Wayne Easter

[Agriculture, June 22nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we know the government is doing all it can to undermine farmers' rights through the Canadian Wheat Board.

Therefore, while the official opposition is awaiting a response from the Minister of Agriculture to a formal access to information request, could the minister inform the House whether he, by order in council or in any written form, electronic or otherwise, issued any directive, order, instruction, request or advice to the board, its directors, officers or management, and what was the legal authority for that attempted intervention?

[Federal Accountability Act, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the main resolution I was speaking to was certainly on the Canadian Wheat Board, because as justice officials have determined, it is not an agency. It is in fact more like a farm organization. Therefore, the whole intent of the accountability act is to go after agencies and government-related agencies in terms of requiring information under access to information.

In terms of the points raised on Motion No. 22, I would just say that unless the named agency, the International Development Research Centre, is a wholly and 100% owned subsidiary of some other government body, the Access to Information Act should not apply to it either, because the intent of the legislation, as I understand it, is just to apply to wholly owned agencies of the Government of Canada and government departments thereof.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the amendments in Group No. 2 and in particular to Motion No. 20. Motion No. 20 would delete proposed section 165.1, which includes the Canadian Wheat Board under the Access to Information Act.

On behalf of the official opposition, which has long defended and will continue to defend the Canadian Wheat Board, I would like to state that the Access to Information Act should not apply.

In fact, the original bill did not contain the reference to the Canadian Wheat Board, and for good reason. In drafting the legislation, justice officials recognized that the provisions of the bill did not apply to the Canadian Wheat Board.

The justice department official at the Bill C-2 legislative committee acknowledged that “the Canadian Wheat Board is not a crown corporation” like the agencies the bill was intended to cover. He said that “the Canadian Wheat Board is not a crown corporation within the meaning of section 83 of the Financial Administration Act...”. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture acknowledged that the government could not craft an amendment to include the Canadian Wheat Board, and that was the reason for its exclusion.

Unfortunately, the New Democratic Party member for Winnipeg Centre brought forward an amendment to include the Canadian Wheat Board, without consulting the Wheat Board and of course with the approval of government members on the committee. Government members knew they could not do this within the definition of agencies that the accountability act was trying to target, but they sat on their hands while the member for Winnipeg Centre did their bidding for them so that they can in fact undermine the Canadian Wheat Board and in the end possibly make it even less competitive.

It is my understanding that members of the New Democratic caucus have recognized their error and will more than likely support this amendment. If they claim to have any connection to western Canadian grain farmers, they will do so and state it publicly today.

The Canadian Wheat Board is not a crown corporation, unlike, for example, the Canadian Dairy Commission. The governance structure of the board has been changed, with two-thirds of the board of directors elected by farmers. The Canadian Wheat Board does not receive an appropriation from Parliament.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture has long been opposed to the Canadian Wheat Board and apparently is not enthusiastic about allowing farmers to determine, through the democratic process, the future of the board. In an interview with the Western Producer on April 20, 2006, the parliamentary secretary acknowledged the fact that the government could not find a way of including the Canadian Wheat Board in Bill C-2 and that its intention was to obtain that inclusion in order to try to find out internal administrative matters of the board.

That has been a point of contention of mine for years. I maintain, as I did in the discussion earlier today, that the Canadian Wheat Board has an audited annual report. Elections are held for the Wheat Board. The elected members hold district meetings at which farmers can question those directors. In that way, information certainly is made accessible to the farm community. The fact of the matter is that the Wheat Board is a democratic institution and that information is available.

For instance, if the motion of the member for Winnipeg Centre is left in without being amended, the Canadian Wheat Board could in fact find access to information being applied on its commercial interests. That would put it at a major disadvantage compared to the other companies it has to compete against, such Cargill Grain, Archer Daniels Midland, et cetera. It is interesting that the agency that works on behalf of farmers, even when it is the most open of organizations dealing in the international grain trade, would still have to provide more information than its competitors.

