Bill C-18 (Historical)

Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act

An Act to reorganize the Canadian Wheat Board and to make consequential and related amendments to certain Acts

Part 1 of this enactment amends the Canadian Wheat Board Act to change the governance structure of the Canadian Wheat Board and to make other changes in preparation for the implementation of Parts 2 and 3. Part 2 replaces the Canadian Wheat Board Act with a new Act that continues the Canadian Wheat Board and charges it with the marketing of grain through voluntary pooling. Part 3 provides for the possible continuation of the Board under other federal legislation, while Part 4 provides for its winding up if no such continuation occurs. Finally, Part 5 provides for the repeal of the new Act enacted by Part 2.

Fair Representation Act

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the parties, and I believe you would find consent for the following motion.

I move that it be an instruction to the legislative committee on Bill C-18 that the committee postpone clause-by-clause review of Bill C-18 in order to permit the legislative committee to travel throughout Canadian Wheat Board designated areas in western Canada for the purpose of meeting with experts and farmers who would be affected by Bill C-18; and that in relation to its study of Bill C-18, the chair and 12 members of the legislative committee be authorized to travel in western Canada from November 14, 2011 to November 18, 2011, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Thank you.

I have another question. Can you tell this committee some very specific opportunities in the value added in other sectors that you're going to see from this move with our Bill C-18?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Fair enough.

Our message has been one that has sought for a proper form of consultation rather than two sets of four-hour sessions where for a lot of farmers, whether they're still out on a field or it's been a difficult year, their ability to connect with us has been extremely limited. Unfortunately, this government has sought to ignore their voices in this process.

You referenced how we go forward in terms of different elements that are involved in that kind of future direction. A recurring concern stemming from Bill C-18 is the impact of losing the Wheat Board on the Canadian brand of grain, in that they've done extensive work with farmers' direction to develop some of the best grain in the world, to market that grain in such a way that has resulted in a stellar reputation, a guaranteed reputation. Of course we know that brand was not the Wheat Board's brand, but the farmers' brand, the Canadian product as such. There is a great concern that as private corporations that aren't Canadian come in and carve out the Wheat Board and carve out the work of farmers across the prairies, along with that we will lose the Canadian brand we are all so proud of. What are your thoughts in terms of that fear that many people have shared with us over the last number of weeks?

[John Knubley, Deputy Minister, Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would also like to thank the members of the committee.

I'm pleased to be here today to speak to the Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act and the contribution of the working group on marketing freedom.

As the chair has indicated, we have members of the working group here today. I served as the chair, and the other members are here representing the working group. Greg Meredith served as head of the secretariat.

If you will allow me, Mr. Chair, I will just make some brief opening remarks about the work, mandate, principles, and findings of the working group. I understand we've distributed as background to members the working group report itself, these remarks, as well as some charts that are used to explain how Bill C-18 works.

Throughout the summer I had the honour to chair this industry working group, which focused on how the system might transition from the current administered system to an open market that includes voluntary marketing pools. The working group had 11 meetings in the space of an intensive period of two months, including subcommittee meetings on specific issues such as a check-off program for research, producer cars and shortlines, and the information needs of farmers.

Over 50 stakeholders made a contribution, and 21 submissions were received. Beyond the working group there have been many bilateral meetings involving the Honourable Gerry Ritz, other officials, and me. For example, I met with ICE Futures Canada on futures contracts, and I have also met with the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce and the Business Council of Manitoba on the economic impacts of these changes. The minister is always meeting farmers and stakeholders, while the department has recently completed rounds of consultations with farmers and stakeholders on its Growing Forward policy framework.

In terms of the mandate of the working group, it was announced in mid-July, and we were tasked with preparing a report for Minister Ritz by mid-September. The working group--and I believe you have a list of all the members--consisted of private sector participants and a government secretariat including officials from my department as well as Transport Canada. The working group was asked to assume that all grains would be removed from a monopoly by August 2012; that the board would propose a business plan to continue with CWB, the Wheat Board, as a voluntary marketing entity; and that the system would adjust to marketing choice.

