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

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I think that's what they're digging up now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Mr. Martin, in fairness to you, because of this inconsistency, I'm going to restart your time.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

You are a prince of a guy. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Remember that.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I will. It's duly noted. Thank you.

We are talking about the same clause 14, but it's subsection 25(1), under “Directions by Governor in Council”. As you note, in Bill C-18 it reads, “The Governor in Council may, by order, direct the Corporation with respect to the manner which any of its operations...”, etc.

The language I suggest is: “The Governor in Council may make recommendations to the Corporation with respect to the...”. It may not “direct” the corporation. I guess it's self-evident what we're seeking to do. We want whatever is left of the Canadian Wheat Board, in its voluntary dual-choice capacity, to at least to be independent from the direction and control of the government.

By having this language in Bill C-18, where the Governor in Council may by order direct the corporation, it might as well be a department of the government. It's not a crown corporation. It's not supposed to be a government agency or a government institution. It's not an extension of the Minister of Agriculture's office. Why should it be under the direction and control of the government?

If you people care about giving farmers choice, for God's sake let them run their own voluntary enterprise for marketing their grain, and don't have the heavy-handed state imposing their will on democratically-minded Canadian farmers.

I urge you to pass this amendment. It's a reasonable amendment. Let's face it: whose interests are we looking after here? We want to represent the people who elected us, but everything we've been doing here so far is serving the interests of the American agrifood industry, the multinational corporations that are just salivating to get their hands on this market share. It's like putting a ball and chain on the legs of the new directors if you're actually contemplating having the government dictate their affairs for them.

I'm not going to speak to this at length, but I strongly urge you to support NDP-10.

If any of my colleagues care to speak to it, they can have the rest of my time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Seeing nobody but Mr. Easter, we'll begin the Liberal time now.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thanks again, Mr. Chair. This section goes to the heart of what this particular government always claimed to be against.

Let farmers run their own agency. Although the government's propaganda machine is going to talk about a dual market, there's no such thing. There's either a single-desk market or an open market. Their propaganda machine, and we've seen some of it--I believe Mr. Martin held up some of it last night--will be talking about the voluntary Wheat Board.

Well, read the section closely, Mr. Chair: “The Governor in Council”--the government, in other words--“may, by order, direct the Corporation with respect to the manner in which any of its operations”--any of its operations--“powers and duties under this Act are to be conducted, exercised or performed”.

This is not a farmers' marketing agency anymore, Mr. Chair: this is clearly the minister's little club of six. He will run it. He will direct it. The catch here is that we've heard the parliamentary secretary talk forever, almost hatefully, against the Canadian Wheat Board over the last number of years.

Their whole objective here--and I listened to Mr. Hoback earlier--is to have the Wheat Board fail, take the blame for that failure, and leave the government off the hook. Is that what this is all about?

The minister can direct them in any way, shape, or form, but when it comes to answering for what this new Canadian Wheat Board has done, who's going to answer for it? Is it going to be the minister? Of course not. It's going to be that head office in Winnipeg. In fact, I submit to you now, Mr. Chairman, that no matter what the minister directs the board to do, he will not accept responsibility at the end of the day for his direction. He'll point to Winnipeg, and he'll say “that Canadian Wheat Board”.

This is a farce, talking about letting farmers control their own destiny.... The only choice they have is, oh yes, market through the voluntary Wheat Board or market in the open market: it's the same thing. This new agency doesn't have assets. It doesn't have an elevator system. It doesn't have any authority to do hardly anything, but the minister's going to direct it.

I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that this is just beyond all reason, and that here we have in the act the farce that you're setting up a marketing agency for farmers, when the minister himself, with his little group of six, including him, is really going to run it, lock, stock, and barrel. The board's going to have to answer for anything that goes wrong and the minister's going to sit here in Ottawa as if he did nothing. What's it to do? Paint the Canadian Wheat Board guilty of all the things it's been accused of by the parliamentary secretary for the last years....

I submit, as I said in the House, Mr. Chair, that if there's anyone who took an oath of office and broke it, it's that parliamentary secretary over there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you, Mr. Easter.

Seeing no other....

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Chair, the final--

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Okay, we'll go to Mr. Martin.

That's fine. You have half of the five minutes remaining, Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I don't think I need all that, but I did cut myself short to give others an opportunity. I want people to understand just how broad and sweeping Bill C-18 is in putting control and direction of the Wheat Board in the hands of government.

We introduced this clause by referring to the first line, but let me read the clause that I am trying to replace here: “The Governor in Council may, by order, direct the Corporation with respect to the manner in which any of its operations, powers and duties under this Act are to be conducted, exercised or performed”. That is absolute direction and control in every aspect and detail of their operations, from the rent they pay for their offices to what they pay their staff.

Earlier in the act, it even dictates that the government gets to say what the salaries of the CEO and president shall be. That's how prescriptive and absolute they want the control over this thing.

So even though they are talking about giving farmers choice, they are throttling any choice farmers might have about how to operate the shell that is left of their Canadian Wheat Board. I just hope people get a full grasp of the severity of Bill C-18 and why we feel it necessary to take these important steps to try to mitigate the impact of it and leave producers some control over their own operations.

We will also be seeking to amend the next clause. I am concerned that if this amendment is defeated we won't get a chance to talk about the second part of this proposed section. It also goes on to say: “The directors are to cause the directions to be implemented and, in so far as they act in accordance with section 16, they are not accountable for any consequences arising from the implementation of the directions”.

