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

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board]

moved 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.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity on behalf of western Canadian farmers to open debate on the bill that we are putting before the House that would give them marketing freedom very similar to what farmers have been enjoying in Ontario already for some years.

The Government of Canada, under the strong leadership of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, is very proud to be leading the way toward a bright future for Canadian farmers and for the overall Canadian economy--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I am sure the hon. minister will want to refrain from using the name of sitting members.

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

Madam Speaker, we are just so darned proud of him but I will say the Prime Minister.

We believe that all Canadian farmers should be able to position their businesses to capture the marketing opportunities that will be open to them. We live in a free country and giving farmers the freedom to choose is the right thing to do.

Currently, by law, western Canadian wheat, durum and barley growers do not have the same rights as other producers in Canada about where and how they sell their products. For export or domestic human consumption, they have no other option but to market through the Canadian Wheat Board, the monopoly that was established in 1943 by an order in council, not by producers or for producers at that time.

By allowing marketing freedom, western wheat and barley growers will be able to market based on what is best for their own bottom line of their own business. In the June 2011 Speech from the Throne, we again stated our commitment to ensure that western farmers would have the freedom to sell wheat and barley on the open market. With this proposed legislation, we would provide marketing choice to western grain farmers once and for all.

To avoid market disruption, the goal is for farmers and grain marketers, including the new entity, to be able to start forward contracting in January 2012. Farmers, grain companies and customers need this assurance. As we well know, market certainty and clarity underpins stability in the marketplace domestically and internationally.

The bill would remove the monopoly of the Canadian Wheat Board and allow for the new Canadian wheat board to continue as a voluntary marketing organization for up to five years as it makes the transition to full private entity. During the transition period, this new voluntary organization would still be called the Canadian wheat board. It would continue to offer farmers the option of pooling their crops. It would continue to benefit from a borrowing guarantee backed by the federal government and it would develop a business plan for privatization, which will be reviewed no later than 2016.

This new freedom is not only good for farmers, it also has many economic benefits for communities across western Canada. New processing plants would be able to open their doors for business and look to hire new employees unfettered by the current ridiculous requirement to buy wheat and barley only from the Canadian Wheat Board.

Canada's grain industry is a powerhouse that brings $16 billion to the farm gate and makes up almost half of our agricultural exports. What was once Canada's signature crop, hard red spring wheat, has fallen behind. Wheat and barley innovation has become stagnate. Competition for acres has weakened and newer crops, such as canola, have surpassed wheat in value.

A C.D. Howe report released this past spring confirmed that Canada's share of annual worldwide wheat production has fallen by 50% in the last 50 years. It is a staggering number. Equally, Canadian market share and world barley exports have declined by 40% since the 1980s. With the reduced market share, the Canadian Wheat Board has less influence on the world stage and, as a result, has become a price taker.

We have seen tremendous growth in value added opportunities across the Prairies over the past 20 years for crops that do not have a monopoly marketer, including oats, pulses, flax and, of course, canola. We would see these same opportunities open up for wheat and barley as we implement market freedom. We will work with farmers and industry to attract investment, encourage innovation, create value added jobs and build an overall stronger economy.

Our government has promised western Canadian wheat and barley growers that they will be given marketing freedom. We are fulfilling that commitment and ensuring that the market is finally controlled by the experts in the grain industry, our farmers.

The Canadian Wheat Board was first imposed on western Canadian farmers when times were different, to say the very least, difficult. Canadians had just gone through the Great Depression, World War II was raging and Canada was committed to supplying wheat to Britain. It was 1943 when farmers were forced to sell through the board. It was done with the aim of aiding the war effort, not with any pretense that it would be good for farmers.

So what has changed since then? Just about everything down on the farm.

For starters, it is now 2011, not 1943. Our government remains focused on economic stability and creating the right conditions for more long-term jobs and stronger economic growth, all the while steadily eliminating the deficit and returning to surplus. Our workforce is healthy and our agricultural industry is helping to drive our economy.

Unfortunately, the one thing that has not changed is that prairie farmers are still forced by law to sell their wheat, durum and barley through the Canadian Wheat Board.

The government's position is clear: our long-standing commitment that we are now delivering on is to promise and provide marketing choice. This is why we want to continue to have the Canadian Wheat Board in place as a choice for those who want to continue marketing through the board.

For too long, barley and durum processors have been setting up shop south of the border because they could not take the red tape here in Canada.

Those who are looking for an economic analysis need only listen to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce when it says:

The current single-desk model restricts valued added investment in wheat and barley, significantly detracting the ability of farmers and industry to respond to market demands and earn a premium return in recognition of the innovation provided, including innovation in value-added processing.

That is quite a statement.

Look at what happened to oats when it came out from under the monopoly. In Manitoba alone the acreage of oats has increased by over 250,000 acres since its removal from the Wheat Board's control.

This has allowed for the opening and expansion of Can-oat, a processing mill in Portage La Prairie. A half a million tonnes a year of oats run through that facility. These are the types of value-added industries and jobs that exist when farmers have the option to market their products as they so choose.

The transition to marketing freedom will have an impact on the Port of Churchill, since the CWB was responsible for nearly 90% of all goods shipped through the port in 2010. Our government is taking concrete steps to help ensure the Port of Churchill will remain a viable option for exports.

The Government of Canada remains committed to Churchill, and we understand the importance of economic development and diversification to the community, the region and the overall north.

The government also acknowledges that the changes to the Canadian Wheat Board, while giving farmers marketing freedom, will also lead to a period of adjustment for Churchill and the surrounding region. That is why we are taking necessary steps to support the community and the port through this transition.

The government will provide an economic incentive of up to $5 million per year during the five year transition period to support shipments of grain, including now oil seeds, pulses and special crops through the port.

Working with the port owner, Transport Canada will invest more than $4 million to repair the existing port assets and support the safe docking of vessels. This will also enable the port to remain in sound operating condition to take advantage of future business opportunities, and could create jobs resulting in economic benefits to the community over the next three years.

Western Economic Diversification Canada will work with the Churchill Gateway Development Corporation on port infrastructure improvements, and extend the project completion date an additional two years, from 2013 to 2015. Additionally, the government will continue to explore initiatives to support the ongoing operations of the port.

We recognize that this is a major change for agriculture in western Canada. That is why we have been consulting extensively with stakeholders from across the supply chain, from the farm gate to seaport.

Over the summer, a working group comprising experts in the field heard a broad range of advice on how the grain marketing and transportation system could transition from the current CWB-run system to an open market that includes voluntary marketing pools.

The working group's report covers a wide range of issues from transportation to research to elevators, basically the how of moving to an open market. The basic thrust is to let markets work, but monitor them to ensure that effective competition prevails. The working group is one of many ways the government is seeking advice on how to move forward.

One of its recommendation deals with the issue of the advance payments program. This is a very popular tool farmers use to maintain their cash flow during the production season. The APP has always been delivered on behalf of Agriculture Canada by delivery agents. In order for the new CWB to focus 100% on the marketing of grain for those farmers who choose to use it, the Canadian Canola Grower Association will now administer the APP for wheat and barley, starting with the spring 2012 advance program. Canadian canola growers have great expertise and 30 years experience in administering these cash advances.

As a result of the change, many farmers will have their administrative burden reduced as they deal with fewer organizations, not to mention a potential reduction in their administration fee. Wheat and barley farmers will continue to have access to this program without disruption.

Canada's wheat and barley producers constantly adapt their operations to the evolving economic and weather realities, and their ability to secure cash flows is an essential part of their ongoing business decisions. Our government is taking clear and concise action so that wheat and barley farmers will continue to have access to the advance payments program during and after this transition to an open market.

With regard to the issue of producer cars, the reality is that the board's monopoly has never provided producer cars. The right to producer cars is set out in the Canada Grain Act, and producer cars have always been allocated by the Canadian Grain Commission, and the Wheat Board's only role was to charge a fee for the use of a producer car. Our government will continue to protect farmers' access to them.

Similarly, the fact is that short line railways and farmer-owned inland terminals succeed in their businesses on the basis of their management skills and the value they offer producers. They will continue to offer savings to farmers without the CWB monopoly. To suggest that they depend on a monopoly, forcing farmers to deal with them, is an insult to the people who operate these businesses.

These same groups offer professional and economically beneficial services to producers for non-board crops now, and they are doing very well at it.

The government is committed to improving rail service for agricultural shippers. The government completed the rail service review and we announced our follow-up actions in the spring of last year.

As for jobs, while the board will see some job losses initially, the future for employment in the grains sectors looks bright. We can expect more processors to start up new businesses in western Canada. Private marketers of wheat and barley will expand their workforces. The Western Grain Elevator Association members are already calling for and interviewing people to handle the increase it expects. Some have even committed to numbers that they will require in this new free setting.

Milling firms will be able to purchase directly from the farmer of their choice at a price and a timeframe they negotiate. Entrepreneurs will have the option of starting up their own specialty flour mills, malting and pasta plants. In fact, just recently, we had the honour of turning the sod on a new pasta plant in Regina. Murad Al-Katib of Alliance Grain Traders, born and raised in Davidson, Saskatchewan, has been selling Canadian pulses worldwide. The company also manufactures pasta in Turkey, but has stayed out of the Canadian market because of the monopoly and all the red tape involved in dealing directly with durum producers. This is a $50 million private sector investment that will create 60 permanent jobs and 200 construction jobs. He is unequivocal in saying that this would not happen without these changes. That is great news for Saskatchewan and it is great news for farmers overall. I know that there are more to come.

My colleagues on the opposite side of the floor unfortunately remain steadfast against these opportunities of an open market. Even more amazing about this opposition is that only a tiny fraction of their members represent anyone in the Wheat Board area. All of them are from city ridings. The official agriculture critics, both from Ontario, seem to think that they have the right to tell western grain farmers that they do not have the right to market their own wheat and barley as their own constituents do.

In the Ontario example, we made the announcement yesterday at Don Kenny of Blondehead Farms. He is the chair of the Ontario grain producers. We also had in attendance, Barry Senft, who is the president and CEO of the Ontario wheat board. They both recommend this change. They did it in 2003 and have never looked back.

My colleagues understand we are turning a page in our nation's great history and we will all be better for it. Exciting new opportunities lie ahead for our grain industry. The government is pleased to receive the support of this initiative from three of the four provinces shackled by the monopoly. Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia produce over 90% of western Canada's wheat, durum and barley.

The agriculture minister from Saskatchewan said:

Saskatchewan farmers spend their own hard-earned money on land, machinery and inputs to grow their own crops, so why shouldn't they have the marketing freedom to decide how, when, and to whom they sell their grain?

Alberta's agriculture and rural development minister said:

Marketing opportunities are being lost every day and it's vital that Alberta's grain producers be able to market their product to anyone they choose.

As well, the agriculture minister for British Columbia said:

Every farmer in Western Canada deserves the right to sell their grain when, to whom and for the price that works best for their farm business.

The government is giving western Canadian farmers nothing more than their right to manage their own businesses their own way. While we welcome constructive debate, frivolous delays will only hurt our farmers and the overall grain industry.

We owe it to producers to provide market certainty so they can continue to plan their businesses. Farmers must plan for the 2012-2013 year. They are already putting inputs in the ground, getting ready. When they are making seeding decisions they will want to know what the marketing system will be for that 2012 crop.

Canada will continue to sell wheat and barley and maintain its reputation as a quality, reliable supplier. The international grain trade works largely on forward contracting for future purchases and sales. If there is uncertainty in the market about the rules of who can sell Canadian wheat and barley, there is a high risk that buyers will turn to other countries to buy that wheat and barley.

The Canadian wheat and barley sector can continue to supply domestic and world markets with high quality wheat and barley, but they look to us to provide the certainty they need to plan and carry out their business decisions.

I invite my colleagues in the House to join us as we work to ensure that all farmers across Canada can position their businesses to capture the opportunities of the future.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have a number of questions for the minister because there has been such a preponderance of misinformation circulated by him and his office that some of it begs for clarity in this brief opportunity we have to debate this staggeringly complicated change he is making to the rural prairie economy.

First, I would like to ask the minister if he would clarify what he meant yesterday when he said that he has never seen a report from the CWB. At least on television he would have the public believe that the Canadian Wheat Board would not submit reports to the minister, as it is required to do. I know that I have seen the reports and I wonder why the minister has not or if he wants to correct the statement that he made.

Second, I know that when legislation goes through the process of development, a cost analysis is done to any piece of legislation, no matter what it is, and presented to the Treasury Board. We have never seen any cost benefit analysis of this piece of legislation. He owes it to Parliament and the general public to take this opportunity to tell us the cost implications.

Finally, in the same vein of costing, we have seen a private independent estimate by Peat Marwick that it would cost as much as $500 million in closing costs to terminate the CWB. A $6 billion a year corporation does not just disappear without significant closing costs. Contracts may be terminated and the contracts for ships that are being partly built may be terminated.

Will he tell us the government's estimate? What is it going to cost the government to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board? I would like answers to the other two questions as well.

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

Madam Speaker, I stand behind my statement that I have never seen the reports that I have asked for from the Canadian Wheat Board. It is supposed to, on a monthly basis, report to the minister of the day on what it has sold, who it has sold it to, the value of the sale, the shipping, and all of the transactions. I have never seen those. It does not seem to be able to provide those in a way that says it is getting a premium price. I have never seen those. Maybe the member opposite has an inside track, being the eager beaver that he is, but I have never seen them.

As to cost analysis, the member opposite talked about misinformation and that it has to be presented, and that type of thing. Farmers have done the cost analysis for years. As I said in my opening remarks, we have lost 50% of our wheat and 40% of our barley. What is the cost of that loss out there on the world market?

The one good thing the board has done in its intransigence is allowed for world-class canola, mustard, flax and oats. All the other commodities outside of the board have flourished. We are seeing processing, global demand increase and new varieties being developed. There is a great cost benefit in that the board not moving as it should has benefited the other sectors, to the point where now canola is king on the Prairies and will continue to be. We have crushing facilities. The misnomer that one cannot process at point of production and it has to be done at point of sale is put to the lie by the canola crushers that are popping up across the Prairies. We are also seeing the durum plant going in Regina. I know the member for Wascana will be celebrating that because a lot of those people live in his riding.

The member talked about the study that was done. It was KPMG, actually, and not Peat Marwick. The numbers I have seen on that one are so staggering in scope as to be unbelievable in the spread on some of them. He talked about the ships. There was no consultation with farmers on that. They are scooping money out of the farm pools without even asking farmers if they can do it. That is ridiculous. That is one of the reasons farmers have moved away.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have two questions for the minister, but I would first request that he resist belittling the efforts of urban members of Parliament who know where their food comes from. We know that food comes from farmers and we are here defending the well-being of western Canadian farmers.

My two questions are as follows, very quickly. We know that he does not respect the opinion of opposition members and we know he does not respect the opinion of farmers who have expressed it in a plebiscite. Would he respect an objective opinion from The Economist magazine that said recently:

Smaller producers, faced with mounting marketing costs, will inevitably have to sell their farms to bigger rivals or agribusiness companies...devastating small prairie towns, whose economies depend on individual farmers with disposable income.

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

Madam Speaker, what I find to be hypocritical is that the member from Ontario, and good for him that he was elected, wants to deny my farmers the same rights and privileges that his farmers enjoy now. How can he stand in his place and do that? This is about fairness.

When he talks about the smaller producers who are in jeopardy, I make the argument that they will be in jeopardy if we continue down this line. These same small producers have become experts at marketing their canola, mustard, oats and flax. They have moved to other commodities. Certainly, they grow wheat because in the west we are using a zero-till process and need good rotational crops to fight the weed systems, chemicals and the like that are in the soil. That is great. However, we are not using wheat, durum and barley to the same extent that we used to. Now we are using triticale, canaryseed and many other products to fill the gap because of the intransigence and the changes that have not been allowed regarding the western Canadian Wheat Board. That is one of the reasons we are moving.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, this is obviously a great day for Canadian farmers. I am so excited. I want to thank the minister and the parliamentary secretary for all of their hard work. On this day I think of men like Rick Strankman, Jim Ness and the late Art Walde and all the battles they have fought.

Would the minister explain what options and opportunities the farmers will have once the legislation is passed?

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

Madam Speaker, like me, the member's background is in agriculture and his heart and passion are still there.

This issue is what has brought many of us to the floor of the House of Commons to ensure that we move forward.

Art Walde, whose name the member mentioned, was a good friend of mine. I attended Art's funeral. This was Art's lifeblood. His family insisted that I continue on with this fight and move forward on this issue to ensure that his son who is now farming would have the opportunity to run his own business in his own way and sell his own commodities.

We will get that done.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I heard the minister in the House and in the media last night say that the government is speaking for Canadians and Canadian farmers.

What I find puzzling is that when I spoke to the prairie agricultural associations, I heard something different. For example, the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan is dead set against shutting down the Wheat Board and is absolutely appalled that the government did not uphold the majority vote of farmers. It stated:

Producers have now sent a very clear message to government....So if government chooses to ignore the message and we do see the loss of the single desk, we’re concerned about the transitional issues that will result.

The Wild Rose Agricultural Producers of Alberta, Alberta's largest producer-funded general farm organization, is expressing strong opposition to shutting down the Wheat Board. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture is expressing strong opposition to the shutting down of the Wheat Board. The National Farmers Union, which has been in existence for many years in this country, is opposing this move by the government.

Who exactly is the government representing?

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

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate the member has not broadened that scope to the real farmers in western Canada. The western wheat and barley growers, the Grain Growers of Canada and the Canadian Cattlemen's Association all support this initiative that we are moving forward on. As I outlined in my remarks earlier, so do the provincial governments, such as British Columbia because of the Peace River area, Alberta and Saskatchewan, where 85% to 90% of the Canadian Wheat Board commodities are grown.

Manitoba is against it. That is because of the NDP philosophy that we should all be locked into mediocrity; nobody moves, nobody gets hurt.

We are beyond that. These farmers know how to run their businesses. They are looking forward to their marketing freedom. We will get it done.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the House for this opportunity to speak at second reading of Bill C-18.

The bill is a mistake in the making. We are watching a terrible economic mistake unfold before our very eyes. I must admit that there is a feeling of helplessness on this side because the Conservatives have chosen to use their majority to ram this change through to the rural prairie economic base without even consulting with farmers or allowing them the vote that they are guaranteed through legislation.

I preface my remarks by correcting one thing. The minister would have us believe that the May 2, 2011 general election was a referendum on the future of the Wheat Board. He would also have us believe that by virtue of the fact that the election was won by a majority it satisfies the condition of the Wheat Board legislation that guarantees farmers the right to vote on the future of the Wheat Board. I categorically reject that point of view.

I received telephone calls from prairie farmers in Saskatchewan and Manitoba who told me they had voted Conservative because of some other aspect they liked about the Conservative Party platform, which is their right to do. They also said that just because they elected that government it did not give the Conservatives the right to abolish the Wheat Board. They had understood that through the legislation they had been promised an opportunity to vote on it.

The minister has denied farmers the right to vote on how they would market their grain in the future. Therefore, when the minister stands and says he is giving farmers more marketing choice, if he is serious about letting farmers choose how to market their grain, why in God's name will he not let them vote on the issue? It is their democratic right.

If the minister is confident and believes his own rhetoric that the world would be a better place for farmers if they did away with the single desk monopoly of the Wheat Board, then why will he not put it to farmers for a vote? He claims he has the support of the majority of farmers on this issue. Why is he afraid of putting it to a democratic vote?

There has only been one genuine consultation with farmers on this issue. In the absence of a vote being sponsored by the government, the Canadian Wheat Board hired an independent third party and undertook a properly constructed vote using a fair question and fair methodology. As a result, 22,000 Canadian prairie grain farmers voted in favour of keeping the single desk monopoly. That is 62% of prairie grain producers. I was disappointed as I thought the numbers would be higher. We had estimated that about 75% of prairie grain producers supported the single desk monopoly. Nonetheless, 62% is a clear majority on that question.

There is no other form of consultation that is fair. The minister said that when he goes home and talks to farmers they tell him that they want to get rid of the Wheat Board. That does not constitute a scientific survey of the opinions of prairie farmers.

There is no business case for abolishing the Canadian Wheat Board. If there were it would have been tabled in the House along with the legislation. We are dealing with a notion here. We are dealing with the personal opinion of the Minister of Agriculture, who believes that we should abolish the single desk monopoly. I have empirical evidence to show that his view is that of the minority.

I also have well-documented and independently analyzed empirical evidence which shows that the Canadian Wheat Board has provided the best possible price for Canadian farmers year after year. As well, it has minimized their risks. It has provided both of those functions and many others which I will discuss if time permits.

The minister talked about offering farmers certainty, stability and clarity over the next farming year. In actual fact he is being reckless and irresponsible. At a time of economic uncertainty within the country, he is turning the rural prairie economy upside down on its head. There is no guarantee or certainty that the next farming year will provide a stable marketplace for grain farmers' products. There would be no underwriting and guarantees which are presently associated with the Wheat Board on pricing, on shipping capacity and on marketing capacity. All of that is now up in the air.

The minister would have us believe that farmers were better off in the 1920s when they were being gouged by the robber barons and the railway barons. The very reason farmers pooled together to act collectively was to protect themselves from the abuse of the powers that be, those people who held power over the farmers. That is how the Wheat Board evolved. That is how it graduated to being the largest and most successful grain marketing company in the world. It is a great Canadian institution wholly owned and operated by Canadian farmers. It is a brilliant concept.

It works so well that it irritates the heck out of our American neighbours. For years they have been trying to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board because they know it is a huge advantage for Canadian farmers, so much so that they claim it constitutes an unfair trading subsidy and violates international trade agreements. The U.S. filed 13 separate complaints first with the GATT and then with its successor the WTO. The WTO ruled 13 times that there is nothing unfair about Canadian farmers acting collectively to sell their products and look out for their own interests by commanding the best possible prices.

It is hard enough being a farmer with the droughts, floods, pestilence and all the other challenges farmers face. That is now coupled with the economic uncertainty of the 2011 Canadian economy. It boggles my mind that the minister would follow his own ideology, in spite of the empirical evidence to the contrary, and would throw this spanner into the economy of the three prairie provinces.

It worries me when ideology trumps reason, logic, economics, research and empirical evidence. It is a terrible thing to be setting policy by the notions of a failed ostrich rider. The man does not speak from any authority as a grain farmer; he raises ostriches in North Battleford. He criticizes my colleague for being from the good city of Guelph. He criticizes me for living in the good city of Winnipeg. Only he is being driven by this notion, which is a weak notion at that.

There is a great deal of collateral damage associated with the dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board. The downtown area of Winnipeg that I represent has become the world centre of excellence for grain. That is not only because of its marketing capacity. It is a $6 billion a year corporation, the head office of which is in my riding. It ships 20 million tonnes of class A, the best grain in the world, from Canada.

It has also created the Canadian International Grains Institute, a satellite campus of grain excellence that does research and development funded by the Canadian Wheat Board. It develops and customizes new strains and product lines to fit the markets where the Wheat Board promotes our grain. The Canadian Grain Commission sets the grain quality standards so that we can continue to enjoy our reputation for having the highest quality grain in the world.

All of that will be lost. We will no longer be the centre of excellence. The big grain companies and private grain companies came Winnipeg because it is the centre of excellence and set up their headquarters next to the Canadian Wheat Board. They will no longer need to keep their head offices in Canada once the Wheat Board disappears, which it will because this notion of a voluntary wheat board with dual marketing is a pure chimera. It is a myth.

As a diversion, I will tell the House why it is plainly a myth. If the initial price for grain offered by a voluntary wheat board was higher than the market price there would be no orders. People would go to the market for grain. If the initial price offered was lower than the market price, it would have all of the orders but would have to sell the grain at a loss. That is a recipe for bankruptcy. It is exactly what happened in Australia.

When Johnny Howard, our Prime Minister's Australian counterpart, had the same brain fart of an idea that the Australian wheat board should be privatized. It lasted exactly three years as a voluntary board once its monopoly was taken away and it went bankrupt. Sure enough, that market share went into the hands of the private grain companies, the multinational agrifood businesses, which wanted to control the food supply system from seed to final retail production. They wanted it all. Believe me, they have been salivating over this market segment for 75 years.

The Conservative government is going to do the Americans' dirty work for them and hand them that market share on a silver platter, without any consideration of the best interests of the very grain producers who it is duty bound and honour bound to represent. It is amazing that the Canadian Wheat Board should finally crash because it has been sabotaged by the minister, a rat in the woodpile. The minister is undermining the very institution that he is honour bound by his office to uphold and be the champion of. He is not supposed to be the saboteur of the Wheat Board; he is supposed to be the champion of the Wheat Board. There is an enemy within. The Canadian farmers have elected an enemy.

The implications are profound for the prairie economy if the Canadian Wheat Board disappears.

I will dwell briefly on the economic impact just for the city of Winnipeg, because it is the area I represent. A PricewaterhouseCoopers study in 2005 estimated the gross output of the CWB impact in Winnipeg at $94.6 million. There are 400 employees in its head office. The spin-off employment of the CWB is estimated at more than 2,000 jobs. At the provincial level, the CWB gross output contribution is another $323 million, with more than 3,000 jobs of a total labour-income impact of more than $140 million. I cannot tell the members how frustrated we are.

I would like to deal with some of the corresponding collateral damage, as I am calling it. For the Port of Churchill, the minister has now come up with $5 million a year for five years to offset the impact on the Port of Churchill. I read that as an acknowledgement that the Wheat Board no longer shipping its grain through Churchill would have a profound impact. However, it begs the question of why he is so eager to abolish the Canadian Wheat Board when it will cost him a minimum of $25 million in impacts that the government otherwise would not have to shell out. It is money it does not have, I might had. It has to borrow every penny that it shovels into this.

As to the closing costs, I asked the minister this question. What would it cost to shut down a $6 billion a year corporation, the most successful and largest grain marketing company in the world? KPMG, an independent authority, estimated as much as $500 million. It would have to pay severance to all the employees. It would have to deal with contracts that had been signed for the delivery of grain, that now would be broken. It would have to dismantle overseas marketing offices.

The average layperson does not understand the marketing network we have established here. It is magnificent and that is why it is so successful. Now the government will borrow $500 million on the open market. I do not know where that kind of money is borrowed from these days. That is just to fulfill this free market flight of fancy of that minister who got into politics specifically to abolish the Canadian Wheat Board.

I remember when he was the assistant to Elwin Hermanson, whom the Conservatives have happily put in charge of the grain commission, again, infiltrating these organizations to destroy them and collapse them from within. The minister has breathed, eaten and slept abolishing the Canadian Wheat Board ever since he came to Ottawa. Now, in spite of reason, logic, economics and empirical evidence, he is hell-bound and determined to do the dirty deed and abolish what we believe is a great Canadian institution.

It would not be paranoid to presume that this is part of a pattern. Every time there is a trade advantage to Canada, those guys feel compelled to sacrifice it and give it up, such as the softwood lumber agreement. When the Americans came breathing down our necks telling us we were enjoying far too much advantage in that industry, we forfeited.

When it comes to the Wheat Board and when it becomes evident that we do it better, what do we do? We give it up and forfeit it. We yield to the bullies in an international trade situation and give up our advantage.

We do not have champions here; we have cowards in giving up so readily, and again, driven by ideology and not by anything else.

As I close, I would like to move an amendment. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

“this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-18, an act to reorganize the Canadian Wheat Board and to make consequential and related amendments to certain acts, because it:

(a) fails to respect the will of the majority of prairie farmers who have expressed a desire to maintain the current composition and structure of the Canadian Wheat Board;

(b) ignores the fact that the Canadian Wheat Board is funded, controlled, and directed by Canadian farmers and removes their autonomy to maximize prices and minimize risks in the western wheat and barley market; and

(c) makes sweeping decisions on behalf of prairie farmers by eliminating the single-desk system that has provided prairie farmers with strength and stability for nearly 70 years.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The motion is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Guelph.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have been on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food for three years now and wheat farmers have been before the committee on many occasions. We continually ask them, in their opinion, why manufacturers have not begun to build pasta plants out west. They say, almost unanimously, that they do not want to do this because of the distance from their markets, not because of the Canadian Wheat Board.

However, now that the Wheat Board is on its deathbed, they have said, through the Alliance Grain Traders Inc., only now will they open a pasta plant in Saskatchewan. In one of its reports it said, “Margin erosion is combated by negotiating lower prices from growers”.

Does the member believe the plant will go in there now because it knows it will pay less for its grain, and it will be at the expense of Canadian farmers? What delusion is the minister under to think farmers are going to do better by getting rid of the Wheat Board?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, studies have indicated that abolishing the Canadian Wheat Board would take hundreds of millions of dollars out of the pockets of prairie producers and put them into the pockets of the shareholders of the private grain companies. People should remember that the Canadian Wheat Board is a non-profit organization. It is not even allowed to retain assets or income. All returns have to be returned to the producer. The profit margin will go to the big grain companies. In the case of this new pasta plant, it is salivating. It anticipates it will be able to get its grain cheaper, which means farmers will earn less.

While I am on my feet, let me also deal with an issue that the minister raised. He said that the only reason the pasta plant was being built was because the product would be value-added and that would happen more. In actual fact, in western Canada milling capacity has increased 11% from 2001 to 2011 and four new mills have been built in western Canada in 2011 compared to 10 years ago. Four new mills happened under the current situation, whereas in North Dakota there was not one new mill. In fact, the number of mills remained static.

Entrepreneurs could in fact add value to the raw product in Canada under the current system. The fact that they did not may be due to many reasons. However, the minister is misleading Canadians if he is saying that this is going to be a free market nirvana now and all of these mills are going to sprout out of the ground like mushrooms. It simply is not true.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the disadvantages both members opposite have is coming late to the discussion. I guess neither of them is aware of the failures of the pasta plant projects that tried to take place in western Canada, but were shut down because the Wheat Board would not allow producers to even use their own grain. It would not allow them to sell to the producers. I guess the member opposite did not know that.

We certainly would welcome a new pasta plant there. According to the logic of the Liberals, it would seem that we should shut down every factory in Canada if we want to protect the prices of our natural resources, which is ridiculous. I do not know where they are coming from in even making a suggestion like that.

I want to ask the member one thing. I talked to some Winnipeg-based businesses that do marketing for farmers in some of the specialty crops. They told me they had around 1,000 customers right now and they were absolutely thrilled that they would have the opportunity. They said that the problem for them would be accessing enough employees to do the work when moving from 1,000 to potentially 15,000 customers.

Why is he not prepared to support the Winnipeg businesses that really see this as an opportunity?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, it gives me an opportunity to answer the question that the member should have asked, which is, What is going to happen to Canadian wheat as a commodity? I can answer that question for him. Canadian wheat, which has a reputation around the world as the highest quality and maintained as such by the work of the Canadian Wheat Board and its quality control, will be lost as a Canadian commodity because it will be blended.

When the big agrifood and grain companies take over and we sell our number one grade, fine quality Canadian wheat, it will be mixed with some substandard wheat from somewhere else in the United States and will be sold offshore that way. Our customers are going to lose their confidence in the Canadian product if we cannot maintain the highest standards that we currently enjoy and the reputation that we earned stemming from that.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Madam Speaker, last night some of us were here in a debate trying to support democracy in Ukraine. It seems ironic that we are now witnessing the erosion of democracy in our own country.

I have before me a communiqué from the Canadian Wheat Board Alliance, a non-partisan group, in support of the Canadian Wheat Board. It stated:

At a widely quoted election forum in Minnedosa, Manitoba, [the minister] said his party “respects the vote” of farmers who support the single desk and suggested there would not be any attempt to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board unless a majority of producers vote for it.

He went on to say:

—until farmers make that change, I’m not prepared to work arbitrarily. They are absolutely right to believe in democracy. I do, too.

This was during the election. We get the spin that somehow, because many people voted for the Conservatives on the Prairies, this is the mandate. What about the fact that farmers are only 2% of the population spread over 57 western ridings? Claiming the Conservative Party has a mandate from farmers to change the Wheat Board is ridiculous. Most urban voters agree that farmers should decide this issue.

Would my colleague please comment on this?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, if we take the Conservatives at their word that they want to give more marketing choice to farmers, why do they not let them vote on it as the legislation demands and as the minister promised farmers?

He is being disingenuous, which perhaps is too kind a word, when he says that all western farmers want to do away with the Canadian Wheat Board. He certainly was disingenuous with the people of that area, saying, “Go ahead and vote Conservative. It does not mean it is a referendum on the Wheat Board”. Then he stood up on May 2 and said that he got a referendum on the Wheat Board.

The only way to test the merits of the argument of the Conservatives is to put it to farmers and let them decide.

If, on a fair question and a democratic vote, farmers say they want to do away with the Wheat Board even by 51%, the government will not hear another word from me or my colleagues in the NDP. We would respect the democratic will of farmers, not ignore it and insult it the way the government has.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, this past summer supposedly the board sent out a plebiscite and it said it had 22,000 supporters. Would the hon. member tell me why it did not sign up acres in the 22,000 supporters? Could he explain to me why there is accredited exporters here in Ottawa saying they cannot source grain?

Why can the board not do both? Why can it not offer the grain from these 22,000 supporters to the people who are already marketing that grain on their behalf?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, I do not think my colleague should challenge the merits or the veracity of the plebiscite that took place. It was done by an independent third party. I am trying to remember if it was KPMG or PricewaterhouseCoopers. It was a clear question, a fair question. We did not need any Clarity Act on the question: “Do you want to maintain the single desk monopoly?” A clear majority of farmers voted to keep it.

We have to respect that. If one calls oneself a democrat, one has to respect the democratic will of people as clearly expressed in a fair and honest vote.

The Conservatives may be unwilling to uphold their obligation to farmers to conduct a vote as per the legislation, but the Canadian Wheat Board had one and the results were clear. We have to respect that. It is all about respect.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives have misrepresented in the House when they said that Ontario farmers had a choice. Ontario farmers were given a vote. Their markets were completely different. There is a much smaller market into the United States as opposed to the massive distances covered by prairie farmers.

Why is it the hon. member thinks that the government is opposed to allowing farmers the right to vote?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, let me reiterate that if there were such a vote and the prairie farmers voted even by 51% or 50% plus one, that would be the last the House would hear about it from us.

If the farmers of Ontario voted to do away with the marketing system they had, that is their business; that is their right, just as it should be the right of prairie farmers to make that choice. It should not be arbitrarily imposed by a bunch of ideological zealots.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Before resuming debate, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona, Aboriginal Affairs.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, we should not even be debating Bill C-18 today. Alongside tens of thousands of western Canadian farmers, members on this side of the House await the plebiscite the Conservative government is legally required to hold under section 47.1 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act before it can apply its ideological scalpel to a Canadian institution that has been the backbone of grain farming across the Prairies for decades.

Nevertheless, if we have learned anything from the behaviour of the government in the early days of this Parliament, it is that its ministers are rolling out the greatest hits of the Reform Party. Throwing caution to the wind, it is stifling debate as much as possible and taking the rest of Canada along with it no matter who it negatively impacts.

Neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food has ever made much of a secret of their single-minded desire for the death of the single desk system. What they have kept from enquiring Canadians are the reasons they refuse to hold a plebiscite of the Wheat Board membership, or even why in March, heading into an election, the minister assured farmers that there was no reason to worry and that their opinions would be sought on the Wheat Board when it came forward in this Parliament.

Once it became clear that the minister had no intention of honouring his March pledge, the Canadian Wheat Board held its own plebiscite on the continued operation of the single desk under the Canadian Wheat Board. The results were clear. The majority of western Canadian grain farmers chose the stability, competitive advantage and clout, not just in Canada but overseas, that it enjoys due to its numbers brought together under a single desk.

In August 68,000 ballots were mailed out to farmers. Over the course of that month meetings were held across the Prairies and hundreds of farmers came in off the fields for meetings as harvest began simply to ensure their voices were heard. Farmers for both sides attended these meetings. They listened respectfully and made their points as to why they believed it should go or why it should stay.

I attended several of these meetings and was astonished, as were the organizers. Never before had they held a single meeting where over 500 farmers attended, such as the one in Saskatoon in early August. I set out to listen to the different viewpoints of various farmers and at one meeting was pulled aside by one farmer from the Saskatoon area. He said to me, and I will paraphrase because he used much more colourful language, “I haven't voted Liberal in the last thousand years and it's unlikely that I will in the next thousand years, but I certainly did not vote Conservative so that they could kill the Canadian Wheat Board”.

I may not have changed his vote, but what he wanted to ensure was that someone in Ottawa was listening to him. Sadly, he could not go to his own MP because just when farmers are asking them to listen and represent the farmers' best interests, Conservative MPs are nowhere to be seen or heard. Not one. Not one single Conservative prairie MP has the courage to stand up and defend the rights of his or her constituents to hold a government-conducted plebiscite as mandated by section 47.1 of the act.

The Conservative Party only received 24% of eligible Canadian votes, which certainly does not constitute a mandate to run roughshod over the democratic rights of farmers to maintain their livelihoods under the Canadian Wheat Board Act.

Desperate to have their voices heard, farmers held their own plebiscite. The results of the plebiscite were unambiguous with a 56% response rate, a number similar to the turnout in many recent general elections and byelections, including in the minister's own riding. Sixty-two per cent of wheat producers and 51% of barley producers voted to retain their single-desk marketing and sales arm under the Canadian Wheat Board.

Regrettably, the minister simply dismissed the results as an expensive survey. Unfortunately, Canadians do not have the same opportunity to dismiss their muzzled prairie MPs' own election results similarly.

Many argue that with the fragile state of the world economy, the CWB is more important than ever before for the grain-exporting prairie provinces. The livelihoods of Canadian farmers and small businesses are at stake.

Recently even The Economist wrote that, concerned about the death of the single desk marketing system:

Smaller producers, faced with mounting marketing costs, will inevitably have to sell their farms to bigger rivals or agribusiness companies....devastating small prairie towns, whose economies depend on individual farmers with disposable income.

I have heard from farmers, even some who favour killing the Wheat Board, that thousands of farms managed by farmers whose age exceeds the average age of farmers in Canada, which is 58 years, are likely to close. With their closure so too will the small town and village economies supported by those farmers suffer. We risk seeing an end to a number of small towns in rural parts of our prairie provinces.

The board markets and sells on behalf of every wheat and grain producer in the Prairies to some 70 countries and 100 buyers across the world. Its unique position allows it to act as a price setter instead of a price taker.

In contrast to The Economist, the Wall Street Journal welcomed the impending demise of the Canadian Wheat Board noting, “more money goes back to farmers than under an open-market system,” the open market system that the government is proposing. It went on to say:

Grain handlers such as Cargill Inc., Viterra Inc. and Bunge Ltd. could see their roles—and returns—in Canadian grain markets grow.

At whose expense? No one else other than our prairie wheat farmers. Recently in a report from Alliance Grain Traders Inc., which is conveniently only now opening a pasta plant in Saskatchewan, said its “margin erosion is combatted by negotiating lower prices from growers”.

From my time on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, I have learned that a major reason that pasta manufacturing has not been meaningfully undertaken in the west is it is too far distant from a market that would consume its products and transportation costs would be too great.

Now that the Canadian Wheat Board will be abolished, there is the opportunity to get the lowest possible price for grain from farmers who are no longer able to set the best possible price that will allow pasta manufacturers to offset the transportation costs of marketing their pasta, again at the expense of western Canadian farmers.

What is clear is that the protection of the family farm in the prairie provinces is not a priority under the Conservative government. It would prefer to create an environment that would see farmers fail than support an environment that protects the way of life for multitudes of farmers and their families whose way of life will be dramatically changed and not for the better.

For whom will they be changed? For the well-being of large agribusiness and foreign interests. Without the Canadian Wheat Board which returns excess profits to the pockets of farmers, the larger rail and grain companies that can sustain their own networks will finally have access to those farmers' profits. Their interest is not the well-being of farmers, but rather their own bottom line. Farmers will be left to bid one another down to the lowest possible price to sell their grain.

We know not only from studies but intuitively that farmers will fall prey to the gluttonous appetites for profit of grain companies and the railways, appetites that have been held in check by a steady diet controlled by the Canadian Wheat Board. In the wake of the minister's pronouncements on the death of the CWB a month ago, shares in Viterra dramatically spiked.

Moreover, there have been no assurances made by the government regarding Canadian food sovereignty. It is one thing that small family farms will be bought up by massive agribusiness; it is entirely another to see Canadian farms expropriated by foreign interests not unlike the purchasing of our mineral rich lands out west, concerned more with their own national food security and not at all with Canadian food sovereignty.

It certainly does not help that just yesterday the United States took a backward step with buy America and unilaterally thickened the border in an effort to stimulate its own economy. Meanwhile the Canadian government is prepared to give itself a hernia removing all of the tools the Canadian wheat and barley producers rely on to protect their livelihood, including the Canadian Wheat Board.

The number one trade ask by Americans has always been to get rid of the Wheat Board because it gives our farmers a competitive advantage. Now with the Prime Minister as the head waiter and bottle washer to the Americans, we are preparing to hand them a huge agribusiness, their very request on a platter with absolutely nothing in return, not even a modest tip from a country which has shrugged its shoulders and wrapped itself in the shroud of American protectionism.

There have been 14 challenges to the World Trade Organization from the United States demanding that we get rid of the Canadian Wheat Board. In every instance, the WTO has ruled in our favour and allowed western grain producers to maintain their valuable resource.

Why are there challenges? It is because the Wheat Board gives our farmers a competitive advantage that is the envy of others around the world. We must make no mistake that once it is gone the provisions our trade agreements say that it can never be brought back. We would be foolish and naive to think that our supply managed industries, like chicken, dairy, eggs and turkey, are not already now being lined up in the sights of the government for their demise.

This is not about limiting choice for farmers. The CWB is in a unique position to market different qualities of grain at different times of the year to different markets through a board that knows it serves the diverse needs of many farmers. Its strength is in the fact that all farmers across the Prairies are in it together. Its elected directors are farmers, too. They understand what it is to sell and market grain, the best grain in the world.

Should this legislation pass, by reducing the number of directors from 10 elected and 5 appointed to simply 5 government appointed directors to the 5-year interim voluntary wheat board, the Conservative government would have it that only its own people, dictated to from the Prime Minister's office, speak to the multitude of farmers.

Overwhelmingly, in Wheat Board election after election, directors who support the single desk under the Wheat Board are returned. Farmers elect these directors and yet, once again, suppressing any sort of democratic expression, the government places a higher value on ideology than on the experience of farmers.

These are farmers who understand the virtue of saving $1,400 per producer car on transportation costs through the CWB's unique bargaining position, a savings that will be almost immediately lost. Presently, it is in a position to negotiate with CN and CP Rail to ensure the adequate supply of producer cars. This, too, will be lost.

One of the more substantial complaints from within the agricultural industry is that Canada is regarded as an unreliable supplier of agricultural products by virtue of the fact that it cannot get its supplies to port along the railway. In large part, this is a direct result of the ongoing disputes between suppliers and CN-CP Rail.

The agricultural industries anticipated that these concerns would be addressed in the rail service review tabled in March of this year. Meanwhile, seven months later, we are talking about stripping prairie farmers of transportation infrastructure while the government shelves yet another report.

The government has failed to appoint a facilitator in good time. It has failed to address the day-to-day logistical issues of shippers, like getting them the right number of cars and on time, and is telegraphing to the farmers, who will be affected by this in large part, farmers who do not have immediate access to the border, farmers who are not on the main line, that where once their concerns were difficult to address with the rail companies, now they will be almost impossible to address.

I have learned, through my discussion with the owners of Shortline Railways, that they will no longer be able to maintain their railways as they will no longer have the support of the Canadian Wheat Board once it is gone. The rest of the farmers will still not have any resolution along the main lines.

As it stands, hundreds of grain facilities have access to only one rail line and are held captive by either CP or CN, subject to their charges. Through the Canadian Wheat Board, farmers have had the clout to, as a unit, stand up to both CN and CP to get the best deal for their transportation costs possible.

In my conversations with western Canadian grain farmers, all too often I have heard tragic stories about the treatment of producers at the hands of the railways. The railway companies have such disregard for wheat farmers that often they will send railway cars with holes in them without any consideration for what grain will be lost along the way. Farmers, individually, are up against a behemoth, where once their collective clout enabled them recourse in the face of such poor treatment.

The government also refuses to acknowledge that there is a value added of $500 million annually in services provided by the Canadian Wheat Board in the form of critical weather analysis and research and development, as well as the transportation benefits. Even by using a network of over 800 weather stations located on farms across western provinces, the Canadian Wheat Board provides accurate, up-to-the-minute weather information, as well as grain research and innovation.

In a token offering in the legislation, the government is recommending a voluntary check-off to be applied toward grain research and innovation. What farmer will check off additional money for research and innovation while her or his profits are going go up in smoke? However, the government seems intent on spending money, estimated conservatively at almost $500 million, in a time when it claims that we are still in a fragile economic state, to demobilize an organization that has yet to require any federal funding. It has been farmer funded for farmer profits.

Forsaking billions of dollars in revenue with no sound replacement model is reckless. The government has made it clear that it will only listen to farmers so long as they are saying something the government wants to hear. Canadian farmers know what is in their own best interests and the government would do well to listen to their collective voice, not simply to the voices of the few who will be in a better position than the many to profit from the demise of the single desk system.

For our part, the Liberal Party entirely opposes this reckless, ideological legislation and finds no value in the feckless rhetoric of the minister and members content to vote like lemurs for the demise of a system that is still supported by the majority of its members.

I challenge the minister and the party opposite. If they are not afraid of the results of a plebiscite on the continued existence of the single desk system and if they truly feel that a majority of western Canadian farmers are on side with their prescription for the death of the Canadian Wheat Board, they should withdraw their legislation and hold their own plebiscite on the issue, as mandated by the very legislation they hope to destroy, the very legislation that western Canadian farmers hold so sacrosanct, that the necessity for democratic expression is enshrined within it to protect farmers from the very abuse that the Minister of Agriculture is currently perpetrating.

In closing, I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #40

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I declare the motion lost.

Bill C-18--Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As is apparent from the two motions in just an hour and a half to attempt to block debate on this issue, I would like to advise that agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-18, An Act to reorganize the Canadian Wheat Board and to make consequential and related amendments to certain Acts.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

For the benefit--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I would like to have a little order.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

For the benefit of the House, I intend to allot two additional days for second reading of the bill. Including today, this will be three full days of debate. This is a debate about a choice between providing marketing freedom for western Canadian farmers and a seven-decade monopoly. Western Canadian farmers should be able to expect us to make a yes or no decision so that we can let a committee get on with its job of studying this bill in detail.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

On a point of order, the hon. member for Malpeque.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

On a point of order, Madam Speaker, how can the government abuse Parliament by first not allowing a vote of producers, as required under the law, and then get up and propose closure after two hours of debate? How could you allow that to happen, Madam Speaker?

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. It sounds a lot like debate to me.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

Second reading

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, in terms of process, it is interesting.

My question for my colleague is of a very serious nature. We have a government, and the Prime Minister—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

They are a little sensitive, and I can understand and appreciate why they are so sensitive on this issue.

After there is a debate, members are provided the opportunity to ask questions. I would suggest that the government would want to be a little patient so I can—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I am not clear if this is a point of order or a question pursuant to the intervention of the Liberal member.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

It is a question, Madam Speaker, and I do not blame you for the confusion, because the government is very antsy, given the interesting reaction it had.

It is interesting to note that today we have a bill—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. Questions and comments.

On a point of order, the hon. member for Wascana.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, following a speech, which was the speech given by the member for Guelph, there is the normal question and comment period. That is what the member for Winnipeg North is endeavouring to do: participate in questions and comments.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order. I would ask for a little order so that I can hear. I assumed the member was rising on a point of order. I am now calling for questions and comments and I will proceed in that order.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board.

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

Madam Speaker, I was very dismayed to hear my colleague from Guelph call for an end to debate on this bill. We have waited years to debate this bill, and now the Liberals do not want to debate it. We are very confused as to why they would not want to do that.

When I heard the member speak a little earlier, it was clear that one of the reasons they do not want to speak—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. This does not seem to be a point of order. Is it a question?

It is a question. I apologize.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am almost there.

As I heard the member for Guelph speak—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Is this on a point of order? The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Yes, Madam Speaker, now it is a point of order.

I was up on my feet shortly after the vote was called. You had asked for questions and I had twice indicated that, yes, I was standing on a question.

What I want to suggest, Madam Speaker, is that you review what has taken place. On both occasions I made it very clear I was standing up for a question. On both occasions, Madam Speaker, you had canvassed to ask if there were questions on the bill, and I said yes.

It was the government, in defying what is truly correct in terms of democratic principles by bringing forward its motion, that caused a bit of excitement. It did not—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I think the hon. member has made his point. We will indeed review the blues, but it is normally the procedure, when a member of a party speaks, to go to other members to ask the first question.

That is what I will do at the moment.

I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary to complete his question, so that we can move to an answer.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary said earlier that the Liberals moved the motion to shut down debate of the bill. I would like to make a correction. We wanted to adjourn the debate today but we did not want to shut down debate of the bill. I would ask the member to withdraw that statement. We want to debate and they do not want anything to do with it.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Very respectfully, this is not a point of order, once again. I would like the hon. parliamentary secretary to complete his question, so that we—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate your patience. I understand why it would be tried.

I just got a great reminder in the last couple of days as to why we need to move as quickly as possible on this issue. I finally got to see the teddy bears that the Wheat Board has sent to the opposition. They are little teddy bears eight inches high. They have a little vest on them that sells the Canadian Wheat Board.

Farmers get up early in the morning. Early in the spring they go out in the mud and seed their crops. The Wheat Board takes their money and buys teddy bears. Farmers spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on input for their crop, and the Wheat Board spends their money on teddy bears.

Farmers work all night to get their crops in. The Wheat Board spends their money on teddy bears. There is no clearer reason—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. The hon. member for Guelph in response.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I did not quite hear a question in that comment--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Malpeque on a point of order.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Madam Speaker, I want to know why the parliamentary secretary gets up in this House and consistently lies. The Wheat Board had nothing to do with these bears. It is farmers who raised the money at rallies, to make their point—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. Order. I would like a little bit of order, please. The hon. member for Guelph.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

First, Madam Speaker, I would like to thank all my colleagues for being so anxious to get up and answer all the questions that are being posed to me. I appreciate it.

I want to point out that the member opposite is misleading Canadians when he suggests that we are trying to adjourn debate on the entire bill. I am disappointed, frankly, that he would try to do that. The adjournment was merely for today, and as has been stated by the member for Bourassa. In fact it is the Conservatives who are attempting to silence the debate on this issue.

I am also disappointed with that. Canadians are disappointed with that. western Canadian farmers who are looking for answers on why they are not having a plebiscite pursuant to section 47.1 of the Canadian Wheat Board are most particularly disappointed with that.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, what does the hon. member think of the fact that this government is displaying such ignorance and such a lack of willingness to listen to the farmers who have spoken out against what it is doing? The result of the plebiscite has been known for a month now and the majority of farmers have said they want the Canadian Wheat Board to continue operating.

What does the member think about the fact that the government is showing such contempt for the voices of western farmers who elected pro single desk Wheat Board directors to represent them?

What are the Conservatives going to say to their constituents when they go back to hear from the farmers in their very communities that they want the Wheat Board to continue to market some of the best wheat in the world?

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, it never ceases to amaze me that the government is driven by ideology instead of evidence, first, on the omnibus crime bill and, now, on this particular piece of legislation.

I look at the evidence; I do not look at ideology. The telltale signs are when the government makes this announcement, the shares in Viterra spike. When it makes this announcement, suddenly, Alliance Grain Traders Inc. decides only now to build a manufacturing plant in Saskatchewan to make pasta. Why? Because it said so, because it knows it is going to pay less for western Canadian grain. Those are the telltale signs. That is the evidence that the Conservative Party refuses to look at when it makes these ideological decisions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said the other day, in terms of responding to a question in question period:

The fact of the matter is that western farmers voted for marketing freedom, and that is what they are going to get.

What I have found is that the current government, more than any other government that I am aware of, just feels that it has this mandate that it can do whatever it is that it wants. If we take a look at prairie grain wheat farmers and the fact that they had a legitimate plebiscite in which in excess of 60% of those grain farmers said, “We want to keep the Wheat Board”, the current government, headed by the current Prime Minister has made it very clear that it does not care what the farmers want, and that is reiterated by the motion that was brought forward just a few minutes ago to limit the amount of debate on the Wheat Board.

My question for my colleague is, what type of leadership does he think this speaks of? How does he feel our farmers in rural Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta are going to respond when they see the type of action that the government has superimposed on them? Does he believe the government really cares about prairie grain wheat farmers?

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale is rising on a point of order?

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I waited a few minutes because it got very animated in here.

I would like you to check the blues. The member for Malpeque clearly used unparliamentary language toward the parliamentary secretary, as well as a prop, in his vociferous comments. I would like you to check that and then ask for his apology.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

On the first point, I did not hear any unparliamentary language. However, we will check the record to see if such incident did occur and we will get back to the House, if necessary.