The mandate was to address the following: access to elevators, rail, and ports; access to producer cars; organization and funding of market development and research activities for wheat and barley; delivery of the advance payment program; and any other business-related transition issues that concern the grain-handling and transportation system.

As chair of the working group, I would like to emphasize the word “system” in this last point. Our work was very much focused on this concept and on how to make the supply chains work better. Other issues, as you can see in the report itself, include price discovery, farmer information requirements, and issues related to a voluntary wheat board.

As its discussions took place, the working group developed principles to provide a framework for assessing the transition to a new voluntary marketing system. I refer you to those in the working group report at the beginning in the opening section. I won't go through the details of all six, but let me give you a few highlights.

The first principle identified by the working group was all about predictability and certainty. We heard again and again from farmers and stakeholders who met with us that they had a desire for a smooth transition with a clear understanding of how implementation will occur and when. I can't reinforce enough the importance of this principle and the importance of the principle for the working group and its report.

In addition, there are three other principles that articulate the growth opportunities relating to improved efficiencies, more innovation, and value added.

Finally, two principles focus on the need for an integrated supply chain in which commercial arrangements are based on transparent and timely data and which emphasizes the importance of improving service to domestic and export markets.

In terms of findings, the working group agreed that overall we should give a competitive system a chance to work, one that includes a voluntary pooling wheat board--in other words, a dual marketing system. This, we said, would encourage a more integrated supply chain, boost sales, ensure transparency in the marketing of wheat and barley, and offer producers the option of using pools or spot prices.

We see these as the opportunities, and we also discussed a lot of challenges in preparing our report.

In fashioning our eight recommendations, the working group observed that all non-board grains are grown, marketed, and transported efficiently in competitive, open markets. The same farmers who supplied board grains already thrive producing non-board crops. There is overwhelming evidence that farmers in the grain supply system are more than capable of dealing in open markets.

Members did want government to monitor closely how the system will work for access to ports and inland terminals and access for producer cars and shortline rail.

It will be important to ensure that any competitive behaviour does not affect the workings of the new system, especially for farmers and smaller grain companies, including the new Wheat Board.

Minister Ritz has already taken steps on two of the recommendations by giving the responsibility for the delivery of the advance payments program to the Canadian Canola Growers Association and also by providing information to farmers on the new bill. Certainly there is more work to continue on these information aids, but we have started.

Working group recommendations are consistent with Bill C-18. The bill reflects the open market approach of the working group, including the desire to monitor rather than to regulate. Bill C-18 specifically provides for forward contracting and for a levy for the research organizations--the Canadian International Grains Institute, the Western Grains Research Foundation, and the Canadian Malting Barley Technical Centre--both of which are areas of recommendation in the working group report.

Perhaps most important, Bill C-18 provides certainty and predictability, a recurring theme, as I mentioned earlier, in terms of the working group and what I've heard from every farmer and stakeholder. The bill implements an open market by August 1, 2012, and in that way it gives the CWB--the Wheat Board--sufficient time to prepare a business plan for a new viable entity and with board guarantees in the interim. This of course is over the five-year transition period.

In the dual marketing system, farmers who want to pool can, and farmers who want to use the new tools have that option too.

Let me conclude in the way the working group report does, with optimism that farmers and other players can meet both the opportunities and challenges of the new system.

I look forward to your questions on the working group report and Bill C-18.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Blaine Calkins]

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to call to order the second meeting of the legislative committee on Bill C-18.

As arose from our business meeting of yesterday, we have witnesses here to appear in the first two hours of this committee. Present with us today is John Knubley, the deputy minister from the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, and Greg Meredith, the assistant deputy minister. From the Canadian Grain Commission, we have Murdoch MacKay. From Pulse Canada, we have Gordon Bacon.

Are we going to have that video conference, or is that not starting until later on?

We'll try to get those feeds going. Joining us will be Richard Phillips and Steve Vandervalk from the Grain Growers of Canada.

