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

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Certainly.

Mr. Lafleur, would you please call the recorded vote?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Moving on to the next proposed amendment, from the Conservatives, amendment CPC-3, it applies to proposed section 28 of the new bill, which is part of clause 14. It seeks to affect proposed paragraph 28(2)(a).

Mr. Hoback, do you wish to table this amendment?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Yes, Mr. Chair. I will table this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

The floor is yours.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

The intent here is just to put the new entity in the same field as everybody else so that it has the ability to go and undertake on-farm buying on a pooled basis. I think that's something the new entity will need in order to move forward. It puts them on the same level playing field as everybody else that the farmers will have an option to sell to. It's a fairly simple amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you, Mr. Hoback.

Again, Mr. Valeriote, this is the identical motion that has been moved, and it's simply done in the order in which it was received.

Is there anybody else who wishes to speak to this?

Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Yes, I just have a question that you can rule out of order, if you like, Mr. Chair. I'm just not sure where to put this in. My question is really to the witnesses.

The crop year ends on July 31. The current board, with its elected and appointed directors, has been operating during this crop year. The act, on the other hand, is firing those directors in mid-term, likely as soon as this act gets royal assent. Therefore, three-quarters or halfway through the year, the board of elected directors as it currently exists is gone, yet the numbers for the year on their success or non-success will come out sometime in the future.

Are there any implications or liability or whatever for those current directors after they're fired because of what happens during the rest of the crop year when the five that remain will still be in place?

This seems atrocious to me. If the government was being fair instead of ideological, I think they would leave the current board in place until the end of the crop year and let it finish its work in good faith. But that's not what is happening. Are there any implications for the current elected farmer-directors when they're fired and the rest of the crop year remains?

[Greg Meredith]

If I may just add a clarification to the member's question, the elected directors are not fired. They are just not part of the new voluntary board, and there is no liability for the remainder of the pool.

Just so members are clear, the powers of the board that exist under the single desk stay in place for this crop year. There's a provision in the interim act under proposed section 46 that allows the board to continue with those single-desk powers for three months after the end of the crop year so that any grain from the 2011-12 crop year that's still in the system has a chance to be marketed.

We've tried to give the new board the tools they need to carry out this crop year effectively--and there would be no liability for existing elected directors.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Are there any implications for current moneys in the system, such as the contingency fund?

[Greg Meredith]

No. Under the interim act, the potential uses of the contingency fund are broadened. But the government guarantee of the pooling of initial payments continues, and the government guarantee of the approved borrowing plan of the corporation continues.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you, Mr. Easter. You had a few seconds left, but I think we are at a point where we're ready to take a decision here. Shall amendment CPC-3 carry? All in favour? All opposed?

(Amendment agreed to)

No one was opposed: look at that.

Given the fact that the amendments were identical, amendment LIB-5 now becomes redundant, so we will not address it.

Amendment NDP-12 seeks to affect proposed subsection 42(1) of the new act, as proposed in clause 14.

Mr. Martin, do you wish to move your amendment? The floor is yours.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again, Bill C-18 seems to increase the arbitrary power of the minister as one of its main objectives and purposes, and we're seeking to retain at least the power of the farmers and producers to control their own destiny with the marketing vehicle they choose to participate in, even in the dual-system voluntary regime that's being put into effect.

Proposed subsection 42(1) says, “In exercising its powers and performing its duties, the Corporation must give effect to the provisions of the Agreement that pertain to the Corporation...”, with the “Agreement” being the North American Free Trade Agreement.

In the interests of our own economic sovereignty and the dignity and the democratic rights of farm producers, we're suggesting the language be changed to say that “the Corporation may, if so directed by a plebiscite of its producers, give effect to the provisions of the Agreement that pertain to that Corporation”.

I think this particular amendment has never been more timely or pertinent given the American attitude, our NAFTA partner's attitude, with their Buy American policy and what we anticipate is going to be a slamming shut of the border. You just wait until some of this Canadian grain starts flowing into the United States to see how well that's going to be greeted by senators of the American states bordering Canada, as grain truck after grain truck goes down to these milling facilities. There will be serious countervailing measures, we predict.

They've hated the Canadian Wheat Board already for generations. They considered it an unfair competitive advantage, but that's the operative word: they acknowledge that it has been an “advantage”, so much so that 13 times they've gone to the GATT and the WTO and filed complaints against the Wheat Board.

Now that they contemplate the language in Bill C-18, which suggests that the corporation “must give effect to the provisions of the Agreement that pertain to the Corporation”, the real impetus for Bill C-18 is revealed: to hand over the competitive trade advantage of the Canadian Wheat Board to the American agrifood industry without even getting anything in trade.

It's the largest single trade concession in recent history, in living memory, and, without even getting anything back, we're giving up our trade advantage. At the very least, we should get up off our knees, stand on our hind legs, and declare that if the farmer producers agree with these provisions, then they “may” give effect to those provisions--not that they “must” or “shall”.

I've negotiated about a hundred collective agreements and I know the difference between “may” and “shall”. We want language that favours, to the best extent possible ,the rights and the economic sovereignty of Canadians, not something that unilaterally forfeits our economic sovereignty and the trade advantage that we enjoy--or have enjoyed until this sorry night with the Canadian Wheat Board.

It reminds me of the softwood lumber agreement. I used that analogy that nobody liked about beavers and their genitalia, but Margaret Atwood was absolutely right. For some reason, every time we have an advantage and we're backed into a corner, we immediately chicken out and offer up to our tormentors that which is most advantageous and useful to us--in this case, the trade advantage that we enjoy with the Canadian Wheat Board.