On the second point, members will know that the use of props and other objects to support their points, of course, is not permitted in the House. I would encourage hon. members to abide by the Standing Orders.

The hon. member for Malpeque is rising on the same point of order?

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Yes I am, Mr. Speaker.

In fact, I did use unparliamentary language and I will withdraw that language. Also, I did hold up one of these bears. However, Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, and I will not hold up the bear again, the government cannot bear the truth when it comes to western farmers.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. I think we are drifting back into debate again.

The hon. member for Guelph.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the question posed to me by the member for Winnipeg North, true leadership would have been exercised, would have been demonstrated by a Prime Minister had he allowed the grain farmers to participate in a vote, a plebiscite, conducted by the government.

So desperate are they to have their voices heard because there is not one MP from the west who is willing to stand up for western Canadian grain farmers. So desperate are they, that they had to hold their own plebiscite.

The government does not show leadership at all. I have already described the Prime Minister as being the head chef and bottle washer for the United States of America. That is not unparliamentary. It is the truth that he is prepared to forfeit and sacrifice the well-being of grain farmers out west for the well-being of Americans.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious matter we are discussing. My constituents have been waiting for this for 70 years. It is really troubling to see the third party make a mockery of this debate. This is a serious debate that we should be having in the House today.

I have a quote here from Professor Charlebois from the University of Guelph. He said:

At the end of the day, single-desk marketing should cease. Such a reform will make Canada more competitive, as the monopoly is a hindrance to our ability to compete globally.

My question is for the hon. member for Guelph. If he will not listen to my farmers who are being oppressed by the tyranny of the Wheat Board, will he at least listen to his own constituents?

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to speak to Mr. Charlebois, and in the same tone he also indicated that there were alternatives to help and fix the Wheat Board that exists. I will acknowledge that the Wheat Board needs to be tweaked, but I will not acknowledge that the Wheat Board needs to be killed.

Further evidence of the fact that the Conservatives ignore the evidence is found in the Economist, which said:

Smaller producers, faced with mounting marketing costs, will inevitably have to sell their farms to bigger rivals or agribusiness companies...devastating small prairie towns, whose economies depend on individual farmers with disposable income.

I say shame on the member for not standing up for those in his riding who want the Wheat Board saved.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is great to be here today to speak to this bill. We have obviously been fed some pretty thin gruel here over the last little while with a few blobs of misinformation, a hail of exaggeration, and maybe a pinch of almost undetectable truth mixed into a base of fear. The opposition is clearly trying to create fear. We think it is time to be far more responsible than that.

I am pleased to speak to this historic bill which would at long last bring freedom to western Canadian wheat and barley producers. It is a great recipe for western Canadian farmers: a cup of innovation, a healthy dollop of value-added jobs along with buckets of opportunity. It is all going to create a smorgasbord of a stronger economy for western Canadian producers. Our government's top priority has been the economy, which is why we think this is so important.

By now most western Canadian farmers have finished harvesting what is reported to be a high quality wheat and barley crop that will feed the world. If we remember the spring, there was a challenge to get that crop in. Our farmers have worked hard all summer and finally they have that off in good condition. They have managed that crop every step of the way. They seeded, sprayed, fertilized and harvested it, and this bill would finally give them the freedom to market it.

Many farmers are farming 5,000, 10,000, 15,000, 20,000 acres and we believe that all Canadian farmers should be able to position their businesses to capture the marketing opportunities that are open to them. They do not need anybody from downtown anywhere telling them what to do with their product. The last thing they need is people lecturing them from outside the designated area, especially when they come from areas where people are free to market their own products. Western Canadian farmers are capable of marketing.

I could talk for hours about how much energy has been put into this by so many people for so long. We are finally going to provide western Canadian farmers with that opportunity.

In the June 2011 Speech from the Throne our government reiterated our commitment and that was to ensure that western Canadian farmers have the freedom to sell wheat and barley on the open market. Today, we are delivering on that promise. With this proposed legislation, we would deliver marketing choice for western grain farmers. We are taking a phased approach to allow the industry time to adjust to the significant change to its business.

The minister has spoken to the overall themes of marketing freedom. I would like to walk members and others through the specifics and the significance of this bill.

The bill would change the Canadian Wheat Board marketing system in an orderly and phased approached. The proposed legislation would remove the monopoly of the Canadian Wheat Board, which for so long many farmers have asked for. It would allow the Canadian Wheat Board to be continued as a voluntary marketing organization for up to five years as it makes its transition to full private ownership. It would allow the Canadian Wheat Board to finalize the 2011-12 crop year.

I think this is important in order to avoid market disruption. The goal is for farmers and grain marketers to be able to start forward contracting to the 2012-13 year, well in advance of August 1, 2012, which is the start of the new crop year.

We owe it to producers to provide market certainty so that they can plan their businesses for the 2012-13 year. Frivolous debate and delay will hurt our farmers and our reputation as a reliable high quality grain supplier. I guess that is why I was so disappointed when I heard that the chair of the Canadian Wheat Board had bought the NDP caucus breakfast about a month ago and then begged it to delay this legislation in any way and so long that it would completely disrupt the market when it was introduced. That is not something that is in the best interests of our farmers.

Farmers want to know what their marketing system will be for the 2012 crop. We need certainty so that Canada can continue to sell wheat and barley, and maintain its reputation as a reliable supplier.

I should also point out that the opposition has left some impression that if the Wheat Board goes, the quality of our grain will go down. It is the farmers who grow the quality grain and not the Canadian Wheat Board.

I am tremendously proud of the work that has been done at the Swift Current research station over the years. It has been responsible for the development of most of the varieties that are grown in western Canada and it continues to do great work. From now on we will be able to keep all of those varieties in Canada. We will not have to watch folks across the border often growing varieties that the Wheat Board would not let us register in our own area even after they had been developed there.

The international grain trade works largely on forward contracting. We know, for future purchases and sales, if there is uncertainty in the marketplace about the rule of who can sell Canadian wheat and barley, there is a risk that buyers will turn to other countries to buy that wheat and barley. We do not want that to happen.

Canadian domestic millers and maltsters have told the government that they want to forward contract wheat and barley a year in advance to their bakery and brewery customers. They want this legislation to be in place as soon as possible. They would see January 1 as late but acceptable. We know the Canadian wheat and barley sector can meet international and domestic needs for high quality products. However, farmers and market participants both need certainty in order to plan their business.

During the transition period, the interim voluntary organization will still be called the Canadian Wheat Board. It will continue to offer farmers the option of pooling their crops with initial prices guaranteed by the Government of Canada, just as is done now. They will continue to benefit from a borrowing guarantee that is backed by the federal government and they will develop a business plan for the revitalization, which will be reviewed by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food no later than 2016.

We fully recognize that there will be costs associated with this transition. The voluntary Canadian wheat board may be a smaller organization than the vast monopoly that exists today. The government is prepared to assist with the extraordinary costs associated with winding down the monopoly. Farmers have always paid the costs of operating the Canadian Wheat Board, and I need to point that out and emphasize it, but the government recognizes that they should not be left alone to deal with the costs of transition to a voluntary mandate. The government is ready to assist while being responsible for the use of taxpayer dollars.

During our extensive consultations, industry raised a number of valid issues around transition. Over the summer, our working group met a wide range of industry players. Their report does an excellent job of addressing the major transitional issues that will be faced by the trade.

I would like to talk about a few of those issues that have been raised by prairie farmers.

The first issue is the voluntary Canadian wheat board's access to elevators, ports and terminals. The working group on marketing freedom examined this issue in quite a bit of detail. It expects and we would agree with it that grain companies will be actively competing for grain volume on the open market. If farmers want to market through the voluntary wheat board, we expect it will be able to contract with grain handlers to handle this tonnage. This happens with all of the other crops.

Curt Vossen, the president of Richardson International, said:

I think you'll see more players, not less. There may be some joint ventures, some alliances, some mergers of new players and existing, but I think you'll see a proliferation because people will inherently want to get into this market.

That is exactly what we have seen happen in Australia over the last couple of years.

I would add that the elevator industry is onside with the direction that we are taking. Grain companies currently offer handling services to third parties who do not own elevators or port terminals, many of whom are actually their direct competitors.

Wade Sobkowich, executive director to the Western Grain Elevators Association, told the working group:

It makes good commercial sense for grain companies to provide services to the CWB, especially in circumstances where the volume of wheat and barley to be handled is significant.

There is precedent as well for competitive, farmer-owned companies competing in the grain trade through alliances and agreements.

I will give a couple of examples of where that will work and where it is already working. The Gardiner Dam Terminal Ltd. is a producer-owned company that has entered into a joint venture agreement with Viterra. They jointly own and operate an inland grain terminal located near Strongfield, Saskatchewan, and a crop input supply business near Broderick, Saskatchewan. This project will deliver better service to farmers while helping a farmer-owned company capture new growth.

Another great example of farmers taking control of the value chain is the Westlock Terminals, a new generation co-op in north central Alberta. This is a wholly, locally owned co-op. My colleague is very familiar with that, I am sure. It kept a local elevator alive while following the merger of Agricore and United Grain Growers 10 years ago.

Today, Westlock has 230 members and recently opened a new plant. Its general manager, Clifford Bell, said that marketing choice “will present WTL with opportunities that have never been seen before by our New Gen Co-op. The changes will provide us with new opportunities and ways of exporting grain”.

Those are just two examples of how farmers can take charge of their own financial future when they are given the opportunity. I see no reason that a voluntary Canadian wheat board cannot succeed as well.

The government will continue to monitor the elevator access situation and step in if needed. This staged approach will provide the necessary checks and balances to help ensure a smooth transition.

The second valid concern that is being raised is the issue of producers' continued access to producer cars. My area is particularly affected by producer cars. We use more of them than anybody on the Prairies. I used them myself for many years. I used them long before the Wheat Board was even interested in them.

I want to say up front that the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly has no bearing on access to producer cars. I also will say that I have been a champion of and have used producer cars over the years and many of the producers in the area were using those producer cars for decades. It was only in the last seven years that the Wheat Board has been involved with them.

The right to use producer cars is involved in the Canada Grain Act. The Canadian Grain Commission allocates those cars to producers. This would not change. Currently, the CWB manages the marketing of grain shipped in producer cars so shipments are related to a sale. Under the new rules, producers and short lines would be able to make commercial arrangements with the grain companies or the voluntary wheat board to market their grain. So it would just give more options to farmers.

Shortline Railways are expecting some adjustments as they would have more options of marketing partners for the grain volumes that they can attract from producers. I have met with many of the shortlines and I can say that the ones that are forward oriented anticipate great opportunities as we move ahead.

For example, Kevin Friesen, president of the Boundary Trail Railway Company, farms in Manitoba. He says that the government is listening and that he is optimistic about the future for shortlines and the use of producer cars. We are already seeing some very exciting partnerships and what the western producer called a breakthrough in railway co-operation. Mobil Grain Ltd. and West Central Road and Rail have teamed up to create Saskatchewan's 12th shortline railway. Big Sky Rail will run on 354 kilometres of track on former CN lines west of Lake Diefenbaker. President Sheldon Affleck, who has done a great job of running his short line, says that there is the possibility to probably at least double and possibly triple what has come off that line. In a short time, he says, that they have found terrific farmer uptake.

I would like to also take a minute to discuss grain quality. As I said earlier, it is farmers who grow the grain, not the Canadian Wheat Board. The quality will not change because of the changes we would make. The Canadian Grain Commission would continue to provide its services, regardless of who is marketing the grain. Our customers continue to choose Canada over the competition, not because of the Wheat Board but because of the relentless commitment to quality by all parts of the value chain and, I would say, including, first and foremost, the farmer, the producer.

The current CWB is an administrator and a grain marketer. It is not the decision-maker on varieties registered for production in Canada and neither are the grain companies. It is the Canadian Food Inspection Agency that oversees and approves the registration of wheat varieties. It is the mandate of the CGC to ensure Canada's high -quality standards are continued. Under marketing freedom, both agencies would be continuing their important work.

It is clear there would be much more opportunity for farmers to grow niche varieties of grain. This is an area where the Canadian Wheat Board has fallen down, even though, on the few examples where it tried it, it was very successful. It never developed this to the point where it should have been. Farmers are already aware that there are new opportunities and they are looking forward to taking advantage of them.

I should address the issue of the funding of future wheat and barley research and market development. I think it is important. I heard my colleague talking about it earlier and he clearly did not understand how it has operated in the past. I do not think he realized that there has been a voluntary check-off and that would continue. We understand that research is key in keeping our grain sector strong and competitive. I will assure members here and farmers that a deduction from producer sales would be established to continue the funding by farmers of those activities. Those funds would support the work that has been done by Western Grains Research Foundation, CIGI and the Canadian Malting Barley Technical Centre.

The deduction would be mandated for the government for the transition and, in the meantime, we will be discussing with the industry a long-term mechanism to support research and market development to keep our great industry moving forward. I think this is a good initiative by the government and will be welcomed by the industry.

Our government knows that innovation drives competitiveness in agriculture. We know we need to keep our wheat producers on the leading edge of innovation and this check-off would help to do that.

Fear is always the biggest enemy of change and we need only to look to the Australian experience to see how a wheat industry can prosper once a monopoly is removed. Australia minister of trade, Dr. Craig Emerson, recently said, “it was a remarkably smooth transition”. He continued by stating, “There is no call to go back, to turn back the clock”. He then said, “it's been one of the great reforms in Australia, and I'd certainly recommend it to everyone”.

Already, we are seeing that same kind of excitement and innovation building not only in Canada but across the continent as buyers begin to jockey for farmers' business. For the first time ever, the Minneapolis Grain Exchange will be accepting Canadian grain for future settlement. Rita Maloney, its director of marketing and business development, said:

We do see this as an area of growth potential for us as it will allow producers, elevators and marketers across Canada to be able to not only use the contract for hedging, but also be part of the delivery process in the future.

Meanwhile, ICE Futures Canada in Winnipeg is working on creating its own spring wheat and durum wheat futures contracts based in western Canada.

Also, the announcement last week of a pasta plant for the Regina area clearly highlights the great improvements that this change will bring about.

The potential that we have in western Canada from these changes is unlimited.

Marketing freedom will usher in a new springtime for Canadian wheat. Over the past two decades, we have seen wheat and barley acreage decline as farmers voted with their air seeders and turned to canola and pulses. A record harvest of canola is forecast this year.

We must not buy into fear. We must embrace a future, a future where producers will be able to manage their businesses with control over who they sell to, where young farmers will finally have the tools they need to make their dreams a reality, where entrepreneurs can harness innovation and add value to their crops beyond the farm gate, where there are new opportunities in grain marketing and where the property rights of all western Canadian wheat and barley farmers are finally restored.

The future of the western Canadian agriculture industry is bright. We are taking this historic and decisive action today to ensure certainty and clarity for producers and grain buyers, who will soon be entering into contracts for wheat and barley for the 2012-13 crop year. Forward thinking, not fearmongering, made Canada the world supplier of choice for wheat. As Marquis wheat did a century ago, marketing freedom will breathe new life into our grain industry.

The government is committed to delivering on our long-term promise to give western Canadian grain marketing farmers the freedom they deserve. The sky will not fall under marketing freedom. In fact, as the minister said yesterday, the sky will be the limit.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a simple question for the hon. member. The government keeps talking about the strong mandate the public and Prairie farmers gave it to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board. I would like the hon. member to tell me why the government refuses to follow what is written in the law. The law states clearly that the farmers have the right to vote on any changes to the Canadian Wheat Board.

What is the government doing about the 60% of Canadians who did not vote for them? Only 40% of Canadians voted for them. What is this government doing to respect the interests of the 60% of farmers who voted by plebiscite to say they wanted to keep the Canadian Wheat Board?

What does the government have to say about that? Why does it not want to hold a referendum or plebiscite? Why does it not want to obey the law? Why does it not want to respect the interests of 60% of the Canadian public? It only respects the interests of the corporations that give it money because we know full well that those who are going to benefit from this are the government's best friends, the big corporations.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the member has reached some conclusions. I am not sure that she has adequate information to do that.

I would like to give her a bit of the history. She maybe does not know that farmers in western Canada did not choose to have the Wheat Board in the first place. In 1943 the government mandated that the Wheat Board would be made mandatory. In the order-in-council, there were two reasons—

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member does not mean to continually mislead the House, but when he said that the farmers of western Canada did not chose to have the Wheat Board, yes they did. They choose it in a plebiscite. I would like to ask him to retract—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. The intervention by the member for Timmins—James Bay is more in the range of debate and not a point of order. I will ask the parliamentary secretary to continue.

The Parliamentary Secretary for the Canadian Wheat Board.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am really concerned about the quality of information the NDP caucus has been given. The member stands on a point of order on something completely inaccurate.

In 1943 the Wheat Board was made mandatory by order-in-council by the government for two reasons.

The first was because the price of grain was rising too high and it wanted to control inflation, so farmers were punished. Their grain prices were held down.

The second reason was that there needed to be a cheap source of grain provided to Europe for the war effort. It was taken from western Canada and shipped to Europe.

He probably does not know that following the war there was a four year agreement where farmers in western Canada provided their grain at $2 a bushel below world price so there was cheap grain supplied to England.

He does not know that in the late 1990s farmers went to jail because they wanted to market their own grain.

Those members need to know those points before they stand and talk about this issue.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question has to do with quality of information. Specifically, I have a math question for the parliamentary secretary.

Numbers are important. They have been important in my life as an engineer and I sometimes make important decisions based on numbers. I understand that 62% of western farmers who were surveyed said that they wanted to keep the Canadian Wheat Board as it is. Now 62% is a bigger number, and some would say quite a bit bigger, than 38%. Therefore, 62 seems to me to be bigger than 38, but I have trouble resolving that because on that side of the House everybody keeps saying that western farmers all want the change.

I have a simple question for the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands. Is 62 a bigger number than 38? Please enlighten me.

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the member opposite this. What is more important, his numbers or freedom for our farmers to make their own decisions on the monopoly? He clearly does not understand what has happened on the Prairies. He does not understand even what happened there this summer by the nature of his question. There are some other things the member needs to understand as well.

I do not know if the member knows that for the entire time I farmed I could not sell my own grain. I produced grain for almost 40 years on my farm and I was not allowed to sell it. He does not seem to understand that there is a problem with that. He does not seem to understand that a good solution would be to set up a marketing agency that would be voluntary so those farmers who chose to pool their grain together could do that and those who did not could market their own grain. It is a great solution. It would solve both problems.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands for his long-term commitment to this issue and for fighting for freedom for farmers.

I have sat in the House and listened to the opposition talk about the sky falling, saying that farmers will have nobody to market their grain to. The member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands came with a positive speech about a voluntary wheat board that would still give choice.

This fall I had to make a choice to sell my canola. The board would not even take my wheat. Most of the acres that I have now will be going into canola, like many other farmers.

After listening to the doom and gloom from the opposition side about the Wheat Board not being able to exist, why would any grain marketer who works for the Canadian Wheat Board not begin looking for a job with Viterra or Cargill? The opposition is painting the Wheat Board as being imbecilic and unable to compete although it has created markets and clients and sales for decades.

Why is the opposition putting the last nail in the Canadian Wheat Board?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Crowfoot has been an advocate for change. In the 11 years that he has been here he has worked hard on this file as well. We have been joined by so many other folks here. I mentioned Westlock. My colleague from Westlock—St. Paul is one of those people who has worked hard on this issue. He has worked with his folks at home on it as well.

What is probably has happened is the opposition listened to the chair of the Canadian Wheat Board. He came here a month ago and asked us to delay the implementation of the act, but it was for so long that the market would have been completely disrupted and farmers would have been unable to market their grain. That is shameful and embarrassing.

As I said before, the best solution is to give farmers the option of a voluntary pool if they want to put their grain together with their neighbours or they can choose to market their grain themselves. We think that this solution will work. If farmers support a voluntary wheat board, then it will thrive very well. There is no reason for the government to force that on anyone.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was not able to hear a straight answer from the parliamentary secretary regarding the government's failure to follow section 47.1 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act that guarantees farmers the right to vote on changes to the Canadian Wheat Board's marketing structure.

I would like to hear why the government is failing to follow the act? Why is it failing to listen to the voices of farmers? Why is it failing to listen to the directors who were elected from the Prairies? Why is the government failing to listen to the rural communities across western Canada that want the Wheat Board to exist? Why do the Conservatives not stand and actually represent the views of westerners in the House?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned because the member has stood a number of times and asked us about Churchill and how we will protect it. We came in yesterday with a package that does exactly that.

The member is talking about people not representing their constituents. If she is to represent her constituents, perhaps she should change her position and work with us. She should be willing to stand and say that she has made a mistake and that the government does stand up for western Canadians, for her riding and for the port of Churchill.

We would welcome the member to join with us, vote to support the bill and get it through as quickly as possible to get all those things taken care of so the western Canadian grain industry and the port of Churchill can continue to thrive.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, before the members go off about the fact that I am not from the west, the Conservatives have a Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who looks after the west coast and he is from Fredericton, New Brunswick. I suggest those members keep silent on that one.

This is not particularly germane to grain, but I have a quick question on this whole theory about the single desk. The Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation is a self-sustaining corporation, which was created in 1969, and is the buyer, processor and marketer of freshwater fish from Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Northwest Territories and part of northwestern Ontario.

Does the hon. parliamentary secretary believe that this, too, is on the chopping block and that the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation also limits the freedom for which he is looking?

[David Anderson, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that this is under the purview of the provinces. The Saskatchewan government has authority over that.

Again, it is good that he speaks for a different part of the country, because we want to provide the same freedom for farmers right across the country. It is the 21st century, people spend, as I have said, hundreds of thousands of dollars on their own operations. They have to pay their expenses. After growing their own crop, harvesting it, buying the bins and the machinery to do that, they should be able to market that product themselves as well.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before I give the hon. member for Churchill the floor, I would point out that I will have to interrupt her at 30 minutes after the hour as this is the normal time for the end of government orders for the day.

The hon. member for Churchill.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand here and represent the people of northern Manitoba, people who are truly a key part of the mosaic of Canada.

As the member of Parliament for Churchill, I am proud to bring forward their voices, the countless voices of Canadians who have come up to me from communities like Churchill, War Lake on the Bay Line, Thicket Portage, Thompson, The Pas where the train starts and people living in Carrot River Valley where they grow all sorts of grains, where they are part of the agricultural economy of the west, people from all across northern Manitoba and others from southern Manitoba, like communities like Dauphin, Swan River, Selkirk, from communities in my neighbouring province, Saskatchewan, from Prince Albert, from Indian Head, from Saskatoon, from Regina, from communities like Medicine Hat, and going further westward.

I have had the chance to hear from so many Canadians from my part of the country, from western Canada, who have asked me to bring forward their voices in this House, voices that have been represented time and time again, whether it was through the plebiscite, through voting for the directors on the board of the Canadian Wheat Board or through the messages they sent to their members of Parliament on the government side, messages that often went unheard, certainly in the last few months, the requests for meetings that were ignored from people across western Canada who said that they believe in the single desk but that they also believe in the need to have their voices heard.

We hear the government talk about freedom but what about the freedom for farmers to vote? Not only did the government completely ignore the plebiscite that was organized by the Canadian Wheat Board, but it followed that up by failing to follow the government act, the Canadian Wheat Board Act, section 47.1, which guarantees the farmers' right to vote on changes to the Canadian Wheat Board's marketing structure.

This failure to allow farmers to vote, to allow farmers who are raising families on farms or in rural communities, to allow the children and the grandchildren of farmers who now live in urban centres across western Canada to ensure that their relatives are being heard, extended relatives who are still struggling, running the family farm, to be heard, speaks to not just the complete disrespect of democracy in our country, but the most fundamental insult to western Canadians in this House, painting them as though they somehow all agree with what the government is saying.

Where is the proof? Where is the referendum? If the Conservatives are so sure, why do they not go out and poll the farmers? Why do they not go out and implement a real referendum so that we can hear farmers' voices directly?

I think we know why. It is because 22,000 people voted in a plebiscite to say that they wanted the Canadian Wheat Board, because a vast majority of farmers across the Prairies voted for directors who are pro-single desk.

To me and to, I think, so many of us living in the west, the fact that we have a government that fails to listen to the very voices of the people whose livelihoods are being threatened and are at risk, already at risk, might I add, given the economic situation in which they live, it is an absolute insult. It really shows how much the government is willing to take the west for granted.

I would like to share a story about a more personal connection to the Wheat Board and what it has meant, I think, for us not just here at home but internationally. When I was 17 years old, I had the chance to do a study, while I was on scholarship studying in Hong Kong, on the comparative advantage that Canada has when it comes to trading wheat. I had the chance to sit down with people at the Wheat Board, look at its sections in terms of research, hear from people in the sales department and listen to people who were part of the chain of production, going back to the poor, the farmer who produces that wheat.

I got to hear how important the work of the Wheat Board was in making sure that our product was the best product going overseas, knowing that the hard work of people in my hometown of Thompson was part of that chain to make sure Canada's best wheat got on the ship at the port of Churchill to go around the world.

I also had the chance to hear from our international partners, from our great trading partner, China, which knew that Canada is known for having the best wheat in the world. That brand of Canadian wheat was not Cargill's, nor Viterra's. It was not any corporation's. It was ours. It is ours. It has been the work of the Canadian Wheat Board working hand in hand with farmers, working hand in hand with producers, the people who work along the transportation lines, the people who work to make sure that our product gets overseas, that has ensured for so many decades that we as Canadians have been able to stand proud and call our wheat the best wheat in the world.

Now we have a government that is not only failing to listen to western farmers, but is all too happy to give that brand away, to give those investments made by hard-working farmers, by families, by rural communities, by communities across western Canada away, to give it to Cargill, to give it to Viterra whose stocks go up every time they hear from the Prime Minister or the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. Those are the numbers to be noted, because those are the people who will benefit.

We often hear about the Australian case. Unfortunately, even in that discussion, the government has proven to be very misleading. In some ways what happened in Australia was different, but in many ways it tells us what awaits us down the road if the government's wish to dismantle the Wheat Board becomes a reality. Western farmers can look to Australia to know what is in store for them when the single desk is eradicated.

When the Australian wheat board had single desk power, Australian wheat could command premiums of over $99 per tonne over American wheat, but by December 2008 it had dropped to a discount of $27 per tonne below U.S. wheat. In three short years, Australia's 40,000 wheat farmers went from running their own grain marketing system, selling virtually all of Australia's wheat, which was 12% of world wheat production worth about $5 billion, on their own behalf to being mere customers of Cargill, one of the world's largest agribusiness corporations, which is privately owned and based in the United States.

Since 2006 the Australian wheat board's share of Australia's wheat sales has dropped from 100% to 23% nationally, with 25 other companies in the market all looking to make money on the spread between purchase and sale prices.

Australian farmer Ross Philips was interviewed about the loss of the Australian wheat board. He pointed out, “Be careful of giving away your single desk. You will get every single farmer competing against every single farmer”.

For the farmer there is nothing more difficult than selling grain to a trader who does that every day. If orderly marketing does not exist, we will see mass bankruptcy for farmers, and we have lost our premiums equal to about 10% to 15% of the price.

This is a voice from our neighbours, a Commonwealth country that has gone down the very same destructive path which the government is taking us down. The story here is not only is the government failing to give farmers the democratic right that they have in law to vote, but it is taking every single westerner for granted.

We in the NDP will stand to fight the government's plan. I look forward to working with western Canadians to make sure that our voices are heard in this House of Commons.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Churchill will have 10 minutes for her speech and 10 minutes for questions and comments when the House resumes debate on the motion.

Bill C-18--Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-18, An Act to reorganize the Canadian Wheat Board and to make consequential and related amendments to certain Acts, not more than two further sitting days shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the second day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said Bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1 there will now be a 30-minute question period.

I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise in their places so the Chair has some idea of the number of members who wish to participate.

I would ask members if they could keep their questions to approximately one minute and the responses a similar length of time so we can accommodate as many members as possible. As we have done before, the Chair will give precedence to members of opposition parties. While we will still allow some members of the government to ask questions, this is primarily for the opposition to question the government.

I will recognize the member for Windsor--Tecumseh.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, before I ask my question, I would suggest that you should probably not let the minister answer anything so we can use up some of the time on meaningful comments rather than the responses we will get from him.

My question for the minister is fairly straightforward. How many more of these time allocation motions are we going to have? We have sat for 25 days and I think this is the fourth time allocation motion on bills that are extremely important, this one at least as much as some of the other ones where time allocation has been moved.

The effect of time allocation is to end all debate at second reading stage on a bill that is extremely important. It is a historically important structure within the Government of Canada going back many years. The government is limiting debate to what will be a little over three days on a very important bill.

How many government members want to speak to it? I know many of our members want to speak to it.

How many more times is the minister going to do this?

[Gerry Ritz, Conservative, Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food and Minister for the Canadian Wheat Board]

Madam Speaker, I find that a bit hypocritical coming from the member for Windsor—Tecumseh when he stood up and voted to adjourn debate yesterday. We are actually moving forward and giving him two more full days of debate in spite of his voting to adjourn debate at the end of the very first day. I am not sure exactly where he thinks he is on stable ground with that.

As the member well knows, time allocation is a valuable tool used by governments when it is needed. I do agree with his point that we do this when it is extremely important, but extremely important for the citizens of Canada and in this case, for western Canadian farmers.

What we are looking for is fairness. The member's farmers in Ontario have access to a voluntary board, which is doing extremely well. They made that change in 2003.

I am not sure how the member can stand in his place and say it is okay for his farmers in Ontario but the guys out in western Canada cannot have the same rights and privileges. That is absolutely untenable in a democracy, which is why we are seeking to make this change. We will use whatever is necessary to make that happen in a timely way.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we in the Liberal Party are very disappointed in the way the government is manipulating the prairie wheat farmer.

The other day the government said that this was all about freedom. If we talk to the tens of thousands of prairie grain and wheat farmers, this is not about freedom. What the government is doing is crippling many opportunities for the farmers of small and large operations alike. Those farmers want this bill to be thoroughly debated.

The government is completely disregarding what a vast majority of the prairie wheat farmers wanted and said so in a plebiscite. Over 60% said that they want to retain the Wheat Board, but the Prime Minister has said that does not matter and the government is getting rid of it. Now the Prime Minister is allowing only a couple days of debate.

I ask the Minister of Agriculture , why does the government not respect the majority of prairie grain farmers who said they want to retain the Canadian Wheat Board?

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

Madam Speaker, I am wondering who really is manipulating prairie farmers when I look across at the third party down at the end over there. Those members do not represent any farmers at all. Even the member for Wascana has 11 rural polls which the Conservative candidate won in that particular area.

We were very open in our campaign regarding an open and accountable Canadian Wheat Board, something different, something new, something similar to what there is in Ontario, following the Australian model where we saw freedom reign. Farmers are doing better.

The member also talked about small farms. Those same small farms grow canola and other special crops and are doing extremely well with those. Even when we talk to someone like Nettie Wiebe, who is the former president of the NFU, she tells us that canola is grown on her farm because a cash crop is needed. If the Wheat Board is giving farmers a premium price and doing such a great job, why do they need another cash crop? In fact, canola has surpassed wheat in its value on the Prairies.

If the member is serious about debating, he should stop playing tricks with this and let us debate.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today in the House as member of Parliament for LaSalle—Émard.

I would like to note that, since May 2, there have been many of these requests to limit debate. I remind my hon. government colleagues that as a member of Parliament elected by my constituents in LaSalle—Émard, I have just as much a right to be heard as members on the government side. Their recent requests limit my right to represent my constituents.

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

Madam Speaker, I guess my argument would stand from the former questions. If those members are so concerned about having time to debate, why are we seeing silly motions to adjourn the debate which they supported? If they are really serious about moving forward and having a good fulsome debate, I am here and I am ready to do it. However, when we have to use valuable parliamentary time to come in and vote down a motion to adjourn the debate on the very first day of debate, and members scream that they want more debate, it is more than hypocritical.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, I find this disturbing. In my view, time allocation should be used for pressing issues of pan-Canadian interests. This appears to be a regional interest for western farmers.

The Wheat Board has been with us for 91 years. I could see a time allocation motion being worthy if there were unanimity among western farmers for the changes to the board, but from what I have heard in the House, even among western farmers there is not agreement about changes to the Canadian Wheat Board. Since there appears to be no unanimity in this region, why is the government trying to close debate at this time?

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

Madam Speaker, I am not sure where the member opposite gets the time of 91 years. I know that for a lot of us, it seems longer than that, but the reality is it was brought in as mandatory in 1943 under the War Measures Act.

I do agree with him that it is a regional interest, absolutely. That is why I find it almost untenable when all these members from outside western Canada preach to us and tell us how we should run our farming enterprises. I am a farmer myself, and there are a lot of farmers on the benches here that still have farming interests and still have families tilling the soil. They are all asking for a reasonable request, that they have the same rights and privileges as farmers in Ontario do. I do not think that is out of line at all.

[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.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a very simple question for the minister. He said that the government can always use time allocation, when it is needed. But why is it necessary today to shut down debate on the Canadian Wheat Board? I sat with him when he was in opposition, when he was the chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food. Since he became Minister of Agriculture, he has shown that he is able to defend and debate his point of view. He has even introduced bills to shut down the Canadian Wheat Board. So it is not that he is not capable of debating. It is because, since Parliament convened on May 2, this government has decided to bulldoze through everything. It no longer wants us to debate bills that it deems important. That is undemocratic.

What is the minister afraid of? Why does he not want to talk about this issue here, in the House, and let democracy do its job?

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska was a good colleague on the agriculture committee. We did some great work together.

The simple answer is timeliness. Markets and farmers themselves need clarity and certainty as to when this would move through. As the member is aware, farmers commence their farm inputs in the fall. They spread fertilizers and apply chemicals depending on the commodity they will seed in the spring.

Farmers need to know that what they will seed next spring will be theirs to market. We are putting a time allocation on this bill to ensure it is in effect by the end of this calendar year so that the industry and markets can adjust accordingly.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Madam Speaker, one of the myths the opposition is perpetrating is that somehow the quality of our grain would decline without the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly. Will the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food explain to the House why it is important that the legislation be passed immediately to assure our global customers that our grain will continue to be of the best quality?

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

Madam Speaker, as the member for Palliser represents a huge rural riding in the Moose Jaw area, he is as concerned as I am about grain quality.

Quality is regulated by the Canadian Grain Commission. However, it is based on the great work our farmers do. Changes in weather, cropping and so on have allowed our farmers to adapt. They have done some great work with new varieties in canola and pulse crops. They have also been able to maintain that top quality wheat that is in such demand around the world. A good portion of the barley goes to malt, which is also in demand around the world.

We require more acres of new and better crop varieties. We will continue to do that.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Madam Speaker, the minister keeps referring to this side of the House as being full of hypocrisy.

I will quote several remarks made in the House on previous occasions by his leader.

On March 31, 2004, his leader said:

No real reform at committees, instead the same old games the government is playing with public accounts. The government invoked closure in the House after only six days.

I point out that we have only been debating the bill for a day and the government already is invoking closure.

There is no reform or election of Senators. He is driving opponents out of his party, appointing candidates and playing with the election date as a personal political football.

On October 1, 2002, his leader said:

The government has used closure and time allocation more frequently than any previous government.

The government has been using time allocation procedures a lot more. Why the hypocrisy?

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

Madam Speaker, time allocation and closure are legitimate tools of a democracy. They are within the bounds of what we are allowed to do in this place.

In the case of this bill, it is a matter of timing. It is a matter of offering market certainty and clarity to the producers so they will know that what they are prepping for this fall and will be sowing in the spring will be theirs to sell.

They need to know that the markets will be adjusting. As well, the new entity of the Canadian Wheat Board will require time to forward hedge and contract to be the major player we know it can be. We look forward to that day.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Madam Speaker, this morning the minister spoke about people from the outside getting involved in this debate. I would like him to tell us exactly who these people from the outside are. Are they from the United States and Europe or are they from Quebec, Saskatchewan and other parts of Canada?

We are talking about democracy here. We have the right to speak, say what we are thinking and participate in the debate.

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

Madam Speaker, I am happy to entertain that question on the merits of the debate.

I am concerned when I see that farmers in Ontario have rights and privileges that have been denied to farmers in western Canada. I am asking for fairness.

The Confederation of this county ensures that all provinces have a chance to succeed. We have certainly worked well with the province of Quebec over the last few years. It has more autonomy, as do other provinces. We have a tremendous relationship with some provinces. Three out of the four provinces involved in the Canadian Wheat Board issue are siding with us in this debate and I welcome that.

I welcome debating the points of the matter, not beating around the edges and wasting time.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, my question for the minister is with regard to time allocation. What will it take to convince the government that this is not the direction it should be taking given the level of frustration being experienced today by prairie farmers regarding the government's actions?

One way prairie farmers can express their frustration is by opposition members articulating what has been discussed with them or what has been received from them in emails or telephone calls. By putting limitations on our ability to at least debate the issue, does the minister not recognize that he is adding to the frustration of the prairie farmers?

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

Madam Speaker, I live on the Prairies. I go home when I can, as do many of my colleagues.

The real frustration for prairie farmers is the unknown. They are asking for certainty and clarity so they will know how to market and what to grow next year.

I point out to the member opposite that it was his party that dragged us into an election last spring that was not required by the Canadian people. Canadians sent us back here with a clear majority and a mandate to move forward on issues exactly like this. That is why we are sitting over here and he is sitting over there.

When I look at the silly tricks the Liberals have been playing this last while on this issue I know they are not done. They have a quiverful and will play as many as they possibly can while at the same time saying we should get on with it.

I am happy to get on with it. I am here to debate.

[Lee Richardson, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act will enable the interim Canadian Wheat Board to act as a voluntary marketing organization through its transition to full private ownership.

During that orderly transition our government will provide the Canadian Wheat Board with the tools it needs to act as a voluntary pooling option for the farmers who choose to use it.

During the transition period our government will continue to guarantee the new Canadian Wheat Board's initial payments for borrowing, assist with funding for reorganization costs related to the removal of the monopoly and put in place a voluntary check-off to continue producer support for research and marketing development activities.

Today we are only a few hours into the debate and the opposition has introduced two motions to delay and stall the bill.

Would the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food explain to the House why it is important that the legislation be passed immediately to ensure the transition happens in an orderly fashion?

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Calgary Centre underscores the answer I have given many times. It is about clarity and certainty. It is about ensuring that farmers have the tools at their disposal to accentuate the bottom line of their businesses. Farming is now a big business. Even small farms operate as businesses. Some farmers have jobs off the farm and have moved to other commodities that are not under a single desk, such as livestock, pigs, chickens, et cetera. They also grow different grain commodities.

The member for Calgary Centre makes an excellent point as to why we need to get this done quickly. It is about timeliness. It is about ensuring that not only the markets have time to adjust but also to enable the new Canadian Wheat Board to forward contract and offer futures as soon as possible.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am gravely concerned about Canadian democracy. The government is trying to muzzle the media. The government is trying to muzzle the opposition and therefore the power of each member in the House. There are movements rising up around the globe to denounce this type of attitude, yet the government is moving in the opposite direction.

I am curious to know whether the minister and the government are advocates of democracy. If so, does the minister plan to change his position on this motion?

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

Madam Speaker, I would say to the member opposite that the only thing gagging the media lately are the metaphors coming from the member for Winnipeg Centre.

We certainly believe in democracy. We campaigned hard on these types of issues. We came back here to fulfill those commitments and maintain the bond that we have with our constituents. We will get the legislation passed in a timely manner, ensure that farmers and markets have time to adjust and give them the signal to move forward and enhance their bottom lines.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I find it hypocritical that this bill is called an Act to reorganize the Canadian Wheat Board, when it is clearly intended to dismantle and destroy that board. Farmers get between $4 billion and $7 billion from this organization each year. This is no small issue. This is a very important organization, and we need to take time for discussion before we destroy it. I do not understand why the government is trying to muzzle the opposition. Earlier, my colleague mentioned that the government is trying to muzzle the opposition and keep information hush-hush.

I come from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, where agriculture is one of the main economic drivers. I have something to say about this. In my region, the UPA believes that the Canadian Wheat Board should exist. So my opinion should be heard in the House.

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

Madam Speaker, the Canadian Wheat Board does not give farmers money. It markets the farmers' commodities.

The system works as follows. If I grow and harvest durum wheat and decide to sell it to a pasta maker on my own, I must phone the Wheat Board and inform it of that. It will tell me how much it will cost in freight and elevation to get it to Tidewater. I will send a cheque. I will phone the Wheat Board back to ask if I can sell the wheat. At that point it will inform me that it will cost me so much a bushel because that is the price it can get for it that day. Essentially, I must buy back the durum wheat which has not yet left my farm before I can finally do something with it. That has to change.

We cannot shackle people like that and expect them to stay in that kind of situation. The board was created in a different time for a different reason. We have moved beyond that.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, my question is—

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I am not sure if you are aware, but there are countless members of the Conservative caucus who want to ask questions. Several members on the other side have asked multiple questions. I believe it would be important to hear what the strong representatives of the Canadian wheat farmers have to say on this side of the House.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I appreciate the members' frustration, but they should recall that the Speaker stated before leaving the chair that as per the regulations and procedures, the purpose of this 30-minute question period is to allow the opposition to hold the government to account.

Members should recognize that I did allow three questions from the government side, which is similar in proportion to the time we allot during question period. I believe that is a fair allocation.

I will give the member 15 seconds to ask her question.

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

Madam Speaker, just for our clarification, we have seen this happen, but we just do not seem to have your formula of how you figure out who is able to speak and who is not. Could you give us the actual numbers so we will time our standing up appropriately?

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

There is no formula. It is at the Speaker's discretion following the rules of procedure.

I will give the hon. member for Churchill 15 seconds to ask the last question.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, I wish the members across would have the same interest in allowing farmers to speak out, not just their own caucus members but to allow farmers across western Canada to have a vote on whether they want this Wheat Board to be dismantled. The Conservatives are not allowing that vote because we know from the plebiscite and from the farmers' voices that they support the single desk.

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

Madam Speaker, I pointed out earlier that a lot of the people sitting on this side of the House right now are actually farmers. They represent farmers. We were sent here with a mandate to change the single desk into a dual market situation and we will continue to do that whether we have help from the opposition or not.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #41

Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

I wish to inform the House that because of the proceedings on the time allocation motion, government orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

The House resumed from October 19 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, and of the amendment.

Second reading

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Churchill has 10 minutes left to conclude her speech.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I stand here today in some great irony. Today is the birthdate of Tommy Douglas. Tommy Douglas was a champion of much of what we call Canadian values today. He led Saskatchewan from some of its darkest days to some of its brightest days. He was somebody who fought for public medicare at the national level, somebody who created much of the Canadian identity that we have today.

But Tommy Douglas also did one more thing. He stood up for rural Canada. He stood up for the farmers whose communities had been impacted by the Great Depression. He stood up for the development of those communities and those regions. He stood up for their voices.

Today, so many years later, on the day of his birthday, we are entering into a historic debate. We have all been plunged into this debate by the Conservative government's ideological agenda to oppose farmers' voices, to oppose the messages we have heard from farmers in farming communities and rural communities in western Canada, the very part of the country that Tommy Douglas came from.

The loss of the Wheat Board is a loss for all of us across this country. Today's debate also amplifies the fact that the government's agenda is not just about the dismantling of the Wheat Board, but about the silencing of our voices.

Just some short weeks ago, the results of a plebiscite administered by the Canadian Wheat Board came out. That plebiscite showed that a majority of Canadian western farmers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta believe that the single desk ought to be maintained. The government not only ignored that plebiscite but is also ignoring section 47.1 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, which states that farmers must have a say in any proposed plans to alter the operation of the Wheat Board.

Today is a dark day, given that we are not just hearing about the government's plan to dismantle a successful institution that has supported the livelihoods of so many farmers and so many rural communities across western Canada, but that once again the government is not allowing westerners to have their voices heard through our Canadian democracy.

Today I also stand as the member of Parliament for Churchill. I stand here proud to represent the community of Churchill. It is an important part of our Canadian economy and also a critical part of our movement forward.

As the only deepwater Arctic seaport, Churchill holds a bright future for the kind of development we could see in northern Canada. Yes, there was an announcement in terms of investment, but many of us know that much of that announcement is both highly speculative and extremely short term. While Churchill and the north welcome investment, more than anything we would welcome the assurance that we can work with institutions that have successfully worked with us to provide a livelihood to the people in our communities.

The Canadian Wheat Board is the only agricultural shipper to the Port of Churchill. Wheat Board shipments account for 95% of the cargo that goes through Churchill. The Port of Churchill is the closest port to many Canadian farmers in the west, and as a result, it saves farmers millions of dollars in shipping. The port depends on farmers as much as farmers depend on the port.

While the government announced adjustment funding for the Port of Churchill, it is speculative. A cost-benefit analysis has not been done as the government has pursued its steadfast approach, its ideological approach, to dismantling the Canadian Wheat Board. The government's actions do not make sense for Churchill. They do not make sense for Manitoba or western Canada.

What will the Port of Churchill do when this adjustment funding runs out and big agri ships to their own terminals in the east and the west to maximize the revenue? What will happen to the port, a port that some have referred to as a jewel of the north, a port that is a critical link in the endless development that we could see in northern Canada, further north than we are?

All in all, the implications of dismantling the single desk are profound. Despite a clear message from western farmers to keep the Wheat Board, the government continues to display arrogance in failing to listen to the voices of farmers. The National Farmers Union president, Terry Boehm, said that the plebiscite's message was crystal clear. Perhaps the government has trouble interpreting these numbers. The facts are that out of the roughly 38,000 votes that came in, almost 23,000, or 62% of farmers, agreed with the statement “I wish to maintain the ability to market all wheat through the Canadian Wheat Board single desk system”.

That is crystal clear. Farmers voted in the plebiscite to say that they want the Government of Canada to stand up for the single desk.

Alberta farmer Ken Larsen, from Benalto, Alberta, a supporter of the Canadian Wheat Board and a full-time farmer, said of the vote “that farmers voting is such high numbers is a strong message in itself”, given what he called “an ongoing campaign of misinformation and bullying”.

The government has no mandate to go against the wishes of prairie farmers and to meddle in this system. The Wheat Board is controlled, operated and funded by farmers for farmers.

The Wheat Board offers a number of advantages to wheat farmers. The first is price pooling, which insulates farmers from abrupt shifts in price and passes returns back to these farmers.

Producer car loading sites are an important piece of this puzzle. The car loading sites that the Wheat Board includes as part of its system save the farmers money, but if the single desk goes, so will the producer car loading sites. These producer cars mean farmers can bypass grain companies' elevators and save themselves $1,000 to $1,500 per car that is shipped. The producer cars are branch lines and short-line railroads. What will happen to them and to the communities along these rail lines?

To connect to the reality of Churchill, as the Port of Churchill is threatened, so is the Bay line that connects Gillam, Ilford, War Lake, Thicket Portage, Pikwitonei, Thompson, Wabowden, The Pas. These are communities all across Manitoba. Some have an agricultural connection, but some depend on the rail line that makes its money from the kind of cargo that the Wheat Board has shipped to the Port of Churchill.

Dismantling the Wheat Board is a slap in the face for western farmers, to their jobs and to their economy. During tough economic times and when prices fall, farmers will be left without any marketing agency to provide them with free risk management and market power.

The government's actions are an attack on the family farm that has supported the Canadian economy for decades. Mark Sandilands, of Lethbridge, put it well when he said, “Farms will have to grow bigger; there'll be fewer small and medium farming operations, and the loss of small rural communities, with their schools, hospitals, community centres and other services. One could drive through rural Canada and find virtually no inhabitants”.

I stand here today not just as the MP for Churchill but as a proud member of the NDP team that has a history of standing up for prairie people and a history of standing up for the voices of people who want to have a say in what they produce, in the future of their communities and in the well-being of our country.

Today on October 20, I ask that we all think of Tommy Douglas, our greatest Canadian, a great leader who stood up for the very ideas that we are fighting for today.

Let the farmers vote. Let western Canadians hear. Let us save the Canadian Wheat Board.

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

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned that today is October 20. It happens to be my birthday today, and I could not ask for anything better than to give our western Canadian farmers marketing freedom.

I would like to ask the hon. member across the way if she supports jailing Canadian wheat farmers for wanting to sell their products across our borders. She speaks of democracy. Does she think it is okay for Canadian farmers to go to jail for selling their grain?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, first I will wish my colleague across the way a great happy birthday. Perhaps it is an honour for all those celebrating today to have a birthday on the same day as Tommy Douglas, a great leader in Canadian history.

I hear the very common reference to the word “freedom”. To me and certainly for us living in the west, “freedom” also means the freedom to speak, the freedom to be heard, the freedom to have a vote on whether people want the single desk to be maintained.

To return the question, I would like to ask this government why it is so afraid to give farmers the freedom to have their voices heard. Maybe it is because in the plebiscite it saw that the farmers want to keep the single desk.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague made reference to the sacrifices that would be made in the Port of Churchill.

Recently an article that appeared in The Economist warned of the tragic closure of very many farms and the consequence that would have on local small-town economies in our western provinces. Such closures would change their entire way of life and their entire culture.

Would the member comment on her observations and her fears of these consequences?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, that is what this debate on keeping the Canadian Wheat Board is about. It is about farming and farmers, but it is also about the well-being of rural communities.

I find it pretty ironic that the government refers to its representation of rural Canada when, step by step, it seeks to dismantle the very structures that keep livelihoods in our rural communities and that allow farmers and their families to survive in rural communities. We already know how difficult it is for farmers and the family farm in this day and age. However, as we connect the reality of the Wheat Board with a farm in southern Saskatchewan or northern Alberta to the survival of the Port of Churchill, we also understand that the Wheat Board stood up for all of us. It supported our communities in the work that we do, whether we are farming, northern or western communities. That is why we would like to see the government show some leadership to support rural Canada.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank my hon. colleague for reminding us of the importance of Tommy Douglas' birthday. When we think of this great Canadian and his birthday, the cynicism of today's debate on the Canadian Wheat Board is even more striking. I heard someone say that the survey in question, which our Conservative friends continue to ridicule, was at least honest enough to show a very clear vote on wheat and a much closer vote—51% or 52% I think—on another grain.

I wonder if our colleague could elaborate a little for us. Just how credible was that plebiscite?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for this very important question. The results of the Wheat Board's plebiscite showed that a majority of farmers support the continued existence of the board, not only for wheat, but also for barley. The government is ignoring those results and, on top of that, is defying the act that created the Canadian Wheat Board, which stipulates that any proposed changes to the institution or the process must be voted on by farmers after they have been consulted. Once again, this government is showing complete disrespect for western farmers and for democracy.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have a brief question for the member opposite. She talks a lot about democracy and the need for us to listen to farmers, and so on. How would she explain that the governments of Saskatchewan and Alberta support the legislation before the House? Do they not also represent their farmers?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to come from a province that has a strong NDP government, one that was re-elected to its fourth term majority, with a pro single desk stance. That pro single desk stance came from consulting with farmers on the ground, a majority of which time and time again voted for directors, who are pro single desk, to represent them on the Canadian Wheat Board.

I would ask that the federal government follow the Canadian Wheat Board Act and consult with farmers directly, who we know have the most to lose with the dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board. Who is going to gain? It is big agriculture, such as Cargill and Viterra. Corporations will certainly be benefiting from the government's actions.

Why is the government standing up for the corporations instead of western farmers?

[Mark Eyking, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am a farmer. I know what will happen with the Canadian Wheat Board and I am concerned about what will happen to other marketing boards. This is a slippery slope.

Yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board said, “we want to provide the same freedom for farmers right across the country”.

My question for the hon. member is this. Does she see the slippery slope that is happening today with the Canadian Wheat Board? Are chickens and milk next? What is happening with the government? It does not believe in boards. I hope farmers across the country are watching this slippery slope because other boards are next. What comments does the hon. member have on that?

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Madam Speaker, absolutely, it is a slippery slope. We are seeing a continuation of the ideological agenda to put corporations ahead of farmers and their communities, which produce the most important thing we need, and that is nourishment. Knowing who is producing our wheat and providing our economy with dairy products and livestock is what we are talking about today.

There is a great concern by farmers across our country, especially in Quebec where supply management is such a critical part of its economy. We hear the government talk about the importance of the agricultural economy, but in fact it stands up for large corporations and kills the very institutions that allow farmers in whatever sectors to flourish, although in this case it is the wheat and the grain sector predominantly. It puts their livelihoods at much greater risk of being lost.

That is not the way we will move forward to build a better Canada. That is not the way we will build better rural communities. If anything, we are taking away the foundations on which our rural communities are built. We are taking away the economy on which our rural communities are built. We are providing an incentive for a generation of young people, like myself, to leave the industry.

If this is the way the government feels Canada will move forward, we in the NDP and, I might assume, based on this discussion, opposition parties do not think that is the kind of Canada we see moving forward. We will stand up for Canadian producers and farmers every step of the way.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is good to see you in the chair once again.