As has been discussed, this is the working group. All of these individuals are appearing under that collective banner as the working group, and we will only hear one ten-minute presentation before we proceed to the rounds of questioning, as laid out in our routine motions.

Mr. Knubley, I believe you will be giving us the ten-minute presentation on behalf of the working group. The floor is yours, sir. Welcome.

Canadian Wheat Board

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, this is more exciting news of new investments just waiting for Bill C-18 to pass. Our government remains committed to giving western Canadian grain farmers the marketing freedom they deserve. As seen by today's announcement, an open market will attract investment, encourage innovation and create value-added jobs across western Canada.

What is more, this investment consists of 100% private money.

I call on the opposition to work with us to ensure the timely passage of Bill C-18 so western Canadian farmers can continue to build the Canadian economy.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Mr. Speaker, the committee met last night and agreed that it would meet tonight. It is going to meet tomorrow night and the night after. We are going to put 16 hours of meetings into this one bill, and I think most Canadians would find that to be adequate.

Farmers in western Canada need certainty. We are not sure why opposition members continue to stand in the way of their having certainty for marketing their grain next year. We would ask them to join with us and support Bill C-18. Let us strengthen the western Canadian economy together.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, open democracy allows for proper debate and differing opinions. First the Conservative government ignored the farmer-held plebiscite favouring the single desk, then it refused to hold its own plebiscite, then it limited debate in the House on Bill C-18 to three days. Now the Conservative-dominated committee is giving only three short evenings for consideration of the death of this iconic institution and small farms across the Prairies.

Conservatives closed their minds and they closed the doors. Why is the government closing opportunities for farmers to be heard?

Ending the Long-gun Registry Act

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Madam Speaker, last spring, Canadians elected a government that was listening and keeping its promises. They told us they wanted a government that would make keeping their children and communities safe a priority. As promised, within the first 100 days of Parliament, we introduced Bill C-10.

My constituents spoke of wanting a strong and stable economy. Again, we delivered with the budget implementation act, making job growth and strengthening families a priority.

Farmers in my riding told me that they wanted freedom to market their own wheat and barley. Again, we delivered by introducing Bill C-18.

Finally, I regularly hear how wasteful the long gun registry is. I am very pleased that this government has now introduced Bill C-19 to end this discrimination against law-abiding citizens. We have listened and we are acting.

I am also very pleased to have this opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-19. This has been a long time coming. Certainly there are some members on this side of the House who have been dealing with this issue, debating it for approximately 17 years, and I am honoured to be among those who will rise in the House to debate this important legislation.

To be clear, there is no debate about the fact that we need effective ways of dealing with gun crime. That is not the issue. The issue is that the long gun registry does not deal with gun crime. It is wasteful, ineffective and does nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. The simple fact is that long guns are not the weapon of choice for criminals. For the most part, criminals use handguns and the registration requirement for handguns is not going anywhere. What we are doing is ensuring that law-abiding hunters, sports shooters and farmers are no longer being treated like criminals simply because they own a rifle or a shotgun. We are doing this because it is the right thing and because our constituents have told us for years that it is what they want.

Since taking office in 2006, our government has taken decisive action to put the rights of victims and law-abiding Canadians ahead of the rights of criminals. We have taken decisive action to make our streets and communities safer, to crack down on criminals and prevent crimes before they happen. Ending the long gun registry act is about ensuring that we continue to preserve and enhance those measures that do work to reduce crime and protect Canadians. It is also about ensuring that we do not unnecessarily penalize millions of honest and law-abiding citizens with rules that have little effect on crime prevention or on reducing gun crime.

As members have heard in the House, Bill C-19, first and foremost, would remove the need to register non-restricted firearms such as rifles and shotguns. Today, such non-restricted firearms are primarily used by farmers, hunters and residents of rural Canada to protect their livestock, hunt wild game or to otherwise earn a living.

