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.

Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my distinguished colleague, and I would even say that I listened emotionally, since it is clear that this issue is close to his heart. I was very touched by his description of his family and his father, who tried to pay the bills by exporting his grain. His speech gave me the impression that the cooperative movement at the heart of the Canadian Wheat Board also contributed to an increase in revenue for all farmers.

Will the passage of Bill C-18 mean that smaller producers will end up facing the same problems we once managed to get rid of?

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Madam Speaker, in fact, I have absolutely no doubt nor do any of the farmers that are my neighbours and friends. I have farmland in Saskatchewan. I rent land to some. I also have some custom farm for myself, so I have grain to sell too. I know there is always a difficulty in the fall to get the cashflow needed to pay the bills. That is still a problem today, so we are limited to crops like canola to get cashflow in the fall to pay the bills.

For me personally and for my friends and my neighbours, it would be terrific to know that for wheat I grow next year I can contract that right after this legislation passes and I can lock in a price for next fall. I can actually market that wheat early in the fall, so that I have some cashflow to pay my bills and I do not have to rely on selling canola at a time when the price is low. To me this has a personal impact right now as well.

Returning the Wheat Board to what it was, and it was apparently very effective before, that is the right thing to do.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are talking about the sales and marketing arm of every wheat farmer out west and I understand that there are some who are going to gain from this. You have made it clear that you and some others will gain from it. Yet, I talk to farmers who do want to get rid of the Wheat Board who have admitted to me that thousands of farms will close because there are farmers who are past the average age of 50 who will not be able to withstand the transition.

As a consequence, those small farms will close. Small economies in rural areas of the western provinces will suffer dramatically. Even they admitted to it. Lo and behold, those very same comments were made in The Economist.

I want to know why do you place the needs of a few above the needs and preferences of the many when 62% voted in favour of keeping this board?

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Before I recognize the hon. member, I would like to remind all members, especially in controversial debates, to direct their comments through the Chair.

The hon. member for Vegreville—Wainwright.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member has it so wrong that it is unbelievable. Two years down the road ask farmers what they think of what has happened when they get the freedom to market. The member is right in one regard that there are some farmers who are concerned about losing what they see as protection from the Wheat Board monopoly. But many of them actually believe what we are doing is taking the Wheat Board away entirely which we are not doing. All we are doing is removing the monopoly. The board will still be there. If they want to market through the board, there is no real transition period for them. That is not a problem at all.

If I were allowed to make a wager, two or three years down the road farmers who are concerned about this change would say they were worried about it, but it has been a really good thing and they are glad that someone had the guts to finally do it.

[Robert Aubin, NDP, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me the floor and allowing me to participate in this debate. This morning, when I was preparing this brief speech, I began with a formal sort of phrase such as “Thank you, it is a pleasure to be taking part in this debate.” When I reread it, it was clear to me that there was a problem because I am not pleased to be taking part in this debate. I am interested in taking part in it, but it brings me no happiness.

I have discovered something else as I write my speeches. All of my colleagues have discovered it, and they have more experience than I. I have begun hearing voices. We hear a lot of voices in the House, and I have a feeling they stick with us when we are sitting in front of a computer. I figured that some people would ask me why a member from the east, a city boy, a new member of Parliament to boot, is talking about a topic that concerns western Canada. They might also wonder what I know about farmers in the west. I admit that I am not sure when we stop being new members; that is something I have yet to learn here on the Hill. Of course, I agree that there are certain subtleties that I do not grasp. But the fact remains that in Quebec, we know about workers' groups and, what is more, we respect them.

For example, we need only think of the creation, development and growth of co-operative movements, such as the Mouvement des caisses populaires Desjardins, which enabled a number of workers in many different sectors to be able to grow together without leaving anyone behind. There are also agricultural co-operatives. We have some co-operative agricultural movements back home in Quebec. I could talk about investment funds like the FTQ, which was created by workers who invest in businesses. That is another co-operative movement that is an extraordinary jewel in Quebec and that, as I was saying earlier, attempts to give the workers it represents—and for whom it works—the means to grow without leaving the smallest ones behind.

I can say that for Quebeckers, myself included, being sensitive to the cause of workers in every sector, including agriculture, is probably part of our genes. We are listening sympathetically and we care about the legitimate concerns of the western farmers.