I would like to thank my staff and friends who helped me put this speech together, which I am about butcher. Also, I would like to thank a few members of this chamber and former members, as we are discussing a very important topic to western Canadian farm families.

First, I thank Rick Casson, the former member of Parliament from Lethbridge. He is a good friend of mine and a mentor who fought hard on this for many years.

I also thank the following current members: the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, the parliamentary secretary, who has been a staunch advocate of freedom for farmers for as long as I have been here; the member of Parliament for Vegreville—Wainwright, when he is not out there going after gophers, he has always been a staunch advocate of freedom; the member of Parliament for Selkirk—Interlake; and the member of Parliament for Crowfoot.

We are very fortunate on this side of the House to have such institutional knowledge of not only men and women who have farmed and lived under the tyranny of the Canadian Wheat Board, but who have also taken time out of their lives for public service, to come here and do the right thing and provide marketing freedom for western Canadian farmers.

I also thank some of our new members of Parliament who have buoyed us in the last Parliament. They bring to the team a fresh sense of needing to get the job done and a lot of enthusiasm. We have the member for Prince George—Peace River, a refreshing change from the last member of Parliament from Prince George, as well as the member of Parliament for Prince Albert.

Now that my thanks are done, I would like to talk about something that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food first brought to my attention with his private member's bill back in 2006, when I first was elected. That was the issue of the buyback. I went to the minister, who was the chair of the agriculture committee at the time, and asked why he felt this was the road we need to take.

When we go through all the processes and steps, we see that our western Canadian farmers do not have the ability to maximize their return on profit like any other businessman would have, and that is really unbelievable. Most people who do not live under the Wheat Board tyranny do not understand what it is like to have to put all that risk out there and not be able to get the same return on investment that others in other parts of our country can have.

I would also like to address, as we are kind of doing a little housekeeping, my dismay. This has been a top-of-mind issue to western Canadians for as long as I can remember and certainly for as long as I have been in politics, which has been over a decade. All they want is to be treated equally and fairly. At the end of the day, when we finally get the opportunity to put a bill forward and have serious debate, what are Canadians given to watch in the House of Commons? Parliamentary games.

The opposition, the NDP and Liberals both, is guilty of trying to delay, to filibuster. Then, when they do not like that, they want to move on and not have debate on it. This is not just my word, this is what those members have been doing. This is what they did last night and this is what they are attempting to do once again today.

When issues of this great a nature come before our country, before our Parliament, all parliamentarians should give the respect that is due and have a proper ideological, practical debate. I am more than happy to have that debate with the member of Parliament for Churchill or anybody who would like to discuss the issues of the Canadian Wheat Board and the positive effects that our government has had on that region.

It is very troubling for me to sit and listen to a member of Parliament, not only from the prairie region but from Churchill, a port that is getting a lot of support from our government, sit here and say that this is the wrong thing to do when her own mayor supports our government's position.

There has been a lot of talk about polls and plebiscites. Let me be frank, anybody can turn numbers to look any which way they want, but numbers tough to sway are the economic impacts on our communities, the economic impact on my home province and home town.

The June 2008 Informa report shows its assessment of the monopoly versus not having a monopoly on the Canadian Wheat Board. It should be pointed out that this is what we are talking about here. Everyone on the other side continues to misconstrue this as being an attack on the destruction of the Canadian Wheat Board. This is not about that. This is about ending a monopolistic system and opening up marketing freedom for western Canadian farmers.

The June 2008 report clearly demonstrates that the economic impact on western Canada will be between $450 million a year and $628 million a year. That is a lot of money. This is not money that has to flow through some government program before it gets to my farmers so they get 70% of the cut that the government was supposed to give them. This is direct money, taken out of their pocket every year by the Canadian Wheat Board.

[Some hon. member]

Shameful.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

It is absolutely shameful. From a low of $13.72 per ton on feed barley in the five year reporting period to a high of $47.57 per ton on durum, this would have had a tremendous impact on my farmers. That is not money they can get back. That is money that has been taken away from them.

What we can do now is look forward and ensure that they do not have that money taken out of their pockets any longer. That is what we are talking about today.

The other thing I would like to briefly touch on is Westlock Terminals. I am very proud of this new generation co-op that is in my riding. This is a co-operative of community members who have come together and taken on this terminal. They are doing a wonderful job in ensuring it is profitable and is servicing our farmers well.

I have sat down with them on several occasions, and they had some concerns when we first started down this road. They heard that we were going to end the monopoly. They definitely had some concerns because the other side was ramping up the fear campaign. They were already calling them and telling them that the world was going to end for them.

As the minister has said, and I believe the terminal now realizes, “The sky is not falling”. The sky is actually the limit for our farmers moving forward, and for Westlock Terminals and other co-ops like that.

This is a time, moving forward, when we are going to have innovation and ingenuity on the Prairies. This is a region of the country that has been the economic engine in the country for the last decade. The one area that continually lapses behind has been on the agricultural front, particularly when it comes to wheat and barley. In my opinion, it lags behind because of the monopoly, and the Informa report clearly shows that.

As I rise in this chamber to speak on marketing freedom, it will shock many who are not familiar with this issue to know that in our great country we have had two distinct classes of grain framers: those who live under the oppression of the Canadian Wheat Board and are not allowed to produce and sell their own wheat and barley; and the rest of Canada that has complete marketing freedom, the freedom to maximize their profits and sell their property as they see fit.

As we go through this vigorous debate over the next couple of months, time and time again we will see urban members of Parliament, oftentimes representing people who do not fall under the tyranny of the Wheat Board, standing and arguing for the status quo.

Let us be clear. These members are arguing for a two-tiered system. They are arguing for a system, so that my family in Alberta should not be able to sell its own wheat and barley crops as it sees fit. However, my family members in Ontario and other parts of the country have that freedom. It is absolutely two distinct classes.

It is past time that we take the shackles off of western Canadian farmers. The status quo simply is not working. We need to allow farmers to farm the marketplace and not rely on the benevolence of government or its organizations. We have the best and brightest producers in the world.

This brings me to the Bauer family in Thorhild, Alberta. This is a young family with two young daughters. They earn their living on grain and oil seed production.

At the beginning of every year, and this should be particularly interesting for some of our colleagues who are not familiar with agriculture, they put $400,000, $500,000 worth of inputs into the ground. That is the cost of a very nice home right here in Ottawa and across our country.

Each year they take that risk capital and put it into the ground. They pray for some spring rain. They hope that they can get the proper sun amounts throughout the year. During the summer, they honestly just hope they do not get hailed out. As their crop starts to come up, they have to put more fertilizer and more pesticides. They have to ensure the grasshoppers will not get it.

In the fall, in September, October, while everything looks good and they have their entire life savings out on the fields, they have to hope for the good graces of God to get enough good days before the heavy frost and the snow to get their crops off the field.

When they have done all of this, worked countless days and sleepless nights, they have to accept a lower price on their commodity, on their crop, because they live in western Canada, and that is simply not acceptable.

The Bauer family should have the same right as their cousins in Ontario to maximum their rate of return so that they do not have to rely on the government, so that they can put money away for their children's education, and for the new renovations to their home. That is what we are talking about here today.

When we talk about younger farmers and trying to get younger farmers into farming, this is a big hurdle. They are very intelligent. They look at the business model and say, “Why on earth would I want to get into something where the government restricts what my profit can be?” Sometimes $450 million to $628 million a year is a lot of money to be taken out of an economy in the designated areas.

What have they done? They have turned to other crops. Quite frankly, they have turned to canola and many other options, so that they do not have the shackles holding them back.

This has been positive for the last several years in western Canada. Canola has been a good crop, but when we are talking about feeding the world and making sure, as the opposition likes to do, that people in Africa and people around the world, who are starving, have enough food and relying on Canadian exports, we cannot feed them with canola. We need to send them our grains and oil seeds that they can utilize.

It is projected that in 2020 there will be seven billion people in the world. That is up from about 6.2 billion people today. That is an 800 million person increase over the next eight years.

The good news is that when my grandfather was farming his quarter section of land up in Fort Assiniboine 40 or 50 years ago, he could only feed five, ten people off his farm. Really, individuals can feed their family and a little bit more to trade off and get some other stuff.

Now, the Bauer family can feed 120 to 150 people off of their farm. The ingenuity in Canadian agriculture over the last 50 years has been amazing. The product increase has been amazing. The problem that we have in meeting the world demand is simply the fact that these guys are not willing to take a loss or not maximize their profit, so they are not dealing with board products as often as they used to, which affects the amount of global export that we give to other countries.

Those are just a couple of the issues for young farmers taking on farming in the future, especially with the Canadian Wheat Board. Hon. members need not take my word for it. They can actually look at the Canadian Wheat Board's 2011 producer survey that found 76% of younger generation farmers surveyed by the Wheat Board itself want something other than the status quo monopoly.

This is an amazing figure. This is not a figure that the Conservative Party came up with. This is a figure from the Wheat Board itself.

Another issue I would like to address is innovation in agriculture and the business model. It is important to make clear to those who may not understand how agriculture works that farmers themselves are businesses.

Gregg Adair and his family farm 3,000 or 4,000 acres. I was actually out in their fields this year. I hope everything continued to go well. When I spoke with Gregg, he said, “You know, Brian, I know exactly how much inputs I have, right to the acre; I know exactly how much I need to get in return for my product; and I know exactly how much loss I'm able to take”.

However, what he cannot calculate is what he is going to get out of the Wheat Board at the end of the day because what he does know is that he is not going to get the price he should get. He is going to take a lesser value on any wheat and barley that needs to go through the Canadian Wheat Board.

He also, because of the Wheat Board's restrictions on seed, does not have the ability to even utilize some of the Canadian seed and genetics that we have produced in our own country. The Wheat Board does not allow him to do that. Is that not amazing? The Wheat Board actually restricts Canadian technology. Who is using it instead of the Adair family in Westlock? Farmers in the United States are benefiting from of our research and development.

These are just some of the many issues that we experience in western Canada. The fundamental difference here is these are not things that are encountered in the rest of the country. It is not fair for us to have two totally different classes of grain farmers.

In conclusion, I would just like to say that farm families across the Prairies are watching us today. They are hoping and praying that their government will stand up for them and fulfill the promise that we had made to provide them with marketing freedom. My farmers are not asking for special treatment. They are not asking for something that the rest of the country does not already have. They are simply asking to be treated as an equal with their cousins in Ontario and the rest of Canada.

Marketing freedom is a first but very important step in maintaining and encouraging young farmers to enter and stay in our agriculture sector.

This is not an issue of left or right. This is not an issue of blue or orange. This is an issue of equality and fairness. It is an issue of right and wrong.

I ask all members of Parliament when the time comes to please seriously consider their vote on this, to consider what their vote will do to western Canadian farmers. I ask all members to support our farmers and our farm families on the Prairies. Thanks and God bless.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to rise here today.

I am speaking not only as the member of Parliament for LaSalle—Émard, but also as an agronomist and someone who is passionate about agriculture. I would like to ask the hon. member what the consequences of this bill will be. The Canadian Wheat Board was created by farmers. They came together specifically to be able to provide a counterweight to large agri-food businesses. Over the past few years, we have seen a concentration of agriculture and agribusiness in the hands of large corporations and multinationals.

I wonder if the member who just spoke could tell us what he predicts for the future of Canadian farmers and for the Canadian institutions that help our farmers in that regard. I wonder if he could talk a little about the future.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for the very respectful question.

Unfortunately, the very premise of the question which she asked is flawed because western Canadian farmers were never asked if they wanted to be a part of the Canadian Wheat Board. Seventy-six years ago, the Government of Canada decided it was what was best for the country and for Europe, at the time.

This was not a bunch of farmers getting together and saying that they needed a co-operative to fight the multinationals because around 1943 that was not an overwhelming concern.

However, today, when my farmers in Westlock get together with Westlock Terminals, they are looking forward to the future; they are looking forward to all the opportunities that are out there; and they are hoping that they can get the same opportunities with wheat and barley as they get with canola.

She does not have to take my word for it. Look at the numbers on the canola acreage over the last decade. There is a reason why farmers are planting more and more canola and less and less wheat and barley. It is imperative that we ensure we look to the future, as the member said, and it is imperative that we allow our younger farmers to have the same access with wheat and barley as they do with canola.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my friend spoke of the perceived tyranny of the Canadian Wheat Board and I would suggest that the tyranny that we have to fear is the tyranny of the government. Subsection 47(1) requires a plebiscite that the government refuses to hold.

The Economist writes of the many farms that will be closing and the negative effect it will have on the economies of small towns in the prairie provinces. With all the changes that are about to occur, what consideration has the member given to all of those small communities which will now suffer because of the closure of small farms?

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am from a small rural community and I still live in one. I have a little better idea of what small rural communities and agriculture producers have been going through in the Prairies over the last decade and the decade before that under Liberal rule than the member of Parliament for Guelph does.

With all due respect, he has the absolute right to ask the question, but he talks about tyranny of this government. I will tell members what western Canadian farmers think was tyranny. It was when the member for Wascana locked up 12 farmers for trying to sell their own product. That was tyranny. That was heavy-handedness of the Liberal government. It was not acceptable then; it is not acceptable now. Our party has always listened to western Canadian farmers. We have many of them here with us.

[An hon. member]

Why are you afraid to have a vote?

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

The other thing I would like to say to my hon. colleague, as he heckles me, is the fact that the family farms are getting bigger and more and more farms have been shutting down because of the problem of the Wheat Board and other monopolies that exist in the agricultural sector. We are here to help resolve those issues.

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me welcome my colleague on behalf of his constituents to marketing freedom for farmers that we enjoy in Ontario. I have a great agricultural riding with about $1 billion a year in GDP for the farmers of Essex and they love their marketing choice. Some will choose the marketing agencies and others love to market directly to end users and middlemen.

The hon. member has made a great intervention so far. Can he explain the restrictions that western producers face as opposed to farmers in my riding in Essex, Ontario?

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the welcome to marketing freedom. We are not quite there yet. We still have a group of people who are trying to keep farmers back and hold their heads under water, but we are going to ensure that does not happen.

My hon. colleague brings up a good point and that is the point members on the other side say which is that it is the destruction of the Canadian Wheat Board. It is important that we make this crystal clear to western Canadian farmers. There will still be a pooling agency for them to use just the same as our farmers in Ontario have. It is called marketing freedom for a reason. We are not taking anything away from them, we are just giving them more choices and more options.

As I emphasized in my speech today, it is particularly younger farmers who look forward to this.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I hear from prairie farmers on both sides of this issue and it is fair to say there are prairie farmers on both sides of this issue. The ones I am hearing from primarily are concerned that the smaller farmers will be less able to manage without the single desk and they do want the plebiscite.

I am concerned that farms will go out of business and that main street small town businesses will be disadvantaged. I am wondering if there are some studies to which the hon. member can direct us that speak to the issue of the economic negative consequences of this legislation.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Mr. Speaker, western Canadian and small farmers already market their own products such as canola where the acreage for products like it is shooting through the roof. They have to market that on their own. There is not going to be a change there. They will also still have the opportunity of the pooling agency if they want. If anything, this is going to be an advantage because the pooling agency is going to be using farmers' money for what it is supposed to be used for. I am hopeful for less bureaucracy and less money being taken out of our farmers' pockets.

I focused my comments today on younger farmers in particular, many of whom are my friends in western Canada and they are looking forward to this because they are already marketing their own product. As the document I referred to from June 2008 shows, $450 million to $628 million a year more, and that was a few years ago, in the pockets of farmers is a significant increase of direct capital injection into their operations.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill Gehl, the chair of the Canadian Wheat Board, has said that one of the faults with the legislation is that the government would clearly not be supporting the port of Churchill even though the government says it is. The Canadian Wheat Board moves 600,000 tonnes a year through the port. The government was going to put in $5 million. The $5 million the government was going to put in over the next four or five years would not work out to very many dollars per tonne. There is no guarantee for these farmers at the end of the day.

The minister did not answer my question. I would like my colleague to tell me whether or not the government can guarantee that these farmers will not lose their farms to the big conglomerates.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague, although with the best of intentions, has epitomized the problem we have with this debate raging today in the House of Commons.

The individual that she spoke of is not the chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board. Allen Oberg is the chairman. Mr. Gehl is the chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board Alliance. The member does not even have her sources correct and I cannot blame her, because she is not from there and does not necessarily interact with those guys and the agencies and farmers on a daily basis. She has to make sure that she does the proper research and homework so that we can have a fruitful debate.

Western Canadian farm families, not just farmers, the families, the children who are dependent on the farms, like the Bauers, are demanding that our government fulfill the promise we made to them so that they can have marketing freedom and be able to put more money back in their own pockets.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I had understood that a Conservative was going to rise and speak at this point but after hearing the force of the arguments from this side of the House, I guess the Conservatives have decided not to participate in the debate. I think that is very welcome.

I heard some of the comments the Conservatives were making earlier. I will start at that point because the government's tendency has been to constantly, significantly and regularly divide one Canadian from another, one region from another, one type of Canadian from another. That was not the Conservatives' hallmark before the election campaign. Members will remember they were wearing sweater vests and saying they were going to be a moderate government. One of their commitments during that so-called moderate time was to keep the Wheat Board.

However, since the election, the Conservatives have taken off the sweater vests and they have become incredibly intransigent and ideological in the kinds of things they are bringing forward in the House. One thing which clearly indicates that shift to fight for a radical right-wing politics privatization agenda is what the Conservatives are looking to do with the Wheat Board. Marketing choice, what a crock.

The farmers in western Canada voted 62% to retain the single desk on wheat and the government says it is going to run roughshod over those western farmers. On this side of the House, the NDP caucus is saying we are going to stand up for that 62% of western farmers and we are going to say no to this bill.

The other aspect that has been brought forward by members of the Conservative Party is that somehow the Canadian Wheat Board will continue. When we read through Bill C-18, we see the parts that deal directly with the dissolution of the Canadian Wheat Board. The Conservatives will say it is not their plan for the moment, but we know the intent is to remove what has been a mainstay for western farmers for generations.

I come from British Columbia and have been part of what we have seen in western Canada over generations, and it is fair to say that we have often seen governments in Ottawa neglect or not address western Canadian concerns. It is particularly surprising to me that we see the government putting ideology over what should be a significant effort to listen to what western farmers have had to say about the Wheat Board and to look at the significant economic benefit that western farmers get from the Canadian Wheat Board.

When farmers in western Canada in a plebiscite vote significantly, a strong majority of 62%, and say they want to retain the single desk for wheat, why would a government then say that farmers' opinions are not important and that how they voted is not something the government is going to consider?

It is clear to us on this side of the House that the Conservatives are not willing to listen to western farmers. They are not willing to allow western wheat farmers and barley farmers to vote or consult on this issue. As the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Hull—Aylmer, said yesterday in the House, the Conservatives are breaking the laws that say the Wheat Board needs to have consultations with farmers and to have that vote from farmers before the government can proceed. The government is choosing not to do that and is running roughshod.

Worse, we are now seeing closure being brought in on this debate. After one day of discussion, the Conservatives realize they are losing this debate, that they do not have substantive facts to bring forward and they do not even have a business plan. They have not done an impact study. They have done nothing except rely on their base ideological beliefs.

After only one day of debate, the government found it had increasing difficulty making its views known, so it brought in closure. It is running roughshod. Not only is it saying that it will break the law and run roughshod over the clearly expressed opinions of western farmers in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, 62% of whom are saying yes to the Canadian Wheat Board and the single desk, it is now saying it does not want this debate to get out. The government does not want to hear from the public. It does not want the public to have time to react to this. It does not want democracy to have its place. The government certainly does not want to consult with western farmers because they will reject what it is putting forward, so it is going to use a sledgehammer and shut down Parliament.

It is fair to say that if the government has its way, for many years to come people in western Canada will remember how the Conservative government decided to run roughshod over western Canadians through these actions. The NDP will continue to speak for western farmers and all western Canadians and bring their point of view to the House of Commons because we understand this is a fundamental debate.

It is not just the fact that the plebiscite showed very clearly that 62% of western farmers wanted to keep the single desk, it is also the fact that Conservative MPs actively campaigned to gut the democratically elected members of the board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board. Year after year there continues to be a strong majority of western farmers who support the Wheat Board. We are not talking about one single plebiscite or referendum that the government is ignoring. Despite the keenest, most base ideological attempt to gut the Canadian Wheat Board, western farmers said no time after time. They elected a majority of members on the board of directors who support the CWB.

What we are talking about is a systematic pattern of arrogance, of running roughshod and trampling on western farmers, despite the fact that they have clearly expressed their support for the Canadian Wheat Board time and time again. Why is that? I know you do not come from western Canada, Mr. Speaker, but you can certainly understand that historically western farmers were cast adrift by Ottawa with the policies of former Conservative and Liberal governments time and time again. Western farmers had to organize. They had to push.

Western Canadians generally have had to push for things that were often of benefit to the entire country as well. We will recall, of course, that the federal Parliament refused to have anything to do with public health care. It was a western Canadian and a freely and democratically elected administration under the direction of Tommy Douglas in Saskatchewan that established public health care in this country and now all Canadians enjoy it.

Western Canadian innovations include a lot of other things. As we well know, the co-operative movement particularly in the agricultural sector was born and prospered in western Canada, as well as the credit union movement. It is very popular in Quebec through the caisses populaires, but its strongest area is in western Canada. The co-operative wheat pools were brought together by farmers. It was Canadian farmers saying they needed this kind of single desk that led to the actions a few generations ago to establish the Canadian Wheat Board.

Why did farmers want that? Why have farmers continued to support it year after year despite the actions of the Conservative Party in opposition and now the Conservative Party in government trying to beat them back with a sledgehammer saying that they are wrong and the government is right? A few folks in Ottawa are saying western farmers are wrong and the government is right. Why have farmers supported the Canadian Wheat Board year after year? It is very simple. The reasons are economic.

We can see what the economic basis has been for the Wheat Board. We can compare the economic indices of western farmers with those of areas that do not have a wheat board at all, such as the United States, or have done away with their wheat board, and the member for Winnipeg Centre was very passionate about what happened in Australia.

When we see the economic utility of the Wheat Board, we can then understand why western farmers, despite the most mean-spirited pressure from the government in a constant and ongoing way, have continued to support the Wheat Board year after year and generation after generation. No mean-spirited ideological attack by the Conservative government, which is taking off the sweater vest and getting down to a very mean-spirited divisive business, is going to change the fact that the economic realities have been good for western farmers.

If we compare the Wheat Board and the single desk marketing power that western farmers have with what happened in Australia and what continues to exist in the United States, we see a profound economic benefit from the Wheat Board in the same way as we do from supply management, which the NDP has also always defended. Supply management and the Wheat Board provide the collective force that makes a real difference to agricultural communities. The economic benefits are not just for the farmers themselves, but for the entire community.

The supply managed sector has been a Canadian innovation. The Conservatives pay lip service to defending it, but they are ready to sell it out at a moment's notice. I know this because I have been on the trade committee for seven years, and every year since the Conservatives have been elected, bureaucrats come and talk about what portion of supply management the Conservative government would be willing to sell out. We know what the economic ramifications are for that.

It is similar to the situation with the Wheat Board. There are economic ramifications. After Australian wheat farmers did away with a similar body and privatized it, their revenues fell. Predictions were made at the time that it would particularly impact the smaller farmers, those with less clout. Those predictions, sadly, have come to pass.

In the United States, we have seen a similar situation. It has been unfortunate that there is not the same degree of collective action in the United States. They are often at the mercy of big multinational grain companies, and over the last few years farm income has fallen steadfastly and considerably in proportion to the average American household income.

In Canada, the area that has the lowest level of farm receipts is the province of Alberta. Why is it that agricultural management in Alberta has meant that farmers are poorer than anywhere else in the country?

It is a very simple question to answer. Right-wing privatization agendas, the type of mean-spirited agendas that we are now seeing from the Conservative federal government, drive down agricultural receipts and drive down income in agricultural communities. In areas where there is more collective action and where there have been strong NDP governments, agricultural receipts are higher.

This mean-spirited attempt by the Conservatives to run roughshod over western farmers, even though 62% voted in favour of maintaining the single desk, can only lead to lower incomes for most farmers.

Conservatives would say they do not care about that and that they just care about the top 10% or 1% or whoever wants to contribute to their electoral fund. The reality is that the government has to be more mature, more responsible and less ideological. The government has to look at the interests of all of the west and the interests of the agricultural communities, but the government is not doing this.

I spoke earlier about the sweater vest. We remember when the Prime Minister was going around the country in a sweater vest talking about moderation and how a Conservative government would somehow be more moderate than anyone expected it to be. That was what the Conservatives' commitment was.

The commitment from the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food going into the election on May 2 was to let farmers decide. That was the commitment. Those were stolen votes that Conservatives were able to obtain in those key ridings.

Mr. Speaker, you will remember, as I do, that a lot of those prairie ridings were hotly contested between Conservatives and New Democrats. The Conservatives made the commitment that farmers would be able to make the decision. We saw the results of that decision on September 12. It is important to read it into the record again: on wheat, 62% of western farmers voted in favour of retaining the single desk--62%. That is a clear victory.

The Conservatives got 38% of the vote nationally. If the government has a mandate with 38% of the vote, then what kind of mandate is 62% of the vote? That is a strong mandate to maintain the Canadian Wheat Board. Sixty-two per cent of farmers said that they want to retain it.

Time and time again, despite the worst and most underhanded tactics of the government and some of the government MPs to try to undermine the Wheat Board, the members of the board of directors who are elected and maintained are the directors who support the Wheat Board.

The government made a commitment going into the election, I suppose because it was scared of losing seats, that it would let farmers decide. Then the farmers decided, and the government said, “No, to heck with that. No, we are not going to let farmers decide on this now. No, no. We have this majority with our 38% of the vote and we are going to run roughshod over that clear majority.”

It was a clear majority by anyone's standard, unless one lives in Enver Hoxha's Albania. There is no reason to question the 62% support for the Wheat Board that came out of the plebiscite, yet the government, with 38% of the vote, is saying that it is going to stamp it down. It is going to rip it apart. The government is producing Bill C-18, which in part 4 talks about the dissolution of the Canadian Wheat Board.

The government is saying it is going to destroy the collective single desk marketing that has given farmers so much power and clout and turn farmers over to the mercy of some of the world's largest grain companies. That will drive the prices down, and drive down the income and receipts in agricultural communities all across western Canada. The government is saying it is going to drive those receipts down on the Prairies from Alberta through to Manitoba.

What does that mean? It means less money in the pockets of farmers. However, it is not just that direct impact of what the government is doing that is so despicable, but the indirect impacts, which are going to be felt right across the west. It is the small mom-and-pop grocery stores in some of those smaller communities across the western provinces. Coming from British Columbia, I have driven back and forth across this country many times. It is the grocery stores, the credit unions, the auto repair shops and the farm machinery shops. All of them are going to feel the impact of this irresponsible action.

That is why we are voting no on Bill C-18. It runs roughshod over what farmers in western Canada have clearly expressed time and time again. It has a profound economic impact, as we have seen in other jurisdictions that have done that. The government has done no preparation and has no business plan. It cannot even tell us what the impact is going to be.

The government is doing this strictly for ideology. On this side of the House, we are standing up for western farmers. We are standing for wheat farmers. We are saying yes to the Canadian Wheat Board, and no to Bill C-18.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I can see that the member opposite has stuck very closely to the talking points given to him by the Wheat Board. One of the strongest lobbies in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes is the Canadian Wheat Board. It has been using farmers' money to push its own agenda. What I mean by this is that all farmers have to sell their wheat and malt barley to the Canadian Wheat Board, and the Canadian Wheat Board uses some of that money to then wine and dine the members opposite to convince them that they have to continue to support it.

I really wonder if the member even knows that those farmers do not own their wheat. If they want to do something with their wheat, such as mill it and then sell the flour to somebody in Ontario, they cannot do it. I can give examples of farmers in my riding who had an agreement with an Ontario flour mill that the Wheat Board put a stop to.

My question is this: is it fair for farmers be forced to pay for lobbyists who present only one side of the issue to the MPs opposite?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this despicable ideological agenda is exactly the point we have been making over the course of the few hours that the government has permitted debate. Somehow it is impossible for anybody to actually talk to a western farmer that supports the Wheat Board. The ideological mindset on the other side of the House is that somehow there has to be some kind of plot, because otherwise no one would support the Wheat Board because the Conservatives do not support it.

Sixty-two per cent of western farmers said they wanted to keep the Wheat Board. In the member's riding, 62% of the farmers, on average, support the Wheat Board. My question back to the member is this: why is he not standing up for the farmers in his riding? They support the Wheat Board. Why is he not standing up for them? Why is he not their voice in Parliament, rather than being the voice of the Prime Minister? Rather than just throwing out these prepared speaking notes from the Prime Minister's Office, why is he not speaking up for western farmers? Why is he ripping up the mandate he got?

He should be speaking up for them. He should be speaking up on the floor. He should be--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Questions and comments. The hon. member for Chicoutimi--Le Fjord.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my grandfather farmed his entire life until the day he died. He was a member of the UPA and as such, he was able to benefit from collective negotiation in order to get a better price for his grains.

Can my NDP colleague tell me what western Canadian farmers would lose, concretely, if the Canadian Wheat Board were dismantled?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the question from my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. His question is much better than the last question asked by the Conservatives, which was not very good at all, in my opinion. The hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord has made a very good showing in this Parliament and he has been here for only four months. I used to live in Chicoutimi and I recognize the quality of the remarks he makes here.

His question is very good, very simple and very clear: what will be the economic impact on western Canadian farmers, wheat farmers in particular? The Conservatives have no interest in disclosing whether they have done any studies, because they know full well that the end of the Canadian Wheat Board will lead to lower household incomes for farmers. It is not just farm families who will suffer from the economic impact, but also the entire community. The government has provided no figures.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has mentioned a few things. He is from British Columbia, as am I.

I met with the BC Grain Producers Association, which represents British Columbia grain growers. It is absolutely in support of our position.

Is the member okay with voting against our own B.C. grain growers?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the new member to the House.

We have 62% of western farmers supporting the single desk. It is not a few lobbyists, which I know Conservatives have been meeting, who make the difference. It is what farmers want. Sixty-two per cent of western farmers have said, clearly and unambiguously, that they support the single desk market. Many of them live in ridings that the Conservatives won. Admittedly, the Conservatives said that they would let farmers decide, but now they are not.

Is the member prepared now to break ranks with his government when he knows that western farmers do not want this legislation?

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the member opposite who was just speaking that $5.2 billion goes through the Canadian Wheat Board, that it costs $75 million in administrative fees to run and that the rest goes back to the farmers. It has been a real success.

I want to thank the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster for his excellent speech. Does he believe that the dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board will make families poorer and weaken farmers' bargaining power, since they will have to fend for themselves to get the best prices for their crops?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, of course it will. I thank the member for her question. She makes a huge contribution to this House and I am pleased that she is here.

In Australia, the situation is quite clear, the numbers do not lie. When Australia eliminated this mechanism that protects farmers, the family income of wheat growers dropped. Wheat producers in the United States have been at a serious disadvantage because there is nothing like the Canadian Wheat Board in place there. And it is perhaps because Canadian farmers are more prosperous than U.S. farmers that the Americans have lobbied against the Canadian Wheat Board for years.

What will happen if the Canadian Wheat Board is dismantled? No one knows how far family incomes and the indirect income of the entire community will fall. The Conservatives do not know. They did not commission any studies. They have no idea of the impact that this will have. However, we can predict that the impact will be very detrimental, very negative and substantial. For that reason we are fighting Bill C-18.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, again, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster just proves the fact that he is very good at misrepresenting what actually is happening in farm country.

He talks about the Australian wheat board. There was the complete demise of the Australian wheat board because of its own internal corruption and its involvement in the scandal involved around the UN oil-for-food programme. The wheat board actually took itself out of the game, and it had nothing to do with political interference, and things in Australia got better.

Let us talk about the Canadian situation. Ontario had a monopoly in the Ontario Wheat Board. That was changed and a voluntary system was put in. There is more wheat and more wheat processing happening in Ontario today than there was before we removed the monopoly.

We know that when we took oats out of the Wheat Board, wheat processing and wheat acres increased and the returns to farmers increased. Farmers now want to grow oats again.

What is happening in wheat? Wheat acres are dropping. Wheat returns to farmers are reduced. Farmers want the ability to go and market their own grain, create value-added opportunities, create jobs and opportunities in western Canada just like everybody else in the rest of Canada.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

There was not a question in that, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to ask a question back to the hon. member.

What does he not understand about 62%? We hear Conservatives saying that they know this farmer or that farmer who is opposed to the Wheat Board and they are basing their entire strategy of gutting the Wheat Board on a few friends who do not like it. Sixty-two percent, and that includes farmers in his riding as well, of farmers said that they wanted to keep the Wheat board. It is a simple message. It is something that any Conservative MP should understand. Sixty-two percent of western farmers want to keep single desk marketing.

Why will those members not listen to the needs and desires of western Canadian farmers?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues in support of marketing choice for western Canadian grain farmers. The move to marketing freedom is exciting for all Saskatchewan farmers, especially Saskatchewan durum growers, who produce close to 80% of Canada's durum. This will mean greater price transparency for farmers before spring seeding so they can make more informed decisions about spring planting. This will give farmers the flexibility to react quickly to market signals and take advantage of market pricing opportunities.

The days of durum growers being forced to store their crop for one to three or more years are over. The days when durum growers had high quality durum and they were forced to liquidate it on the feed market in order to make cash because the board would not sell that durum are over. That nightmare will be a thing of the past.

There is no doubt this is all very good news for Saskatchewan producers. The wheat and barley business in Saskatchewan is a major driver of our economy, bringing almost $2 billion to the farm gate. The sky is the limit, like the minister said, on what the potential can be once this legislation is through: $2 billion dollars is a small number, $2 billion could be $4 billion, or $6 billion or $8 billion.

When we look at where wheat was in the thirties and the forties and then we look at what happened when we brought in the single desk and how the processing system moved, how it all went somewhere else, just think what could happen when that could now move back onto the Prairies. Think of how farmers can participate and partner and form their own co-operatives to mill their own durum, wheat and barley. I am confident a business can grow even more under marketing choice.

I must commend our Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture, the parliamentary secretary and all my colleagues for all the hard work they have done on this file. Conservative members have been out in their ridings talking to farmers. We do that on a weekly basis when we go back home on weekends. Our farmers have been very blunt. They have asked us to move fast and make this happen because they need the freedom and they need it now. That is what is happening here today, and I commend the minister and the Prime Minister for seeing this through and allowing farmers to finally have the freedom to market their own grain.

One thing about marketing freedom that will be of benefit is the innovation that will come from it. I worked in the agriculture sector before I was involved with farming and my career in Ottawa. I can remember the days of summer fold. Farmers used to summer fold half and half. Suddenly farmers started asking why they needed to summer fold. Why not just seed into the stubble? All of a sudden direct seeding happened. A few manufacturers, Bourgault, Flexi-Coil, Morris, which are farmer-owned businesses, looked at that and thought this was great. Why would they even need to work it at all?

If we look at the results of that innovation, we will find that costs for farmers have been reduced substantially, such as the cost of fuel. In fact, tractor manufacturers were concerned because the hours they were putting on their tractors, flipping tractors every two to three years. Now it is every five to seven years. That is the type of innovation that could happen on the Prairies and that is the type of innovation farmers would have to put in to wheat and barley.

Let us also talk about the innovation that we have seen in non-burnt crops. Let us look at value-added processing.

One crop that my colleague from Manitoba talked about was oats. This crop was under the single desk. Under that system, farmers would not grow that crop because they could not get more than 80¢ a bushel. The board released oats out of the single desk and a year later the price per bushel went up. A year later I saw farmers growing oats. I talked to my neighbour and asked him why he was growing oats and he told me that it was paying aid the bills. He actually substituted oats for wheat. If we asked farmers what paid the bills over the last 10 or 15 years, they would say canola, pulses and oats, not wheat or barley.

We hear this argument about grains not being able to be processed on the Prairies because it is too far for market. Let us look at the canola sector. Let us look at Yorkton, which has two processing plants. Let us look at Lloydminster, which has another canola plant. Let us look at Clavet, Saskatchewan, a small town outside of Saskatoon, which has another canola processing plant.

Canola contributes almost $6 billion to the Canadian economy. Canola was not a big crop in the seventies. This all happened in the last 30 years. Why did wheat not grow at that same level? Why did wheat innovation not happen? We have to ask these questions. We cannot put our heads in the sand.

One of the answers to those question is the CWB and its process in not making changes, in not exploring new opportunities, unwilling to allow value-added to happen in the prairies.

I think back to the days of the Weyburn Inland Terminal, which was a very progressive group of farmers. It built the first terminal on the prairies. It introduced the concept of direct hit trains to the west coast. It introduced the concept of cleaning the grain on the prairies so the dockage could be fed to cows and the clean grain would go to the west coast without having to take the cleaning charges out.

These farmers figured that there was a durum plant across the line in North Dakota and they could do that in Weyburn. They raised the money, they had a business plan, they had the market and they had it all developed. Then the CWB said, absolutely not, that this was not allowed, that it was not under the act.

The minister from Wascana, instead of backing farmers, what did he do? He backed the board. The farmers were irate. When farmers were told they could not value-add and process their own products that might have been the straw that broke the camel's back.

When I used travel with Flexi-Coil, I had a dealer down at Milk River. Milk River is right on the Montana line. Every once in a while we would sneak across the line and talk to some farmers with a salesman I knew down there. One farmer grew a lot of barley, and I asked him why he grew so much barley because there was no money in barley in Canada. He told me that the guys from Coors went to his farm and told him if I grew this type of barley, they would supply the seed. They said that if he worked with them and their agronomist to ensure they would get the proper quality, they would give him a price that he could not say no to, and they did that.

All of a sudden the farmers around Milk River on the American side were growing a pile of barley. They were selling it to Coors, making a premium, making a good profit. The company was happy and the farmers were happy. That is an example of partnerships that work.

Coors tried to do this on the Canadian side because Canadian farmers thought it was a good deal. Who said no? The Canadian Wheat Board. It was unable or unwilling to accommodate Coors. The location of malt plants that have been built over the last few years are not in Canada. They are in Montana. What about the location of durum plants up till now? The biggest durum plant was in downtown Winnipeg at CIGI. Does that make sense? We ship Canadian durum all over the world and the only processing plan in the west is in downtown Winnipeg.

Why? There has to be a reason why that value-added and that processing is not happening on the prairies. When we do a process of elimination, we can see why that is. It was because the board, at that point in time, wanted to export grain. It did not want to see processed grain. That is what its mandate was and that is what it would do. If that meant farmers could not participate in the value-added chain, so be it.

Finally the board would tell farmers that if they wanted to export their grain, the Board could do that. It could give them a buyback. The farmers could sell their grain to the board and the board would charge them a premium to buy it back. Then they could do what they wanted with it. That sounded really good. If farmers could buy it back, they could look at the U.S. market or if they wanted to ship some barley to Hong Kong or China, they could do that. However, when the farmers realized what the board charged them on the buyback, it was next to impossible for them to make any money. Yet when farmers got their final payment from the Canadian Wheat Board, it was never close to the buyback. Where did that money go?

Farmers would shake their heads because the board said that they had opportunity under this system to do that, but really they did not. Instead of telling the farmers yes, instead of working with farmers to help them develop these niche market, the board's answer was no, absolutely not.

In the late nineties a farmer talked to a Wheat Board representative. He was giving the representative a hard time about the Coors barley. The representative proceeded to tell him that the wheat and barley did not belong to him once he harvested it.

Let us think about this, just go through the process again. In the spring the farmer will plant as many Canola acres as he can or as many pulse and peas acres as he can because that is his cash crop, but he has to do a rotational crop.

For members who do not farm, a rotational crop is a filler crop so the type of chemical that is used can be changed so that weed tolerance does not build up and it reduces the weeds in the fields. It is not something they want to do. It is something that they have to do as they farm.

Then they bring in wheat and in another case barley. They do that as their rotational crop. Fall comes and they are harvesting the wheat, a beautiful crop of durum, nice crop of canola and pulses. They have to pay some bills because farmers take out cash advances so they have to haul some grain off that combine to pay those bills.

Wait a minute, I want to haul my wheat. I am told no, no contract so I cannot haul wheat right now. How do I get cashflow? I would have to maximize my cash advance if I need cashflow. If I do not want to do that, authorities do not care it is not their problem. I cannot haul that wheat or barley.

What do farmers do? They have to sell their pulses and they sell their canola. What does the trade do? They cannot take all that grain at the same time, so the basis goes up. The actual price the farmers get off the combine gets reduced because the board is unwilling to move the grain at that point in time.

Does this have the best interests of farmers at heart? It does not. It never has. It was a system made for the 1940s and 1950s. Like my colleague said, this system did not come into play because farmers wanted it. It came into play because farmers participated in helping the war effort. Then it was forced upon them. When farmers wanted out of it, they were not able to get out of it.

Liberal governments realized this was a nice cashflow for them and for their buddies. Let us look at the Liberal ties into the Canadian Wheat Board, at the people who are working there and at who is doing the survey or voter identification because that is very important when we talk about plebiscites. David Herle was sitting there doing surveys every year identifying which farmers support the single desk and which ones do not. Where did that information go? I know farmers never got to see it. Farmers did not see their file. The plebiscite claims to be so accurate and so honest. There were 51,000 permit book holders, yet there were 61,000 ballots sent out. Who received the extra 10,000 ballots? Mr. Oberg, where did they go?

A friend of mine, who is a big farmer and a fairly notable person, said a lady approached him that he did not know and told him she wanted to talk about the plebiscite. He said he became defensive, but she said her brother and sister both had votes, but they are both dead. How accurate was the plebiscite if dead people were voting in it?

More frustrating, progressive farmers who have been growing wheat for 20 years phoned me and ask where their ballots was? These are the same people during the Wheat Board directors election saying the same thing. Why did they not get a ballot?

When they look at this sham and how the Wheat Board treats them, would they ever trust the results of a Wheat Board plebiscite? When we look at the plebiscite there is one question which was not asked which is did they want choice and the ability to use the board or the ability to sell outside the board? That was never in the question. It was either single desk or nothing.

The board of directors are like Thelma & Louise. They want to drive this thing off the cliff. If they cannot get their way, they will just drive the car off the cliff, come hell or high water. This is what is frustrating a lot of farmers on the Prairies these days. There are many legitimate farmers who looked at it and wanted to sell grain to the board because they liked the idea of pooling because it spread the risk. That option is going to be there. That is why it is so confusing to listen to opposition members when they are handing out teddy bears and telling us this is horrible for western Canada because they are actually talking about themselves. They are not talking about farmers.

The reality is this organization has lost touch with farmers. It has lost touch with the producers that actually wanted to use it. This organization in the last four months, instead of holding plebiscites, could have aggressively been out securing acreages. It claims it has 22,000 supporters through this so-called plebiscite. If that is the case why does it not have 22,000 producers signing up acres today and tomorrow? It would know then how many tonnes of wheat, durum and barley it would have.

I have had some accredited exporters who represent the board in Africa and around the world because we always talk about the board selling all this grain. The reality is it does not sell it. Accredited exporters take on that role and sell it in these countries. I find it really interesting when they come to me in Ottawa and say they cannot source wheat after March. The board tells us we cannot have it, that it will not give it to us.

Again, we have 22,000 farmers over here, an accredited exporter over here, and a CWB volunteer in the middle. The CWB has a role to play to bring them together. Do members think it will do that? No. Why? Philosophy. Again, it comes back to my Thelma and Louise analogy. It would rather prove us wrong and destroy the entity than actually try to make it work and that is really disappointing. It is really frustrating for me as an MP and as a farmer. It has taken that tool that was in my toolbox and instead of giving me a new tool that I can use, it has basically taken that tool and thrown it away.

So our government did what we had to do to represent all farmers. We are not destroying the CWB. We are basically just taking away the single desk but there will be a CWB. If farmers choose to use it, they would be able to use it. If farmers choose to ship their grain through Churchill, they could do so. We would ensure that the assets, the rails and the ports, would be there for farmers to use. When it comes to producer cars, that is embedded in the Canada Grain Act, not the Canadian Wheat Board Act. That would not change. If they want to use a producer car, they can phone up the CGC and they get a producer car. Farmers who want to load their own rail car can do that.

Again, those choices are not changing. However, let us listen to what the CWB is saying, again spreading fear and mistruths or half truths. It is talking about all of them losing producer cars. That is not happening. Read the legislation. It is not there. Read the Canada Grain Act where it can be seen that it is not changing. Producer cars will be there.

We talk about Thunder Bay or Churchill. My area wants to use Churchill. We are pretty excited because there is a rail line that CN has owned for quite awhile and they have not allowed anybody to go down it and it is coming up for abandonment. Local producers are talking about getting together and buying that line, so it would actually go from Tisdale to Hudson Bay and then up to Churchill. They are excited about that. That would pull about $15 a tonne off their freight. That $15 a tonne is roughly $15 an acre for an average farmer who does maybe 1,000 acres a week and that is $15,000, hard cash, in his or her pocket. If it makes economic sense to use Churchill, farmers would use Churchill. We would ensure they have that option. We would ensure that Churchill is viable so that as the transition goes on it would not get left out.

As we see the rail improve and we see some of these farmer-owned rail lines moving grain to Churchill, it actually would get busier. Is this bad for Churchill? There is lots of potential for Churchill.

I come back to the canola sector and look at what we have seen happen there and I touched on the just under $6 billion it brings in. I look at the old sector and 15 years ago the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon had a department of agriculture but that was about it. Going there now, first in Martinsville, there is an oat processing plant. That did not come into play until the single desk for oats was gone. At the University of Saskatchewan, we need to go outside to see the research people. We see all these field-size research farms. Companies have located in Saskatoon and do all this research work on canola.

I have a good friend, Dr. Fowler, who is a very well-established renowned plant breeder. He has been in front of the agriculture committee numerous times. He expressed his frustrations in being a plant breeder when he developed new varieties of winter wheat for Canadian farmers and then was told by the CWB “no”. However, he then used that variety in North Dakota and Montana and it would be the number one variety in the United States and our farmers would not have access to it. Yet, we paid for that research.

In closing, there are some other people we need to honour. The late Art Walde was a farmer who just wanted choice and freedom. It is too bad he is not here because today he would be celebrating that freedom of choice. I think of the 12 farmers who were handcuffed and went to jail. They are celebrating today. I think of Jim Chatenay who used to get kicked out of board meetings because he just wanted to present other options to the board. He is celebrating. I think about how they threatened his family and threatened to take away his farm because he offered them an option of something different or that he opposed the way they handled things with farmers. I think that part of this is for Jim.

Finally, this is great legislation. I encourage the opposition members to actually understand what is going on here. If they understood, they would not be opposing this legislation. In fact, they would get behind it and they would realize just how great this will be for Canadian farmers and western Canadian farmers.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the member for Calgary Centre said that he does not trust the Wheat Board plebiscite. His arguments are based on some testimonies, his personal experience as a farmer, and a great deal of speculation about the future of farmers.

My question is very simple: is my colleague prepared to support a valid and neutral consultation? Would he be open to an objective study of the situation and the consequences of dismantling the board? If not, why not?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question and I will be sincere in my answer. I will try not to politicize it.

There was a consultation; it is called a general election. In my riding, 70% of the farmers, outside the city, voted for me. This is one of the things that they wanted to see done. In fact, last week, I was back in my riding, I did some passport clinics. I had maybe one out of 500 farmers who came up to me and said he did not necessarily like the changes. That is only one out of 500.

When we start talking about the second part, it is always an issue when looking at moving forward. Our farmers are telling us we need to move forward quickly. They cannot afford the single desk much longer. That is why they are insisting we move forward as quickly as we can.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Saskatchewan for his remarks, for the incredible knowledge that he brings as a farmer from Saskatchewan to this file, and for the excellent work that he has done on the agriculture committee.

When the chair of the Canadian Wheat Board came to Ottawa and bought the NDP caucus breakfast, it was reported that he requested that it delay the passage of the bill so that it would have a negative impact on the markets. Would the member be willing to share his thoughts on this?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar has been a great member. She was elected at the same time as I was, and her knowledge on agriculture issues is greatly improving. I know she does a great job representing her farmers.

I always get a little concerned when I see CWB directors spending more time in Ottawa than they do out selling our grain. They have another year to fulfill their contracts. They have until 2012 to actually finish selling this year's crop. I am concerned that they are spending all that time trying to disrupt the marketplace instead of making the transition so that farmers will reach the benefit of the grains that are grown.

As far as the existing board of directors, and Mr. Oberg himself, they are going to do what they are going to do, I guess, but the reality is they have quit working for farmers and are more concerned with keeping their own jobs. That is what is going on.

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for Prince Albert, who expressed his opinion very clearly, with a lot of confidence and what appears to be a lot of certainty, why the government did not hold the plebiscite?

The plebiscite is in the legislation that created the Canadian Wheat Board. What prevented the government from holding the plebiscite that should have been held under the existing legislation? Was it fear of losing the plebiscite or was it that, from the outset, the government did not want to take the results into account? Action cannot be taken on such an important matter based on feelings and people's comments. If the government is questioning the quality of the consultation, it should organize a consultation that it deems to be valid and then it will get its answer.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

First, Mr. Speaker, I am representing the farmers' point of view, not my point of view. I am confident in what I say because the farmers have been fairly clear on what they want to see happen here in Ottawa.

The other thing I would point out is that our farmers are not waiting for the opposition to get educated on this file. They want us to move forward. They do not feel that they should have to wait for opposition members who do not represent them in that area to get up to speed, nor should they have to pay for them to get up to speed. If opposition members were to take some advice outside the Canadian Wheat Board, I do not think they would be taking the position they are taking. Every time they defend the CWB, my numbers go up another 2% in my riding.

There are two plebiscites. There was a plebiscite on May 2 that elected a Conservative majority and which actually put Conservative members in all of that area. There will be another plebiscite four years from now when farmers will be able to review the job we have done.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague gave an excellent speech. He talked about freedom and how it came about that farmers were forced into collectivism and a government monopoly. They were forced to do something and many of them had no choice.

We are talking about freedom. I have heard about the fearmongering and misrepresentation. He mentioned that many farmers in his riding actually support a strong voluntary wheat board. What does he think it is in the ideology of the Liberal Party and its comrades in the NDP that they will not support freedom of choice and a strong voluntary wheat board? What does he think it is in their ideology that would stop them from supporting choice?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. I am not sure if it is ideology or just lack of knowledge on the issue. It could be one or the other.

I also want to point out that under the Liberal government the Canadian Wheat Board was put in place and a lot of participants in the backrooms of the Liberal Party have benefited from the Canadian Wheat Board being in place. Maybe that is the reason behind it. We can look at David Herle. It seems that as grain was shipped to the east coast, there was somebody tied to the Liberal Party with his or her hand out, whether it was Canada Steamship Lines or someone else. That might explain why the Liberals are really concerned about this file, because they actually have no representation in the Prairies.

As far as the New Democrats are concerned, it is strictly ideology. They really cannot understand that in a free market the economy grows and people move back to the provinces. I come from Saskatchewan. Four years ago there was a Saskatchewan Party government and the province's towns were worried about how to pay for infrastructure because everybody was leaving. Now they are worried about paying for infrastructure because everybody is coming back. They need more commercial lots and more residences. That is the difference between socialism and letting the market do what it should do.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the hon. member is confident or arrogant but a person has to be careful when he is busy looking up instead of watching where he is going that he does not trip and fall. I find it rather odd and do not understand why Canada Steamship Lines is being brought into this. As a member from Quebec and a native of Joliette, I am able to speak on behalf of all Canadians as well. The hon. member should not say that we are unable to understand the issues and the situation elsewhere, regardless of where we come from. It is not a monopoly. If he is in favour of choice, we can talk about it. Given his arrogance and manner of speaking, I am concerned that he is trying to move to the next step, which is supply management. Here, I am thinking of the dairy farmers in my riding. Is the hon. member trying to tell me that he is against supply management?

He is against supply management. Is that what he is saying?

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we are back to the fear and smear campaign of the Liberal Party. They are trying to concern their farmers who are not going to be affected by this legislation. There is nothing in this legislation that talks about supply management. There is nothing that talks about dairy, eggs or poultry, absolutely nothing. We have spoken with representatives of those industries and they understand what is going on. Representatives of those industries are talking to farmers and they understand why farmers want choice. We do not see them jumping up and down on this file.

When we talk about arrogance, arrogance is when a minister puts farmers in jail and looks the other way. Arrogance is telling a farmer that he cannot own the crop he grows. Arrogance is telling a farmer who looks across the border to Montana and sees all of his buddies prospering that he cannot have that same prosperity just because the Liberal government said so. That is the arrogance of the Liberal government of the past. That is the arrogance of the CWB, and it is why it has to change.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is nice to be in this full House once again speaking on this topic. I wish to say that it gives me pleasure, but it does not give me pleasure.