Bill C-19 would not do away with the need to properly license all owners of firearms. In fact, it would retain not only the licensing system but also the strict system of controlling restricted and prohibited firearms. Nor would it do away with the need for the owners of restricted and prohibited firearms to obtain a registration certificate as well as a licence. Registration of restricted and prohibited firearms, including all handguns, would continue to be maintained by the RCMP firearms program. Our government has invested $7 million per year to strengthen the licensing process by enhancing front-end screening of first-time firearms-licence applicants. This funding allows officials to screen an additional 20,000 applicants per year, including all applicants for restricted licences.

Under Bill C-19, farmers, duck hunters, target shooters and other law-abiding Canadians would still need to go through a licensing procedure. The bill would not change those measures. In determining eligibility to hold a licence, a person's criminal record, history of treatment for mental illness associated with violence or history of violent behaviour against another person would still be examined.

Therefore, for those who have the misconception that we are somehow easing all of the checks and balances when it comes to gun ownership, as we can see, that is not the case. Rather, what is proposed are changes that would do away with the need to register long guns. The registry is wasteful, ineffective and unfairly targets law-abiding hunters and farmers.

I know I have said this before, but it is important to repeat because some of my colleagues across the aisle just do not get it. By scrapping this wasteful and ineffective long gun registry, we can, instead, focus our efforts and resources on measures that actually tackle crime and make our communities safer. This is why Bill C-19 has the support of our government, as well as millions of Canadians. It is also why many hon. members on the other side of the House have voted to support similar legislation in previous Parliaments.

Our government's main priority is keeping our streets and communities safe. We will do that through programs and initiatives that work. That is why we moved quickly to reintroduce and pass the Safe Streets and Communities Act, which contains many important measures to protect families, stands up for victims and holds criminals accountable.

We have also introduced and passed mandatory prison sentences for serious gun crimes and we have passed legislation to initiate reforms to the pardons system. A lot of changes have taken place over the last five years that go a long way to keeping Canadians safe, changes that work, changes that make sense and changes that Canadians want. Personally, this is an issue I hear about from my constituents all the time. It is something they speak to me about at town halls, on the street and at meetings. They call, write letters and send emails, and I know my colleagues have experienced the same thing.

During the last election, we heard over and over again on doorsteps that it was time to scrap the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry. I am very proud that we can move forward in doing away with the Liberal legacy of waste and ineffectiveness. It is time for a new chapter. It is time to stop treating law-abiding Canadians like criminals. It is time to focus on measures that actually prevent crime. It is time for the opposition to support the bill.

Procedure and House Affairs

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of legislative committees on Bill C-11 and Bill C-18.

Opposition Motion--Canadian Wheat Board

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank the member for Churchill for proposing this motion, which is truly very important. It is a brilliant response to the Conservatives' mistake, namely, Bill C-18, which proposes dismantling the Canadian Wheat Board.

Members may find it strange that, as the member for Drummond, I am rising in the House to support this motion, which seeks to recognize western farmers' legitimate, democratic right to determine the future of their own supply management tools and marketing boards.

Nevertheless, it is not so strange, since a large part of the riding of Drummond is made up of rural farmland. There are many farmers in my region, whether they be dairy, cattle, pork and poultry producers or grain farmers.

In this regard, I recently had the privilege of meeting with dairy farmer representatives when I was in my riding. They told me that they are in regular contact with farmers in other provinces and that they are very concerned to see the heavy-handed approach that the Conservatives are taking in forcing western farmers to give up a tool that they feel is essential to getting a fair and profitable price, particularly in the case of smaller farms, which are often family-owned.

The single desk marketing system for wheat, durum and barley is an institution that has been very successful and is an essential component of the prairie economy. It is the largest and most successful grain marketing organization in the world. The Canadian Wheat Board was created in the 1920s, when farmers in western Canada started to join together to market their grain in order to get the best price for their crops. Then, in 1943, a single desk system was created, which required all prairie farmers to sell their wheat through the board. The single desk structure provided financial stability, prudent risk management and certainty of grain supply. These are good reasons to support this motion. They show the importance of the Canadian Wheat Board. These things were extremely positive for marketing in the interests of farmers. Today, they provide an undeniable advantage for western farmers.

