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.

Bill C-18--Time Allocation Motion

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I hope it is not the position of the government of the day that the only people who are allowed to have an opinion with respect to the Wheat Board are the people who agree with the government.

The fact of the matter is when the minister stands in his place and asserts that there is unanimity among western farmers with respect to the future of the Wheat Board, that is a preposterous statement.

I would hope that the minister would at least have the decency to recognize that western farmers themselves had a vote. They had a vote because the government was not willing to have a vote. They had a vote because the government was not willing to follow the law. We then have the Prime Minister of the country saying on October 7 in the Globe and Mail:

It’s time for the wheat board and others who have been standing in the way to realize that this train is barrelling down a prairie track.

What the government of the day is saying is that the Conservatives are going to railroad the western farmers. They are going to railroad anybody who does not agree with them, and they are going to railroad the House of Commons for the fourth time in 25 days.

That is what the government has become all about, a government that simply says, “It is our way or the railroad”, and it is the railroad that it is driving and it is not--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I will try to limit questions and comments to about a minute, because I see many people rising.

The hon. Minister of Agriculture.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, the main tenet of democracy is having one's say, not necessarily having one's way, no matter how loud one screams.

At the end of the day, even the Wheat Board admitted that the so-called plebiscite was a non-binding referendum.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

They had no choice.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Just a minute, Bob. Hang on. You had your turn.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I think the hon. minister knows that he should direct his comments through the chair.

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

I am happy to do that, Madam Speaker. At least you are balanced.

The Wheat Board itself, in its spring edition that it puts out quarterly, did a non-binding referendum of farmers across western Canada, and when it offered the idea of a dual market, there was tremendous response for that. We will honour that as well.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Medicine Hat riding is a huge rural area. About half of the population is rural, and there are all types of farmers and products.

Could the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food tell the House why we need to pass this legislation immediately for the benefit of funding for research in western Canada?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, innovation has been a main tenet of agriculture in western Canada. We have developed things like zero till and moved forward with a number of different entities in everything but the Wheat Board commodities.

Having said that, there has been a check off in place for years through the Wheat Board to fund valuable organizations like the Canadian International Grains Institute, the Western Grains Research Foundation and the Canadian Malting Barley Technical Centre, and we will continue to do that.

We will move to a point of sale, gathered in and administered by Agriculture Canada in the short term until we find someone to take over that valuable resource and asset.

There can never be enough funding for science and research. We will continue to do that check off and make sure the money flows to those organizations that do such a great job.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have a press release from Allen Oberg, chairman of the CWB governing board of directors. He said:

This is not about putting farmers in the drivers' seat--it's about throwing us under the bus, and handing the steering wheel to huge American and European multinationals that control the world's grain trade.

I am just wondering if the minister could answer two simple questions. Can he guarantee that farmers will not lose their land to big conglomerate? Can he confirm that they will be appointing their own appointees to the Wheat Board, as opposed to having the farmers themselves who have been doing this for years?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, the exact purpose of this in the end is to have farmers take 100% control of this. That is why we are giving the new entity up to five years to adapt to and bring forward a program that puts farmers in the driver's seat, absolutely.

The problem that the Wheat Board is encountering is that it becomes a price taker. Over the last short time it has lost 50% of the wheat volume. It has lost 40% of the barley volume.

The quality consistency is still there because of the great job western Canadian farmers do, and in using entities like the Grain Commission for blending and so on. We are still putting out that top quality product. We need more of it, not less.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, in Ontario there used to be a single-desk marketing agency through the Ontario Wheat Producers' Marketing Board. That board disappeared in 2003. That happened because of a democratic decision taken by the democratically elected board of directors of the Ontario Wheat Producers' Marketing Board who determined that was the route they wished to take.

In western Canada, there is also a duly elected board of directors for the Canadian Wheat Board. Why are the western directors not being treated with the same respect and regard as the directors of the Ontario Wheat Producers' Marketing Board?

If the Ontario directors were allowed to take a democratic decision and go in a certain direction, why can the western directors not do the same thing?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, there is a major difference between what was governing the body in Ontario and what was governing the body in western Canada. It is called a piece of legislation. There was no Ontario Wheat Producers' Marketing Board legislation in the House even at the provincial level. However, there is one at the federal level. We seek to change that and allow farmers to work democratically to move forward and use or not use the board.

When farmers spoke out, the member opposite shackled and jailed them. He has absolutely no credibility on this issue.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, I ask the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food why in this discussion the government is not following the Canadian Wheat Board Act?

Section 47.1 guarantees farmers the right to vote on changes to the Canadian Wheat Board's marketing structure. Why is the minister not allowing farmers a say in the full dismantling being proposed? Why is the government refusing to listen to the voices of not just western farmers but also western Canadians who have spoken out in large numbers asking the government to protect the single desk system?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, anybody reading section 47.1 knows that is not exactly what it says. It calls for a vote of the affected producers if we are adding or subtracting a commodity from the board. We are not doing that. We are using democracy and the supremacy of Parliament to fundamentally change the act.

As significant moneys would be allotted to the port of Churchill, would the member for Churchill support the bill?

When we spent some $30 million in budget 2008, she voted against it. I am not sure why she would continue to do that when she knows how valuable that port is.