It is tragic to see that it has come to this. Ever since my election in 2006, I have a witnessed a systematic smear campaign by the Conservative government to discredit the Canadian Wheat Board. It is a campaign based on ideology and not market sense or democratic principles.

We have seen gag orders put in place prohibiting the CWB from outlining its position, the firing of the former CEO for speaking out in support of the CWB single desk, and most recently, a flagrant violation of democracy by not respecting the recent plebiscite where farmers voted to keep the CWB as it is.

In Minnedosa, Manitoba, during the last election campaign, the minister was quoted as saying that his party respects the vote of farmers who support the single desk. He suggested there would not be any attempt to dismantle CWB unless a majority of producers voted for it. I quote:

Until farmers make this change, I am not prepared to work arbitrarily. They are absolutely right to believe in democracy. I do, too.

Two days ago a number of us stood in this House to denounce the flagrant violation of democratic principles by the President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych. It is tragic and somehow ironic that these same Conservative MPs who spoke out for democratic rights in Ukraine are now ignoring their own minister's comments made in Minnedosa.

We have heard in the House almost daily how the last election was somehow a mandate to do away with the Canadian Wheat Board. Let us not forget there are many issues that people look at prior to casting their ballot. We know, for example, although I do not agree with it, that the gun registry was decisive in swinging votes in western Canada. It is important to remember, however, that farmers only represent 2% of the population spread over 57 western ridings.

If a federal election were called today with the only issue being the dismantling of the Wheat Board, Canadians, including the farming community, would ensure that this so-called mandate would not win. It is because the Conservatives have won a majority in this House they are moving forward with their ill-guided plan to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board.

As stated by Bill Gehl of the Canadian Wheat Board Alliance:

...claiming the Conservative Party has a mandate from farmers to change the Canadian Wheat Board is ridiculous and I think most urban voters agree that farmers should decide this issue, not Ottawa.

We often hear the government draw a parallel between Ontario farmers and western Canadian grain producers. The two situations are completely different. Anyone who attempts to say they are the same is simply ignoring the facts.

Ontario farmers decided for themselves on changes to their marketing system and not the federal government which made the decision. They chose the open market. Quebec farmers, on the other hand, have chosen to market their wheat collectively.

The other point is the impact on Canada and on prairie farmers from changes to the CWB is much greater than the impact of changes to the Ontario system. Most of Ontario's wheat, about 90%, is sold within Canada or in the northern U.S.A. Most of the prairie wheat, roughly 68%, is exported.

A number of western farmers believe that more U.S. markets would somehow magically open up to them as a result of the loss of the single desk. However, they forget that the U.S. agriculture industry is extremely protectionist. We have seen that in the past. This is especially true now under their buy American philosophy. It is therefore very unlikely that the U.S. would take additional Canadian wheat unless the price of the wheat was reduced to the point that it could replace their domestically grown wheat, allowing the U.S.A. to export even more.

The fact is the Canadian Wheat Board currently seeks high-end markets for high-quality milling wheat and durum in over 70 countries, and does not have to pursue markets by reducing its prices. I might add that this obviously gives a premium to Canadian farmers.

The other important point to mention when comparing Ontario and western Canada is the fact that transportation is a less important factor in Ontario. Most Ontario farmers can get their crop to market for $15 a tonne in freight costs due to the close proximity of flour mills and Great Lakes terminals. On the Prairies, the volume produced along with the distance between farms, country elevators, inland terminals, domestic markets and ports make transportation costs significant.

The Canadian Wheat Board is a strong advocate for fair transportation rates and provides a countervailing force to the railway's power. It is very probable that railway costs will increase for farmers once the CWB is gone.

Let us not make the mistake of deluding ourselves that the Wheat Board will survive in a dual market system. Currently it provides stability and certainty for farmers in what I would say are volatile world markets. Once it no longer has a mandate, farmers will be free to choose when and if they wish to deal through the Wheat Board. This will tend to bring prices down because the Wheat Board will have lost its authority among its trading partners. Let us not forget that a powerful organization with a monopoly can dictate prices in the world and obtain the highest premium for our farmers. Farmers will eventually end up on the losing end.

In regard to the movement of grain in western Canada, without the Wheat Board's ability to organize deliveries, it is likely that farmers close to inland terminals and those with large trucking capacity will plug the system at harvest time. The strongest will survive while others will be left behind. In other words, it will be the survival of the fittest.

What will be the consequences of eliminating the single-desk system? First, we will see decreased revenues for farmers. Now, the Canadian Wheat Board obtains lucrative premiums for farmers in the Prairies, which means that the Canadian Wheat Board takes a highly strategic approach to where and when it sells during the year. The result is that, every year, the board enables farmers to earn several million dollars more than they would in a free market. But we are headed towards the free market now.

The Canadian Wheat Board does not have any capital assets. Once it is dismantled, it will need to acquire a considerable amount of capital assets if it wants even the slightest chance of surviving in a free market. Who will pay for that? Plus, there will be very high costs associated with dismantling the Canadian Wheat Board.

Current activities will have to cease. All of the related costs will have to be paid so that no potential new entity ends up with that burden. Since the government is the one that chose to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board and not the farmers, the farmers should not end up on the hook for these expenses.

And then there is the city of Winnipeg. The Canadian Wheat Board employs over 400 people at its headquarters and helps maintain over 2,000 jobs, for a total of over $66 million in labour income in Winnipeg. At the provincial level, the Canadian Wheat Board's contribution to gross production is estimated at $320 million, which represents over 3,000 jobs and labour income of over $140 million. What will happen to the city of Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba, to the people who are working now and are part of this system? Will they lose their jobs? Will they be able to find another job somewhere else? What we see here is uncertainty.

What we are seeing here is what I would call “economic madness”. A successful organization or a farmer-run corporation that puts money into the pockets of farmers and contributes millions of dollars to the economy of our nation is being dismantled to satisfy the demand of a small number of farmers who think they will be able to survive in a ruthless world market.

In all probability some will survive, but what about the rest? What will happen to the majority who have relied on the stability and protection of the Wheat Board in difficult economic times?

The debate is ongoing and history will be the judge.

I have before me a letter written to the Prime Minister, dated May 6, shortly after the election, by Mr. John Manley, CEO of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, which is an extremely powerful business lobby group representing 150 of the most powerful corporations in our country.

I will quote from page 3 of the letter, which states:

As a demonstration of Canada’s strong commitment to trade liberalization, we endorse your plan to reform the marketing practices of the Canadian Wheat Board.

[...]

Consistent with that, we believe the time is right to phase out the national supply management systems for eggs, dairy products and poultry, which penalize consumers and have seriously damaged our country’s reputation as a champion of open markets--

The Canadian Council of Chief Executives is directing our Prime Minister to get rid of the Wheat Board and supply management.

People laugh at this and say that there is no way that could be happening because they are supporting supply management. The question we must ask ourselves is not if but when will the Conservatives be phasing out supply management now that they have successfully destroyed the Canadian Wheat Board.

I ask my colleagues on the other side to answer that question. I submit it will be in the not too distant future. There is tremendous pressure from the WTO, our trading partners and the European Union for Canada to decrease or eliminate its tariffs on supply management commodities.

Our country is currently negotiating, although in secret, a free trade agreement with the European Union, the CETA. Last night, at a presentation hosted by the Council of Canadians and CUPE, we were told in no uncertain terms by an expert from France who has been studying the situation in Europe that in addition to pushing for unlimited access to service contracts at the provincial and municipal levels, and I am sure that includes Prince Albert and the surrounding communities, Europe is demanding access to our natural resources. Obviously agriculture is on the table.

What would stop our negotiators from increasing the tariff-free quota from the current 7.5% to 10% and decreasing the over-quota tariffs to satisfy European demands?

Technically, we would still have supply management. However, we have been told by the dairy producers that should that happen each Canadian dairy farmer stands to lose approximately $70,000.

This is a scary situation given the fact that the government's mantra has been and continues to be to open up as many markets as possible without evaluating the potential negative effect on our own producers. It would dismantle and do away with the single desk of the Wheat Board without evaluating potential economic consequences. It would sign an agreement with Europe without evaluating the impact that would have on our municipalities, on obtaining pharmaceuticals, on our water rights and on our agricultural producers.

Today we have witnessed a move by the Conservatives to limit debate on this very important issue.

In today's press release, the Canadian Wheat Board Alliance states:

Even more ominous are rumours the Harper administration intends to avoid Agriculture Committee hearings and fast track this bill through the unusual use of a Legislative Committee hearing process.

It goes on to state:

This is inappropriate because it will restrict Parliament’s right to examine this Legislation and to hear from those most affected: the farmers of western Canada....

People around the world know it is simply wrong for a government to remove hard-won democratic rights from its citizens. Cancelling democracy for western Canadian farmers to end our Wheat Board is a bullying tactic of the worst sort. We are asking for the help of all Canadians to oppose this attack on farmers and the democratic process--

In a letter to the minister, the chair of the board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board communicated that the Wheat Board had put considerable effort into analyzing what a redefined Canadian Wheat Board would require for any prospect of success. The conclusion it reached was that no alternative could be identified that comes anywhere close to offering farmers the benefits provided by the Canadian Wheat Board's single desk system.

Therefore, if there is no analysis and we are unsure of what the future holds, it begs the question as to why this is happening and why it has not been put to a democratic vote.

There we have it. The government has not performed an economic analysis. It has shown a flagrant disregard for democracy. As well, it is dictating its ideological agenda after having received only 40% of the vote in the last election.

Mention has been made that members on this side of the House are basing their arguments on ideology. Our arguments are based on practical considerations, such as potential economic impacts, impacts to the communities and the City of Winnipeg, impacts on the short line railway systems, and impacts on the port of Churchill. None of these has been identified in any economic analysis that I have seen unless they are hidden in an office somewhere.

This is a sad state for democracy. What is happening here makes absolutely no sense. Surely the minister could get together with the members of the board of directors of the Wheat Board, most of whom are elected and most of whom support the status quo, to attempt to work out some kind of system that is not based on ideology.

The Canadian Wheat Board serves farmers in western Canada to market their wheat, durum and barley. Under the Canadian Wheat Board Act, the organization has an official mandate to bring in the highest possible receipts for farmers from the sale of grain, by effectively profiting from being a single-desk seller.

The Canadian Wheat Board sells farmers' grain in 70 countries. It hands over all of the profits from the sale to farmers, between $4 billion and $7 billion a year.

If we look at the proposed scenario, there are tremendous costs involved in this process of dismantling, changing and modifying the Wheat Board. Who will pay the hundreds of millions of dollars required to transform the organization presently in place? The Wheat Board was financed by farmers and has given profits back to farmers. Will the taxpayer pay for its transformation? Will farmers see increased costs? Will donations be forthcoming from some benevolent society to ensure that no money is lost? These are questions we must ask ourselves.

As I said earlier, history will be the judge of this very sad day in Parliament.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy working with the member on the agriculture committee. Even though we have differing ideologies, I know he has a passion in his heart for agriculture and wears his ideology on his sleeve. Unfortunately, that ideology will cost farmers a lot of money.

For example, the price for milling durum wheat today in Fortuna, North Dakota, which is roughly 20 miles from the Canadian border, is $12.47. Today the Canadian Wheat Board's fixed price is $7.53 and the pool outlook is $9.47. The Wheat Board is asking $16.23 for that farmer to buy back that durum wheat and ship it across to the U.S.

There is a huge difference between the pool outlook and the buyback. Where does that money go?

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard the arguments that the price is different across the board than it is for farmers. However, that is in the current market. Will the market remain static? What would happen if we tried to sell our wheat across the border when the market was saturated? If we consider the buy America policy of the U.S., it would be ludicrous to think that our farmers could tap into that market on a volume basis.

Any money made by the Wheat Board goes back to farmers. It does not make economic sense to do what the Conservatives are attempting to do.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Edmonton—St. Albert questioned the ideology of the member speaking. It is better that the member speaking wear that ideology on his sleeve than have it spread all across Bill C-18 the way it is now by the government.

The Alliance Grain Traders announced last week that it will invest $50 million to build a pasta plant in Saskatchewan. Could the member speculate as to why it would do that? Could he comment as to whether the AGT expects the price of grain to go up, go down or stay the same?

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his tireless efforts on behalf of farmers in this country. It has been a pleasure to work with him over the last few years on the agriculture committee. I look forward to a continuing collaboration with him and others in his party on these important issues.

It is an interesting coincidence that announcement was made now that this legislation is coming in. There have been more value-added benefits taking place in western Canada than south of the border. There is more milling taking place in western Canada than south of border. The value-added chain is being supported.

Obviously the Alliance Grain Traders would invest money there because it intends on making money. It begs the question though why it would do that during an economic downturn and not two years ago when the economic situation was better. The fact of the matter is it was unaware that the Wheat Board would be dismantled.

By dismantling the Wheat Board, the price of wheat would go down and companies would build milling plants because they would not have to pay premium prices. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to understand that.

[Hélène LeBlanc, NDP, LaSalle—Émard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member from British Columbia Southern Interior because I know how passionate he is about agriculture and farmers. I would like to ask him what effect this bill would have on Canada's food and economic sovereignty and all of the related possibilities.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question and her participation in the debate. Our food and economic sovereignty is being threatened now more than ever before. By whom? By huge transnational, multinational corporations. Obviously, dismantling the Canadian Wheat Board would be a good thing for them. It is to their advantage to not have such strong competition from the Canadian Wheat Board, which represents Canadian wheat growers and exporters.

I think it is clear that we will see more transnational corporations coming to this country and more blackmail. Or they will simply say: this is the price, you can agree to it or go elsewhere. All of these so-called free trade agreements—really just pressure from multinationals—threaten our sovereignty, particularly our food sovereignty. The policy here is to open more markets to free trade. That adds nothing to our ability to grow and produce food for ourselves. Yes, I believe it threatens our sovereignty.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and I are both on the agriculture committee. I will use Chicken Little as an agriculture metaphor.

We see other crops like canola, pulses, et cetera, on the open competitive market in the world. Why has the sky not fallen for them?

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting comparison. The fact is that prior to the markets opening up for other crops, there has not been a single desk entity negotiating good prices for, in this case, wheat farmers.

The market is already established. I hear the same argument on GMOs, which is that if a canola GMO is successful, why would we not introduce any more GMOs?

Those producers have done it. They have carved out their market. However, when they did that, the situation was different. It is a tougher time now. It is going to be a tougher time for wheat growers to carve out that market and to have the representation to get those markets on the international level.

It is now 2011. It is throwing people open to a ruthless market and to competitors who heavily subsidize their agriculture, such as the European Union, the United States and others. It is going to take a long time to stabilize that. In the meantime, wheat farmers are going to take a hit. It is as simple as that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the record. A while ago I mentioned Bill Gehl was the chair of the Canadian Wheat Board, but in my haste I had forgotten to indicate “Alliance” at the end. I am very well aware that Allen Oberg is the chair of the Canadian Wheat Board. Again, I want to mention that Mr. Gehl had indicated that the Port of Churchill is going to be toast, in contrast to what the minister explained a while ago.

The Conservatives have been arguing that the Ontario experience with removing the single desk can be applied to western farmers. Maybe my colleague could explain why we cannot compare apples to oranges when it comes to the Canadian Wheat Board and the Ontario experience.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, there are a number of points.

First, Ontario farmers decided on the marketing system themselves. They decided that experience. Western wheat production is 10 times that of eastern Canada. It has a different transportation system. It only costs $15 a tonne in Ontario to move wheat to the Great Lakes or just across the border, but there is a tremendous cost in western Canada.

The Ontario wheat business is completely different from what it is in western Canada. Ontario produces soft wheat used for pastry, cookies, doughnuts, et cetera. Most of Ontario's wheat is sold within Canada. U.S.-Canada trade in wheat is relatively low. Transportation, as I said, is a less important factor in Ontario.

Ontario farmers actually pay more handling fees now than they did under the single desk, which is quite interesting. If we transport this to the argument we have now, with transportation fees already high for western Canadian farmers, what are they going to pay when they lose the single desk?

As well, wheat is cleared from the Ontario system quickly, whereas it often takes a long time to store and move grain in western Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to let you know I will be sharing my time with the member for Red Deer.

Our government has introduced legislation that aims to give western Canadian grain growers the freedom to choose to market their wheat, durum and barley independently or by voluntary pool.

I am proud to stand in support of our government's intention to bring marketing freedom to western Canadian grain farmers. With marketing freedom, farmers in British Columbia and across the Prairies will be able to make marketing decisions that are best for their own businesses. They will have the opportunity to take advantage of special markets.

As Virginia Labbie from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business said, “The message from farmers is that the CWB is not currently meeting producers'...needs. It is evident growers need more consistent, timely, accessible and transparent marketing signals in order to make the best possible marketing decisions for their farm”.

When western Canadian farmers have the freedom of an open market, they will not have to wait for an outside agency to tell them, up to a year and a half after the sale of their grain, the final price of the sale. Western Canadian grain farmers want the same marketing freedom and opportunities as other farmers in Canada and around the world.

The creation and additional use of futures contracts will allow producers to manage their own individual risk. British Columbia ports are the main end of the pipeline for our grains prior to export. B.C. processors could see the opportunity to have direct, regular access prior to leaving our shores to pick and choose from the very best of the produce for the creation of high-end, high-value special products.

We know that an open market will attract investment, create jobs and help build a stronger economy for Canada and Canadians. We know farmers want to make their marketing decisions based on what is best for their own businesses. That is why we have brought this legislation to remove the single desk monopoly, and not the Wheat Board, as the opposition continues to say as it misleads the public.

The removal of a monopoly will allow farmers to sell their wheat and barley directly to a processor, whether it be a pasta manufacturer, a flour mill or another processing plant.

As Alberta farmer Paul Schoorlemmer said:

It will allow individual farmers to do secondary processing, mixed marketing and those types of things that were not really practical under the old system.

Grain farmers in western Canada and right across this country have a bright future, and we stand with them. Our government is committed to the continued success of Canadian agriculture. We are pulling out all the stops to help make sure Canadian farmers succeed and to build a strong future for the sector as a whole.

Farmers are the key economic driver in this country, and that is why we put farmers first in every decision we make on agriculture. Our formula is simple, and it works: we listen to our farmers, we work with farmers, and then we deliver the practical results farmers need.

Canadian farmers have proven time and time again that they can compete and succeed in the global marketplace if they have a level playing field. That is why the government has been working very hard to build new opportunities in global markets for our farmers. We have been on the road a lot in our efforts to build trade relations, and they are paying off.

The agriculture minister has led trade missions to key markets in Europe, Asia, South America, Africa and the Middle East. Working closely with the industry, we have completed over 30 international trade missions and returned home with some real tangible results for our farmers, producers and processors. Everywhere we go, we are finding new customers who want to buy Canada's safe, high-quality foodstuffs. Together we have been moving a lot of product and have delivered some real results for our farmers and processors.

The government knows farmers want to make their living in the marketplace. That is why we have gotten out on the world stage, whether it is serving up Canadian steak at the Winter Olympics in Vancouver or canola oil in Mexico, to make sure our farmers can connect with new customers.

Canada has a lot to be proud of. Canada is rich in land and resources. We have the expertise in science and innovation. We export our high-quality, safe, delicious foods all over the world. We have dedicated farmers and processors to help us continue our long-standing proven tradition of delivering an abundance of top-quality food and food products to the world. These qualities are important assets as we look to the future.

Farmers appreciate the agriculture minister's hard work on their behalf. They understand that agricultural trade is critical to Canada's economy and prosperity.

Overall, Canada's agriculture, food and seafood exports surpassed $39 billion in 2010. That is the second-highest level in history, and it puts us in the top five global agrifood exporters.

That is huge. Those dollars mean jobs and livelihoods for Canadians. That is why, when we as a government take measures to support agricultural trade, we are not just helping farmers but all Canadians. Agriculture has proven time and time again its contribution to Canada's economic recovery and will continue to do so, especially as we succeed in breaking down barriers to trade.

Canada is working on all fronts to boost our agricultural business in the world. We know that buyers and consumers already think highly of Canadians and Canadian products. We want to raise awareness and boost the appetite for our great Canadian agriculture products. Opening and expanding markets around the world creates opportunities for our producers to drive the Canadian economy.

There are challenges facing the industry, but the long-term signs are positive. During this time of global economic uncertainty, we have to maximize trade opportunities on the world stage. We have to provide every opportunity for our farmers to succeed, which includes this geat step forward--and it is forward--to give western Canadian wheat farmers and barley farmers the freedom they have asked for and deserve.

Removing the single desk monopoly helps not only farmers: it helps all Canadians by creating jobs and prosperity. I urge members to support the bill and to understand that timely passage will help give farmers the certainty they need to plan their business for the coming year.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my hon. colleague's comments and I cannot help but wonder, if he has such confidence in the overall system, why the Conservatives did not have a full referendum vote on it, rather than playing the “we know better than everybody else”. This way there would not be this immense division, which continues to grow.

I have had more than a dozen phone calls this morning on this issue. It would have been helpful in the overall mission that the government is on if it had held a referendum and truly heard from 100% of the people who are going to be affected.

Why is the government afraid to do that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ. We did have a plebiscite on May 2, and it was called the national election. By the way, we have a majority.

Opposition members often quote a plebiscite that was supposedly an accurate collection of the farmers' thoughts. My uncle and cousin farm in Manitoba. They farm grain and they did not even get a ballot. They were not even able to vote in the plebiscite.

We know on this side of the House that the plebiscite has a lot of issues and is an inaccurate representation of the views of Canadian farmers.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a plebiscite, an election, is not just about the Canadian Wheat Board.

Canadians need to be reminded that the Canadian Wheat Board was created in the 1920s and was formally implemented in 1935 by farmers, for farmers. This board is entirely run and funded by farmers. Taxpayers do not contribute any money to this organization, as they do to crown corporations. This board is not a crown corporation. What is the government doing?

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

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned the inaccuracies of the plebiscites held in the past by the Canadian Wheat Board. They do not support the numbers of 62%. They just are not accurate. Again I will mention my uncle and cousin, who farm in Manitoba and were not allowed to vote because they had not been given a ballot. There are a lot of issues with that.

The B.C. grain growers group overwhelming said it supports our legislation to move the Wheat Board forward into the 21st century.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree with my colleague more when it comes to the Wheat Board.

At home we farm about 3,000 acres. I have a son who is looking after it at the present time. He is still combining and trying to get the crop off, but he asks me why he is getting a world price for canola outside the board but not getting a world price for wheat, which is in the board.

I would like to know what my colleague would say to my son and I would like to ask that question to the opposition. Obviously none of those members actually farms wheat or canola and understands exactly what is happening at the farm gate. The real question should be how much the Wheat Board is costing at the farm gate today, because it is very significant.

Could my colleague come up with an answer that would satisfy my son?

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

Mr. Speake, that is an easy one. We talked about it. I asked the hon. member of the opposition sits on the agriculture committee. We have not seen the same issues with canola and other crops that are on the open market. They simply are making money. In my neck of the woods in northern B.C. canola and other crops are making money. Farmers have shifted away from grain because it is so difficult to operate within the Canadian Wheat Board structure.

I would like to tell the member a personal story. I would likely be a farmer today because I wanted to be a farmer as a kid, but it just simply was not doable in the grain market as my family has continued on with in Manitoba. Hopefully it is coming soon.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to stand in support of this important and timely legislation for western Canadian grain farmers.

I would also like to thank the member for Prince George—Peace River for sharing his time with me today.

Our government has always promised western Canadian wheat and barley growers that they would be given market freedom. With this legislation, we are delivering on that promise. We live in a democratic country and we believe that western Canadian grain farmers deserve the same freedom as farmers in other parts of Canada and around the world.

I will outline what this new legislation will mean for western grain farmers.

In the June 2011 Speech from the Throne, our government reiterated its commitment to ensure that western farmers have the freedom to sell wheat and barley on the open market. With this proposed legislation, we aim to provide marketing choice to western wheat and barley farmers. To avoid market disruptions, the goal is for farmers and grain marketers to be able to start forward contracting for the 2012-13 crop year well in advance of August 1, 2012.

This bill would remove the monopoly of the Canadian Wheat Board and allow for the Canadian Wheat Board to continue as a voluntary marketing organization for up to five years as it makes the transition to full private ownership.

The Canadian Wheat Board will finally have the opportunity to become owned and operated by farmers. The Canadian Wheat Board will continue to offer farmers the option of pooling their crops. It will continue to benefit from a borrowing guarantee backed by the federal government. It will develop a business plan for privatization, which will be reviewed by the Minister of Agriculture no later than 2016.

During our extensive consultations, industry raised a number of valid issues around transition. We are taking these concerns seriously.

First, on the issue of the voluntary Canadian Wheat Board's access to elevators, ports and terminals, we expect grain handlers will be competing vigorously for grain volume in an open market, so they will want to handle the grain that is marketed by the Canadian Wheat Board.

Curt Vossen, president of Richardson International Limited, said that the end of the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly is “going to open up 20 to 25 million new tonnes of marketing opportunities for companies inside and outside Canada”. This will mean more companies competing for farmers' grain, which is the good news for farmers. Our staged approach will provide the necessary checks and balances to help ensure a smooth transition, taking corrective action if needed.

Second, on the issue of producers' continued access to producer cars, the right to producer cars is protected in the Canada Grain Act. The Canadian Grain Commission allocates these cars to producers, and this will not change with marketing freedom.

Currently, the Canadian Wheat Board manages the marketing of grain shipped in producer cars so that shipments are related to a sale. Under the new rules, producers and short lines will be able to make commercial agreements and arrangements with grain companies or the voluntary Canadian Wheat Board to market their grain.

Stephen Vandervalk, president of the Grain Growers of Canada, believes “You'll see more and more producer cars because it's like a specialty crop as far as quality and contracting directly with the farmer. It has very little to do with the Canadian Wheat Board”.

Short line railways are expecting some adjustments as they will have more options of marketing partners for the grain volumes they can attract from producers. However, Sheldon Affleck, president of Big Sky Rail , believes that “The flexibility of a short line should provide improved service that will attract grain”.

Third, these changes will not change the Canadian Grain Commission's role in assuring the world-renowned quality of Canada's grain.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. Excuse me for interrupting the hon. member for Red Deer. He will have six minutes remaining when the House returns to this matter.

The House resumed 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, and of the amendment.

Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member has six minutes left to conclude his remarks.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, before question period we were talking about issues that were going to have to take place during transition. The first was on the Canadian Wheat Board's access. The second was on producer cars.

I had just indicated the third where these changes would not change the Canadian Grain Commission's role in assuring the world-renowned quality of Canada's grain. The Canadian Grain Commission will continue to provide its services regardless of who is marketing the grain.

Fourth, on the issue of the future funding of wheat and barley research and market development, a deduction from producers' sales will be established to continue the same level of funding by farmers to these activities. These funds will support the great work that is being done by the Western Grains Research Foundation, the Canadian International Grains Institute and the Canadian Malting Barley Technical Centre.

The deduction will be mandated by government for the transition period. In the meantime, we are discussing with industry a long-term mechanism to support research and market development in order to keep our great industry moving forward.

As Keith Degenhardt, chairman of the Western Grains Research Foundation, wrote to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, “The Canadian Wheat Board method of collecting the check-off is certainly not the only method of collecting wheat and barley check-offs”.

Many have expressed concerns about the future of the port of Churchill which depends upon Canadian Wheat Board shipments for the majority of its business. Our government knows how important the port of Churchill is to the strength and growth of our northern economy. The port is part of the government's overall northern strategy, setting out a vibrant vision for the north and it will remain the Prairies' Arctic gateway to the world.

Over the past four years, we have invested close to $40 million, $37.4 million to be exact, to improve the port's facilities, including rail and air access. We are backing up that commitment with a concrete plan to support a strong future for the port following the introduction of marketing freedom for western grain and barley growers.

As the first phase, we are investing federal funds to provide timely support for Churchill. For the second phase, once we know better the impact of marketing freedom on the port, we will decide what new initiatives will be needed to drive a bright future for the port. We will continue to work with all stakeholders to explore new opportunities for this vital northern asset.

We are also very encouraged by the willingness and positive outlook of owners OmniTRAX, the largest privately held rail service in North America, to sit down with us to develop a business plan and chart a way forward for Canada's only major northern seaport.

As for grain industry jobs, while we will see some job losses at the Canadian Wheat Board initially, we expect private grain marketers and processors to expand and start up new businesses in Canada. In fact, Milton Boyd, a professor and economist at the University of Manitoba, believes, “Just as creation of the Board in the 1930s shifted some jobs away from the private grain firms, removal of the board's monopoly in 2012 would shift some jobs back to the private grain firms.”

Milling firms will be able to purchase directly from the farmer of their choice at whatever price they negotiate. Entrepreneurs will have the option of starting up their own small specialty flour mills, malting and pasta plants.

As Brian Otto, president of the Western Barley Growers Association, said, “Canadian millers will have the opportunity to develop niche contracting programs to satisfy needs for specific traits”. He also believes, “Minor classes of wheat will find new, robust markets that were ignored under the single desk because they were too small”.

The future of our agriculture industry is bright. We have seen tremendous growth in value-added opportunities for oats, pulses and canola across the Prairies over the past 20 years. We will see these same opportunities open up for wheat and barley as we implement marketing freedom, just as we saw in Saskatchewan a few weeks ago.

We will work with farmers and industry to attract investment, encourage innovation, create value-added jobs and build a stronger economy. By taking this historic and decisive action to ensure certainty and clarity for producers who will soon be entering into forward contracts for their 2012 crop, this will create opportunities in the grain market and respect western wheat and barley farmers' property rights, rights upon which our nation was built.

I urge opposition members of the House to support the bill. Its timely passage will give farmers the certainty they need to plan their business decisions for the coming year. We will free farmers to feed families around the world with the safe, high quality wheat and barley they are so proud of.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Red Deer is aware of a recent article in The Wall Street Journal that lauded the Wheat Board's demise because of the increased profits for grain companies, yet an article in The Economist warns of the tragedy that would prevail in western provinces with the closure of small farms and the negative impact that it would have on small farming communities.

Why is the member prepared to sacrifice the well-being of so many for the well-being and profits of so few?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful that the member for Guelph has asked me that question, because he is talking to a farmer from western Canada who has a family farm that has been there since 1903.

There were types of things we were forced to do when we were told that we would not be able to market the wheat and barley that we produced. It pushed us into producing flax and canola in order to get some cash flow. When farmers produce their crop and then find out they are not going to get paid for it for 18 months and then are subject to all of the different things that are happening because of the Canadian Wheat Board, these are the kinds of changes that we believe are going to increase the family farm. This is the reason we will be able to ask our sons and daughters to come back and create the family farm that we all have dreamed of.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the comment the member just made, because he is educating the folks across the way.

We farm as well. Two years ago, we had durum in our bin. The Wheat Board said it would contract 60% of it. The person who was farming our land had found a market for the other 40% in the United States. When he went to the Wheat Board and said he would like to do a buy-back, meaning we would have to buy our own grain back to sell it, the Wheat Board told him “absolutely not”. When he asked why, the Wheat Board said it was not contracting the other 40%, so he could not sell it. When he asked what he was supposed to do, he was told to leave that 40% of the crop in the bin until next year and the Wheat Board would see if it would deal with it then.

Has the member had that type of experience in dealing with the Canadian Wheat Board when trying to market his grain? The question directly relates to having to grow canola and flax and those kinds of crops in order to have cash flow on a farm. I would be interested in hearing if the member has any of those stories or experiences as well.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for that question as well as for all the work he has done to help give marketing freedom for farmers.

I can think back to the different operations involved on our farm. I started farming 40 years ago, so I have been filling out a Canadian Wheat Board permit for the last 40 years and I know the types of things that have happened and the concerns we have in central Alberta.

First, farmers are not able to get delivery contracts when they require them. Second, when the Canadian Wheat Board decides it wants to move some of our grain, a lot of the time we find that it happens to be when the road bans are on. If that does not work, then it says we had better have it delivered while we are trying to put our crops in. Finally, sometime in the summer we are able to get that pushed in there because we have to ensure it is done before July 31. Those are just part of the concerns that one has.

Then when we take a look at the dollars being returned to the Canadian farmer compared to the dollars we find elsewhere, we can see it is one of the reasons that the family farm has the problems it has now.

These are some of the things we have to consider.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate. It is obviously a debate that provokes a great deal of emotion, and I suppose that is understandable.

The grain industry in western Canada has always been a source of considerable controversy. That is because it is a multi-billion dollar industry. It has huge importance to the livelihoods and way of life of many prairie families.

Its structure is also significant, with tens of thousands of individual farmers on one side, most of them in family farm operations, and then a few large corporations on the other side, namely the railways and grain companies--many of them foreign-controlled--that run the grain handling and transportation system.

It is an inherently uneven playing field, and farmers, sadly, are positioned to get the short end of the stick. Down through the years, various attempts have been made by producers, communities, farm organizations, governments and others to correct or at least to try to offset that imbalance. The strongest effort, and certainly the most successful, has come through the Canadian Wheat Board.

After a number of dubious experiences with previous open markets and many failed experiments with voluntary pooling over the years, the Wheat Board was first created--by a Conservative government, incidentally--in 1935. It was given many of its essential single desk characteristics by a Liberal government in 1943.

It is interesting to note that for several decades after 1943, the board's existence was actually considered to be temporary, and it had to have its powers renewed by Parliament by a vote in this House every few years.

They were, of course, renewed year after year, decade after decade, because those powers exercised by the Canadian Wheat Board had proven to be effective. Farmers over those years effectively wanted and supported the board. Successive federal governments, both Liberal and Conservative, acted on the farmers' opinion that the Canadian Wheat Board's mandate should be renewed.

The last major revision of the Wheat Board's structure came in 1997. As the minister at that time, I knew our government had four primary objectives in the legislation that it introduced in 1997. That legislation came into effect on January 1, 1998.

The first objective was to make the Canadian Wheat Board a truly producer-controlled operation. It is, as a result of that legislation, no longer a crown corporation. It is not a government entity run by five hand-picked servants of the government beholden only to the government. Instead it is a modern marketing organization controlled and operated by farmers themselves. That was the first objective of that legislation 13 years ago.

Second, we needed to make that producer control legitimate and accountable by making the Canadian Wheat Board fully democratic. Farmers themselves now elect the overwhelming majority of the board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board, which is an innovation that has existed in the law only since 1998. Farmers elect 10 of the 15 directors on the Canadian Wheat Board. Obviously, if the farmers do not like what those directors do, they can be voted out of office. The elections occur every two years on a rotating basis.

It is interesting to note that down through the years since 1998, 80% of the farmers elected, re-elected and then re-elected, in some cases, by their peers to serve on the Canadian Wheat Board's board of directors have been strong supporters of the single desk system. That is like a referendum that happens every two years, and the single desk side in that vote wins 80% of the time.

That was the second objective: to make the Canadian Wheat Board not only producer-controlled, but democratic in its operations.

Third, these directors were given the scope, the mandate and the power to innovate, to change, to be flexible, to provide prairie producers with an unprecedented range of options and alternatives in how grain is marketed and how farmers are paid for their grain, and the board has delivered on that mandate over the last number of years by introducing a number of groundbreaking innovations in the board's operations.

As this debate has raged over the last number of weeks and months, I have heard a number of farmers make the point that in many ways the criticisms we hear these days about the board's operations are really about the old board, the way it used to exist before 1998, before democratic producer control took over. That old board was gone more than a decade ago. Since then, there has obviously been a dramatic improvement.

Principle number one was producer control. Principle number two was democratic operations. Principle number three was flexibility, innovation and accountability. Principle number four was this: for the future, we built into the law a clear provision to put the ultimate fate of the Canadian Wheat Board in the hands of farmers themselves.

Section 47.1 of the existing act does not prohibit changes to the single desk. It does not prohibit even the elimination of the single desk. However, it makes it clear that the decision is one for farmers to take. It is not for politicians or bureaucrats, but for farmers themselves. Section 47.1 embeds in the law the principle that there ought to be a plebiscite, a vote, held among prairie farmers to determine whether or not the nature of the single desk ought to be changed.

Before legislation like Bill C-18 can be legally introduced in this House, the government is obliged to consult with the Canadian Wheat Board's board of directors, and it is obliged to hold a vote among farmers on the specific changes it is proposing to make.

No such vote has been held by the government prior to introducing Bill C-18.

The minister says he is not obliged to have a vote because he is not making any kind of technical change to the single desk. He is not making small modifications to the way the single desk operates. He says that if he were making changes of that kind, then in fact he would be obliged to come to farmers through a vote or a plebiscite to get the farmers' opinions on what he is proposing to do.

The minister says that he is not obliged to do that in this case because he is not making smaller technical changes to the single desk: he is simply abolishing it altogether.

Let us think about that logic. It is like the doctor saying, as the patient being wheeled into surgery, “Well, if I am just going to take out your tonsils, I will do you the courtesy of asking for your opinions, but if what I have in mind is euthanasia, killing you altogether, I will not bother to ask for your advice”.

Obviously the government's position is ludicrous on that point. The legislation has the effect of destroying the single desk, and accordingly section 47.1 obliges the government to get the opinion of farmers before they take that step. The government has not done so, and therefore, in our opinion, this legislation is not proceeding properly at this time.

Liberals in Parliament will not support this legislation, Bill C-18, to kill the single desk marketing system for the Canadian Wheat Board for at least four strong reasons.

The first one has to do with process. The CWB is now democratically controlled and operated by western Canadian grain producers. Today's legislation eliminates that democratic producer control, and it replaces it with direct and complete government control. The elected producer directors will be gone, and instead the board will be run only by five people appointed by the government.

The Conservatives are also disenfranchising farmers by ignoring their legal obligation as it exists today to hold a producer plebiscite before introducing any legislation that has the effect of destroying the single desk. That is our first reason for opposing this legislation: the attack on democracy, the attack on proper process, the ignoring of the right of farmers to vote.

Our second reason is one of cost. By killing the single desk operation, the government is effectively reducing the value of Canadian wheat and barley in global markets by as much as $400 million to $600 million per year. That is the typical price premium that the Canadian Wheat Board is able to gain every year for western farmers and bring into the Canadian economy because of its ability to price discriminate.

The ability to price discriminate depends exclusively upon the existence of the single desk operation. If we have a single desk operation, we can go to each individual grain market in the world and extract the highest price available in that market. Obviously, the higher priced markets in Europe such as the high scale department stores and food stores in London, England, will pay a higher price than will Yap Milling in Indonesia. They are two entirely different markets. If we have a single desk operation, we can distinguish between those markets. We can get the top price in London and the top price in Indonesia and they are not the same price.

If there is leakage everywhere because there is no single desk operation, we will then be competing for the bottom price. It would be a race for the bottom price. We will end up with the lowest price rather than the top price available in each individual market.

Without the single desk operation we will lose the ability to price discriminate. According to many experts in the industry, the cost of that will be roughly $400 billion to $600 billion a year depending on the marketing year. Without the single desk operation, the ability and the clout to price discriminate will be gone.

The third reason is that the government's new legislation will also reduce farmers' clout here at home.

There will be a lot of collateral damage with the loss of the Wheat Board. For example, the producers' right to load their own rail cars as a safety valve against commercial exploitation will technically remain in the wording of the Canada Grain Act. However, without the Canadian Wheat Board to give producer car shipments logistical priority that right will be largely meaningless.

I note that the report the government commissioned on so-called marketing freedom which was published a few weeks ago clearly makes the point that the right to access producer cars, not actually the effective functioning of producer cars but just the access to producer cars, will continue in the Canada Grain Act. However, that report specifically states they would not be given any priority in the system. Therefore, we can order our producer car and we might get it three years from now if there happens to be nothing else happening at the time. It is a right without any meaningful application unless we have someone who is managing the logistics of the system and will give the producer car some priority.

Similarly, producer-owned grain terminals and short-line rail operations will be at the mercy of large grain companies and the railways. The grain companies and the railways have always opposed the existence of the producer-owned grain terminals and short-line rail operations because it means that grain goes around their system, it provides competition and they do not get the tariffs and the fees. Obviously, they are not going to be conducive to allowing those innovations to continue to be used in the system.

What is most important in terms of collateral damage is there will be no player in the western grain handling and transportation system with the clout and the will to stand up for farmers and to take on entities like the railways when their services fail, which happens about 50% of the time according to the government's own rail service review, or when the railways attempt to extract excessive freight rates.

That is the third reason why we cannot support the legislation.

Finally, the Conservative government is about to hand to the United States a huge trade freebie.

The elimination of the Canadian Wheat Board has been the Americans' number one trade objective in North America for the past 20 to 25 years. Courtesy of the Conservative government, the U.S. is about to receive its fondest wish and Canada will get absolutely nothing in return.

The Canadian Wheat Board's single desk system as well as its clout and ability to outdo the American grain marketing system will be gone but Canada will have no better access to the U.S. market. Country of origin labelling discrimination against Canada will continue. The buy America trade discrimination against Canada will continue. The new U.S. marine tax discrimination against Canada will go on. Border thickening will continue. U.S. discrimination against Canadians working in the defence industry will continue. The U.S. attack on Canadian softwood lumber will continue. U.S. authorities will continue to close the border to Canadian wheat and other products whenever it suits them. Thus, Canada has gained absolutely nothing from its unilateral disarmament in the grain trade.

I reiterate that there will be a failure to apply due process and recognize the producer democratic control of the Canadian Wheat Board. There will be an imposition of new costs on farmers and a loss of value to the tune of $400 million to $600 million a year in terms of price premiums left on the table and not captured for western Canadian producers. As well, there will be a loss of clout in terms of dealing with other aspects of the grain handling and transportation system, especially regarding the ability to take on the railways when necessary.

I would note on that last point, that on at least two occasions in the last few years the Canadian Wheat Board has taken the railways to the Canadian Transportation Agency. As a result of those proceedings, it won the farmers something in the order of $200 million in excess freight charges. That was money that was taken out of farmers' pockets. The Wheat Board put that money back into farmers' pockets. The bill will remove that authority, that ability and that clout.

This is a unilateral disarmament of the Canadian farmer. The Americans are giving up absolutely nothing and will not even guarantee absolute access to the U.S. grain market. However, the Canadian Wheat Board, a pillar of the system in Canada, will be gone.

For all of those reasons we oppose the bill.

We propose an amendment to the motion that is presently before the House.

I move:

That the amendment be amended by adding after the words "70 years" the following:

“, including specifically the elimination of the Canadian Wheat Board's role in managing transportation logistics and thereby leaving farmers without an effective voice with respect to rail service levels and freight rates; and (d) breaches section 47.1 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act”.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The subamendment to the motion is receivable.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague intently. In response to the kind of issues he put forward with regard to the Wheat Board I would use a term that he has used many times in the House, “total horse feathers”.

As a farmer I understand full well exactly what he is talking about. I was the minister in charge of railways and I am aware of the issues regarding rail and the rail service review. It has been announced that legislation is coming with regard to the protection of railways. However, that is not the gist of my question.

My hon. colleague said that the Wheat Board is actually capitalizing on a better price for wheat for farmers in western Canada. If there was a shred of evidence of that being true, then farmers in Saskatchewan and Alberta would not be loading their grain cars and trying to run the border to get across to the other side to get a better price for their product, especially when they will be thrown in jail by that government for that act. The opposite would be happening. Americans would be loading their grain cars trying to rush the northern border to capitalize on a better rate through the Wheat Board. That is just the logic of it.

The real question is how much it is costing farmers in western Canada at the farm gate to support and subsidize the Wheat Board because that is what is happening.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman and I will simply have to agree to disagree on that point. I support my side of the argument. A number of studies done by both the Wheat Board and independent organizations have analyzed this issue of the price premium that is available in the world. For some marketing years price premiums are hard to get, but when they are available they are captured uniquely by the Canadian Wheat Board system. On average, the calculation in terms of the value of price discrimination in the marketplace over the years is in the range of $500 million. That money was brought into western Canada and distributed among western Canadian farmers. It would not have been there if the single desk system did not exist.

On the other side of the equation in terms of cost, the total administrative costs of the Canadian Wheat Board, including everything from the cost of sending salespeople on missions around the world to paying for the pens, paper, pencils and the office in Winnipeg, works out to about 7¢ to 9¢ per bushel. That arithmetic has been verified by the Auditor General of Canada. Compared to the administrative expenses incurred in organizations like Cargill, Bunge and other international grain companies, that is an extremely favourable cost. As well, the administrative expense of running the grain system will undoubtedly go up without the Canadian Wheat Board in that system.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, would the member reflect on what the prairie farmers have to say? Time after time Conservative members of Parliament have said the farmers want to get rid of the Canadian Wheat Board. However, 62% of prairie grain farmers actually want to keep it. That is the vast majority in my books. Could the member comment on that?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is an important point. Granted an exact assessment of producer opinion at any given moment in time is a difficult thing to accomplish whatever side of the debate one happens to be on.

The fact that the government is reluctant to hold a plebiscite is a very telling point. If a plebiscite were properly held, with a clear question, an independent administration and scrutinized by independent farm organizations so that it would be completely above reproach in every way, shape or form, making it a valid reflection of producer opinion, I suspect the results would be similar to the results of the one conducted by the Canadian Wheat Board this past summer. Those results indicated that in the case of wheat something like 62% of prairie producers said they would prefer the single desk operation and in the case of barley it was 51%. Both of those results indicate a majority of producers are in favour of the single desk system.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know some members will wonder why someone from Vancouver would rise to speak on the Canadian Wheat Board. However, there is one wheat farmer in my constituency, in Metchosin. She is Sharon Rempel of the Vancouver Island heritage wheat project.

[An hon. member]

Is that outside the Wheat Board area?

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

It is outside the Wheat Board area, but I actually know someone who is growing wheat.

Her concern is with regard to the decline of heritage wheat varieties that will take place in an open market. She is also concerned with the continuing decline of family farms. In 1931, about a third of Canadians lived on family farms. That number is now down to 1 in 50.

I ask the hon. member what effect does he think the elimination of the Wheat Board would have in terms of the heritage varieties of wheat from the Vancouver Island perspective and also from the family farm perspective?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the quality control system that Canada has developed through 100 years of experience is highly respected and admired around the world. It has a number of players. The most fundamental player is the Canadian farmer who is a superb producer on par and I would argue above par in comparison to any other grain-producing group found anywhere on the face of the earth. Canadian farmers are absolutely excellent at what they do. However, they are assisted in that process by the Canadian Grain Commission, the Canadian International Grains Institute as well as a number of other agencies that research and work on new plant varieties and in some cases attempt to resurrect historic varieties such as the one the hon. gentleman referred to.

It is an integrated system. All of the pieces fit together. The Canadian Wheat Board has been an integral piece in that puzzle. Therefore, if we remove the board we will in fact put a number of the other pieces in jeopardy, which by implication the government's announcement actually admits.

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

Mr. Speaker, actually, I have to thank the member opposite. One of the main reasons I am involved in politics, one of the reasons I am here, is because of him. His rule as the agriculture minister and as the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board convinced me I needed to get off my farm and needed to do something more to protect my own farm interests and the interests of my neighbours.

I guess the Crow rate would have to be his biggest legacy, which was of course the promise from the government that it would pay farmers a subsidization in return for the Crow rate being removed. His government completely removed that subsidy from farmers and basically devastated Western Canada. When the Liberals did that, he was the minister in charge.

The second legacy he leaves behind is the CWB and his treatment of farmers. He has just talked about western Canadian farmers being superb producers, but that they cannot be trusted to market their own grain. It was a decade ago that 13 farmers went to jail because the member and his government refused to give them any freedom to market or export their grain.

My question to him today is, does he ever wake up at night and regret having locked western Canadian farmers in jail just because they wanted to market their grain, and has he realized since then how important marketing freedom is to western Canadian farmers?

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, no one likes legal proceedings of the kind that the hon. gentleman has referred to, but in fact, when there is the risk of smuggling, of border running, and other behaviour on the part of a very tiny minority that is risking the reality of the U.S. market being shut down, closed off, the border closed, for 50,000 other farmers across the west, it is a serious matter that has to be treated seriously. The appropriate action was taken at the time

What has also happened in the intervening 10 years is the democratization of the Canadian Wheat Board, the introduction of producer control, more flexibility and innovation in the operation of the board than ever before, and the right of farmers themselves to determine their marketing future. Through that whole period of time, every public analysis that has been undertaken has indicated that when the choice is offered to farmers in clear term, the result coming back in relation to wheat is two to one in favour of the Canadian Wheat Board.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to split my time with the hon. member for Medicine Hat.

This is an important issue that is near and dear to my heart, and the comments I am going to make this afternoon are biased, I admit. I am going to fess up right off the bat that I am a farmer. My son is actually the fourth generation on our farm so agriculture goes back a long way in our family. I have produced wheat and barley every year for the last 30 to 40 years, and my comments are biased because I will do and say anything I possibly can to support the farm family and agriculture in western Canada.

When my son wanted to take over the family farm, I tried to discourage him because I knew how difficult agriculture is. It is a very demanding occupation. So I told him to go and get a business education and I would teach him how to farm. So he got a business education and now he is teaching me how to farm. It is amazing what our young entrepreneurs in agriculture are doing and can accomplish. It is phenomenal to see how the industry has developed and is unbelievably engaging.

It is interesting to look at the trumped-up survey from this summer that the opposition members refer to so often. Believe me, farmers have been voting loud and clear and not just because of the 52 out of 56 seats that were won in the May election. They were voting with their seed drills and they have been doing it for a decade or more every spring when they grow products such as canola that are outside the Wheat Board.

Canola has outstripped wheat as the number one commodity in Canada and that is not an accident but it is because the farmers are getting the world price for their canola. They are not getting the world price for their wheat. Because of canola being outside the Wheat Board, farmers have the flexibility to manage and market and get those dollars into their pocket to handle the farm income in a way that enables them to handle the risks of their business. This is important.

The other thing about the survey and why I say it is trumped up is I have been farming for 40-plus years, all my life, growing barley or wheat every year and I never got a survey. I never had a chance to vote in this trumped-up survey. If farmers are missed like me in this survey and then those numbers are used to wail about what farmers really think, then the opposition has to soberly consider what it is doing and who it is representing.

It is not by accident that in the May election only four out of the fifty six seats in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, provinces controlled by the Wheat Board, did not go to the Conservative government. Where were those four seats? Two of them were in downtown Winnipeg, one in downtown Regina and one in downtown Edmonton. I have not seen a combine or a kernel of wheat or barley in any one of those ridings ever.

So when members look at this piece of legislation, they should put aside ideology and do the right thing for agriculture and for farmers. Let us just for a second assume that the monopoly of the Wheat Board, if it is dual-marketed, is going to compromise the value at the farm gate. Then they would never have to worry about it because every farmer is astute enough to market their grain where they will get the best value for it. If that is the Wheat Board, that is where they will go. If that happens, nothing will change.

However, all this bill would do is allow farmers the opportunity to market their grain where they feel they can get better value for that dollar. If they can get a better value for the bushel of wheat or barley in an independent way by another avenue, then the question has to be asked how that can possibly be when the Wheat Board has a monopoly and has the inside track on getting the best value for farmers.

As I said a few minutes ago, if it were true that farmers were getting the best value for their wheat and barley, American farmers would be bringing their wheat here to capitalize on that marketing opportunity. That is not the case. The opposite is the case and there is a reason for it and it is that farmers are astute enough to understand their business plan and understand what is in their best interests as they move forward.

It is very important to say that this has to happen in conjunction with what was announced by our government on rail freight and transportation. The success of our country is really going to depend upon how well we can access international markets, how well and how fast we can get our canolas, wheats and barleys, our products and commodities to markets overseas. That is really where the growth lies.

As a government we put $3.6 billion-plus into the Asia-Pacific gateway so that we can streamline that transportation system. We have seen in our a government a change in the way that railways have actually treated agriculture. Their on-car deliveries this last year was up to over 90% compared to the year before, where it was down to about 50%.

Why is that changing? It is because of the rail freight service review. We have actually forced the railways to have a service agreement with those industries and farmers who have producer cars and so on, and who are shipping their products.

It has to go hand in glove because the railways win when shippers win, and when shippers and railways both win then Canada wins. It is very important that we make certain to streamline that system, so that the system will be able to handle the kinds of demands and opportunities that are there.

It is interesting, when we look at agriculture, just how big it is. It has changed so much. Since the 1950s it has gone up 300%, the productivity level in agriculture. That is what we are actually doing on the farm.

Seventy six per cent of those young farmers, in this survey that is being referred to, said that they wanted to break the monopoly. They wanted to have the opportunity to capitalize on markets other than the monopoly of the Wheat Board. Even using this survey, when we start looking into the future of where we are going to go, that is really the question, where do we go from here? What is it going to look like after we have dual marketing?

We have lost productivity or opportunity for our world share in wheat. It has fallen 42% in the last 50 years. We have lost 42% in the ability to capture those markets. When it comes to barley, the numbers are even worse. It is two-thirds, 66% since the 1980s that we have lost in the ability to capitalize on those international markets.