In the few hours and days that I have been listening to the debate on Bill C-18, it has become increasingly clear that this is essentially an ideological debate, in which the sacrosanct ideology of free enterprise is being pitted against the willingness of workers to organize themselves and grow together. It has also become clear that it is important to try to clear up some rather off-putting myths that some people have been spreading here on the Hill for months.

Here is one. Since the debate began on Bill C-18, I keep hearing people talk about western farmers as though they were one homogeneous group. I think the reality is quite different. Now is the time to put our democratic rules into practice, the very rules that epitomize the society in which we live. Since September of this year, I have been living in a strange world, one where the basic democratic rules that I taught for such a long time seem to have been rewritten. I used to teach my students that the free and democratic expression of a vote was, in most cases, 50% of the votes plus one, except in some cases of associations or constitutions that require two-thirds of all votes. However, 50% plus one, I think, was a clear enough agreement for everyone. However, since May 2011, my colleagues across the floor have been trying to convince me that 39% of the votes is a strong mandate.

I have heard it enough times that it has started to stick. I am not saying that I agree, but I hear it a lot. I still have a hard time with this concept, but I do hear it.

In reading the results of the referendum of western farmers, I thought to myself that if 39% is considered a strong mandate, then how would we describe 62%? The word that came to mind was “colossal”. It seems as though western farmers, although they were probably not unanimous, gave a colossal mandate to their association to do everything possible to protect and safeguard the Canadian Wheat Board. Furthermore, when an institution belongs to the farmers, is managed by the farmers and is funded by the farmers, I seems to me that the decision should, at the end of the day, be theirs to make.

When I agreed to become a member of Parliament on May 2, I knew that part of my job would be to help draft, introduce and vote on legislation that would guide our way of life, but little did I know that, as legislators in this House, we could somehow be exempt from the law when we felt like it.

That is what I understand from the attitude of the government which, according to the act, has an obligation to consult by referendum or plebiscite but has decided to try to get around this obligation and is refusing to recognize the very referendum conducted by farmers. Does this mean I have to go back and teach my students something even worse? The act requires a referendum for any major change. Does that mean that dismantling the Canadian Wheat Board does not constitute a significant change in its development?

A certain number of factors also lead me to believe that we could consider a mixed model under which the majority would keep the Canadian Wheat Board while those who are not interested could suggest another model. That is what the government also seems to be proposing in its bill. I am reluctant for one simple reason: although the model is interesting theoretically and looks good on paper, in reality, it does not work. In fact, without the Canadian Wheat Board, farmers will be in competition with each other rather than working together as a single major player that is able to compete with the large, multinational agribusinesses of the world.

The smallest farmers will struggle to save their family businesses, to the advantage of the largest producers who will have the means to buy them up. Clearly, we would be making the economy of many agricultural regions in western Canada more fragile. Dramatic drops in price and loss of revenue would be unavoidable since the rule of the competition would now be every man for himself. In this regard, it seems to me that Australia's experience should serve as a warning and that we could learn from their experience.

In addition, have we truly considered the social consequences of shutting down the Wheat Board? Of course, it is not just about money, but the Wheat Board does allow for marketing in 70 countries. I would like the government to name me one farmer who could do that without selling his grain to a large multinational company.

The Wheat Board puts $4 billion to $7 billion back into farmers' pockets each year and it has many advantages.

In closing, I would like to ask a very quick question. Why does the government not want to hear western farmers' clear and democratic statement?

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member will have five minutes for questions and comments the next time this bill is called for debate.

It being 6 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from October 20 consideration of the motion that Bill C-18, An Act to reorganize the Canadian Wheat Board and to make consequential and related amendments to certain Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee, of the amendment and of the amendment to the amendment.

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian farmers feed the world and they deserve the freedom to make their own business decisions, whether it is to market individually or through a voluntary pooling entity. We believe that all Canadian farmers should be able to position their businesses to capture the marketing opportunities that are open to them.