The Conservatives should acknowledge this. Even though the government's decision to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board will have a very serious impact on the lives of farmers, the decision was made without any analysis of how it would affect them. It goes against what they said they want. Indeed, on September 12, 2011, 62% of farmers voted to maintain the Canadian Wheat Board. That is incredible. That is a very decisive result. That means they want to keep the Canadian Wheat Board. Where were the Conservatives when those results were released? Did they not read the news like everyone else?

Allen Orberg, a farmer and chair of the Canadian Wheat Board's board of directors, thinks that this government does not have a plan. In his opinion, the government has done no analysis and its approach is based solely on its blind commitment to marketing freedom. I will come back to marketing freedom a little later. He added that the government's reckless approach will throw Canada's grain industry into disarray, jeopardize the future of a $5 billion a year export sector and take money out of the pockets of Canadian farmers. What upsets me the most about this is that it all goes against Canadian farmers and only benefits large multinational corporations.

Who will benefit from this bill? That is the question I keep asking myself. Who will benefit from dismantling the Canadian Wheat Board? Dismantling it will unfortunately not benefit farmers, but it will benefit multinationals and people who will get rich on the backs of farmers and family farms.

Why are the Conservatives so set on dismantling the Canadian Wheat Board when prairie farmers have voiced their opposition? This survey clearly shows that the Conservatives are doing a great disservice to western farmers.

By way of comparison, let us look at what happened in Australia after a board similar to the Canadian Wheat Board was dismantled. Before the Australian Wheat Board was dismantled, Australian wheat could command $99 per tonne over American wheat. After the Australian Wheat Board was dismantled, things went awry. In fact, in December 2008, the price of Australian wheat dropped to $27 per tonne below U.S. wheat. In just three years, the 40,000 farmers who were members of the Australian Wheat Board all became customers of Cargill, a multinational and one of the world's largest privately owned agribusiness corporations. And where, Madam Speaker, do you think this company is based? In the United States. What are the chances? Is that what we want here in Canada, to give our agriculture to the United States, to big multinationals? I hope not.

Once again, it seems as though this government is clearing the way for large American corporations to the economic disadvantage of its own people and voters. Once again, the Conservatives are putting the interests of the private sector ahead of the public interest of Canadians. And that disappoints me.

The people in my riding of Drummond are also worried. All of the farmers are worried about the current Conservative policies. They are wondering what the Conservatives have up their sleeves. First, it is the Canadian Wheat Board. What is next? In Drummondville, in the riding of Drummond, many people, including dairy and egg producers, depend on supply management. Right now this market is protected by supply management and producers make a good enough living. There are many farms in the riding of Drummond and they rely heavily on supply management; it is very important in my riding. People in my riding, farmers included, often come to ask me what is happening, where all this is going to lead, what will come of it and what the Conservatives are planning. First it is the Canadian Wheat Board, then what? Supply management?

As members know, supply management is being challenged in connection with the free trade agreement with the European Union. My constituents, representatives of dairy producers, came to see me to say that we must defend supply management, that it must be maintained in Quebec and the riding of Drummond, that it was essential and that I had to fight for it. I promised them that I would do so. We are talking about the Canadian Wheat Board now, and it is a similar topic. This is an opportunity for us to stand up for western Canadians.

In conclusion, the Conservatives often talk about freedom. They want to give prairie farmers the freedom they want so badly. They are in favour of the free market, of giving freedom to the poor farmers. I agree with them. We should give the farmers their freedom, but we should give them the freedom to choose and not shove the Conservatives' choice down their throats. That is not freedom. Freedom is giving them the choice. There was already a survey of 38,261 farmers, and 62% of them voted in favour of maintaining the Canadian Wheat Board.

Therefore, I urge the Conservatives to support this excellent motion by the member for Churchill and to let the farmers determine their own future.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg North.

The motion that is before the House today is:

That, in the opinion of the House, farmers have a democratic right to determine the future of their own supply management tools and marketing boards; and recognizing this right, the House calls on the government to set aside its legislation abolishing the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) single desk and to conduct a full and free vote by all current members of the CWB to determine their wishes, and calls on the government to agree to honour the outcome of that democratic process.