Where does the future lie? The population of the world right now is about 6.9 billion, 7 billion. What is it going to be in 2020? It is expected to be 7.6 billion. That is 68 million more people to feed, every year in this world. Where is agriculture going to be? It is not the same today as it was in the 1930s, when the Wheat Board was first brought in by a Conservative government, and it was voluntary, not forced, not a monopoly.

We are saying we should break the monopoly and allow the opportunity to see if the Wheat Board actually can do the job for the farmers or not.

We are saying that we have grown in opportunity for agricultural exports, but not because of the Wheat Board. It is in spite of the Wheat Board. It was $39 billion that was traded in 2010. We are in the top five agricultural exporters in the world. That is something to be proud of. It is because of the quality of the product that it is in such demand around the world.

The price is not realized. We are not getting world prices for wheat. We are here to protect our farmers. We have to actually ensure we have the farmers' interests in mind as we stand and speak on this piece of legislation. This is a very important piece of legislation that we are committed to for our electorate.

Speaking of that, I get this all the time. The opposition is saying that farmers think this and farmers think that. Well, I happen to be one of those farmers. So I have to ask, is it just me or do I represent my riding? I have yet to have a piece of mail or a phone call from anyone in my riding, although I am sure there are some people out there, that supports the monopoly.

I have yet to have one of those people call my office and say, “Can you phone me back and explain why you are doing what you are doing?” All of them are saying, “We want freedom. We want choice”.

That is where we need to go with this piece of legislation. It is an unbelievable opportunity that we have before us for agriculture in this country, for the family farm in this country, but more than that as we grow this country and capitalize on those international markets that are ripe for the taking.

We look forward to this bill passing. We encourage everyone in this House to consider their support as we come down to the vote on this.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member told us that he used to be a farmer and never had a chance to respond to the Canadian Wheat Board survey he referred to. Like his Conservative colleagues, he seems very sure that all farmers in the west are against this board.

Since he is so sure, I would like to know—and I would like him to answer yes or no—whether he would be prepared to hold a referendum to ask farmers, so that they can have the choice and not have this imposed on them by the government. Would he be prepared to hold a referendum, yes or no?

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would love to answer that one.

We have had a number. We had one in May, which was an election for 56 potential seats. There was a platform before them to breaking the monopoly and 52 of the 56 voted expected the government to follow through on the obligation in that platform. From one perspective, that is a very strong mandate to ensure that we do the right thing for agriculture and for the prairie farmer.

More than that, just look at what the farmers themselves have been doing. Every spring they go out and decide what to grow, whether it be wheat, canola, lentils or peas. That is what those who are outside the board are growing. Why are they growing this? Because the opportunities to capitalize on world prices is there. If they were getting the best price in the world, they would be growing more wheat and barley, but they are not.

It is unfortunate that we do not have the same opportunity in the prairies that they do in the rest of the country. All we are saying is that there should be an opportunity for a fair and open system. We look forward to that opportunity for western farmers, the same as Ontario farmers and east of Ontario.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Conservative member after Conservative member have stood and said that they are grain farmers and that this is a good thing that will happen. Yet we know full well that a legitimate plebiscite was conducted by the Canadian Wheat Board. Members laugh, but I would love to see the government have the political courage to conduct its own plebiscite.

The reality is a credible plebiscite was done. The vast majority of those grain farmers, unlike the Conservative farmers here it appears, said that they wanted to retain the Wheat Board.

If the Conservative members who represent the prairies are so convinced that their arguments are so sound, why do they not then take the challenge in the form of a plebiscite, argue it among the grain farmers and ensure that there is, according the government, a legitimate plebiscite on the issue?

If the government is not prepared to do that, at the very least respect that independent plebiscite that was conducted through the Canadian Wheat Board.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what we want to do is respect the farmer in western Canada. When it comes to that independent survey, as a farmer for 40 years who did not even get an opportunity to vote or take part in it, that tells us a bit about the credibility of that survey.

Nonetheless, it is absolutely critical that we move forward on this. Farmers are speaking loud and clear with their seed drills and voting patterns to make certain that happens.

To answer the member's question in a more direct way, right now it is absolutely imperative that we get this legislation through as fast as we can to have certainty for farmers so they can determine what kind of chemicals and fertilizers to use this fall based on the kind of products they will grow come spring seeding.

This is all about planning and being an entrepreneur on the farm. There is no way the House should hold that up for anything more than what we already know is in the best interests of farmers. We look forward to the legislation passing very soon.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, Health; the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood, National Defence.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Medicine Hat.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very privileged to stand in the House and talk about the marketing freedom for grain farmers act for western Canadians. I would also like to thank my colleague, the member for Yellowhead, for sharing his time with me today.

Marketing freedom is very good news for farmers in Alberta and for our economy. The wheat and barley business in Alberta is a major driver of our economy, bringing $1.3 billion to the farm gate. We are confident we can grow that business even more under marketing choice.

The government is committed to bringing marketing freedom to western Canadian wheat and barley farmers. Under the strong leadership of our Prime Minister, our government continues to fight for farmers' freedom. Giving farmers the freedom to choose to whom they sell their products is the right thing to do.

Farmers in the west have been waiting for a long time for this change. In fact, one farmer in my riding believed so strongly that he should be able to market his own grain that he tried to do that. What was his reward? This western Canadian farmer was put in jail for trying to sell his own grain, the grain that he grew on his own land and harvested himself with his own machinery. That was a travesty. Our Minister of Agriculture and our Prime Minister have said that they will not let that happen again. That is one more reason we are bringing marketing freedom to western Canadian farmers.

As the hon. Minister of Agriculture has said, entrepreneurs, including farmers, need as many options as possible to market and sell their goods. This has never been more true than in today's uncertain economy.

In Alberta there are currently several grain processors in the malting and milling sector. Business savvy farmers deserve the ability to add value to their crops and capture more profits from the farm gate by delivering the specific quality for which a processor is looking. They deserve to make their own business decisions and have the opportunity to seek out the best possible return for their wheat and barley, just as they would with canola, or pulse crops, or cattle, or any number of other farm products from across the country.

Henry Vos, an elected director of the Canadian Wheat Board, agrees that farmers are business savvy. He said, “Similarly to how they can market their canola, peas and forage seed. Some farmers want to market it to the company that will pay the most for it”.

Farmers are the ones who take all the risks and make all the investments, and the government is committed to providing them with the marketing freedom they want and deserve.

I would like to take a minute to explain some of the history of the Canadian Wheat Board.

The monopoly was first imposed on western Canadian farmers on October 12, 1943. That was during World War II, when Canada was committed to supplying wheat to Great Britain. The monopoly came in by order-in-council. Producers were not consulted. It was done with the intention of aiding the war effort, not with any pretence that it would get the best returns for farmers.

Even Lorne Gunter, a columnist with the National Post, recognizes this. He says:

This is a free country. If farmers do not want to use the board to market the grain they grow on their own land, using seed, fertilizers and pesticides they paid for themselves, with equipment that belongs to them, then they shouldn’t have to, no matter what their neighbours want.

Today, western Canadian farmers deserve the right to choose how to market their wheat and barley, just as they do with their other crops, such as canola, pulses and oats. The world has moved away from the state trading commodity procurement approach, which some countries used in the past, and has adopted an open market, a freer enterprise system in which multiple buyers select a range of quality attributes for particular market segments. Buyers want high quality products, which Canadians produce, but they want them delivered at a certain time, in a certain way, in a manner that often farmers are best able to meet.

Farmers are looking for new value-added revenue streams and greater marketing flexibility. We are listening to farmers and want to help them succeed.

Currently, by law, western Canadian wheat, durum and barley growers do not have the same rights as the producers in the rest of the country as to where they are to sell their products and they do not have the rights they enjoy with other crops. The best people to decide the production and marketing options for their farms are the farmers, as they take the risks and live with the consequences.

That is what marketing choice will deliver. We will not rest until that is achieved. We live in a free and democratic country. Farmers want marketing choice and our government is committed to delivering what prairie farmers want. We will not stand idle, while western Canadian farmers are shortchanged by an out-of-date act of Parliament. We have made our intentions clear and we encourage the Canadian Wheat Board to work in the best interests of western grain farmers to remain a viable marketing option for those farmers who want to continue to use it.

At the end of the day, it is all about the farmers. It is about an open-market system. Greg Porozni, chairman of the Alberta Grains Council, has said that a deregulated grain market will be a boon for a savvy farmer.

The government wants to ensure that western Canadian wheat and barley farmers have the same rights and privileges as other Canadian farmers. It is all about fairness. It is all about looking to the future, not continuing to rely upon an outdated system that was developed nearly seven decades ago. I invite my hon. colleagues to join this government in supporting freedom for wheat and barley farmers.

We look forward to continuing to work with the men and women responsible for growing Canada's grain to ensure that, above all else, they have the greatest say in making decisions that affect their own livelihood.

I hope all members of the House will stand to support the bill and give it the speedy passage it deserves in order to give farmers the business certainty they need.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is with respect to a story that was printed in publication the member would be familiar with called The Economist. It is published by a fairly well-respected world news organization. I would like to quote directly from it, as I did earlier today in question period. It states:

Smaller producers, faced with mounting marketing costs, will inevitably have to sell their farms to bigger rivals or agribusiness companies. Eventually, this should lead to consolidation and fewer, bigger farms—making Canada a more competitive wheat producer, but devastating small prairie towns, whose economies depend on individual farmers with disposable income.

There is a valid argument to be made that the government, by killing the Wheat Board, is going to be destroying family farms, that it is going to be making it that much more difficult for some of those rural communities to survive.

Would the member not agree that there is some merit to what has been printed in this story, as story published by a news organization that is known throughout the world and is fairly well-respected?

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague talks about The Economist being a credible organization and magazine. In terms of being credible, he is probably when it called his former prime minister “Mr. Dithers”.

Canadian farmers and people on the Prairies are resilient. Communities are resilient. They in fact are determined that freedom for their wheat and barley will produce much greater benefits for themselves and the communities in which they live.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I could not help but take the opportunity to stand in my place because it is the younger people I represent in my constituency, the young people who are trying to build a better future for their families on the farm, who very desperately want the option to market their grain so that they can get the best value for their wheat and barley.

What they currently find disturbing is that past governments have treated them so paternalistically. Past governments have said farmers in some parts of Canada might be smart enough to market their own grain, but not the farmers in western Canada. They could not possibly understand how to do something like that.

Young farmers have been even more disturbed these last number of months over plans unveiled at the Canadian Wheat Board just after an election of directors, when no discussions of the purchase of $65 million of shipping equipment took place.That issue could have been discussed and debated, but it was not. It was never discussed. Young farmers were never given an opportunity to provide their input on the purchase. This paternalistic organization determined that it would use those young farmers' money to buy $65 million worth of ships, which many farmers are convinced would never carry a bit of western Canadian grain.

I wonder if the hon. member for Medicine Hat would comment with regard to the concern that many young farmers have in my constituency with regard to the paternalistic attitude of past governments, as well as the organization itself.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that was a long question.

In fact, yes, there are farmers in my riding who have asked me about freedom for their wheat and barley. I have also talked to a lot of the pro-Wheat Board people.

It is interesting that when I told them about the potential for the Wheat Board to evolve and that they would still have the opportunity to sell their wheat and barley through the Canadian Wheat Board, a number of them said they would not do that. I said, “What? You want the Wheat Board, so why would you not sell it?” They replied that their farms were their businesses, so they would not sell it through the Wheat Board.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to inform you that I will share my time with the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

To be able to truly have a thorough debate on Bill C-18 and the negative implications it will have on prairie farmers, we must first answer some initial questions to learn about the history of the institution at the heart of Bill C-18. Where did the Canadian Wheat Board come from? What was behind its creation? What role did it play in the past in the lives of farmers? What role does it play today in the economy and lives of prairie farmers?

The Canadian Wheat Board, whose future is at stake in Bill C-18, is an organization that markets wheat, durum and barley for prairie farmers. Recognized as the largest and most successful grain marketing organization in the world, the Canadian Wheat Board, which is what Bill C-18 is all about, was created in the 1920s, when farmers in western Canada started to join together to get the best price on the wheat market.

It reminds us of the farmers' fight to protect their interests against powerful foreign companies that tried to crush and destroy them. In 1943, continuing that fight, farmers in western Canada opened a single desk that allowed them to sell their wheat through the board. The pooled sales that began through this single desk gave farmers a powerful voice in grain handling and transportation as well as international trade policy.

The board ensures that farmers get the highest overall returns as they have an effective monopoly on wheat sales since there are no competing sellers of western Canadian wheat. The single desk structure provided financial stability, prudent risk management and certainty of grain supply. In other words, the single desk contributed to progressive marketing of wheat in the interests of farmers, not of large American or other foreign companies.

The single desk continues to play the same role today, as the board is controlled, directed and funded by farmers. It is not a burden on the state and it is not government-funded. It was in this spirit that the act to create the Canadian Wheat Board gave the board the mandate to generate the best possible returns for farmers by taking advantage of the powers given to this single desk.

This organization continues to play an important role for farmers as well as for the economy in the Prairies. It sells grain all around the world and arranges for its transportation from thousands of farms to customers in 70 countries. About 21 million tonnes of wheat and barley are marketed by the Canadian Wheat Board each year. Given that 80% of the wheat grown in western Canada each year is exported overseas, it is easy to understand the major role that the Canadian Wheat Board plays. Yet the Conservatives want to dismantle it to benefit private companies that are more concerned about profit than about farmers, who create jobs for a large number of Canadians. Acting as a marketing agent for farmers, the Canadian Wheat Board negotiates international sales and passes the returns back to farmers, who spend them in Canada.

Clearly, the Canadian Wheat Board has real, tangible benefits for the economy of the Prairies. The Conservatives are attacking those benefits with Bill C-18. I find this completely unbelievable. What is the purpose of Bill C-18, which the Conservatives have brought before this Parliament? Bill C-18 proposes dismantling the Canadian Wheat Board; putting an end to the single-desk marketing of wheat and barley; replacing the board with an interim structure with voluntary membership; and privatizing it or dissolving it completely if, in the coming years, it is not profitable for any private firms.

Bill C-18 is a reflection of the neo-liberalism that underlies economic policy. Dismantling the Canadian Wheat Board would have a devastating effect on prairie farmers.

At a time when the Canadian economy needs measures to get unemployed Canadians back to work, the idea of doing away with the Canadian Wheat Board seems ridiculous and irresponsible.

That is why when prairie farmers—who would be the most affected—were called upon to vote on this government initiative on September 12, 2011, they rejected the idea, even though the government likes to tell anyone who will listen that dismantling the Canadian Wheat Board would be good for farmers. A majority of farmers voted in favour of maintaining the Canadian Wheat Board. Of a total of 38,261 farmers who voted, 62% voted to maintain a single desk for the marketing of wheat and 51% voted for the same for barley. Acting against the will of the majority is undemocratic and we will not accept it.

The NDP believes that in the current sluggish economic context, the dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board would have an incalculable impact on the lives of farmers as well as on the economy of the Prairies, given the role that the Canadian Wheat Board has played and continues to play. Passed without any clear analysis of the repercussions it could have on farmers in western Canada, the measure to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board will be ruinous for them. The bill serves the interests of major American grain companies by allowing them to lower the market price for wheat and undermine the security of our own farmers.

If the Canadian Wheat Board is dismantled, Prairie farmers will sell as individuals, which could result in some farmers losing their farms to huge foreign companies.

Western Canadian farmers might experience the same fate their Australian counterparts did when they lost their single desk. Right now, the price of Australian wheat, which once commanded $99 a tonne over American wheat, has dropped, in just three years, to $27 a tonne below U.S. wheat. As a result, 40,000 Australian farmers who were running their own grain marketing system became customers of one of the largest agribusiness corporations, which is privately owned and based in the United States. Since 2006, Australia's national wheat sales have dropped from 100% to 23%. Meanwhile, 25 other corporations are competing to see how to make a profit on the discrepancy between buying and selling prices.

Let us make responsible decisions. Let us avoid putting our western Canadian farmers in a situation similar to that of their Australian counterparts.

I would like to remind the House that the Canadian Wheat Board sells Canadian farmers' grain products in 70 countries. All the profits from these sales—between $4 billion and $7 billion per year—go to the farmers. In 2009-10, the Wheat Board's revenue was estimated at approximately $5.2 billion and its administrative costs were approximately $75 million.

This is revenue that we will lose if we dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board. By reducing the benefits that farmers receive from the Wheat Board by virtue of the fact that it is the sole seller of western Canadian wheat and barley, the Wheat Board's demise will no doubt affect the Port of Churchill and the farmers who deliver grain through the port, because the Wheat Board is the primary user of this port. Generally speaking, Wheat Board shipments account for 95% of the cargo that goes through the port. In a free market, private grain companies will have no incentive to use the Port of Churchill, since they have port facilities on the west coast, in Thunder Bay and along the St. Lawrence.

The demise of the Wheat Board will also affect producer car shippers and short-line railways in that farmers who load their own cars will save from $1,000 to $1,500 in preparation and cleaning fees per car that is shipped.

The demise of the Wheat Board will also have financial repercussions on Winnipeg and Manitoba. In fact, studies have shown that the Wheat Board contributes $94.6 million to Winnipeg's gross output.

In conclusion, dismantling such an institution in the name of blind neo-liberalism means sacrificing prairie Canadians to benefit foreign grain companies. We cannot support such a bill, which would mean supporting government control over the Canadian Wheat Board.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member's main argument was given at the end of her presentation when she said that because of the 400 jobs, some of which could be lost in Winnipeg, she could not support the legislation. I would like her to think about why she would place such a high importance on the jobs of people working at the Wheat Board and ignore the people who will clearly benefit from this change, who are the farmers. There are tens of thousands of farmers across the west who would benefit.

For example, I have farm land in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Seven farmers are renting land from me. Every single one of them is excited about what is happening with the Wheat Board as we remove the monopoly. Every single one of them has been waiting for years to have this happen. They often ask me when we are going to get it done. We are going to get it done now.

Why does the member place such a high importance on the jobs with the Wheat Board? I, too, am sorry that those jobs will be lost, but why does she place little importance on the farmers who are the people who produce this commodity and really should benefit from it and market it in the way they see fit?

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. I would simply like to tell him that my comments cannot be summarized by just the end of my presentation. I clearly stressed the essential role of the Canadian Wheat Board, which is a vital component of the prairie economy, and the fact that dismantling it would be ruinous for farmers. We are in a very critical time, given our current economic situation, and I think dismantling it would be truly ruinous for all farmers.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the prairie grain farmers are intelligent individuals and they have had ample opportunity over the last number of months and years to get a very good assessment of what the Canadian Wheat Board is all about, the pros and the cons. The Wheat Board is there first and foremost to serve farmers and to try to maximize the return to farmers. Through that we are assisting the economy of Canada and we are feeding the world. Sixty-two per cent of farmers have indicated they want to retain the Wheat Board. The government seems to be determined to discredit the plebiscite. It does not like the results of the plebiscite and therefore it is saying it was flawed.

I wonder if my New Democratic colleague would provide some comment on the attitude of the government with regard to the plebiscite.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. I think the government is continuing to ignore the very people most affected by this. This reminds me of Bill C-11, where the people most concerned are being completely ignored. The same thing is happening with Bill C-18. The people most affected are being ignored.

The Conservatives think they are the only ones who can speak for all farmers, and that is simply not true. The fact that they are ignoring the plebiscite that was held proves that they are not listening to all farmers.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I will speak to Bill C-18. I wish to support the coherent views on this bill brilliantly expressed by my colleagues and stand up for the farming families in western Canada who, in these tough economic times, must fight not only global economic instability, but also the destructive actions taken by their own government.

Bill C-18, as proposed by the government, quite simply must be scrapped because the provisions of this new legislation jeopardize the financial stability of western wheat farmers and of all families associated with the sector.

By attacking the Canadian Wheat Board without just cause, the government is conducting a political and ideological crusade because of the supposed benefits of the open market. However, our national economy needs to be protected and supported more than ever. The Canadian Wheat Board is a long-standing organization that has proven itself and been a powerful force through the years and the economic downturns that have occurred since it was established in the 1920s.

It is also imperative to remind Canadians that the board was created by farmers for farmers, that it is managed solely by farmers, and that it is funded entirely by farmers. No taxpayer money is given to this organization, which is not a crown corporation.

The first question that Canadians are entitled to ask is the following: what is the government doing? Once again, this is poorly-disguised political interference for the purpose of increasing the Conservatives' control over self-managed organizations that are necessary and work well, all in the name of market liberalization.

Canadians are not fools. They know that this politically motivated gesture will ultimately weaken Canadian wheat production and benefit big international grain companies that will be happy to snatch up Canadian grain at lower prices. Without the board's negotiating power, individual farmers will lose their voice and the guarantee of the best price for their crop on the world market. In this dark hour when an unprecedented recession is hanging over our heads like the sword of Damocles, the government should be focusing on protecting our economy instead of lining the pockets of big multinational grain companies to the detriment of all western Canadian families.

Is this government so out of touch with reality that it forgets to listen to its people, who are demonstrating in the streets right now for economic action and a more equitable distribution of wealth? Before it leads the Canadian nation into the abyss, even going so far as endangering the country's food sovereignty, the government ought to hear what western farmers want and then respect their choice.

Canadians also need to know that the Canadian Wheat Board generates between $4 billion and $7 billion a year in revenue. In 2009-10, the Wheat Board recorded profits of $5.2 billion and had operating costs of just $75 million—I am talking about net profit. In total, over 21 million tonnes of wheat and barley are sold each year at the best possible price on the world market as a result of the Wheat Board's marketing ability and its negotiating power.

The Wheat Board is also a single desk that facilitates access to the world market for farmers who do not necessarily have all the resources they need to reach their buyers. The Wheat Board is also a marketing agent that does not keep any profit; rather, it returns all its revenue to the 75,000 farmers that it represents who, thanks to the Wheat Board, are able to sell their grain in 70 countries. Above all, the Wheat Board is a strong and unique voice that is well represented on the world grain markets, a voice that the Prime Minister's government stubbornly refuses to hear.

What Canadians understand about Bill C-18 is that the measures proposed by the government will be extremely harmful to our economy.

The dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board would weaken our farmers' bargaining power with their buyers, since these farmers would have to fight alone to get the best selling price and they would be competing with their neighbours.

Ultimately, lower selling prices for grain will cost farmers hundreds of millions of dollars. Instead of going into the pockets of our Canadian families, these millions of dollars will go into the pockets of grain conglomerates, which will have the final say on the purchase price of our wheat and barley. Obviously, the government would rather satisfy big multinational corporations instead of the Canadian people.

In the long term, we can expect that, as a result of these measures, a number of family farms will shut down once they are no longer profitable, which will in turn increase the vulnerability of families in the west.

Why would the government want to jeopardize the existence of an organization that is not losing jobs, that earns profits for our farmers, that is managed well and that, at the end of the day, has nothing but positive effects on our economy? If this organization were to disappear, there would be all kinds of negative effects on the entire community.

The government claims that it wants to allow farmers to choose whether they market their crops with or without the board. With the potential dismantling of the board, the government is not giving western farmers any choice. There have been no studies of the impact of this decision. I remain convinced that the farmers concerned are particularly shocked to see that the government is taking big risks with their income and their retirement without bothering to do its homework.

Canadians have had enough of a government that does not listen to their needs, that is completely out of touch, and that dares to lie to them at will.

The government tells anyone who will listen and believe that it is keeping its election promises. How is this possible when it promised to broadly consult farmers before last May's election? A few days after May 2, the government announced that there would be no plebiscite on the Canadian Wheat Board.

In the speech he gave yesterday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board, with the support of his Prime Minister, embellished the lie by arguing that these new measures will give farmers more freedom and choice. However Canadians are well aware that, in this rather scandalous matter, there is no freedom or choice for the 62% majority who said they were in favour of keeping this single desk. No freedom, no choice, not even the right to speak and be heard.

The government's lack of respect for western farmers gets worse. In its own press release, it dares to state that it consulted with stakeholders from across the value chain before making a decision. Does this mean that farmers—including the 62% who want to keep the board—are not part of the value chain for their own products, since they were not consulted?

I am sure that western farmers will be shocked to hear that this government has excluded them altogether from the value chain for products—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Excuse me, I understand there is no translation.

It does not work if I speak French.

Now it is working. Continue, please.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

I am certain that western farmers will be shocked to hear that this government has excluded them altogether from the value chain for the products that they have produced by the sweat of their brow.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I hear the NDP using the Wheat Board's talking points, in particular the 62%. The 62% plebiscite was a flawed process.

First, the Canadian Wheat Board selected who did and did not get ballots. Not all farmers were allowed to participate in the plebiscite. A good example is my father and brother. They are organic farmers who want to grow organic wheat, but one of the reasons they do not is that it is so difficult to be involved with the Wheat Board. They would get less money for their wheat because it gets pooled with all the other wheat, and they would not get the premiums that organic wheat brings in the marketplace. They do not grow organic wheat and they never got the chance to vote in that plebiscite.

The other issue is that the plebiscite never asked if farmers wanted a voluntary wheat board. They were only given two choices: a wheat board or no board, a monopoly or no monopoly. There was no in between.

What we are offering through this legislation is a strong voluntary wheat board. If 62% of producers who were selected to get ballots in the mail from the Wheat Board support the wheat board, that is a great endorsement. They should be able to easily survive as a voluntary organization. They do not need 100% of the acres grown, they do not need 100% of the grain that is grown, they do not need to sell every bushel. A committed group of people, 62% of grain farmers, will support a voluntary wheat board. It may even be higher than that if they are given the chance to compete in the marketplace.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I heard a question, unless there was a mistake in the interpretation.

When one is part of an association or a group, there is always a membership. Obviously, one needs to be a member and there are rules. Yesterday, I went to a meeting of an association that has to do with Europe but, since I had not gotten my membership card seven days in advance, I could not participate.

Western wheat and barley farmers make up the majority of this board, which works and is profitable. Why dismantle something that is profitable? We are in an economic race, which the Conservatives are always talking about. This board represents jobs for families and it is profitable. Let us keep it.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am from Ontario and the hon. member is from Quebec. Farmers in Quebec, by the way, in case she does not know, have the same opportunities that the western farmers are now going to have, which is choice of marketing.

I wonder if she had many farmers come to her before she was elected to say that they did not want the choice of marketing for their products.

[Anne-Marie Day, NDP, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that, geographically, the riding of Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles is very far from western Canada. The agricultural reality in Quebec is very different and, in Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, there is no agriculture at all. The people in my riding therefore have not come to me to talk about agriculture.

In matters of health, medicine and surgery, does one have to have had a heart attack in order be a cardiologist and perform surgery? No. And so, I will speak on the subject of the Wheat Board. If we listened to the Conservatives, we would replace all of this with free trade and free zones. It is becoming a way of doing things. It goes without saying that small farming families who can now put their products on the market will be eliminated.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Palliser.

I appreciate this opportunity to rise and support this piece of legislation, because I believe it is going to provide western Canadian wheat and barley farmers with the freedom that they have long desired: the ability to market their own grain and to make their own business decisions.

Our government's top priority is the economy, and in my part of the world and in every part of Canada, agriculture is a significant portion of our economy. To quote an old saying, “If you ate today, thank a farmer”. I represent a lot of farmers in my constituency, and let me thank each and every one of them not only for feeding us but for driving our economy forward.

Our government has taken concrete action when it comes to the agriculture sector. Over the past six years, our ministers have driven the issue of agriculture forward in unprecedented ways. As our current minister is fond of saying, “We are putting farmers first”.

I and many of my caucus colleagues come from rural roots. On this side of the House we understand the important issues relating to agriculture and we know that it is an important portion of our economy. We understand the issues that are actually facing people in the agricultural industry.

Our hon. Minister of Agriculture continues to do his work to open additional markets around the world and has come back with real results for our farmers and our food processors.

We are moving forward with a number of free trade agreements with important markets for our grains and our agricultural products as well. We have Colombia out the door and we are working on a number of other markets, including the European Union. We are pressing for an ambitious outcome at the WTO for the benefit of Canada's entire agricultural sector. We continue to stand up for our industry to ensure that trade is grounded on fair rules and sound science.

Here at home, Canada's economic action plan is helping the grain industry take a more strategic approach to marketing grain.

As Canada positions itself for future growth, we need a strong and profitable agricultural industry now more than ever.

Research is key in keeping our grain sector strong and competitive. That is why our government has invested significantly in research to benefit grain farmers in western Canada. Budget 2010 provided $51.7 million over two years to support the operations of the Canadian Grain Commission. We have invested over $11 million to help the Canadian International Grains Institute open new doors in international markets. Almost $30 million has been allocated to support research clusters for wheat, barley, pulses and canola.

With these investments, we are putting farmers first, creating more jobs for Canadians and positioning our economy for future growth.

When we look at the tremendous accomplishments of our Canadian agriculture industry over the past 100 years, we see that the Canadian grains sector stands out as a great success story in its own right. Today, Canadian wheat, barley and other grains are known by our customers all over the world for their outstanding quality, consistency, cleanliness and innovation.

Each year Canada's grain industry does $16 billion worth of business here in Canada and around the world. Those dollars drive the economies of both rural and urban Canada. They create and sustain jobs right through the grain production chain, from farm input suppliers to elevators to farm families to transporters and processors. These dollars create jobs and prosperity for Canadians here at home and support our rural communities, communities that contribute much to the Canadian economy.

Canadian grain growers sustain our health and the well-being of Canadians by putting bread on our tables, and that we must never forget.

But with all of this success, one has to wonder why Canada's share of the overall wheat exports continues to fall, while growth in canola and pulses expands at an increasing rate. The share of area seeded accounted for by the Canadian Wheat Board or board grains in western Canada has decreased dramatically over the past 25 years, from an average of about 85% to approximately 54% of the acreage that is seeded in western Canada.

The shift into canola represents the single biggest factor for this reduction. Why are farmers shifting to canola? Stu Innes, a farmer in Saskatchewan, says that for five years farmers “have rid themselves of the Wheat Board in the only way that they could--by not growing wheat or barley”.

We know that by providing marketing freedom for farmers, wheat and barley can once again have a strong position in our country. When western Canadian grain farmers have the freedom to make their own business decisions and sell their grain to the buyer of their choice, they will be able to capture new opportunities. In fact, Curt Vossen, the president of Richardson International Ltd., believes the end of the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly “...is going to open up 20 to 25 million new tonnes of marketing opportunities for companies inside and outside Canada”.

Today our customers continue to choose Canadian grain over the competition, not because of the Canadian Wheat Board but because of the relentless commitment to quality by all parts of the value chain, including, and first and foremost, the farmer. When Canada's global customers purchase Canadian grain for processing, they can count on getting the consistent quality and cleanliness that they have come to expect, load after load.

I would remind members that the Canadian Wheat Board is an administrator. It is not a decision maker on varieties registered for production here in Canada, and neither are grain companies. It is the Canadian Food Inspection Agency that oversees the registration of wheat varieties and it is the mandate of the Canadian Grain Commission to ensure Canada's high quality standards are maintained. Under marketing freedom, both agencies would continue that important work.

Our government knows that innovation drives competitiveness in agriculture. We are keeping our wheat producers on the leading edge of innovation through investments in the wheat genome and fusarium-resistant varieties. We are helping our scientists deliver new solutions to our growers, as they did over a century ago. We will ensure that the great work done by the Western Grains Research Foundation, the Canadian International Grains Institute and the Canadian Malting Barley Technical Centre continue to keep Canada out in front.

Forward thinking, not fearmongering, made Canada the world's supplier of choice for wheat. As was the case a century ago, marketing freedom would breathe new life into our grain industry. It would open the window to new investment in innovation and value-added potential on the prairie soil. Farmers would be able to contract directly with processors to deliver the consistency and quality customers demand.

The grain industry is changing, and the legislative tools required to keep the industry competitive need to change accordingly. There has been a lot of emphasis on a broader range of crops in western Canada, on identity preservation, on niche marketing and on processing of grains in Canada. The biofuels industry, supported by initiatives put into place by this government, has become a major customer for grains. The reform of the Western Grain Transportation Act in the mid-1990s triggered wholesale diversification as producers opted to market their grains through livestock or switched to other crops such as oilseeds, pulses or horticultural crops.

Today wheat is one of many crops on the Prairies. In the 1950s, three-quarters of the land was wheat; that is not the case today.

Likewise, marketing structures are evolving. The Canadian Wheat Board monopoly on wheat and barley was imposed by Parliament as a war measures act to supply cheap wheat to Britain 70 years ago during World War II. The system was essentially designed to collect the grain produced by thousands of small farmers at a small country elevator, market it around the world as a uniform commodity and divide the returns from this process among all the producers who delivered the grain. Today those dynamics have changed, and our approaches and structures need to change with them.

The idea of simply selling one uniform commodity made sense in the days when few countries dominated the grain export market and quasi-government buyers negotiated long-term supply contracts on a national level. Today, that is not the case and the Canadian Wheat Board needs to change because farmers have changed and the world has changed.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask almost the same question that I asked another member earlier because I did not receive a very clear or convincing answer.

Members of the government seem very confident in the fact that the decision they are making to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board is well founded and that they have the support of all farmers, of all western Canadian farmers. I would like to know whether the Conservative member and the government would be prepared to hold a referendum on this issue so that farmers themselves can say what they really think.

I do not want him to give me the same response as before, in other words, that they have so many members in western Canada or that the survey that was conducted was not well founded. I would like a yes or no answer as to whether they would be prepared to hold a referendum to ask farmers what they really think about the Canadian Wheat Board.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that the farmers I represent, especially young farmers who are excited about new opportunities and hoping for change, are as smart as the farmers who are in Quebec and Ontario, the farmers that the member may represent. I believe my farmers have the same capacity to market their product and they need to have the same opportunity as the farmers in Ontario and Quebec.

I hope the hon. member believes that the farmers that I represent can do the same thing that the farmers in his communities and his province can do. I believe they are smart enough and I hope he does too, and will support our legislation.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering what my colleague thinks of the Liberal supported treatment of a Canadian farmer from Quebec selling his own product to someone in Vermont, compared to the Liberal supported treatment of a Canadian farmer from Alberta selling his own products to someone in Montana.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very timely question. It is a disturbing reality when we look at the numbers out today what the price is that farmers in western Canada are being offered by the Canadian Wheat Board. Today, the fixed price is $7.52. The pool outlook is $9.47. If I had the freedom and my brother had the freedom to sell grain in North Dakota today, we would be getting $12.47. Those are the opportunities that are given to people who live in Quebec and in Ontario. I believe the people that I represent should have that same opportunity to get true value for the quality products that they produce.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the hon. member for Peace River. I have spoken privately to the hon. member about this very heated debate. Clearly, farmers are on both sides of the issue.

I am quite taken with the fact that a very conservative economic expert publication, The Economist magazine, has put forward that removing the Wheat Board, as the government proposes to do, would have a devastating impact “devastating small prairie towns, whose economies depend on individual farmers with disposable income”.

I know that there are sincere differences of opinion in the House, but I would appreciate the hon. member's view of this particular expert opinion.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this is an important point. Small farmers in my constituency, especially small farmers who are young, innovative and want to create a unique product, in many cases an organic product, cannot do it under the Canadian Wheat Board. Currently, the Wheat Board takes that quality, unique niche product, that someone has spent a significant portion of time getting their land to organic quality producing an organic wheat, and takes that crop and pools it in with all the other farmers' crops so that farmer has no opportunity to market a quality, unique niche crop.

I would urge the Green Party to consider changing its policy because the Green candidate in my constituency opposed the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly simply for this reason. There were candidates for the Green Party who were opposing the stated position of the Green Party and one was in my constituency because this is an assault on young farmers, including the young farmer who ran against me for the Green Party. If the member wants to support the Green candidate in my constituency, I urge the hon. member to stand in her place and support this legislation.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill on the Canadian Wheat Board. Our government is committed to the continued success of Canadian agriculture and because this government believes that western Canadian grain farmers deserve the same marketing freedom and opportunities as other farmers in Canada and around the world.

We want to ensure that Canadian farmers succeed and build a strong future for the sector as a whole. Our government's top priority is the economy in which the agricultural industry plays a key role.

We believe that farmers should be able to position their businesses to capture the market opportunities that are open to them. We put farmers first in every decision we make on agriculture.

We recognize that this is a major change for agriculture in western Canada. That is why we have been consulting extensively with stakeholders from across the supply chain, from the farm to the seaport.

Over the summer a working group comprised of experts in the field consulted with industries and heard a broad range of advice on how the grain marketing and transportation system could transition from the current CWB-run system to an open market that would include voluntary marketing pools.

The working group submitted its report to the hon. Minister of Agriculture. It covers a wide range of issues from transportation to research to elevators, basically the how of moving to an open market. The working group is one of the ways our government sought advice on how to move forward.

Our formula is simple and it works: we listen to farmers, we work with farmers, and then we deliver the practical results farmers need.

Let us take a minute and look at opening world markets that are on the doorstep for Canadian agriculture.

Canadian farmers have proven time and time again that they can compete and succeed in the global marketplace if they have a level playing field. That is why the government has been working very hard to build new opportunities in global markets for our farmers.

We have been on the road a lot and our efforts to build trade relationships are paying off. The hon. Minister of Agriculture has led trade missions to key markets in Europe, Asia, South America, Africa and the Middle East.

Working closely with the industry, we have completed over 30 international trade missions and returned home with some real tangible results for our farmers, producers and processors. Everywhere we go, we are finding new customers who want to buy Canadian good quality foodstuffs.

Together we have been moving a lot of product, and we have delivered some real results to our farmers and processors. The government knows farmers want to make their living in the marketplace and not from the mailbox. That is why we have gotten out on the world stage, whether it is serving up Canadian steak in Brussels or canola oil in Mexico, to ensure our farmers can connect with new customers.

We have reopened and expanded access for Canadian cattle, beef, beef products and bovine genetics in China, Hong Kong, Colombia, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Panama, Singapore, Costa Rica, Vietnam and Korea.

We have also reopened and expanded access for Canadian pork and swine in China, Malaysia, Mongolia, Russia, the Philippines, Ukraine, Armenia, Albania, Croatia, Indonesia, Jordan and Thailand.

We have negotiated new duty free access for Canadian hormone-free beef to the European Union, a promising market, estimated to be worth more than $10 million annually. As of July 2011, industry has shipped approximately 626 tonnes of beef, worth almost $5 million.

We have developed new opportunities in China for up to $500 million in sales for pulses and achieved transitional measures that allow access to the Chinese market for Canadian world-class canola, safeguarding a market worth $1.8 billion.

We have succeeded in agreements and set up relationships with India to find a long-term solution on pulse fumigation while ensuring uninterrupted supply of pulses, safeguarding a market worth $533 million in 2009. Of course, there is more work to do.

Let us take a minute and look at trade negotiations with the WTO and FTA. Agriculture trade is critical to Canada's economy and prosperity. In 2010 our agriculture and agri-food exports were over $35 billion. Importantly, Canada's trade in agriculture and agri-food products contributed $11.1 billion to our trade surplus.

Those dollars mean jobs and livelihoods for Canadians here at home. That is why when we, as a government, take measures to support agricultural trade, we are not just helping farmers, we are helping all Canadians.

Canada hosted the Cairns Group ministerial meeting in Saskatoon in early September to press ahead with a stronger rule-based approach to global agricultural trade. At the WTO, we stand ready to work with our trading partners to define a realistic path forward on the Doha round, which would provide for more open and predictable multilateral trading systems.

Our government is also pursuing an aggressive regional and bilateral trade negotiation agenda. In that regard, we are working toward a comprehensive economic and trade agreement with the European Union.

The EU is Canada's second most important partner for trade and investment with two-way agriculture and seafood trade totalling over $6 billion in 2010. We want to make that relationship even stronger and more profitable for the benefit of our farmers.

We will also begin free trade negotiations with Morocco in the very near future. Morocco is an important and growing market for our wheat and pulse exports.

We are making important progress in other markets. We have recently implemented a free trade agreement with the European Free Trade Association, Peru and Colombia. The free trade agreement with the EFTA will eliminate or reduce tariffs on certain agricultural products from Canada, including durum wheat, frozen french fries, crude oil, beer and frozen blueberries.

Canadian producers will also benefit from the elimination of tariffs on exports to Peru and Colombia. Many agricultural exports such as beef, pork, wheat, barley and pulses will receive immediate duty free access. Notably, the FTA with Colombia marks a significant opportunity for Canadian exporters to now benefit from the preferential treatment and access as their American competitors.

We have also signed free trade agreements with Jordan, Panama and Honduras. This government is working toward implementation of these free trade agreements as early as possible.

We are hopeful that our ongoing free trade agreements negotiated with South Korea, El Salvador, Guatemala, India, Ukraine and the Caribbean community will also soon create export opportunities for our agricultural producers in these markets. As well, we are looking ahead to export new possibilities with trading partners like Japan and Turkey.

Let us look at the marketing we are currently headed toward.

We want Canadian farmers and processors to get the credit they deserve for the high quality products they are bringing to market. Our agriculture exporters are innovative and competitive, and we are working with them to expand their markets.

Canada is working on all fronts to boost our agricultural business with the world. We know that buyers and consumers already think highly of Canadians and Canadian products. We want to raise awareness and boost the appetite for our great Canadian agricultural economy. That is why our government is investing $32 million in the Canada brand initiative to boost the Canada brand in key markets. The goal is to get more consumers putting our great Canadian food products in their grocery carts and on their menus. We have already announced branding strategies in Japan, Mexico and Korea.

These dollars are supporting market research, advertising, store features, culinary tourism, and other promotional activities that bolster of the work being done by the Canadian industry to sell the products. Consumers are looking for variety, quality and safety in their food, and our farmers and processors can deliver. When they think of good food, we want them to think Canadian and then buy Canadian.

The goal of these initiatives is to get more international customers bidding on our great Canadian food and help our farmers make the most of international markets. Opening up the markets for durum wheat and barley farmers will attract investment not only from Canadian companies, but from the international community as well. In fact, the head of Bunge North American division said, “Bunge is absolutely planning to be a part of it” and Bill Jamieson, chairman of the National Cattle Feeders' Association, said, “More access to more markets will create more opportunities and profit for grain producers”.

In closing, we believe all Canadian farmers should be able to position their businesses to capture the market opportunities that are open to them. Once passed, this legislation would provide western Canadian grain farmers with endless opportunities for their business. I urge my hon. colleagues to stand up for western Canadian farmers and support the bill.

[Djaouida Sellah, NDP, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to all the numbers and all the opportunities referred to by my colleague across the floor. I thank him for his efforts.

However, I have a question about the Canadian Wheat Board. I am not talking about a so-called analysis conducted by a group of non-government workers. I would like to know why the government refuses to take responsibility when it comes to managing taxpayers' money. This is a recurring theme with this government, whether we are talking about the cost of new prisons, F-35 fighter jets or the minister's pet projects in his riding.

Has the government done a cost analysis of the elimination of the Canadian Wheat Board? Yes or no? And if so, what were the results?

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure exactly what the question was, except there was some indication that maybe there was spending of dollars by government around the Wheat Board question which should not have been spent. Let me respond to that by saying we agree. We do not want to spend dollars on a foolish kind of referendum for which we already know the results. People have told us the results.

Our position has been and continues to be one of choice. Farmers do not need to vote one way or the other. We are saying they have a choice. They can go with the private sector. They can go with the other private sector. They can go with the Canadian Wheat Board. They can go with some other grain buyers. That is what is being said. That is what the bill is promoting.

People have not read the bill, obviously, because the bill is in phases over five years for the Canadian Wheat Board to develop its own marketing system. It is not one of hindrance; it is one of acceptance. I cannot understand why people have not picked up on that theme.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's contribution to this discussion. I think it is an important discussion. I appreciate the fact that I have been recognized as many of the other folks have on the other side of this chamber who have talked about this being a major issue. I do appreciate the opportunity to interject at this point.

I have heard from countless young members of my farming community who are desperate to see this change. They want to see an innovative market. They want to see a market for their barley and their wheat that drives up their returns. We are looking at the organic farmers. We are looking at the guys who want to create niche markets, who want to be able to containerize their product and send it abroad through producer cars or a whole host of other things.

Would the hon. member talk about the changes in this legislation that would allow more of these guys who are looking for unique ways to market their product? Does he believe there would be support in his community for these changes for the ability to create unique and niche crops and marketing wheat and barley that is grown organically or some other way for specific markets?

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member's question, as the hon. member mentioned earlier, the Canadian Wheat Board is not a facilitating operation in terms of expansion, new ideas and innovative technologies. It is very cut and dried: “Bring your wheat. Here you go. Good-bye. See you.”

The new marketing ideas that young people have, the new formulas they have for growing crops, their interest in expanding and their creativity is not facilitated by the Canadian Wheat Board. It never has been and it probably never will be. That is why it is important that we put in place, as a government, an opportunity for young people to expand their expertise, to expand their growing seasons, to do different things with their crop rotation. We want them to be fully-fledged business people marketing their own goods, as they do now in grains such as canola, flax and oats. They market those grains themselves. This is not a new thing for people in the agricultural sector. It is just an expansion of what they are currently doing.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-18 and in support of the Canadian Wheat Board. The board is the largest and most prosperous grain marketing board in the world. It sells grain around the globe. It makes arrangements for shipping grain from thousands of farmers to consumers in over 70 countries. In an average year, the board puts some 21 million tonnes of wheat and barley on the market.

In addition, all profits from these sales, between $4 million and $7 million a year, are paid back entirely to farmers. The board does not hold on to any income, apart from what it needs to cover costs and manage the financial risks.

The board mitigates the risks run by farmers, particularly concerning late payments, selling grain to buyers at inappropriate times and shipping the grain to buyers. This is a key problem, considering the large geographic area of the Prairies.

Batch selling has also allowed farmers to have a significant influence on the handling and shipping of grain, and on international trade policies. The board works in partnership with the industry and the government to promote policies concerning trade, transport and other areas that benefit wheat and barley farmers in western Canada. The board has defended farmers remarkably well in cases of unfounded trade disputes and has won important victories that resulted in better fees and rail service.

The board's single desk structure has ensured financial stability, sound risk management and secure supply chains, an indisputable advantage for farmers.

Furthermore, the Canadian Wheat Board is not a government-funded agency or a crown corporation. The Canadian Wheat Board is not funded by Canadian taxpayers. Farmers pay for its operations from their grain revenue.

Ten of the 15 members of the board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board are elected by farmers. Farmers consistently elect a majority of directors who support the single desk structure.

The Conservatives have no mandate to go against the wishes of prairie farmers. The Canadian Wheat Board is controlled, directed and funded by farmers. Farmers should be the ones to decide the future of the marketing organization that they run and they pay for.

They have made their decision clear. The results of the Canadian Wheat Board plebiscite released on September 12 show that a strong majority of farmers want to maintain their ability to market wheat and barley through a single desk system. Sixty-two per cent of respondents voted in favour of retaining the single desk for wheat, and 51% voted to retain it for barley. A total of 38,261 farmers submitted mail-in ballots in the plebiscite, a participation rate of 56%, on par with the last three federal elections and higher than many municipal and provincial elections.

Canada runs the risk of losing $200 million to $500 million a year in board price premiums.

The board manages a supply chain from gate to plate. It has an enviable international reputation for its quality and uninterrupted supply, its service and superior technical support.

Grain sales made under the exclusive jurisdiction of the board guarantee a secure supply of grain, thus guaranteeing strategic and orderly sales. This gives farmers a competitive advantage in the international grain market. On their own, farmers would have to sell by auction. They would have to decide whether or not to sell depending on the circumstances, a gamble that could cost them their farm.

In fact, many studies carried out by well-known agricultural economists, based on data compiled by the board, concluded that the single desk model allows Prairie farmers to bring in millions of dollars more per year than on the open market.

The dismantling of the single desk system will have a serious impact on communities across the Prairies. A 2005 economic impact analysis by PricewaterhouseCoopers found that the Canadian Wheat Board contributes a gross output of $94.6 million to the city of Winnipeg. In addition to its more than 400 employees at its head office, PricewaterhouseCoopers calculated spinoff employment from the Canadian Wheat Board to be more than 2,000 jobs, with a total labour force income impact on the city of more than $66 million. At the provincial level, PricewaterhouseCoopers put the Canadian Wheat Board's gross output contribution at $323 million with more than 3,000 jobs and a total labour income impact of more than $140 million.

The Conservatives have argued that the Ontario experience with removing the single desk can be applied to western farmers, but one cannot compare apples to oranges. The examples are completely different. Ontario wheat farmers produce wheat for pastries, cookies and cakes. They have a ready market available locally. In contrast, prairie wheat farmers produce hard red spring wheat which does not have an extensive local market. Ontario wheat farmers sell about 90% of their product within Canada and the northern U.S., but 80% of the wheat grown in western Canada each year is exported overseas. That means while Ontario farmers have low transportation distances and costs, prairie wheat farmers must pay freight costs to transport grain long distances to inland terminals and to port.

Of course, the other crucial difference between the Ontario experience and the measure being discussed here is Ontario wheat farmers ended their single desk system through a farmer-led democratic process. Prairie farmers have voted in favour of keeping the Canadian Wheat Board and face having it taken away against their will.

A better comparison can be found in Australia. Western grain farmers can look to Australia to know what is in store for them when the single desk is eradicated, and it is not pretty. When the Australian wheat board had its single desk power, wheat could command a premium of over $99 a tonne over the American wheat, but by December 2008, it had dropped to a discount of $27 a tonne below U.S. wheat. In three short years Australia's 40,000 wheat farmers went from running their own grain marketing system, virtually all of Australia's wheat, which was 12% of the world's wheat production worth $5 billion, selling it on their own behalf, to being mere customers of Cargill, one of the world's largest agribusiness corporations, which is privately owned and based in the United States.

Before making any changes to the board, the government must study the impact of its dismantling and analyze the effects this would have on Canadian grain farmers. Otherwise, it is playing Russian roulette with the Prairie economy and with the revenue sources of western farmers.

Allen Orberg, a farmer and chair of the Canadian Wheat Board's board of directors, has said that this government's imprudent approach will derail the Canadian grain industry. It threatens the future of a sector with $5 billion in exports every year. It will take money out of the pockets of Canadian farmers and give it to American corporations.

In closing, the important thing is to give farmers a say. They have voted. They want to keep the Wheat Board. It is incomprehensible that the government would override the democratic will of farmers and dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not come from a riding that has a great deal of farms. I come from an Ontario riding, so I do not necessarily understand the nuances or intricacies of the Wheat Board. What I do understand is basic economics. We continually hear from the members on the other side of the chamber that the Wheat Board is the greatest thing since sliced bread. If it is so great, then when it becomes optional for western farmers, there is going to be a stampede to stay with the Canadian Wheat Board.

I do not understand the logic that by making the best thing in the world optional is somehow going to lead to its demise. Perhaps the member opposite could correct me on how that logic is not correct.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is simple. Democracy is the greatest thing since sliced bread and the democratic will of prairie farmers has not been respected, as it must be by law. The government is riding roughshod over a decision taken by prairie farmers who want to keep their Wheat Board. The government is saying that they are not going to have that option. The dismantling of the Wheat Board will have huge ramifications in terms of prices and the impact on our overall economy, but especially on prairie farmers. It is incomprehensible why the government would not abide by the law, respect the will of farmers and allow them to keep the Wheat Board.

[Alain Giguère, NDP, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Madam Speaker, could my colleague tell us what impact the loss of an institution as important as the Canadian Wheat Board would have on our national sovereignty?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

When Australia lost its equivalent of the Canadian Wheat Board, farmers lost control over their wheat. They became clients of a large American company. They lost control and became very dependent on that company, which led to loss of revenue and the destruction of that sector.

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

Madam Speaker, I welcome the perspective of the member opposite, who is from downtown Toronto. Perhaps because she is from there, she is not familiar with a couple of the issues.

She referred to the survey that was taken by the Wheat Board. She probably does not know that there has been great discussion about the voters list, which has been polluted for over a decade and has not been cleared up. I would like to give a couple of examples and then ask if she can somehow justify them because she supports the results.

The father of someone close to me died last year and the ballots were sent out a couple of months ago from the Wheat Board. My friend's mother got a ballot in her husband's name and the estate got a ballot as well. One of my colleague's had a little old lady poke him and say that she wanted to talk to him about the Wheat Board. He asked what it was about and she told him that her brother and sister both got ballots and they were both dead. I have two colleagues here who are farmers and landowners who did not get ballots.

How can she and her party justify supporting this charade?

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to inform the member opposite that food security and the well-being of farmers concerns everyone in our country. Farmers feed cities. We rely on farmers.

I have not reviewed the voters list for this plebiscite, but, surely to goodness, if the government is concerned with that list, then it should obey the law, conduct its own vote and let farmers decide the future of the Wheat Board. It is as simple as that. Why does it not allow the farmers the democratic right to decide whether they will be able to keep the Wheat Board? That is the government's responsibility under the law.

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

Madam Speaker, I truly am delighted to take part in this debate. For me personally, this is the beginning of the end of a 40 year struggle. I started 40 years ago to work to try to end the Wheat Board monopoly, but I will talk a bit about that later.