This bill aims to give western Canadian farmers the right to choose how to market their wheat, durum and barley independently or through a voluntary pool. The marketing freedom for grain farmers act proposes to end the Canadian Wheat Board's six-decade-old monopoly over sales of wheat, durum and barley in western Canada. It will give wheat and barley growers across western Canada the same rights that canola and pulse growers enjoy along with farmers in other parts of Canada, namely, the right to do what they want with the crop they paid to plant, grow and harvest. By allowing market freedom, grain growers will be able to market based on what is best for their needs and businesses.

I want to talk a bit about what the opportunity means for Manitobans, where wheat and barley are major drivers of the provincial economy, generating almost $800 million in farm cash receipts and over $900 million in exports just last year. Monopoly is a model no longer appropriate in a modern growth-oriented commodity sector in Canada. Milton Boyd, a professor and economist at the University of Manitoba, agrees. He has stated:

—all of the major grain marketing boards around the world have already disappeared (or have been privatized) over the last 20 years...mainly because farmers and consumers worldwide have wanted economic reforms, competition, and freedom to choose.

Under marketing freedom, we can look forward to increased innovation and new value-added industries. The removal of the monopoly would allow Manitoba farmers to sell their grains directly to a processor, whether it be a pasta manufacturer, a flour mill or any other of their choosing. Farmer entrepreneurs would have the option of staring up their own small specialty flour mills and pasta plants, without the red tape it currently involves.

There has been tremendous growth in value-added opportunities for oats, pulses and canola across the Prairies over the past 20 years. There is no reason not to expect more opportunities for wheat, durum and barley.

In Manitoba alone the acreage of oats has increased by over 250,000 acres since it was removed from Wheat Board control. This has allowed for the opening and expansion, as an example, of Can-Oat Milling, a processing mill in Portage la Prairie. Just over the border in North Dakota from where I live, many new pasta plants have sprung up and created jobs that very well could have been created in Manitoba.

Recently we heard great news coming out of we Regina that a pasta plant was turning the sod to take Canadian durum next year. That is how quick it can happen. These are the types of value-added industries and jobs that exist when farmers have the option to market their products as they choose. This, along with increased trade, could create many new jobs and opportunities. We know this is a significant change involving a very complex set of issues.

The bill proposes to give farmers and the industry a transition period of up to five years to allow time to adjust to the significant and positive change to their businesses and business models. To avoid market disruption, the goal is for farmers and grain marketers to start forward contracting for the 2012-13 crop year as soon as it is possible. During the transition period, the interim Canadian Wheat Board will continue to offer farmers the option of pooling their crops with initial prices guaranteed by the Government of Canada. During this time, the interim CWB will develop a business plan for full privatization.

Our government is ready to work with the Canadian Wheat Board to chart the way forward because we believe that an open and competitive grain market can and should include a viable voluntary Canadian Wheat Board.

Because innovation is critical to the future of the Canadian grain industry, the proposed bill also provides for a voluntary funding mechanism to support research and market development. We fully recognize that there will be costs associated with this transition and the voluntary Canadian Wheat Board will be a smaller organization than the one existing today. Our government is prepared to assist with the extra ordinary costs associated with winding down this monopoly.

Farmers currently pay the daily costs of operating of the CWB with the overall costs guaranteed by our government. With this change, the government recognizes that farmers should not be left alone to deal with the costs of transition to a voluntary mandate and therefore our government is ready to assist, while making responsible use of taxpayer dollars.

Another important facet of the bill deals with the Port of Churchill, which in the past has relied heavily on Canadian Wheat Board shipments. Our government recognizes, and has demonstrated, our support and commitment to the north. We understand the importance of the Port of Churchill as a valuable asset and we are working with stakeholders across the agricultural industry, as well as other industries, to explore development opportunities for the port and we are looking at a number of initiatives to continue to diversify the economy of Churchill.

Jim Carr, the president and CEO of the Business Council of Manitoba said, “We see Churchill as more than a port that takes Wheat Board grain. We see Churchill as the Arctic Gateway”. The managing director of OmniTRAX, Mike Ogborn, said that his organization “sees a strong future for the port and the railway”. Our government agrees with these comments. The Port of Churchill will remain the Prairies' Arctic gateway to the world.

With regard to the concerns around short lines, which have been raised by many members of the opposition, the Government of Canada, not the CWB, protects the right of producers to use short line railways and inland terminals and we will continue to ensure these producers have that access.