How could anyone in the House oppose that motion? The motion gives voice to western Canadian farmers, in a balanced way, to have their say on their marketing institution for the crops that they want to market.

I begin from the point of supporting the motion. Western grain producers and, I believe, our supply-managed commodity groups are at risk from the government. On the issue of whether western farmers have a right to vote in an honest plebiscite to determine the future of the Canadian Wheat Board, section 47.1 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act provides for such a vote. In fact, the Wheat Board held a vote on its own, with 62% support, but the government is failing to abide by that section that is in the law of Canada. In my view, it is violating the law.

The only reason such a vote has not been held is that the government knows it would lose the vote, so rather than being defeated by western grain farmers, the government simply refuses to allow them the right to vote at all. In fact, the Wheat Board's greatest critic, and this is ironic--crazy, actually--is the Parliamentary Secretary Responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, who through his whole career as Parliamentary Secretary Responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board has provided misinformation. In fact, in his own riding, the farmer-elected director who won in that riding is pro-single desk and is against the parliamentary secretary's using his MP's office and his office as parliamentary secretary to propagandize against the particular director who won the election.

The legislation to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board single desk is now before a committee. The question the Conservatives have yet to answer is whether they will allow the committee to travel. If they will not allow farmers to vote, then will they at least allow farmers to have a voice and allow them to speak to the committee in western Canada?

The Minister of Agriculture has told the House that the spring election was a mandate to basically destroy the single desk. That is not true. That is wrong. The law of the land says it clearly, and farmers who voted in the election knew the law of the land. They felt they were going to have the right to vote and determine their own destiny on this specific issue. They may have supported the government on gun control and other issues, and I expect they did, but in western Canada they did not vote for one single issue, the Wheat Board. The law of the land at the time of the election stated in section 47.1 that they would be given the right to vote on their own destiny, and the government is ignoring that law.

During the election, the Minister of Agriculture told an audience in Minnedosa, Manitoba, “Until farmers make that change”--i.e., to vote for the removal of the single desk--“I'm not prepared to work arbitrarily. They are absolutely right to believe in democracy. I do, too.”

What was the minister doing? If he is not having a vote, then he obviously was not telling the truth.

That said, the government is deliberately betraying western grain producers in not allowing them a say in determining their own marketing institution.

I have heard the minister, his parliamentary secretary and others stand up in the House and say that the Canadian Wheat Board was brought in the way it is in 1943 and has not changed since. That is absolutely wrong. The board was changed in 1997 under an act of Parliament. It was designed at the time to give producers control, meaning that they would elect 10 directors and five would be appointed by the government. In other words, farmers in western Canada who market their grain would be able to determine their own destiny, run the Canadian Wheat Board and make the changes necessary, and there have been all kinds of changes over the last number of years exercised by those farmers.

Bill C-18, if passed, would do away with the elected directors of the Canadian Wheat Board. The fate and control of the board would be turned over to the five appointed government hats that the Conservative Party has put in place to do their bidding and destroy the farmers' grain marketing organization from within.

Let us look at the people the government would fire.

There is Stewart Wells. He is an organic farmer from Swift Current, Saskatchewan. He holds a Bachelor of Agricultural Engineering from the University of Saskatchewan, has served eight years as president of the National Farmers Union and is a Saskatchewan Wheat Pool delegate. He would be gone.

There is Cam Goff. He is an owner-operator of a 5,000-acre grain farm and agriculture supply business near Hanley, Saskatchewan. He would be gone.

There is Bill Woods. He is one of the founding members of West Central Road and Rail, a large producer car loading facility that has provided innovative grain marketing options for producers throughout western Saskatchewan. He is also a leading advocate for grain shippers' rights. He would be gone.

