipped out as raw materials and get sent back to us. You talked about the malting increase that you saw—this plant expansion that you mentioned—but you didn't mention Prairie Malt. It actually laid off half its staff.
Are you aware of what happened there?
9:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
Thank you, Mr. Allen.
Your time has expired, but I'll allow the minister to answer, and then we'll have to move on.
9:10 p.m.
Conservative
Gerry Ritz Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Yes. Prairie Malt is owned by Cargill. It's in Biggar. I used to deliver there when it was owned by a different entity. They are in the process of reassessing their water situation; they have a problem with some filtration. They're in a shutdown phase. I'm not sure how long that is going to last, but I have had chats about this with Len Penner, the Canadian president of Cargill.
9:10 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Yesterday I asked Ms. Ashton to present the report she was quoting from indicating that Cargill's share price had increased. I'm curious to know if the clerk has received that report yet.
9:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
You posed a question publicly to Ms. Ashton. To my knowledge, nothing has been received, but there was no compulsory reason for Ms. Ashton to produce the report.
Please proceed with your line of questioning, Mr. Hoback.
9:10 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
It is disappointing. She must have some inside information about Cargill's ownership structure that nobody else around the table has.
9:10 p.m.
Conservative
9:10 p.m.
Conservative
9:10 p.m.
Conservative
9:10 p.m.
Conservative
Randy Hoback Conservative Prince Albert, SK
Anyway, Minister, I want to thank you for standing up for farmers. Thank you for putting up with this barrage of questioning and having the gumption to see this through. I appreciate that. More importantly, my constituents and farmers appreciate that and want to pat you on the back. They're ready to celebrate once this is done. It'll be a great celebration right across the Prairies, because they have been shackled, jailed, bullied, and targeted. Now all of this is going to come to an end.
It's interesting that when you travel abroad and start talking about the Wheat Board, people go up to you and ask if you really have an entity like that in Canada, of all places. We are definitely righting a wrong that's been in there for way too long, and I commend you for doing that.
Minister, one concern that my constituents and farmers have is that the board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board seems to have a scorched earth policy of making sure that anything new in this new entity will not survive. They're trying to make sure that it's discredited. They've spread a whole pile of fear that the entity itself will not be capable of working. In fact, they're spending farmers' money right now doing that.
The other concern I have is that they're spending farmers' money in a legal suit against the government, trying to stop the government from moving forward on what farmers really want. Parliament creates a law. Parliament has the right to repeal its laws at its will. Even our colleague, Mr. Martin, would agree with that comment, because he has said that before.
Do the CWB directors' legal challenges pose any risk to the passage of this legislation?
9:10 p.m.
Conservative
Gerry Ritz Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Well, I'm no lawyer, but any lawyer will tell you that it's like the weather forecast—there's a 10% chance of everything.
Even the board's internal legal process has said that there is a slim-to-none chance of this moving forward. Certainly the government of the day has the right to change legislation. That's what we're doing. Again, we're not dismantling the board; we're simply moving away from the monopoly.
As you said, it's a scorched earth policy. I find it very sad that the board did not continue to forward contracts and hedge, and so on.