It is the end of a 70 year period during which time the Wheat Board has had a monopoly and farmers have had no choice. Marketing wheat and certain classes of barley had to be done through the board. Other grains were included during part of that time as well.

It is the beginning of the end of an era, and I am proud to be a member of a government that is doing the right thing after all of this time.

I cannot measure exactly what the benefits or the hurt caused by the Wheat Board having its monopoly. What I do know is some of the hurt caused to my father who farmed most of his life. When I was a young boy during the sixties and early seventies, I remember the harvest finally finished when fall arrived. For many of those years, my father had good crops but he could not market them. We were a large family and we did not have a lot of cash flow. I remember my father desperately trying to get money to buy boots for us for the winter. He did not have the money. I remember my father desperately trying to get enough money to pay some of the bills for fertilizer and pesticides and other farm inputs, and he could not do it. He had the grain, but he could not find a market for it. Therefore, he went out to find a market on his own and he found one for his wheat and barley across the border. It was a poor price, but at least it would provide the cash flow to help get the winter clothing for the family and to pay enough of the bills that the suppliers would send again next year.

As a result of the Wheat Board rules, my father could not cross the border to sell the grain when he found one so he could do those things for his family. I am not talking about the border with the United States. Our farm was two miles from the Saskatchewan border on the Alberta side. Because of the laws in place under the Wheat Board legislation, he was not allowed to take his grain across the border, 50 miles away, where he found a market with feeders, people feeding cattle and hogs, because the Wheat Board had to be protected.

That is what I grew up with. My father's opinion of the Wheat Board before that I do not know, but I do know he was frustrated by these restrictions put on him by the board at that time.

I am proud to say that with this legislation one of the many changes that will take place is that farmers will now be allowed to take grain across provincial borders without fear of penalty. That is a step in the right direction.

It has been a 40 year struggle for me. It started when I took agriculture at university. In 1970 I took my first marketing course. I was fortunate enough to have as my instructor Professor Joe Richter. He came into that marketing course the very first day and said that monopolies were always a bad thing, whether they were private or government. He said, furthermore, that this applied to the Canadian Wheat Board.

I admit that a lot of my classmates were not very sure about that. They had been taught by their parents and grandparents that the Wheat Board was something almost sacred. By the end of that course, every one of my colleagues understood why the monopoly simply was not a good thing.

That was the start of my struggle, but I moved on. I went on the advisory committees of the Alberta Wheat Pool, things like that, and then 18 years ago I became involved in politics.

Half of my first speech as a politician was on the Wheat Board and how we had to end the monopoly. I talked about how we had to give farmers the freedom to market their grain in the fashion that they saw fit. It has been 18 years as a member of Parliament. Now, finally, it is the beginning of the end. The monopoly will be removed and we will be on to bigger and better things.

This is a rights issue. I hear all the arguments about plebiscites and other things, whether the board has offered an advantage or not. Personally, I simply do not believe those things are the issues.

The issue is rights and equality. On the equality issue, why should farmers in western Canada be treated differently and given fewer rights and options than farmers in central Canada? There is no good answer for that. No one can come up with a good answer because there is not one.

When it comes to rights, it is property rights issue. Farmers put all of the money into producing their grain. Farmers put all of the work, the sweat, the toil into producing their grain. When it comes time to sell their grain, they simply do not have a basic right that anybody else in any other industry in our country has and, in fact, that anybody else in any democratic country has. That is wrong.

This legislation is about restoring the rights to western Canadian wheat and barley growers and restoring equality so that western farmers are treated equal to eastern farmers.

People ask how we ever got into this mess in the first place. The mess started back in the early 1920s. There was a form of the Wheat Board that was put in place at that time. It was put in place absolutely respecting the rules of co-operatives. One of the basic principles, the key principal of all the co-operatives that helped build the west, was freedom, freedom to either use the co-operative or not, freedom to be a member or not. That is the way the Wheat Board was established. It was voluntary.

Then in 1935, once again, it was established as a voluntary organization. It is exactly what we are asking for right now. Farmers had a right to either market through the Wheat Board, if they chose, or to market through any grain company they wanted, if they chose to do that. That is the way the Wheat Board was established.

It was only in 1943, under the War Measures Act, when the government wanted to get cheap grain for the war effort in Europe, that the monopoly was put in place. It was put in place under the War Measures Act, why to give farmers a better price for their grain? Absolutely not. It was to get cheap grain for the war effort, and that was acceptable. In war we have to do some things we do not like to do. I am not criticizing the government of the day in any fashion.

What I am criticizing governments for is that after the war the monopoly was not removed, and it has not been to this day. That is a basic and unacceptable infringement on basic human rights and, in this case, property rights. It is time this was changed.

It is about that. All of the talk about a vote and plebiscite is not valid, because I would argue that democracy should not be used to remove basic human rights.

To use maybe a poor analogy, and I do not have much time to do it, we were all elected in the House knowing what our salaries would be. What if the Speaker decided that there would be votes in each of our constituencies, but only in the constituencies in central Canada. A vote would be held to have the people determine whether an MP should get paid or the amount an MP should be paid.

There is a vote and democracy takes place. The people decide that maybe MPs should not get paid at all or should get paid much less. It is a vote. It is democracy. That is what the members are arguing for over there. However, is it right? Of course it is not right.

Maybe it is not the best analogy, but whether there is a vote and all of the other arguments made whether the monopoly is good or bad is not the key issue. The key issue is we have to restore the basic right of farmers to sell their property and to do it in any way that they see fit.

[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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, for over 60 years the Canadian Wheat Board has provided an essential service to farmers throughout the Prairies. Today is indeed a sad day, as we see the government has made the decision to limit debate in an attempt to force the bill to the next level. We need to be very clear in terms of just how beneficial the Canadian Wheat Board has been to the prairie farmer over those years.

It is in essence farmers working with farmers in order to maximize a reasonable return so that they can earn a respectable living on prairie farms. Over the years the Canadian Wheat Board has established itself at the top in the whole area of branding, particularly in wheat, and I will focus strictly on wheat for now.

Throughout the world we are recognized as the best producers of wheat. In good part it is because of the prairie farmer and because of the fine work that the Wheat Board has done over the years. It is because of that history and that branding that we are able to get the maximum return for our farmers. Farmers are able to derive many benefits through the Canadian Wheat Board.

I would suggest that the action we are taking today is to the detriment of the Canadian prairie farmer. I appeal to government members to give a second thought and heed the advice in what people are saying, not only inside this chamber but as prairie farmers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.

I will quote The Economist, which is a world-renowned news organization. It states:

Smaller producers, faced with mounting marketing costs, will inevitably have to sell their farms to bigger rivals or agribusiness companies. Eventually, this should lead to consolidation and fewer, bigger farms—making Canada a more competitive wheat producer, but devastating small prairie towns, whose economies depend on individual farmers with disposable income.

Let there be no doubt that this bill is going to destroy Canadian wheat farmers. There are a number of wheat farmers who will be destroyed by the passage of the bill. Let there be no doubt that the bill would be to the detriment of many rural prairie communities. We need to realize that.

Farmers have spoken on the issue. Even though there was a legal obligation on the government, through the Canadian Wheat Board, to have a plebiscite in accordance with section 47.1, the government failed to meet that obligation. However, the Wheat Board went ahead and had an independent plebiscite on the issue. In the plebiscite 62% of our wheat producers clearly indicated that they wanted to retain the Wheat Board.

We know why the prairie farmers wanted to retain the Wheat Board. It is something they are far more familiar with than 90% of the members inside this chamber. They saw the value of the Canadian Wheat Board and they believe it is extremely important to the long-term survival of prairie farmers and their local rural communities. They saw the value in terms of producing that quality wheat and in having the brand of the Canadian Wheat Board. They understand the issue. They do not need to be lectured by the Prime Minister as to why it has to go.

I posed the question to the Prime Minister: why does he have a personal hatred towards the Canadian Wheat Board?

That is what this is all about. It is because the current Prime Minister cannot stand the Wheat Board, and that is well documented. He is not listening to the facts. He is not looking for any sort of research or documentation that proves that the demise of the Wheat Board is good for the prairie provinces. He has not tabled anything to that effect. The Prime Minister is treating our prairie farmers like trash.

What does the Prime Minister say specifically? On October 7, 2011, The Globe and Mail stated:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has a message for all the critics of his government’s plan to end the monopoly of the Canadian Wheat Board: Get over it.

“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,” the Prime Minister said.

He continued:

“You're much better to get on it than to lie on the tracks because this is going ahead”.

I have fairly thick skin and I can take the hurdles that have been tossed over from the other side, even if it is coming from the Prime Minister, but he needs to know full well that we are talking about tens of thousands of prairie grain farmers who disagree. These are the tens of thousands of prairie farmers he is telling to get on board or lie on the track.

I have never seen such disrespect for westerners as I have seen from this particular Prime Minister. If he really wanted to listen to what people out west are saying, why does he not instruct our committee here in the House of Commons to go out west and listen first-hand to what the prairie farmers are saying, not the members of Parliament here in Ottawa? Let us take the debate to the Prairies.

The Premier of Manitoba has launched a lawsuit, I understand. There is phenomenal opposition to this legislation in the Prairies. Where is the intestinal fortitude? Where is a Prime Minister who wants to show leadership, take it to the Prairies and listen to what the farmers have to say?

Why not allow the Premier of Manitoba, the average farmer and others to go before the Manitoba legislature? I am sure we have some pretty good connections. We could arrange for committee rooms inside the Manitoba legislature to be made available for parliamentarians from Ottawa to listen to presentation after presentation of those individuals who want to send a message to the federal government. The recording, translation and all those facilities are in place there, and I can assure the Prime Minister that space would be made available in the Manitoba legislature. I am confident of that.

I would welcome the opportunity to open that committee by having the Premier of the Province of Manitoba indicate what he believes and why it is he believes the Canadian Wheat Board should remain.

I believe it is equally important that we hear from the prairie farmers, the individuals on whom this legislation would have such a profound impact. I would like to hear some of the rural municipalities come before a committee in the Manitoba legislature to provide their input.

What does the government have to lose if it is so convinced? The only argument the Conservatives put forth is freedom. They have no other argument. They argue that more flour mills will open up. They do not have any record or proof of that. They have no real tangible proof that will take place. In the last decade, how many pasta plants and flour mills did we see open in North Dakota, compared to the west? I suggest there have been more in the west.

I do not buy the argument of the Conservatives. I believe it is because the Prime Minister of Canada has a hatred for the Canadian Wheat Board. Now that he has his majority, he is prepared to do whatever it takes and even break laws that are currently in place. He is prepared to break laws to bring in this legislation. He will do whatever it takes.

I appeal to the Prime Minister to at least have the courage to bring it out and allow prairie farmers and others on the Prairies to contribute to this very critical debate on the future of the Prairies in Canada.

[Dave MacKenzie, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my friend across the aisle rail on and on and make many assumptive opinions, purely of his own, that have no basis in fact.

However, there are some real facts. I would like him to list all the ridings held by Liberal members west of the New Brunswick-Quebec border.

There may be some real truth to that message. If he takes it to heart, he will understand which party represents most of Canada, and certainly the west.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to respond to that question.

I would ask the member to look back to the late 1980s, to the F-18 crisis. There was an arrogant government, known as the Mulroney government, that made the decision to hurt the province of Manitoba in a very political way. Canadians in Manitoba recall that, and that is one of the reasons why, in 1993, Liberals won 12 of the 14 seats. Seats should never be taken for granted.

I would suggest that doing this to farmers, even though farmers do not support it, will have a residual effect. It is going to stick around. Farmers will not forget.

The Liberals might only have two seats in the Prairies and the NDP may only have three seats in the Prairies, but it just means that we have great potential for growth. That member is feeding that growth.

Personally, I would just as soon say to keep the Wheat Board and go from there.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to get up and ask my colleague from Winnipeg North a question.

First, I would like to make a very short statement. On the weekend I was in a riding in the heartland of rural Canada, in a place called Burdett. There was a fundraiser there.

I talked to numerous farmers, and every one of them said, “Tell me, when are we going to make the change to the Wheat Board, so that we can sell our own grains, our own wheat, and our own barley?” That is not my question.

My question for the member for Winnipeg North is, would the member agree that farmers who seed the grain, harvest the grain, own the grain and sell the grain on the open market should be sent to jail, like one farmer in my riding who sold his own grain?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was in the heart of Canada, in the beautiful city of Winnipeg. We are all very familiar with Winnipeg.

Over the weekend, I, too, met with some farmers.

[Some hon. member]

Name them.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Keith Ryan is one. I met with Keith on Saturday, and I believe he might even be one of the individuals who is looking at some sort of a lawsuit in trying to deal with the Wheat Board.

The reality is that when I was meeting with farmers in Winnipeg, they made it very clear to me that I had to come back here and fight to save the Wheat Board, because it is the farmers who want the Wheat Board.

To the member who just stood up and asked the question, I would suggest he come out to the prairie provinces. Winnipeg is a good place. I will be more than happy to arrange a meeting. That is the reason we need to have the agriculture committee come out west. There are some great people in western Canada. Let us hear what the west has to say about the government's agenda for the Wheat Board.

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

Mr. Speaker, with almost half of the arable land in Canada, an estimated 44,329 farms, agriculture is an essential industry and economic driver in my province. With 14 ridings, all representing a significant rural component, 13 out of 14 re-elected members are on this side of the House. The farmers in my province have spoken.

As a member of Parliament from Saskatchewan, I am honoured to represent western farmers and very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the subject of ending the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly and giving prairie wheat and barley growers the freedom to choose how they market their product.

The naysayers and doom and gloomers tell us that change is bad, that our western Canadian farmers are not capable of marketing their own grain. Are they somehow different from the farmers in other parts of Canada who apparently know how to market their own product, including wheat and barley? Farmers take all the risks: what to plant, when to harvest, and how and when to market what they produce. That is, unless they grow barley or wheat in western Canada.

It seems to me that change has been a constant over the years and industries have grown and prospered as a result. Let us look at how change has already transformed the Canadian Wheat Board over its 76-year history.

The CWB was established in 1935 as a voluntary marketing agency for prairie wheat. That was the original vision. In 1943 sales of wheat through the board became compulsory. Six years later, the Canadian Wheat Board powers were extended to include prairie oats and barley. Therefore, from 1949 to 1974, 25 years, the board was the single desk for western oats, barley and wheat, whether for human consumption or animal feed. The changes up to that point resulted in a single desk monopoly.

Then change moved things in a new direction. With changes to the feed grain policy in 1974 and again in 1976, exclusive marketing rights over prairie grain fed to animals in Canada were removed from the board. Did the animal feed producers fall apart and stumble into bankruptcy? They did not. In fact, the use of cereal grains for livestock has grown significantly since then.

Flash forward to 1989 when oats were removed from board jurisdiction. Did oat producers flounder? Absolutely not. Two new plants were announced within weeks of the decision and a thriving oats processing sector has since developed in western Canada. Farmers quickly adapted to the changes and the CWB was not missed.

Historically, what started out as a monopoly has been evolving over the last 35 years until what we are left with is a single desk for barley and wheat for export and human consumption. What was considered necessary during World War II is no longer what the savvy, smart farmers of the 21st century need.

Sylvain Charlebois, associate dean and professor of food distribution and policies at the University of Guelph, said:

At the end of the day, single-desk marketing should cease. Such a reform will make Canada more competitive, as the monopoly is a hindrance to our ability to compete globally.

Barley growers recognize that and so does the government.

The Canadian malting and brewing industry has lost confidence in the ability of the Canadian Wheat Board to reliably supply the malt and barley it needs to be competitive in international markets. Imagine what it is like to be locked into using one supplier and not have the confidence that the malt and barley will be there when the production line needs it.

It is time that western barley growers and wheat producers had some options. They take all the risks, they should be able to decide how and to whom to sell their grains. They know that commodity and food prices are rising to record levels, driven by growing demand for the high quality innovative food produced by Canadian farmers and food processors. This turnabout has boosted the bottom lines of our producers. Stronger farm incomes and higher prices are forecast well into the next decade.

The outlook for Canadian agriculture is bright and there is a new-found optimism in the farming industry in this country. According to a survey by Farm Credit Canada, three-quarters of farmers believe that their farm businesses will be better off in five years.

Knowing that farming has become increasingly modernized and competitive on the world stage, they are looking for new ways of doing business, new technologies and new marketing strategies. Succeeding in the 21st century involves looking at the Wheat Board through a different lens, a single desk is no longer needed.

The Minister of Agriculture asked department officials to meet with industry and stakeholders, including the Canadian Wheat Board, throughout the summer, in order to assist in developing a transitional plan for opening the market.

Our government has always said that it is open to seeing the continuation of the Canadian Wheat Board as a voluntary marketing option for producers. There will be producers who will continue to use the Canadian Wheat Board after the monopoly ends, and that is their choice. There will also be producers who prefer market freedom and they should have that choice.

Spencer Fernando of The Manitoban said:

Nobody is hurt by allowing farmers to freely market the products they worked to produce. Limiting the freedom of western farmers goes against one of the principles we believe in as Canadians.

Western Canadian wheat and barley farmers want the same marketing freedom and opportunities as other farmers in Canada and around the world. That is what our government has pledged to provide. That is what we promised when we were elected with a majority and it is what we stated in the recent throne speech. This promise will be kept.

This legislation, when passed, will give western Canadian wheat and barley farmers the freedom to position their businesses to capture the marketing opportunities that are open to them.

Change has always been a part of the Canadian Wheat Board's history and I expect it will continue to be.

Giving western Canadian farmers marketing freedom has been a long-standing promise of our government. Since I was first elected in 2008, I have been reminded of this promise over and over again. I am committed, along with our government, to work in the best interests of farmers and to give them the marketing freedom they deserve. By passing the bill, we will be keeping our promise.

I would like to thank the Minister of Agriculture and the parliamentary secretary for their dedication and hard work in bringing the bill forward and ensuring its swift passage. I encourage all opposition members to support the bill.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about the government keeping its promise. It has made many promises. I recall that before the election the Conservatives promised that they would put this issue to farmers for a vote.

The Conservatives keep talking about the vast majority of Canadians having voted for them, but if I recall the number the Conservatives took office by was just 39%. That means that 61% of Canadians did not want the Conservatives in office but our system put them there.

Now the member is talking about the many promises that her government made. In order for the Conservatives to keep their promise the right thing to do would be to bring the issue to farmers and let them make the decision by voting on it instead of the Conservative Party shoving it down their throats.

Would it not be better to bring the issue to farmers and let them decide on their future? The Conservative Party made that promise before the election. The Conservatives said the issue would be brought to farmers and they would vote on it. The government should stick to what the majority of farmers decide.

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

Mr. Speaker, to be clear, 13 out of 14 re-elected members on this side of the House are from Saskatchewan. Of the 14 ridings, 13 are held by members on this side of the House. We represent farmers in Saskatchewan. Every riding has a rural component to it. We have listened to farmers. We promised that we would remove the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly and we are holding true to that promise.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon. member talk about western farmers wanting to make the changes. At the same time, we know that earlier this summer there was a survey. I do not know how valid the numbers are but they seem to be pretty solid. I think they were based on a participation rate of about 56%. In the case of wheat, as I understand it, 62% of those who responded said that they would like to keep the single desk Canadian Wheat Board as is.

For those 62%, on the assumption that is correct, what would my colleague say to those 62%, assuming that they gave their heartfelt opinion about wanting to keep the single desk?

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

Mr. Speaker, no expensive survey can trump the individual right of farmers to market their own grain.

Our government has been very clear that the economy is our top priority. An open grain market would attract investment. It would encourage innovation and create value-added jobs, like the recently announced pasta plant in Saskatchewan. An open grain market would also build a strong economy for all Canadians.

Western Canadian wheat and barley producers deserve the same opportunities that farmers in the rest of Canada have access to. Our government is committed to giving them the opportunities that they want, that they have asked for and that they deserve.

I urge the member to support the bill.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-18, on the Canadian Wheat Board. This bill proposes to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board and to eliminate the single desk marketing system for barley and wheat in Canada. The bill creates an interim board with voluntary pooling to be fully privatized or dissolved if it is not privatized within five years of the legislation coming into force. No elected directors may sit on the governing board of the interim board.

The government claims that this bill benefits farmers by giving them the market and giving them a choice, but they have no choice when it comes to dismantling the board. On September 12, a majority of farmers voted in favour of maintaining the Wheat Board. The government should drop Bill C-18. 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.

The bill is dangerous. It will ruin prairie farmers in these difficult economic times. Although the government's decision to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board has serious implications for farmers, it was made without any analysis of its repercussions and it goes against the wishes of farmers.

Taxpayers do not fund the What Board and the Conservatives do not have a mandate to go against the wishes of prairie farmers.

The Conservatives are acting in the interests of the big American grain companies by interfering in this matter, in order to lower prices and undermine market security for our own farmers.

Let us look at this from a different angle. The Conservatives say that they represent the majority in the West, on the Prairies. That is why they have made this decision. We must not forget that before the election—I would like to see the Conservatives rise and say this is not true—they promised that, if they were elected, there would be a vote on dismantling the Wheat Board. What has happened to that promise? Do they think that they do not have to keep that promise and not go back to face the farmers just because they were elected?

This is how I see things: there are some farmers who want to dismantle the board and who say they do not need it, and there are some farmers who want the board dismantled. However, taking a broader view, we can ask what the Canadian Wheat Board has done over the past 75 years. It has set prices and stabilized production. Looking at my region, we can compare farmers to our fishers.

I hope what happened to the fishermen on the east coast does not happen to the farmers in the west. Fishermen work hard to keep their boats. It costs a lot of money. They have to pay their fishermen and deckhands, but they have no control over prices. The market dictates the price.

As my colleague from Saint John knows, people who were fishing codfish were getting 50¢ a pound. Even last year, they were getting 50¢ a pound and people were paying $4.50 a pound in the stores. As individuals, they have no control on the price. It will be big business that will run it.

I want to use the fishermen as an example for the people of the Prairies so the Conservatives do not fall asleep on this and shove it down their throats because they do not want have a vote. They do not want to give them the democracy that any group should have and be able to vote on it. Lobster fishermen were getting $2 a pound for lobster. People go to restaurants and pay $10.50 for the lobster on their plates. The fishermen are losing their shirts. They do not even have money to fix the engine on their boat when it breaks down.

What will happen to the farmers who are on their own and need to do the marketing themselves. They are lucky right now to have an organization to do it for them, to give it to them on a silver platter. If the government wants to do something for the farmers, it should do what is right. When it says that it received a big majority to make the decision, this is beautiful.

Only 39% of Conservatives got elected. That is not a big majority. However, when a survey was done, 62% of the farmers did not want it. It was 62% who wanted to keep the board and did not want the government to make the change. The government talks about being close to its people. If it is close to its people, why does it not keep its promise to the people? It had promised, just before the election, that there would be a vote on it. Why not allow the farmers to make that decision? What is wrong with that? What is the government afraid of? Why is it afraid of democracy if it believes in democracy? If it really believes in democracy, what is wrong with allowing all the farmers on the Prairies to vote on it and make a decision?

This has been working for the last 75 years.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Not now.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Yes, some are not happy. Some think they will do better and some will do better, but, collectively, it is a big mistake for our country because we are bending on our knees to the Americans. That is what is happening. We are on our knees to the Americans because they want to get rid of it. How many times have the Americans asked us to get rid of the Wheat Board?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thirteen.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Thirteen times. Does that make sense? For that reason alone, we should say that we want sovereignty in our country. The member for Winnipeg Centre just said that the Americans asked us 13 times to abandon the Wheat Board. Is that not reason enough for keeping it?

Why are the Conservatives worried about a vote. Are they worried about losing?

Are they afraid of losing the vote? All they have been doing since May is trying to destroy our Canadian institutions, whether it be the unions, the Canadian Wheat Board or others. They want to destroy our country. They are handing us over to the Americans—free—by adopting the American system. It is shameful to see how the Conservative government is acting. No democracy. No democracy! The Conservatives should be ashamed of themselves. If they are not ashamed and, above all, if they are not afraid, then they should hold a referendum. They should consult the farmers.

I spoke earlier about the lobster fishermen and groundfish fishermen who earn 50¢ a pound while others earn $10 a pound. They will regret it when that happens. They will have destroyed a system that worked. Collectively, people in western Canada have been successful. The Conservatives are saying that they could have done better. Perhaps there are some who might have, but others would lose their businesses. Rather than having a board that sets prices for them, individual producers will have to set their own prices. Producers will have to hire more staff to market their products for them.

I have no regrets about voting against this bill. I do not believe that the Conservative government has the right to hold a vote here in the House without consulting producers and farmers and giving them the choice of whether or not to abolish the Wheat Board. The two sides agree on this issue. The Conservatives must give the farmers the chance to vote. That is what people from the Prairies are asking. If the Conservatives have any respect at all for farmers, they must let farmers make the decision by secret ballot. That is what the Conservatives should do.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's comments raise a couple of questions. First, does he know what percentage of farmers voted to impose the Wheat Board on western Canadian farmers back in the early days? If he does not know, I will tell him. It was 0% because there was no vote by farmers then. It was imposed upon them by the government.

If the member, who is from part of the country that is not affected by the impositions of the Canadian Wheat Board, feels so strongly about it, would he be prepared to take that message across the rest of Canada and impose the Canadian Wheat Board regulations on his farmers, or is it just for western Canadian farmers, of whom he has no representation nor the ability to speak on their behalf, yet he wants to impose that upon us?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, first, when I was elected I was elected as a member of Parliament at the federal level and I can go anywhere in the country because I am a Canadian. Do the Conservatives want to take that away from me?

Second, when it was imposed, it was under a Conservative government, the same way it is going to be imposed under a Conservative government to take it away.

Why not give farmers the choice to vote on it? Before the 2011 election, the Conservatives promised them that they could vote on this. Why do the Conservatives not give them the right to vote on it? It is not for me as a member of Parliament to go there and shove it down their throats. They must be given the right to vote on it. That is what the Conservatives should do if they are not ashamed of themselves.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst for his spirited defence of the right of producers to vote on how they choose to market their products.

I know that my colleague from Newfoundland has been telling us recently how, at the very moment in time, when the Conservatives are dismantling the most successful grain marketing company in the world, wholly owned and operated by prairie farmers on a non-profit basis, the fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Atlantic region are contemplating creating a marketing board along the same lines as our freshwater fish marketing board, our dairy marketing boards, our egg marketing board and our turkey and chicken marketing boards. They know that supply management is an advantage and a benefit to producers. The fishermen of Atlantic Canada are coming to that realization.

How is it that Atlantic Canadian fisher people know when their best interests are served, when the Conservatives are blindly abolishing the very same system in the prairie region?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, even the people in Australia are regretting that they got rid of their board. They know they made a mistake now and regret what they have done.

When we look at the fishermen, it is very simple to explain. When lobster fishermen have a hard time getting $2 a pound and restaurants charge $10.50 a pound, between the consumer and the fishermen there are a lot of people in between taking their money. That does not happen with a board. Farmers would need to get their own price. The Atlantic fishermen are saying the same thing. Between the customer and the fishermen, there are a lot of people taking the money, and that is why they are getting 50¢ a pound and the stores are getting $4.50 a pound. That is what would happen if they were to market individually.

Farmers should think twice about what they are getting into. There are some who will make money but the majority will not be making the money. The reason for this board 75 years ago was to look after farmers' interests.

This is a big mistake. The mistake is not by the farmers, but by the Conservative government not letting them vote on it democratically. If the Conservatives believe in democracy they should give farmers the chance to make that decision because it is important for the farmers on the Prairies.

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this proposed legislation, which would be a major step forward for Canadian grain producers.

Our Conservative government knows that a prosperous farm means a prosperous economy. As others have said, this bill would give farmers in western Canada the same rights that farmers have in my home riding of Simcoe—Grey here in Ontario. They would share the same right to market their grain to a buyer of their choice and to do what is best for their businesses.

There is always a fear of the unknown, but in this case we do know that others who have gone down a very similar path of marketing freedom have had very positive results. I would like to speak to the wheat industry in Ontario as an example of the kinds of opportunities farmers can capture through a voluntary pool.

Ontario wheat producers moved to a voluntary marketing system eight years ago. Some Ontario wheat producers chose to market their crops through the voluntary pool run by Grain Farmers of Ontario. Others chose from a variety of other marketing methods that are right for their businesses. Since moving to marketing freedom, the Ontario wheat industry has been growing steadily over the past decade, topping a million acres last year and bringing more than $300 million to the farm gate. It has become one of the province's largest crop exporters. Last year half of the two million tonne crop was exported, driving over $280 million in sales.

Marketing freedom did not cause the sky to fall in Ontario, as the monopoly supporters would lead us to believe. Contrary to these baseless arguments, Ontario has a dynamic and growing grain industry, the largest this side of the Prairies. In fact, Dr. Terry Daynard, one of the founders of Ontario Corn Producers' Association, said:

...I am glad the Ontario Wheat Board ended single-desk selling years ago, allowing growers like me to market wheat independently.

The Ontario wheat industry shows what can be done when the entire value chain works together to grow market potential. Today, a strong and innovative value-added sector purchases about half the Ontario wheat crop to manufacture high-quality food products for Canadian grocery stores all over the country. Since moving to an open market, Ontario wheat growers have developed a number of exciting value-added opportunities over the past several years.

Several years ago, the former Ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board, today Grain Farmers of Ontario, launched a wheat initiative fund to directly address opportunities to collaborate with all sector partners around value-added uses of Ontario wheat. This program has been so successful that Grain Farmers of Ontario is now looking for similar opportunities in corn and soy.

As an example, Grain Farmers of Ontario is supplying Ontario's wheat to an Ontario-based company that has become Canada's largest pita bread manufacturer. In my riding of Simcoe—Grey, where agriculture and farming are of incredible importance to many families, it is the hard work of local farmers like Ken Ferguson, who is my local mayor, Fred and Brian Dunlop, and Roger and Bill MacLeod who demonstrate that hard-working commitment is representative of all Canadian wheat farmers.

Under marketing freedom, GFO is still the recognized leader in export market development and there is no reason that a voluntary Canadian Wheat Board could not remain a recognized leader as well.

Of course, a major change like this would have a transition period. Farmers in western Canada recognize this. According to Jody Klassen of Mayerthorpe, Alberta, “There's always opportunity. There's a transition period, but the opportunities are there”.

Everyone agrees that the Ontario industry is seeing increasing levels of collaboration between the GFO and its private trade partners when it comes to issues like export logistics, contracting, trade missions and promotion. With growing world demand and a high-quality product, Ontario farmers are well positioned to capture new opportunities for the years ahead. Our Conservative government thinks wheat and barley farmers in western Canada have a right to these types of opportunities as well.

Wheat and barley growers in western Canada are like any other business people. They want to make the right decisions for their farms. 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 other crops. They want the same marketing freedom for their wheat and barley.

This bill is fundamentally about innovation, freeing our farmers to innovate and grow their businesses. Our government understands that innovation is key to competitiveness. That is why we have invested up to $4 million to help develop new grain and oilseed varieties that are tailored to meet the needs of the marketplace and increase profitability of Canadian farmers.

This research has already resulted in 10 new varieties of soya beans targeted at high-value food markets all across the country. There are others in the pipeline, including new varieties of winter wheat, corn, spring wheat, oat and barley that are higher yielding and more resistant to drought and disease.

The shift in market freedom in Ontario has been good for Ontario grain farmers. In fact, according to Harry Buurma, a farmer from Watford:

In the last 10 years the wheat acreage in Ontario has increased by nearly 50 percent, as further support that the change has been a good thing.

Likewise, we believe that the advent of market freedom will breathe new life into the western Canadian wheat industry as well and open up exciting new opportunities for western grain growers. The removal of the monopoly will allow western Canadian farmers to sell their wheat and barley directly to a processor, including new pasta manufacturers, flour mills and other types of processing plants.

There has been tremendous growth in value-added opportunities in Ontario wheat over the past decade. We have every reason to believe that our western wheat and barley growers have what it takes to succeed in exactly the same way.

The Government of Canada trusts farmers to make their marketing choices based on what is best for their own business. We want to put farmers back in the driver's seat so they can continue to drive the economy. We believe that an open and competitive grain market can include a viable voluntary pooling entity.

We are ready to work with the Canadian Wheat Board to chart the way forward. Marketing freedom has been a cornerstone of our platform since day one. It was part of the throne speech last spring.

I am proud that we delivered on our long-standing promise to western Canadian wheat and barley farmers. Our Conservative government makes commitments and we stick to them.

As the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food recently said, “Today we are turning a new page in our nation's history, and Canada and our sector will be better for it.” Exciting new opportunities lie ahead for farmers in western Canada. This important step forward will help ensure that all farmers can position their businesses to capture these opportunities.

The opportunities that exist in this great country are enormous. In the 1800s my family came to this great country. They took the rail to Portage la Prairie, walked another 150 kilometres, set down their roots in Alexander, Manitoba, bought 1,500 acres of farm land and started farming wheat and barley. It was composed of three Leitch farms. My family's farming history is rich there.

That is why I am so passionate about this legislation. It finally provides the market opportunity that my late grandfather and his colleagues all desired.

Canadian farmers feed Canadian families around the world. They deserve the freedom to make their own business decisions. Western Canadian grain farmers, like my late grandfather, deserve the same opportunities and freedoms that the farmers in my riding of Simcoe--Grey in Ontario enjoy. They should be able to choose to whom they sell their grain and when they do it.

I encourage members to support this bill and give it timely passage in the House so that farmers will have the certainty they need to plan their businesses in the coming year. Our government is committed to delivering on our long-standing promise to give western Canadian farmers the marketing freedom they deserve, and we intend to make that happen.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague about two points she made in her speech.

First is the idea of certainty. In times of such economic uncertainty around the world, and Canada is not spared from the economic malaise that is going on, we have to wonder why the Conservative government would choose now to turn the prairie rural economy upside down and on its head with no guarantee that it will be stable or secure, or any better for prairie farmers come next spring should it succeed in abolishing the Wheat Board.

There is a more pointed question I would like to ask the member. She said that the whole point here is to give prairie farmers more choice in how they market their grain. Why then would the government not let prairie farmers choose by having a democratic vote which is guaranteed to them by legislation?

When the Ontario grain farmers did away with their single desk, it was by virtue of a democratic vote. The majority chose to have a dual marketing system. Why would the government not allow the prairie farmers the same choice on how to market their grain by a democratic vote?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the farmers in western Canada had their vote. It was on May 2. They chose to have a majority Conservative government represent them in this House and to make sure that it brought forward this legislation that was so important to them.

Farmers in my riding know that they control their destiny. They make the decisions about their farms and in which direction their businesses will go. We want to make sure that western Canadian farmers are given that opportunity.

With respect to the Wheat Board itself, it is not being eliminated. It will be moved to a voluntary entity so that people can participate in it if they so choose.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about market freedom and the access the Conservatives are trying to accomplish here. She noted the markets in her riding around southern Ontario.

I know that in southern Ontario if a person were to catch a certain amount of fish, he or she could put it out to any market he or she wished. However, there is an entity in Manitoba called the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, and it is a single desk. Assuming that the member truly believes in the free market, does that mean the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation will also be relieved of its single desk incentive?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let us not lose focus on what we are talking about here. We are talking about marketing freedom for western Canadian farmers. We received a strong mandate on May 2 to make sure that this legislation moves forward so that the western Canadian farmers like my late grandfather have an opportunity to market their businesses under the circumstances they wish to do so.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I think the representative of the government's position should reflect on what was provided in that particular exchange. The government has been insisting that principles of fair and free market access by individual producers should be allowed, and I think the glaring inconsistency of the argument has now been exposed. A very precise and very real example was provided where there is a single market seller for freshwater fish species for producers in western Canada and the Arctic.

Why is it that principle is not the word of the day in that argument, but principle seems to be the word of the day in this particular argument? What happened on May 2 for freshwater fish producers?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, once passed, this bill would allow prairie farmers to seek their own contracts. We are talking about the Canadian Wheat Board. Our government is committed to giving western Canadian grain farmers the marketing freedom they deserve.

We encourage the opposition to ensure the swift passage of this legislation so that western Canadian farmers can plan for the future.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a Newfoundlander, with a particular interest in the Newfoundland and Labrador fisheries. Last week, for example, I introduced a private member's bill, the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery rebuilding act. I rise to speak out against the dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board and to warn against it.

The bays and harbours, the cliffs and crags and the fishing grounds of Newfoundland and Labrador may be a world away from the western provinces, but fishing and farming have much in common these days across Canada. At this moment in our history, what they have in common is that they are under direct attack by the Conservative government. In the Prairies, the Conservatives are attacking the livelihood of farmers with their attempts to kill off the Canadian Wheat Board. On the west and east coasts, the fisheries are their target, with ongoing moves to gut what little is left of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

What the Conservative government should realize, and must realize, is that its buddies on Bay Street cannot feed Canadian families. That is a simple fact of life.

I do not understand why the Conservatives have it in for Canada's primary producers, fishermen and farmers. Why? Who will that benefit? Who will that threaten?

Ultimately, such actions could jeopardize our food supply, could threaten the family farm and family fishing enterprise, the small businesses on which our country was built.

As a Newfoundlander and Labradorian, I am particularly baffled over why the Canadian Wheat Board is being targeted.

At the same time that the federal Conservatives are attempting to kill off the Wheat Board, back home in my home province, the Progressive Conservative provincial government is moving toward the creation of a marketing board for fish. Therefore, the federal Conservatives are killing off the Wheat Board, which markets and brands Canadian wheat and barley around the world, at the same time that the provincial PCs in Newfoundland and Labrador are attempting to create a similar type fish board to market and brand our seafood around the world. It does not make sense to me. If anything, it shows that there should be more study, more investigation and more review so smart decisions are made.

The federal Conservatives are killing the Wheat Board, while the provincial PCs are birthing a fish board. I just do not get it. How does that make sense? The responsible and right thing to do would be to carry out a cost benefit analysis.

The Canadian Wheat Board is the largest and most successful grain marketing company in the world. That is an indisputable fact. It is also a fact that the Wheat Board is a Canadian success story, with a proven track record of providing the best possible returns for farmers and minimizing their risk.

Why mess with a good thing? Why mess with something that is working?

As the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre has pointed out in the House on numerous occasions, there has never been one shred of evidence that farmers would be better off without the Wheat Board. That is a point that has resonated with me and it should resonate with everybody in the House and with all Canadians,

How can the Conservative government, which bills itself as being a great steward of the Canadian economy in these tough economic times and which are destined to get tougher, be so reckless and irresponsible, to use two other words from the member for Winnipeg Centre, as to turn the prairie farm economy on its head without even doing a cost benefit analysis? That does not make sense to me.

Bill C-18 proposes to dismantle the farmer-controlled and funded Canadian Wheat Board by eliminating the single desk marketing of wheat and barley across Canada, but do farmers want that? Apparently not.

On September 12, a majority of farmers voted in a plebiscite to keep the Wheat Board. A total of 38,261 farmers submitted mail-in ballots during that plebiscite. It had a participation rate of 56%, which was, as I understand it, on a par with the last three federal elections. The result was that 62% of respondents voted in favour of retaining the single desk for wheat, while 51% voted to retain it for barley.

Allen Oberg, chair of the Wheat Board's farmer-controlled board of directors, reacted by saying this:

Farmers have spoken. Their message is loud and clear, and the government must listen, Western Canadian producers have voted to keep their single-desk marketing system for wheat and barley. They cannot be ignored.

Sure, they can be ignored. Have they not heard of the Conservative government? For years, fishermen on the east coast of Canada, the fishermen of Newfoundland and Labrador, warned that they were not being listened to. The fishery eventually collapsed. One of the largest fishing companies, Fishery Products International, was later broken up and sold off piecemeal, including its marketing arm.

Today Newfoundland and Labrador PCs are moving toward a marketing board for Newfoundland and Labrador seafood products. The Conservative government is trying to move away from it.

Part of the marketing strategy would be to set up a council to promote Newfoundland and Labrador seafood in general. The government would also facilitate a consortium of companies so they could work together on branding their seafood products. Maybe they will even call it the Canadian fish board. Would that not be ironic?

The New Democrats say that the Conservative government should withdraw Bill C-18. In the interests of large American grain companies, the Conservatives are meddling to erode prices and market security for our own farmers.

The Canadian Wheat Board is a single desk. Farmers in western Canada sell their wheat and barley together through the Wheat Board, their sole marketing agent. The structure helps ensure farmers get their highest overall return, as it has an effective monopoly on the sales. Farmers have more strength when they act as one. It just makes sense. Fishermen have more strength when they act as one. Newfoundland and Labrador fishermen know this and prairie farmers know this. Why does the Conservative government not know this?

Western grain farmers can look to Australia to know what is in store for them once the single desk is eliminated, and it is not pretty. When Australia had its single desk power, Australian wheat could command premiums of over $99 a tonne over American wheat, but by December 2008, it had dropped to a discount of $27 a tonne over U.S. wheat. In three short years, Australia's 40,000 wheat farmers went from running their own grain marketing system, selling virtually all of Australia's wheat, to becoming mere customers of Cargill, one of the largest agribusiness corporations, which is privately owned by the U.S.

If we are not careful, the family farm and the family fishing enterprises of this great country will be no more. We should learn from the mistakes of the Newfoundland and Labrador fishery. We should listen to fishermen and farmers. We are stronger—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and for the Canadian Wheat Board.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to listen to his speaking notes. Is he actually serious that Australian farmers were getting $3 a bushel more than U.S. farmers at one point? I do not think so. That is not even realistic.

However, he quoted the survey of the Wheat Board and he gave great credence to it. I want to ask him a couple of questions about some of the ballots. I know an older lady whose husband died last year. When it came time for the survey, she received a ballot for herself, a ballot for her dead husband and a ballot for the estate as well.

I know another little old lady who approached one of our political leaders and said that she wanted to talk about the Wheat Board. She told him that her brother and sister, who were both dead, received ballots for the Wheat Board vote. I also point out that I know some folks who farm 10,000 acres who are identified as pro-choice. They did not get ballots at all.

Could he explain some of those inconsistencies and why does he give credence to such a flawed survey?

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, in terms of particular ballots for the plebiscite, I have no idea. I know that when I read the final tally, that 62% of respondents voted in favour of retaining the single desk for wheat, I wonder how the Conservative government cannot see the results of this plebiscite as a warning signal. There is as a storm brewing. There is a problem with the fact that the government is killing the Canadian Wheat Board. How does the Conservative government not recognize the 62% as a warning sign?

I have a question for the member opposite. It makes sense to carry out a cost benefit analysis. The member for Winnipeg Centre has consistently brought it up in the House. Why is there no cost benefit analysis? Is he afraid of the result?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague from St. John's South—Mount Pearl a general question with which all members of Parliament should be concerned. He is a relatively new MP, but I am sure he is aware of the code of conduct and conflict of interest guidelines that all of us are duty bound and honour bound to uphold.

The member of Parliament for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, who was harassing him with some nuisance and mischief questions, is a grain farmer. It is the position of his government that grain producers in the prairie region will be able to sell their grain for more if it gets rid of the Wheat Board. If what he says is true, does that not put him in a direct conflict of interest and should he not be duty bound and honour bound to recuse himself from that vote, just as the member for Macleod, the member for Yellowhead, the member for Prince Albert, the member for Crowfoot, the member for Red Deer, the member for Vegreville—Wainwright, possibly the member for Peace River and possibly the member for Blackstrap would be? Should not all of those grain producers recuse themselves from this vote because they stand to benefit personally and directly if their own rhetoric and profit—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. The hon. member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl, a shorter answer please.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is right. I am a relatively new member of Parliament. Prior to my election this past May as the MP for St. John's South—Mount Pearl, I was a journalist. I spent 20 years as a journalist in Newfoundland and Labrador. I can say for the member for Winnipeg Centre that if I have ever heard anything that sounds like a conflict of interest, it is exactly this.

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture]

Mr. Speaker, the government's main priority is the economy, in which the agricultural industry plays a huge role. Canadian producers feed families around the world. They deserve the freedom to choose how to market their products, whether it is done individually or through a voluntary pooling organization.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate and to correct some incorrect hypotheses and assumptions, such as that allowing wheat and barley producers in western Canada to choose how to market their product would undermine our supply management system.

Our government's support for marketing freedom for western wheat, durum and barley producers is an issue entirely separate from our support for supply management. There is no link between these two issues, and those who try, such as the opposition, to make links between providing marketing freedom to western Canadian grain producers and our government's commitment to support Canada's supply-managed system are doing so at the expense of farmers.

Such efforts are scare tactics that the opposition should refrain from, because its arguments are untrue and because these tactics do not serve farmers well. This is fearmongering. It is not productive because it unnecessarily destabilizes farmers who are not affected by the Wheat Board legislation.

I am a member of Parliament from eastern Ontario. I am very familiar with supply management and I wholeheartedly support our supply management system and the farmers who depend on it. I would like to explain some of the differences between the Canadian Wheat Board and supply management.

Producers in the five supply-managed industries--dairy, chicken, turkey, egg and broiler hatching eggs--worked long and hard to establish these systems. There was clear support by farmers in all cases for the implementation of the supply management system before federal and provincial governments put it in place. Producers who participate in our supply-managed system are supportive of it, and they thank our government for our strong defence of supply management.

This is clearly not the case with the Wheat Board. There is no unanimous support for the Wheat Board and its monopoly.

Supply management works with quotas that are based on consumer demand. That is not the case with the Canadian Wheat Board. In addition, the supply management system applies to all regions of Canada, while the Canadian Wheat Board applies only to western farmers.

It is important to note that supply management is focused on domestic consumption. The Wheat Board, however, is largely focused on export markets.

I congratulate the opposition in recognizing that both supply management and the Canadian Wheat Board relate to agriculture, but the opposition's lack of understanding is exasperating, because the similarities end there.

It is important to recognize that the vast majority of opposition MPs are from non-rural ridings in provinces not under the control of the Wheat Board.

The Canadian Wheat Board is a regional shared-governance organization. Right now, if you cultivate wheat, durum or barley in western Canada and you want to export it for food purposes, you must sell it to the Canadian Wheat Board. The board is far from being universally accepted, as is the case with the supply management system, and many producers want the same freedom enjoyed by farmers in the rest of Canada.

The Canadian Wheat Board itself conducts an annual survey of its producers, and the most recent results showed that a majority of prairie wheat producers, 58%, said that they would prefer either to have a market with no Canadian Wheat Board at all or to have the choice to deal with the Canadian Wheat Board or not.

Marketing choice, or dual marketing, which is what our bill proposes to implement, was the most popular choice when wheat producers were asked to choose between three options of no change to the Canadian Wheat Board, no Canadian Wheat Board at all, or a dual market. Apparently the CWB did not like the answer, because it decided to hold its so-called plebiscite.

This plebiscite was deeply flawed in its design, only offering farmers an all-or-nothing scenario. The option of marketing choice was not even provided to farmers, even though the CWB has been told for years that when given the option, this is precisely what the majority of western grain farmers want. This may lead one to question whether the CWB intentionally framed the questions on its so-called plebiscite in such a way as to produce the answers that it wanted.

The official opposition should also take note that we supported supply management in our election platform. But the NDP election platform made absolutely no mention of it.

The NDP's veiled position on supply management during the election and its feigned indignation today do not fool anyone in the agriculture sector.

Over the past 40 years, supply management has been a source of stability and prosperity for dairy, chicken, turkey and egg producers right across the country. Supply management is important to the rural economy of Canada from British Columbia all the way to Newfoundland. Supply management creates jobs and prosperity for Canadians. Supply-managed producers listen to consumers and deliver what Canadians want. We promote and defend supply management because it has been so successful and has brought so many benefits to consumers, producers and others in the industry right across the value chain.

However, grain producers in western Canada have been saying for years that they want the opportunity to make their own business decisions. A consistent majority of barley producers have said that they do not want to be forced to sell their product solely to the Canadian Wheat Board.

As I mentioned earlier, this is not the case with supply management, whose producers strongly support their marketing systems. Our long-standing and continuing support for supply management and our commitment to marketing choice for western Canadian grain producers reflect our government's dedication to giving farmers what they need to succeed. We believe that all Canadian farmers should be able to position their businesses to capture the marketing opportunities that are open to them. An open market for western Canadian grain producers would attract investment, encourage innovation, create value-added jobs and build a stronger Canadian economy.

Our government is committed to implementing the most profitable programs and processes for producers and the industry as a whole

I implore the members to think seriously about this bill and remember that if it is passed in a timely manner, producers will be reassured and will be able to plan their activities for the coming year.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the question I have for the member is with regard to why the government appears not to want to respect the wishes of a majority of the prairie wheat farmers.

Does the member across the way believe in principle that the grain farmer, who is directly impacted by the government's decision, should have the ability to have some input as to what the government is doing today? Would he support prairie farmers being able to have direct influence on what is happening with the Wheat Board?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my response to my colleague is that it is obvious that we support western Canadian grain farmers. I point out to my colleague that when he talks about feedback from western Canadian grain farmers, I mentioned that the Wheat Board itself conducted a survey or poll of its farmers, which it does every single year, and when it did, it offered three choices. This was before the so-called plebiscite. They offered three choices to farmers: no Wheat Board at all, a Wheat Board monopoly or marketing freedom, meaning that the Wheat Board would exist but that farmers would be free to choose whether they would use it. Fifty-eight per cent of western Canadian wheat farmers chose wanting to have marketing freedom and to have a choice in whether or not to use the Wheat Board.

After that, the Wheat Board conducted its so-called plebiscite and only asked two questions. It offered all or nothing: either the Wheat Board with its mandatory lock on western grain farmers or no Wheat Board at all. The third question was missing. I have to ask why.

The other thing I will point out is that it is interesting to note that there are 57 MPs who represent grain farmers in western Canada affected by the Canadian Wheat Board. Of those 57 MPs, 52 are Conservative and 5 are opposition. That is very telling. We just had a federal election in May. The member is asking if we represent Canadian wheat farmers. We absolutely do, 52 seats out of 57.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture is from Ontario, and I want to thank him for all that he does and has done for agriculture across Canada, not just in Ontario.

The comments from the other side illustrate that the Wheat Board, in some way, seems to be the farmers. The farmers have grown quality wheat. Could the parliamentary secretary clarify whose wheat it is, who grows it and what the Canadian Wheat Board in the west actually does with the wheat?

[Pierre Lemieux, Conservative, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is definitely the case that western wheat farmers feel the Wheat Board does not act for their best interests when it comes to selling wheat. That is why they want marketing freedom.

The growers of the wheat are the farmers themselves. One thing we have noticed is that farmers who used to grow only wheat are now growing other crops that are not controlled by the Wheat Board. For example, there are more and more canola farmers. Why is that? Yes, canola makes good money on the market, but it is not controlled by the Wheat Board. We are seeing a trend. This is a reflection of the damaging effect that the Wheat Board can have on our wheat producers.

What we are asking for is marketing freedom. I do not know what the opposition members have against the word “freedom”. They should allow western farmers to choose to use the Wheat Board or not. If the Wheat Board has the value-added services that it says it offers, let it sell itself to farmers so that farmers will willingly choose it.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure to rise and support an economic sector that is critical to jobs and growth in this country. Make no mistake, Canadian farmers feed the world and they deserve the freedom to make their own business decisions.

Canada's farmers and food processors do more than produce the food for our tables, they drive over $35 billion of our exports and generate one in every eight Canadian jobs. The grain sector alone is specifically responsible for $16 billion to the farm gate and it is a major contributor to our economy. The agriculture industry has helped lead Canada's economic recovery and that is why it is a priority for the government.

The legislation that we have before us will help this vital economic sector continue to drive our country to new growth and prosperity. It will provide western Canadian wheat, durum and barley farmers with the same marketing freedom and opportunities as other farmers in Canada and around the world. It will allow grain producers in western Canada to make decisions based on what is best for their businesses, for their farms, for themselves.

I want to reiterate why marketing freedom is so vital to farmers in our grain industry. As we have heard the Minister of Agriculture say often, our government wants to help farmers make money from the marketplace, not from the mail box. Often that means levelling the playing field on the international stage. Sometimes it means getting government out of the way, so that farmers can farm and continue to drive our economy.

To empower our agricultural producers we need to open new markets and new avenues for profitability for farmers to accomplish that. They need the simple opportunity to succeed.

For the past six decades this has definitely not been the case for growers of wheat and barley in western Canada. The Canadian Wheat Board monopoly, born in a different time to meet different needs during the war, has cast a chill on key parts of the grain sector in western Canada. The six decade Canadian Wheat Board monopoly is yesterday's solution to yesterday's problems.

The fact is, today's entrepreneurial farmers are providing more and proving over and over that they can and will do better if they have control over their farm and businesses. For western Canadian grain farmers, this means a choice in how they market their own grain. It means a choice in when and where they will sell their crop. It means a choice on what price they sell their grain and between working through a voluntary wheat board or directly with the open market.

