Evidence of meeting #4 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 board.
A recording is available from Parliament.
7:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
I think that would be consistent with the rules that have been passed to govern this committee's conduct, so I would have no trouble with that.
Going as meticulously as I can, the next clause would be proposed section 9 of the new act, under clause 14.
Amendments NDP-7 and NDP-8 apply to proposed section 9, but we can deal with them, because they're in different subsections of that particular clause. Is there a mover?
7:40 p.m.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
This is a two-part amendment, because we have changes to recommend to both proposed subsection 9(1) and proposed subsection 9(2)--although all of this, as you said, is within the context of clause 14, so I don't blame Mr. Easter and others for having a difficult time getting our minds around this.
I'll speak to both at the same time as a concept, even though we are going to vote on only what you're calling amendment NDP-7.
We believe the board of directors should have 15 directors, not five, as contemplated in the new legislation. I point out that proposed subsection 9(1) actually prescribes five directors, which would include a chairperson and a president, all of whom would be appointed by the government. We believe this is contrary to the spirit of the original Canadian Wheat Board and also, I believe, a breach of the commitment made by government to allow farmers to control their own destiny.
It's unbelievable to me that we could even be considering this idea that the heavy hand of the state would come in and fire all of the democratically elected directors of a non-profit cooperative organization and impose five directors chosen by the minister--it's Stalinist. I hear members on the government side calling the Wheat Board “communism” and saying they're lifting the iron curtain to provide freedom. It is the heavy hand of the state that is stamping on and trampling all over the rights of farm people by imposing these directors.
So by the first stage of this two-part effort here in proposed section 9, which is part of clause 14, we would reconstitute or maintain the status quo of 15 directors. The next stage proposes that farmers elect those directors in keeping with the principle of farmers being in control of their own destiny in the rural prairie farm economy.
If anyone else would like to comment on that, they can finish my time.
7:45 p.m.
NDP
Alex Atamanenko NDP British Columbia Southern Interior, BC
Mr. Chair, I would just like to say that it's a very difficult time for farmers. The least they should be able to have is a say in this new entity, whatever it is. What we're doing is taking the power away from them. The government should at least have the decency to allow them to choose their directors however they see fit. Obviously, 15 would seem to be a good number to keep some democracy in the Wheat Board.
7:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
Thank you, Mr. Atamanenko.
The NDP still has just under two minutes to address this.
Mr. Easter, you wanted to address this?
I will come back to you, Mr. Atamanenko.
7:45 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Yes, I think this is a critical section, and I think it's a critical amendment that we should support, because the bill really moves the Canadian Wheat Board from being a body whose primary interests and primary business were to maximize returns back to primary producers; to negotiate with the railways to assure producer cars; to--in their so-called war room--look at the world so they could maximize those returns; and, in their transportation room, to work for the benefit of the lowest transportation costs and the efficient movement of grains...it moves the Canadian Wheat Board from that to being basically a body controlled by big government. That's the principle we see at stake here. The five directors seem to be accountable to no one other than to the minister.
So I have a couple of questions for the department, if they could answer them.
Currently, the Canadian Wheat Board, with its elected directors, has 10 districts, and in those districts they have annual meetings to which farmers can come out, raise the serious questions they have in what the Wheat Board is doing, ask questions through their information office, and whatever it may be they could.... David Anderson could get up in his district--because there's a pro-single-desk director elected there--and ask some hard questions.
Now, with the new board of directors, these five pansies for Gerry Ritz, how do they communicate with the farm community? Are they going to have district meetings to tell the farmers what they're doing, meetings where farmers can stand up in what were the 10 previous districts and raise questions and push the new diffused Canadian Wheat Board to work in their best interests?
How is that going to happen? How is that producer exchange, which has been very good under the board, going to happen under the new five people that Gerry Ritz will appoint?
7:45 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic Policy Branch, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food
Just as in the last act, this bill doesn't require directors to do that, but nothing in the act prevents it either.
7:45 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
So I wonder, could the parliamentary secretary, who has been the one pushing this bill, could he tell us, are these directors going to...? This is an important point, because this is about farmers having a say in their own marketing agency--
7:50 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Yes, but would they have the freedom to ask what's going on? Are they going to go out to the country and meet farmers on the ground and report to them as the previous directors have done? Is that the intent? Are the directors going to do that or are they only going to listen for the memos and the call from the PMO or the minister's office?
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Blaine Calkins
You can if you like if you want to use this....
Because the question has been posed to the parliamentary secretary, I don't think this should be used up as Conservative time if you want to give an answer--
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Well, I think the answer is that we're confident that those directors will be communicating with farmers because, as we pointed out a little bit earlier, the “object of the Corporation is to market grain for the benefit of producers who choose to deal with” it. So of course the directors will be very concerned about producers and what producers would like to see. It will be moved at the—
7:50 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE
Mr. Chair, would the parliamentary secretary tell us, are they going to hold meetings in the country with producers? Yes or no?
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
I don't think I'm quite done yet, Mr. Chair.
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
7:50 p.m.
Conservative
David Anderson Conservative Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
—corporation, as I said, is to market grain for the benefit of producers who choose to deal with the corporation. I am positive that those directors will be dealing directly with the farmers who choose--for the first time in what, 70 years?--to deal with the Canadian Wheat Board.
7:50 p.m.
Liberal