This is sort of giving a 007 licence-to-kill clause to the directors: as long as they're implementing what the PMO is dictating, they are somehow absolved of any normal fiduciary accountability and obligations that directors are normally subject to. So they're not directors anymore at all: they're stooges. They've turned them into five government stooges who don't even have the same liabilities that a normal director of a business or a corporation has. This is a recipe that's doomed to failure. I predict that it will be out of business in three years.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Mr. Martin, your extended time is up. I will get to your point. You were worried that the next amendment wouldn't be admissible because it hinges on this one. I see no reason.... There's been no reason brought to my attention that we won't be able to discuss your next amendment, so the next amendment does not hinge on this one.

Is there anybody else who wishes to address this? I see no hands going up; therefore I will call the question. Shall amendment NDP-10, affecting proposed subsection 25(1), carry?

(Amendment negatived)

Moving on, we have amendment NDP-11, which seeks to amend proposed subsection 25(2), which begins with the words, “The directors are to cause the directions...”.

Mr. Martin, this motion is in your name. Do you wish to move it?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Yes, I do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

The floor is yours.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Well, I've made reference to it in my previous remarks, but it caused me great concern that the drafters of this legislation were directed to put language in place that would essentially cause the directors of the company, the government-appointed directors, to implement--it directs them to implement--the government's wishes and directions, and they are not accountable for any consequences arising from the implementation of those directions.

I'm confused by the choice of language. I can imagine what the intent was, but when language is ambiguous and open to where reasonable people can reasonably disagree on what they're after, you look to what the intent was of the drafters. I can only assume that the intent of the drafters, as directed by the government, was to put this safety valve in place for the directors, which makes them anything but directors.

I've been a director on an employee benefit fund, for instance, where you go through training about your fiduciary responsibilities, your liabilities ,and your obligations. It's not something you go into lightly, because there are real ramifications.

Well, this seems to absolve them of any of those normal responsibilities and obligations to act in the best interests of the people you're elected--or in this case, appointed--to represent. I don't understand what the difference is between these directors and an employee of the minister. Therefore, I'm suggesting we delete that clause altogether and, by default, allow the ordinary rules of corporate governance to have primacy here, where a director would know what their role is as a director, and it's not to be the flunky of the Minister of Agriculture.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Atamanenko.

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

I would just like to add that, from the beginning, when we started debating the bill and speaking out against the draconian consequences, we've talked about democracy and the fact that the government was not respecting the vote of farmers and did not even want to have a plebiscite.

Now, as we go through the bill, we see segments that in my opinion are flagrantly anti-democratic. You have directors who are making decisions to do what they want and it says they're not accountable; they don't have to accept the consequences of the decisions. Let's say you have a corporation. You have directors of a corporation. They're accountable to shareholders. We're accountable to our constituents. But here, we have people making decisions and, according to this act, they're not going to be accountable for their decisions. It seems preposterous. It doesn't make any sense.

There are threads of anti-democratic actions throughout this bill. This is a clear indication of one of them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you, Mr. Atamanenko.

Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, I think the Canadian public and the farm community should interpret these words for what they are. This section in this bill is atrocious for a government that said it was going to allow farmers to determine their own destiny and run their own industry.

The directors--and let's be specific here--are “to cause the directions to be implemented”. In other words, the minister gives an order and they have to ensure it's done, for pretty well whatever the order may be.

Mr. Hoback may say this is only an interim agency. Well, this is a $5.6-billion corporation at the moment. It's responsible for the movement and sale of the grain of thousands of farmers. We could have this system in place for four years or more and the directors will have to implement every little whim that this minister has—and he has a lot.

Then, to make it even worse, the act says the directors “are not accountable for any consequences arising from the implementation of the directions”. The minister gives an order and the directors have to carry it out, but the directors don't have to be accountable for any of the consequences of that direction.

Mr. Chair, is this Canada we're living in? It makes you wonder. For a government that has talked about its express desire to allow farmers to run their own agency.... Farmers aren't running that agency, folks.

How can the backbenchers who have farmers in their communities allow such dictatorial legislation to pass? Can nobody stand up over there?

Is there not one member on that other side who can stand up and challenge the dictatorial aspect of this piece of legislation that first took the farmers' votes away, that made them voiceless, and that now, in this new volunteer Canadian Wheat Board...? It's completely voiceless. It's run by a collection of six under express orders that come out of the minister's office through the Governor in Council. My God, you should be ashamed of yourselves.

That's all I have to say, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you, Mr. Easter.

Mr. Allen, the New Democrats have approximately a minute and a half left.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, it has been said, but… The direction is coming from the Governor in Council. We understand who that is. So why do you have a board of directors? Why don't you just amend it to get rid of the five directors of the board and have someone who we'll simply call “the superintendent”? The Governor in Council can instruct the superintendent to carry out the specific orders and have it done. Just have a direct chain of command that says: you work for me, here are the directions, push them through.

To put up this quasi-board of directors that sort of has some semi-autonomy, or at least pretends to have semi-autonomy, but to then simply have the Governor in Council say “thou shalt go do”, and if you don't, we'll remove you, to say, “Well, you're responsible to the folks who voluntarily joined the organization and to look after them, but if you disagree with the Governor in Council, you'll be removed”....

You've asked folks to join and you've told them they'll be subject to someone else they can't get rid of—the five directors—which become the buffer. Why not make it a real buffer? Just make it an employee. Just say that a superintendent makes the direction and get rid of the five directors that aren't elected. Cut down on the cost. Hire one person and say: “Here are the orders. Take the orders and implement them.”

Be done with it. Streamline the operation. Cut down on the number of meetings. You would actually be telling Canadians what you're going to do anyway and make it plain.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Mr. Allen, your time has expired.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Is there more time, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

There is.