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

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Sorry? Amendment number 7...?

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Yes, I'm talking about amendment LIB-7. Do you want a recorded vote on that as well?

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Yes, I do, but you have told me I have no more time to speak. Is that correct?

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Well, you can ask for a recorded vote. I think that's--

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I'm asking for a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Okay.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

I declare the amendment defeated.

I will do the same for amendment LIB-8.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I would like a recorded vote again, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Okay, Mr. Valeriote.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

I declare the amendment defeated.

Colleagues, moving on, shall clause 42 carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

(Clause 42 agreed to on division)

Colleagues, clauses 43, 44 and 45 appear to be non-contentious insofar as there are no amendments. I suggest that we vote on those three as a block. All those in favour of adopting clauses 43, 44, and 45.

(Clauses 43 to 45 inclusive agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On clause 46--Application of Part)

Clause 46 has a proposed amendment in the name of Mr. Martin.

Mr. Martin, do you wish to move your amendment?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I would like to move my amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

The floor is yours.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Chair, I'm seeking to introduce into clause 46 on the dissolution of the Canadian Wheat Board the notion that such a significant thing should take place only on the condition of a plebiscite to be ratified by the producers themselves. I believe that this is a vestige of a great Canadian institution that should be preserved and incorporated into whatever the new incarnation of the model is going to be.

The notion is that farmers should be running the Wheat Board and directing it, instead of appointed directors, and that it should be up to them, if and when they see fit, to dissolve the new incarnation. I don't think this should even be a matter of debate.

The Conservatives have pushed forward these changes. In their haste, they have run roughshod over everything that's good and decent about parliamentary democracy. Even they, in their haste, should be able to see the value in leaving the future of the Wheat Board in the hands of the producers who will live and die by it or stand by it.

It's a shame, I think, that we have to argue this aggressively over what should be a fundamental principle of democratic justice. This is an agency of civil society. This is not an arm of the government. It was never intended to be. It was put in place to protect prairie farmers from being gouged and exploited by the robber barons in the grain companies and the robber barons in the railway industry.

My friend Ryan Rempel is from Winnipeg and he knows that in Winnipeg every mansion on Wellington Crescent was built by the robber barons--the grain barons and the railway robber barons. David has heard me tell this story before, but believe me, we are well aware of why they formed the Wheat Board in the prairie region. We are well aware of its merits, and we are very proud that it's a great Canadian institution.

It worries me and it concerns me that the Conservatives' hidden agenda that we all talked about has finally started to materialize. Now that they have their majority, these great Canadian institutions will start to topple one by one. You watch: it'll be the CBC next. Or maybe it'll be the dairy marketing board in the province of Quebec. They have these things in their crosshairs as they try to recreate Canada in the image of the United States.

If Ronald Reagan were here, he'd be singing When Irish Eyes Are Smilingwith the current Prime Minister. They'd be doing a little tap dance on the grave of the Canadian Wheat Board.

I urge my colleagues to throw us a bone here: this is a pretty minor amendment. If and when the Wheat Board decides to dissolve, what do you guys care if it's by plebiscite of the producers instead of by dictate of the minister?

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Allen, there's a minute left.

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This goes back again to a voluntary association.... It's interesting that when part 4 talks about the dissolution it talks about a period of five years. I know that this government has continually said that there's a transition period, and there are five years, so don't worry.

Well, it says here “within five years, or any shorter period specified by the Governor in Council”, so the five years isn't an exact piece. It's a maybe. There's no definitive “you get five years to figure this out”. If the Governor in Council decides it should be a shorter period, it'll be a shorter period. So it won't be five years.

So what we're saying here is that your obligations to the taxpayers are fulfilled; that's rightfully so. Mr. Meredith talked about the protection of taxpayers' money, so that's protected. The only entity that would be left after you took back the money owed to taxpayers--correctly so--would be the corporation in name, that's all, with no assets, just simply the Canadian Wheat Board. Really, all this amendment does is say to let them dissolve it if they choose to, because there isn't an entity there other than an incorporated name--

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you, Mr. Allen. The five minutes for your party have expired.

Is there anybody else who wishes to speak to this amendment?

Mr. Easter.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Just quickly, Mr. Chair, I think the amendment makes a lot of sense. Mr. Martin's argument is that there's no assurance from government that this will go for the full term. I believe that if you go back and look at the transcript of what the minister said last night, he would like to see this done as quickly as within a year, so there's really no assurance that this corporation will be in place, with the government guarantees and all that matters, for any given length of time. That is worrisome.

It's another situation where the government members will likely vote against this amendment because it puts control back in producers' hands, and it seems to be something that Conservative members don't see eye to eye with. They do not want producers to be in control of their own marketing institutions in this country--bottom line.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Thank you, Mr. Easter.

Are there other interventions? Seeing none, I will call the question: shall the amendment carry? All those in favour? All those opposed?

(Amendment negatived)

I declare the amendment defeated. Moving on, shall clause 46 carry?

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Can we have a recorded vote?

(Clause 46 agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Clause 46 is carried. Moving on to clauses 47 through 64, they do not appear to be contentious, as there are no amendments provided, so with your consent--

Mr. Martin?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Is that accurate? Our final amendment in fact amends clause 64 by adding clause 64.1.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

I will recognize that amendment because it adds a new clause after clause 64.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Fair enough. It's still numbered clause 64, so I was—

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Okay. That's a fair question, sir.

Notwithstanding the fact that we will deal with the amendment creating a new clause 64.1—