At the announcement in Acme, Alberta, a gentleman by the name of Bob Leinweber from Linden gave me a letter that he had written to a western producer. In it he talks about a letter from another farmer regarding the monopoly. Mr. Leinweber agrees with that individual. He wrote:

--monopoly sellers do enrich their owners as exemplified by OPEC in similar monopolies.

He went on to say:

The CWB was set up by the government as a buyer's monopoly to buy wheat from western Canadian wheat growers at less than the world price.

That was why the Wheat Board was set up. It is not a seller's monopoly, it is a buyer's monopoly. We know that western Canadian farmers are capable of marketing their own canola, pulse crops and oats. They do that already. They are also capable of marketing their wheat and barley.

I was in the dentist chair a couple of weeks ago when an elderly farmer walked in and said, “Mr. Sorenson, my father told me that having that Wheat Board would be good for us. When I told my three sons, who are now farming, they said, 'Dad, that was yesterday's problem, just get out of the way and let us do it. We are not afraid of marketing our own wheat and barley'”.

Our government is committed to giving farmers marketing freedom; a choice that, yes, they want and they deserve. As the Prime Minister recently said in Regina, “Our government is committed to giving western grain farmers the freedom to choose how to market their products--something eastern grain farmers have long taken for granted. This is not only a matter of principle, it will also lead to real economic benefits, to opportunities for years to come. An open grain market will attract new investment, encourage innovation, and create new jobs for Canadians”.

That is a point on which many industry leaders agree.

Stephen Vandervalk, president of the Grain Growers of Canada, said:

Ending the Canadian Wheat Board’s monopoly is clearly sending a signal that Canada is open for business. Value-added processing means value-added jobs and more opportunities for farmers to locally market their wheat.

Brian Otto, president of the Western Barley Growers Association, said recently:

I see a future for investment in Western Canadian agriculture...Under this new commercial system I see job creation and the revitalization of rural communities.

Farmers in the market need clarity and certainty that marketing freedom and an open market is on the horizon.

An open market would attract investment. It would encourage innovation and create value-added jobs, which would build a stronger economy and which would build a stronger local economy in many of our smaller communities and in our rural communities across the west.

An open market for the grain industry would strengthen the farming sector with better returns for farmers and for Canada as a whole.

We have had a taste, a small taste, of things to come earlier this month, with an announcement of a new pasta plant opening in Regina that would buy local Canadian durum wheat from farmers and create local jobs.

This is only a beginning. I look forward to many grand openings throughout the constituency of Crowfoot and the west of value-added processing, value-added pasta plants, value-added industries beginning in our rural communities. Marketing freedom would unlock new value-added investment, new jobs and new growth for Canada's economy.

The time is right for action. Canada's farmers grow world-class food in a global marketplace that is ripe with opportunity.

Our government will seize this opportunity for farmers. Our government will give farmers the marketing freedom they want and the marketing freedom that they deserve. Our government will free our farmers so they can continue to drive our economy and to feed the world.

Let me conclude by saying this. My grandfather moved to the place where I live, Killiam, Alberta, in 1905-06. For all those years, right up until he passed away in 1986, he farmed. I wish I could be like the member who spoke earlier who talked about the grandfather always having this fight. That was not the case with my grandfather. My grandfather said, “These are the rules. We'll abide by the rules. The Wheat Board is there. There's nothing we can do about it”. He did not really step up and say, “Let's change this”, although he was involved in municipal politics for 30 years.

This was never a driving force. However, over the years, less and less land got planted with wheat, less and less with barley, and there was just this drift into more and more canola, more and more pulse crops, and more and more of many of those other crops that were out of the Wheat Board's ability to market.

Canadian farmers have been voting with their air drills. They have been voting with what they are going to seed on their land. They have been putting in less and less wheat and more and more of the other crops. It is time we also allow them the ability to vote on this issue with their grain trucks and let them decide where they take their grain and to whom they market it.

The Canadian Wheat Board, at one point, was the largest marketing agent in Canada. It has now slipped to number three, behind Viterra and Cargill. Farmers across the west realize that there are more opportunities than ever before to sell their grain and they look forward to the opportunity to have the freedom to do so.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Crowfoot is a veteran member of Parliament, and I am sure he is aware of the conflict of interest guidelines and the code of conduct by which all members of Parliament are duty bound.

If we were to believe the Conservative talking points, that farmers would in fact enjoy an advantage if we get rid of the Wheat Board and that they would make more money if we get rid of the Wheat Board, would the member not agree that any Conservative member of Parliament who farms, produces grain, finds himself in a conflict of interest by virtue of the fact of not just voting on this Bill C-18 but even participating in the debate promoting Bill C-18?

When we bailed out the auto industry, the GM and Chrysler auto companies, there were Conservative members of Parliament who actually had car dealerships, even though neither of them were GM nor Chrysler, but they had the decency to recuse themselves from the debate associated with subsidizing the auto industry.

Would the member not agree that he, himself, and at least seven other Conservative MPs must recuse themselves from the debate and the vote on Bill C-18?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I have run in five elections and been very clear that I believed in marketing freedom in all of those elections.

I think people expect me to stand here and vote, as I would expect most union members in the NDP would vote on issues that deal with unions. I am not certain how many of the NDP members voted on the postal agreement that we had. I think most of them voted.

Members on this side have never stood and said that we are going to receive more dollars for our wheat than we would under the Wheat Board. We have said that we want the freedom to choose. The rhetoric from the NDP and the Liberals is that there will be no markets, no rural Canada, no farmer left, and that the sky is falling.

On this side of the House, we have said that we want the opportunity to market our grain. Some may indeed decide to stay in the Wheat Board. That is why I like this approach that the government is taking. We have said that we do not want to get rid of the Wheat Board. It is the monopoly we want to get rid of, the single desk. We want to make certain that the Wheat Board is still viable. We have put in many new opportunities for the Wheat Board to become involved in marketing grain that it has not had before.

I look forward to this vote.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the remarks made by the member for Crowfoot and to what he was quoting from constituents.

We have been getting calls from quite a few of his constituents. I wonder why he never quoted some of them. They are saying that when they talk to this member, all they get from him is, “We disagree on ideology”, and that is about the end of the conversation.

I found it interesting that he talked about his grandfather wanting to follow the rules, yet in his remarks the member goes on and talks about the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly lasting six decades as if it was the same thing. This member knows that the board was changed in 1997 to a farmer-elected board of directors, and this member is denying those producers a right to vote.

We in the Liberal Party are not saying, “The sky is falling”, we are saying that those members on that side are taking away farmers' democratic rights. I have to ask the member, why is he taking away the farmers' rights to determine their destiny through a vote, for or against the Wheat Board?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question coming from the former president of the National Farmers Union. This member stood and voted against the gun registry, and this member now stands voting against farmers' freedom for marketing grain.

We are not changing it so that there is no Wheat Board. This is where the court challenge may come from some farmer groups. We are not taking exclusive grains. We are not taking grains out of the Wheat Board's purview.

We are allowing the CWB to move into other provinces. We are allowing interprovincial transfer of grains. We are allowing the Wheat Board to function in other parts of Canada. We are not simply saying that we want to get rid of the Canadian Wheat Board. We want to give it the opportunity to flourish in Ontario, like this member believes it very well may.

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

Mr. Speaker, I, too, listened to my hon. colleague talk about the Wheat Board and the benefits of having choice. That is really what the whole debate is about, whether we have a choice of how we market the products that we invest all of our life's energy and finances in growing.

I have a question for the member opposite in relation to the question that was just asked. Does he really believe that we should be jailing farmers, as was done under a previous administration, for growing and selling their grain? Does he really believe they should be in prison for doing that?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that was a dark point in Canada's history when farmers stepped out to say that they wanted the opportunity to market their grain, to access higher prices across the border and to sell when and where they chose, and the Liberal government of the day responded by throwing in prison those who wanted that freedom. Law-abiding farmers, like Jim Ness, Rick Strankman, Tom Jackson and others, who had never broken the law and who had never stepped out even in the smallest place, were thrown into jail because the government lived with the ideology of big government doing everything for them. It was a sad mark on Canada and one that we want to clean up.

The House resumed 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.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-18. However, I am disheartened by the method the government is using to kill the Canadian Wheat Board and deny farmers their legitimate say in the process. This attack on a Canadian institution that was placed under farmer control in 1997 I believe is unprecedented in Canadian history.

We see many countries around the world moving to democracy, some as a result of support received from the Canadian military, yet here at home we see the very principle of democracy being taken away under the iron fist of this regime. The government is violating a law passed in Parliament. It is denying farmers the right to a vote that was established in law at one point in time as well as eliminating the ability to use access to information a little further down the road. Also, the minister, and his parliamentary secretary specifically, have violated their oaths of office. As well, there has been an unbelievable amount of misinformation and propaganda about the Canadian Wheat Board and its farmer-elected directors by this particular regime.

For quite a while we have seen this taking place by the government. Since it came into power in 2006, it has set out on a concerted attack against the board.

It fired directors who were appointed by the previous government specifically to further the efforts of primary producers around the world. They were experts in international law and marketing. They were replaced by government toadies whose objective in life was to destroy the board while working within it.

Against the wishes of the Canadian Wheat Board's elected board of directors, the government fired its former CEO, Adrian Meisner, who was working on the farmers' behalf. It put a gag order on the Wheat Board.

When farmers were to elect directors to the Wheat Board's board of directors, in every election the constituency offices of government members were used to spread propaganda against the Wheat Board in an effort to have anti-board directors elected. This failed every time because eight out of ten of the directors were in fact pro board.

If this was happening anywhere else in the world, some would suggest that we send in the military. That is how I feel about it.

These actions go well beyond the Wheat Board. Canadians should be concerned. This has happened to one law in one institution using the methods by which the government operates. However, the denial of legitimate rights to one group is an infringement on the rights of all.

I just cannot imagine how backbenchers in that party can sit there and not speak up. I asked a question of the member for Crowfoot earlier today as to why he does not quote those who are opposed to what the government is doing. We are receiving many calls from producers who tell us that the response they have received from Conservative members is that there is a difference in ideology and that they do not want to talk to them. Elected members of Parliament have a responsibility to all constituents, not just to the Prime Minister who seems to be their boss and is destroying the Canadian Wheat Board based on ideology.

In this instance, we are talking about orderly marketing. The same principles that allow for orderly marketing, i.e., through the Canadian Wheat Board's function, make supply management possible.

The same principles that allow single desk marketing to function on the Prairies are the same principles that apply in terms of maple syrup and beef in the province of Quebec. A similar principle applies to collective bargaining for unions.

In this case, the government is denying the rights of the majority, as was clearly spelled out in the vote that was held by the Canadian Wheat Board itself. Eight out of ten of the farm-elected directors oppose what the government is doing and 62% of producers oppose what the government is doing. What I find amazing is that others, like supply management groups, fail to speak out in the Wheat Board's defence.

I am going to ask this very directly. Is it the fear of the jackboots approval of the government that makes others voiceless in this country? Is it the fear that if supply management speaks out against what the government is doing to the Canadian Wheat Board, it will feel the wrath of the government? Where is the farm leadership in terms of support of the Wheat Board? Supply management tells us privately that it supports orderly marketing and opposes what the government is doing, but it fails to speak out.

My question to the backbenchers over there is this. When they have an issue or a law that they are concerned about, who will stand up for them when their time comes and the government, based on ideology, wants to target them rather than somebody else?

The minister in this case is selling out to United States grain interests. What is he doing? What is the minister actually doing for Canadian farmers? Let us again look specifically at the bill. Bill C-18 begins from the premise of denying farmers their legal right to determine their own future. If the government believed it had the support of the majority of farmers, a plebiscite would have been held under section 47.1, as the legislation demands.

Who is the Minister of Agriculture really working for? Bear in mind that United States grain interests have accused the Canadian Wheat Board under United States and international trade laws of trading unfairly on 14 different occasions. The United States has lost every time. I submit that the Minister of Agriculture is serving up the Canadian Wheat Board to those United States interests on a silver platter.

An economist working with the office of the chief economist of the U.S. department of agriculture, with regard to the United States' efforts to challenge the Wheat Board, stated the following:

The U.S. wheat industry has persistently claimed that the CWB is able to undercut commercially offered export prices in select markets or sell higher-quality wheat at discounted prices, but can offer only limited anecdotal evidence to support those claims.

In fact, it has no claims.

The Canadian Wheat Board sells as a single desk seller and prevents the deterioration of the lowest sellers setting the price and through the Canadian Wheat Board, it is the highest seller, maximizing returns in the marketplace back to primary producers. The Canadian Wheat Board has shown that time and time again, but the minister is selling out to United States interests and farmers will be the losers.

In a May 26, 2011 statement supporting the elimination of the CWB, the United States wheat associates acknowledged the elimination of the Canadian Wheat Board could, “initially mean more Canadian wheat moving to parts of the United States...However, the huge price incentive that currently drives that desire would dissipate very quickly”. The president of the United States wheat associates had this to say on an earlier occasion on the elimination of the Canadian Wheat Board, “There could be opportunities created for U.S. farmers to access markets in Canada and we can access the transportation systems as well”.

Further, a study prepared for United States Senator Kent Conrad stated, “If the CWB's single desk authority is eliminated...the United States may become more competitive in offshore markets.

That same report also found that by eliminating the Canadian Wheat Board:

The U.S. and Canadian markets would become more integrated without the CWB. It would be possible for multinational grain companies to buy wheat in Canada and export it from U.S. ports.

The bottom line is, clearly, this is a bill that would give advantages to American producers, takes advantages away from Canadian producers, gives advantages to the multinational grain trade, and Canadian farmers would be the losers. The government is doing that, imposing that on Canadian farmers without allowing farmers their right to vote under the law.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member has made a lot about the vote that was taken, or plebiscite, I should say, by the Wheat Board. Even the Wheat Board itself admits that this should not be taken as representative of all farmers. Many farmers in my riding did not receive a ballot. This vote was not a legitimate vote.

In fact, this weekend, we took a straw poll in my riding of 20 farmers. We did not select these farmers. This was a random sample.

I wonder if the member would comment on the fact that not one of those farmers wanted to maintain the status quo. Every one of the 20 who were called wanted to have choice. That is what is happening on the ground.

That vote was not representative because many farmers did not receive a ballot who should have received a ballot.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. If the member really believes what he is getting in his straw polls, then why does this law and order party not abide by the laws that are on the books?

I find it amazing that the Minister of Agriculture and several colleagues, obviously with speaking notes from the PMO, stood and talked about the fact that the Canadian Wheat Board was designed in 1943 and that there have been no changes since.

Yes, there were. In 1997, the board was changed to include 10 farmer elected directors, time at a time, and by the way it includes the director in the parliamentary secretary's riding who is pro-board. They win 8 out of 10 every time. That is 80%.

The minister has the right under the act, has the responsibility under the act, to hold a vote, and the government fails to do it.

If they are people of their convictions, then allow that vote to be held and let us see where the chips fall. We will support what producers want, if it is done by way of a legal plebiscite.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have read in The Economist statements that have been made about the deterioration of small farms in western Canada, along with it the deterioration of small economies in smaller towns and villages in western Canada.

Then we read in The Wall Street Journal how it is heralding the opportunities that dismantling Wheat Board would give large Canadian and international grain companies which would now be sucking the profits out of farmers out west and keeping them for themselves and their shareholders.

I wonder if the member for Malpeque would express any concern he might have for western Canadian small farms and communities.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that there is a concern for western farmers, western wheat and barley growers, as a result of this particular legislation.

There have been statements after statements made by grain companies, by directors of grain companies, and Viterra believes its shares are going to go up. The U. S. wheat associates is very pleased with what is happening. This is going to be a gain-gain for the grain multinationals of the world.

The Canadian Wheat Board has been the vehicle that has been willing to challenge the railways. It has been able to glean money back from the railways that goes back to primary producers. Who is going to stand up for producers against the railways when the Wheat Board is gone? It has the economic power to stand up against them. The winners will be the railways. I maintain we will see loss of producer cars and short line railways over four or five years. The international grain corporate sector is going to be gaining and the losses are going to be the primary producers.

Just who is the minister working for?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to speak to the changes that we are making to the marketing of wheat and barley in western Canada.

The member for Malpeque, who just spoke, has had the opportunity his entire farming career to market outside of the Canadian Wheat Board because of his location in this country. Unfortunately, my constituents and my family have never had the opportunity to capitalize on market situations not only domestically but around the world and take advantage of those opportunities and put those dollars directly into their own pockets.

This has been an extremely divisive issue in my riding of Selkirk--Interlake, and a lot of that is because of the fear and smear that has been spread by the opposition and by the Wheat Board directors themselves. It is really unfortunate because we market all sorts of other crops, like oil seeds, and we do not have these types of divisive debates over whether or not farmers have the right to sell their own products.

It is completely unacceptable that in a democracy individuals in a certain region of Canada do not have property rights over their own personal property, that they are subjected to an organization that has been empowered by the Government of Canada to take away their production and market it for them, whether they like it or not.

I have many friends who are farmers. I am a farmer myself, although I have never been a wheat farmer, and I put that out there right now. I am a cattle producer. However, my family does grow wheat and barley and other commodities.

This has been a divisive issue. I have said throughout this whole debate that some of my friends support the monopoly at the Wheat Board and some are against it. On this issue, I stand with my friends. What I mean by that is that farmers on both sides of this issue have things that are important to them from a personal perspective.

I have talked to farmers over the last several years since I have been a member of Parliament and before that when I was in farm politics for several years. I have always made the point that the Wheat Board, in its new format, has to be there for those producers who still want to collectively market their product, who want to pool their resources. This legislation would do just that.

My father and my brother are farmers. They are organic producers. Because they grow organic crops, the Wheat Board has never been a viable option for them to truly capitalize on the market opportunities that exist in the organic industry. They can sell directly their oats, their flax, their organic canola, but when it comes to wheat, they have to sell it through the Wheat Board. So, for years my father and my brother have not grown organic wheat because the premiums in the marketplace are removed from them and subjected to the pool, so they can never profit from it.

However, there is the buyback option. The member for Malpeque is going to jump in and say they can buy it back. They can buy it back at the price being offered in the marketplace. They sell it at a commodity price to the Wheat Board and then buy it back at the premium value as an organic commodity. There is absolutely no advantage of being able to move that market directly to the consumer. It is wrong.

This legislation would provide those producers in my riding and across western Canada who want to be involved in the Canadian Wheat Board with a great opportunity. The government is still going to support the new voluntary Wheat Board. The government is going to underwrite the pool accounts. The government is still going to help set initial prices. The Canadian Wheat Board fund is going to be moved over into the new voluntary Canadian Wheat Board.

The producer cars that the Wheat Board always took credit for are still going to remain with the Canadian Grain Commission. It will ensure that producer cars are available to farmers who want to ship directly.

I am a huge fan of the Port of Churchill. Our government is going to ensure that the Port of Churchill receives up to $5 million per year over the next five years to help it deal with any losses it may incur if there is a reduction in the volume of wheat and barley shipped through the port. More important, the Port of Churchill's future is going to depend upon the voluntary Canadian wheat board making use of that port and opening up new railway opportunities, such as the Hudson Bay rail line in northern Saskatchewan that CN Rail is now abandoning.

That line has been out of service for about 20 years and unfortunately it has not moved grain from northern Saskatchewan through the Wheat Board position at Port of Churchill. That in itself is a savings of $7 per tonne in shipment for each and every farmer in northern Saskatchewan if they can capitalize through the Wheat Board on making use of the Port of Churchill.

My colleague from Yorkton—Melville just made this point about the Wheat Board plebiscite. The question on that plebiscite is whether every producer had the right to exercise a vote in that plebiscite. So many producers over the last 10 years have walked away from the Wheat Board and have grown alternative commodities so they do not have to deal with the Wheat Board. Those farmers were never given an opportunity to vote.

The other thing that is really skewed in the whole process is that we never had all the opportunities or all possibilities on the ballot. It said “Do you support the monopoly of the Canadian Wheat Board, yes or no?” It never mentioned “Do you support a voluntary Canadian wheat board?” If we talked to most of those producers who supported the Canadian Wheat Board on that plebiscite question, most would say that they would support a voluntary Canadian wheat board, especially one that has the built-in safety net that we are providing from the Government of Canada.

We do not have a clear question. We do not know who really had a chance to vote. Not everyone had an opportunity in the agriculture industry to vote in the plebiscite. We know in the fundamentals of democracy the one thing true in the House of Commons is that we respect the minority position. Because we won government, we do not make every Canadian and every member in the House of Commons become a Conservative. We do not do that because we need to have a robust opposition. However, under the Wheat Board plebiscite, it is all or nothing according to the board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board. This means that farmers, whether they support the Wheat Board or not, have to become a component of the Wheat Board monopoly, or some people might say dictatorship. That is not the right way to do business.

Aside from respecting the minority position of farmers in western Canada, there is the whole issue of respect for personal property rights. That is a key fundamental value of any democracy anywhere in the world.

Aside from questions around the plebiscite, the questions around whether producers want or do not want a monopoly or a volunteer wheat board, we have to look at this from the whole aspect of agronomics, the dollars, the opportunities and the increased value of products that can be produced in the prairie region. Farmers are finally allowed to make true market-based decisions on what they can find in the marketplace. Under the bill, they would have the opportunity to be free to contract directly with buyers, processors and grow the exact varieties that they need. I hear from maltsters and millers that they would love to contract directly with farmers to grow certain varieties. Through the Wheat Board process that is extremely limited.

This will also engage farmers who have opted out of the monopoly of the Wheat Board to now re-enter the marketplace because they have the freedom and the ability to market and risk manage their own commodities. They do it already with oilseeds, with coarse grains, with pulse and other specialty crops. Now they can take that expertise and apply it to growing and marketing wheat and barley for export. They can contract specific varieties or contract specific months of delivery, pricing options, bases options with various companies out there.

This will provide more value-added activity. We are already seeing that with the announcement of the new durum milling plant in Regina. We have already experienced this my home province of Manitoba when we took oats outside of the Wheat Board. Can-Oat Milling setup and developed a great new mill. It has increased the number of acres of oats grown in Manitoba by over 250,000 acres. This is just one plant having that type of impact in one province.

The agronomics is great. It is good for crop rotation and people can make better decisions that way.

This has been a divisive issue, but all the farmers out there, their friends and neighbours do not have these types of battles over their other commodities. At the end of the day, they will still be friends and neighbours with a voluntary Canadian wheat board.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the idea that the voluntary wheat board could operate is nothing but government hypocrisy. The fact is the board is moving. The government, through this bill, would fire the farmer-elected directors, who were elected by the farm community, and it would either appoint or leave in place its appointed toadies from the last board, one of which the agriculture committee had said was not qualified to do the job.

The member talks about the Wheat Board. The Wheat Board has asked for several things, and I would ask the member if the government is willing to provide them all. It has asked for $225 million in capital to finance grain inventories, financing and borrowing guarantees, $200 million to fund a risk reserve to back-stop cooling, guaranteed access to elevators and port facilities and regulated authority to direct farmers' grain to the right port. That is what the elected board of directors has asked for, and the government is only providing guarantees.

Why has the government chosen, once again, to ignore what the elected board of directors of the Canadian Wheat Board is saying is required for this voluntary board to work? Is it just a farce, or what?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Malpeque is the biggest naysayer and cheerleader for complete defeatism in western Canada. I cannot believe the rhetoric that he continues to spew.

If we can believe the plebiscite and 62% of producers believe in the Canadian Wheat Board, then which organization would not want to stand and say that it would go out there, work with them and sell their wheat and barley? Sixty-two per cent of the people endorse the idea of collectively pooling resources and moving ahead. Therefore, there is a great opportunity out there for a voluntary wheat board. There is a basis of where we could start from and build upon. There is an opportunity for it to prove to those who do not support the Canadian Wheat Board that it can do the job.

There will be opportunities for the Canadian Wheat Board to sign shipper deals with railways, to sign deliveries through different elevator terminals. Most of the elevator terminals we have in western Canada are proud, Canadian-owned entities. Those terminals do not want to give up on the marketing of the Wheat Board through their facilities. They want those elevation tariffs. They want to be able to work with their local producers because those producers deliver wheat as well as other commodities. They would have an obligation and responsibility to work with the local farmers and a new voluntary wheat board to get the job done.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I had an exchange with the hon. member for Peace River and I have gone back to check that indeed the Wheat Board will allow for sales of organic wheat. I agree the Wheat Board will not go out of its way to help farmers sell organic wheat, but it is possible to do a single contract. The buyback paperwork is a bit of a hassle, but they are able to sell organic wheat at a premium price.

How does the hon. member distinguish how we treat western farmers from what happened to the Ontario Wheat Producers Marketing Board, also started back in the 1950s? There was a plebiscite and a two-thirds majority vote of those Ontario wheat farmers is why they are not covered by a marketing board. Why is the government applying a different standard to the western Canadian hard wheat farmers?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell members that our personal experience on my family farm is that the Wheat Board is extremely oppressive when it comes down to dealing with it with organic wheat. We do not get the premium because of the buyback, the paperwork and the associated costs. Even though the wheat never leaves the producers' yard, it is still stuck in their bins. They still have to pay the transportation costs as if it is going to port position. Those are dollars the producers lose automatically even though we will have contracts with millers and organic food processors who are actually FOB in the yard. They are paying the trucking costs, not my dad, my brother or other organic farmers. That is why there is such a discrepancy and why producers in the organic industry do not appreciate Canadian Wheat Board one way or the other.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate for several days and there is really nothing new coming up here. I am going to speak primarily for those who are watching via television because some of the discussion here may not be relevant to them and they may not understand it. I am going to start by relating a couple of stories.

A young farmer in my area grew some high quality wheat. It was over 13.5% protein. Wheat of course is the main ingredient in bread and pasta and wheat ground into flour is part of the diet of many people around the world. This farmer wanted to get as high a return as possible for his grain. Like many entrepreneurs, he went to the Internet and he found a flour mill in Ontario that wanted his excellent high quality wheat.

Farmers go to great lengths to maximize the quality of their product and, in this case, producing high protein wheat that lends itself well to making good quality bread. The higher the protein content, the better bread it makes.

The farmer made all the arrangements to deliver his wheat to the mill in Ontario, which really wanted his grain. Somehow the Canadian Wheat Board heard about it and put a stop to the transaction. This cost the farmer dearly and impacted hugely on his operation. He was then forced to sell this wheat to the only entity that was allowed to buy it, the Canadian Wheat Board.

That is a very fundamental violation of property rights. He does not own his own wheat. He can buy it back from the Canadian Wheat Board and then sell it to the flour mill in Ontario, but he has to accept the price that the Wheat Board sets. He also has to pay the freight from his farm all the way to Thunder Bay, Ontario, before he can take legal ownership of a product which he took all the risk and cost of growing.

He has to pay those transportation costs although he does not incur them and he has to accept the price of the Canadian Wheat Board. Those transportation costs are the highest costs per acre that a farmer incurs and he has absolutely no control over that cost. A farmer has to pay the railroad costs even though he or she does not use it if the product is marketed through the Canadian Wheat Board. The farmer has no choice. I want viewers who are watching this to be aware of that. It is unbelievable but it is true. Guess why this farmer wants marketing freedom?

Let me tell people another true story to illustrate why farmers need choice. This story comes from Manitoba and again it involves a young farmer who grew wheat for sale on his farm. Due to some adverse weather conditions, a little too much moisture possibly and other conditions, a fungus invaded his crop and he produced a small percentage of black kernels, which made wheat of a lower quality. The Canadian Wheat Board refused to buy it.

Out of desperation, this farmer sought and found a buyer in the U.S. that wanted his wheat. He loaded up the grain and began hauling it to this market. When stopped at the border and asked what he was doing, he explained the situation. He said because he could not sell his grain in Canada, he would go broke. He was told by Canadian authorities, not U.S. authorities, that he could not do that.

The iron curtain for prairie wheat farmers came down hard. This iron curtain surrounds the farmers of the Prairies. It does not allow them to send their bread wheat to Vancouver, to Ontario or to the U.S.

The young farmer, who had grain the Wheat Board refused to buy, was sent to prison. He was literally put into leg irons and chains. He was strip searched. He was humiliated beyond belief in front of his wife and children. He was made an example of by the authorities so no one else would attempt to sell their wheat.

I invite people to read the story of this young farmer. I farmed in partnership with my brother. This story just tore at my heartstrings. This young farmer's entire operation was completely destroyed because it depended on the sale of that wheat.

Canadians might find that hard to believe, but it happened in Canada, and it is still happening today.

I have a farmer in my area who has a large quantity of wheat. The Wheat Board refuses to buy it. He cannot sell it. The iron curtain that prevents this farmer from having marketing choice, from owning his own product and having the rights other Canadians enjoy, has come down on him as well.

We can have a strong Canadian Wheat Board. This debate has often been twisted to mean that we are out to destroy the board. No. If the board wishes, it could become a very strong board, in my opinion. This debate is about giving farmers a choice. The Wheat Board, if it wishes to remain a co-operative for those farmers who want to use its services, could expand, and it might include all kinds of other commodities. I can see huge potential for it. It could be a very strong marketing agency.

Let us remember that the Wheat Board is using farmers' money to protect its monopoly. It is courting opposition MPs, portraying this issue to them as a threat to dairy farmers, as we just heard, and as a threat to egg producers and chicken and turkey ranchers and to other industries. This is pure baloney sausage--BS, for short. There is absolutely no connection between the two.

It has been portrayed as a takeover by large corporations. If people are speaking to someone who does know what we are talking about and does not understand agriculture today, they can use that line. However, farmers do not just grow the one crop, wheat. There are many other non-board crops that are sold to private companies, and they would be sold in exactly the same way. Canola is a good example.

I have also heard the argument that this is going to hurt family farms. If we scratch below the surface on that issue, how will giving farmers a choice change that? Again, it is a completely bogus argument. It is pure baloney sausage. Wheat producers who follow worldwide commodity prices could sometimes get from $1 to $2 per bushel for their bread wheat. That could mean the difference between running a profit or a loss.

Another aspect of the board that many do not realize is that because of the structure of the pooling system, farmers who are part of it, meaning that everybody gets the same price, often have to wait a year or a year and a half for their final payment. In the meantime, these farmers incur huge costs for raising their crop, including fertilizer, fuel, various chemicals, transportation, machinery costs and repairs. Farmers need that cash flow, yet they are forced to wait. It just does not make sense.

Some time ago I used an illustration, and I will bring it up again at this point. It just shows how unfair this is. I am going to propose a new kind of board, and people can think about it in the context of what we are doing. I would like to propose a board for those who are defending the system. Under this board, which I will call a “lawyer board”, the rules and the principles would be the same as what farmers have to follow under the Wheat Board. This board would only apply to lawyers in Quebec and Ontario, and they could not deal directly with their clients, who would have to deal only with those lawyers whom the board said they could deal with. They would not be able to charge fees on how hard they work or the quality of the job; they would all be paid the same as every other lawyer.

When I proposed this idea some time ago, people over on the other side began to be livid. They were angry. If they had to wait a year for some of their revenue or their final payment, they would be extremely upset. In fact, we could try this with some other things. It shows how blatantly unfair it is to deny farmers their property rights.

We do not need more of this iron curtain stuff; we need to bring down the iron curtain that separates prairie farmers and barley producers from the freedom other Canadians enjoy.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when the member talks about baloney sausage, he makes it sound as though it is just the opposition or just a few board members who are opposed to the dismantling of the single desk system. In fact, there are protests over the demise of the board going on across our western provinces now; they started on Friday and they are continuing this week.

The member only need look at The Economistor the The Wall Street Journal. They speak of the profits that large Canadian grain companies are going to suddenly make, and they are not going to make those profits because they are going sell the wheat for more: they are going to make them because they will be taking the profits from the farmers. In fact, Viterra's shares spiked when Canadians found out that the Wheat Board would be gone shortly. Alliance Grain Traders is suddenly going to open up a pasta-making plant. Why? I propose it is because it knows it will get its grain for a cheaper price.

I ask this simple question: why does the hon. member not look at those facts, instead of the ideology that he is basing his decision on?

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this is an example of what I was talking about. There is no focus on property rights. There is no focus on the rights of individual farmers to control their product and market it as they wish. This is a bogus argument.

How is wheat different from canola? The member did not address that, nor has any other member on that side indicated how farmers' marketing of wheat would be different from that of canola. I submit that there is very little difference.

These grain companies enjoy marketing canola, and the majority of farmers would not want to go back to a wheat board situation in which canola would be controlled in the same way. I think that is one of the best arguments to indicate that what the member is saying is bogus.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech and his long-time effort to free western Canadian wheat growers from the shackles of their mandatory requirement to sell through the Canadian Wheat Board.

The hon. member just mentioned that there is not much of a difference between canola and wheat. I would assert that there is a difference currently for western Canadian grain farmers. Western Canadian grain farmers currently get the world price for canola. That is the product they are marketing themselves through enterprises that they choose. On the flip side, they do not get the world price for wheat: they get less.

I am curious if the hon. member could tell me why it is that intelligent, strong, business-minded farmers are able to get the world price for canola, which they sell in the free market, but are not able to get the world price for the wheat produced on the same farms as their canola.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize if the message came out differently from what I intended. I wanted to explain to everyone that the marketing of wheat would be no different than the marketing of canola once we give farmers a choice. That is what I was trying to indicate, and I appreciate the clarification. These farmers would have the same choice with wheat as they now have with canola, and they would be able to reap the world price for their product.

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition parties pretend that they oppose marketing freedom because they are defending democracy or something. However, when the Liberal government passed legislation allowing same-sex marriage without a referendum, they said it was on the correct principle of our democracy being founded on the principle of protecting minorities against the majority. When the NDP was asked why the postal union did not allow members to vote on the strike or the negotiations, NDP members said it was on the correct principle that we elect representatives to deliberate on our behalf and that not holding a referendum does not contradict democracy.

Can the hon. member explain how the proposed legislation is the fairest, most just way to allow each and every farmer not only to vote for their preference, but to get what they vote for regardless of whether they vote in favour of or against co-operation, regardless of what their neighbour votes for?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville may give a short answer, please.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could give a short answer.

I think the member makes a very good point. It is self-evident, and I do not think I need to comment more on it. It is obvious that with choice, these things will happen.

One thing I have not heard many people mention is that the board is supposed to report to the agriculture minister on a regular basis and that it has to answer his questions. This has not happened once. It has not reported to him. He has sought information on its marketing practices, the prices that farmers are getting and so on. If it did not have anything to hide, it would be willing to report to our minister.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

The minister made that comment the other day. The Wheat Board reports in an annual report every year. The board has said itself that it has reported.

Why does that member, his minister and the parliamentary secretary continue to provide misinformation to this House and Canadians?

[Garry Breitkreuz, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that is not what I was talking about. I was saying that the minister has asked the board questions about its pricing practices, and the board does not answer.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is hard to know how to use the 10 minutes allocated for this stage of the debate, but let me begin by saying there are many times in the House of Commons when reasonable people can reasonably disagree, and this is one of them. This is one of those cases where the farming community is divided. We do not know if it is 60:40 or 40:60 because there has not been, by the government's accounting, a fair test of the actual will of the people.

What we do know is that there has been no empirical evidence whatsoever presented by the government to convince our side of the argument, which I argue is a perfectly legitimate point of view. The government has not presented any paperwork, documentation or business case as to why or if farmers will be better off. It tells us over and over again that farmers will be better off, but it is anecdotal. It is much like my colleague just said. He did a straw poll of 20 farmers in his riding and all 20 of them said they wanted to get rid of the Wheat Board. That is not very scientific when there are some 75,000 prairie farmers producing grain. We do not have the tools we need to do our job. If we are going to have a reasonable debate, we would all benefit from the same base level of information.

We have empirical evidence. We have 75 years of evidence that says the Canadian Wheat Board has served farmers well and provided the best possible price at the minimum possible risk for farmers in an inherently unstable industry. We have asked the government to produce something, anything, to support its contention. In the absence of any documentation, business plan or cost benefit analysis, we can only assume that no such documentation exists. This leads me to the conclusion that it is a reckless and irresponsible action on the part of government to undertake such a comprehensive change in the way the rural prairie farm economy does business without so much as a business plan.

The government accuses us of all kinds of things, but nobody in his or her right mind would dismantle a successful $6 billion a year corporation without an impact study, a business plan and some justification and documentation as to why and if it will be better. We have heard nothing. To add insult to injury, not only has there been no evidence, no documentation and no proof, other than the notion and the whim of some self-interested Conservative members of Parliament who in fact farm grain themselves and who, I will argue later in my speech, are in a direct conflict of interest, now the Conservatives have even shut down debate. They have moved closure so that we will not be able to do our due diligence.

It is our job as members of Parliament to analyze, assess and test the merits of legislation put before us with reasoned debate, but we are not going to have that opportunity. A lot of people do not realize that the Conservatives pulled a fast one regarding the committee. Instead of sending the bill to the agriculture committee or even the international trade committee, they are sending it to a special legislative committee, which, by some happy coincidence, is not allowed to bring in witnesses other than technical witnesses to talk about the technical details of the bill.

Nowhere in the study at the committee stage will farmers be brought in to discuss the merits of the bill. The committee will only be able to discuss what various sections of the legislation actually do. That does not help members with hearing witnesses about whether or not they like using the Canadian Wheat Board. At no point in this process will we be discussing the merits of this sweeping, profound and permanent change the legislation contemplates in the way prairie farmers market their grain.

I have some quotes which I think members will find interesting. It seems almost everybody, except the Conservatives present, recognizes that the Canadian Wheat Board has been a net advantage to prairie farmers.

Robert Carlson, president of the North Dakota Farmers Union, said that he is convinced the Wheat Board earned Canadian farmers big premiums compared to U.S. prices and that the end of the monopoly will further weaken North American farmers and give more control to the giant multinationals. He said that it has been consistently true that the Canadian Wheat Board has earned more money for Canadian farmers.

Americans have been aware that the Wheat Board is an advantage for years. That is why they filed 13 separate trade complaints at the GATT and the WTO claiming that it is such an advantage to farmers it constitutes an unfair trade practice. Thirteen times they lost.

Alan Tracy, president of the U.S. Wheat Associates, said that the elimination of the single desk would leave a void in farmer advocacy, market development, customer support, export promotion, and quality assurance.

Listen to what the president of the Canadian National Millers Association said:

The CNMA knows of no research or evidence that demonstrates or even suggests that tinkering with the Canadian Wheat Board's mandate will create new North American market demand and opportunities for Canadian wheat flour millers.

He went on to say:

We do not anticipate the ultimate survival of the CWB without its current single-desk authority.

It kind of puts to lie this myth that the voluntary wheat board can survive when we all know this is chimera. He went on to say:

And we are certain that the CWB will not continue to be a reliable, full-service supplier to the Canadian wheat milling industry under those circumstances [of a dual market].

Perhaps one of the most revealing quotes we came across was by one of these big agrifood industry giants that will be the ones that will benefit. Our contention is, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary I believe it should hold, this particular action would takes hundreds of millions of dollars out of the pockets of prairie farmers and put them into the pockets of the shareholders of the agrifood giants, one of whom I will now quote. We all know Mr. Paterson, a Winnipeg grain giant. We have seen the Paterson stamp on all kinds of grain elevators all across the Prairies:

“We’ll do better than we do now,” says Mr. Paterson...whose family firm has climbed to more than $1-billion in annual revenues. “Our best years were in the time before the wheat board,” and that pattern should reassert itself, he says.

They are salivating. He is being quite controlled and temperate in his comments, but behind closed doors they are salivating and wringing their hands with glee that finally they can return to the bad old days of the 1920s and the 1930s. They could gouge Canadian farmers mercilessly when they owned the industry, when they owned the whole food supply chain, from the seed in the ground to the final finished product on the store shelves. They want it all. They want that vertical integration. They are going to gouge farmers, and that is how they are going to get it.

I have done some research on what the prices were like in the years when they had a single desk and the years when they did not; in the years when they had the five-year wheat pool and the years when the pool was gone; in the years when they had a voluntary wheat board and in the years when the single desk Wheat Board came in, in 1943. We studied these things. We have the graphs, the charts and the empirical evidence to draw from. The Conservatives have produced nothing, not a single word in support of their arguments, but the anecdotal whim and notions of a minister who is deluded and obsessed and who came here for one reason and one reason alone and that is to abolish the Canadian Wheat Board.

We are dealing with people who are in a direct personal conflict of interest. If they had any honour and decency, they would abstain from this debate and they would recuse themselves from the vote, because they personally stand to gain from abolishing the Wheat Board, if they believe their rhetoric. They say that prairie farmers will get more money if they abolish the Wheat Board. If that is true, they should abstain from this debate and recuse themselves from the debate altogether. If one accepts, as our argument is, that they would not make more money, then why are the Conservatives turning the rural prairie farm economy upside down and on its head when they have no evidence whatsoever it would be at the advantage of Canadian prairie farmers?

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member insists that MPs who are prairie grain farmers refrain from voting and debating. It is not surprising since it is a fundamental doctrine of his ideology that big brother knows best and that those people who are actually impacted by these decisions, who have first-hand knowledge of these things, could not possibly be smart enough to govern themselves.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Let them vote.

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, every member gets to vote for himself or herself and is not required to be forced by big brother or his or her neighbour.

Would the member explain why prairie farmers are not deserving of this equality, while people of minorities across the country are always afforded this freedom? Why not the prairie grain farmers?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Lethbridge makes my point for me, exactly. Why not let prairie grain farmers vote on how they want to market their grain? That is how this whole debate began, continues and will end. We are insisting, if the government wants to give prairie farmers more choice in how they market their grain, let them vote on it, which is what the legislation says. My colleague has helped us to make the very point we are trying to make.

The conflict of interest is so profound and so obvious. Any member of Parliament who has read the conflict of interest code that guides all of us in our conduct will know that they are duty bound and honour bound to step out of this debate and not vote on this particular piece of legislation.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, on that very question, what Bill C-18 does is it puts big brother back in charge, does it not?

Prior to 1997 the board was run by three commissioners. The government of the day changed it to allow an elected board of directors, five appointed and ten elected. Now this bill fires the ten farmer-elected directors and puts in place five appointed directors. Big brother is now in charge.

I would submit that there is a terrible conflict of interest.

One of the directors is a guy by the name of David Carefoot. He has served as chief financial officer for Viterra Inc. and spent six years with Agricore United. Viterra itself has indicated that breaking the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly could be worth 50¢ to 75¢ of per share value to Viterra.

Why is the government taking the fate and control of the Wheat Board away from farmers and turning it over to government hacks who are working for multinational grain corporations from the inside? Does the member agree with me?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it does beg the question of which side the Conservatives are on.

If the Canadian public only knew some of the dirty tricks associated with the Conservatives' efforts to stamp out the Wheat Board, they would be horrified. They carpet-bombed the whole prairie region with taxpayer-funded misinformation and propaganda. The government imposed a gag order that prohibited the Wheat Board directors from even defending themselves and correcting the misinformation. I do not think the Canadian public with a democratic sense and a sense of right and wrong would ever tolerate such a thing.

Let me say simply that the member for Macleod should not be voting on this bill. As well, the member for Yellowhead, the member for Vegreville—Wainwright, the member for Red Deer, the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands, the member for Crowfoot, and the member for Prince Albert, none of them has any right to vote on this bill.

In fact, it will be a contravention of the conflict of interest code if they stand up and vote on this bill tonight. They should not even be participating in the debate because, by their own arguments, they stand to benefit personally.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, Service Canada; the hon. member for Etobicoke North, The Environment; and the hon. member for Charlottetown, Veterans.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address some of the myths regarding our government's actions and our commitment for marketing freedom.

Western Canadian farmers gave our government a strong mandate to provide that marketing freedom. I want to point out, for all my colleagues in the House who will ask questions later, that the mandate is very loud and clear, particularly in central Alberta.

The legislation we are proposing would bring an end to the monopoly of the Canadian Wheat Board. It would give western Canadian wheat and barley farmers the marketing freedom they want and they deserve. It has been a well-known plank of our platform for years and western Canadian rural ridings continue to support our government by electing representatives who believe in marketing freedom.

Some critics may say that we are ignoring the law and the Canadian Wheat Board Act, which is hogwash, and that the act calls for a plebiscite before the Minister of Agriculture introduces a bill to add or remove a grain from the monopoly provisions of the act. However, Parliament created the Canadian Wheat Board Act and Parliament is able to amend or repeal it. In fact, even the NDP member for Winnipeg Centre agrees with us on one thing, which is that he has said that the government has the right to change the legislation.

Some will say that farmers will be devastated by this change. In fact, farmers in western Canada are very well able to manage their own affairs and market to the buyer of their choice. We see that all the time in the non-board commodities. They have built growing canola and pulse industries without a monopoly marketer in place. Why should western farmers not enjoy the same marketing freedom as other farmers in Canada?

As well, we have heard some critics say that we have a handful of grain multinationals controlling the world trade in wheat and other cereals and that Canadian farmers will simply be at the mercy of these huge companies. Our government does not buy into those scare tactics.

Farmers in western Canada deal with grain companies when they market their canola, pulses and non-board commodities, and they do so successfully. In fact, canola and pulses are actually up in numbers compared to wheat. Those industries are growing steadily and they are attracting investment in value-added activities such as canola crushing.

We trust farmers to make their marketing choices based on what is best for their own business needs. Farmers have the skills, the information and the tools to put themselves in the driver's seat, and we are here to help ensure they can achieve all of that potential.

Agriculture has played a major role in keeping Canada's economy on solid ground through some challenging times and when other economies are faltering. Ours is not a government that sits on its hands when the people it represents see new opportunities for themselves to succeed. We are a government that has consulted with farmers since the very beginning and we are continuing to consult with them on this matter.

The Minister of Agriculture has asked department officials to meet with the industry and stakeholders, including the Canadian Wheat Board itself, throughout the past summer in order to assist in developing a transitional plan for opening the market. Our government has always said that it is open to seeing the continuation of the Canadian Wheat Board as a voluntary marketing option for producers. That has been the campaign commitment and that is the campaign promise that will be kept.

The board has some very bright and effective employees and should be able to operate in this new environment. If farmers choose to support the new model, they will have every opportunity to succeed.

Peter Phillips, a public policy professor at the University of Saskatchewan, believes that the board can and should have a long-term future. He points out that 60% of the producers say that they like to use the board, so that is a pretty good client base to start with right there.

Our government is committed to creating an open market for western Canadian grain farmers that attracts investment, encourages innovation, creates value-added jobs and will build a stronger Canadian economy. Canadian farmers and processors are eager to compete in changing world markets and to meet the ever evolving demands of today's consumers.

Over the past five years, our government has worked hard with farmers to help grow their businesses, drive Canada's economy and leverage our natural advantages of land and resources. Our most precious resource is the ingenuity, commitment, dedication and hard work of our farmers.

Canada's economic action plan has invested in that natural advantage and delivered real benefits to agriculture across the country in creating jobs in our various communities. We are a government that acts on facts and sound judgment and on the expressed will of Canadian farmers. The 21st century will be a challenging and exciting time for agriculture in Canada. Our farmers deserve the freedom to meet these challenges and opportunities as they see fit. It is a matter of economics, dignity and respect.

In fact, the C.D. Howe Institute released a report entitled, “Pulling the Plug on Monopoly Power: Reform for the Canadian Wheat Board”, dated June 23, 2011. This report takes on the logic of monopoly supporters who argue that, by selling together, western Canadian farmers exert more market power in wheat markets and receive higher returns than if they competed against each other. However, the report underlines that the declining global market shares of Canadian wheat makes it increasingly unlikely that the Wheat Board is able to exert this market power. As a result, reform is needed. This reform includes reconsidering the CWB's monopoly.

I know my colleagues in the opposition are dying to hear the report, which explains the Herfindahl-Hirschman index, which measures market concentration. It illustrates how unlikely it is that the Canadian Wheat Board would exert pricing in the world wheat market. Canada's share of annual production has fallen from 8% in 1962 to less than 4% today. Likewise, Canada's share of the export market has fallen from over 25% to less than 14% in that same time period. Equally, Canadian market share in the world barley export markets has declined from 50% in the early 1980s to less than 10% today. In that sense, the Wheat Board is a price taker in so many of these markets.

The report also supports our government's position that, even without sole buying and selling authority, the Canadian Wheat Board's existing infrastructure, expertise and worldwide distribution of its trading staff would make it an attractive pool for farmers to voluntarily participate in and successfully sell their wheat in world markets. The option also remains available to farmers who prefer to specialize in producing wheat for domestic consumption, rather than trading it on the world markets. The economics are clear.

I invite my colleagues opposite to join us in this exciting new chapter for Canadian agriculture, rather than focusing on the negative rhetoric and all the things that we cannot do. We should focus on this opportunity for change. It is inevitable in all facets of life, and western Canadian wheat and barley farmers deserve the same marketing freedom and opportunities as other farmers, not only in Canada but around the world.

I encourage all members of the House to think this through and show their support for western Canadian farmers as they capitalize on this new opportunity.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, I was in Regina for the announcement of the investment that Mr. Al-Katib is making in the durum pasta processing plant. My husband, who is a farmer, is very excited about it because he will be able to sell directly to that pasta plant.

Because I could have a conflict of interest in drawing this conclusion myself, why does the member think that my husband would like to sell directly to that pasta plant?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I suppose in the law of extensions, my father is a farmer. I grew up on a farm and we grew grain. I do not know if I will be asked to recuse myself from the vote as well.

However, the reality is that it does not make any sense to me or to anybody else who holds any value in owning their own personal property. The principle that people can take all of the risk in investing in their crop, machinery and purchasing the land and, at the end of the day, if they happen to grow wheat or barley, they can be subjugated to when they can sell their wheat, to whom and for what price makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. What we are providing is an opportunity for those farmers who wish to collectively pool and try to negotiate a better price through that pool, using the talented people at the Wheat Board who wish to stay on in its new form, but we need to allow those individual farmers who want to make those marketing choices for themselves to do so.

I have constituents in my riding who went to jail over this issue. This is a ballot box question in the constituency of Wetaskiwin and I can assure members that I did not lose a single poll in the rural portion of the riding.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am listening carefully to this debate and to all the points made on both sides of the House. I listened to my colleague, and I would like him to explain why 62% of farmers voted to keep the single desk marketing for wheat and 51% voted to keep the single desk marketing for barley.

I am having difficulty reconciling this information with the fact that we often hear from the other side of the House, the government side, that farmers want markets that are fully open. They try to make us believe that western farmers are not worried about the big multinationals coming in to trample them. How can he explain the vote results?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if my colleague had actually listened to my speech, she would know that we do acknowledge that there are farmers out there who wish to use the Canadian Wheat Board. However, that does not change the fundamental principle that an individual goes through the risk of having that land, buying that equipment, owning that property and taking all the risk.

The critic for the NDP was a carpenter. If he went through all the risk of purchasing the material, buying his tools and equipment, buying the lumber that is available at market price, speculating on a home and then actually had some board come in and tell him the price he could sell the home for, that would be outrageous. He, honestly, would be outraged that he could not sell that house at the price he needed in order to be competitive and keep his business running.

The same principle applies here. For those farmers who think they can get value out of it, and there are some who will, this legislation would provide for a viable Canadian wheat board to exist on a voluntary basis. If it is as good as everybody says that it is, then we should not fear ending the monopoly. If the folks who are working there have the contacts, have the marketplace already established, they have already got the competitive advantage over the individual farmers.

I have a question for the hon. member. Why are so many individual farmers telling me that they are not satisfied with the status quo?

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all my colleagues for their, at times, very impassioned speeches about the Canadian Wheat Board. There is no question that on both sides of the House there is a real delineation of thought as to what it is we believe that farmers want.

It is ironic that there are farmers among us on both sides of the House who have different viewpoints on it. That is fair from the perspective of having different viewpoints, but what I find amazing about this whole debate is the government's insistence that somehow the market is the direct benefit to all farmers at all times.

It reminds me of my younger days when I was first married and my wife and I decided to seek out a financial planner and talk about raising some money to buy a home and do all the things that young couples do. I interviewed a financial planner who talked to me about the market. I thought it was wonderful that he was telling me exactly how it works, except what he kept repeating was not to worry and that things always get better. What I am hearing the government tell farmers about wheat, durum and barley is not to worry, it will always gets better and they will get better prices.

I have heard all about the risks that farmers take and they do. As the critic for agriculture, I understand the risks that farmers take when they put seed in the ground, buy equipment and decide on the rotation for the year. They make all of those decisions and then have to face the vagaries of the weather, whether it be the floods in southern Saskatchewan or southern Manitoba this year or frost.

Conservatives on this side never talk about the downside of the market. My friends on the other side constantly want to teach us about the markets, which is nice, but they should at least be honest and say that markets go up, yes indeed, and markets go down, absolutely. Folks who bought RRSPs in 2008 got a bit of recovery after that, but ask them how they are doing in 2011.

When people throw themselves to the markets, they do not have ultimate control. They are not the markets, they are just players. Depending on size, they are either big players or not so big. If they are not so big, they do not have the same clout as big players, which means that ultimately the big players make more than the smaller players or takes advantage of them.