So give us a break. We're on a roll here. The last amendment passed. We could end this night with a whole series of amendments passing with a little bit of flexibility, a little bit of pride. Where's our national pride? I'm a fiercely proud Canadian nationalist, and I don't like unilaterally forfeiting what I consider to be our economic sovereignty.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Is there anybody else...?

The NDP's time has expired, Mr. Atamanenko. I'm sorry.

Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Chair, I have one question for the witnesses. I would say that I certainly agree with Mr. Martin on the fact that the champagne corks will be popping south of the border. We've seen all kinds of statements from the U.S. wheat growers association and others about how happy they are with the government because it's doing away with single-desk selling under the Canadian Wheat Board.

The Canadian Wheat Board has given farmers an advantage the Americans wish they had.

This minister is serving up the Canadian Wheat Board on a silver platter to the Americans. We have to ask who the minister is really working for. It's obviously not Canadian grain producers, because we're giving our advantage away. It has been challenged 14 times by the U.S., and we've won every single time.

Mr. Martin is absolutely right. We're giving it up and we're not even getting anything in return. For those who think you will just be able to hop in your truck and drive across the border to deliver your grain over that 49th parallel, I think.... Howard Midgie is here and I think he could tell you that you're just not going to be able to drive down in a fleet of trucks and happily smile and dump your grain. There will be some serious push-back from the Americans.

My question to the witnesses is on this particular may/shall business. If that wording was changed to “may”, would it really make any difference to this particular section of the agreement? It is related to the North American Free Trade Agreement. We've basically already given away our rights under that agreement, as I see it.

I guess the other point, talking about giving away our rights, is that once the Canadian Wheat Board is gone, there are some who think we'll be able to get it back with a future government down the road. That's not possible under the various trade agreements. Once it's gone, it's gone forever. This is an historic piece of legislation that I think could be called the sellout of Canadian farmers into the future. There is no way to re-implement it, as I understand it, under international trade law.

[Ryan Rempel]

I could make a few comments on this section. Using “may” or “shall” does make a difference. The use of “shall”, as has been said, would obligate the corporation to abide by the relevant provisions of NAFTA. If it's changed to “may”, it's merely optional for the corporation to abide by those provisions. In fact, in a sense, it's equivalent to not having this provision at all, because the corporation could voluntarily abide by those provisions if it wanted to.

The other thing I should point out is that the similar provision--or in fact the identical one--is in the act now, and there is a similar series of provisions in the Financial Administration Act that apply to crown corporations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you very much.

We'll go to Mr. Merrifield.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

It's interesting listening to the opposition on this. They seem to think that we're giving something up. In reality, what you really need to do is look at what farmers are telling us and at what farmers are doing.

When farmers, out of frustration, had no choice but to try to make a point on this and try to get the best price they could for their product, they tried to move their product across the 49th parallel into the U.S. market. They didn't get push-back from the U.S.; they got push-back from the Liberal government. In fact, they put them in prison, in jail, for that protest.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

[Inaudible--Editor]...broke that--

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

That's where they got the push-back.

Mr. Martin was suggesting that we're giving something up because he feels that it's going to compromise the price and that the wheat pool monopoly has created such a great marketing price advantage for farmers. I have yet to see an American truck storm the 49th parallel to come north to try to capitalize on the Wheat Board price. It has always been the other way around.

Farmers are speaking with their actions on this. That's why they're going to other products rather than wheat and barley, and that's why they're trying to move their products south rather than north. I'll just leave it at that, because that speaks volumes for this clause.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Given that we've all had an opportunity to speak to this I'll simply call the question. Shall the amendment carry?

(Amendment negatived)

The amendment is defeated. This brings us back to the main clause. There are no more amendments dealing with clause 14. Therefore, I will put the question to the committee--

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Excuse me, Mr. Chair, you said we would have an opportunity--

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Yes, I did.

Go ahead, Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

I have a question for the officials.

This section, in part or in whole, as I've said several times, really takes the democratic control over the Canadian Wheat Board out of producer hands and puts it basically into the hands of the minister's office. No doubt you folks will have some say in that as well. This is a new concept. I don't even believe the original Canadian Wheat Board, with the three commissioners, had perhaps as much control from the minister's office placed on it as this particular one does.

I'm wondering if the officials here could name any other federal organization that has a board of directors structured as it is here. Also, could you tell me what model was used within the department to come to this new structure of a board of directors that is non-accountable to the farmers, the very people who they're supposed to be doing business for, that is completely dictated and controlled by big government in Ottawa? Is there any other model out there that you're following? How did you come to this particular conclusion?

[Greg Meredith]

Just to reference back, the purpose of the new voluntary board would be to work for the benefit of producers who use the new board.

I'm making assumptions that may be wrong, Mr. Chair, but I think the member is referring to provisions such as proposed section 25. I would just remind members that this section is virtually identical to what's in the current act. So you could say that if there were models it would be the current act, and there are very similar models in the Financial Administration Act with respect to crown corporations that have similarly constituted boards.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

That's one of the problems with the current act; we've had experience under the current act, Mr. Meredith. That is where the minister placed a gag order on the board of directors and fired the CEO without cause, and there were quite a number of other pressure tactics that they used against the board. That is one of the reasons why we feel so strongly. We've already had experience with this minister and the previous minister. That was used to the elected board's disadvantage, so that is one of our concerns.

I come back again to my original question. Is there any other marketing institution or marketing agency in this country that is based on this model of a board of directors that is unaccountable to the very people who they're supposed to be serving?