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

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Mr. Allen, I believe that you still wanted to address this clause. The New Democratic Party still has a minute and 50 seconds in which to do so.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I think the government's proposal around this whole bill is about choice. I think that's what they're saying. If I've misunderstood it, I'll look to the “no” movement that says.... But I believe the acknowledgement was yes. If that's the case, this amendment now gives farmers the choice to actually...who want to choose to be there. This doesn't say that the folks who don't want to be there have to be forced into an election.

The folks who choose this voluntary association that you want, now get to choose who runs their voluntary association. Surely we can't ask for much more than what you're asking for them to do, which is to have a choice. Those who want to leave can go away; those who want to stay, can stay.

What we're saying to you is that the ones who stay should have the right to choose who runs the corporation and not have someone else being sent to them. That's what you disagreed with. Those are the farmers you fought for, who said, “We were told we had to stay”. Now you're telling the farmers who decided to stay on their own, “You have to take these guys or gals”. That's what you're telling them. You're not giving them a choice anymore about who runs the corporation they want to be with. You've made the choice that they have a choice, except for the choice of who runs it for them. They don't get a choice in that.

At least what we said our position was they all had to join if they want to sell grain, but they have the choice of who is going to run it for them.

How much democracy are you giving the folks who want to be there?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

None.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

It's doesn't seem like it's very much if you're not allowing them to choose who should run the very association and the very corporation that they have voluntarily chosen to go with.

If I decide to buy shares in a company, I get a vote. I get to decide who the directors are. Maybe I only get one vote because I only have one share, but at least I get a vote.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I think they're weakening. Keep it up.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

I have to wrap it up. The problem is that if you're going to have a voluntary association--and you've decided to do that--you have to at the very least give those who decide to be there the option of choosing who wants to run the corporation for them.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I think you've convinced them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you. That does use up the New Democratic time. The only time remaining is for the Conservatives, if they choose to address this.

We've heard the arguments for the amendment. I shall proceed now to a vote on the amendment proposed by the New Democratic Party, amendment NDP-7. Shall this amendment, which amends propsoed section 9 of the act proposed in clause 14, carry?

(Amendment negatived)

Moving on, we have an amendment to a different section of that clause. I believe this is proposed amendment NDP-8, and it is being proposed by Mr. Martin.

The section of the bill in question starts at proposed subsection 9(2) with the words, “Four directors are appointed...”, etc. This is to be replaced by the proposed amendment from Mr. Martin.

Mr. Martin, the floor is yours, sir.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

In other words, it's in order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

It's in order. Yes, it is.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I'm always the last to know, it seems.

Along the same vein of injecting some fundamental democracy to this process, regardless of whether there are going to be five directors, as the current Bill C-18 calls for, or the 15 that we sought in order to maintain the status quo through the last amendment that just failed, surely we can agree that it's in the interests of basic fairness and natural justice that the directors are, in fact, elected by the producers in accordance with the regulations that are set out after the fact by this act.

We're calling for all directors to be elected by the producers in accordance with the regulations, and for the president to be a director and be elected by the other directors in accordance with the regulations. In other words, all 15 are elected and then those 15 elected directors elect their president. It's basic fundamental democracy.

We believe that much of Bill C-18 is an affront to democracy. We're trying to restore some substantive participation of the producers in what shell is left over of the Wheat Board. We are on the record as saying that we have no confidence, frankly, that this voluntary Wheat Board is going to survive, but we're adamant that we're going to fight to the end to make sure that it is in its best possible shape, and that it is fair and democratic to the producers.

When I say that I suspect that the voluntary board will likely not be able to survive, I want to show you some of the very, very little bit of empirical evidence that has been made available to us as to how the Wheat Board has performed in times when they haven't had a single desk, when it has been voluntary.

This is a graph of the prices farmers were getting for their grain from 1917 to 1945, where it went through five different--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

We have more current figures, too, if you'd like.

The point I'm making is that when there's a single desk, as shown in the tall bar in this graph, the prices are highest. When the single desk was eliminated in 1921, down they went. When the five-year Wheat Pool was put in place in 1924, up they went. When the pool was gone, down they come again. When the CWB single desk was put in place, they went up again.

I'll put it in simple terms so that everybody can understand the basic principle: Wheat Board, good; no Wheat Board, bad; voluntary Wheat Board, bad; compulsory single desk, good.

This is a very complex debate, but it all comes down to the fact that throughout history your side has no evidence that things are going to be better. We have 75 years—100 years—of empirical evidence that when there is a single-desk compulsory Wheat Board in place, it's to the advantage of producers. When it's deleted or struck down, the prices plummet and the return to producers plummets.

So we're urging members to support this idea in the interests of natural justice, basic fairness, and the democracy we all espouse to uphold, especially in Remembrance Week, when we are thinking about our veterans who went to war to fight for democratic principles. We are now watching a sad example take place here of their democratic rights being taken away from them, with, first, not even being allowed to vote on the future of their Wheat Board and, now, not even being allowed to vote for the directors of what voluntary Wheat Board is left. It's a disgrace.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Does anybody else want to speak to this?

Mr. Allen, of the New Democratic Party, has 48 seconds remaining.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Thank you.

I'll give my colleagues across the way the opportunity.... They probably didn't want 15 directors. I understand that.

But I know you want to elect them and you want those folks who belong to the association voluntarily to run their own association. You certainly don't want to belong to an association, have someone else run it for you, and not have the opportunity.

So let's assume that it was 15 you didn't want. We're down to five now. Now we're looking at five being elected. For an association that voluntarily comes together to decide to do what it wants to do, at the very least you ought to allow them the choice of who it is they want to have run them rather than have somebody dictate who will run them, for them. That's what your complaint is about: the folks who were forced to be there against their will.