There is John Sandborn, owner and operator of a 3,300-acre grain farm near Benito, Manitoba. John holds a certificate in management leadership from the University of Calgary and a Bachelor of Science from Brandon University. John was a founding director of the Parkland Crop Diversification Foundation and a district representative for Keystone Agricultural Producers of Manitoba. He is a former director of Manitoba Pool Elevators and Agricore Co-operative Ltd. He would be gone.

There is Bill Toews, owner and operator of a large grain and oilseed and specialty crop farm west of Kane, Manitoba. He has international development experience. He is a former director of Keystone Agriculture Producers. He served with the Manitoba Farm Products Marketing Council and the Prairie Region Recommending Committee for Grains subcommittee. He has a degree in agriculture and a post-graduate degree in soil science. He would be gone.

These are not small, outdated, out-of-touch producers who are afraid of marketing on their own; they are the best and brightest, elected by their peers to represent their interests on the only grain marketing entity that still belongs to farmers.

What would Bill C-18 do? It would turf them. They would leave the Canadian Wheat Board in spite of the fact that it is the farmers' grain and it is the farmers who would still be paying every last cent of the Canadian Wheat Board costs. This would leave the board in the hands of unelected government representatives with huge ties to the private grains trade, the very companies that stand to gain from the loss of the Canadian Wheat Board.

The bottom line here is that these producers were elected by their peers. They are not outdated producers. They are good producers who made the changes that producers asked for. Producers voted 62% in favour of maintaining that single desk selling agency. Eight out of ten of those directors are pro-single desk sellers. With the government's representation in the bill, without giving farmers a voice to have their say in the marketing institution, they would all be fired. Left in their place would be five directors appointed by the government.

Why are we seeing this in a democracy? Is the government's ideology just to ignore the facts and disallow the right of primary producers to have a say in their own destiny and the specific institution that they want to market their grain?

How can anybody, and especially those backbenchers in the governing party, sit there and allow themselves to be run by the top? How can they sit there and not support this motion by the member for Churchill?

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona for her lovely speech, which, as the other hon. member mentioned, provided a great deal of insight into the terrible situation prairie farmers will find themselves in if the Canadian Wheat Board is dismantled.

I am rising in the House today, as many of my NDP colleagues have done, to oppose the Conservatives' bill to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board. I come from a riding with many farmers and family farms. They are having a great deal of difficulty in the current economic context. I am therefore very much aware of the concerns of farmers across the country.

Bill C-18 wants to rip apart the Wheat Board and eliminate the single desk marketing system for wheat and barley in Canada. This bill clearly shows that the Conservatives are completely out of touch and do not understand the needs of Canadian farmers.

The Wheat Board is the largest and most successful grain marketing organization in the world. In 2009-10, it generated approximately $5.2 billion in revenue. That is a lot of money. The government needs to take this into account when considering the possibility of dismantling certain extremely important components of the Canadian Wheat Board. The single desk system that the Wheat Board offers is very important to the Prairies. The Wheat Board provides financial stability for farmers, prudent risk management and certainty of grain supply.

The Wheat Board has become an essential structure for western Canadian farmers. It is a need. The Wheat Board is truly helping farmers to survive in the difficult economic context we are experiencing right now. The Canadian Wheat Board is controlled, run and funded by farmers. Canadian taxpayers are not paying for this essential structure. Farmers fund operations out of revenue from grain sales.

Are the Conservatives afraid of the collective approach that farmers have chosen to take? I understand that this is not a concept that is overly familiar to them or that they appreciate, but it is something that is at the very core of western farmers' values. In addition, do the Conservatives not understand that it is more advantageous to work together than to adopt an “every man for himself” approach? That is a good question.

For western farmers, the Wheat Board is an effective way to maximize the price of grain. The board's size and power on the market allow it to negotiate internationally and to ensure fair access to the market for all producers.

Why is the Conservative government refusing to respect the wishes of farmers in western Canada? Why is this government ignoring the strong voice of farmers who are speaking out against the dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board?