Grain growers in Manitoba are like any other business people. They want to make the right decisions at the right time for their farms and their families. They already decide what to plant and when to harvest. They make marketing decisions on their canola and pulse crops, their peas, lentils, beans, oats and many other crops. They just want the same marketing freedom for their wheat, durum and barley.

Spencer Fernando of The Manitoban said:

The end of the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly restores the rights of western farmers, and shows we respect the freedom of individuals to control their own labour and the products of that labour. It is the right thing to do, not just economically, but also because it lives up to the principles upon which Canada is based.

My government trusts farmers to make their marketing choices, based on what is best for their businesses, families and communities. We want to put farmers back in the driver's seat so they can continue to drive this economy. We believe that an open and competitive grain market can include a viable voluntary pooling entity and we are ready to work with the Canadian Wheat Board to chart that future.

We owe it to farmers, customers and shippers to provide market certainty so they can plan their businesses for the following year. With this change, our entrepreneurial farmers can expand markets, increase their incomes and attract greater investment now. So why make them wait? Marketing freedom has been a cornerstone of our platform since day one and it was part of our throne speech last spring. I am proud that we are delivering on our long-standing promise to the western grain farmers. As the Prime Minister has said, what we are seeing here is a new horizon, a new field of opportunity, not just for western grain farmers but for workers and businesses in western Canada generally.

An open grain market will attract new investment, encourage innovation and create new jobs for Canadians. I support that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, to what degree does the member believe that the grain farmers in the Prairies should be able to influence the decision of the government about the Wheat Board? I ask the member to reflect on the plebiscite that was conducted, in which 62% of the prairie wheat farmers suggested we needed to retain the Canadian Wheat Board. To what degree does he feel the government is obligated to listen to those farmers?

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I respect the hon. member for his comments and concerns, but in my mind this is purely about farmers' right to grow and market their own product. I have lived in an agricultural community my entire life and I have seen producers spend hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars to prepare the soil, to plant the seed, to fertilize it, to treat it, to care for it, to swath it and then to harvest it, only at the end of the day to be told that they cannot market that product themselves. As rights across all of Canada, it is a right of farmers to sell what they produce.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I know a number of farmers visited the member for Brandon—Souris at his riding on Friday and protested the fact that they were being denied their right to vote on this issue. My question is more along the lines of the code of conduct and the conflict of interest code by which all MPs are duty bound.

What is his view of MPs who make their living as prairie grain producers voting on a bill that their own party says will provide more money for those farmers? In that context I would remind him that when we voted on the bailout for the auto industry, some Tory MPs who were car dealers recused themselves from the vote because it would have a direct impact on the industry through which they make their living.

Does he believe those Tory MPs who are grain farmers subject to the monopoly desk of the Canadian Wheat Board should recuse themselves from the vote tonight and all subsequent votes on bill C-18?

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if I have listened to my hon. friend correctly over the last several days, the suggestion from the opposition is that with the loss of the Wheat Board, all Canadian farmers' revenues will go down, so in reality, members on this side who are active in the agricultural industry would be voting for less income for themselves.

We are sent here to understand the issues. We know that western Canadian voters have supported our government's position on this issue since 2004. The fact that we made a commitment to the voters and are following through on that commitment earns us a great deal of respect in the community in the sense that we are actually doing what we said we would do.

[Brad Butt, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am following this debate closely. I represent a riding in Ontario, so it is not directly affected.

I appreciate the views and speeches by members of Parliament who represent western farmers. I think there is some confusion. The opposition parties are saying that the bill kills the Canadian Wheat Board. I thought the bill was about providing choice and options as to whether or not farmers would like to continue to participate in a wheat board or whether they would like to market their grain on their own.

Could the member explain whether or not the bill actually kills the Wheat Board, or whether it simply provides choice for farmers?

[Merv Tweed, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is the crux of the whole bill: to give marketing opportunity and freedom to people who have not been able to choose for several years. I will use the opposition's concerns. Who would not want to become the CEO of a company that has 62% of the market share the day they open the door? Who would not want to have access to all the marketing people that it deals with around the world? Who would not want all that information?

I fear that the opposition, by scaring people into making decisions, is going the wrong way. It is about freedom. It is about freedom to do as farmers please with the fruits of their labour and energy. I do not see how that freedom could be debated by anyone.