Now you're asking folks to join a voluntary association and have no mechanism to remove the five by voting. If they don't agree with them, they have no mechanism. I guess they could write a letter to the minister and say they don't agree with what the five have done, but that's the only recourse they have once they join, if they choose to do so.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you, Mr. Allen.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

I would assume it's five because—

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Mr. Easter, you have the floor.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Malcolm, part of the problem here is the government members, especially the minister and the parliamentary secretary. Even though they use the resources of the government to try to propagandize, they could never get the directors they wanted elected. You have a pro-single-desk director in the minister's riding and a pro-single-desk director in the parliamentary secretary's riding.

The only way they can get their own people in place is to shove democracy down and use the big hand of government to violate section 47.1 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, fire the directors that are there, and put their own people in place. That's what we're seeing happening here.

I find it amazing that this government is talking about getting the big hand of government out of the farm community and letting farmers run their own business. What we're getting from this government is the direct opposite. We're getting appointed directors who are not only appointed but controlled by Ottawa. We've seen the memos that came out from Chuck Strahl when he was minister: putting gag orders on the board, firing Adrian Meisner.... The list goes on and on and on.

We heard the minister here last night. I'll not get into it, but the minister provided a substantial amount of misinformation. Here he is, invited to the board several times, but he never took them up on it. But he said the direct opposite, sitting in that chair last night.

So how is this board going to be run? By farmers for farmers? Absolutely not. The directors are appointed by the government in Ottawa. The board will be micromanaged by the minister from Ottawa and farmers don't have a say.

The parliamentary secretary wouldn't dare suggest that they're going to have meetings in the country. He wouldn't commit to that so that we'd have it on the record and could hold them to account. Instead, it's going to be this tight little circle of their friends running the Canadian Wheat Board and running it into the ground. The assets that are there, the assets that that board has, it's just like they've been picked up with a big government crane that is taking those farm assets and using them for somebody else's advantage.

I found it astounding, Mr. Martin, when you were talking about prices—

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I have it here.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

—that government members opposite were laughing. It's not funny, the loss of single-desk selling. The empirical evidence throughout the years has been that the Canadian Wheat Board returns more back to primary producers than the open market. It results in greater efficiencies in the transportation system. There's political and economic clout by the Canadian Wheat Board on behalf of the farm community.

The empirical evidence is there, but if there's one thing I will say about this government, it doesn't matter whether it's the crime agenda or any other agenda, they don't let the facts get in the way of their ideology. What this witch hunt on the Canadian Wheat Board is all about is ideology over facts. We know it; you folks just won't admit it.

Anyway, we will support that amendment, Mr. Martin, because your amendment takes it out of the hands of government, out of the minister's office, and out of big government, and puts at least some semblance of control back in the hands of primary producers, the people who would use the Canadian Wheat Board rather than have it run by an ideological government in Ottawa.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you, Mr. Easter.

Mr. Hoback.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Thank you, Chair. I think it's important that we set the story straight here on what's going on so that everybody understands.

Maybe there's some confusion, so let's clarify that this is a transition board. This board is not meant to be there for the long term. It's actually meant to be there for as short a term as possible, so that the farmers who choose to use the new entity, the new Canadian Wheat Board, will have the ability to control it and run it. I assume, then, that it will agree with us in creating a fast transition period, too, so farmers can actually replace these appointed directors.

The reality is that it's unfortunate that we had to go this way, but when you looked at the existing board that was there, it wasn't willing to embrace the changes that were coming forward. Instead of looking at the new changes, being excited about them, getting behind them, going out and making sales and signing up bakers and selling to millers, and proceeding as they should have, they actually proceeded in an effort of a scorched-earth policy. There was total disregard for the employees who are in place in Winnipeg, total disregard for the farmers who wanted to use the entity, and total disregard for the customers who actually wanted to buy grain through it.

So the minister was forced, in this case, to actually come through with this transition board. It's just there to help set up, during a transition period, a new entity to allow farmers to give it the input so it can work directly with the farmers who choose to use it. I can see all sorts of examples of different ways that it will help farmer participation in the new entity once it moves forward. When it looks at the co-op style and the co-op system for electing members and delegates, it may look at the old Agricore United system for electing delegates or the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool system. Or they may use a system where they use a per-acre basis, per share. Again, the new entity will have that choice and those options available to it. It's up to that entity to decide how that moves forward.

But it was up to the government, I think, and to the minister at this time, and I think he took on a responsible role here to ensure that the transition happens as smoothly and quickly as possible. He had people around the board table who are committed and making sure the new entity would survive. He was committed to the employees of the Canadian Wheat Board, who were committed to ensuring the farmers would have an entity to use and who were committed to the actual millers and customers who wanted to use the entity.

So I think the minister has done a good job. Is it the best way? If the existing board at the time had taken on the challenges and moved forward, he probably wouldn't have had to do this, but the reality is that the existing board decided to do everything they could to destroy it. I use the example of Thelma and Louise driving in their car off the cliff. Well, that's they would prefer to do instead of accepting the changes and actually moving forward and doing what's best for farmers and their employees.

Thank you, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you, Mr. Hoback. Given that the time has virtually expired for the New Democrats and the Liberals, and I don't see anybody else from the Conservatives to speak on this, I must proceed to recording the vote on this.

However, before we do that, I want committee members to understand that the decision we take here on this particular amendment has ramifications for the next amendment. So if we take a look at it from the perspective of NDP-9, we see that if NDP-8 is defeated, then the NDP-9 motion cannot be put because it would be inconsistent with this decision.

Mr. Martin, you'll know that we cannot discuss the Governor in Council recommendation and so on and replace that if indeed the clauses remain the same. We couldn't have that inconsistency in the legislation--

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

That's a good reason, Mr. Chairman, to support my amendment.