That would be prejudicial to farm interests. For that reason, I encourage all members to rethink this strategy of the member for Winnipeg Centre that wants to put the Wheat Board under access to information. I request all members to rethink that strategy and support this motion to delete that section so that the Canadian Wheat Board and the producers it represents are not put at a disadvantage under this accountability act.

I trust that the majority of members will support this amendment on behalf of those who should really determine the future of the Canadian Wheat Board, namely, the farmers of western Canada themselves.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 20th, 2006]

moved:

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-2 be amended by deleting Clause 165.1.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that we are still on Group No. 1. This topic does not come up until Group No. 2, but seeing as it was mentioned, I have to ask the member opposite to keep in mind that he took an oath when he became parliamentary secretary.

I find it remarkably strange that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food with responsibilities for the Canadian Wheat Board is standing in the House today to argue that it is fine for people to break the law. Because the fact of the matter is, in regard to the farmers he talked about earlier, that the Canadian Wheat Board operates as a single desk selling agency. One of the reasons it operates as a single desk selling agency is so that it can maximize returns to primary producers. If people were to sell around that and basically bootleg grain to the United States, they could be undercutting the ability of the Canadian Wheat Board to do its job for producers collectively.

That is the law of the land. I would ask the member opposite to answer. As for why they could not apply under access to information, it is the same reason used if there is a criminal investigation, which this was, a criminal investigation involving the RCMP and other security agencies. One cannot apply access to information to the RCMP because it is a criminal matter.

Will the parliamentary secretary, who took an oath, stand in the House and tell us whether or not the charges were laid because those farmers were alleged to be in violation of the laws of the land?

[Federal Accountability Act, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, Tommy Douglas would be rolling over in his grave if he was listening to the NDP members these days. They lost their social conscience and are now in bed with the Conservative Party of Canada. It is absolutely amazing to think about the little deals that the member for Winnipeg Centre must have cut with the President of Treasury Board when he had that meeting in secret behind closed doors. Maybe we need access to information to see what the member for Winnipeg Centre and the President of Treasury Board talked about in that exclusive meeting so that the member for Winnipeg Centre would side with the Conservatives every step of the way in terms of the accountability bill. Maybe that is where we need access to information.

For the NDP to operate in the politics of exclusion is really unbelievable. I thought it was an inclusive party. For the member for Acadie--Bathurst to make allegations and talk about people the way he attempted to do, the bad apples, those who have done wrong have been charged. Some of them--

[Federal Accountability Act, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will take the member's points on hard costs. There will be an opportunity in Group No. 2 to deal with the Canadian Wheat Board issue but because the member made the point, I feel obligated to respond.

The member has clearly shown what little he knows about the Canadian Wheat Board. The fact of the matter is the Department of Justice itself indicated that the Canadian Wheat Board should not be under the Access to Information Act in the proposed act because it is not a government agency. The members opposite try to portray it as a government agency, but it is a farm marketing agency. That is what it really is. The board of directors is elected by farmers.

The fact of the matter is to get information on the Canadian Wheat Board there is no need to go to access to information because the Canadian Wheat Board puts together every year an audited annual report. On top of that, the Canadian Wheat Board goes out to every district where it has people elected. Those district elected people can be questioned on how the Canadian Wheat Board spent its money. It is clear that the Canadian Wheat Board is probably one of the most transparent in terms of its administrative operations of any organization in the country. Therefore, the Access to Information Act need not apply.

By the standards of the member's question, it is a wonder he is not suggesting that Cargill Grain or Archer Daniels Midland Company, the good friends of members of the government, should be in this particular accountability act as well under access to information.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the first group of motions, but I want to speak more in the general sense because I have some serious concerns with the bill overall.

To begin with, I congratulate the committee on its work. It worked extremely hard and did the best under very rushed circumstances. I personally think this was drafted as much for political purposes as it was for its accountability provisions.

I believe this to be an bad bill. It is an overreaction to accountability issues more so on the perception of what is happening out there rather than the reality. The intent of the bill is fine, but we need to be serious about this. I believe there would be some serious long term consequences to the political process in Canada as a result of the bill.