My friends on the other side talk about value-added and this new pasta plant that is going to open in the Prairies, which is a wonderful thing. They insist that means that primary producers, the farmers, in the west would get a better price if they go on the open market. We have seen a stock circular put out by a particular company. If we happen to go through it, one line says its expectation of making additional profit is by paying lower prices for primary products.

It reminds us of what happens when value is added. The value gets added in and the price gets taken at the other side, which is not the farmer but the consumer. The middle guy, who is the producer-processor, is not the farmer. The farmer is at the other end of that chain actually putting things in at the beginning where the first price comes. When the processor or producing-manufacturing group in the centre who has the power cannot get more money from the consumer end and wants to increase profits, because that is what the company's stockholders want, they squeeze it out in costs.

My friends on the other side constantly let us know how knowledgeable they are on these things. All business owners know that they wring out costs if they can and they wring it out at the bottom, at the front end, the farmer. When farmers do not have the ability to go somewhere else, they are told they can go where they want.

I wonder how that will look in five years when they do not get the producer cars that they rely on any more or the track time they need to get to the coast, port or wherever it happens to be they cannot get any more because there is a new potash mine and all of a sudden CN or CP is saying the mine pays more and the farmers can wait.

My friends on the other side have talked about pulses. There is no question that pulse farms have done very well. One of the biggest complaints from the group around the pulse organization is that the biggest impediment in their ability to pay farmers well is getting their crop to market. Which market? Not in this country. They literally take it 5,000, 8,000, 10,000 kilometres across the globe to a market in either India or Southeast Asia. The largest single impediment to getting their crop there on time or losing the market, because they can, is the railway.

They are paying costs because ships are lying at anchor in the Port of Vancouver waiting for their product to get there and they are being held up because CN decided to send something else that made it more money. When grain farmers end up in that queue, and they will, they cannot move their product to market and the premium that is suggested by this market free enterprise government will be lost because they cannot get it there on time. The pulse groups are saying today that they will lose the market, not the premium, but the market, period, if they cannot move their crop.

It begs the question, if indeed we have such difficulty on both sides of the House on whether we should do this or that, we have really come to an impasse. We think we are right and members opposite think they are right. Why do we not just ask the folks who actually do it? Why do we not just ask the farmer?

It has been said here many times that there are 8 out of 10 elected board members. The government changed the requirements on how to elect them. An individual had to grow so much wheat. They had to do it in consecutive years, otherwise they did not get a ballot.

I heard earlier from some colleagues who said the widow of a farmer got a ballot for her husband, and that is unfortunate. I would not like my mum to get a ballot for my dad who is deceased either, but that happens from time to time.

We have folks on election lists in this country who are no longer with us. Lists sometimes are not that good. In this House we know lists are not always that good because we have our own lists of constituents. How many times have we sent things to constituents to have it returned to us because they do not live there or they are deceased?

However, if we were to hold a legitimate, government-held vote of the producers, agreed upon by the board, and asked them what they want, I think this House would be satisfied. On this side of the House we would be satisfied. If the producers told us what they want, we would say it is fair. Nothing more, nothing less. It is fair.

Now we are asking the folks we represent what they would like to do. Would they like this open market as has been described by members on the other side, market freedom, or would they want to continue down the road they have with the Wheat Board. If we asked them that question, and we could debate how we form the question, but if we asked them an honest, fair question from both sides, not a one-sided question, and let them decide, this House could then go about its business because they had made a decision.

Anecdotal stories are being told from one side or the other. My colleagues from Alberta say that in Alberta, this is what producers are saying. People call me from Alberta, and I am not from Alberta, who say they want to keep the Wheat Board. There is no question that there are some folks who want to keep it and there are some folks who do not. There is no question about that. Why do we not simply let them have the final say on all of this.

We should decide on the question we should put to them after debate, let them decide for themselves and accept their wishes, based on the fact that it is their ability and their democratic right to make a final decision on their lives. It is not necessarily mine. I do not farm wheat, and a lot of us do not, but at least farmers would be making a decision for themselves, not having it imposed on them by either side of the House, regardless of how the vote goes.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Minister of State (Finance)]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague from Welland, obviously speaking about something that he does not have a really good grasp of, and that is unfortunate.

I would have been happy to provide some of the information that I have tried to provide to some of the colleagues across the way that have not dealt with this lack of freedom. The member talked about who phoned him and who did not phone him.

There are farmers in western Canada who have been waiting for 35, 40 years for this, for the simple, same freedom that farmers in Ontario have had for a number of years. They have grown their business. They have been able to export wheat. Farmers in western Canada have not had that freedom.

I would ask that hon. member, why does he not think that I, as a farmer within the Wheat Board jurisdictional area, should be treated as any less of a citizen than his farmers in Ontario?

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I would agree with the hon. member's comment at the front end.

Nonetheless, as to the question not being the way we wanted it when it was asked at the plebiscite, 62% of western farmers said they wanted to keep the Wheat Board. If that was not a good question or a fair question, let us craft one and ask them.

I agree with my friend who says that coming from Alberta he understands the Wheat Board and wheat farmers. To say that just because we come from Ontario we do not understand wheat farmers or we have not learned to understand what it is about them, I do not think is necessarily a fair comment.

The bottom line is that if we ask farmers a fair question and the decision is to not have a wheat board, so be it. However, if the response is that the farmers want to keep it, then so be it also.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, in the previous discussion, surely the government would extend the same rights to western farmers as it did extend to those on the Ontario wheat marketing board who no longer market under that board. They were given the right to make a decision. Western farmers have not been given that right.

I have asked my NDP colleague about one of the arguments of the government that this would be great for processing and that there has been no processing since the board was in place. The facts are these: Canada processes three times more malting barley per capita than the United States; wheat milling capacity in western Canada has grown by 11.8% in the last decade compared to 9% in the northern tiers of the United States; and four new western Canadian mills have been built during that period while the number of mills in the northern United States has remained the same. That has been with a board of directors of farmers in place.

The act, under section 12, says:

Every person holding office as an elected director of the Canadian Wheat Board immediately before the day on which this Part comes into force ceases to hold office on that day.

Have those farmer elected directors not done a good job in increasing processing capacity and in maximizing returns to farmers?

Why does my colleague believe that the government wants to get rid of those farmer elected directors and take their right away to be a master of their own destiny through their own marketing institution, as others in Canada are allowed to do, like dairy and poultry?

[Malcolm Allen, NDP, Welland, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can only speak to what I believe is the decision not to allow farmer appointed or farmer elected board members.

The government has said that it will allow a voluntary Canadian wheat board. One would think that if it wants it to be voluntary and it believes that it is okay if folks want to join it, at the very least they should be allowed to decide if they want to vote for the folks who want a voluntarily association. One would think that is what the government would want.

One hates to have these thoughts that five folks who are appointed might just want to get rid of it, and that it might be made in such a way that is so draconian that those who actually want to voluntarily be part of it will be driven away by the folks who make decisions in their best interest.

That is why we have democracy. That is why we elect folks. The other side talks about how many of its members were elected and the fact that it has a majority government. True fact. The members could point to the fact that the reason that happened is because folks voted for them. True fact.

If that is the case, why not extend it to those particular farmers, if indeed the government wants a voluntary association, and simply say that at the very least it will give people the right to vote for the folks to represent them on a voluntary association called the Canadian Wheat Board?

Then again, if the government really wants to do that, it should have a plebiscite vote and find out if Canadian farmers really want to keep the Canadian Wheat Board.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Minister of State (Finance)]

Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting for 35 years to deliver this speech. That is a long time.

I am a wheat farmer, I must confess. I farmed for over 30 years in Alberta. I stand to speak in favour of the marketing freedom for grain farmers act.

Anyone listening to this debate might wonder why we would have to do that. Do not all farmers have the right to market what they produce? That is partially correct, but only if a farmer lives east of the Manitoba-Ontario border or west of Creston, B.C. All farmers living in between, which is the wheat belt area of this country, have been under the control of a monopoly seller of wheat and barley for human consumption. That is the other thing a lot of people do not understand. It is durum wheat for pasta, bread wheats and barley for malt barley.

We would argue that the producers of those crops should have the same right to the freedom to market, to the same freedom of choice, as farmers who live in Ontario, Prince Edward Island, west of Creston B.C., and in fact all around the world. That is what this whole debate is about. Some members understand that because they have heard that term enough times in the House. Those producers should have the same freedom of choice.

This is the most draconian and outdated marketing system of any country in the world. No other industry would accept this situation. No other industry would have come to Canada. Let us picture the big three automakers coming to Canada to build cars if we had set up a monopoly that would tell the industry what colour of car it could build and what price it would get, and that the industry would get paid 18 months after the monopoly chose to sell that car. We would not have an auto industry, nor would we have a communications industry, if they were harnessed with the same binding regulations that those of us who produce grain in western Canada have.

A new, voluntary Canadian wheat board will be set up once this legislation is passed. It will be an option. Just as I, as a producer of wheat in western Canada, should never have been forced to sell to a monopoly, so have we chosen not to force those who would choose to use a pooling mechanism to not be able to have a pooling option. The Minister of Agriculture has given this a great deal of thought, and he has put in place an option that will provide a pooling mechanism for those who are more comfortable with that approach. We are providing a transition period for this new board to develop a strategy, a five-year period to set this up. We hope that those people who enjoy the aspects of pooling will use this option. I as a wheat producer will not be forced to use it, as I have been through my 30-some years of growing wheat.

Many farmers in western Canada have moved away from this monopoly. As the Minister of Agriculture said in answer to a question the other day, farmers voted with their air seeders. A lot of people in this room do not understand what an air seeder is. It is a seeding mechanism for farms all across the world. Farmers chose not to grow wheat because they could not hedge their price. They knew what their costs were, but they had no way of knowing, through a monopoly, what their price was going to be.

I myself moved away from growing wheat. I only grow it now as a rotation for the health of my soil, for disease control on my farm. Otherwise I grow peas, lentils, chickpeas and canola, because I can market them in the middle of the night anywhere in the world when I see a price that I like.

I have a friend in Australia who grows wheat. When the prices went high in the spring of 2008, the highest we have ever seen, he was able to lock in a price for two years of production because there were companies out there that were willing to do that. He had his sale prices locked in for two years.

I do not know tomorrow what I would get for the wheat that I produce this year. However, I do know that for the wheat harvested on my farm barely two weeks ago, the return to me will not come until January 2013. What other business would accept that as a payment model? I have no idea what the price is going to be, but I know my costs. Why would I grow wheat?

A report came out today stating that our population is going to be 15 billion people in 2100. Who is going to feed those people? It would not be a country held back on production because the farmers could not afford to grow wheat. They would grow other crops--peas, lentils, chickpeas--but they would stop growing wheat if they were held under this monopoly, and we have seen it happen. Wheat acreage has fallen in this country dramatically. We have given up the advantage of some of the new varieties of wheat that could be grown because the Wheat Board is in such an archaic state of mind that we could not develop the new varieties of wheat that would actually help feed the world.

We have seen the yields of corn in the United States triple because of research. We have seen canola varieties producing double of what they were. Where is wheat? It is maybe 10% or 20% more. We have great opportunity for farmers in western Canada to realize the benefits available to them if we can get out from underneath this archaic system.

As I said, cash flow matters to farmers. They are very innovative, they understand their business costs and they need to know how to cover those costs. When they grow another crop that they can market themselves, they can pick a price and sell it. However, under the monopoly powers of the Wheat Board, they do not even know if the crop would actually be moved off their farm in a year.

It is an archaic system. The Wheat Board should never be allowed to decide whether I want to sell my crop, but they have been able to do that. As I say, it is a very archaic system.

I have met grain buyers in other countries. For example, when I was in Cairo, Egypt, food importer brokers asked me why I would not sell them my wheat. I said that they had to deal with the Canadian Wheat Board. They said they had tried, but it would not answer their phone calls.

We have no access to market. If I go back to peas and lentils, I choose whom I want to sell it to and I choose the price I want. I am a price taker, there is no doubt about it, but I can also hedge that price. I can sell it into the future. There are futures markets. There are a whole lot of simple arguments that are being neglected.

I will quote a good friend of mine from southwestern Saskatchewan, Cherilyn Jolly-Nagel. I know her and her folks very well. She is a past president of the Western Canadian Wheat Growers. I quote:

I'm already planning to increase my durum acres next year. It's just the kind of investment that will help boost our economy, boost our profits and help boost the provincial economy.

She is speaking about the first new pasta plant in western Canada, which is being built just outside of Regina, and about the kinds of benefits we will see grow.

There should have been a malt plant in central Alberta. I see the barley going past my house down to Great Falls, Montana. Why is that? It is because the board stopped it from being built in Canada.

We need the freedom. We need the choice. It is that simple.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard my hon. colleague on the other side of the House say that all farmers should have the right to market what they produce and market it as they want. For milk, chicken, turkey and egg producers, who come under supply management, does he advocate exactly the same approach?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting question. They do have a choice, and they chose a supply management system. This western system was forced on farmers. They never had a plebiscite asking them if they want to sell grain under a monopoly. That was never an option. Supply management is a choice of those farmers, and they welcome that choice.

However, we are missing the point of this whole debate. It is simply about the same choice, as I have said before, that farmers in western Canada do not have: the choice to market our products where and to whom we want, and to provide food for the world.

I go back to my earlier comment. It is very important for Canada, as one of the major food producers in this world, to be able to realize our potential to help feed the world. Our farmers are ready to do it; I wish the House were ready to support it.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it seems that the member was emphasizing that those who participate in supply management had a choice and have voted to participate in something that has restricted their marketing opportunities in some ways but expanded them in many others.

If the Conservatives are so convinced that western farmers do not want the Wheat Board, why do they not conduct a plebiscite at this point and give them the same right to choose that others have had? Why do they not let them vote to see whether western farmers really want to keep the Wheat Board?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I realize that a number of members have not been in the House very long, but we have had many discussions about plebiscites. We have had a barley plebiscite. We have had all sorts of plebiscites, and every time a credible question has been asked, the outcome has been that farmers in western Canada want the same freedom as farmers in the rest of Canada. It is that simple.

We also had a plebiscite on May 2. I believe it was a resounding success. We campaigned on freedom. What better thing to campaign on than freedom? We won a majority based on allowing farmers the same freedoms as their friends and relatives in the rest of this country.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my father-in-law switched from grain to beef in the 1990s because he could not make a living on grain.

Once wheat is able to be marketed on the open system, does the member believe there will be an opportunity for families to hand the farms down? I have seen that some people just cannot afford to keep their farm, so they sell it because they are not able to hand it down. Is there an opportunity here for someone like the member to hand that farm down if he or she should choose to do so?

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague to the west, who is, by the way, still within the Wheat Board's jurisdiction. Just in case he might be thinking about growing wheat and selling it somewhere else before August 1 of next year, I would caution him about that.

In response, this would absolutely be a benefit to what we hear spoken about in this chamber many times, which is the small family farm. Many organic producers decided that was the way for their niche operations to survive. It is not growing broad acre crops on broad acre farms, but niche organic crops.

The Canadian Wheat Board soon stepped in and said it would have none of that. It started marketing the crops for the organic producers who had already set up their own markets. It charged them a premium to sell to the same buyers they were selling to before. The middleman won; the small farmer lost, because of the monopoly powers of the board.

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak against Bill C-18, which would dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board. This bill is a direct attack on family farmers and is a direct affront to the very principle of democracy. On September 12, nearly 60% of Canadian farmers voted in favour of maintaining the Canadian Wheat Board. However, the Conservatives refuse to hold a plebiscite on dismantling the board. The government plans to destroy the single desk against the wishes of Canadian farmers. This would not be the first time that the Conservatives claimed to have received a strong mandate from Canadians with only 40% support.

The Canadian Wheat Board is not funded by Canadian taxpayers. So why are the Conservatives rushing to destroy this organization? The answer is simple. If the Canadian Wheat Board no longer holds the balance of power when negotiating with its economic partners, Canadian farmers will be left on their own, will no longer have any bargaining power and will be forced to sell their wheat and barley at lower prices. That will have disastrous effects.

First of all, Canadian producers will be forced to sell their products at lower prices. Lower selling prices also means lower profit margins. And God knows that during a recession and tough economic times, farmers who are already working in a sector that requires very large financial investments did not need another blow like this.

Furthermore, the Canadian Wheat Board's bargaining power has enabled Canada to maintain some independence for Canadian farmers and the Canadian agri-food industry with respect to the major world players. With the dismantling of the board, this independence will disappear and big American grain companies will be free to move their operations to Canada, which will gradually kill the economic independence of Canada's agri-food industry.

I have heard the Conservatives say that we are trying to scare farmers and that the expected effects are false. Well, I have a little surprise, my friends. 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, one of the world's largest agribusiness corporations, which is privately owned and based in the United States. 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.

Now, here is what we are proposing for Canadian farmers.

We believe in respecting democracy. As a result, we believe that any decision about the Wheat Board must be made by the farmers, since they are the ones who manage this organization. Since 62% of farmers voted against dismantling the Canadian Wheat Board, we believe that the government should respect that decision or, at the very least, hold an official government plebiscite on the issue and, as a result, withdraw its bill.

What do members of the Canadian Wheat Board think of the possible dismantling of their organization? While the Conservatives claim that farmers are overjoyed at this prospect, 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. He added that the government's reckless approach will throw Canada's grain industry into disarray, jeopardize a $5 billion a year export sector and shift money from the pockets of Canadian farmers into the hands of American corporations.

What economic impact will this dismantling have on the overall Canadian population? First, Canada risks losing the money brought in through board premiums, which can represent between $200 million and $500 million per year. Second, as I said earlier, being a farmer today means considerable investment, be it in machinery or basic farm upkeep. Dismantling the Canadian Wheat Board will have a domino effect. By selling their product at a lower price, the farmers' profit margin will decrease. Less profit also means less money to pack back loans. That means that, at the end of the day, it is the Canadian taxpayers who will pay because the government will have to increase subsidies for farmers so that they can survive and make a living.

Dismantling the Canadian Wheat Board means that farmers will see their revenues drop considerably. The government will then have to pick the pockets of Canadian taxpayers to fix the disaster it will have created.

To conclude, I implore the government to rethink its decision, to realize that it is going down the wrong path and to understand that it is putting farmers and the Canadian economy at risk. Therefore, it should withdraw Bill C-18.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke about what corporations the United States will move into Canada but he missed the point about the new pasta plant that was just announced in Regina, Saskatchewan. It will be the first one in western Canada. The plant is owned by a very successful person from Saskatchewan who wants to create jobs in Saskatchewan. This business will be able to buy its grains directly from the farmer. The farmers are very excited about this new freedom to sell directly to the pasta plant.

How does that square up with why we in western Canada cannot have the same privilege as those in eastern Canada, not having to ship our grain down here to be processed, as before with pasta and many of the other grains that come down here and then we needed to have it shipped back to buy it as consumers? Why are we not afforded the same luxuries as eastern Canada?

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her question.

We are not saying they are not entitled to the same rights as others. Since the beginning we have been asking the government to put it to a vote. It is very simple. The government is saying that the Wheat Board was created without anyone asking for opinions and that it will be dismantled without anyone asking for opinions. The government should not repeat past mistakes.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, spinning off the question from the minister, it is not as bad as the government member tries to make us believe. As I mentioned earlier, there is far greater processing capacity for malting barley per capita, which came into place in the last number of years, three times as many in Canada as in the United States, whose producers have the freedom to market wherever they want. Wheat milling capacity in western Canada has grown by 11.8% in the last decade, compared to 9% in the northern tiers in the United States. Therefore, is not as bad as the member makes us believe.

However, there is an important question here. The government is basically saying that producers should have the freedom to market when, where and how they want, which is what, I believe, the minister said it earlier.

Does the member not believe that if that is the policy that is approached, it would completely undermine the supply management system in this country?

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. We all know full well that with that type of market the Americans, who have the purchasing power, will come buy our grain and it is truly the Americans who will benefit, not our farmers here in Canada.

[Jim Hillyer, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, should we have a referendum on same sex marriage or a referendum on whether postal workers should be allowed to form a union?

Should we have a referendum on the privatization of the CBC and on what kind of programming should be allowed on TV, or should individuals choose for themselves what not to watch on TV, who to marry and how to market their grain?

[François Pilon, NDP, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very odd question because I do not believe that in all those things the hon. member listed, there is a law saying that before the Wheat Board is dismantled or before we do anything with regard to same sex marriage, there should be a referendum. However, in the rules that governed the creation of the Canadian Wheat Board, it clearly states that a referendum has to be held before it can be dismantled.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, our government's top priority is the economy, in which the agriculture industry plays a vital role. Canadian farmers feed the world and they deserve the freedom to make their own business decisions. We believe that all Canadian farmers should be able to position their businesses to capture the marketing opportunities that are open to them.

Nine years ago, almost to this very day, Noel Hyslip was hauled off to jail wearing leg irons and handcuffs in front of his wife, three kids and parents. He and 12 other Alberta farmers were sentenced to 45 days in the Lethbridge jail. Their crime was driving trucks full of their own wheat over the border into the United States. These farmers were detained, fined and jailed for selling their own wheat outside the Canadian Wheat Board. Yes, this is Canada. I know it is hard to imagine that kind of thing could happen here. However, these pioneers have no regrets about the actions they took and the sacrifices they made.

Mr. Hyslip was recently quoted as saying:

I'm proud of that day and the sacrifice we all made.

Going to jail to free western farmers was definitely worth it. It frustrates me that almost one decade has passed since then. It's hard to believe such a law still exists in Canada.

These farmers are all looking forward to the day when all farmers in western Canada have the legal right to market their wheat and barley wherever and however they wish. This bill would enshrine that right by allowing western farmers to market their own wheat and barley on their own or through a voluntary pool.

The 68-year-old Canadian Wheat Board monopoly is yesterday's solution to yesterday's problem. Farmers like Noel Hyslip and thousands of others across the Prairies are focused on tomorrow, not yesterday. They are ambitious, entrepreneurial, successfully market their other crops and they need new solutions, not the status quo. More than that, our economy needs it. As we recently saw with the launching of the pasta plant in Regina, marketing freedom will unlock new value-added investment, new jobs and new growth for Canada's economy.

Business people, the economic drivers of our economy, agree on the need for an end to the single desk marketing system. At its annual meeting last year, the membership of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, a network representing some 192,000 businesses of all sizes, in all sectors of the economy and in all regions of the country, approved a resolution that reiterated its support for a voluntary Canadian wheat board. It was not the first time it had done so. This most recent resolution was an update of the group's position from 2007.

These are businessmen and women from across Canada, job creators, who have the interest of a strong national economy at heart. What are they calling for? They are calling for the same thing wanted by western farmers, who are small and medium-sized businesses in their own right. They want a release from under the thumb of a monopoly and the freedom to shop their product to the highest bidder for the best price. This is what the Chamber of Commerce resolution had to say about the Wheat Board:

—[it] restricts (value-added) investment in wheat and barley, significantly diminishing the ability of farmers and industry to respond to market demands and earn a premium return in recognition of the innovation provided, including innovation in value-added processing.

It is pretty clear that top business people, the job creators that all members' constituents rely on for employment, think that the CWB is anti-business. It went on to say:

Removal of the single desk in other countries...“has led to new investment and growth in value-added activities, benefiting all members of wheat and barley value chains from consumers to processors to farmers.”

Western Canadian grain farmers want the same marketing freedom and opportunities as other farmers in Canada and around the world. They want the freedom to make their own business decisions, whether it is to market individually or through a voluntary pooling entity. Disappointingly, opponents to change are taking an all-or-nothing approach: single desk or death.

If opposition members will not listen to western grain farmers, will they at least listen to the businesspeople from their own communities who, through the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, are saying that their insistence on robbing farmers of marketing choice is an anti-business, anti-prosperity attitude?

The year of the entrepreneur is 2011. I hope the opposition members will get with the times and support marketing choice and freedom and opportunity for all Canadian entrepreneurs, including western grain farmers.

Farmers have told the CWB and us that there is a better way to give entrepreneurial farmers like Noel Hyslip the boost their business needs to compete and a better way for those farmers who prefer to market their wheat through a voluntary pool. Our government is offering an inclusive and progressive way forward that would offer western Canadian wheat and barley farmers both opportunity and security.

There is no doubt that co-operatives helped to build agriculture across Canada and that they continue to play a role today in a very tough and competitive global marketplace. However, these organizations are where farmers commit their production investment because they choose to, not because they are forced to. Co-operative and compulsion cannot go together. Competition and choice will breathe new life into Canada's grain industry.

Canada's grain industry has already achieved outstanding results, but we know it can do every better.

Over the past 25 years, the share of area seeded by CWB grains in western Canada decreased from about three-quarters to one-half and the Canadian market share in the world barley export markets has declined by more than 65%. Meanwhile the share of area seeded to canola almost tripled, oats acreage in Manitoba grew by over one-third and the pulse industry grew to $2 billion in export sales.

We know that there is room for growth in our wheat and barley industry. The time is right for action. Canada's farmers grow world-class food in a global marketplace that is ripe with opportunity. We need to unfetter our farmers so they can continue to drive our economy and feed the world.

Everyday Canadians also see the injustice of making western farmers beholden to a Wheat Board monopoly.

In a recent letter, Henry and Erna Goerzen, constituents of mine from Didsbury, wrote, “We heartily support you and our Conservative Government in the legislation that will give choice for Western grain farmers to market their grain themselves or to sell through the Wheat Board. It is a choice that has been denied to our farmers for far too long. We wish the legislation may be approved very soon”.

However, the last word goes to farmers themselves.

Dan Jorsvick, a farmer near Olds, sent me a letter that said, “I would like to clearly express my support for the initiative to remove the CWB. Like many farmers, we had registered our vote regarding the CWB years ago, with our decision to not apply for their “permit book” and to not “market” our grain through their organization. We have developed the skills to market our grain to domestic feed users and I hope we have the opportunity to apply these skills to explore markets beyond our borders”.

David and Ann Smith made a similar point, when they wrote, “We urge you and your colleagues and our Majority Conservative Government, to make every effort to bring about the much needed changes in order to provide a more equitable grain marketing system for Western Canada. It must be realized that the younger generation of farmers are very proficient businessmen and women, with many options available to them, plus all the modern technology at hand to carry out their own marketing choices”.

I will end with an inspiring letter from Amy Hewson, a young farmer who farms with her husband southeast of Saskatchewan, “My husband and I are expecting a baby in January and we're both very excited to know that this child will grow up in a country where it’s not a crime for his parents to sell their own wheat and barley”.

We need to ensure that the freedom fighters did not go to prison in vain and we owe it to the next generation of farmers who will put food on our tables to get this job done.

Our government is committed to giving every western Canadian grain farmer the marketing freedom they want and deserve. When passed, this legislation will do just that.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is all very interesting. I would like to ask the following question: what about the 38,261 farmers who participated in the vote organized by the Canadian Wheat Board? I guess their votes do not count.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member a question in return. The voices of all the farmers throughout western Canada who voted for our Conservative majority government to be in place to do just this, to give them the freedom of choice to market their own wheat and their own barley, do those voices not count? Because they certainly should.

This is a democratic country and people have a right to make their own choices about how they market their products and the fruits of their labour. All the bill asks us to do is to give farmers the choice that all other businesses in our country have, the choice to take the products that they have created with their hands and from their innovation and to sell it however and to whomever they choose. That is all the legislation seeks to do. What we are asking for our western grain farmers is a very basic right that all businesses should have.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, if the member for Wild Rose believes what he said in his comment then let us put it to the test. Is there anyone in the country who actually believes that the only reason anybody voted for the Conservative Party in western Canada was because of the Canadian Wheat Board? Is that what he is trying to imply in the House?

I ask the member to put it to the test. Section 47.1 under the legislation says we ought to that. The Wheat Board says that it has 62% support on its plebiscite. Why will the Conservatives not put it to the test? Why are they taking the voice of western farmers, which was granted to them by law, away from them and not allowing them the choice to tell us their view? If they voted for doing away with the Wheat Board single desk, we would support it.

Second, does the member really believe that if thousands of trucks roll across the U.S. border, the 49th parallel, that the U.S. is not going to respond? People broke the law, they went across the international—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. We need some time for the hon. member to respond.

The hon. member for Wild Rose.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member wanted to know if I felt that the only reason western Canadians voted for our party was to eliminate the Wheat Board monopoly and have marketing choice. Certainly not. They voted for us for many reasons because of a lot of the positions that we hold they hold dear. They chose to reject his party because its ideas were not what western Canadians wanted to see.

Western farmers, particularly, want the choice to make their own decisions about the marketing of their wheat and barley. That is what we are trying to do with the legislation. They have made that very clear many times in the past, and they continue to make it very clear now. I have a number of constituents who have written me, emailed me and phoned me, about this very issue. They are very eager to see the Wheat Board monopoly ended and to see marketing choice brought in. I can certainly assure the hon. member that western farmers do in fact want to see this choice to market their own products.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is kind of entertaining. I guess the Liberal Party holds its nominations just like the CWB does its directors elections as it sees fit.

I know the member is a forward looking person. Based on the things that I see happening in the future, they say that this co-operative cannot exist in this new environment, yet I look at Federated Co-op, which is a good example in Saskatchewan. There is a Wal-Mart in Prince Albert and where does Co-op build its store? Right across from Wal-Mart. They compete head-on.

Could the member tell us how he feels the CWB in this new entity will survive in this new marketplace?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. It certainly is nice to hear a question about someone looking forward and trying to figure out how we can make the best for farmers, so we can give them the choices they need to make the decision whether they want to market through a co-operative or whether they want to be able to sell it on their own through other means that they have at their disposal. Certainly there are many opportunities available to our farmers now.

It is nice to hear those kinds of questions, rather than what we hear from the Liberals and the NDP on the other side, which are simply trying to look at yesterday's solutions instead of looking at tomorrow and coming up with ways we can go forward.

I do see the opportunity for a voluntary wheat board to thrive in that kind of market. I think some farmers will choose that route and some will choose to market on their own. Farmers deserve and need that choice to be able to make those decisions for themselves.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate today, even though I am sure that my Conservative colleagues will not be as pleased. Every time that a Quebecker rises—as I often have—to speak about the Canadian Wheat Board, they tell us that we have no business talking about this issue because it has nothing to do with us. But it is perfectly fine for them to interfere in Quebec's business. One thing is for sure: no one can deny that I have experience from my six years as vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food. It is no secret that the topic of dismantling the Canadian Wheat Board was often on this committee's agenda.

What the majority Conservative government wants to do with the Canadian Wheat Board comes as no surprise. In 2002, when he was a member of Parliament for the Canadian Alliance, the current Prime Minister moved a motion to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board. The day that the current Prime Minister became leader of the Conservative Party, when there was a merger of the Canadian Alliance and the Reform Party, or that party and the Conservatives, the dismantling of the board became part of the new party's platform. The party tried all kinds of things, but fortunately it was a minority government at the time.

I remember that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, before being appointed minister, introduced Bill C-300 to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board, the collective marketing tool. A section of the act specifies that a plebiscite must be held. The Conservatives did that, but they excluded some voters. Not all farmers had the right to vote. They fiddled with democracy to obtain the desired result. People, mainly wheat producers, were excluded from the plebiscite in order to obtain the desired result. But the Canadian Wheat Board, not to be out-manoeuvred, recently conducted its own plebiscite: 62% of western producers want to keep this collective marketing tool—the Canadian Wheat Board. All of a sudden the Conservative government refused to acknowledge these results because it was not the one that organized the referendum to its liking.

I also remember what happened with the bulk mailings, the ten percenters, that members can send to their ridings. Members of the Conservative Party flooded their ridings and others—we were allowed to do so at the time—with ten percenters on the referendum. The use of these ten percenters to campaign against the Canadian What Board was rather questionable. Today, it is not surprising that the majority government is finally attaining its goal, that is deciding the fate of the Canadian Wheat Board as we know it today. That is what tonight's vote will prove unfortunately. The Conservatives have the right to do it. They are fixated on it; it is their ideology. They believe that there will be a mixed market, including the voluntary use of a new board.

I am pleased to be able to speak and give examples. Voluntary collective marketing was tested in Quebec in the 1990s. It did not work. Today, not all producers agree that collective marketing agencies are the best option for various sectors, particularly wheat and maple syrup in Quebec. However, they have decided to make use of collective marketing agencies. The majority of them are satisfied and feel that it is the best way for them to make a living from agriculture.

It is important that the House is aware of an important section of the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Section 47.1 clearly states that farmers, the western producers of wheat and barley, must decide their own future. And I believe they did so during the referendum organized by the Canadian Wheat Board. Sixty-two per cent said they want to keep the single desk. But the government is not listening to them. It is even saying that since the majority of people in western Canada voted for Conservative members, it shows their desire to see the Canadian Wheat Board dismantled. We all know that democracy goes further than that.

The member who spoke before me mentioned it: people did not vote on just that one issue. A real plebiscite must be held in order to ensure that it is the people who decide whether or not to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board.

I rise as well today because members of the Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec came to see us this week. They have been very clear about this from the outset. They continue to support western producers who want to keep the Canadian Wheat Board.

According to the UPA, the Canadian Wheat Board ensures that producers have a better and more equitable market return and that the supply of wheat to the agri-food industry is more predictable and stable. The UPA is also of the view that we cannot allow the Conservative government to destroy such an influential tool, one that creates more than 14,700 direct and indirect jobs, with spinoffs worth almost $1 billion.

I, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska, am not the one saying so, but rather the Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec, which is in constant contact with producers in other provinces, especially wheat and barley producers in western Canada.

I have been told that this issue does not affect us. However, I must say that the Fédération des producteurs de cultures commerciales du Québec also supports the board. These people really do the same work. These grain producers support producers who want to keep the Canadian Wheat Board's single desk system.

In the past, perhaps this issue did not really affect Quebec producers. However, the planned dismantling of the Canadian Wheat Board has become problematic for us with the implementation, by the Fédération des producteurs de cultures commerciales du Québec, of its own marketing agency for wheat for human consumption in Quebec. With this agency, the Fédération des producteurs de cultures commerciales du Québec is the only agent authorized to market all wheat for human consumption in Quebec. Its role is similar to that of the Canadian Wheat Board. This type of agency can exist because of the authority granted to producers' groups by the Quebec Act respecting the marketing of agricultural, food and fish products.

The Fédération des producteurs de cultures commerciales du Québec and the UPA are of course worried about what the Conservative government has in store for the Canadian Wheat Board, especially when other countries are constantly attacking our collective marketing tools such as the Canadian Wheat Board and supply management. I know the Conservative government does not like it when we draw a parallel between supply management and the Canadian Wheat Board, but they are both collective marketing tools that are constantly being attacked by other countries at the World Trade Organization. This is because those people want to negotiate their way into our market in order to sell their own products without any obstacles.

In light of what the Conservative government wants to do to the Canadian Wheat Board, there are also concerns in Quebec about the fate of supply management, which, I repeat, represents 40% of Quebec's farming economy. It is not insignificant.

Advisors to the current Prime Minister always said that if the Conservatives had a majority, they would attack the Canadian Wheat Board and supply management and implement a free market system.

In closing, we have to respect the true will of the farmers, wherever they are. I rise today on behalf of the farmers in Quebec who have told me they want western Canadian farmers to be respected and to be allowed to keep the Canadian Wheat Board.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, given that the hon. member has been the vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food for six years, can he explain to the House the advantages of a supply management system and collective marketing? That will help us understand the issues related to this bill a little bit better.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question.

I was saying that there is some concern, because losing the supply management system in Quebec is a big deal. Producers themselves decided that they wanted to set the prices and prevent certain imports, although a percentage of products can still cross our border, whether it be dairy products, poultry products or eggs.

However, the supply management system makes it possible to guarantee that producers will get a decent price and that there will be no unjustified fluctuations in price for consumers. This is a clear advantage over other countries that have abandoned the supply management system. I am thinking in particular of New Zealand, where there are huge fluctuations in prices and where everyone loses.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the government is going out of its way to claim that this bill is all about freedom.

My colleague made reference to how critical the supply management system is, much in the same way as the Canadian Wheat Board is. It protects industries in many different ways. It ensures a fair market price. It protects tens of thousands of jobs across the country.

This bill is not about freedom. This is about the impact the bill will have on the prairie farmer. Ultimately it is going to destroy family farms on the Prairies. It is going to hurt communities that rely on those small farms.

Does the member believe that this bill has anything to do with freedom as Conservative member after Conservative member claims?

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question. He is well positioned to know the ins and outs of this issue concerning the Canadian Wheat Board because, if I am not mistaken, he is a member from the Winnipeg area, and the Canadian Wheat Board has its head office in Winnipeg.

One thing must be said about freedom: the one true freedom that western farmers should have in this is the freedom to choose what they want.

Section 47.1 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act is very clear: producers must have the last word, not the government, not the Prime Minister, not the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. The farmers must be the ones to choose. If they decide they no longer want the Canadian Wheat Board, we, the Parliamentarians—including government members—must acquiesce.

But that is not the case. The only time the government wanted to organize a referendum, it did not allow farmers to vote. When the Canadian Wheat Board organized a referendum, the numbers were quite telling—and I someday hope to see these numbers in favour of Quebec sovereignty. Sixty-two per cent of western farmers decided that they want to keep the Canadian Wheat Board. That is their freedom of choice, their freedom of speech. That is what they want, and we must respect that.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the bill because it is opening up new opportunities for western Canadian wheat and barley farmers. That is good news, because there is a growing demand worldwide for the high quality grain they grow. As part of our commitment to help farmers make their money from the marketplace, we plan to deliver on our promise to provide marketing freedom to western Canadian grain farmers.

It is a matter of freedom, even if the opposition's numbers are used. If we have 40% of farmers not being able to sell their grain on the open market but are compelled to sell it to a board, it certainly curtails their freedom and right to do business as they see fit.

That is what the bill is all about. We are giving western Canadian wheat, durum and barley growers the same right to market their grain as enjoyed by farmers in other parts of Canada and around the world. It is remarkable that farmers only in western Canada would be compelled to sell to the Canadian Wheat Board when other farmers around the world and in this country are able to sell directly.

The fact is western Canadian grain farmers deserve the freedom to make their own business decisions, just as others do, including the right to market their own grain at the time of their choosing and to the buyer of their choice. Western Canadian farmers want this and so do three of four western provincial governments that produce almost 80% of the wheat and 90% of the barley that the Canadian Wheat Board markets.

As the Saskatchewan minister of agriculture has said, “Saskatchewan farmers spend their own hard-earned money on land, machinery and inputs to grow their own crops, so why should they not have the marketing freedom to decide how, when and to whom they sell their grain?” They invest thousands of dollars in machinery and equipment, hundreds of thousands of dollars in land, and they take all kinds of risks. They sell other commodities directly in the market, yet they are prevented from selling the grain they grow, except through the Wheat Board.

This legislation will open up a wealth of opportunity for western Canadian grain farmers for the future.

In my constituency there are a number of farmers who have written to me, and I will refer to a number of letters to make the point. They make the point for us as to why we should proceed with this legislation.

One farmer, Steve Blackmore of Ceylon, wrote:

I am pleased to see that the federal government continues with its move to introduce legislation to open up the marketing of grain and barley. My brother and I operate a farm in SE Sask [southeast Saskatchewan] with 5500 acres of cultivated land. We have limited our seeding of Durum and Barley in the past due to the involvement of the CWB [Canadian Wheat Board] and the intrusive nature of that relationship and the impact on farm cash flows by having to wait for pool returns to be calculated etc.

Indeed, it is even a disservice to the Wheat Board to prohibit farmers from selling elsewhere. As this individual has indicated, he has cut back on the seeding of durum and barley and many have. Instead of seeded acres increasing for durum and barley, they have been regressing. Yet in other countries like Australia, we find that those acres have been improving after the farmers have been given the opportunity to market their own grain.

Mr. Blackmore went on to say, in referring to the durum crop:

As an example the Durum we grew in the fall of 2010 was all hauled in the fall of 2010 as it was great quality and provided blending opportunities for the grain company.

It is something that they could have got a premium for. He wrote:

We will not see our final return on that grain until December 2011 or January 2012.

Simply put, this is not acceptable. It is far too long to wait for the cash flow. It is far too long to wait for the price they ought to get.

He talked about the voting process. We have heard a lot in the House about the voting process and whether one should pay attention to that or not, but this is what he said:

I know you will have heard all the arguments on both sides of the debate and there is a lot of passion behind both sides however the voting process held by the CWB was a joke. Our operation received 4 votes, but really only one should be considered given that 90% of the volume would have gone through one permit book. I can only imagine that this is the case for lots of farmers. The argument about letting the farmers decide is the wrong debate, this is an open market debate and as a business owner...we need to have the ability to choose who we market our product through.

Whether a farmer runs a big or small operation, that farmer has had the opportunity to operate in the open market with respect to other commodities. As someone said here earlier, the sky is not falling in. Farmers have been able to do that successfully.

Mr. Blackmore wrote that he has been doing it already for years with canola, flax, lentils, peas, oats, fall rye, canary seed, and three varieties of mustard. It is something that farmers are accustomed to.

I grew up on a farm. My parents farmed four quarters and rented two for a total of six quarters. There were many small farmers around. Initially all they grew was wheat, barley and oats perhaps. It was only later in the process they experimented with new commodities like canola. They found they could market the canola and that they could get a cash price and sell it when they wanted to. They could wait for the price to go up if they wanted to wait. Some did better and others did not do as well, but they had the opportunity to do that.

Canola caught on and more of it was grown. Peas, lentils and other kinds of commodities that farmers have taken to have been sold and farmers have done very well with respect to those commodities. They would watch the markets and they would watch the price. They could decide what they wanted to plant.

Mr. Blackmore said that the value of changing to an open market solution will provide benefits for him and his farm operation. He said he would have the ability to contract price against a global benchmark and meet his cashflow needs. He would have the ability to negotiate based on quality and quantity at the grain companies. He would also be able to break down the barrier to cross-border shipping and provide new marketing opportunities.

Some of the best durum in the country, perhaps in the world, is grown in the southeast part of Saskatchewan in my riding. When we look at what the world price is compared to what farmers get, they cannot sell it all even at the price they can get. There is a significant difference so they have to take a loss.

The other thing Mr. Blackmore mentioned, as have other farmers, is the need for some certainty. That is why the opposition should get behind us and get this bill passed. He said:

As we look at the 2012 growing season we hope that the legislation is passed expeditiously this fall in order to allow for effective planning in terms of cropping options, implications of the change from the CWB, response by the market to a new offering, etc.

Farmers want to know what they are dealing with. They plan early for what they are going to put into their land for the next year. They want to see this legislation passed. I would urge all members to get behind the legislation to ensure it goes forward expeditiously.

Another person in my constituency wrote to the editor of Lifestyles on October 6, 2011. Amy Hewson from Langbank, Saskatchewan in my riding wrote:

I grew up on an 80 acre farm in central AB [Alberta]. ...I moved to my husband's 8000 acre farm in south east Saskatchewan....

My husband is a full time farmer; it's his business and his life. My Dad is an electrician and a farmer on the side who raises cattle and rents out his crop land, entitling him to vote.

That means her father's vote has the same weight as her husband's. The obvious point she is making is that it should not be so.

She said:

My husband and I are expecting a baby in January and we're both very excited to know that this child will grow up in a country where it's not a crime for his parents to sell their own wheat and barley as of August 1, 2012.

It is interesting to note that the member for Malpeque said farmers should be put in jail because they are crossing an international border. Imagine putting them in jail for selling their own produce, produce they have produced from their hard work, from their investment, their risk. It is incredible that we would even be having that debate in today's society.

Ms. Hewson said that it is not about getting rid of the CWB, it is about having a choice. That is an important point.

Marc Giraudier, another constituent, wrote to me saying that this is about choice and not about a vote. He wrote, “Regarding the plebiscite vote, take the outcome with a grain of salt, not all our farmers received a plebiscite vote and if a third option, dual market system had been a choice, the outcome would have been very different”.

That is the truth. It is interesting that the opportunity to vote for a dual market system was not put forward by the Canadian Wheat Board.

Another interesting point is that one group of farmers, no matter the percentage, even if it was 62%, ought not to have the authority to ban or the power to prevent other individual producers from having the right to market their grain as they see fit.

If others want to sell through the Wheat Board, they can do so by simply uniting and pooling their resources together and going forward. They should proceed to do that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Conservative MP after Conservative MP talks about the reduction in average acres and they try to blame the Canadian Wheat Board. As in many other things, they have absolutely no evidence, not a shred, to demonstrate that is the case. If anything, the CWB, and of course our good farmers, but the brand of CWB is one of the reasons that we sell the amount of wheat that we do, that we have the market we currently have.

I take exception to member after member quoting what individual farmers are saying. I want to refer to the broader picture. There were over 20,000 prairie grain producers and farmers who participated in the plebiscite. The government goes out of its way to discredit the plebiscite. Why does the government not have the political courage to have a plebiscite, if it is so critical of the one the CWB held? After all, there is an obligation in law to do so. Why does the member not support farmers having a legitimate plebiscite that they would actually abide by? We on this side would abide by the results. Why will the government not do the same?

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member was not listening when I read from the email from the farmer in Ceylon, Saskatchewan. He wrote:

We have limited our seeding of Durum and Barley in the past due to the involvement of the CWB and the intrusive nature of that relationship....

He went on to say what that was. The seeding acres have gone down, so they are doing themselves a disservice.

The Australian model shows that the seeding acreages have gone up and it is now producing 30% more wheat on average than it was before. It is marketing in 41 countries rather than 17 countries. That is what happens when farmers are given the option to go through the Canadian Wheat Board or otherwise.

With respect to the plebiscite itself, ballots were sent to more than 68,000 farmers when in fact there are about 20,000 commercial grain farmers. I do not know what that is about, but it says something about that process.

The Canadian Wheat Board was imposed on farmers to be compulsory whether they wanted to trade through it or not. There is a great percentage of farmers who did not want to belong to that system and they had no opportunity to do that because they would be jailed or fined. That is simply wrong. We do not need a plebiscite to see that. We do not need a plebiscite to say that we ought to give producers the ability to sell their product without having to pay a fine or go to jail for it. It was something that was imposed by a government when it should not have been. It is time to get that wrapped up and changed once and for all.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on the weekend I was at a function with real farmers who asked me when the government was going to change the Wheat Board so that they could sell their wheat and barley and not go to jail.

How does the member feel about farmers having to go to jail for selling the grain that they planted and harvested? One of my constituents did that and it was very difficult for him and his family.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, obviously I feel compassion for many of our farmers who grow wheat and durum and look at the world prices. They produce some of the best durum in the world, certainly in the country. They see the price and they are not able to sell it. There have been some who have taken matters into their own hands and have decided to cross the border, but as the member for Malpeque referred to that action, they were stopped and fined. They had to go through provincial court and the court of appeal. They spent a lot of dollars, but at the end of the day, they were not able to sell what they had produced themselves. It is remarkable that people in this country cannot do that.

Obviously I feel there is nothing wrong for those who would want to band together voluntarily to form a co-op, a corporation or association to market their grain together, but it is wrong to force people into that association when they do not want to be part of it. That is not the way to run a country. That is not the way to run a democracy and we need to change it now.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it seems that we rise in this House on a regular basis to discuss bills and, more often than not, we do so following gag orders imposed by the government. This time, at issue is Bill C-18, which proposes that the Canadian Wheat Board be dismantled and that the single desk marketing of barley and wheat in Canada be eliminated. It was not that long ago that the government was trying to force Canada Post employees back to work. One might say that there is a fear of debate in this House. This is particularly unfortunate because we learn a lot by listening to what others have to say and we also learn a lot when we are able to thoroughly examine the provisions of bills, whether they are proposed by the government or by our colleagues here in the House.

However, people are being silenced rather quickly, not only in the House, but also in committee. Take, for example, Bill C-10, the government's omnibus bill on law and order. Witnesses might have plenty to say about this extremely long bill, but they are given only five minutes in which to do so and then they are cut off, once again, in mid-sentence. It does not seem as though democracy is being taken very seriously.

Nor does it seem as though the legislative provision calling for a plebiscite is being taken very seriously either. In other words, only the producers, the farmers, have the right to dismantle the Canadian Wheat Board and it cannot be dismantled by us, here in the House, the very people who are supposed to uphold the law and ensure that things are done correctly. A vote was held. When I listen to the speeches given by members of all the parties, whether on the government side or this side of the House—with a few exceptions to my right—there are clearly huge differences in opinion.

From what I understand about this issue so far, we know very well that we have a Prime Minister who, since 2002, has been promising to dismantle the Wheat Board and, now that his party is in power, he has been quick to do so. I have often heard it said and I will say it again, since the Conservatives do not have very strong math skills: 39% of the population is not a strong mandate. In the current electoral system, it constitutes a majority, but it certainly does not constitute a strong mandate.

The government has to be careful about using such support to boast and say that the farmers it talks to or the farmers who talk to it all say it is doing the right thing. In actual fact, the Canadian Wheat Board held a plebiscite for which a total of 38,261 farmers mailed in their ballots. That is a participation rate of 56%, which is on par with federal elections, unfortunately, in my opinion. As I was saying at the beginning of my speech, 62% of the farmers voted for keeping a single desk marketing system for wheat and 51% for barley. I think 62% is a very good percentage. That is the rate with which I won my own election, so you can see why I like that very solid percentage so much.

That being said, it is not up to us in this House to decide on this. The act was drafted in such a way that it is the primary stakeholders who have a say. It is their Canadian Wheat Board. It is up to them to decide what to do with it.

Every speech I keep hearing about how the Wheat Board is not being eliminated, that it will be voluntary for a number of years, and that if people want to continue with it they will—it is all hogwash. It is a slow death, so as not to cause too much unrest. However, somehow, on the government side, no one is able to convince us in this House why this is necessary, other than for ideological reasons.

I have read up on the Canadian Wheat Board and I see how it succeeded—in regulating, perhaps. As a businessperson, I do find that regulations can be quite restrictive at times. In Quebec, we are used to having quite a lot of regulations and red tape. However, sometimes, to make systems work and ensure that everything is on the up and up, without losing control of an industry, that is what it takes and this is an industry that has been tried and tested.

This method has been proven over many years. The board should not be dismantled strictly on the basis of a poorly explained, unjustified ideology, without any figures to support the decision other than a few figures from emails here and there. I respect the fact that in a democracy, there will always be people who agree and people who do not agree. The members opposite may very well wonder who we are to talk, when agriculture is not the lifeblood of the riding of Gatineau, but the fact remains that this market affects every one of us.

The decisions we make here about how the market runs will affect everyone. If for no other reason, I think that that certainly gives us the right to speak to this issue.

I heard questions from some Conservative colleagues. They said to some colleagues from Ontario that their province had dismantled its board. Why should western farmers be treated differently than Ontario farmers? That could be a good question, but the fact is that Ontario farmers decided themselves, after a vote, to dismantle their board. I respect that. If western farmers tell us that they no longer want things to run like this, that is a different story. This board was created during wartime to provide wheat to Europe, among other places. Perhaps the board has no reason to exist in 2011. I do not know. The arguments that have been made by the minister and the Conservatives who have spoken on this issue have not convinced me, as the member for Gatineau, that there is a logical reason behind this that has nothing to do with ideology. Ideology is sometimes a bad adviser in a context like this.

I believe that the government would have our approval and the support of the entire House if it acted appropriately, that is, according to the terms of the act, which provides for a vote. Following a vote, we could decide whether or not the board would remain. No one would object. It would be the voice of democracy.

In this context, as the member for Gatineau, I personally find this problematic and it is for that reason that I will be voting against the bill. The Conservative government's actions are anti-democratic. It is no longer surprising. It is unfortunate. The government was only formed on May 2, 2011, and I am already forced to conclude that any type of organization, whether it is a union or the Canadian Wheat Board, is automatically on the Conservatives' chopping block. My concern is that we are selling our assets piecemeal to the Americans.

Matters such as those dealt with by Bill C-18 are very important because of the number of people affected directly or indirectly: consumers, producers, farmers, those involved in transportation, and all those who have anything to do with the wheat and barley industry. I believe we are entitled to expect a more responsible approach from parliamentarians.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 6:15 p.m., pursuant to order made Thursday, October 20, 2011, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the subamendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the subamendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the subamendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment to the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #42

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.

The next question is on the amendment.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that you will find agreement to apply the vote from the previous motion to the current motion, with Conservatives voting no.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, NDP members will be voting yes.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, Liberals will be voting in favour, including the member for Ottawa—Vanier.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

The Bloc Québécois is in favour of the amendment.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be voting yes.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #43

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the amendment lost.

The question is on the main motion.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you will find agreement to apply the vote from the previous motion to the current motion, with Conservatives voting yes.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, NDP members will be voting no.

[Judy Foote, Liberal, Random—Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, Liberal members will be voting no.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, QC]

The Bloc Québécois will be voting no.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I will be voting no.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #44

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly the bill stands referred to a legislative committee.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)