As we have heard many times in this House, the Wheat Board recently held a plebiscite of its members. The results, released on September 12, showed that 62% of respondents wanted to maintain the single desk for marketing wheat and 51% wanted to maintain the single desk for barley. Those two percentages constitute more than a majority. The participation rate in the plebiscite was 56%, which is equivalent to the rate in the last three federal elections. But the Conservative government is constantly bragging about receiving a strong mandate from Canadians with a participation rate similar to what was obtained by the Canadian Wheat Board. Why does this participation rate work in one case and not in the other? This is another one of the Conservatives' classic double standards, which are part of its divide and conquer strategy.

Western farmers have spoken and they oppose Bill C-18, like all of my colleagues here. They want to keep the board's single desk system.

The Conservatives are saying that their bill will make it easier for farmers to market their grain by allowing them to choose to whom they sell their products and how. That is false. It will only create more problems. They have a structure that allows them to pool their recourses and make sure they are getting the best prices, with all the strength of their combined resources.

Leaving farmers to fend for themselves would only create other problems, and their lives are hard enough already.

I am aware of the financial difficulties facing family farms in Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier. My constituents come and see me in my office in Pont-Rouge to talk about this situation, since they are so worried about it. That is why I feel I can relate to the concerns of western farmers. Times are very hard, and farmers are looking more and more for new ways to market their products in order to earn a good living from their hard work.

Young farmers are pooling their resources more and more, in order to survive in the current economic climate. My riding has a number of farming co-operatives and more are being set up every day, because everything is very expensive and because individual farmers cannot survive right now. Prairie farmers have a long history of uniting in order to prosper, which is why the board was created in the first place. This is the legacy that the Conservatives want to consign to oblivion, at the expense of western Canadian farmers.

It is clear that the Conservatives are using Bill C-18 to try to destroy family farms. There is no other foreseeable outcome from this decision they are making with no regard for the clearly expressed opinion of the farmers.

The Conservatives' dogmatism and ideological stubbornness are undeniable. They are going to completely ignore the will of western Canadian farmers and shove their own interests down the farmers' throats. This government has long been looking to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board at all costs, regardless of what anyone here might say. Are the Conservatives bending to pressure from big American corporations, as they often do? It would not be surprising; it is practically a tradition for them. We are concerned about the reasons behind the decision they are making today.

Since the beginning of this debate, the NDP has been saying that any decision on the future of the board has to be made by farmers for farmers. That is part of the act governing the Canadian Wheat Board. The members opposite seem to have forgotten about that detail. We keep reminding them, but to no avail. Let us hope that this time, my voice, added to the others, will have an effect.

The majority of the farmers want to keep this single desk system, and that is what the NDP is asking the Conservatives to do today. The government has to stop being so stubborn and start respecting the will of the farmers. This government has to stop gambling with the prairie economy and withdraw Bill C-18.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, I just did an interview with Barry Wilson of The Western Producer and he asked me how long I had been involved with the Wheat Board file. I have been involved since 1973. I remember the Saskatchewan wheat pool at one point in time, the Manitoba pool and the Alberta pool, and how their whole system was paid for with no debt by prairie producers. They were big and powerful at the time and they were an economic powerhouse. Today, they are gone.

The Wheat Board is the core in the middle that protects prairie grain farmers from the big railways, from the likes of Viterra, from Cargill and so on. Viterra today may think it is big and mighty, like the Saskatchewan wheat pool did at one time, but I am saying in the House right now that within five years it had better watch out. Who will pay the price? It will primarily be western producers.

Who does the member think will defend farmers in western Canada? Who has the political and economic clout to do it if the Wheat Board is destroyed, as Bill C-18 would do?

Canadian Wheat Board

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if the Conservatives really believe that prairie grain farmers will make more money by selling their grain outside of the Canadian Wheat Board, then that means every single Conservative MP involved in the grain industry is in a conflict of interest and must recuse themselves from the vote on Bill C-18.

If it is not true, then one must ask why the Conservatives are destroying this great Canadian institution if they do not in fact believe that it will be better for Canadian farmers.

They cannot have it both ways. Which is it, a conflict of interest or a reckless and irresponsible idea that will bring uncertainty and instability to the whole agricultural community of the Prairies?