I will say one thing about the member for Winnipeg Centre. He has not hid the fact of using the financial provisions in the bill as an attack on the official opposition and the ability of that party to finance itself under its traditional method of financing. In quite a number of ways all parties had financed their parties the same way, with funding from companies and unions, and higher limits.

One of the presumptions in the bill seems to be that everyone is considered first and foremost a crook, whether they be in the bureaucracy or in politics and that in the bill we have operate by exclusion. I was opposed to my government's move to limit as much as it did the right of companies and unions to contribute to the political process. I think we are making a serious mistake in that regard.

Why should companies and unions be completely excluded from the political process? If we are to have a democracy and have it work well, then we want inclusion of everyone. It is not exactly where the money comes from when we have caps on the amount of money, be it $5,000 or whatever. It is how we account for the money spent in a transparent. That is the important issue. By these exclusions, I think we will hurt our over the long term.

I do not mind if unions contribute to the NDP. I think that is a good thing. I do not mind if the banks contribute to the Liberals and the Conservatives. It involves them in the political process and makes them responsible to that political process, as long as there is good accounting for how that spending is done. We do have spending limits for candidates during elections. We do have spending limits for national parties. Therefore, we have substantial controls in that way.

I raise that point because I am really concerned about the long term consequences on democracy in our country with the kind of exclusions put forth in Bill C-2.

In terms of some of the comments that have been raised by the member for Winnipeg Centre, I think there is an attempt to use the current leadership contest within the official opposition to bring in these measures quickly enough to hamper the ability of that party to have a good democratic convention to elect its leadership because the rules are being changed in midstream. Many of us, including me, will be affected because we already have financed the party in certain ways.

I have to ask, does anyone really think that adding those kinds of restrictions and making it more difficult for a leadership contest of one of the major parties in this country to take place will add to democracy in this nation? Will it really add to democracy? Is that what we are after? I do not think it will by putting those restrictions in midstream.

Politics and leadership are all about the debate of ideas. Political parties are supposed to be all about the debate of ideas and policies that can be put forward. We can differ in terms of those ideas but political parties have to have the ability to finance themselves, yes, in an open and transparent fashion. There were problems in the past and I am not denying that. In fact, I do not believe that I receive any money from companies or unions.

I am concerned about the process as we go down this road in 10 or 20 years. The Liberals happen to be in a leadership contest right now, but other parties eventually will be as well. We have to be concerned about the future of our democracy with some of the proposals that are in this bill.

I have made my points on unions and corporations. One thing that is glaringly not in the bill is the whole issue of third party financing. There is some and I worry about what I see happening in the United States. I do not want to see funding of advertising during election campaigns and the kind of attack ads and negative advertising that occur in the United States happen in this country. I do not want to see that happen in Canada, but with third party financing being allowed the way it is, I think we might get into that. That worries me and I raise that as a concern.

The other general concern I have is on the whole issue of accountability within government itself. What happened in terms of what brought about the Gomery inquiry should not have happened, I agree. However, I believe, and this is strictly a personal comment, that if one is in business, one has to risk some money. If one is going to have efficiency in terms of a business and its operations, one has to risk some money in order to gain efficiency. If there are problems, charges will be laid and people will be dealt with.

I am concerned about going down the road the way the government is going. The Liberal government I will admit was going the same way previously and I think that was wrong too. I believe we are spending a lot of money on auditors and accountants in first considering everybody that moves to be a crook. We are spending $3 to chase $1 instead of spending the money efficiently in terms of the projects and programs that mean something to people. I am concerned about that.

Departments now are looking at how to get results for how one thinks. Some departments are actually hiring consultants because of their concern about whether they will be able to account for how that money was spent in terms of that thought process. That is not going to make efficient government.

I lay out those few points because I think they have to be said. I am concerned about the direction in which this bill is going. I am concerned about its impact on the political process. I am concerned about its impact on the ability of government to be an efficient machine in terms of getting the job done for the people of Canada.

[Federal Accountability Act, June 20th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the member is off topic. It is not relevant.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, June 19th, 2006]

There sure are, but the wrong way.